Sex scandal gets an 'H' and a 'RC'

Comments

1. Sean on Dec 4, 2007 6:11:38 PM:

   Chris bashing gay people again. Does it ever end? Your an apologist for anyone that supports open borders. Will you shut up about this case if you find out that he supports open borders?

   Knowing the anti-gay bigotry that exists in law enforcement I'm going to wait to pass judgement. There is a vile attitude in this country that once a gay person is alleged to have done something he or she is automatically guilty.

   I don't want gay blogs to cover this story. The mainstream media will do plenty of that. Remember a couple days ago when a mentally ill STRAIGHT male held hostage four Hillary Clinton staffers? The media dropped that story as his past rape allegations against girls came to light. What if the hostage taker was gay? Would the media drop the story as rape allegations came to light? You bet they wouldn't. There would be wall to wall coverage about how gay people are prone to hostage taking and raping youths. I am sick of hearing how evil gay people are and how our lives revolve around sex.

1. notaboutgay on Dec 4, 2007 6:23:39 PM:

   This isn't about gay people or sexual orientation. It's about allegations of perverted, illegal, predatory behavior. If the story involved a straight male staffer for a progressive organization who was targeting underage girls, I would hope that the organization would release all relevant information about the staffer. Bad people are both gay and straight, remember?

1. Double T on Dec 4, 2007 7:00:26 PM:

   Chris,
   You are the always the one screaming when the media talks about gays and then brings in some strange sex practice. e.g. wanting sex in a public toilet.

   But here you go,doing the same thing you condemn.

   And please, dragging HRC into this. What the HELL is the point of that?? He didn't work there when this happened. How far back do you go into someone's life. Just far enough to launch an attack on someone you have a grudge with?

   This is really really petty journalism.

1. Kevin on Dec 4, 2007 8:17:18 PM:

   TT:

   You couldn't have described this entire race to the bottom starting with Mark Foley better. Lane Hudson and company started it, and now it's coming full circle. Did anyone really think it wouldn't??

   Sean:

   When people start a race to the bottom, and it becomes a frenzy, it's pretty naive to think they can then decide where the finish line is.

   I'm not defending ANYONE who is a hypocrite, a criminal, a misdemeanorer, an adulterer or any other kind of sinner -- D, R or whatever. People who do wrong will always have some price to pay.

   But this is what was wrought when gay bloggers and gay activists started creeping around bathrooms and chat rooms for political reasons. This is what they've wrought, and given the historic pettiness of Washington, of politics, and of gays themselves (of all political stripes) - trust me, it ain't over by a longshot.

   How in hell can you all be surprised now? Get a clue.

1. Double T on Dec 5, 2007 1:55:52 AM:

   Kev, I thought Chris was above racing to the bottom of the barrel.

   And why drag HRC's good name into all of this. That was totally uncalled for.

   But I have to agree with you, these blogs are headed straight into the sewer(your words, not mine)

1. Kevin on Dec 5, 2007 5:01:40 AM:

   Your time and words would have been better spent, dear Tea, on Mike Rogers' site a long time ago. Your tears today on this site on the same exact subject, long after the bomb went off, are particularly crocodilic.

   It's like Bush having the gall to be shocked -- SHOCKED -- that the Iraqis are killing American soldiers even today. Heavens! They were supposed to be grateful!

   None of us should be shocked that somebody in DC ratted out Mike McHaney's behavior to the FBI, or that the cascade of personal destruction is going to continue unabated among gay people on both sides of the aisle. Let's not forget who, metaphorically, invaded Iraq and started everything.

   We could have solved the issue of the Federal Marriage Act, as well as the need to punish the GOP in the 2006 Congressional elections for its myriad of failures and offenses, without the pogrom that has been going on. But alas, the decision was made and now it can't be undone.

   I just can't believe you people are surprised. I can't figure out who is more of a joke: McHaney, Craig, the various spotlight-seeking hookers that keep popping up, the cops lurking around in bathrooms, or the bloggers and their silly anonymous comment posting sycophants (one and the same?) who have the nerve to complain about how dirty it's all getting.

   The hypocrisy is *everywhere* and it's time for some humility. But why spoil the 'fun', right? *shakes head*

1. Citizen Crain on Dec 5, 2007 9:36:12 AM:

   Notaboutgay: It IS a story about a gay person who worked for a gay rights gropu accused of horrible behavior of the type that to this day unfairly stains the reputation of gay men worldwide. He works for a U.S. senator at a time when the blogosphere, Mike Rogers in particular, have publicized the consensual and legal private sexual behavior of lowly staffers based on nothing but the politics of their bosses.

   Double T: I didn't "scream" when the media covered Larry Craig's arrest. I acknowledged from the get-go that an arrest, much less a guilty plea, are newsworthy. I criticized the media's trolling of public restrooms months BEFORE there was any arrest based nothing more than the uncorroborated allegations of a single blogger.

   I raised questions about the legality of Craig's arrest because the facts suggested he had committed no crime. Later, many other legal experts reached the same conclusion. The facts that we know about McHaney's arrest do not raise the same questions, although of course he is innocent until proven guilty. I did note that he was fired -- not suspended -- by Cantwell before he even entered a plea, much less was convicted.

