What IS IT With GOP Reps & Gay Staffers???

OK, so I'm reading the Washington Post's lead online article about Foley's Disgrace this morning, and I get to Page 2, the end of the article, and find this:

["Congressional aides point to another factor that links Trandahl to the Foley matter...Trandahl is openly homosexual and personally close to the now-disgraced former lawmaker, who announced through his lawyer this week that he is gay."]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

So, as a gay man long aware that my best interests lie with the Democratic Party, I'm thinking, not another one!!!  And this one (until suddenly in Nov. 2005, when some GOP leaders were learning of Foley's problem) was the Clerk of the House, appointed by, of all people, the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives.

(More...)

Trandahl is the latest on a fast-growing list of gay people being revealed to be senior staffers to Republican politicians -- some of them, as in the case of Santorum's chief aide, serving openly anti-gay bigots.

Knowing what we know about the GOP and its use of rhetorical gay bashing to whip up fervor among its religious-right base, its public rebukes of the gay Log Cabin Republicans, and its attempt to write anti-gay marriage discrimination into the Constitution, we have to seriously ask: "what dynamic is it that drives talented gay people to go to work for, protect, speak for, and defend members of the Anti-Gay Party?"

To me, until recently, the GOP has stood for a clear set of principles around taxes, the size of government, and family values (I know, all very debatable after their performance of the past 6 years).  But, as I look at those party tenets and try to see the connection a gay person might have to them, a reason for a gay person to support those tenets in particular, I can't find it.  

So, I don't understand it.  I can't figure out what draws this gay political class to the GOP.  Is it as simple a thing as the GOP being the party their parents belonged to, so they grew up with it and it became their "team" of sorts?  But, wouldn't a professional gay person with education and a brain would soon figure out that their role in such a party would be one of Uncle Tom?  So what drives them?

(Note: thanks to Vet 4 Dean, whose Friday 8:26 PDT post entitled "Fordham Is Right & Trandahl Is Gay", has an interesting discussion on Trandahl -- which only makes me wonder more, "what drives them?".)

http://www.dailykos.com/...

•  The Question Is A Serious One, And...

  Any thoughts/suggestions are appreciated.

  by Larry Bailey on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 05:17:01 AM PDT

  •  I agree that its a very serious question.

    That's why I recommended your diary. I would like to hear alot of opinions on this.

    by aggressiveprogressive on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 05:42:33 AM PDT

    •  I Am Also Recommending This

      I don't live in D.C. and I'm not an expert, but I can report what was told to me by my one good friend in D.C. who happens to be gay.  My comments below.

      by bink on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 05:44:00 AM PDT

    •  Thank You.

      by Larry Bailey on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 05:59:32 AM PDT

    •  The gay Repubs I know...

      are in it to retain inherited money or gain a cushy lifestyle for themselves, and DO NOT IDENTIFY with those other, lower forms of gayness, except of course if they need to get their rocks off or need some humpy guy to move their mother's antique chiffarobe into the upstairs sitting room.

      by Glorfindel on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:46:35 AM PDT

  •  Playing Hide the Weenie is Republican values

    Republican values is whatever they can get away with.

    by exlrrp on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 05:53:52 AM PDT

•  Greed. Pure unadulterated greed.

  The same reason that a slightly smaller percentage of atheists support Republican. They want their tax cuts, and they don't care that the people giving it to them hate their guts.

  by tigercourse on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 05:27:45 AM PDT

  •  Aboslutely, bottom line ...

    is greed. "I want my tax cut" was the phrase I heard most often from gays who were in the upper income brackets during the 2000 and 2004 election cycles.  Never mind that you are bound to be designated second class citizens by the very folks you assist to overtake our government, never mind the very fact that they would imprison, maim (think lobotomy and elctroshock therapy) or exterminate you if they could only get away with it.

    Greed and power are the motivators, and I hope that every one of those self loathsome homosexuals who choose the ability to vacation in Palm Springs and Provincetown while wearing Prada over their basic civil rights has to choke on their decision.

