The speculation about whether House Speaker Dennis Hastert is gay/bisexual is gaining steam, as well as ammunition. Some consider Hastert's co-habitation (when in DC) with Scott Palmer -- his 55 year old, single Chief of Staff -- a compelling argument. And those who believe everyone knows everyone else's business in DC are swayed by mounting reports that Hastert's same sex preference is not exactly news on Capitol Hill.
All of which begs the question: so what? The question was even fiercely debated here on Kos, in Mz Kleen's diary "Is Hastert Gay?
Most of the debate centers on whether GOP anti-gay rights stances (and outright gay bashing) is balanced by "outting" those members who are gay to demonstrate their hypocrisy. But that argument misses the point. Politics isn't about ideology these days -- it's all about money. Sadly, Hastert's sexuality is now an important issue for voters, although not to decide whether he's a hypocrite.
Almost immediately after the Foley scandal set its roots, the calls for Hastert's resignation began. Honestly, that caught me by surprise. Why was the GOP throwing Hastert under the bus? The answer is that they didn't, although I missed it at first.
The Christian extremist rainmakers attacked the Speaker like a pack of wolves. Paul Weyrich, Richard Viguerie, David Bossie, the Washington Times, i.e. the Rev. Sun Myung Moon -- this is who led the charge. And soon after, those politicians most beholden cautiously followed suit. This was a power play by a major source of GOP funds, aimed swiftly and directly at Dennis Hastert. But why him, instead of Boehner or Blunt or Reynolds or Alexander or Shimkus?
This is a guess -- my guess -- but I suspect the question of Hastert's sexual preference is in fact a long-standing rumor in DC. That DOES NOT make it true. However, even a persistent rumor would be enough for Chrisitian extremist idealogues to loathe Dennis Hastert and plot his removal. I really don't think the Weyriches and Vigueries of the world believe in anything but power, but like Ralph Reed and Jack Abramoff, they front for "true believers" and must reward morality plays with money and political tenure.
So, were Hastert considered a 'known' homosexual in the right, hateful circles, Foley's actions may have represented a long-awaited opportunity. And the speed and coordination of a single branch of the GOP's propaganda machine seems to support the idea that a momentary rift formed in their power base. While corpulent white talk show hosts shouted conspiracy theories about Democrats and the timing of the Foley scandal, the real power brokers who typically work quietly behind the scenes went public. They made threats.
And for a day or two, the job of Speaker of House hung in the balance.
But now, all of sudden, Hastert has seemingly gone toe to toe with "humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent," the founder and leader of the "New Right," and the "funding father" of modern conservative strategy, and stared them down. President George Bush himself has endorsed the Speaker and is stumping for his re-election.
But -- and I repeat, this is speculation -- if Dennis Hastert is gay, there can only be one logical conclusion: some kind of deal has been struck. And the terms of that deal include keeping Hastert's homosexuality a secret.
So here is why it matters if Hastert is gay: if the Speaker of House's sexual preference is being used behind the scenes as a bargining chip in our political process, the voters must be told. Not because it may or may not make Hastert a hypocrite (to either side) but because his sexual preference is being used to manipulate the balance of power in Congress.
Ironically, this is the argument long offered by hateful bigots for keeping gay men and women out of political office, that if closeted their secret could used for political blackmail.
But is it not the M.O. of the current GOP leadership, to use that about which they most loudly protest as a means for personal gain?