Bill Maher - helping to clean up the Republican Party

[Coda]

Looks like Bill is doing his part to help clean up the swamp. Finally a reason to watch his show:

RNC chairman a closet 'gay,' charges Bill Maher
HBO star plans to out other top homosexual Republicans
Posted: November 9, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com


RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman

Political pundit Bill Maher last night accused the head of the Republican National Committee of being a closet "gay."

Appearing on CNN's Larry King Live, Maher said it's an open secret in Washington that RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman is a homosexual and that he has "never denied" it.

Maher added that he plans to out at least three other closeted Republican officials – including "chiefs of staff" – on his HBO political show tomorrow night to show their hypocrisy in supporting traditional family values. He is host of "Real Time with Bill Maher."

King asked Maher if the charges have appeared "in print," and Maher responded affirmatively.

Rumors of Mehlman's sexual orientation first appeared last year in GQ magazine. The RNC denied the charge. "Ken Mehlman is not gay," said then-RNC official Steve Schmidt. However, when asked directly by "gay" publications, Mehlman has dodged the question.

Maher brought up the issue while addressing reasons Republicans lost Congress. He said the Mark Foley scandal hurt Republicans. Foley revealed his homosexuality last month after resigning his Florida seat over sexually graphic e-mails in which he allegedly solicited male pages.

Foley's former chief of staff Kirk Fordham was recently outed by the Los Angeles Times.

The FBI is investigating reports that another "gay" Republican lawmaker, Jim Kolbe of Arizona, engaged in improper behavior with male pages during a camping trip to the Grand Canyon.

Maher joked that GOP voters yesterday wanted to vote a straight Republican ticket but "nobody could find a straight Republican."

Last week, defrocked evangelical leader Ted Haggard confessed to having relations with a homosexual prostitute. Haggard met monthly with White House officials to discuss, among other things, a constitutional amendment banning "gay" marriage.

Mehlman also supports the amendment.

The White House took heat earlier in the administration for credentialing fake reporter Jeff Gannon of Talon News Service, a front for a group called GOPUSA. Gannon, whose real name is J.D. Guckert, turned out to be a homosexual porn star.

Some in Washington have charged the White House and Congress are run by a "Gay Republican Mafia."

Deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove's adopted father, who died in 2004, was a closet "gay" who left his mother when Rove was a senior in high school. But Rove still supports a ban on "gay" marriage. "The ideal is that marriage ought to be and should be a union of a man and a woman," he has said.

He and his wife, Darby, have one child.

[lynn]

Must be why he announced his resignation. I guess it helps if you make it look like you are falling on your sword.

[patricia]

The problem is that when one of these people goes, their protoges replace them. The now infamous "Harold, call me" was written by a Karl Rove associate.
It's like trying to destroy a big blob of mercury by hitting it with a hammer.
There seems to be an endless supply of them.

[lynn]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/1...h_n_33701.html

Since CNN took it down, here is the link

[rollhead]

what's the point here? to stop Republican hypocrisy?

That's never happen as long as the "Party of Greed" is considered the "Party of Values."

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by rollhead

what's the point here?

To demonize gays?

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

To demonize gays?

Well said.

[Chris D]

Pretty low class.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Chris D

Pretty low class.

I guess if he had done it before the election you could have written it off for obvious reasons, but this just seems a bit mean-spirited, IMO.

[Sandi22]

What we find amazing is the GOP. That this is the party who demonizes gays and runs the fear of them into ground.

It's like burning the flag, prayer in school, the pledge of allegiance, and any other take the focus off the real issues, they've used. They were, and are, the biggest bunch of hypocrites to come down the pike in a long time.

FEAR, FEAR, FEAR. They've used and abused it forever it seems, and now it shows just how phony these issues are. We're seeing who did what to get elected, to pass bills, to ignore our laws and constitiution. It's not gay bashing by us, it's calling a spade a spade. It's they, the GOP who've worked up a frenzy of gay bashing when there are those in high positions in the GOP who themselves are gay. Shows their intent. That is just terrible. They've made life harder for gays all around the country and that's what we're railing against. Their own gay bashing, and their own hypocrisy that's what we can't stand to see.

