News Blog Comments
Nearly a million dollars dumped into this one house campaign. Damn.
You do realize what they're trying to do right? They're trying to discourage this push by the Dem grassroots to try and take them as much out of play for 2006.
Any idea how much energy will be injected by Hackett coming close in such a R-dominated district? And if he wins...
Break out the Gimp!
what happens to Schimdt if she loses? and do we get to see the video?
heh.
Oh, my god. Steve, this just made my night. I'll be over here, giggling and toasting to Congressman Hackett, on Tuesday.
Christ, what an idiot. Hee.
A.
First of all, this could easily be a setup. Someone could have created that profile ID and specifically set it up to embarrass Braun or Schmidt by proxy.
And there's no need for it. Hackett is running a good campaign. He's a good, solid, at least seemingly honest politician. He doesn't need a smear campaign against an opponent's campaign. In fact, at this point the ONLY thing it can do is help his opponent.
And, Karmakin, the national GOP is probably quite worried about this seat. This is the seat that Pat DeWine was SUPPOSED to win, but Mike DeWine's "nuclear option" standown caused a backlash against his son and Schmidt won instead. Thing is, this is supposed to be a safe and easy district - so the GOP probably saw this as "payback" against Mike's actions without any consequences for themselves.
But now the race may actually be close. If he gets anywhere near half of the vote it will be impressive - this is a heavily gerrymandered Republican district in the strongly Republican Cincinnati area. Hackett shouldn't even have a chance. The fact that people are even talking about this is astounding.
And the "Republican group" that is opposed to Schmidt and saying "boycott" is one of our many (MANY) anti-tax groups in Ohio. And, amusingly, according to his bio, it was founded by one "Tom Brinkman" - a state representative who (suprise) ran against Schmidt in the primaries leading up to this special election. Perhaps a little bit of payback?
To be fair, Schmidt does seem to have a horrible record for the anti-tax folks. I'm just amused that the famous "Republican Unity" seems to be failing around Cincinnati for some reason.
Hee hee, wonder how long until you get a take down notice from this guy. I'd been wondering what the Swing State project had posted to get this....
Swing State Project: Emphatic Denial from Joe Braun
"Editor's note: We have received the following emphatic denial from Joe Braun of the Schmidt campaign. At present, we are removing the materials in question. We will keep you apprised of any further developments in this story. We are printing Mr. Braun's denial in full."
WHAT?????????
Steve doesn't like yogurt??
Would somebody please explain wtf "single tails" is???
Just curious.
Brautigan:
A "single tail" is a whip. A particularly nasty whip, in fact, which in untrained hands can severely damage a body, or maybe even kill. Always play safe, kids.
For the record, I like hot wax (mmmmm...) and yogurt (particularly peach). Perhaps I'm Steve's evil opposite.
And I agree. As someone who, if she lived in the US, would be the Republican's target in many, many ways (trans, queer, trade unionist, etc.) she feels the time for secrets is past. Don't let them have the luxury.
Hi, I am a liberal and am very excited that a democrat might win on Tuesday. That being said, I will post something that I have just posted on swingstate and on atrios. I simply do not believe it is right for people to attack this guy's personal behavior for something that simply is not any of our business. If progressives are to be taken seriously when we support griswold, loving, lawrence, right to privacy stuff, we can't go around calling people a "pervert" or "gimp" for their behavior. This cannot be acceptable behavior among liberals. If there's a credible argument that we're exposing someone's hypocrisy, then it may be acceptable but I have yet to hear a good argument as to why this guy was a hypocrite. Simply being a manager for a republican campaign IS NOT a persuasive argument.
Anyway, I understand the frustrations when the other side pulls FAR WORSE crap on us, and I certainly don't respect anyone less for bringing this stuff up. I don't have too much sympathy for the offended party, either. Still, we should try to lay off this kind of stuff.
-Alan
Yes, we should lay off this kinda stuff. Because god knows the republicans would, if the situation was reversed.
I'm from Texas and while I have no problem with gays, I find it most interesting that so very many high-profile Republicans are, in fact, closet homosexuals. I mean, aren't these the guys who're supposed to be protecting our citizenry against the dreaded gays? Let's find out who "Jeff Gannon's" White House boyfriend is. Let's look into the private lives of Scott McClellan, Karl Rove, current GOP national chairman Ken Mellman, and a bunch of others. Then let's see what the religious crazies think about their "protectors."
Hackett shouldn't go anywhere near this stuff. He should be sunshine and light.
Some "independent" interest group, say, Gimps for Truth, should plop down $100K to buy adds in the Cincinnati area explaining to the good folks how the liberal Jean Schmidt embraces alternative lifestyles. She just doesn't have Cincinnati values. Wants to raise taxes too.
Ask yourself, what would Karl do?
"Yes, we should lay off this kinda stuff. Because god knows the republicans would, if the situation was reversed.
Furian | Email | Homepage | 07.28.05 - 10:48 pm | # "
Yes because when one group jumps into the mud and shits in our political discourse that of course means that I should do it to...
Hi, I am a lib--
Yeah, and I'm a blonde, blue-eyed cheerleader who never thought she'd be writing to "Forum"!
"Hi, I am a lib--
Yeah, and I'm a blonde, blue-eyed cheerleader who never thought she'd be writing to "Forum"!
dave | Email | Homepage | 07.28.05 - 11:07 pm | # "
Dave, that's a brilliant argument. Worthy of cicero!
Alan,
Except when you don't fight, you lose. You get NO credit for being noble, you just look like you were punked.
You can be noble, the GOP will call you a coward, despite wounds and medals, and question your patriotism.
Another fine example of the GOP's efforts to appeal to "values voters."
All I have to say is: BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!
While BDSM is a perfectly acceptable thing among consenting adults, and a legitimate practice of one's freedom to choose, he should have been far more cautious in using a separate email account for that or the campaign, whichever came first.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with him living the lifestyle that suits him most, but it is, by nature and rule, a very personal lifestyle. One should act accordingly.
As liberal people we should not condemn freedom of expression, and I think it is sad if you do. This is not some freaked out disgusting population of people, but a group of normal people (for the most part) who simply have exotic tastes.
Do not condemn those for exercising the rights which we , as liberals, so fiercly fight for.
"Except when you don't fight, you lose. You get NO credit for being noble, you just look like you were punked.
You can be noble, the GOP will call you a coward, despite wounds and medals, and question your patriotism.
steve_gilliard | Email | Homepage | 07.28.05 - 11:16 pm | # "
I have no problem with fighting. I have problems with fighting stupidly, and looking like hypocritical assholes. Look, I'll shut the hell up the moment I see a convincing argument as to why this guy deserved to be called a "pervert" or "gimp boy." If someone can show one ounce of hypocrisy on this guys part, I'll concede that maybe he had it coming. So far, no one has come close. (Some genius in the comments section at atrios said that because he was from ohio which passed an anti-gay amendment, he deserved it.)
I have no problem with exposing hypocrisy. I have no problem in exposing people's criminal and truly activities such as pedophilia, like that guy Sherwood out in Washington. I would have had no problem last summer during the swift boat bullshit, if someone had called Bush a liar and a coward. It would have been true and relevant.
Calling this guy a pervert is just a mean argument that could ruin our credibility when we try to convince others that people deserve to be left alone no matter what lawful behavior they enjoy.
Calling this guy a pervert is just a mean argument that could ruin our credibility...
I love it when these guys start using words like "we" and "our." Makes me think of the old joke about the Lone Ranger and Tonto surrounded by Indians...
Hi Dave. I just have one question. How is it liberal to call someone a "pervert" and "gimp-boy" for their lawful non-harmful personal choices? If you can give me a good answer I will concede that you made a good point. Still won't admit to being anything other than a proud liberal, though.
I think you can bring this up as a campaign issue without compromising the democratic themes of sexual privacy.
All you need to say is:
"We are glad to see Jean Schmidt supports sexual freedom as demonstrated by employment Joe Braun as her campaign manager."
No need to be negative about it.
As for the people who say this is stooping to the level of Republicans, you are being naive. Politics is not made cleaner by mindlessly being principled. Refusing to stoop to Republican tactics only encourages them to go even further. If they pay no price they will not stop.