   As for the HRC angle, it's newsworthy -- as is any part of this guy's past. If he had been an aide at the Family Research Council, you don't think that would have been covered? In addition, there are important details still unknown about his employment at HRC, the reason he left, and what sort of reference he got from HRC before going to Cantwell's staff.

   The short story I wrote was simply peeling away the first layer of the onion; it may well be that peeling away additional layers will bring forth even more newsworthy info.

1. Double T on Dec 5, 2007 12:16:47 PM:

   Chris,
   You and I may have different opinions for what is NEWSWORTHY.

   Larry Craig served in public office for nearly 30 years bashing gay at each and every opportunity.
   Then, HOLD the PHONE, we find out he's GAY.

   McHaney, is a nobody who answers the phones in the District of Columbia. He does not make policy. He does not have influence.

   Now, if he worked on a subcommtt. for internet predator. But he didn't.

   Ok, so he answered the phone at HRC, ahhhh, so what? Mentioning them implies that HRC has the same dirt on their hands.
   Which they DO NOT.

   The only thing that really shocked me was his age. I'm guilty of assuming this behavior is always older closeted men.

1. Kevin on Dec 5, 2007 1:36:42 PM:

   A scheduler is not influential in a Senate office, or in the office of the executive director of HRC? Honey, you're either dumb or just playing one on TV...

   The intense almost campaign from some people to scream about "low-level" or "insignificant" (or maybe soon he'll just be "invisible") makes me think the ladies doth protest too much. I saw gay lefty bloggers hem and haw about the college-aged son of an ex- Bush administration official being arrested for beating up a gay person and having that somehow linked to politics. That was pretty laughable.

   But a meaningless side debate over whether Mike McHaney was Vice President of the World or the 3rd assistant piss-bucket carrier has nothing to do with the real story here. Chris has really put his finger on that, and I think he's done so (along with Matt and Joe) admirably.

1. Red Seven on Dec 5, 2007 7:48:05 PM:

   This is SO not a story. This guy was not a Senator; he kept a Senator's schedule - so what?! Before that, he kept Joe Solmonese's schedule. AND??!!

   Senator Cantwell took decisive action and released an appropriately strong statement. HRC doesn't need to do anything at this point. Crimifuckinitely, can we see some REAL stories to comment on??

1. Kevin on Dec 5, 2007 8:38:14 PM:

   Methinks the ladies doth continue to conspicuously protest too much.

1. Double T on Dec 5, 2007 9:54:44 PM:

   Kev,

   .....who have the nerve to complain about how dirty it's all getting.....

   You said Gay Bloggers are going in the sewer.

   I merely agreed.
   

1. Jack Jett on Dec 6, 2007 2:53:44 PM:

   It is always fun to check out Non-Citizen Crane blog to make certain that big bro Kev is kicking some verbal ass to anyone who dares to disagree with Sir Crain.

   If Mike McHaney was fucking around with a 13 year old, he needs to punished, and most certainly will be.
   

1. Double T on Dec 6, 2007 3:13:22 PM:

   Jack,
   Thanks for checking in.
   This room always needs a dose of sanity.

   Chris wasn't defending the buggering of 13 year olds.
   He was "hypothetically" wondering if its fair to blame the Senator and a gay civil rights group for employing this guy. Whether or not some of the “dirt” should rub off on them?
   I got a little angry about how he worded some of it and why he dragged the good name of America’s premier gay organization thru the mud.

   Kevin is responding by calling anyone who disagrees with Chris, a woman.
   Per usual, I’m totally confused as to how to respond to the special K.
   

1. Citizen Crain on Dec 6, 2007 5:16:26 PM:

   At the risk of repeating myself... My larger point about this sex scandal is that you can't dismiss this whole thing as the misdoings of a low-level staffer unless you'd be willing to do the same if he worked for Trent Lott or some other anti-gay pol. You can't have it both ways. Either the sins of the staffer are visited on the boss, or they aren't.

   I'm certainly not trying to have it both ways in the other direction, arguing it IS a big deal if he works for a pro-gay pol but it WOULDN'T be if he worked for an anti-gay pol.

1. Double T on Dec 6, 2007 5:35:43 PM:

   I'd need to see an example of what you're talking about.

   Because I simply don't see that hypocrisy in real life. I think your train jump the track on it’s way to “What-ifs-ville”.

   Sen Cantwell didn’t get a “pass”.

   I think you’re seeing problems were problems don’t exist.
   Just my view.
   

1. Jack Jett on Dec 6, 2007 6:32:47 PM:

   If you are trying to create a hyporcritical hypothetical out of this, you have succeeded.

   Of course, if this dude worked for Trent Lott, this would be a bigger deal. You see, we here in America don't like Trent Lott. We think he is a big a..hole. We enjoy watching his cookie crumble, because he has taken ours away.

   There is not shortage of right wing, evangelical hypocrisy, you don't need to sit around creating hypotheticals.

   Now, why don't you address the fact that as you and your co horts decided it best we kick our transgender friends to the curb, now we have all been kicked to the curb.

   Should we ask them back in the fold and ask them to donate their time and money to our/their/your cause?

   Now......get on the phone and call your big blogger brother and tell him someone is disagreeing with you so he can come online and kick my cyber ass.

1. Monster Beats Sale on Nov 26, 2011 2:10:53 AM:

   with you so he can come online and kick my cyber ass.