    Yep, I am very bitter about fellow gays who put money above their own rights.

    by emsprater on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:01:49 AM PDT

    •  Abortion doctors...

      I know some doctors who make their living performing abortions that vote Republican.

      You heard me correctly:

      Abortion doctors who vote Republican.

      The Republicans want to clearly do away with their business and their income, but...

      THEY STILL WANT THAT STUPID TAX CUT.

      by annrose on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:27:17 AM PDT

    •  Republican gays

      As a 51-year old gay man, I came out in the mid-70's.  Back then, both parties were homophobic, like the general population.  Being gay, you tended to base your political sympathies on the same factors others based theirs on, your family, your religion, your economic status,etc.

      But that all changed during the 80's, as Republicans embraced the gay-bashing religious right, and the Democrats embraced gay rights.  It crystallized in the 1992 presidential election, when Clinton openely campaigned for the gay vote.  I remember being at the bar on a weekend just prior to the 1992 election, and the gay student group from UM was there with a big "Clinton-Gore" sign at their campaign table, right in the bar.  Bar-goers were dancing and drinking parading around in "Hillary" stickers and Clinton/Gore buttons.  Republicans were very scarce.

      The few openly Republican gays I have known since then are largely either politically ignorant or from inherited wealth, and have chosen conspicous Republican consumption and arrogance over fighting for their own civil rights.  Wealth sort of of shields you from a lot of gay-bashing.  If you're rich enough, people kiss up to you even if you're gay.

      But most of my old Republican friends from college or the 70's have switched over in horror of Republican gay-bashing to become ardent Democrats.  They carry with them conservatism and union-busting, which is a danger to the progressive principles of our party.  We must be careful not to let our traditional values be thrown away as we attempt to absorb these voters.

      by Michigan Paul on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 07:27:37 AM PDT

      •  At 56, I experienced much the same...

        And observed similarly about Gay Republicans.

        by Larry Bailey on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 07:30:18 AM PDT

  •  Not quite

    A look at tax policy under Dems and under the GOP shows that the significant difference is the tax rate for income above maybe $180,000 per year, and the tax on estates valued in the millions.

    Most of these people would do just as well with Democrats in control.

    And when you factor in the performance of 401-Ks and other investments under Clinton vs. under Bush, most of the sensible greedy should be supporting Democrats.

    by Elwood Dowd on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:13:52 AM PDT

    •  Greedy don't mean smart. Those with rational

      self interest vote Democratic. Those with irational self interest support Republicans.

      by tigercourse on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:16:05 AM PDT

•  Power & Jobs

  The GOP has more elected officials, consequently more jobs to offer. And if a person hails from a red state, that is where his/her connections are - if you want to work at that profession you find a repub.

  by 1918 on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 05:28:03 AM PDT

  •  That's true Uncle Tom-ing, isn't it?

    by Larry Bailey on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:00:43 AM PDT

•  Here Are Your Answers

  The short answer is:

  "Karl Rove"

  The long answer is ...

  The Republican Party's biggest recruiting machine for new operatives is the "College Republicans" organization.  This organization, run at one time by Karl Rove, provides a lot of the "new meat" in Washington as far as staffers are concerned.

  The thing about the "College Republicans" is that the organization -- by virtue of the air of sanctity (and sanctimony) that it casts over its members -- is used by closeted gay male students as a way to give excuse to the fact why they are not having sex at this time in their life, whereas all of their peers are.

  You see, they don't have "pre-marital sex" because they are good, moral, upstanding "College Republicans."

  The "Campus Christian Coalition" gives similar cover to college-aged gay men.

  So, basically, the trail is ...

  Gay guys in their late teens and early twenties become involved with the College Republicans when they are in college.  These folks are later heavily recruited as political operatives and staffers.  Because of Karl Rove's long history with the College Republican organization, it has become a sort of conduit for "sodomites" to get into the power center of Washington as it stands now.

