I tuned in to KFI (AM640) at 5pm today for the latest installment of John & Ken's Political Human Sacrifice campaign.
The hosts introduced someone from a gay activist group that's targeting Republicans who support a federal ban on gay marriage. The group already had Dreier on its list of targets, and it was clear from the get-go that the guest had an agenda.
The guest opened with the boast, "We're 'outing' Dreier," and then accused Dreier of having a homosexual relationship with a member of his staff. The proof?: It is claimed that Dreier pays someone on his staff a lot of money. Before long I had to turn off the program in disgust, but from what I heard I was convinced that this activist group didn’t have the kind of goods on Dreier that warranted such public accusations.
The charges themselves seemed particularly sleazy, especially since it is a most basic etiquette in gay culture not to 'out' those who wish to keep their orientation private. As far as I’m concerned, it’s despicable and unconscionable for a gay-rights group to use accusations of homosexuality as a weapon and as a means of punishing their political enemies. Whether the charges are founded or not, their attitude is, "Let them suffer."
The charges reflect poorly on the character of those who assert them. As far as I can tell to this point, the charges are also unproven--thrown out there simply to hurt a congressman. If such charges are ever proven to be true, I’ll change my tune in this regard. As of now, however, the motives of the group making the charges are more suspect than Dreier’s private or public life.
I'm disappointed at John & Ken. They seemed to have stooped pretty low in this instance. It’s as though there's no limit to the depths they'll go to attack Dreier.
Just for the record, I personally dislike Dreier. On the Hugh Hewitt show he once referred to those who opposed outsourcing and 'free trade' as xenophobes, a charge which I found to be preposterous and slanderous. I detest his weaselly support of illegal immigration under the guise of being pro-business. I’ll be glad to see him go if he is defeated this November.
All this having been said, I find it distasteful to attack Dreier simply for the sake of attacking him, and with no regard to how sleazy the source or the charge. Some things are even more important than defeating a disappointing congressman like Drier—decency, for one.
I’m hoping Justin (who works directly with KFI) will comment or post on this subject. He would almost certainly be able to discuss the background of today’s John & Ken Show in far greater detail, and perhaps bring to the dialogue a perspective different than my own.
UPDATE #1
Oops! Looks like Justin beat me to the punch. D’Oh! See his post directly below mine.
I note Justin's report that the Village Voice is gearing up to run an ''out' Dreier' article. I reiterate and clarify here my conviction that gays are being untrue to their very selves (to whatever meaning they accord to their own sexual orientation, and to what they believe to be its very innate, inborn essence within them) when they stoop to 'outing' their political opponents for spite or for political gain, just as much as the women of N.O.W. were untrue to their gender when they stood by serial-harasser Bill Clinton simply because he was kin to their political agendas.
TENTATIVE RETRACTION (to my initial posting): If Dreier turns out in fact to be gay, then I will stand corrected from my initial skepticism, and will strikeover the portions of text defending him from the charges brought on John & Ken. If it was already rumored on the blogosphere, then I’m behind the curve on it. The accusations on the John & Ken Show were the first I heard of it.
UPDATE #2
Boi kindly linked this post, and offers insight into allegations circulating about Dreier.
UPDATE #3
Justin has subsequently posted, registering his dismay regarding my treatment of the "'out' Dreier" segment of Wednesday's John & Ken show. My response to Justin's post can be found in its entirety in his comments section, but in short...
I really do like the John & Ken show, honest (otherwise I wouldn't be a semi-regular J&K listener); I just didn't think it was appropriate for them to bring on a guest that came off sounding like such a sleazeball.
But here's the kicker. As Justin says in his post,
John & Ken also made it quite clear that the issue is irrelevant as to why Dreier should be fired from office.
Precisely! Justin just proved my point. It was a wholly “irrelevant” issue as to why Dreier should be fired from office. Airing Dreier's rumored sexuality was therefore gratuitous; that’s the reason I found it particularly sleazy, and why I labeled it as such in my post.
I hate this blog. I hate mine more though.
Posted by: sevextra at September 23, 2004 12:34 AM (Permalink)I hate mine more though.
Where's your blog? Maybe I'll hate it too. ;-) (j/k! , please link to your blog here in the comments section)
It is a shame to see so many conservatives hoping that one of the most senior republicans in the house loses to a democrat this election.
