Of course there’s the hypocrisy angle. But by now I think the Reds consider hypocrisy to be a positive virtue; something to be proud of.

There’s also the humor angle. I mean, really; an _actual_ whore in the press corps; not just a metaphorical one! So far the whole thing’s a major hoot, and I for one could use the giggles.

In the end I say, let the truth be known. The Reds tell horrible lies; let us tell horrible truths.

He got by security. I thought this was the security pres. I thought he got elected because he made us all feel safe. This makes me feel like someone’s been in my house while I’ve been gone.

Either he has had very close connections to the higher ups in the white house to get past the secret service, or this admin truly is incompetent on security matters.

Both possibilities scare the hell out of me.

But that’s just it – I’ve been getting the impression (sorry, I don’t have anything more concrete than that) that a lot of the culture warriors are starting to get antsy, wondering when they’re going to get something more substantive than lip service and rhetorical handjobs.

Let’s be serious here. If they were really concerned about getting things done, they’d need to make a lot more changes than just who they vote for.

But that’s just it – I’ve been getting the impression (sorry, I don’t have anything more concrete than that) that a lot of the culture warriors are starting to get antsy, wondering when they’re going to get something more substantive than lip service and rhetorical handjobs.

I’ve made sure, in harping on this scandal to my Repub co-workers, to stress that I’ve seen several stories suggesting that neither Bush nor Cheney (and probably countless others) have anything against gays; that it’s just a cynical ploy for votes. That kind of obvious fakery is nauseating to anyone, and given the fundies’ obsession with ideological purity, I can’t help but think it has to gnaw at them deep down, wondering just how much their leaders are really on their side. As history seems to suggest is usually the case, if they start to feel frustrated with a perceived lack of progress, that same ideological purity will probably lead them to start turning on each other to root out the apostates that are betraying the cause.

That’s why I think it can’t hurt to tell the religious nuts on one hand: “Hey, your leaders are playing you for chumps; all those rich sons of privilege, who don’t really care about the gay issue, are laughing at all of you as backwards rubes and yahoos while counting on your vote”, and then tell the more secular Republicans: “Yeah, that’s some ‘character’ and ‘moral values’ for you; the gutless shits pander to the worst in human nature because they’re too cowardly to stand up for what they really feel is right. How can you have any faith in such obvious political chameleons?”

At some point, this has got to reach a breaking point with some of them. All these apparent closet-case Republicans. All these charlatans who sell you their books about “family values” and use the proceeds to go gamble in Vegas, buy drugs by the metric ton, and brag about trips to Italy and Bali where they plan to cheat on their wives. Hell, they don’t have to change their vote. I’d be happy if they just get disgusted with politics and stay home, muttering to themselves.

I thought the gay aspect of the JimJeff scandal was good for forcing a wedge into the Republicans, since we already know that the Christian nuts are expecting a little quid pro quo for all their support.

But that’s why I brought up all the other outed Republicans. Gannon is the latest in a long line of outed conservatives, so who really gives a shit about that particular aspect at this point? If every other ex-gay politician isn’t enough to force a wedge, why should we expect the outing of a cog in the propaganda machine to make much of a difference. The prostitution allegations are a much bigger deal however…

The quid pro quo here is that as long as the guys they vote for give lip service to their issue du jour, then they can easily “hate the sin and love the sinner”. Here’s the thing that a lot of people on our side don’t realize. We see this as a fight in which conservatives are on the offense against homosexuals, but in their eyes, they’re on the defense, protecting traditional values from modernism and sin. Homophobic conservative Christians don’t care who’s gay as long as the gaywad considers abortion to be murder and doesn’t show up in their communities.

For that reason, as long as the Republican party stands strong against gay marriage, tries to make it illegal for gay people to be teachers, or whatever crazy shit they’re trying to pull this week, they could care less whether or not the people doing the political fighting for them like dudes.

Well, I’ve seen plenty of lines where Jesus “taught” that refusing to believe in his claim to divinity was completely unforgivable. Luke 14:26 makes clear that he will not tolerate being second best to anyone or anything in his disciples’ lives, including family members. Hell, the fruitcake even cursed a fig tree for not growing figs out of season (Um, Lord? What’s with the temper tantrum? Didn’t You design trees to be that way?) I think it’s obvious that his “teachings” are all over the moral map, so let’s quit pretending otherwise.

But getting back on topic – I thought the gay aspect of the JimJeff scandal was good for forcing a wedge into the Republicans, since we already know that the Christian nuts are expecting a little quid pro quo for all their support.

On the one hand, force Billy Biblethumper to choose between his mindless adulation of Dear Leader and his hatred of gays – he’s gotta be wondering about just how holy and pure this group is, being that they don’t seem too zealous about forcing the bible into schools, outlawing abortion, or shipping the gays off to Guantanamo, not to mention Cheney refusing to disown his lesbian daughter like Alan Keyes did. Plus, as you mentioned, there’s all those rumors about Mehlman, McClellan, Drier, etc., to set off the omnipresent paranoia: what if the evil homos have infiltrated Billy’s beloved GOP!?!?

On the other hand, force craven cowards like Bush and Cheney to take a stand – do they really, truly believe in all this homophobic bullshit? If not, what does it say about their “moral character” that they’re willing to exploit that kind of virulent hatred for political gain?

Seems like a win/win situaton to me.

It’s not the “gay prostitute” thing, it’s the “prostitute” thing — he’s the ultimate “media whore”. It’d be the same scandal if it were a female, straight, prostitute with special access. It’d probably be less fun though.

Greg footnoted that as a “revealing quote from the comments section” after this paragraph of his:

Is there a reason why a gay hooker is worse than a straight one?

I specifically point out in my comment that one is not worse than the other, so I’m not sure what the problem is there. Or maybe it’s revealing in that it shows that there isn’t a difference?

Anyway, I’m sorry if I offended with my use of the word “fun” — that wasn’t my intention. I don’t think it’s necessarily “fun like playing a game” but fun as in “amusing” or “entertaining to watch” (a minor semantic difference, I suppose). I guess I just don’t understand the problem. It was definitely “fun” to watch The Daily Show’s take on it yesterday, so I guess I’m not alone.

I have a very small circumference of the blogosphere that I traverse in
my daily news updates. When I see posts on the same topics fly across
all of them, I know that some idea has sparked a fire. This week, the
blogosphere-wide debate seems to be o…