The following post is a repost of a comment that I just made to Americablog. I am adding it here because I have the strong impression that it will be deleted shortly.
While your denials of your protecting the staffers of antigay Democrats are amusing, John, they aren't borne out by fact.
ONE MORE POINT, ASSHOLE. WHICH CLOSETED DEM STAFFERS ARE WE PROTECTING? I DON'T KNOW OF ONE.
When I refer to closeted staffers of Democrats, the best example would be the one that Mike Rogers mentions here:
I have yet to meet a Democrat staff member who opposes what their boss has done. The only case where one Democrat voted for the anti-gay law who has a gay staffer was clear to us that the member was forced to vote that way to attempt to hold the conservative leaning seat.
Now, John, could you clarify whether or not that refers to the individual you mentioned?
OH YOU MUST MEAN THAT COMMITTEE STAFFER IN THE HOUSE WHO'S VERY SENIOR AND WORKING FOR A MAJORLY ANTI-GAY MEMBER, THE ONE WE DECIDED NOT TO OUT. BUT, OOPS, HE'S A REPUBLICAN. AND WE DIDN'T OUT HIM BECAUSE HE IS WORKING TO HELP US FROM THE INSIDE, UNLIKE YOUR BUDDIES.
Are those the same individual? Furthermore, it begs the questions, John -- who is making the decision concerning "help us from the inside", and what is the nature of this "help" that is sufficient to allow you to protect someone who is, as you put it, "majorly antigay"?
NDT's Note: The reason I think John regularly throws this around without any explanation whatsoever is because he know full well there are quotes out there in which he expresses utter contempt for the "work from inside" theory, as I mentioned yesterday. In addition, were he to reveal the names of the people making the "decisions", my belief is that they could be easily linked back to partisan political groups and the Democratic Party -- and the house of cards would come tumbling down once those groups' involvement in the outing campaign was known, both in terms of Democratic support for him and (I suspect) funding.
Honestly, though, this was my favorite melodramatic statement you made, John:
NO ASSHOLE, AS I'VE TOLD YOU REPEATEDLY AND YOU, IN CLASSIC FORM, REPEATEDLY LIE ABOUT, THE GOP AFFIRMATIVELY USES GAY ISSUES TO BASH THE DEMS IN ORDER TO PUT THEM IN A NO WIN SITUATION. IT'S A BIT LIKE EQUATING SOPHIE IN SOPHIE'S CHOICE WITH THE NAZI WHO GAVE HER THE CHOICE. YES, BOTH ARE FLAWED, BUT I HOLD THE NAZI IN A LOT MORE CONTEMPT THAN THE PRISONER WHO HAS A GUN TO HIS HEAD.
In terms of equating Democrats to Sophie in Sophie's Choice, the life of Sophie's children was threatened, not merely her job. How much sympathy should we have for people who make antigay slurs and vote for legislation, but then claim they have to do so to keep their job? How many Democratic Congresspersons wouldn't be able to get another job if they were "fired" by their constituency for standing up for gay rights? You cheapen the issue by making a life-or-death choice comparable to one of personal inconvenience, and you make it obvious that protecting the jobs of antigay Democrats is more important to you than gay rights.
Furthermore, John, had Kerry, for instance, not supported antigay state constitutional amendments -- which is not the same thing as supporting gay marriage -- by how much more would he have lost? Michael in New York was emphatic that gays did not cost Kerry the election, Dianne Feinstein was ridiculed for saying they had, and you pointed out that the main reason Kerry lost was that he sucked. Kerry blatantly supported stripping gays of marriage rights in Massachusetts and enacting discriminatory state constitutional amendments in other states and he STILL lost. There is simply no rhyme or logic to the theory that Democrats have to be antigay in order to win elections, because it certainly doesn't seem to work when they do it.
In short, John, the person threatening "Sophie" is not an armed Nazi thug, but a kid with a wet cap pistol. Furthermore, the kid isn't threatening her children's lives -- s/he is just threatening to "out" her at work as being someone supportive of their party's own platform concerning gay rights, which promises gays "full inclusion" and "equality". Are Democrats really that terrified of being seen as supporting gay rights? If so, how in the WORLD can you argue that they will "help" us, when it's obvious that they will NOT stand up to their constitutencies and will throw us away at the first sign of trouble, a la Bill Clinton?
My challenge to you is twofold, John:
1) Reveal the names of your "outing committee".
2) Acknowledge publicly that you have not outed the staffers of antigay Democrats, nor are you inclined to do so.
At that point, with that information, I think the blogosphere and the gay press will take care of matters.