Ethical standards in politics are not maintained only by participants keeping their own standards high but also by the threat of mutually assured destruction. By engaging in these tactics you create reasons for them to stop. Republicans will hesitate to run smear campaigns if they know their own skeletons are likely to come out of the closet if they do. Nothing else will stop them.
The reason why this perv's perviness is up for grabs is because his idiot candidate is running on "family values" or whatever that means.
Frankly, I think it is fair game to out every last gay and "deviant" Rethuglican. The only reason there is any stigma in outing this sort of thing is because of so-called "family values" bullshit pushed by people like the Repuglicans.
Fuck'em!
"All you need to say is:
"We are glad to see Jean Schmidt supports sexual freedom as demonstrated by employment Joe Braun as her campaign manager."
No need to be negative about it."
I'd hate to know what your actual idea of being negative is...
Steve - It is heartwarming to see a fearless and eviscerating response from you regarding Joe Braun's threats. Your analysis of the law is much better that his as well. In fact, I wonder what the Ohio Bar would think about his misleading assertions of law for personal interest...
Alan - it is clear to me that Joe Braun and his colleagues at the Schmidt campaign set the rules of engagement - those rules being that lying was okay if it was in your interest. However, this response is in no way a lie. The webpage with the information exists (or did until today). Other blogs indicate that the creation date of the account was in 2004. If true, this strongly counters assertions that this was a recent fabrication meant as retribution.
How can being honest and truthful be fighting dirty? Because we aren't respecting his privacy? When they respect truth and honesty I will consider respecting their privacy.
Y'all, unless they have absolute proof that the campaign manager guy was really the one who posted this ad, it's stupid to run with this.
One of the posts I read on this today had some question as to whether the e-mail address (for either the guy or the dom profile) was deanofcom or deanofcorn.
It's really dumb to be posting this all over the place. It's just a good thing it's close enough to the election that it won't have time to backfire on Hackett.
I'd hate to know what your actual idea of being negative is...
Alan | Email | Homepage | 07.28.05 - 11:50 pm | #
"I'm taking a poll. If you knew John McCain had an illegitimate Black daughter would you be more or less likely to vote for him in next week's primary?..."
THAT's going negative (Republican style).
By the way, Annatopia got tons of screenshots -- even as the "deanofcorn" BDSM profiles were suddenly being pulled from the Net!
Haha, Joe (aka deanofcorn@aol.com) -- you weren't quite fast enough, you moron! Annatopia has you dead to rights, dork.
Oh, and Alan:
The squeamishness of people like you is why the Democrats weren't able to make hay over the hypocrisy of the "family values" Bush White House forcing the Secret Service to look the other way while press passes were handed out to a guy who made his living as a $200-an-hour BDSM rent boy.
Think about that for a minute.
Someone whose main source of income was gay BDSM prostitution -- and prostitutes are not exactly considered the world's best security risks (please don't ask me to spell this out for you) -- was allowed into the White House press corps, even as press passes were being denied to actual longtime White House press corps members such as Sarah McClendon. (And even though the Bushies in particular, and the GOP in general, take pride in being rabidly anti-gay and anti-sex.)
Hamletta: Check this out.
Believe me, Joe Braun does NOT want this to hit the local airwaves.
Phoenixwoman, I had no problem going after Jeff Gannon. First there was a pretty clear level of hypocrisy at work. Second, Jeff Gannon was actually a SERIOUS FUCKING STORY!!!!!! That the white house would piss on our media (apologize for the defecation references, but they're good metaphors!) and put some hack off the street in there to rig press conferences, and then the media themselves didn't even seem to care too much! That's a major story.
"Alan - it is clear to me that Joe Braun and his colleagues at the Schmidt campaign set the rules of engagement - those rules being that lying was okay if it was in your interest. However, this response is in no way a lie. The webpage with the information exists (or did until today). Other blogs indicate that the creation date of the account was in 2004. If true, this strongly counters assertions that this was a recent fabrication meant as retribution."
It's not really the truthfulness of this that concerns me. I'm willing to accept that it's totally true. My problem is that it seems to completely betray my liberal principles to attack someone for lawful behavior. The one exception to this is hypocrisy, and I am still not even slightly persuaded that this guy deserved it, in that he was a hypocrite. I need more than that he worked on a republican campaign, or that his state passed an anti-gay initiative.
Um, pardon my ignorance. Real question. Is this:
"and holding you libel for damages associated therewith."
...correct legalese? Or just bad English?
I know he's talking about LIBEL law, but shouldn't it be "holding you LIABLE?"
Then again, good English might be a lot to expect from a guy with a ball gag always in his mouth.
"All you need to say is:
"We are glad to see Jean Schmidt supports sexual freedom as demonstrated by employment Joe Braun as her campaign manager."
No need to be negative about it."
"I'm taking a poll. If you knew John McCain had an illegitimate Black daughter would you be more or less likely to vote for him in next week's primary?..."
I have to say that I don't think the first quote is much better than the second. A bit more subtle, maybe. But the technique is the very similar. They each introduce an idea to the public that you are CERTAIN that they will not approve of (ideas, I might add that are either completely ridiculous, or irrelevant, or both). If the Hackett campaign came out and said the thing about the "sexual freedom" I will regret my contribution to that race. Call me naive, wimpy, whatever. I don't feel like the party I indentify with should play games like that, or approve of them.
This got lost after the last line of my post above:
"SNARK."
So relax, my more sensitive friends.
What I think Steve and others are doing here, legitimately in my opinion, is what the Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi would have called "argument from a lodging-place."
In the fourth century BCE, Zhuangzi pointed out, with a great deal of wit, that intellectual foodfights where the participants can't agree on the meaning of basic terms are formally pointless -- everyone's "this" and "that" are different, and the arguments sail past each other without even making contact. One possible solution is to "argue from a lodging-place" -- that is, insofar as possible, to accept the definitions and presuppositions of one's opponent, and then show that the opponent's argument still doesn't hold water.
The "lodging-place" here is the Republican opinion about BSDM sex. We know that it is loudly and consistently negative. We only need to stay at that lodging-place for long enough to show that they're drivelling hypocrites. Of course you and others are nervous about any visit there, but how else to blow them apart from the inside?
Alan,
A stand on principle by an individual is a fine thing, and I don't mean that sarcastically. But if you really are a Democrat, you have to realize your party is getting hammered everywhere in the country, and usually by folks who wouldn't even consider the possibility of not using stuff like this.
It probably won't make much difference in this instance (sounds like the national Republicans are flooding the race with money, which is the cue for the national Democrats to roll over and play dead). Politics is NOT a noble calling; it's a pretty sordid business. If I were a Democrat, and tossing this item to the public was the worst thing the Hackett campaign did, I don't think I'd lose a lot of sleep at night.
The profile can still be seen through the Wayback Machine:
http://web.archive.org/web/20041...135/
details.htm
So check it out for yourself.
Cameron, you're right that in the scheme of dirty tricks, it would be pretty low on the scale. If the only way our candidates can win, though, is through these kinds of dirty tricks, which are not only incredibly stupid, but also go against our party's principle of acceptance and toleration of people, then we're fucked. That's it. Game over, thanks for playing. I understand politics is a dirty business. In many of the comments above I've mentioned some attacks that I totally support. This thing against the campaign manager is cleary unjust. Is it very unjust? No, certainly not. If you want to know whether I'd ever support doing something unjust for the sake of winning a political race, I'll have to get back to you once I know what specific situation you have in mind. In this case, I'm just not convinced it's the right thing to do- politically, or morally.
I understand politics is a dirty business.
Alan
Apparently you don't
If the only way our candidates can win, though, is through these kinds of d--
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
z...
This from one of the most insightful movies on politics, "The Best Man." When the dying president was trying to convince Nice Guy Henry Fonda to quit fucking around use the weapons available to beat the demagogue, Joe Cantwell (Cliff Robertson).
The movie's ending is a cop-out, but what this the old pro said to the timid candidate is about as true a thing as has been said about politics.