[Brian Olewnick]

So what happened? Can I assume HBO brought pressure to bear on Maher? Because he didn't mention Mehlman's name last night or even refer to him indirectly, while he did several times bring up Haggerd and the general hypocrisy involved in this area.

btw, add Rainn Wilson to the long list of "liberal" actors who, while nice enough people apparently, don't have a clue once you get past slogans. After the interview with Rep. Flake (interesting fella), Wilson remarked something on the order of, "Wow, I'd never heard of earmarking before."

[stonemonkts]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

I guess if he had done it before the election you could have written it off for obvious reasons, but this just seems a bit mean-spirited, IMO.

I think "outing" anyone should be a crime (although I think approaching people and bugging them about anything should be a crime, so wtfdik). It is despicable, no matter who the person being outed is.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by stonemonkts

I think "outing" anyone should be a crime (although I think approaching people and bugging them about anything should be a crime, so wtfdik). It is despicable, no matter who the person being outed is.

Only with regard to sexuality? I'm curious where (how) you'd draw the line insofar as publicly discussing anyone's personal attributes.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by stonemonkts

I think "outing" anyone should be a crime (although I think approaching people and bugging them about anything should be a crime, so wtfdik). It is despicable, no matter who the person being outed is.

I'm not in favor of laws requiring people to be decent human beings but I agree with the sentiment that what Maher did was indecent.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

After the interview with Rep. Flake (interesting fella), Wilson remarked something on the order of, "Wow, I'd never heard of earmarking before."

Tell me more about the Flake segment He's probably one of a handful of congressmen who can accurately call himself libertarian.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Tell me more about the Flake segment He's probably one of a handful of congressmen who can accurately call himself libertarian.

He actually used the term with regard to Arizonans rejecting the "marriage=man/woman" ballot initiative (the only state out of 7 or 8 to do so, I think). Seemed likeable, relaxed and funny enough. Spent most of the segment on earmarks, just as critical of Republicans as Democrats. I imagine he's none too popular in Congress.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

I'm not in favor of laws requiring people to be decent human beings but I agree with the sentiment that what Maher did was indecent.

You know, I'm not either. But how do you resolve that with ones right to privacy?

It's one thing to say that you are against laws to regulate peoples behavior, which I do agree with you about in general, but it's something else when it comes to "outing" someone. Especially when you consider that said outing could be much more than just humiliating to that person. In some instances it could be downright disastrous and dangerous depending on what type of community that person finds themselves in.

And that is where I think things get a little more problematic than just saying that you don't want to legislate against behavior.

[stonemonkts]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Only with regard to sexuality? I'm curious where (how) you'd draw the line insofar as publicly discussing anyone's personal attributes.

I suppose I can think up an entire set of behaviors which I think people should leave alone (publicly), or face slander? charges (maybe a broadening of what constitutes slander).

But at the moment I think defining someone's sexual preferences without their consent is a good start.

[Brian Olewnick]

Yeah, it's another area where it's tough to draw the line, legally. I agree that in many, perhaps most cases, it's not what I would think as the "decent" thing to do. But say, for example, you had an elected official (ie, someone with the power legally enforce certain things) who had based much of his platform on a "Homosexuality is evil" point of view and had enacted or sought to enact laws that would criminalize such behavior to some degree. Outside of this role, he's a devoted husband, father, etc. You discover he's, in fact, gay. Should you not reveal this? Yes, it might well destroy his personal life but (here's where a value judgment comes in, one I'd share in this example) he's acting to destroy the private lives of thousands of other people. By outing him, you're not necessarily contributing an argument against his positions but you are certainly making public his hypocrisy, something that your average voter might well take into account in the next election. ie, you could be helping to save the lives (or, at least, qualities of life) of thousands of people.

Now, Mehlman didn't fit into these criteria, exactly. Unelected, salary not paid via tax dollars (I assume his came from Republican contributors), not directly responsible for law-making. otoh, he lent his brains and support to trying to ensure that some politicians who advocated anti-gay positions were elected or re-elected. Tough call, imho. Part of me says, if Mehlman didn't want this side of his life revealed (assuming it's true), he shouldn't have put himself into such a position of power where its revelation would, when discovered, likely come into play.

