Condoleezza Rice: Closeted or just interested in real estate?

...honey, I won't call you darlin'

"Great minds think alike. They just don't always reach the same conclusion" - stolen from the Little Dutch Girl

Typically, I wouldn't jump into the fray on this, but you ignored some very salient points and since I'm an avid student of politics I feel obliged to correct you.

The argument isn't that Democrats are above reproach--they clearly aren't. The lapses in ethical judgment in politics and lavish promises on the campaign trail are, indeed, a bipartisan pursuit. That said, there's a difference, worthy of distinction, between a lapse in ethical judgment and a willful ignorance of your own behavior, while seeking to regulate others doing the same thing...which Republicans seem to have a greater propensity to do (see Bill Bennett and gambling).

While I'm loathe to defend Jim McGreevey in any way...homeland security was not a central piece of his gubernatorial campaign. It may have seemed that way because of the election's proximity to 9/11, but it hadn't been a central topic until that point. McGreevey's election in itself was actually contrary to the prevailing winds of that time, since Dubya and outgoing governor, Christine Todd Whitman, sought to convince Jersey residents that, after losing 700 NJ residents in the terrorist attacks, Republicans were the best qualified to lead on Homeland Security. Once he was governor, McGreevey, because his state was still recovering from its 9/11 loss, made a substantial contribution to improving New Jersey's Homeland Security infrastructure. He probably did as much as any governor, outside Pataki, to make the case to the federal government to appropriate more money to state government. While his appointment of Golan Cipel was a colossal mistake, it's erroneous to suggest that McGreevey failed on the HS issue entirely.

The scandals of the McGreevey administration give folks plenty of reasons to dislike him (FYI: the central theme to his campaign was that he'd clean up Trenton and he certainly did not do that), he wasn't a hypocrite on LGBT issues. In fact, while securely cloistered in his self-imposed closet, he was lobbying tirelessly for (and eventually secured) stronger domestic partnerships. Contrast that Sen. Craig and Rep. Foley, who were promoting anti-gay legislation while fraternizing with other men, which is what zee was saying.

Moreover, your discussion of Reps. Frank and Studds is incomplete (you cited their names incorrectly).

Barney Frank reported the actions of his live-in lover, Steve Gobie, to the House Ethics Committee himself--it's not like he got caught up in a huge scandal. That ethics committee, a bipartisan group with a Republican majority at the time, found no evidence that Frank had known of or been involved in Gobie's illegal activity. For his involvement with Gobie, though, Frank was reprimanded on the House floor. Make a note of that Democrats are reprimanded on the floor of the House for his involvement with an escort...meanwhile, David Vitter (R-LA) gets caught with a prostitute (not by his own admission either, mind you, but after being outted by Hustler magazine) and what do we hear from Republicans? Crickets.

Studds was involved in a consensual relationship with a legal adult, who as you noted was his subordinate. You neglected to mention that Studds wasn't alone in the page scandal that year. Rep. Daniel Crane, a married Republican from Illinois, had multiple encounters with a female page. Oh...and there's that other big difference between Studds and Craig and Foley...Studds was censured (a move supported by Democrats, by the way). What punishment did Craig and Foley get? Rehab, I think.

What's more important, in the context of this conversation, though is that both Frank and Studds have (had) strong records on LGBT issues. Today, in fact, Frank's office is reporting that his legislation approving a federal ban on job discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender workers is likely to win House approval in the coming weeks.

Since you seem to ignore the context in which this all arose, I’ll repeat:  I have a problem with closeted politicians who support anti-gay legislation.  And yes, the majority of them seem to be Republicans.  How do I know this, you asked?  Simple – I read the news and stay apprised of current events. 

Btw, neither party has a monopoly on hypocrisy – in fact, I’d argue ALL politicians are hypocrites.  For various reasons however (not the least of which are religious or “faith-based”), the kind of closeted hypocrisy to which we’ve referred here is decidedly the purview of Republicans/conservatives. 

And I’m amused but not at all surprised that you picked the oldest, most predictable, and not at all analogous examples of Studds and Frank.  Your examples – heh - are 25 and 17 yrs old, respectively.  Also, neither man supported anti-gay legislation while in office (a major difference between them and their closet case conservative counterparts). 

So, Gerry Studds – 1983 and Barney Frank – 1990.   Next time I’ll ask you for more recent examples – like, from this century (or hell, the past 5 yrs).  Btw, as far as I know, no charges were ever filed against Frank and the Ethics Committee found no wrongdoing on his part. 

McGreevy, I won’t defend.  Mostly because he turned out to be an even bigger scumbag once he left office (but again, not applicable here.  It’s one thing to be a closeted politician – it’s another thing to be closeted AND support anti-gay legislation or a platform thereof). 

Your examples don’t really have much to do with the discussion at hand, so here’s a partial list of recent Republicans/conservatives who can no longer keep their predilections under wraps.  And these are all recent examples, from the past 12 months: 

Larry Craig

Mark Foley

Bob Allen

Glenn Murphy Jr.

Ted Haggard – not a politician, but met regularly with GeeDub, was a favorite of the politically powerful religious right, and preached hellfire/ damnation from the pulpit.  MONDO hypocrite.

David Vitter – not gay (as far as I know), just likes to wear diapers while paying hookers for sex.  But I hear he’s a real stand-up Christian, a “family values” kinda guy.

The Giuliani aide arrested a few wks ago (forgot his name)

Ralph Gonzalez from FL, found dead a few wks ago (and his associated gayness which has beaten a big, gay path to Rep Tom Feeney). 

Oh, really, I could keep going... and those are just off the top of my head. So as far as I’m concerned, politicians (and I’ll add religious figures) who support anti-gay laws but who like to secretly fuck other men in the ass, deserve to be pulled kicking and screaming from the closet.    

I do agree with you, though, that we’ll never agree on much.  That you don’t want to debate me is fine, but that won’t stop me from commenting on something you’ve written if I think you’re completely off-base.  You, of course, are free to ignore my posts.

Pecola - I just saw your post.   Thanks for weighing in and helping clarify what this discussion’s about.

I have no idea what either post means.  Is the “wow” ‘cause you’re impressed with my keen acumen, amazing power of deduction, and deft turn of phrase? 

No matter.   You wanted my attention, ‘sunnyday’, you got it.   So tell me, what do you make of this current…. slew, this deluge, this rash of diaper-wearin’, bathroom cruisin’, pole puffin’ closet cases that comprise the Republican party?    You remember the Republicans - the folks who brought us good old-fashioned family values?