Town Square

Post a New Topic

is it OK for Republicans to be gay?

Original post made by Lindsey, another community, on Apr 20, 2010

Tea Party groups have started a smear campaign against Republican Senator Lindsey Graham saying that he is gay. Is being gay a no-no for Republicans? Will standing up against the Tea Party hurt or help Senator Graham's re-election chances?

Tea Party press release: Web Link

Comments (36)

Posted by Shame on the Tea Party
a resident of Stanford
on Apr 20, 2010 at 12:11 pm

It is too bad that Tea Party groups are using sexual orientation (we do not really know if what they are saying is true or not anyway) to smear people like Sen. Graham. His sexual orientation is nobody's business. But these groups know how republicans hate homosexuals and see it is an issue--that is why it is being brought up. Have these people no shame--how low in the gutter will these followers of Beck, Limbaugh and Palin go in order to achieve their sick agenda?
Consider the bashing that gays have taken from the republicans over the years I do not understand how anyone who is gay can vote republican.


Posted by Ken
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 20, 2010 at 3:08 pm

Do Democrats believe that pedophilia is OK?

If not, why were they so silent, for so long, when NAMBLA was proudly put at the front of the Gay Pride Parade in San Francisco? NAMBLA's motto was "sex before eight, or it's too late".

Ya think the tea party crowd doesn't get it?

The important question is why Democrats don't have a touchstone with most Americans, especially the independent voters. Homosexuality, especially gay marriage, is only one of many issues that don't sit right with many American citizens (remember Prop 8 in California?). The Democrats look down their noses at such notions, and it is this condescension that comes back to bite them. Not to mention clinging to guns and god and federal control and higher taxes, etc.

November promises to be an interesting election.


Posted by Shame on the Tea Party
a resident of Stanford
on Apr 20, 2010 at 3:15 pm

"Do Democrats believe that pedophilia is OK?"
Yes,let's bring in the famous homosexuality/pedophilia "link".
this is a famous sham--everytime people like Ken try to link homosexuality with pedophilia. Nice try, ken, but unrelated to the topic in this thread

"when NAMBLA was proudly put at the front of the Gay Pride Parade in San Francisco? "
When did this happen? Everyone knows that Dykes on Bikes are at the front of the Gay Pride Parade.


Posted by Ken
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 20, 2010 at 3:29 pm

Shame,

Just do a little research before you pop off. NAMBLA was at the front of the parade, and they they were PROUDLY defended by San Francisco gays and the Democrats said nothing, for quite some time. It took some mothers in San Francisco to put an to the shame.

Simple question for ya, Shame: If what I say is true, would you be ashamed?


Posted by Shame on the Tea Party
a resident of Stanford
on Apr 20, 2010 at 3:41 pm

"Just do a little research before you pop off. NAMBLA was at the front of the parade, and they they were PROUDLY defended by San Francisco gays and the Democrats said nothing, for quite some time. It took some mothers in San Francisco to put an to the shame. "

My, Ken, aren't we sensitive. Why don't you provide some kind of link to this event, i fit actually happened. reminds me how Pat Buchanan (another voice of tolerance) used to claim the same thing.
Probably never happened. An urban myth, meant to tar homosexuals, by once again grouping them with pedophiles, as ken is trying to do now.

What we know about NAMBLA now:
"Since 1995, public criticism and law enforcement infiltration have heavily impaired the organization. Its national headquarters now consists of little more than a private mail box service in San Francisco, and they rarely respond to inquiries. Some reports state that the group no longer has regular national meetings, and that as of the late 1990s to avoid local police infiltration, the organization discouraged the formation of local chapters."
Web Link

But this whole NAMBLA thing is a red herring. the thread is about Lindsay Graham and how Tea Party groups are trying to attack him by calling him gay--think about it--these groups see gays as unworthy of equal rights. to them gays are evil and not deserving of the same rights as "god fearing christian republicans". Sounds like Ken is trying to run interference for them by bringing in unrelated issues.


Posted by Just Thinkin"
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 20, 2010 at 4:05 pm

I believe there was an occasion when NAMBLA as denied official entry in the parade and pouted by doing an unsactioned pre-parade march along the closed off route. It was years ago, don't recall exactly when...........


Posted by Ken
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 20, 2010 at 4:54 pm

Just Thinkin'

Partially right. They were PROUDLY put at the front of the parade, until the politics went against them, because the gay pride group realized that it was bad politics, because the right went against them (not the left...that came much later).