"Power is not a toy we give to good children. It is a weapon. And the strong man takes it and uses it. If you don't go down there and beat Joe Cantwell to the floor with this very dirty stick, then you've got no business in the big league. Because if you don't fight, the job is not for you. And it never will be."
Or as we say in Chicago, "Politics ain't beanbag."
Two points:
First, it is FAIR GAME to attack any republican if the attack is true. I could just imagine living in Germany in 1935 and calling Hitler a murderer and a killer only to have Joe Lieberman denounce me as being hateful and engaging in attack politics.
Second, here's the BIGGER LESSON. I hope Hackett wins although in the end he may fall short at 47-48%. But hackett stood his ground and followed the progressive root, NOT the DLC root of past candidates in the district. The progressive way gets you 18 points more than the DLC way. (past 2 decades DLC way got you 30%) Now if we can come close to winning in one of the so called most conservative districts in America (I say so called because I personally believe that conservatives make up a majority in less than 40 districts) it's a great sign that we can retake congress in 2006, retake another 8-10 governorships, and lead the GOP down the road to extinction.
I think you can bring this up as a campaign issue without compromising the democratic themes of sexual privacy.
All you need to say is:
"We are glad to see Jean Schmidt supports sexual freedom as demonstrated by employment Joe Braun as her campaign manager."
No need to be negative about it.
I like this approach very much. I agree we need to go after the hypocrites and fight back on their own turf. But I'd rather we do in a way that shows our own true acceptance of people with alternative sexual styles. That's the privacy issue, and it's valid, just as the hypocrisy issue is valid.
YOu point it out because they are hypocrites. It's the hypocrisy stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It goes right to character. They say one thing, do another. It's not about the sex, it's the hypocrisy.
hamletta,
The e-mails to his campaign addy bounced to the AOL address. That's proof. And I have at least one other GOP site with that address.
Nicole Houston,
He has every right to live the way he chooses. His problem is that his employer probably disagrees.
Alan,
Those are NOT my words, and I made it plain I disagreed with that characterization. BDSM is legal and healthy. No need to name call.
strawman,
This ain't no joke. You don't understand libel law and write for money, you will get nailed at some point. I know when I have to back down and when to tell people to pound sand.
You know, just quit it. This is some guy's private life. Leave it alone. Quite frankly I am ashamed of the way some Democrats are behaving lately, too. This partisan bullshit is exactly that. I truly hope the parties all grow up and get back to debating the real issues instead of seeing who can trash who the most and the fastest.
This is not cool at all.
Nicole Houston, I disagree. These are the people who impeached a president over a blow job. If he's dumb enough to solicit masochistic sex partners using an e-mail address he also uses for work, fuck him.
I'm not saying Hackett should use this stuff, but I have absolutely no problem with bloggers exposing the hypocrisy of family-values Republicans. I don't care if it is private, legal behavior. They stigmatize plenty of private, legal behavior, and even want to criminalize some private sexual acts. Screw these people.
Oh, and thanks to the poster above for explaining what "single tails" are. That is kind of scary--I thought "safe" BDSM was supposed to not cause any real injury.
Will people ever realise that politics is warfare without guns.
First of all, it is ok. Granted, he made a mistake using email addresses. But as we all know - that is - any of us that have actually worked in a campaign (I have), we may not agree with everything the candidate has to say, but we campaign for them because we believe in them as a person, and that they will do the job they are intended to do. We do not have to mirror the ones we support. If he were campaigning for himself, that would be one thing, and I would agree. This is clearly not the case. So lay off of him and let him do his job, and may the best person win.
By the way, a single tail is an excellent tool that if used correctly can be like a tickle. Yes, that is from experience. Now, feel free to trash ME. Please.
Not *certain* it's him, but graduated in 1995 from UK with Ohio contacts. Those of you wanting proof of hypocrisy should read this column on "Gay Militants" at Miami of Ohio
Just the end here:
***
I do not feel the need to take out an ad declaring I'm heterosexual and enjoy sex with women. I also do not feel the need to distribute photos of me expressing my love for a female. Why must homosexuals make the goings-on in their bedrooms public knowledge?
Homosexuals can do whatever turns them on within the confines of their bedrooms, but when they make a public proclamation of what they do and how they do it, they shouldn't bitch when people look at them funny.
Staff Columnist Joe Braun is a political science senior. "
http://www.kernel.uky.edu/1995/s...095/
041017.html
found through Google, along with a number of other nasty columns. Went back and found it for those feeling at all sorry for him...
Some of you are just way too bored. Look, what is so hypocritical about that. Just because he believes that gays shouldn't flaunt their sexuality, as most heterosexuals don't (I mean really, how many "hetero-pride" parades do you see?) I have no issue with any form of sexuality, but flaunting it is, well, flaunting it. That is tasteless whatever you are flaunting - sexuality, boobs, abilities, fashion, etc. It is arrogant and selfish, and on top of that it is cocky. No pun intended.
Will people ever realise that politics is warfare without guns.
Friendly Fire
I doubt anytime soon.
(I mean really, how many "hetero-pride" parades do you see?)
He talks about Ads and pictures.
Where does he say pride?
This is from the article - his personal feelings
Der Krieg ist eine blosse Fortsetzung der Politik mit andern Mitteln.
"He talks about Ads and pictures.
Where does he say pride?"
Do I really need to spell it out? If you have any knowledge about the gay community you will know what I am talking about. That is, knowledge from any side. I don't know why I am even responding to this one.
"Der Krieg ist eine blosse Fortsetzung der Politik mit andern Mitteln"
Wahrheit.
The column was not about a Gay Pride parade, but his description of the "antics" at GLBi Awareness week at Miami, and how, as "bad" as it is at UK, Miami students have to deal with "militant, homosexual insurgents." He advocated "nail[ing] the closet doors shut soon..."
The ad mentioned was simply a statement that the Miami GLBi community refused to "be restricted by society's prejudices" with a list of names. Even reading past his bias, the event sounds pretty educational to me...
"It also contained a brief explanation of what "coming out of the closet" is, blaming society's negative reaction to homosexuality on a 'heterosexist and homophobic' attitude. It had more to do with disgust than fear. "
The only public demonstration he specifically describes was a symbolic "coming out of the closet" ceremony. (Well, he does spend some ink describing the specifics of the College Rs counter-demonstration, and that the sidewalks were chalked with "save the gerbils" and other nonsense, and he complained about lewd acts with statues...?)
and, just for the irony, I should have included this the first time around
" They would do well to learn from the heterosexual community that when you publicize your promiscuity in the bedroom you will be judged. "
http://www.kernel.uky.edu/1995/s...095/
041017.html
Oh, I didn't go waaaaay back in Google, so I should note that I only read two of his columns.
BQ,
You mean like troll for subs to look at their coochies with?
There is a deanofcorn Yahoo profile from 12/13/2001. How many deanofcorns can there be?
http://profiles.yahoo.com/deanofcorn
If someone was a hacker or something they could check the briefcase.yahoo.com/deanofcorn file that is not available to the public. I hope no hackers do that, because it would be wrong and I disapprove of that kind of thing.
The hacking, not the bondage, which I am support.
In a perfect world, going after this asshole would be a wrong thing to do. Of course, in a perfect world, douchebags like him wouldn't work for Republicans who flaunt their support for "family values" and trash other people in the process.
If, as it clearly appears, that really is this guy's AOL profile, he has NO claim of privacy. I mean, did he intend for NO ONE to see his profile? Sorry counselor, but you can't shit on the sidewalk in broad daylight and then claim that your privacy has been invaded when someone stares at you.
This guy is toast!
This family values republican enjoys beating women with whips for his sexual pleasure, and we should give him a pass? Let's not be so open-minded that our brains fall out.
He held his profile out to the public. If he wanted to keep his identity secret he should have used a completely different email address.
What in God's name is a "Dean of Corn?"
Some of you are just way too bored. Look, what is so hypocritical about that. Just because he believes that gays shouldn't flaunt their sexuality, as most heterosexuals don't (I mean really, how many "hetero-pride" parades do you see?) I have no issue with any form of sexuality, but flaunting it is, well, flaunting it. That is tasteless whatever you are flaunting - sexuality, boobs, abilities, fashion, etc. It is arrogant and selfish, and on top of that it is cocky. No pun intended.