  If you look at many of the evil-doers in Washington, you see the same trend.  Jack Abramoff, Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman, ad infinitum, all have the same background with this organization.

  The result is the appearance of a sort of "gay cabal" behind the doors of power in our capital.

  I hope that this helps your understanding.

  by bink on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 05:31:19 AM PDT

  •  Beyond This

    I don't think that there is really any crime to these folks using existing networks to find jobs in government that they are interested in.

    The problem seems to be that the "closetedness" of this group ends up not just being self-loathing, but also "society-loathing" and the things that they become involved in are bad for government and bad for Americans.

    by bink on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 05:33:10 AM PDT

    •  Further

      One of the things most frustrating about the reporting re: Jack Abramoff and his "alleged contacts" with Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman is that Abramoff has been close to these folks for twenty years.

      Contacts are "alleged?"

      If that is the best the media can do, I don't know what we can do with the media, because Abramoff is not just "in contact" with these folks, but he grew out of the same system that they did.  He "is" Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman.  You cannot separate the three.

      by bink on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 05:35:35 AM PDT

    •  The closetedness

      also seems to go hand-in-hand with the very destructive personal behavior that leads to gay Reugs being outed. It appears to me that the self-denial feeds self-loathing which ultimately leads to some very poor choices in personal behavior. T

      The faux piousness of these folks is the seed of their own demise. Time-and-again.

      by aggressiveprogressive on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 05:40:36 AM PDT

      •  Agreed

        I agree.  Looking at the Foley behavior, for example.

        by bink on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 05:42:48 AM PDT

      •  and the republican party

        has exploited this relationship by helping to keep the closet door shut in exchange for working against gay rights.

        by titotitotito on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 05:52:19 AM PDT

    •  I never thought what they do is criminal...

      It's just short-sighted, blindered.

      by Larry Bailey on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:01:41 AM PDT

      •  hypocritical, blindly narcissistic,

        elitist, hedonistic, spoiled, shallow...

        by Glorfindel on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:51:59 AM PDT

  •  Women?

    Where do young women, straight or gay, fit into this?

    by JFinNe on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 05:44:41 AM PDT

    •  I don't know...

      I've never heard of a gay female staffer to the bigots on the right.  Are women, in this regard, just plain smarter?  More principled?  Perhaps.

      by Larry Bailey on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:03:49 AM PDT

  •  Bink, I think there's more...

    While you may have nailed it about why the DC staffers are with whom they are, what about all those Gay Republicans out there who have nothing to do with the Beltway?

    I've read posts and comments at some of the Gay Right blogs and from what I can gather, most of those people have nothing to do with the Beltway; they're hither and yonder and as rabid Republicans as I've ever encountered.

    And the most disconcerting thing about them is that many seem 30-something, which means they didn't contribute diddley in the gay struggles of the 60's, 70's, and 80's.

    by Larry Bailey on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 05:59:08 AM PDT

    •  Gay Republicans?

      No idea where they come from generally, or what they want ...  As far as gay staffers are concerned, this was what has been explained to me.

      by bink on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:01:21 AM PDT

  •  Do you suppose that gay men . . .

    . . . from 'winger/religious-right homes might take longer to figure themselves out than normal gay men?

    There's less acceptance and more pressure to fit their lives into a straight paradigm--get married, have kids, etc. And I've noticed that extremely pious men are 'way more likely to be closet cases than most.

    So these guys go through adolescence as mommy and daddy's good little boys, taking on their folks' political values and attributing their disinclination to interact with girls to their own precious high-mindedness.

    Then they go to college, join the Young Republicans, and basically play out the scenario you describe, except that their involvement with YR, church, etc. doesn't so much explain their lack of a sex life to other people as it rationalizes it for themselves.

    Anyway, they eventually realize they're gay. But by then, they've already got all this Republican baggage.

    by MollyNYC on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 08:27:10 AM PDT

    •  Good point.