The current political issue with homosexuality is conncected with past politics. Defense of NAMBLA, including Harry Hay, is a huge issue among the right and independents. If the left were to acknowledge the truth of their own past it might be better for them. However, Harry Hay is the mentor of a current favorite of the Obama team. Ya just gotta wonder how stupid the left can be.

The current tea party crowd is a mixed group of various things, but the left is crazy to demonize them. It will cost them, big time.


Posted by OK with me
a resident of Southgate
on Apr 20, 2010 at 5:02 pm

Watching the Republicans self-destruct is just fine with me.
Come to think of it, are they worrying about who is taking care of Sarah Palin's children while she is on the road selling stupidity?


Posted by Its a wash
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Apr 20, 2010 at 5:46 pm

It isn't the "Tea Partiers", it is the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, and it isn't a "smear campaign", it is as follows:

"The national border security organization known as Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) is officially calling for US Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to make his homosexual lifestyle public knowledge in the interest of political integrity and national security.

ALIPAC's President, William Gheen, addressed Graham's homosexuality in a speech before thousands of Tea Party supporters on Saturday, April 17, 2010, in Greenville South Carolina where Lindsey Graham has offices. A brief clip of Gheen's speech, which is out of proper context, has already gone viral on YouTube and been reported by Keith Olberman on MSNBC, Metro Weekly, The Guardian, and Metro Weekly without proper permissions or attributions.

"US Senator Lindsey Graham is gay and while many people in South Carolina and Washington DC know that, the general public and Graham's constituents do not," said William Gheen President of ALIPAC. "I personally do not care about Graham's private life, but in this situation his desire to keep this a secret may explain why he is doing a lot of political dirty work for others who have the power to reveal his secrets. Senator Graham needs to come out of the closet inside that log cabin so the public can rest assured he is not being manipulated with his secret."

Do you not know that the Log Cabin Republicans are gay? ( and I am one, btw..not that anyone cares, of course)

In the end, the only ones who really seem to care are about 10% of those on the right and 10% of those on the left..so it doesn't matter at all, since it is a "wash".



Posted by Its a wash
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Apr 20, 2010 at 5:48 pm

By the way..good try..."tea party groups have started a smear campaign...blah blah blah"


Posted by ALIPAC
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Apr 20, 2010 at 6:22 pm

ALIPAC is a Tea Party organizer. Their leader William Gheen regularly speaks at Tea Party events and he made these statements against Senator Graham during one of these Tea Party speeches.


Posted by Jarred
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 20, 2010 at 8:58 pm

More gutter-level, baseless slander of the Tea Party. The Dems (correctly) see the Tea Party as a threat, so they are mobilizing their wholly-owned subsidiary, the mainstream media, to broadcast talking points to the faithful rubes. Apparently anyone who objects to Obama policies must be racist, anti-gay, and a terrorist to boot.

Too bad protest is no longer patriotic, like it was when Bush was President.

The Dems are committing political suicide here. The 60% of Americans who hold favorable opinions of the Tea Party won't soon forget this transparently mendacious smear campaign.

If you think the Tea Party is racist, you should watch this video:
Web Link

@Lindsey, are you a perchance a member of crashtheteaparty.org, the Lefty group committed to infiltrating and spreading lies about the Tea Party?

Can't wait for November.


Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 20, 2010 at 9:14 pm


The Tea Party is a huge wave for popular change that reaches across traditional political lines

Those who oppose it are sticking their proverbial finger in a dyke-- as the Dutch story goes.

It did not work, then or now.


Posted by Shame on the Tea Party
a resident of Stanford
on Apr 21, 2010 at 6:20 am

"Partially right. They were PROUDLY put at the front of the parade, until the politics went against them, because the gay pride group realized that it was bad politics, because the right went against them (not the left...that came much later). "
You will note that Ken continually brings up this urban legend, but does not provide any proof. As I stated above, Pat Buchanan used to make the same claim but without providing any proof whatsoever. There will always be people around who believe what people like Ken says--that is what he hopes for.
But that is all a red herring--the typical smear of trying to tie homosexuality with pedophillia.
The thread is about Lindsay Graham and the attacks on him. Ken characterizes the criticism of that action with "demonization". Note how he likes to use "hot button" terms.
The Tea Party movement and Ken are insidious in their attacks on those they disagree with them and their narrow minded views.