[stonemonkts]

But in the case of the elected official, one would assume he is carrying out, to a certain extent, the will or mandate of the people who voted him in. So technically speaking, his or her sexual preferences should be irrelevant.

Just because they are hypocritical doesn't negate what they say or do as elected officials, no matter how odious the stench.

I am a big believer in right to privacy, enough so that I would defend the gay-bashing jerk from others' publicly disclosing sexual conduct (unless it was in violation of a workplace rule, or other law).

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by stonemonkts

But in the case of the elected official, one would assume he is carrying out, to a certain extent, the will or mandate of the people who voted him in. So technically speaking, his or her sexual preferences should be irrelevant.

Should be, but we tend to invest a lot (too much?) in the purported honesty of these folk. If a conservative Republican said, "Now, I'm gay, but I think there should be all these restrictive laws on gays....", do you think it's likely hel'll be re-elected? He should be, by your standards, but I doubt you'll wager much on it.

Like I said, I think it's a tough call often. I tend to default to having the truth out there, though, especially to the extent that it's related to an issue under debate. I mean, I don't care how much a guy masturbates until his party starts campaigning to limit masturbation.

Sorry, too much Borat still in my system......

[Gordon B]

If a closeted gay person opposes same-sex marriage is he by definition hypocritical?

I don't think so.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

Like I said, I think it's a tough call often. I tend to default to having the truth out there, though, especially to the extent that it's related to an issue under debate.

Does that mean you might support the position that closeted Republican operatives deserve outing but closeted Democrat operatives do not?

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

If a closeted gay person opposes same-sex marriage is he by definition hypocritical?

I don't think so.

No, with regard to marriage, in and of itself, I can easily imagine a gay person thinking it's still "wrong" though if he also wants to deny the various tax/medical benefits from gays, that might be different. I'm thinking more of those who castigate homosexuality as a sin, etc. I don't know that Mehlman ever dis so (I assume not) but, again, part of his job is to encourage support for some who do, so it gets tricky. I take it, for instance, that he doesn't counsel Republicans against dealing with the Falwells of the world.

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Does that mean you might support the position that closeted Republican operatives deserve outing but closeted Democrat operatives do not?

Party designation wouldn't matter. If Heath Shuler is gay and supports anti-gay legislation, he'd certainly be a fair target. I think I have tape of him patting other guys' backsides.

[crawjo]

I've always felt that Maher is an idiot. His political commentaries strike me as hackneyed and lame. I find it odd that people often lump him in the same category as Stewart or Colbert. The latter two are far more intelligent and also much funnier.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

I take it, for instance, that he doesn't counsel Republicans against dealing with the Falwells of the world.



Party designation wouldn't matter. If Heath Shuler is gay and supports anti-gay legislation, he'd certainly be a fair target. I think I have tape of him patting other guys' backsides.

Yeah but Howard Dean and Ken Mehlman could have identical positions but if one counsels Democrats and the other Republicans, you aren't going to worry about the Democrat advising a candidate not to go after Falwell.

The thing about Mehlman is that he's stepping down; he won't be counseling anybody so what is the case for outing him other than to hurt him?

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by crawjo

I've always felt that Maher is an idiot. His political commentaries strike me as hackneyed and lame. I find it odd that people often lump him in the same category as Stewart or Colbert. The latter two are far more intelligent and also much funnier.

I think you are right about that.

[Ron Thorne]

Bill Maher had better hope that his closet is skeleton-free.

I don't think that there's any comparison between Maher and Stewart or Colbert, either. He couldn't carry their dirty drawers.

[Scott Dolan]

I think Maher is much more intelligent than Stewart, and ESPECIALLY Colbert. I hardly agree with his politics at all, but will acknowledge that he does at least know hiw shit.

[Pablo Marmol]

Originally Posted by crawjo

I've always felt that Maher is an idiot. His political commentaries strike me as hackneyed and lame. I find it odd that people often lump him in the same category as Stewart or Colbert. The latter two are far more intelligent and also much funnier.

Agreed.

Edit: Colbert definitely needs to work on his timing, but neither he or Stewart comes across as sanctimonious - as Maher does.