Ever see a couple holding hands, kissing in public.
What about a person, absent a partner with a wedding ring.
We, who are straight, get to do those things every day, and pretty much anywhere we choose.
From what I see and read, the phrase, "flaunting it," includes all those things we take for granted, except the wedding rings.
TK
res -- that is the question that needed to be asked -- i'm just thinking it may be too early in the a.m. for the answer... 
There is nothing wrong with BDSM at all.
Most Democrats agree with that. I think even Ronald Reagan would agree with that. From what I understand, Reagan was privately okay with anyone's choice of a sexual lifestyle "as long as it (didn't) scare the horses".
Nothing wrong with Jean Schmidt's campaign manager getting his rox off with some whip play, either.
BUT
-when one of the themes of your campaign is "those evil people with alternative lifestyles need to be punished"/"those with family values (code word) need to be exalted"
Then I believe it is quite proper to, as they say, "explore the tension between fact and ideology".
People want to go back to the days of JFK when the president could have 14 different mistresses and have sex with half of them in the White House and the press would give a nudge and a wink and look the other way.
Those days are OVER. If you run for public office and you're doing something untoward in your personal life and the other side finds out, it WILL be used against you.
This particular incident with the campaign manager actually strikes me as fairly minor--it's not the candidate, after all, but it blows my mind that people were against exposing Rove's affair on Kos the other day. What?? Mr. Slime Bucket himself?? Who has won elections for evil-at-heart candidates by shrouding them in a veil of "family values"?
This is an effing war, man. We need to stop thinking that touching the heavy artilary is beneath us.
The fact that Karl Rove has a mistress is proof that anyone -- anyone -- can get laid.
Mr. Gilliard, I realize that you didn't use any of the particular words that I took issue with. I apologize if you thought I was attacking you. I was (very mildly) attacking the guy who posted the thing on swing state, and some of the commenters here and on atrios, for what seemed to me to be a dismissive and closed minded view about sexual behaviors.
"-when one of the themes of your campaign is "those evil people with alternative lifestyles need to be punished"/"those with family values (code word) need to be exalted""
If that was one of the themes of their campaign and someone can give me a shred of real evidence that it was, I'll concede some ground on this. As of now I've only heard rhetoric about this, no facts. Thus, I still believe that this is the wrong approach, despite some obnoxious comments on this thread about how I just don't get it.
"This family values republican enjoys beating women with whips for his sexual pleasure, and we should give him a pass? Let's not be so open-minded that our brains fall out.
roxtar | Email | Homepage | 07.29.05 - 5:05 am | # "
Who the f* are you to judge what this guy does? If he did these things non-consensually (like Marv Albert) or illegally with kids or something then you might have a point and the guy should be in jail. Neither of these things are the case. And some women and men get equal sexual pleasure from being beaten in a safe, sane consensual environment. Would you deny these people their pleasure? This is why I'm very uneasy about the comments here and elsewhere. The democrats are supposed to stand APART from the republican party on these issues. WE ARE THE PARTY OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY. But reading these attacks (and the people who approve of them) on the campaign manager, it seems that many people don't seem to care about that. We can be just as prudish as the Brent Bozell crowd if we think it might get us a few votes. I'll pass, thanks.
To Alan and the rest of the liberal pussies: we're getting our heads bashed in, so get off your knees, stand up, AND FIGHT. [and I hate using the "p" word]
I am so fu*king tired of "principled" liberals (gee, Kerry comes to mind) who simply will not fight back, and then they wonder why Americans do not trust us with the security of the nation.
You don't want to fight? Then shut the fu*k up and let the rest of us save our country from the proto-fascist ReThug scum.
Nicole Houston: "...he believes that gays shouldn't flaunt their sexuality, as most heterosexuals don't (I mean really, how many "hetero-pride" parades do you see?)...."
FU*K YOU! EVERY day is a hetero-pride parade. You hold your boyfriend's hand in public? You kiss your boyfriend in public? Well quit "flaunting" it Het Girl.
Now the so-called "liberals" are starting to piss me off more than the neanderthal ReThugs.
This is politics. Simply put, if we want to win a single election, we have to bury them with whatever we have at hand. I have no proplem burying this republican canideciy with behavior that the campaign manager has linked to the campaign, that most of the likely voters would find repugnant. It's just politics. It's no slam against BDSMers.
But if this guy is willing to Swiftboat Slander Hackett, then I think that pointing out that he is running his "kinky" sex life from the same email account as his professional life is quite reasonable.
Thank you, Gay Veteran. Alan needs to pull his head out of his ass.
I don't need a lecture on supporting individual rights and not being a prude.
BTW, to every other closeted Republican who is a hypocrite, if I find out, you're next.
Alan = Mary Rosh
Hurry up folks, Nicole and Alan have to report back to the Schmidt campaign on their progress here.
If either of you are Democrats...
Let's just say it isn't likely.
Take no fucking prisoners!!!
Uh, do I really have to remind idiots like Alan (assuming he's not a GOP plant) of what the GOP and their supporters said about me and my family while I was president? Heck, all I did was get one lousy (and I do mean lousy) blowjob from a cheap whore in the oval office, and yet that was national news for years and you know what followed. And you sensitive types want to lay off this fellow even though he's an obvious hypocrite and, in the eyes of most GOP supporters, a dirt bag? The GOP will stop at nothing to attain and keep power in this country. We must fight fire with fire. Thank you very much. Vote Hillary!!!
Nicole Houston, the comment about hetero people not "flaunting" their sexuality has got to be one of the most willfully idiotic things I have ever read on the internet, and believe me, that is saying a lot.
If you aren't noticing the way het people "flaunt" their sexuality, the only reason is that you're like a fish not noticing the water it's swimming in.
Watch television and note every time opposite-sex characters kiss, hold hands, flirt, have sex, or think about/talk about/wish they were having sex with each other. Then, go outside and go to any crowded place, like a mall or a movie theatre. Notice every time you see a hetero couple kiss, hold hands, or behave with affection toward one another. Then read some books and look at some magazines, like, say, "Cosmopolitan" and "Maxim."
Then come back and tell us honestly (if you're capable of that), that you think hetero people don't "flaunt" their sexuality. Of course, we'll still be laughing at you, but you can give it a shot.
Hi, to all those who called me a gop'er or a pussy. Can you please read all the comments I've made on this thread. I think it'll enlighten you on how I feel about fighting. (I'm for it). Real simple, just do a control F search. Thanks.
If politics was EVER like, say,
boxing with "Marquis of Queensbury" rules, it is no longer.
In America, 2005, politics is a no-holds-barred death match in a cage. Only the loser loses much more than a few teeth or a broken arm. Sorry, that's not my fault, that's just the reality. I've watched the working people / voters / middle class get absolutely SCREWED every year now for at least 30 years.
And now the Democrat party is in danger of evaporating under the influence of corporate cash.
It's do-or-die time. We either fight
like hell, no -holds-barred, or we die. And freedom dies. And America dies. It's already staggering, bloody, half-blinded, on the ropes.
I hate fighting. I hate fighting dirty.
But this is about survival.
Jefferson, Washington et al had a dream of a peaceful, progressive land but that didn't inhibit them from violating the "rules" of warfare of the time and killing british soldiers from ambush.
Yes, it may also diminish our side, but al least we will still have a side.
C K Dexter Haven:
"Hurry up folks, Nicole and Alan have to report back to the Schmidt campaign on their progress here.
If either of you are Democrats...
"
Actually, I am a registered Democrat, and have been for a long time. The two campaigns I worked on were for Democrats as well. I have many conservative views, however.
Rumblelizard:
'Nicole Houston, the comment about hetero people not "flaunting" their sexuality has got to be one of the most willfully idiotic things I have ever read on the internet, and believe me, that is saying a lot. "
My remark was obviously taken incorrectly due to me not explaining myself well enough. It was very late and I was very tired - not to mention the Senate session yesterday had me really charged up politically.