Posted by Observer
a resident of South of Midtown
on Apr 21, 2010 at 8:17 am

Duh! No.


Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 21, 2010 at 9:18 am

"Tea Party groups have started a smear campaign against Republican Senator Lindsey Graham saying that he is gay."

It is only a "smear" campaign if being gay is a no-no.

"Is being gay a no-no for Republicans?"

Well, it is a bit unusual for a Social Conservative from what has always been historically the most conservative state in the Union.

"Will standing up against the Tea Party hurt or help Senator Graham's re-election chances?"

John McCain, the "maverick", the prison camp survivor who spoke out against torture, has posed in abject submission to the Tea Partiers. Everyone on the Right is currying favor right now. (Am I disappointed? You bet-- once upon a time I thought much more highly of McCain.) So, it is probably a bit much to ask of Graham to take on the Tea Party. Somebody else will have to Bell the Cat.





(In all cases, please don't feed the troll.)


Posted by Ken
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 21, 2010 at 11:45 am

Sounds like "Shame" doesn't want to do his/her homework.

Here's a little hint: Harry Hay was the Grand Marshall of the 1999 San Francisco Gay Pride parade.

"Shame" might be a tad on the young side, so I suggest he read up on Harry. Harry was an in-your-face supporter of NAMBLA, even as the LGBT networks began to see that NAMBLA was not good politics.

I could provide the various links, but I want "Shame" to actually do some footwork.

Back to my question to you, Shame, are you ashamed that NAMBLA would be at the front of the parade (or even in the parade)?


Posted by Shame on the Tea Party
a resident of Stanford
on Apr 21, 2010 at 11:56 am

Seems like Ken likes to use innuendo and smear tactics--similar to what the tea party people are trying to do to Sen. Graham. The issue is Sen Graham and campaign against him. This has nothing to do with pedophilia or NAMBLA.
But to address Ken's urban legends and out right falsehoods, lets look at the facts. Yes Mr Hay was was the Grand Marshall of the 1999 San Francisco Gay Pride parade. Back in the early 80's he protested the exclusion of NAMBLA from gay rights parades. That does not make him "an in-your-face supporter of NAMBLA". Does that mean that mean that NAMBLA was at the "front of the parade"? Maybe in Ken's book, but that is all irrelevant to the discussion of the Tea Party trying to smear Sen Graham by claiming he is gay.
It clearly shows how low some people, like Ken, have sunk that they publicly state that being gay is bad. Ken further shows his true colors by trying to perpetuate the stereotype that equates homosexuality with pedophilia and brings in red herrings like NAMBLA and Harry Hay. When you cannot discuss the facts resort to smear campaigns--the tea party should welcome Ken as an honorary member.
Ken should stick to the topic of the thread


Posted by Its a wash
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Apr 21, 2010 at 2:00 pm

Shame on the Tea Party???? Wow...the irony of the moniker and the circular irony of the post itself made my day.

thanks


Posted by Ken
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 21, 2010 at 2:31 pm

"red herrings like NAMBLA and Harry Hay."

All in context,Shame. Remember, I am connecting the political past to the political present.

Does the name "Kevin Jennings" mean anything to you? It certainly does to President Obamma. Jennings, who is Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug FreeSchools at the U.S. Department of Education (appointed by Obama), is a big supporter of Harry Hay, even though Harry was a big supporter of NAMBLA. Jennings also failed to report a rape case of a young male student, when he was the authority figure in charge. Apparently Jennings was channeling Harry. The real question is why Obama is channeling both of them?

Shame, just do your homework. In order for the gay community to undo past political damage is to admit to its essential faults, today. Should Kevin Jennigns be fired by Obama?

BTW, I have no idea if Lindsey Graham is gay or not. If he is being held hostage to his own closet, that is up to him, but he should not, under ANY cirumstances defend gays or straights who provided support or cover for Harry Hay.


Posted by Shame on the Tea Party
a resident of Stanford
on Apr 21, 2010 at 2:56 pm

I see the innuendo and smear campaign continues. Now, Ken, has introduced Kevin Jennings in to the mix. What does it have to do with the topic at hand? Only Ken knows.