      And that's the "picked the GOP as their 'team'" theory that I have about some of them.

      by Larry Bailey on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 08:35:19 AM PDT

•  What twisted self loathing psyches they must have

  Closeted gays working for the party that hates them.
  Freud would have a field day figuring this all out

  by exlrrp on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 05:44:49 AM PDT

•  Another self-selection angle.

  Many capable gay Republicans with abiding interests in politics -- open ly gay Republicans in particular -- will find their sexual orientation a disadvantage on the Elected Offical track.

  What's the next best thing? Staffing! Relatively anonymous, relatively powerful, totally "in the loop".

  by RonK Seattle on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 05:45:33 AM PDT

  •  And that IS an interesting angle.

    "the next best thing" to elective office.  

    But, still, to have such allegiance to a party that openly disowns them (until the last week or so)...where are their brains?

    by Larry Bailey on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:06:01 AM PDT

    •  People are not as one-dimensional as you think

      by RonK Seattle on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:11:38 AM PDT

  •  In addition

    I think that being gay gives you a combination of personality characteristics that work very well with a chief of staff position.

    You're used to subverting your ego to that of others to get by, so you'll do what your told. You're not personally threatening to your boss, who sees you as a sissy, so he's more comfortable with you. But as a man, you can put on a tough act and get shit done with people OUTSIDE the office. And you can wield power vicariously.

    by brittain33 on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:21:19 AM PDT

•  the closet makes one do weird things

  by titotitotito on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 05:47:38 AM PDT

•  As a gay man...

  ...I'd say a lot of it has to do with cowardice.

  The reasons generally aren't very different for belonging to the Republican party or continuing to abide a religion that denigrates and maligns gay people. Both are a choice. Both require courage to walk away from. Maligning and denigrating others does not require any courage whatsoever. Standing up to those who malign and denigrate, especially when they're the group you self-identify with, requires a lot of courage. Walking away from the group you self-identify with takes a helluvalot of courage.

  I don't see much courage in the vast majority of those who self-identify with the Republican party...or those who self-identify as "Christian". For the most part, I witness that Republicans, particularly "Christian" Republicans, as belonging to these groups because it gives them something they couldn't find within themselves. Namely courage. In other words, these people find their courage in these hateful groups...they don't find courage within their own being.

  by MNW on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 05:58:33 AM PDT

  •  Excellent...and to add to your last thought...

    "In other words, these people find their courage in these hateful groups...they don't find courage within their own being."

    And, this frees them from having to LOOK for that courage within themselves, right?

    by Larry Bailey on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:08:18 AM PDT

    •  As someone above stated...

      ...Freud would have a field day!

      And, this frees them from having to LOOK for that courage within themselves, right?

      Isn't that the Republican way?

      Think about it.

      It doesn't end with courage. The list is very long. They find a "sense of morality" in their group, so they're free from having to LOOK for that sense of morality within themselves. Which, in my opinion, is why they reflect no sense of morality whatsoever. They make a lot of claims, they don't reflect much of what they claim in their being or their actions...and, to me, that's mainly because they've not found what they claim within themselves, they've found it by belonging to a group that makes such claims. Interestingly though, they're so sucked into the group think that they no longer witness that the others around them aren't reflecting what they claim...nor do they recognize that they, themselves, aren't reflecting what they claim.

      by MNW on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:19:14 AM PDT

•  Compensating...

  The Catholic Church asks itself the same question, no doubt.
  My hunch is that closeted gay men go to extreme lengths not so much to conceal their preferences as to compensate for their preferences; i.e., "If everything else I do in life is upright and righteous and patriotic and societally 'correct', I'll get a pass on who I have sex with.."

  by mudslide on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:03:47 AM PDT

•  Here's the deal.

  Much the way that wars and terrorism hysteria work to benefit the Republicans and all their profiteering campaign contributors...

  There is an interlocking mechanism that can't help exploiting BOTH the Christian right and gay Republicans.

