On Closer Examination

Americablog has posted some excerpts from Frank Rich's column about the outing of the Republican party in the aftermath of the Mark Foley debacle. I can't read the article itself because I would have to subscribe to some ridiculous New York Times service called TimesSelect, which I won't do on principle. Avrovosis quoting Rich:

"First, gay people did not “infiltrate” the party apparatus — they are the party apparatus. Rare is the conservative Republican Congressional leader who does not have a gay staffer wielding clout in a major position. Second, any inference that gay Republicans on the Hill conspired to cover up Mr. Foley’s behavior is preposterous."

This all reminds me of a story my father told me, when he got back from a trip to Poland in the 1990s. He said that there are only about 5,000 Jews left in Poland, but that there were still people in Poland who believed that the Jews were responsible for everything that went wrong there.

Today, Family Values Republican legislators say there is no place for homosexuality in public life while hiring homosexuals on the public dime. And the Family Values Republican base responds by saying that the problems in Congress are because of the homosexual infiltrators, the secret Gay Republican Network.

As for me, a Gay civil libertarian, I'm simply shocked to find out that there are so many Gay Repblicans. I truly believed that Gay Republicans were the intellectual equivalents of Jews For Jesus, and that they would forever be on the outside of the party looking in. It simply never dawned on me that there were Gay Republicans on the inside.

I guess the reason I'm shocked is that, for a very long time now, I've understood that staying in the closet is participating in your own subjugation.

But Gay Republicans don't agree. They believe that homosexuality is not a strong enough basis on which to form a community, and sometimes I agree. They feel a stronger kinship with financial and moral conservatives than they do with the over-whelmingly liberal gay community, and sometimes I agree. They believe that the gay community, if there is such a thing, has bcome so paralyzed by political correctness (gltb = gay lesbian transgender bisexual) that we have trouble finding an intellectual justification for excluding pedophiles from our midst (National Man Boy Love Association).

And so, they allign themselves with conservative Republicans instead of the liberal glbt community. And sometimes I agree.

But where we part ways is the closet. Because, apparently, in order to find a home in the conservative Republican community, gay people have to stay in the closet. OK, maybe not the closet, since their friends and colleagues know they are gay. But since the constituents for whom they work do not know they are gay, it's still a closet. A walk-in closet, maybe with a dressing table and a telephone, but a closet.

Why is this such a big deal? Because if these Gay Republicans would openly demand a seat at the table as Gay Republicans, if the country knew how many Gay Republicans are working in Congress, then the Karl Roves of the world would not be able to demonize gay people for the purpose of winning elections.

To my way if thinking, Gay Republicans are responsible for the Karl Rove strategy of getting out the base by making gay marriage a campaign issue, and gay adoption a campaign issue. Because they are best positioned to stop it, and they refuse to do so for the sake of their own personal gain.

And no, I don't mean that Gay Republicans have to be in favor of gay marriage or gay adoption simply because they are gay. I just mean that Gay Republicans should not help other Republicans take advantage of gay people for political means.

But I don't have to worry about this for much longer. The Republican base, in a collective imitation of Claude Rains, is shocked, shocked to learn that there are homosexuals in Congress. The closet is going bye-bye.

So now where are the Gay Republicans going to hide?

This is an excerpt from a Washington Post story written by Jonathan Weisman:

"With House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert denying personal knowledge of former representative Mark Foley's activities, investigators for the House ethics committee are bearing down on three senior members of Hastert's staff to determine when they learned of Foley's actions and whether they passed on their knowledge to the speaker.

The three -- chief of staff Scott Palmer, deputy chief of staff Mike Stokke and counsel Ted Van Der Meid -- have formed a palace guard around Hastert (R-Ill.) for years, attaining great degrees of power and unusual autonomy to deal with matters of politics, policy and House operations. They are also remarkably close. Palmer and Stokke have been with Hastert for decades. They live together in a Capitol Hill townhouse and commute back to Illinois on weekends."

Palmer and Stokke live together. Is it possible that the Speaker of the House has a gay couple as two of his top three aides?

Now, normally, I'd say it's no one's business if Palmer and Stokke are gay. But in this story, it does matter whether or not someone's sexual orientation is known. Weisman writes:

"In brief, awkward conversations, the source said, Fordham would tell Foley: 'I just got a call from Jeff Trandahl. And Mark, you just need to be conscious of appearances. Everyone knows you're gay. You're being held to higher standards than everyone else. They see the stereotype -- a gay man going after kids.'"

So, if Palmer and Stokke are gay, and if that fact becomes public knowledge, then they too will be held to a higher standard. I guess.

It just creeps me out.

I'm gay.

See, Republican closet queens? It's easy.

E-

Stephanie Griffith, writing for Agence France Presse (AFP), reports that "Gay Repubilcans find chill climate in Washington after sex scandal".