Point taken.
I don't feel like re-writing what I meant so I will keep taking the heat for it.
My whole point about this entire thing is that while trashing a member of the opposite party is widely practiced, it is not productive because it only creates hostility. That is not constructive, and one of the things I loathe most about politics. I do not vote for people who will stoop so low as to slander another person on private/personal issues. Slander in that aspect has no value, and shows a lack of integrity. Political issues are fair game.
But, that is just my opinion.
Again, we should all just play nice. Because god know the republicans would, if they situation were reveresed.
Screw that. I'm tired of losing to these bastards. You don't wanna fight? Join the green party or some other equally worthless group.
Gay Veteran--I'm still in your corner on this one. I don't know any other way to respond to the accusation that gays "flaunt" their sexuality and that somehow makes them an OK target.
Which reminds me...to quote Harvey Feirstein from last night's "In the Life..."...Where is our ANGER?
Why the fuck are we running to defend this guy's "private choices" when he refuses the rights of others to uphold and have those choices?
If the president of PETA was caught eating steak--a perfectly legal thing to do; no controversy there--she would still catch a world of shit. WHY? Well, because they are trying so damn hard to not let others have one, and attach a whole host of moral issues to eating meat. Their whole "raison" is to stop people from eating meat, so when you catch the president with a steak, it's the textbook definition of hypocrisy.
That, folks, is what we have here. We're not here to (as per my example above) defend the eating of steak...we're here to shed light on, and heap disgust upon, the HYPOCRISY.
Got it?
maybe he's complaining because his profile lists him as "straight" and now Ken won't return his calls?
I practice what I preach, so to speak, so I am not a hypocrite. Just because I don't fall into line with every other Democrat out there doesn't make me any less a Democrat. And because I choose to debate on political issues, rather than personal doesn't make me any less a fighter. I choose the battles that I think will be most effective, and the ones I would be willing to discuss openly myself. Hell no, I don't want to debate my personal life - who does.
As I stated before, one does not have to have the exact same ideals as the person they support.
For the record - if I actually lived in OH, I would vote for Hackett because I believe in what he has to say. I also donated to his campaign.
Nicole, again assuming you aren't a GOP plant, sexual freedom IS a political issue. Nobody is *trashing* Mr. Braun.
Rather people are simply stating an objective fact: Based on the best available evidence, Mr. Braun is active in the BDSM lifestyle, or whatever.
The fact that people are openly talking about it is not *trashing* or *attacking*. It is simply making it more well known.
Is it uncomfortable for Mr. Braun and Jean Schmidt that this information is becoming public? That's not our problem. If they CHOOSE to be hypocrites and LIE to their constituents, it is not for the Democrats to keep their tender secrets private.
It seems like Ms. Schmidt and Mr. Braun have a choice. They can prove that the information is false. They can explain to the voters that Mr. Braun's sexual choices are a private matter and have no impact on his ability to conduct his business professionally. Or she can fire him.
I suppose, if this is all true, that they would now also have to explain why Mr. Braun's first response was to shoot the messenger, rather than own up to his personal decsions. Just because you have a right to your personal life doesn't mean you have a right to be a sleazebag. Just ask Jim McGreevey.
Old Alan just can't let go of this bone. His point has been made. If I see another gasbag post about his moral superiority, I'm guessing he is a troll. Uh-oh... here he comes again:
I resent that GOP plant remark. That is totally insulting. why don't you go read some of my writing. http://www.livejournal.com/
useri...er=whereistruth. I now write on another journal, but I will not link to it here because I am getting enough heat as it is.
Also, looking back at some of my posts, I think I got a little out of hand. My apoligies.
I know very well that in the BDSM community (which I am not involved in any longer) that anonymity is LAW. There is a very good reason for that, and it is quite evident in this thread what that reason is. Because I was involved at one point- and still know people who are - I follow that law. I am allowed to identify myself, but no one else. Thus it is something I take personally by instinct, and I will defend other people's right to that privacy very strongly. If someone is identified that in turn can identify others, and that can severely harm other completely uninvolved individuals and their families. This is something I did not say before because I did not want to come right out and say what I had been involved in. It is obvious that I have to in order to explain why I have so strongly defended this guy. It was unwise of him not to use a different address, if indeed it is really him, but that cannot be undone.
If this gets out in the papers and beyond this blog it could potentially harm other people - people with families and respectable jobs.
Please think about that.
I stand corrected. There are TWO sets of teeth marks on that bone.
-bye-
You make decisions in life that come back to haunt you.
He made one. He chose to manage the campaign of someone who is running against sexual "deviancy". People like Schmidt are running on making your lifestyle illegal Nicole. If they're hypocrites about that, that something that voters need to know.
It's not slander if it's true.
Why is the rank incompetence and stupidity of linking a personal email account to an official campaign account not the issue?
This is the kind of shit the Republican party seems to exult in: after presiding over the first attack on the continental US since 1812, his mishandling of the economy, his response to the threat of terrorism, and his botched invasion of Iraq; Bush unquestionably gets his party's nomination. He gives a medal to Tenet and promotes Rice, who as head of the CIA and NSC did such a great job of protecting the USA.
Am I the only person who feels like I'm living on Bizzaro world?
"People like Schmidt are running on making your lifestyle illegal Nicole. If they're hypocrites about that, that something that voters need to know."
In that, you are correct. And it isn't my lifestyle any longer. I got out of it a while ago.
Also, thanks to this thread I will start posting in that journal again. I have left most of my political writing off journal since my last post there.
Thanks =)
It's not about the sex it's about hypocracy. These are the people who believe there is no such thing as a right to privacy and who believe it is a legitimate government function to police peoples' bedrooms. Live by the sword, die by the sword, baby.
The previous profile showed that he was looking for a man or woman so he clearly swings both ways?
Nicole:
Fair enough. I accept that you are not a GOP plant (the jury is still out on Alan).
That said, I suggest you read Jen's post above, with an excellent analogy of catching the President of PETA eating a steak.
Being a hypocrite matters. Most Democrats are pro-choice. But they would go ape-shit if they caught George Bush paying for Jenna to get an abortion. Not because she doesn't have the right, but because he is working to remove that right for every other woman in America.
If this gets out in the papers and beyond this blog it could potentially harm other people - people with families and respectable jobs.
And you support this? Because, by your actions, you are enabling this behavior. You are defending the persecution -- and possible prosecution -- of people in the BDSM community.
Why do I say this? Lawrence v. Texas. Republicans such as Ms. Braun are actively working to place judges on the Supreme Court who would agree with Scalia and reverse Lawrence, permitting states to CRIMINALIZE the behavior that you are defending.
I fail to see how you are being loyal to this community by defending hypocrites that would prosecute the community's members.
Oops, obviously I meant Ms. Schmidt and Mr. Braun, not Ms. Braun.
"I fail to see how you are being loyal to this community by defending hypocrites that would prosecute the community's members."
It is a very precarious situation, indeed. As I said I did it out of instinct. I have to uphold my position on it though. Whether he is a hypocrite or not, there are likely other people involved who don't deserve to be outed due to this matter. This I very firmly stand by.
He used a work email addy to cruise for doormats to chokefuck. This guy is dumber than Rove.
Anyone into creepy sex should know better than that.
We are talking about Republicans though. After all they can do anything and still invite Wolf Blitzer to parties.
Years ago I knew a women who was a Dominatrix. The bulk of her clients were captains of industry who paid her to fuck them in the ass, we're talking CEO's. She made lots of money
I'm reading this crap about "his private life" and I just have to laugh. This idiot posted his sex life ON THE INTERNET! Short of launching a rocket to the Moon and spelling it out in five-hundred-mile high letters, you simply can not get less "private" than that!
Travis, I hear where you're coming from, but I honestly don't think it's fair to characterize BDSM as "creepy sex." The fact that I myself am not into a particular act does not make it wrong or creepy. If two (or more) consenting adults want to get together and do whatever in their bedroom (or dungeon), it's not for me to judge or moralize about it, even if I personally find it a definitive, complete turn-off.
