hiredgun

On CNN's Larry King Live, Bill Maher promised that on his show Friday night, he will name members of the Republican leadership who are closeted homosexuals.

Live on the air, Maher mentioned RNC Chair Ken Mehlman as one of them. Larry King claimed to be completely surprised.

Even more interesting is that CNN censored the mention of Mehlman from subsequent airings of the show, and is now sending out cease-and-desist letters to have it pulled from the internet. Link: http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006...own-video.html

Link of the videos and transcripts (live and taped versions): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/1...h_n_33701.html

So the long line of staunchly anti-gay homosexuals in the GOP has at least one more member; from the sound of it, Maher will announce a few more tomorrow night. I find the timing interesting in that at least this can't be seen as an attempt by Maher to influence the elections. At the same time, I'm not sure a witch hunt should be the first thing on the progressive agenda at the moment, when there is so much to be done.

I find it even more interesting that CNN is scrambling to keep a lid on this thing. They can't possibly believe they will really contain the information; in the age of TiVo and blogs, it's far too late for that. Perhaps it is just a measure to minimize their own liability in the matter, if Maher draws fire for Mehlman's outing. I'm sure they also don't want to be seen as a venue for some 'left-wing agenda', and would rather let Maher take the inevitable flak.

I'm also left to question the wisdom of this revelation when Mehlman is soon stepping down anyway (or so I think I've heard... someone want to confirm that?)

Some questions:

This has been done recently, but what is your take on the propriety of outing public figures? Is it more legitimate to do so if that figure's public position on homosexuality is hypocritical?

What is CNN's proper role here? They are obviously within their legal rights to alter a broadcast or control the use of their copyrighted material, but do you see a problem with journalistic ethics here?

What implications might this have for the social policies of the Republican party?

Charlatan

CNN is covering their ass. Libel lawyers are a tenacious lot.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Mojo_PeiPei

ANd here I thought the election was the reason he stepped down...

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Seaver

Sounds like Bill Maher's trying to stir up some controvercy so when the season starts again people will watch.

Hope he enjoys libel lawsuits.

Seriously though, who cares? I thought Dems were supposed to be accepting of everyone. Yet so far every gay republican has been treated worse by them then terrorists.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Willravel

Let's say that a Republican leader is pushing legislation that brings more christianity into government....then he's outed as a Muslim.

It's not the fact that these people are gay, it's the fact that they are hypocrites.

The_Jazz

How is it libel if he can find a source to go on record about personal relationships? It becomes a he said/he said thing.

Seaver, which gay Republicans are you talking about? The only one that's been in office recently villified himself.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

JustJess

The reasoning behind that is because those very gay Republicans are the ones espousing the worst anti-gay rhetoric and gay marriage bans, etc. So the hypocrisy is what's awful about them. No one I know cares that they're gay, it's that they're hypocrites affecting policy.

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

FoolThemAll

Like I said in the general discussion thread, outing people due to their politics is petty, vindictive, and useless at best.

Maher's scum.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Willravel

...and turning your own self loathing due to your inability to come to terms with your homosexuality into anti-gay legislation is a sign of severe depression disorder, and anyone in that state of melancholia has no business in any office, let alone poltiical office. Maher is doing us all a big favor by pointing out who, in political office, has an emotional disorder.

Cynthetiq

aren't ALL politicians hypocrites affecting policy?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

FoolThemAll

Assuming that they haven't "come to terms" with their homosexuality privately.

Assuming that a lack of "coming to terms" could only lead to depression.

Assuming that their homosexuality and their politics couldn't possibly be reconciled.

Assuming that a depressed politician can't function well enough to fulfill the duties and wishes of his constituents.

Whole lotta not necessarily warranted assumptions here.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Willravel

I'm not assuming anything. It's the truth. They haven't come to terms with their sexuality if they can't stand up for themselves. Not coming to terms with, and more importantly striking out at other because you haven't come to terms with latent homosexuality is a textbook sign of severe depression disorder. Clinical diagnosis is basically the "if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck," with the DSM. It's pretty obvious most of them suffer from severe depression disorder, and someone with that disorder can be dangerous is a position where they can take out their rage and depression on a lot of other people.

FoolThemAll

Assuming that they aren't standing up for themselves.

Assuming (again) that they haven't come to terms with it.

Assuming that there's any rage in what they do.

You're assuming nearly everything.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Willravel

That's the difference between trained psychologists and laymen. I have all the information I need. Give me a few 1 hour sessions with these men, and I can prove it.

sapiens

You don't have sufficient information about these men to diagnose them. You say as much in the post above. Yet, in earlier posts, you claim that it is a textbook example of severe depression disorder. FoolThemAll is right. You are making assumptions even if you are a "trained psychologist". Even if you had a PhD in clinical psychology, which I doubt, I would question your conclusions. With the present information we don't have enough information to demonstrate that the people meet DSM criteria for a depressive disorder.

