Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pigglet
yep, because its easy to get into the Salem Witchtrials. I suppose if someone comes forward with incontrovertible evidence - particularly someone politically non-partisan - there might be reasonable ways to approach the subject. In the particular case cited in this thread, or in the thread on that Craig guy out in the midWest, a lack of evidence is rather a problem. I would think an actual journalistic approach would be about the only way I could see it working out in an intellectually satisfying manner.
|
Two things.....
Maher plays to a subscription audience....on HBO. He enjoys a regular following, and gets plenty of play via internet blogs with his weekly "new rules" segment, and via the diverse and interesting slate of guests who appear on his weekly "panel". His audience is what it is.....between Tivo and multiple scheduled slots, there is plenty of opportunity to catch a viewing of his show....I doubt that he was motivated by ratings.
In the examples of Mehlman, and Dreier....what "evidence" are you looking for,
pigglet? The "norm" for political luminaries is illustrated in my example of Tammy Baldwin. An "open" political person simply supplies a line in a web bio or in a press kit that says that they are married with two children, blah, blah, blah.....or live with a long time signifigant other, or are recuperating from a recent termination of a long term realtionship.....or....reside with a partner....
the point is.....the "norm" is to reference that segment of one's life.
I can't think of a better example than to compare the detailed disclosure of a presidential candidate's home life.....the public expects nothing less.....on one extreme end of the spectrum.....vs. the "silence" of Mehlman, RNC chairman, or of Dreier....the chairman of the house rules committee and one of the most frequently televised republican congressional caucus spokespersons, during the early phases of Tom Delay's implosion...because he was genial, photogenic, and perceived as untainted by Delay's impropriey.
Doesn't it follow, that the "silence" of Mehlman and of Dreier, combined with scuttlebutt that always surfaces, combined with their high visibility, speaking for a party with an anti-gay platform, and advocating anti-gay legislation, that they at least be asked, even by a press as uncurious as ours is....if rumors about their non-heterosexual "leanings" were true, or not?
Both answered vaguely and without a vigorous, or even a reflexive assertion of their heterosexuality.....hence.....it seems obvious that they brought the speculation by folks like Maher....on themselves......all they would have had to do to avoid it, is what Tammy Baldwin did.....she did it at the start of her first campaign for congress......but Dreier and Mehlman could have offered disclosure or clarification about their dating or living arrangements, anytime before political opponents, press, or Maher, brought up the accusation......and they could have done it before they worked for, and/or voted for legislation that discriminated against homosexuals. Discrimination as basic as the "pocketbook issue" of whether gay partners hold the right to receive benfits afforded to married or unmarried partners by employers, government, or within the legal framework of joint ownership and inheritance.
Anonymous hypocrits who do not have the power to legislate other peoples' rights away, certainly should retain the right of privacy, challenged only by evidence that would stand up in civil court,,,,,,and they do.....via proection against libel. Mehlman and Dreier enjoy, IMO, a much lower threshhold of privacy protection or respect, or "evidence".....the moment they chose to be aggressors against the rights and reputations of all open and closeted anonymous homosexuals.