What I object to and find "creepy" is when people who are into certain sexual acts belong to campaigns and political parties that, as space so skillfully explained, want to criminalize those very same sexual acts, and pretty much *every* sexual act besides those undertaken by married couples, in the missionary position, with the sole purpose of procreation.
I stand corrected on the e-mail addy.
Bombs away!
Kiernan, you are so right. How this guy expected to remain private when he's so...dumb is beyond me.
Remember kids: "It's not the sex, it's the lying." The hypocrisy of working to elect someone who wants to eliminate the choices you yourself have made is tantamount to a lie.
For me it's simple. You now have a weapon. Use it. Nixon put it best. Politics is not for the squeamish.
I like RFK and FDR and Truman but aside from their principle stands on many issues, they understood that politics is a no holds barred steel cage match.
We can debate the pros and cons of BDSM and that's okay but it's not the point. The point is your enemy has dropped a weapon by accident in the arena. You can kick it out of the way, hand it back to him, or pick it up and play a Gene Krupa solo on his head.
Understand this, if you drop the same weapon, your opponent is going to do his rendition of "Drum Boogie". Period.
Shorter Alan and Nicole: "Shut up, lie back and enjoy the rape."
Rumblelizard
I don't know that it's creepy, but I bet it is, sounds like a misogynistic rape fantasy to me. Remember this, republicans view the police and the law as a tool. They break those laws all the time, but have enough money and the right friends, prison is for the poor.
When Michael Moore had TV Nation on the air a constant meme was how fast the police showed up for the rich. It didn't matter how trivial the complaint or what state it was in. The cops asked how high. This is the hubris we are dealing with, it should be hammered without mercy.
The fact that Karl Rove has a mistress is proof that anyone -- anyone -- can get laid.
res ipsa loquitur
"power is the ultimate aphrodisiac" -Henry Kissinger
"Shorter Alan and Nicole: "Shut up, lie back and enjoy the rape."
I don't know how you meant it but first of all RAPE is NON-consensual, so I take that as a blatantly violent and repulsive comment. Disgusting, to say the least. How dare you use that analogy. And why the hell are you just addressing me and Alan there?
I hate to keep repeating myself, but dammit - think about the people he may know outside of the campaign. These people are from all parties, all walks of life and are parents, policemen, teachers, lawyers, doctors, husbands, wives, and mothers.
I am sure that this argument is moot at this point, because the damage is surely done. I will leave the BDSM aspect alone after this.
EDIT: And shorter*
It's the hyprocrisy, stupid.
"what happens to Schimdt if she loses?"
What about Schmidt? If, after all the precious moolah, that sweet, sweeeeeet moolah, and so much political capital, if she loses this "cakewalk", the GOP will never give her the time of day again (not that I'd believe them were they to give me the time of day) and she'll never be able to run for county dogcatcher.
What infuriates me is that this is Jeff Gannon all over again and, as with Gannon and his beneath-absurd denials that that was him in those Barbarini Faun pictures, now we have this assclown 1) denying that he's a public official while speaking and working on behalf of a Congressional candidate and, 2) denying that that was his AOL profile.
I've posted something on my blog about the GOP warping and shaping reality like it's Play-Doh.
Nicole wrote (in part):
I hate to keep repeating myself, but dammit - think about the people he may know outside of the campaign. These people are from all parties, all walks of life and are parents, policemen, teachers, lawyers, doctors, husbands, wives, and mothers.
All of whom he and his bosses would deprive of their basic civil and human rights in a heartbeat, if they even dared to admit that they share his taste in "entertainment."
See my posting upthread. As Joe re-stated, "It's the hypocrisy, stupid!"
This young Rethug needs to have his face, nay, his whole fucking BODY rubbed in this particular mess, as publically as possible.
BDSM is a perfectly acceptable thing among consenting adults, and a legitimate practice of one's freedom to choose.
Just don't get caught^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H mix it with politics.
I understand that it is the hypocracy, and I agree. I posted that too. I just wish that the ammunition affected only him, rather than anyone he may have come in contact with. I will tell you this, if this information about him is spread and is true he will very likely be permanently banned from any BDSM related groups or sites, and any people he knows in that arena will not speak with him again.
So he is getting screwed in more than one way over this.
you cannot make a silk purse out of a pig's ear..no matter how you try...dispise these hypocritical, sanctimonious, double-standard, lying assholes, more than ever..
"How dare you use that analogy."
Well, that's essentially what your "advice" amounts to.
"And why the hell are you just addressing me and Alan there?"
Because you two are the only ones here blubbering and snivelling and shitting your pants over a clear instance of an enimently justifiable act of self-defence. Oh, we daren't fight back! We daren't! We daren't! It's not productive! It creates hostility! It wouldn't be constructive! Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo!
Nicole, I'm sorry to be blunt, but your attitude amounts to saying we should lick the Republicans' boots while they're kicking our teeth down our throats. That's worse than useless: it's dangerous.
John D, obviously you haven't read all my posts here thoroughly. Either that, or you are only selecting which parts of the posts you want to acknowledge.
Good thing I am not busy today so I can keep up with all this :P
"Old Alan just can't let go of this bone. His point has been made. If I see another gasbag post about his moral superiority, I'm guessing he is a troll. Uh-oh... here he comes again:
rick | Email | Homepage | 07.29.05 - 11:35 am | #"
Lol, I like being called "old", I'm actually only 23. You are correct that I made my point more than enough. I rarely post to blogs, but when I get engaged in a discussion I like to really engage in it.
I don't think I'll respond any more unless someone makes a particularly interesting argument, though this thread is pretty old, so I doubt it.
Also, I don't feel any moral superiority about this. I don't think anyone I've been arguing with is immoral, or is being malicious. I don't like the judgmental attitude of some commenters here, but that doesn't mean they're immoral. I totally understand how tempting it is to run with something like this, I'm just personally opposed to it, as I've stated. I would be more than a bit disappointed if the actual Hackett campaign mentioned this. That I think would be a particularly dumb move. But that's just my opinion.
Ethical standards in politics are not maintained only by participants keeping their own standards high but also by the threat of mutually assured destruction.
It's not just politics. It's how ethical behaviour and modern human society evolved: if you don't play nice, the rest of us who are trying to play nice will turn you into a bloody smear so you don't get in the way of us playing nice.
A special on human evolution recently pointed this out: within groups, and compared to other social animals, humans are remarkably peaceable with each other. The reason was that, using language, the non-bullies can coordinate and decide to deal with a problem, and then inform the bully that should he or she not correct their behaviour, they will be stomped. Every now and then, you need to demonstrate that this will be done.
Look back to what Barney Frank did when he single-handedly stopped a GOP whisper campaign against the (then) Dem speaker: if the Republicans did not stop, he was going to start outing gay politicians and staff members until they did. It stopped practically the same day.
Or, to summarize Mr. Keith,
Those who say, "I'd rather lose than win that way!"...will probably lose.
In short, Alan and Nicole should be delighted with the events of the past 30 years because the Democratic "leadership" has been doing exactly what they're advocating here: Losing and losing and losing, all for so-called liberal "principles".
Of course, "principles", "morality" and "ethics" have nothing to do with the DLC's 30 year losing streak, but those 3 pretty little words make an excellent cover for cowardice, incompetence, appeasment and collaboration, don't they?
John D. Are you not paying attention? If I had any of those qualities I would have backed out of this debate by now. I am making my point very clear, and I am sticking with it, and I am most certainly not afraid to express my opinion. You think I am not a fighter? Tell that to all the senators, representatives, mayors, governors, newspapers, and organizations I have called, faxed, emailed, and written to. Tell that to all the people I have marched down the street or rallied with in order to be heard. And tell that to the people I have busted my ass to campaign for. You think I am not putting up a fight? You are blind, indeed. It is entirely possible to be a strong person, making your voice heard, and still maintain integrity.
With Alan and Nicole, it will be the Democratic Boy Scouts versus the Republican Hells Angels. Guess who wins?
WAKE UP!
Nicole:
What evidence do you have that this will hurt anyone other than this Braun loser? I don't see any Democrats that are interested in the specifics of this or of outing anyone else. The Republicans sure aren't. So how on Earth would anyone find out about Braun's associates?
