Skip to main content

View Diary: FL-16 A Democrat gay-baiting? (60 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Foley's hypocrisy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HarveyMilk

    You leave out one major area where Foley (and a ton of other Republicans - both gay and straight) display a major hypocrisy. Foley and others have consistently sided with the conservatives on motions to allocate "abstinence-only until marriage" money -- hundreds of millions of dollars that our government spends every year to tell young people that they have no acceptable choice except to remain completely abstinent from sex until they are married. These programs specifically forbid any instructional discussion of condoms or other ways that young people can protect themselves against HIV, STDs and unplanned pregnancies. And if it wasn't bad enough that we are doing it here, those same Republicans (including Foley) are voting to require that the foreign aid money we spend to fight HIV/AIDS includes the same dangerous misinformation.

    I think it would be entirely fair game for Foley's opponent to ask him if, having never been married, he remains a virgin. Any politician who is willing to attempt to dictate the personal behaviours of some people with government dollars, better damn well be prepared to answer such a question about their own sex lives. How can they expect kids to take the message seriously if they can't follow it themselves?

    No, Foley isn't as bad as some of the other Republicans on gay issues - he has generally been very supportive.  But the real problem with Mahoney's message is that the too clever by half attempt to call Foley's sexuality a "dirty little secret" implies that homosexuality is somehow a dirty, shameful thing -- and that simply serves to advance homophobia, hurting not just Mark Foley, but tens of thousands of gay adults and adolescents in his district who will hear that message. That is unacceptable...

    Once social change begins,it cannot be reversed. You cannot uneducate the person who has learned to read...You cannot oppress people who are not afraid anymore.

    by terjeanderson on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 08:54:15 PM PDT

    •  Dirty Little Secret (0+ / 0-)

      If Mahoney is referring to Foley's sexuality (read the link in the diary), it's only a "dirty little secret" because Foley has made it so.  If it's such an "open secret," what's Foley's problem?  Doesn't wanna lose grace in the GOP?

      Anyway, being gay and voting for legislation that discriminates against homosexuals is pretty damned dirty.  

      •  but it's not a freaking secret (0+ / 0-)

        everyone knows foley is gay, he just doesn't feel like talking about it, never has.  foley knows.  you know.  he knows you know.  there are no unknown unknown.  the man's gay.  he doesn't want to talk about it.  would you want your [insert your socially tenuous affiliation here] to be a subject for discussion?  the guy is gay, everyone knows it, and he votes pro-gay constantly.  

        if this is all the ammo you got, dude, we're gonna have to call down every last one of those congresscritters and ask them if there's some one thing in their goodie bags that they don't want aired for fear that it would distract from their political goals elsewhere.  this is a strong argument that all politicians are dirty, but that's old news, a fact of life, and foley has demonstrated the courage of his convictions through his votes.

        "Language is the liquid that we're all dissolved in. Great for solving problems after it creates them." --Isaac Brock

        by Beyondo98 on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 09:11:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Being gay (0+ / 0-)

          is NOT a "socially tenuous affiliation." And, BTW, Kossacks are not "revolutionaries" or "purists", at least not the ones I know.

          he just doesn't feel like talking about it

          Guess not.  He'd prefer to tell the press "I like women" and vote for DOMA.

          Why do you feel such sympathy for this Republican closet case, anyway?  

          •  because i fucked him, that's why (0+ / 0-)

            actually i didn't.  but i sympathsize with him because he's been the target of a DEMOCRATIC GAY-BAITING TACTIC.  if you don't want to bother holding gay-haters' feet to the fire, fine by me.  let's focus on the closet case gay.

            "Language is the liquid that we're all dissolved in. Great for solving problems after it creates them." --Isaac Brock

            by Beyondo98 on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 09:31:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's Official (0+ / 0-)

              We have a concern troll.

              •  what's a concern troll? (0+ / 0-)

                i'm trying to rid the democratic party of gay-baiting.    i'm not concerned about anything but that.  i'm not trying to suggest what's best, but what's right.  if that's not something you can get on board with, fine, but the name-calling isn't exactly earthy and endearing.  i'd rather be a concern troll.