FoolThemAll

Generally, psychologists carefully observe the subject before making any claims about them. But hey, you're innovative or something. You just make up characteristics and then make a diagnosis from those fantasy qualities.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

pig

Yeah, already covered in general in the other thread on Craig. If there is hard evidence, and if the public figures credibility is directly affected by the hypocritical details of their private life, I have no problem with it. You can't compartmentalize like that, then run on personal integrity. That's what all these guys do. "Biff Bifferson, he's a good old guy, just like you. He stands up for traditional marriage values, and fights the terrorists. Not like his opponent, who gay-fucks dead babies while wearing a turban..." if you run on heterosexual "traditional" family values and you don't live by them, you can pretty much expect that its going to come out.

do i suspect maher has ulterior motives? of course. but in this day and age, how stupid do you have to be to run on anti-homosexual legislation...if you're a closeted homosexual? they know if jennifer aniston and vince vaughn had a fight on friday because the toppings on their pizza were fucked up, and they're not going to find out you've been shaft deep in your raquetball partner's ass? i don't think so. where's all this personal accountability and standing up for what you think is right crap i keep hearing every politician talk about? you want a private life? good, don't run for national political offices if you live a seriously hypocritical lifestyle. the homosexuality thing is just the big one right now because its the huge social pariah issue going down right now, but it could be the same thing if strom thurmond had been busted back in the day for impregnating a black chick when he was running on segregation. you think that wouldn't have been useful information to his constiuency?

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

FoolThemAll

Yeah, it's a reasonable expectation. That's not exactly a justification of the outing, though.

Me too. But I also suspect that he has no decent, sensible motives.

No, it's not actually useful.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

pig

that's incomprehensible to me. you don't care if the things your elected officials tell you about themselves are true or not? makes no difference? no trust issues for you in this thing?

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

FoolThemAll

In regards to their personal life? As long as it doesn't affect their political life?

No, I don't care.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

pig

yeah, but how do you think that's possible? you don't think it speaks to their judgement? their trustworthiness? you think i can be an "x" in my private life, and totally disassociate that with my public decisions? i can't, can you? i mean, that's why people try to tell the voters who they are, and what they stand for, etc.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

FoolThemAll

I don't understand - what's stopping you or me or anyone else from acting differently in different contexts? Even inconsistently?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Cynthetiq

What are you channelling one of the other members here who makes similar claims?

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

What about religon? Religon is a personal thing. Do you think that effects political decisions? The thing is, it IS effecting their political decisions. Letent homosexuality leading to self loathing leading to decisions to punish other homosexuals is a prime example of letting somthing very personal become very political.

FoolThemAll

But not in any way that wasn't visible to the voters who elected them. You get what you vote for. The source of their aims isn't relevant.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Willravel

Republicans aren't likely to vote for homosexuals. They hid the truth from their bigoted voters. How can one "get what you vote for", when the politician is blatently misrepresenting himself? You can't. Poltiicans should be heald accountable for misleading voters.

JustJess

Holy shit.
I just changed my mind... I think.

These gay yet anti-gay platform guys are assholes, and hypocritical, and wrong. But they're just like the rest of the politicians. Why should they vote the way they believe... they should be voting the way their constituents believe (wrong to me or not). If I were a Representative, I'd be voting the way my constituents wanted me to for the most part. They are supporting a platform - you don't have to be straight to think gay marriage is wrong. Not that I think that's what they're doing so much as making sure they stay in power by any means necessary.

But in all honesty... there's nothing to say that a gay man has to love being gay and support all gay rights.

Are they wrong to lie? Absolutely. But it's not all that different from all the other lies. The only thing they really should be doing... is to vote and make policy in the way they promised during their campaign. And if they promised to vote against gay marriage etc, then they are upholding their word... as fucked up as that is.

I just don't want them to be right because I believe in equal rights for all (as equal as we can make 'em!).

__________________
My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

hiredgun

While I'm glad this has sparked some discussion, I'd love to hear more about the newsmedia angle, which I thought was really the more interesting part of the story (as 'outings' in themselves are becoming a commonplace in our political landscape.)