The only possible way that I could imagine would be if Braun were indeed stupid enough to file a defamation suit and invite the inevitible search into his sex life. And if he's chooses that self-destructive path, blame him not us.
I think you have a valid point about the privacy-of-others issue, Nicole, but I also think that if his stupidity combined with hypocrisy will get him ostracised from the scene, Mr. Braun richly deserves it. I'm hardly even peripherally involved, myself, but I do know that in BDSM, careless and stupid is a damning offence, especially for a Dom.
As for the tactics, I see it as a case of "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." As I see it, we've tried playing nice (I know I have personally), and it's gotten us nowhere but beaten up and then called "weak"--I don't have any more faith left that people will one day wake up and understand that what it was was principled. I don't think we're dealing with reasonable people here, but people who have a lust for power over others that drives them to stop at nothing in pursuit of that power. They're bullies, and they don't care if we aren't fighting out of principle or out of fear; they still wind up with our lunch money.
So I think we have to get in there and hit hard and fast, below the belt if we have to, and use whatever weapons they give us. As long as we continue to play baseball while they're playing Urban Brawl, they're gonna continue to hand us our own heads. We can have the luxury of being better than them (oor changing the rules) after we get their teeth out of our throat. And even better if we can stand up and say, "look--this person wants to take freedoms away from you that he wants to keep for himself". That at least isn't pandering--we can make it clear that WE don't care what he does in his private life, but if HE supports snooping in other people's, well... he'd better be above reproach himself, or he's fair game.
I have no idea how old everyone is here, or how long you have been into politics. But, if anyone has paid attention to the last 4 presidential elections, and paid attention to their local elections you will find one common and consistent complaint from the voters. To paraphrase the wide variety of ways people have said this, "The biggest thing I don't like about this election is the negativity and the bashing." It is a fact. The majority of voters far prefer the person who is positive, and focuses on the positive, as opposed to those who go around bashing their opponent.
Prove me wrong.
alsafi, you make an excellent point - bravo. The way to use those tactics in my opinion is to anonymously -keeping your party identity ambiguous - have the real nasty ammunition leaked to the press and let them take the heat for the bashing, while we keep our hands clean.
"...
Prove me wrong."
Yes, this tactic has certainly not been effective...Willie Horton, Swift Boat Veterans, Max Cleland....the list goes on...Sure looks like combative politics drives voters away!
No that is not what I meant...I meant prove me wrong that that is the primary complaint.
Wow, what a lot of hate directed at Alan and Nicole for a discrete, and relatively small, tactical disagreement. Read carefully what they said, and don't project all your fears & hates on them. Why can't they discuss this without being dumped on? So you disagree. Doesn't mean you have to toss them under the bus.
It might indeed by the primary complaint, Ms. Houston, but as Furian pointed out, what voters complain about and who they vote for are two different things entirely.
So the fact that it is the voter's "primary complaint" means very little.
"Yes, this tactic has certainly not been effective...Willie Horton, Swift Boat Veterans, Max Cleland."
Are you being sarcastic and facetious? I hope so.
Here's the way I see it: in effect, this guy, by working for a candidate who is actively trying to have his own sexual proclivities penalized in some way, is engaging in "freedom for me, but not for thee." The rules won't apply to him, because he's one of the Chosen Ones.
Thank you for your kind words, Marek =)
Quite frankly, I still have faith in this country and its voters. These last 5 years have been extremely rough and this administration has made some incredibly poor choices on things that they will not be able to back out of. Bush's approval rating has been going down, and more people have made it clear they do not approve. The media has been doing a far better job of showing the true colors of this administration recently. This administration knows that people aren't happy with the bashing, and yet they continue to use these smear tactics. The tactics they are using have turned against them, and now smearing people's good names has become synonymous with the Republican party. This is where we now have the advantage. If we use these same tactics against them, then people with think, "more of the same." However, if we continue to hold true to running a clean campaign for all our people everywhere, clean and honest will be associated with the liberal tag. I truly believe if we stay the same as we have always been, we will come out victors. Frist will not make the next election - obviously, so there will be new leadership in the senate. The American people are clearly not happy with what has been going on, and between the administration's bulklying, and the Republican congress playing GW's butt bitches, we will win far more Democratic seats in both the house and the senate. There are more and more Republicans that are standing up in one way or another to the administration. I am thoroughly convinced that behaving as Republicans will do nothing more than make us look like them.
I had far more respect for the Republican party 10 years ago. I still have respect for many Republicans. These people have not only perverted the Republican party, but if we follow suit then they will have effectively perverted the Democratic party as well.
Joe Braun is a public figure - both for his role in the campaign, but also having used his puter to advertise himself. No worries on any "libelity" (sic).
Should we use this?? Well, I'm with Alan and Nicole on this. But it's fascinating nonetheless.
What's with the people and sex...They are all perverted from the top straight down to the bottom..
One of my Moms' cousins was married to the DA of a CA county many years ago, and she told me that politicians get this sense of entitlement that they can get anything they wanted.
I think that if there is indeed a protocol about BDSM behavior, I would think that high on the list would be not to have work tied in with ones' private activities, especially when the work is political.
Overreaching hypocrite Republican fool. But at least he got caught before he could run for anything above dogcatcher outside of Pennsylvania.
I also would wish that we could lay off the judgment on people who are opposed to using this -- Alan and Nicole for example.
I think most everyone agrees that the Hackett campaign themselves can't use this.
I think everyone agrees that this behavior itself is not objectionable.
I think everyone knows or agrees that blogs are going to use this stuff like this. I admire their resourcefulness. I think they have a different kind of responsibility than the campaign.
I think everyone agrees that the real reason to vote for the democrat are issues of war, deficit, economy, environment... not the sex life of the campaign manager. We still need the bulk of the democratic party to stand behind those reasons.
I myself have disdain when Republicans justify unethical politics by saying they are a victim of similar behavior by Democrats.
So, whether you want to fight slime with slime or stand on your principles, I salute you all!
Well put, copithorne.
I think the the keyword for Democrats, as well as the campaign goal, should be integrity. Democrats and Republicans are fully aware of the fact that the current administration has not exhibited this. So is the majority of the voting population of America.
Location Cincinnati, Ohio
Gender Male
Marital Status Single
Occupation Attorney
Personal Quote If you have built castles in the air your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them. -- Thoreau.
deanofcorn.com profile -- updated 7/28/05. Perhaps someone less dominant would have deleted the profile and the screen name entirely, not just edited it. It's still up on AOL as of 10 minutes ago.
Sorry ... of course, it's deanofcorn@aol.com, member since 7/8/95
The majority of voters far prefer the person who is positive, and focuses on the positive, as opposed to those who go around bashing their opponent.
They may prefer that person, but they sure as hell don't vote for him.
Batman versus Superman. Alan thinks he is Superman: immune from injury, he floats above the world in remote judgment and holds his methods to be above reproach. We need Batman-who used to pack a pair of Colts, beats the crooks to smithereens; uses the means of evil to achieve the ends of good in a judicious fashion.
Nicole's worries about the privacy of one community belies the fact that like the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm, some pigs will hold themselves more equal than others. Ever see "Cabaret" or "Europa, Europa?" That is where the GOP would like us to go, and if no one chooses to dirty their hands to stop it, then it will become the dystopia they dream of.
Like I said, this is why we're getting our asses handed to us. 143 posts debating whether it's OK to defend this vile, hypocritical dogfucking piece of clam shit than going after him.
Hope you all like it het, married, and in the missionary position, because that's what this craphead is trying to legislate. Otherwise, have fun in the gulag.
Sometimes the posters on this site's comments board remind me of the villagers with torches and pitchforks in misunderstood-monster movies. Sheesh. Can we disagree without accusing each other of being GOP plants?
I'm not as queasy about slime politics from the left as some of the posters here are, but this guy seems like a really lame target to me. And unless he specifically spoke out against the BDSM lifestyle/community, the hypocrite claims don't really hold water.