Regarding Ken's latest target, Mr Jennings:

Ken states:
", is a big supporter of Harry Hay, even though Harry was a big supporter of NAMBLA."
this is a double factoid. Ken claims Jennings is a bigsupproter of Hay and that Hay is a big supporter of NAMBLA--these statements are not true and are not born out by any facts whatsoever.

"Jennings also failed to report a rape case of a young male student, when he was the authority figure in charge."
Ken can read the wikipedia listing (Web Link and specifically the statements regarding the issue he raises:
"she thought he broke Massachusetts law in 1988 by not reporting a sixteen-year-old gay high school student's relationship with an adult.[9] Three days later, the caucus ousted Lenning as chairwoman over her stance against gays,[10] and later that month The Washington Times published a letter from Jennings saying the accusations were hurtful, inaccurate and potentially libelous.[11] CNN subsequently confirmed that the student was above the age of consent in Massachusetts and not sexually active.[12"

Note the last sentence--this shows that Ken's claim against Jennings are false--there was no rape of a young male student.Ken further besmirches Jennings with the comment about Jennings channeling Hay--once again trying to tie Hay and Jennings to pedophilia.

Note the pattern here--avoiding the real issue of the thread--smear people not involved with the discussion and try to equate homosexuality with pedophilia.

Ken cannot address the real issue of this topic so he decides to denigrate others. This is what the Tea Party is all about.


Posted by Its a wash
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Apr 21, 2010 at 4:38 pm

sorry, shame..you lose.

Erickson et al. (1988). Behavior patterns of child molesters. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 17, 77-86.
This study was based on a retrospective review of the medical records of male sex offenders admitted to the Minnesota Security Hospital between 1975 and 1984. Apparently, 70% of the men abused girls, 26% abused boys, and 4% abused children of both sexes.


Ok..if it is true that 5-10% of all males are gay or bisexual, depending on what you read and what you believe, then one should assume that only 5-10% of the prison population would have sexually abused the same sex child.

However, 30% did..

draw some conclusions.

This is, obvously, not to say that being a gay male makes one a sex offender, of course, any more than any other correlation is not causation. Just like it is a correlation, not causation, between..say..poverty and violent crime..or any other correlative data.

However, it is safe to conclude that there seems to be a "profile pattern" that may exist.

To keep trying to deny this is to try to deny reality, and you simply are painting yourself in a corner.

I take the same argument with the furor over Catholic priests. On a percentage basis, the vast majority of abused are teen males...priests are male..ok...On the other hand, the percent of abusers in the priesthood is 1/2 the rate of the general population, so that implies to me a certain amount of good will toward the priesthood..a lower rate of abuse implies to me a higher rate of 'good men".

But, we digress.

The entire point is that you are trying hard to lump Tea Party folks into some kind of homophobic nastiness..and it simply does not exist. You have shown nothing that supports this assertion on your part. Tea Party folks tend to be normal folks, of all religions or atheism, all party affiliations, who simply want to get the govt the hell off our backs, off our bodies, off our wallets, out of our enterprises, out of our homes ( we don't want to be told what kind of toilets or light bulbs we are allowed to buy!!) and go back to its original job..defense, and protecting inter-state rights and abilities.

Shame, the more you try to denigrate and smear the Tea Party folks, who btw completely defend your right to denigrate all you want, the sillier it all seems.






Posted by Palin
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 21, 2010 at 6:26 pm

So "wash" spouts off a bunch hatred and bigotry, then warns people not to smear the Tea Party? Sounds to me like he is doing a good enough job of smearing the Tea Party all by himself.


Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Apr 21, 2010 at 6:39 pm

Is there still a group of gays calling themselves the Log Cabin Republicans who think the Party of Reagan is a big tent, the Party of Lincoln? Or have their eyes opened?


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 22, 2010 at 3:37 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Who is taking care of Obama's children while he is flying all over the world?


Posted by Perspective
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Apr 22, 2010 at 6:03 am

Please quote the part that is hateful or bigoted in my post.

Is it also hateful and bigoted to note that 30% of all lesbians were molested by men as a child? That we have a much higher rate of obesity, alcoholism and smoking than the general population? Therefore one shouldn't be too surprised to meet a lesbian who has been either/and molested, is fat, smokes and drinks?

No, the hate comes if one presumes that all lesbians are fat, and/or smoke, drink and were molested. Intelligent people can separate out patterns from individuals, and simply use patterns to prepare themselves.