  Everyone in the whole Republican cesspool is sniffing in the direction of money and power, and also covering up the fact that all they do is search for ways to enrich themselves.

  Because the Republicans lie to everyone -- to social conservatives now waking up to how they've been used, as well as gay Republicans, who participate in a co-dependency with the real users and fixers at the top -- the whole deal is a construction that works to demean every person in it, while enriching only the protected ones at the very top.

  That's why Dobson, Bush and Hastert are so tight now. The gays of course are already under the bus.

  by skiddlybop on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:03:48 AM PDT

  •  Throwing Them Under the Bus

    We're already hearing that "the gays are responsible for the Foley debacle," even from Ken Mehlman's organization, when he is one of the gays in question!  The mind boggles ...

    by bink on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:06:08 AM PDT

    •  Damn you're right -- it boggles the mind and...

      Then it really pisses off the mind.  The very idea that that f'ing Mehlman will trot out defending even his most bigoted, knowing that if his bigots had their way, he'd be spending the rest of his days in a mental institution somewhere --- which the more I think about that in the case of Mehlman...(kidding, of course).  Damn him to whatever he considers hell.

      by Larry Bailey on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:12:02 AM PDT

      •  The teachable moment here, folks...

        is the sudden reversal of roles.

        The Christian right voter has to see now that they have been used and shit on by the Republican Party.

        Gay Republicans have to see now that they have been used and shit on by the Republican Party.

        While the Republican elite have been parading their morals, and used one wedge issue after another while fucking everyone under the table, Democrats now bring in the kitchen-table issues that Republicans have failed at because all they do is run attack ads and win...and then have no ability to run the country.

        And the flip-flop of the mega-church pimps like Dobson to protect Hastert and Foley needs to be stapled to the entire false-Christian right. They are the enablers and their followers have to see that they are used.

        So my bottom line is:

        who REALLY thought they were better than who? The Republican elite and Christian mega-church owners USED their followers, while telling them liberals think they are stupid.

        But meanwhile, the Christian mega-church owners tell their followers that non-Christians are going to hell...much the way the KKK told poor whites that their enemies were the poor emancipated blacks.

        Which liberal or moderate Democrat can point out to the Christian evangelical voter that the Republican power structure considers them stupid, easily-led pods? And follow up by saying: You may not like every Democratic position...BUT YOU KNOW WHERE WE STAND?

        There's your best flip-flop and role reversal in 21st century politics.

        by skiddlybop on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:46:19 AM PDT

•  I think I'm going to add a poll to the diary.

  There are some ideas around this issue in the comments and I'd like see where people are netting out.  Now, let me just see if I can figure out how to edit a poll into an exisiting diary...

  by Larry Bailey on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:15:20 AM PDT

•  Self-loathing is hard to figure anyway.

  Yet people do it in so many various ways.

  David Brock was the right-wing journalist who wrote the slambook on Anita Hill. He claims everyone "knew" he was gay, but as long as he didn't make a point of it, no one cared, because he was delivering the goods.

  He looks back and sees how he would decide to bring a female friend to parties, instead of his lover, who "wasn't interested in politics." He would be troubled by the gay-bashing, but reassured when some people would tell him "it's not about you, it's about the bad gays." Or, "our base wouldn't understand, but we do."

  Lies, lies, lies, yet he was powerful and celebrated and the benefits of that outweighed his misgivings. After all, where would Andrew Sullivan be if he wasn't Republican? Clarence Thomas? If we ask, "Why be a token?" we ignore the benefits, to the token.

  Back in the early '80's, the Fortune 500 company I worked for had an all male softball team. The secretary to the President battled hard to get onto the team, and succeeded. When other women came to her to get on the team too, they were surprised when she refused to help them. She'd done it for herself, to get access to the higher-ups in the company, not as a principle. Her attitude was, "I've got mine."

  If other women got in, she would no longer be "special."

  And that's token thinking.

  by proudlattedrinker on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:18:09 AM PDT

•  I interviewed with the CIA

  Back 1984 ('85?).