                "Language is the liquid that we're all dissolved in. Great for solving problems after it creates them." --Isaac Brock

                by Beyondo98 on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 09:42:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Poor Foley (0+ / 0-)

                  Again, you haven't proven that Mahoney is gay-baiting.

                  •  and no one has proven that allen (0+ / 0-)

                    was using a racist epithet.  i have no idea what more you want.  look at the campaign, mahoney has made hay about foley's vote for DOMA, and his campaign spokesperson accused Foley of wanting to "have it both ways".  

                    meanwhile, it occurs to me that you should probably respect your elders, given the fact that i've been lurking around this site since its inception without doing much commenting, aside from the occasional diary i wrote drunk.  so spare me your concern troll nonsense.

                    do you even know who stephen yellin is?  

                    "Language is the liquid that we're all dissolved in. Great for solving problems after it creates them." --Isaac Brock

                    by Beyondo98 on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 09:51:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Respect (0+ / 0-)

                      I'll give respect when it's due.  I don't ive a shit about your UID.

                      aside from the occasional diary i wrote drunk

                      That would explain this diary.

                      •  are you this anti-social in person? (0+ / 0-)

                        "Language is the liquid that we're all dissolved in. Great for solving problems after it creates them." --Isaac Brock

                        by Beyondo98 on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 09:59:10 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  and one more explanation (0+ / 0-)

                        i've been fighting for gay acceptance since i was in high school here in south florida and had to deal with morons who whispered about my sexuality when i went marching with friends in the gay pride parade when it was still relegated to an empty lot far from the view of decent society.  so if you really want to know why i'd be so worked up about it, that's pretty much why.  this is my town and i don't take gay-hating of any kind or any hue lying down.

                        "Language is the liquid that we're all dissolved in. Great for solving problems after it creates them." --Isaac Brock

                        by Beyondo98 on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 10:09:00 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

      •  I've never understood why Foley won't do a Kolbe. (0+ / 0-)

        He's been publicly outed in the press, the media all knows, everyone on the Hill knows, and I can only assume that anyone awake in his district has heard the discussions (which is obviously why the double entendre of Mahoney's attack would have meaning to voters who have heard the rumours)

        So what keeps Foley from acknowledging it? Is he personally ashamed of it? (people I know who say they know him say that isn't it). Is it that he somehow thinks that the right wing will tolerate him if he stays quiet? (Surely he has caught on by now that the open discussion ruins his chances for political advancement in the Republican party -- he played with running for the Senate 2 years ago and again this year, but realised that he couldn't win a Republican primary statewide in Florida with this kind of buzz).

        I don't get it -- he could come out like Kolbe, have a safe seat and continue to gain seniority -- there really is nothing he gains politically by refusing to acknowledge this.

        And I agree, I've got no qualms about outing gay Republicans (or Democrats) who vote against gay issues -- but the outing has got to be about the hypocrisy, not the shame.

        Once social change begins,it cannot be reversed. You cannot uneducate the person who has learned to read...You cannot oppress people who are not afraid anymore.

        by terjeanderson on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 09:14:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  my sense is that... (0+ / 0-)

          he actually doesn't like talking about it.  everyone down here knows he's gay.  (he hit on a friend of mine at the gym a few years back.)  but some people are simply uncomfortable with it regardless of the dominant social permissiveness.  maybe he's still got a high school style hang-up about it.  but it's all speculative, and in the meantime, i just assume respect the man's wishes.

          "Language is the liquid that we're all dissolved in. Great for solving problems after it creates them." --Isaac Brock

          by Beyondo98 on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 09:33:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  He will lose his seat, and (0+ / 0-)

          he probably believes he might be able to get a Senate seat someday (good luck with that).

          How entertaining 2006 would have been with Foley as the Senate nominee and Crist as the governor nominee. Fundie heads across Florida exploding!