I am disappointed by CNN's handling of the situation. I don't think the situation warranted censorship on the scale of rooting out copies of the video on the internet.

pig

i can understand inconsistency. i can understand lying about your private life. but i think when you do it, you're basically opening yourself up to being called on it. of course we act differently in different situations; i curse to myself constantly at work. i don't curse to my boss, much. but this is a question of fundamental character misrepresentation. i don't think you can compartmentalize fundamental aspects of who you are, and then think it doesn't affect the decisions you make.

when you're acting differently in different situations...do you think your overall behavior, and your awareness of the way you act in different situations, affects the way you act in each specific one? do you over-compensate? do you keep quiet about things?

as far as the argument put forth by jess, i agree that once in office, their vote should be affected by their constituency, but it has to also be tempered by their character and what they know to be right. i think a part of that representative is to act as a filter of his constituency. there are obvious examples, which i won't go into because its almost like godwining a thread, where the desires of a constituency are far from correct.

that aside, this is also based on the image they projected when being elected, and that they continue to project in office. if some guy was gay, or muslim, or had a purple tail growing out of his taint, i wouldn't care if they voted "anti-gay", or "anti-muslim," or "anti-purple-taint-tail." what i do think is relevant is the misrepresentation. if the gay, muslim, purple taint tailed guy said, "i'm a gay muslim with a purple taint tail, but i promise to vote the will of my district," i wouldn't have as many problems with it. however, i also think we elect our representatives to be leaders, not just followers. no?

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

FoolThemAll

They are getting what they vote for, whether they see it that way or not.

Or is there a material difference between a heterosexual who supports anti-gay legislation and a closet case who does the same? Politically speaking?

I don't see one.

Thus, I don't see any value in the outing.

Closet cases who make themselves public figures, hypocrites or not, open themselves up to outings. That doesn't justify it in either case. Pointing out hypocrisy is only useful when you're trying to coax the hypocrite into improving himself - and that's pretty clearly not the aim of people like Maher.

Fundamental how? What does this mean?

But it's not political misrepresentation. It's not relevant to his status as a politician.

Even if fundamentalist Christians are convinced it is.

He's still doing the job he was hired to do.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Willravel

Politically speaking? If someone is a hypocrite, they are a hypocrite...politically speaking or otherwise. If you knew that your rep was willing to sell his or her soul, and your vote, at the drop of a hat, would you really vote for him/her? The bottom line is trustworthyness. The bottom line is a wolf wearing sheep's clothing is leading the heard. It's dangerous, and revealing the wolf is a good thing. Maher should be commended, not insulted.

FoolThemAll

Nah. If one's hypocrisy doesn't effect political promises made, then it's simply not political.

And as far as carrying out the wishes of their constituents, they appear to be completely trustworthy.

But not any more dangerous than an actual sheep, in this case. Or - to get out of that imagery of yours that I just screwed up - a closet anti-gay is no more dangerous than a hetero anti-gay.

No, it's pointless and petty. Like Maher. He accomplishes nothing positive with these outings. The wolf in sheep's clothing will just be replaced by another of his kind or by - gasp! - a straight homophobe.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

pig

foolthemall,

how do you feel about someone lying on their resume?

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

ratbastid

Set aside the whole "is it right or wrong" thing for a second. A closeted anti-gay politician is an easy target for a politically-motivated take-down, and it's just bad politics to be that vulnerable to attack. If your political tent is pitched on such shifty sand, I think you deserve what you have coming to you.

I feel the same way about politicians who are on the take, collecting lobbyist handouts or money from business or organized crime. In that case, it might actually be illegal, too, but my point is, it's just a bad idea to have a public and political life that's predicated on such a vulnerable position.

Rekna

I watched Real Time Friday night, i guess he decided not to out the gay republicans.

Gilda

Hmmm. If you can sue someone for saying you're gay, does that mean I can sue people for implying that I'm straight? I teach a class in GLBT lit; I might lose some of my street cred, so to speak.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Intense1

It all goes back to this: liberals say that they believe that everyone has the right to live as they wish, but not when it comes to those who are not yet ready to out themselves, especially if they are republicans. Gay republicans are in jeopardy of being outted if they do not believe in the gay marriage agenda - and there are many.

Many gays do not support the whole "gay marriage" agenda - check out Tammy Bruce, for an example http://www.tammybruce.com/.

Liberals want to give people privacy, all right. Until it cuts across their own agenda....

__________________
(none yet, still thinkin')

alansmithee

What might be best for the country is not always what is best for the individual. Maybe these "hypocrites" are merely putting what they believe to be the country's best interests ahead of their own personal interests.

Lizra

Imo, closeting yourself is not good. Being gay is nothing to be ashamed of. If people make you feel that your homosexuality is wrong, then you should show them that it isn't....by being upfront, honest, and unapoligetic about it. In the end, honesty is the best policy.....not for furthering political/power mongering agendas perhaps....but for a healthy world.....yes.
I think Maher is all right. Hypocrites go home.

__________________
Happy atheist

ratbastid

That'd be EXCELLENT. I'd love to see that happen!