Really. Does that mean the climate was balmy for gay Republicans before the scandal?

According to Griffith:

"Washington's community of gay Republicans includes at least one US lawmaker, Representative Jim Kolbe . . . of Arizona, who disclosed his sexual orientation in 1996, after a gay magazine threatened to out him."

"Washington's gay Republican scene is also reported to include dozens of high-ranking congressional aides, current and former White House staffers, advisers to the Pentagon, press strategists, well-known journalists and influential lobbyists -- most of whom choose not to make their sexual orientation known for professional and personal reasons."

I have to say, I don't get it. DC is filled with homos who felt compelled to stay in the closet before the Foley scandal broke. But the Foley scandal has "hurt their efforts for greater acceptance within their own party".

Color me lavendar, but I think what's "hurt their efforts for greater acceptance within their own party" is that they're still in the freaking closet.

Why?

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, a man who in any civilized nation would be reduced to rambling on a soap box in the public square, has this to say about the Foley scandal, according to Griffith:

"The Foley scandal shows what happens when political correctness is put ahead of protecting children. . . This is the end result of a society that rejects sexual restraints in the name of diversity. . . Maybe it's time to question: when is tolerance just an excuse for permissiveness? . . They discounted or downplayed earlier reports concerning Foley's behavior -- probably because they did not want to appear 'homophobic'."

As an aside, I could write an entire treatise on Perkins' choice of the phrase "sexual restraints". Just play safe and choose a safety word.

But, the point is, members of an out and proud gay Republican DC community, who had invested the time in establishing themselves as loyal Republicans and as gay citizens, could credibly respond to Tony Perkins by saying:

"House Speaker Denny Hastert and Representative HJohn Reynolds have made anti-gay initiatives a cornerstone of this Congress and of this and recent campaign seasons. To suggest that they are motivated in the slightest by 'political correctness' or by not wanting to be accused of 'homophobia' flies in the face of reality. No, this was a case of politics trumping the needs of children --the need to brush Foley's behavior under the carpet to continue to appease the religious right to maintain a Republican majority and personal power."

But, alas, there is no one in Washington to say this to Tony Perkins. Because all the gay Republicans have swept themselves under the rug by staying in the closet. So as to maintain a Republican majority and their own personal power.

I was watching Chris Matthews this morning and Lawrence Wright was one of the speakers. He is a correspondent for the New Yorker, and he wrote the 1998 film "THE SIEGE", which I recently re-watched and recently urged everyone to watch.

So it got me to thinking about the three authors I have learned about since 9/11, and the three books I plan to read in the very immediate future as my personal rememberance of 9/11.

I've already written about Lawrence Wright, whose history of Al-Qaeda is out now. It is called "THE LOOMING TOWER: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11". After hearing Mr. Wright speak articulately and intelligently on the motivations of Al-Qaeda and how America has consistently played into Osama bin Laden's strategic plans, on its strengths and its weaknesses, I am determined to read his book, which he has researched for five years.

I've also recently written about Vali Nasr, professor at the Post-Graduate Naval Academy in Monterrey. I recently saw Mr. Nasr on Real Time With Bill Maher, and found his discussion of the differences between Sunni and Shia sources of power and political agendas illuminating. Mr. Nasr's "THE SHIA REVIVAL: How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape The Future" is also on my reading list.

Finally, some time ago I spoke about George Lakoff's "DON'T THINK OF AN ELEPHANT: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate -- The Essential Guide for Progresives". Mr. Lakoff's discussion of the paternalistic model behind the political strategy of President George W. Bush and the impact it has on his conservative base went a long way to helping me understand how the President ever came to be the President, and was re-elected as the President. Before I read Mr. Lakoff's book, I truly thought half of the country was insane. This book fundamentally altered my view of the American political landscape.

Mr. Lakoff has a new book, :WHOSE FREEDOM: The Battle Over Americas' Most Important Idea". I'm adding it to the list.

I'll report back on these books as I read them.

This is the title of a 1998 film starring Denzel Washington, Annette Bening, Bruce Willis and Tony Shalhoub. It's about a terrorist cell operating in Brooklyn. The film was written by Lawrence Wright, with Ed Zwick and Menno Meyjes. Mr. Wright's history of Al Qaeda "The Looming Tower" was published by Alfred A. Knopf.

I've seen this film many times, and each time I find something new in it. It is frightening to realize that so many events fictionalied in 1998 have since come to pass.

Do yourself a favor and watch this film.

Today's Wall Street Journal includes an article on Plan B by Anna Wilde Mathews and Barbara Martinez.

The article includes a quote pulled from the web site of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, in the US, 34% of teenage girls get pregnant at least once before turning 20.

34% of teenage girls. Get pregnant at least once.

When Rosie turns 13, I'm getting me a big ol' dog and a big ol' gun.

The title of today's page 3 article by John D. McKinnon is "Foiled Plot Swings Voters Attention to Terror War".

