Decision ‘08

The Democratic Attack Machine Gears Up

My first Instalanche ever (over 7,000 visitors when my previous high had been in the the dozens) was for a post called Homophobia Among the Progressives. My point, if it got it across correctly, is that gay rights, women’s rights, the rights of the accused, all of these things go out the window if the current subject is a Republican. This is not true for all Democrats, but it certainly seems to hold for the activists. Tom Maguire wonders if the lefty bloggers will ignore the rumors that David Dreier, elevated by the temporary stepping aside of Tom DeLay as Majority Leader per GOP congressional rules, is gay.

Our good friend needn’t concern himself with wondering whether the progressives have suddenly discovered principles. Kevin Drum, one of the more reasonable liberal bloggers, is already disgusted by the spectacle:

Is every single liberal blog in the world planning to post a slobbery, wink-wink-nudge-nudge mention that David Dreier is rumored to be gay? Pardon me while I throw up.

And spare me the drivel about the “principled” case for outing gay politicians. I’m not buying, and there’s nothing principled going on here in any case. It’s just childish nonsense that perpetuates the notion that there’s somethng[sic] sordid about being gay. Conservatives were wrong to conduct a decade long witch hunt against Bill Clinton’s sex life, and liberals are wrong to join in when the shoe is on the other foot.

Right sentiment, wrong reason…but that’s a story for another time…it’s times like this that even a partisan like me is disgusted by politics…

15 Responses to “The Democratic Attack Machine Gears Up”

1 utron Says:
September 28th, 2005 at 4:54 pm
More often than not I disagree with Drum, but credit where credit is due: he’s dead right on this one (wrong about Clinton, though, for reasons that would be tedious to recount).

The comments on his post are worth reading–or skimming, anyway. They give a fairly representative look at the rationalizations that many on the left are going to give for grabbing this story and running with it. I’m afraid we’re going to hear much, much more about David Dreier, the Self-Loathing Homosexual, in the days ahead.
2 peter Says:
September 28th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
The headline doesn’t match the post: as of yet, there is no activity by the “Democratic attack machine.” Only a blogger who speculates on what might happen – let’s see what actually transpires. This reminds me of all of the predictions that the Roberts confirmation would be a War of the Worlds, or Bork redux. What happened there, of course, were a lot of tough questions (as there should be), but his nomination will sail by with a healthy dollop of Democratic votes. I may be proven wrong, but I think the Democrats are grown up enough to ignore rumors of his sexuality (although I would love to see Rick Santorum ask him if he participates in “man on dog” sex…).

Regarding DeLay’s prosecution: let’s see what happens there too. DeLay, of course, is entitled to the presumption of innocence. I would extend the same courtesy to the prosecutor – regardless of whether or not he is a “partisan hack” (and as yet he doesn’t seem so – seems like he prosecutes lots of people, Democrat and Republican), let’s see what his case is before pre-judging it as a political vendetta. Mario Cuomo used to say that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwhich.” If there is no substance to the indictment, then shame on Earle. If, however, there is a strong case to be made, then he deserves a lot of credit for taking on someone as ruthless and powerful as Tom DeLay. It is too soon for any of us to know…
3 megapotamus Says:
September 28th, 2005 at 5:24 pm
peter, a very sensible stance on DeLay. I am pretty certain the indictment will prove insubstantial but that’s for the courts. Let’s not pre-judge as we so rightly objected to Leahy’s demands that Roberts do so. On Dreier, I think the above post properly framed. If the Dems forebear, well, our friend Mark will have a bit of egg on his face and I am sure there are dozens of folks out there who will tell him so and we all will be more circumspect in such matters in the future. Given my experience, I doubt that is going to happen and if it does play out as Mark foresees then his credibility gains at the expense of the benefit-of-the-doubters. Like Cheney’s daughter, they will not be able to see what they look like to outside observers in their denunciations and the insipid slur that Republicans have some sort of perpetual malice in their hearts for the gay world will take another well deserved and much needed whittling.
4 peter Says:
September 28th, 2005 at 6:01 pm
I don’t think that the Republicans have a deep-seated animosity to gays – although I recall reading an article some time ago regarding how the Log Cabin Republicans felt marginalized, which resulted in defections from their leadership. However, I can understand why this perception exists. Rick Santorum generated a lot of press with the “man on dog” interview, but I don’t recall any leading Republicans distancing themselves from his remarks. There is a lot of campaign innuendo regarding the manliness of Democrats (e.g., I always thought that calling Kerry “French looking” was a code word for being effete and/or gay). However, the main cause of this perception is the GOP’s vehement opposition to gay marriage. While I don’t equate being against gay marriage with being anti-gay, it seems similar to those who used “states’ rights” as a fig leaf covering racist sentiments – you can be for states rights without being anti-black, but too often it was a politically expedient way to gain racist votes without seeming racist yourself. As a straight guy with a wife and daughter, I’m puzzled how two gays getting married threatens my marriage, or anyone else’s. I understand how people could feel differently – but the prominence given to this issue in the 2004 campaign makes me wonder…
5 too many steves Says:
September 28th, 2005 at 6:06 pm
I don’t care if Dreier’s gay, don’t understand why anyone would and don’t think anyone should, care, that is.