It's true that BDSM is generally accepted to be an 'alternative lifestyle', but what does it have to do with homosexuality or the gay community? A guy who likes dripping candle wax on women, or getting spanked by them, can't be a homophobe? Not saying it's right, just saying it's apples and oranges. Of course, there is no way that this guy is actually a member of any BDSM community or he wouldn't be having to post on this site for affairs with strangers.
The guy who wrote the original article and mentioned the gimp scene in Pulp Fiction is a sorry piece of shit. His webpage will never get a hit from me, that's for sure.
By the way, I really loved the 'fish not noticing the water' analogy above. So on the money, it's not funny.
Excellent point, Josh.
Thanks to all the folks (whether naive kind-hearted, or trolls) who posted all the "leave this poor man alone" comments.
I haven't had such a belly-busting gut laugh in weeks.
I can't wait to see this hypocrite in front of the cameras, sweat dripping down his face, denying he ever did anything that his fake "Family Values" boss would label as anti-family, demonic, perverted, anti-American, anti-Christian, or wordst of all, tolerant.
I hope he explains in great detail about his passionate convictions that private, consensual sex should be off limits to criticism and condemnation by the holier-than-thou. Oh my belly hurts, this is too rich.
The poor, poor man.
Nothing wrong with the BDSM lifestyle but imagine what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot and Hackeets campaign manager had a BDSM ad up someplace Its time to play some hardball and fuck these lying hypocrites where they breathe, Rove style.
You can see the profile via the Wayback Machine, and it lets you click the links and get to those pages as see in the wayback machine
http://web.archive.org/web/20041...135/
details.htm
and this was archived in Oct 2004, so it's been around for some time. Meaning no one just posted it last week to embarrass Joe, as I heard one freeper try to spin it
Screw this nice-guy, loser, anti-'hypocrisy' shit.
To paraphrase our asshole Secretary of Defense:
"You go to elections with the weapons you've got...'
JF
Eat the peas?
NO, EAT TEH CORN.
Eat the peas?
NO, EAT TEH CORN.
Eat the peas?
NO, EAT TEH CORN.
Eat the peas?
NO, EAT TEH CORN.
Eat the peas?
NO, EAT TEH CORN.
Eat the peas?
NO, EAT TEH CORN.
Eat the peas?
NO, EAT TEH CORN.
Eat the peas?
NO, EAT TEH CORN.
Eat the peas?
NO, EAT TEH CORN.
Eat the peas?
NO, EAT TEH CORN.
Eat the peas?
NO, EAT TEH CORN.
Eat the peas?
NO, EAT TEH CORN.
Eat the peas?
NO, EAT TEH CORN.
Eat the peas?
NO, EAT TEH CORN.
Eat the peas?
NO, EAT TEH CORN.
Eat the peas?
NO, EAT...OH, FUCH THAT SHIT. I WARE STRIPED DAINTIES UNDER MY PANTS, AND TEH FUCHING FERRET IS AT IT AGAIN.
I am pissed at some wimps posting here, people like Nicole and Alan, who think that politics have rules of fair play. I ain't so. They need to go back to the student union knitting club. Bash the republican bastards with anything and everything you lay your hands on. I have been involved in politics since 1960, when the southern bible belt was rightwing racist democrats instead of rightwing republican racists. The rightwing assholes haven't changed their MO in 60 years. If you have dirt on someone you use or you lose. Politics aren't about how you play the game, but it is all about winning. The reason the repugs have been winning is because their dirty tricks and the conning of the simple minded are better than the democrats. Fight dirt with dirt. And the only time you turn the other cheek wis when the one cheek is getting all wet from too many sloppy kisses. Dirty the bastards with all the slime you can dig up. Harry Truman always said he didn't give Republicans Hell, he just told the truth on them and they thought is was Hell. So any slimy dirt you happen upon about any republican throw it all over them because that would be what they would do. The fact of the maatter is, they make up more dirt than they find. Never give those SOBs a break, they won't give you one.
END OF RANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Whew! That wore this old democrat out.
Visit my flash Rove rant at http://buckfush2004.tripod.com/j.../
jailbirds.html
Just some random thoughts after reading ALL of the comments above:
- voters "say" they hate negative ads and campaigning, but time after time their actual voting practices "reward" the negative tactics. Every time.
- "defamation" is an act that brings disrepute to another, without justification or privilege.
- "libel" is an act of defamation committed in a writing of some kind.
- "slander" is an act of defamation committed orally or in an auditory manner.
- hypocricy that can be reasonably documented is always fair game in politics, and should be used against those that use "values as a hammer or wedge" against their opponents.
- Alan and Nicole have been abused way too much for their principled stances, with which most Dems agree as a matter of STRATEGY -- the election outcomes in the last ten years, though, dictate that to win elections we must engage in the TACTICS that will persuade voters to side with us at the ballot box.
- to continue to bash Alan and Nicole in such a vicious and personal way -- people that seemly support most of our policy views -- is to engage in the same "circular firing squad" tactics that Liberman, and Biden, and too many other Dems do, of bashing each other in public without regard to the overall policy goals we all claim to be united to achieve. We are united. Right?
- finally, Joe Braun is as much a lawyer as I am "Magic" Johnson (although I did practice law in his hometown for more than 17 years). How do I know? Simple: to misuse the word "libel" when the text clearly calls for "liable" is not just poor grammatical skils (as commenter "chumley" suggests), but clearly someone who has no concept of the legal principles of which one claims to have an expertise. Braun probably got what he knows about the law of "libel" from FindLaw or from Wikipedia! I suspect that the commemter "res ipsa loquitor" knows exactly what I mean.
I still firmly stand by what I said, but I will not waste any more time on this thread. I greatly respect those who recognize the value of others sticking to their own morals, regardless of whether or not you agree with them. Integrity, baby.
Over and out-
WOW! Republicans DO IT SO THAT MAKES IT ALRIGHT FOR Democrats TO DO IT!
Love the "Firm Moral Resolve"...
Sounds almost like a bunch of Freepers...
"Terrorists blow people up so that makes it Torture acceptable"
"Republicans Smear so anything we do is a-OK"
"This is the kind of shit the Republican party seems to exult in: after presiding over the first attack on the continental US since 1812, [...] Bush unquestionably gets his party's nomination."
1916, not 1812. Pancho Villa raided Columbus, NM in retalation for the US government recognizing one of his opponents as the Mexican head of state.
Here's my opinion on it.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/20...7/30/153741/
171
Spankin' Joe Braun badmouthed homosexuals quite viciously for making their sexual proclivities known for the world. He deserves to have it pointed out to the world that he has done the exact same thing he attacked a group of people for doing.
He is a hypocrite, and there is nothing objectionable about calling attention to that fact. I'm not saying make it a campaign issue, I don't care if Cincinatti voters even know about it. But I am going to, on my own time, blast the fucker for being two-faced and a traitor both to his own "family values" and to the kinky community.
"My whole point about this entire thing is that while trashing a member of the opposite party is widely practiced, it is not productive because it only creates hostility. That is not constructive, and one of the things I loathe most about politics. I do not vote for people who will stoop so low as to slander another person on private/personal issues. Slander in that aspect has no value, and shows a lack of integrity. Political issues are fair game. " - Nicole
As Pat Benetar sang
We cannot afford to be innocent
Stand up and face the enemy
It's a do or die situation
LOL. I think it's hilarious that moonbats howl at the sex life of anybody. Kinda like how you keep minorities in their place. Under your thumb.
But are the allegations (against Braun) true?
You tried to smear him and still lost you stupid pieces of garbage!!!
Make money secrets I have found a proven method anyone can implement to very easily earn an extra $500, $1,000 or even $5,000+ every single week, with only 15 minutes of your time, and create a significant ongoing monthly income. This method is a no-nonsense, set it and forget it system, which will virtually run on 100% autopilot. People just like you are earning enough money to quit their jobs within the first month. Stop worrying about the bills, cancel your daily commute, never leave your family for a job that is making someone else rich, and start living your life the way YOU choose! Affiliate Cash Vault! New fail-safe system virtually runs 100% on autopilot. Just set it and forget it! Otherwise you will need good debt consolidation
Commenting by HaloScan