  It wasn't a full-fleged interview, since as some of you may know, there are many steps, levels, interviews, tests, more tests, background checks and so forth that go on before hire.  No, this was just an on-campus, basic, "let's-talk-about-what-the-job-may-entail" interview.

  The recruiter told me that there were 3 things that would keep me out of the CIA ( [many] exceptions notwithstanding, but this was the general rule):  1  felony conviction(s);  2  drug use;  and,  3  homosexuality.

  He told me that the first "kiss of death" to a CIA job, a felony record, should be self-explanatory.  The second and third, drug use and homosexuality, were as much as anything due to the risk of blackmail.  Remember -- this was still during the days of the USSR (for you younger folks, that was a big, scary country that was much more dangerous than al Qaida and which threatened the United States, but whose threat didn't end up threatening our Constitution in the way al Qaida -- by and through George W. Bunnypants -- threatens said Constitution today).

  The recruiter said, basically, that if a Soviet agent knew that a U.S. analyst or operative or anyone connected with the CIA knew that such person was secretly gay or drug-addicted, then that could be used as leverage to turn that CIA employee towards espionage.  Thus the rule.  He said that, really, any deep, dark secret could be used and that we certainly did it (find weaknesses and use 'em).

  Times have changed and I suspect that being gay no longer keeps recruits from employment with the CIA.  Well, of course not -- but you know what I mean.

  What I do think is that this blackmail, and secrecy, and shame, and furtive trysting away from the prying eyes of Jerry Falwell and James Dobson is a source of much weirdness in the GOP that simply doesn't exist -- not on and institutional level -- in the Democratic Party.  The GOP is the Cold War CIA (but much less competent, and run by religious nuts).

  BenGoshi
  __________________________________________________

   

  by BenGoshi on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:22:48 AM PDT

•  taking money the old fashioned way

  In the wacko-right universe, the gay is known to be a crime.  Like in any crime organization, crooks can deal with fellow outlaws.  Knowing the dirt on associates keeps them in line.

  As to why any gays themselves like being around those who despise them, we'll need to call in some depth psychologists from Vienna on that.

  Greed could be part of it.  Dems make money, but some people don't like just making money; they prefer taking it.  That's the seductive call of the Repug Party.

  by deben on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:40:04 AM PDT

•  OK, tried 3 times to update the diary to...

  include a poll containing some of the great responses above, but Kos ain't working right.

  by Larry Bailey on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:54:19 AM PDT

  •  Cross Post?

    Can you cross post this diary to a Gay Republican site?  It would be interesting, to say the least, what "They" about whom we are talking would have to say.

    by JFinNe on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 07:09:23 AM PDT

    •  Good idea.

      by Larry Bailey on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 07:10:56 AM PDT

•  just do the math... say 5%

  skipping the argument around what % of people are gay, lets us assume 5% for the momen. 250 repugs x 20 staff each x 0.05 = lot of repressed, self hating, might as well be "Blacks for the Klan" or Jews for the Nazi's" types of folks.

  by DrSteveB on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 06:59:36 AM PDT

•  How Does One Edit A Diary?

  Was trying to add the poll with different commenters ideas, and tried now 4 times using the "Edit Diary" feature and, each time after completing, hit "Update" and poof, all edits disappeared.  

  by Larry Bailey on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 07:15:40 AM PDT

•  The Greedy Old Perverts

  probably think they can use a combo of ambition and blackmail to keep closeted gays on their side.

  Trouble is, if you're blackmailable, you're blackmailable by any one who chooses to.

  Speaking from personal experience, having a blackmail threat hanging over your head has got to be one of the worst feelings in the world.  

  There is only one solution: to open that damned closet door and come out.  It's said that homophobia would vanish in a flash, if all gays woke up green tomorrow.  I believe it and I think the holy "conceived without sin" heteros would start keeling over with heart attacks from the shock.

  by grada3784 on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 08:55:41 AM PDT