As for Delay, let me share with you some of today’s comments from the lady from California:

“The criminal indictment of Majority Leader Tom DeLay is the latest example that Republicans in Congress are plagued by a culture of corruption at the expense of the American people,” House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement.
6 Mark Says:
September 28th, 2005 at 6:58 pm
peter, two quick points: (1) Drum gave examples, and his comments give plenty more, that the headline is indeed appropriate. However, I was clearer in the post itself that I was talking about the activists, and most Democratic bloggers are, indeed, progressive activists. The rank-and-file Democrats could care less about Dreier’s sexuality.

(2) I love the line from Cuomo - it now has a permanent spot in my heart…
7 AcademicElephant Says:
September 28th, 2005 at 7:04 pm
Dreier’s homosexuality is the worst kept secret in Washington–I don’t think it is a particular secret. It’s just not how he defines himself. What I don’t understand is why a person can’t be gay and disagree with the contemporary Gay Rights movement. It’s like saying that if you’re black you have to agree with affirmative action or if you’re a woman you have to adhere to Feminist ideology–or you’re not black or a woman. To my mind, this is what creates stereotypes.

Where is Charlie Rangel, Dreier’s cross-talk other half, on this?

Re. Delay: I’m no huge fan, but it doesn’t seem to me that he’s actually…guilty of anything. And I wonder how many red-state Dems with zealous DAs in their hometowns are nervously calling their lawyers tonight. Might the left be burning down its own house, yet again?
8 peter Says:
September 28th, 2005 at 7:33 pm
I completely agree: a gay person should not be bound to the gay rights movement or any other ideology – we are all free to choose whatever ideology we want (or no ideology at all). Just because you’re gay, you don’t have to be Barney Frank. Similarly, I think it was wrong to criticize Clarence Thomas for opposing affirmative action because he is a black man. What I do find dissonant, however, was when a high-ranking Republican who had been instrumental in limiting gay rights got married last fall to another man. I forget the details – I saw the announcement in the New York Times wedding section (which my wife refers to as the “women’s sports section”) – but I remember the outcry which followed (not least of which because this person was well closeted – apparently the wedding announcement in the Times was a surprise and an embarrassment to him). I suppose it is possible to be gay and to actively oppose gay rights, but you have to wonder…

Regarding DeLay: he may well be innocent, and there can certainly be smoke without fire. The charges against Rostenkowki seemed to me to be trumped up, and in any event too insignificant to have such devastating results for him. However, there are certainly enough appearances of impropriety and/or illegality that he is probably toast regardless of the truth or falsity of the charges. Similarly, Frist’s aspirations are probably dead as well – his actions may or may not have been violations of securities laws, but they appear similar enough to Martha Stewart that I doubt that the public will be inclined to make the distinction. Politics, like life, just ain’t fair.

An off-topic observation: shame on the Democrats for not disavowing Charlie Rangel’s equation of George Bush will Bull Connors. I am no fan of Bush, but I don’t think he is racist and he is certainly no Bull Connors…
9 Mark Says:
September 28th, 2005 at 8:03 pm
Just for the record, I’m not a big Delay fan, either; but nothing gets me solidly behind someone quicker than shennanigans of the sort Earle is pulling…Delay is not going to be convicted…even if true, the charge is well-night impossible to prove.

peter, you reminded me of some unfinished business…some Weekly business, if you get my drift…if not, you’ll know what I mean very soon…
10 peter Says:
September 28th, 2005 at 8:23 pm
OK, I’m clueless - Weekly Standard? Weekly Krugman column? TW3 (that was the week that was)?

Ya got me…
11 AcademicElephant Says:
September 28th, 2005 at 9:37 pm
I’m with you, Mark–interesting if this winds up building support for Delay.

Rangel is going for the annual title, not just the weekly one. Don’t forget the whole Cheney-is-a-sick-animal business from a couple of weeks ago when writing it up.
12 Mark Says:
September 28th, 2005 at 9:46 pm
Oops - I wrote it up before I saw your comment, AE; oh, well, I suspect we’ll have reason to pick on Mr. Rangel again…
13 Knemon Says:
September 29th, 2005 at 1:06 am
“There is a lot of campaign innuendo regarding the manliness of Democrats (e.g., I always thought that calling Kerry “French looking” was a code word for being effete and/or gay).”

I’ve never bought this. Sometimes fuggedaboudit just means, you know, fuggedaboudit. “French-looking” was a handy catchall encompassing his personal hauteur and his tranzi politics … Kerry is obviously a man’s man, a gigolo of sorts. No one in their right minds thinks he’s gay.

Effete? That’s in the eye of the beholder. Precious, but not effete. If Kerry’s effite, so’s Bush 41. (Whole lotta similarities there, to be honest - as only Thomas Friedman, poor thing, pointed out).
14 AcademicElephant Says:
September 29th, 2005 at 6:27 am
I guess the moral of the story is that he’s a Jackass for all Seasons.
15 Clint Says:
September 29th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
Peter-

Summary: “a high-ranking Republican who had been instrumental in limiting gay rights got married last fall to another man” — a bit misleading, IIRC.

“I forget the details”

Details (off the top of my head): “high-ranking Republican” means the former campaign manager for a U.S. Congressman.

“had been instrumental in limiting gay rights” means the U.S. Congressman he helped elect came out in favor of a state amendment banning same-sex marriage.

I could be slightly misremembering (I can’t even remember what season this was, to try and dig up references… it’s possible the Congressman voted for the FMA, for example) but my reaction at the time was a shrug.