CA State Senator DUI (with bonus gay nightclub hijinks)Follow

Either in the closet or trying to distract from their own hetero infidelities.

It wouldn't fit.

Besides, these sorts of wacky hijinks are amusing no matter whether it's a D R or I after the name, so long as the person has been loudly outspoken against gay rights in the past.

you're right, we can completely ignore his hypocrisy because he isn't the forerunner of gay-hating douchebags.

What's humorous is how people will re-interpret what they read into what they want it to say.

The article in the OP said he "has a history of opposing gay rights". Catwho turned that into "has been loudly outspoken against gay rights". And now you've completed the transformation by claiming he is "violently on one one side" (of gay rights).

Yup. That's funny...

You do realize that Catwho was offering her own opinion of the senator and not asserting that the author felt the senator was "loudly outspoken against gay rights," and therefore not re-interpreting anything because she was offering her own thoughts right?

I guess so...

It would be interesting to discover if the original statement "has a history of opposing gay rights" was itself an exaggeration. For all we know, his entire "history" could consist of failing to condemn prop8. I guess the point I'm getting at here is that unless someone is running around trying to push for legislation to make it actually illegal to be gay (or to engage in homosexual activity), any claim of hypocrisy are going to be false.

Probably the article, doesn't matter. She isn't re-interpreting anything because she isn't asserting the article/author says anything. Look, I'm fine with you trying to distract from yet another anti gay Republican being a closet case, but could you not butcher English while doing it?

But he's not a real hypocrite 'cause he ain't no Reverend Phelps.

Great! Which fits the wording of the article. Does it make him "vehement", or "loudly outspoken", or "violent" on the issue?

No. It doesn't. So... Why did two (technically three counting the OP itself) of the first 7 posts in this thread contain gross misrepresentations of the facts? What's really funny is I'll bet neither of them were even aware of what they were doing.

And if you aren't, you're just retarded. So take your pick, really.

I want to know who the stupid idiot was that was going home with him. He isn't exactly a looker...

And lol--as of today, his wikipedia page has been edited. He is now Roy "in the closet" Ashburn.

Other fun facts:

His BAC was .14.
He was driving a state-owned Chevy Tahoe.
Among those laws he voted against were ones expanding anti-discrimination laws, not just gay marriage votes. He also voted against Harvey Milk Day, and the bill that would allow Calif. to recognize out-of-state gay marriages.
He's divorced with 4 daughters, all of whom have names beginning with "S."



Edited, Mar 4th 2010 10:56pm by idiggory

I think that the general perception among Republicans is that a totally different standard is typically applied to Republican figures caught in something like this (or any "social" SNAFU, for that matter) than is applied to Democrat/Liberal figures. In the same week we have a congressman from New York accused of sexually harassing a male aid. It's a married guy with kids. The allegations are sexual in nature. Why aren't they being more broadly scrutinized? Why didn't the largely liberal audience here @ the Zam decide to post about him?

He denied it? So what, everyone else does, too. That's no good reason not to dig in to it.

It's understandable that a group of people who holds itself up as the party of morality sets itself up as a target, but the complete double standard of reporting and the total lack of consistency in reaction from people with the bully pulpit is upsetting to some. That is why some on the right tend to look for the mitigation in things, or correct the overstatements.

Take Charlie Rangel for example. His dubious activity has been reported for over a year, at least, by the right wing talk hosts. Only now he's stepping down as the chair of the Ways & Means committee in congress? If it was Tom Delay the cries for his head would have been splashed across the evening news from the first day that there was even a sniff of scandal. The inequity of treatment is the basis for the reaction. Or, at least, I assume so.

Well, the hypocritical part of course makes for more sensational news, and I would have to say the trend of the GOP to vilify these issues makes it even more sensational.

That being said, I really don't buy your argument. If right wing pundits, and presumably people from Fox are reporting or talking about it, it's clearly not missing the main stream media. If fox isn't reporting on it, then I'm going to have to assume it's really minor news. I think the difference is that so many people on the right vehemently jump to defend these people, which makes the issue that much bigger. If someone is so committed to defending someone, then maybe there is a real story. On the other hand, with Obama, the dems, and everyone else being vilified and compared to communists on a daily basis, yet another criticism just doesn't have the traction. There's also the fact that the Democrats aren't interested in controlling morality.

Admittedly I'm not really following this story, so I don't know how big it is, but I'd assume it'll be forgotten in a week just like pretty much all the others.

Shhh. She has, like, degrees & stuff. Plus she's in MENSA.