The sub-title: "Focus Shifts From Iraq Woes, Democrat's Central Issue, To a Republican Strength".

The first sentence: "The foiled British bombing plot is likely to benefit President Bush and the Republican Party, at least in the short term, by reminding voters of national-security concerns and the war on terror -- two areas where the president and his party have earned high marks from US citizens."

But the article itself does not live up to the hype. It takes Republican spin as fact, and ignores significant evidence cited within itself that suggests exactly the opposite.

The opening of the article is dictated by two sources -- the very conservative Brookings Institution and a senior White House official.

Says military analyst Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution: "The foiled plot takes some wind out of the sails of the Democratic Party's liberal wing." Moderate Democrats who oppose a quick pullout from Iraq "probably feel a little more like the news is back on our side of the argument."

A "senior White House official" who "took the unusual step of speaking on background to reporters on Air Force One about the politics of the war on terror" said that voters were coming around to the administration's view that the global war on terror must be won despite the high costs . . . "So, if you have Lamont Democrats who who say, "Bring 'em home, turn away, and it will all be over," the American people say, "You're kidding yourself. We're in a war, and the only way you walk away from a war is as a victor, defeating the enemy."

So that's the spin. Lamont Democrats want to cut and run, leaving the enemy to strike again.

The rest of the article contradicts itself.

First, the article quotes Ned Lamont's actual views. "We need to change course, and that means standing up to this administration and fighting for security in a rational, serious way rather than being bogged down in a war [that] is harmful to our security."

Then, the article goes on to note that "many other Democrats kept the focus squarely on Iraq, hopeful that, over time, the problems there will outweigh any short-term benefit to Republicans from the foiled terror attack."

Harry Reid is quoted as saying: "This latest plot demonstrates the need for the Bush admnistration and the Congress to change course in Iraq and ensure that we are taking all steps necessary to protect Americans at home and across the world."

David Wade, a John Kerry spokesman said "Americans are sick and tired of Ken Mehlman, Karl Rove, and the masters of misdirection who got us bogged down in Iraq with no end in sight, and who have failed to kill Osama bin Laden. If these Republicans were half as good at fighting the war on terror as they are at misleading the public, we'd be a lot safer than we are today."

The article goes on to say that "Political observers cautioned that the benefit for Mr. Bush and his allies could prove short lived, noting that last year's London subway bombing provided little noticeable long-term benefit to the President."

So, what is this article saying? Republicans are trying to spin the Connecticut election and the recent terror plot as saying that Americans now realize that they need to see the Iraq war through. Democrats are saying we need to change tactics in Iraq so we can be more successful there and elsewhere in the global war on terror. Which argument is the stronger?

Clearly the article chooses the Republican spin over the Democratic. However, the article site a WSJ/ NBC July poll showing 29% of respondents ranked the war in Iraq as the government's top priority, up from 22% a month earlier, and only 14% of respondents said terrorism is government's top priority.

Without any reference or basis, the article claims that the UK terror plot will move terrorism up on the list, at least for a while.

So, simply put, Mr. McKinnon chose the Republican spin over the Democratic spin without any empirical basis for doing so.

I guess Mr. McKinnon thinks Americans are too stupid to remember that the Bush administration has been equating the war in Iraq with the war on terror for over three years now, so that it's not unreasonable for people to think that if we are losing the war in Iraq we are losing the war on terror. Why else would this article now suggest that the war on terror is a winning proposition for Republicans but the war in Iraq is a losing proposition?

Oh, right. We're supposed to forget about Iraq and start worrying about Iran. Iran, our new Cold War partner/ adversary. You have to read between the lines to get that one, because Mr. McKinnon does not connect the dots for you.

In a related front page article in today's WSJ by Carrick Mollenkamp, Chip Cummins, David Cranford and Robert Block, it is noted that the UK terror plot bears a resemblance to a 1995 terror plot code-named "Bojinka". That plot included a plan to crash a plane into CIA headquarters in Langley, VA.

The article does not connect the dots to note that, in 2001, then-National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice stated that no one could have forseen that terrorists would fly airplanes into buildings. Despite the fact that a plan to do just that had been foiled six years earlier.

Simply put, the WSJ is drinking the Bush administration Kool-Aid without question. And it makes reading WSJ coverage of the war on terror laughable, as the inability of WSJ reporters to connect the dots rivals the FBI's.

Dots like these: Dot 1 -- The Bush Administration has been fighting the war on terror for five years. Dot 2 -- Terrorists came very close to pulling off a coordinated strike that would have dwarfed 9/11. Dot 3 -- And we're still not sure we have stopped "the big one" we are all expecting. Connection -- So, the Bush Adminstration is doing a crappy job of fighting the war on teror.

OK, I'll say it. "Hey, Wall Street Journal, Emperor Bush has no clothes."