Or, in speaking of straight men, for example...would it be hateful to say I wouldn't want a straight man to be, for example, the Girl Scout leader with my 14 year old daughter on a Girl Scout Camping trip? Nothing personal, just don't want to play the odds. That is not hate, it is intelligent assessment of risks.

And yes, the Log Cabin Repubs are fully alive and well, thank you..the most accepting of us ARE the Repubs, I might add, not the Dems. Like being black, we are always highly vilified for our politics if we don't stay on the Democrat plantation.

I have noticed over the last 10 years that it is easier and safer for me to be an out lesbian in the South than an out Republican in SF.

Go figure.

Read Tammy Bruce's first book The Thought Police for a well written explanation of how this has come to pass over the last 20 years.




Posted by Shame on the Tea Party
a resident of Stanford
on Apr 22, 2010 at 6:04 am

Wash--
"Shame, the more you try to denigrate and smear the Tea Party folks, who btw completely defend your right to denigrate all you want, the sillier it all seems."
Well if the Tea Party is defending my right to denigrate all I want, then why is it silly?

No point in addressing the rest of your comments--they are completely off topic and have no relation to real facts.


Posted by Its a wash
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Apr 22, 2010 at 6:06 am

Oops, the above by "Perspective" is by me, the hateful, bigoted "Its a Wash"...hee hee.


Posted by Shame on the Tea Party
a resident of Stanford
on Apr 22, 2010 at 6:52 am

Wash--looks like you are getting confused managing all the identities you post under. How is Ken?


Posted by food for thought
a resident of another community
on May 9, 2010 at 12:44 pm

Isn't that something for the Republican voters to decide? If you don't want to vote for a queer in this country, isn't that your right to do so? Most of the people in this country that don't like the queer lifestyle are in the Republican party. To ask them to vote for a known Queer would be like asking the Klan to vote for a black man or risk being called names, wouldn't it? What is bad about Graham's situation is that it makes him subject to blackmail. This means that he can't properly represent his constituents in Congress without threats of being "outed" by his enemies. He has got to go because he has been compromised by keeping this information in the closet in the first place! It also makes you wonder what other potentially important information could the man hiding from his constituents, doesn't it? I think this may be even more of a trust issue than a gay issue now, don't you?


Posted by food for thought
a resident of another community
on May 9, 2010 at 12:51 pm

By the way,

my previous statement takes into account that he really is gay. If he is just being "wrongly" smeared, that is a different subject all together.


Posted by Tea Party rhymes with bigotry
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 9, 2010 at 2:04 pm

So the Republicans are the party of homophobia as well as racial bigotry?

And of course, all unmarried middle-aged men must be gay.


Posted by JTF
a resident of Barron Park
on May 9, 2010 at 3:02 pm

"To ask them to vote for a known Queer would be like asking the Klan to vote for a black man or risk being called names, wouldn't it?"

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying the Republicans are the moral equivalent of the KKK, right? Whose side are you on, exactly?


Posted by Tea Party rhymes with bigotry
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 12, 2010 at 9:06 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Shame on the Tea Party
a resident of Stanford
on May 12, 2010 at 9:50 am

So what if she is gay? Oh, I forgot, part of the republican agenda is to keep gays as second class citizens. That is what the religious right wants so their lackeys in the republican party do their bidding.
It would be great if this issue came up during the confirmation hearings--I would love to see the Republicans dig themselves deeper into a hole. Is that virtuous Sen. Ensign or Sen Vitter on the committee--they have shown to be heterosexual pillars of virtue--maybe they can ask Kagan the question about her sexuality


Posted by Tea Party rhymes with bigotry
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on May 12, 2010 at 10:31 am

Those Republicans are smarter than you think. First, they start a whisper campaign that Lindsey Graham is gay. Now they start a whisper campaign about Elena Kagan. If Sen Graham votes to confirm her, they will claim that is confirmation. If any other unmarried Republicans vote to confirm Elena Kagan, they will accuse them of being gay, too.

This is the same type of witch hunting that Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon used in the 1950s.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Palo Alto Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

New sushi restaurant and steakhouse coming to Palo Alto in 2023
By The Peninsula Foodist | 5 comments | 2,665 views

Is Palo Alto Utilities ready for our increasing demand for more electricity?
By Diana Diamond | 9 comments | 2,408 views

Local Flavor– Highland Noodles and Aurum
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 2,039 views

What Do You Get Out of Being Stubborn?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,022 views