    •  votes and such (0+ / 0-)

      i don't know every last vote foley's issued, but my understanding is that he's fought against the GOP push for abstinence-only education.  i could easily be proven wrong, but if you could provide a link, i would appreciate it.

      "Language is the liquid that we're all dissolved in. Great for solving problems after it creates them." --Isaac Brock

      by Beyondo98 on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 09:14:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  only partially (0+ / 0-)

        Foley has generally supported the appropriations to increase funding for abstinence only education (supporting Bush's requests) and supporting the 30% requirement on global HIV funding.

        The only place he has voted right in this area is that he has opposed efforts from some way whacko right wingers (Dave Weldon, Ernest Istook, Tom Coburn, etc) to shift even more money from health/ education programmes into abstinence only programs -- those were efforts that only attracted about 100 Republican votes in the House, and Foley joined the house majority voted against them.

        But he supported the abstinence provisions in welfare legislation, and did not support efforts to decrease funding for abstinence only programmes when efforts have been made to stop pouring millions into them.

        He's tried to walk a middle road on this, but he definitely has plenty of abstinence-only votes in his record -- only standing up to the most extreme efforts to give them even more money.

        Once social change begins,it cannot be reversed. You cannot uneducate the person who has learned to read...You cannot oppress people who are not afraid anymore.

        by terjeanderson on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 09:28:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  links? (0+ / 0-)

          and i'm not doing this to put you on the spot, but because i'd like to know more.

          "Language is the liquid that we're all dissolved in. Great for solving problems after it creates them." --Isaac Brock

          by Beyondo98 on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 09:34:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  two examples (0+ / 0-)

            You can check out specific votes on www.thomas.gov

            Two of the most important examples (both of which I was involved lobbying on)

            May 2003, HR #1298 which established the Presidential Emergency Program For AIDS Relief - Joe Pitts of PA introduced an amendment requiring that 33% of all prevention money in the program be spent on abstinence-only until marriage programmes. The amendment passed 220 to 198 - Foley voted in the majority, despite pleas from the AIDS, women's health, international health and gay organizations that were lobbying on the bill. (21 Republicans broke ranks and voted against the amendment -- so he wouldn't have been alone had he stood up on this one)

            May 2002  HR 4737 which reauthorized parts of the welfare reform bill. Ben Cardin (D-MD) introduced an amendment requiring that the abstinence education funded by the bill be medically and scientifically accurate. The amendment was narrowly defeated on a virtually party line vote. Foley voted against the amendment - against, despite major lobbying from AIDS, gay, public health organizations.

            Those are probably the two most significant up and down votes on abstinence that have taken place in the House in the last few years. There are also a number of basic appropriations bills that have involved funding for abstinence only programmes -- but the real votes on those happen in committee, less often on the floor, where they tend to just be voted on as a package. It is too late at night for me to go digging through my files for those specific examples, but I'm happy to do that at another time.

            Again, where Foley has voted right on this is in opposing egregrious efforts by Dave Weldon and Ernest Istook and others to transfer money from AIDS treatment (the Ryan White CARE Act) or other social programmes to abstinence only funding. But on the fundamental votes that established and continue to support the basic federal abstinence only programmes, Foley has consistently  voted with the Bush/GOP party line on these issues.  

            Once social change begins,it cannot be reversed. You cannot uneducate the person who has learned to read...You cannot oppress people who are not afraid anymore.

            by terjeanderson on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 10:31:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  thanks (0+ / 0-)

              good to know.  mind if i ask in what capacity you were lobbying for this stuff?

              "Language is the liquid that we're all dissolved in. Great for solving problems after it creates them." --Isaac Brock

              by Beyondo98 on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 10:53:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  sure (0+ / 0-)

                Until I retired (or semiretired) earlier this year, I was in Washington working as Executive Director of the National Association of People with AIDS.

                Once social change begins,it cannot be reversed. You cannot uneducate the person who has learned to read...You cannot oppress people who are not afraid anymore.

                by terjeanderson on Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 11:00:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site