I was thinking about the Dean campaign, and how Dean supporters blasted the other primary candidates for not being liberal enough. That is the problem here, Dreier is conservative, but not conservative enough for you on immigration, so you reject him.
The difference between the deaniacs and you guys is that the deaniacs were smart enough to understand that ANY democrat would be the lesser of two evils when put up against Bush. That logic is something levine, lonewhacko, and now smith fail to apply to Dreier. He is very clearly the lesser of two evils, even if you obsess about only one issue (his weakness on immigration).
Imagine how stupid it would be for the democrats to vote for Bush because they were unhappy that Kerry was not liberal enough and wanted to 'send a message'.
The republicans would lose their chairman in a powerful commitee if Dreier is not elected, which has party-wide effects.
Posted by: Kaltes at September 23, 2004 04:18 AM (Permalink)This rumor has been percolating for awhile.
About a year ago, on this very blog, several people were debating the possibility of a Drier Senate run and the rumors about his orientation were raised at that time. I posted a comment on the thread and a few days later got an email from a purported journalist for some publication I had never heard of saying he was working on a story that would "out" Drier and asking if I had any personal knowledge. Anyone else remember receiving such an email?
Posted by: Sean at September 23, 2004 10:07 AM (Permalink)Not really, kaltes- they'd just name a new chairman of the committee.
Dreier isn't just "not conservative enough" on immigration, he isn't at all- his voting record on it is far poorer than the majority of house democrats'.
The Democrat opponent to Dreier is actually very good on immigration. And, besides, if she isn't, two years down the road she's in a very tough district to keep.
Posted by: The Angry Clam at September 23, 2004 11:25 AM (Permalink)"his voting record on it is far poorer than the majority of house democrats.
The Democrat opponent to Dreier is actually very good on immigration"
Both those statements are very stupid, and very ignorant.
I read Matthew's position statements. I read Dreier's voting record, and I read up on the voting records of the California delegation to Congress. I included analysis and information in comments Levine's earlier Dreier post. Go read it, because you clearly lack an educated opinion on this issue.
The facts prove you wrong, lonewhacko. Delusions that Matthews is better than Dreier are so absurd that if you are going to try to sell them, you'd better bring some facts/analysis with you.
Posted by: Kaltes at September 23, 2004 12:03 PM (Permalink)angry clam: It looks like you too have gotten a taste of kaltes's [sarcasm]superior and unassailable[/sarcasm] debating skills.
He is nothing, if not predictable. His response to this comment here will be to say how he "proved" me wrong time and time again - even though the quality of his arguments were no different that his response to you.
Hell clam, even our own passionate tussles over copyright issues were more productive than this guy's babbling. I'm sure you don't need me telling you that you are dead-on with this issue and don't need to back down.
Posted by: Justin Levine at September 23, 2004 12:20 PM (Permalink)The facts prove you wrong, lonewhacko
Lonewacko[TM] and Lonewhacko[TM] are trademarks. Please do not genericize them to refer to "the angry clam"
Posted by: The Lonewacko Blog at September 23, 2004 12:21 PM (Permalink)Kalties,
That logic is something levine, lonewhacko, and now smith fail to apply to Dreier.
Please keep in mind that I never said I would personally vote against Dreier, but only that in a way I'd be happy for him to bite the dust because of his weaselly pro-illegal stance.
Even if I could vote in that district, I would not vote for Dreier's opponent. His saavy opponent talks a good game on immigration (perhaps for the purpose of unseating Dreier), but I could never even consider voting for someone who would in any likelihood vote on most issues with the Democrat Party Bosses in Washington D.C.
I must confess to being personally conflicted about the whole Political Human Sacrifice thing.
Perhaps my most basic political creed is that Dems are in all cases to be opposed through the support of their Republican challengers.
That having been said, I must admit to sharing the sense of desperation many John & Ken listeners feel over the waves of illegal aliens contributing to the ‘Aztlanizing’ of the Southwest. Part of me feels our only hope is a groin-busting knee to the Republican Party's privates to wake them up the fact that their constituents are pissed off and no longer content to quietly accept the status quo of shoddy border enforcement.
I’m open to all realistic, practical suggestions for clamping down on illegal immigration. Even though, yes, I’m somewhat dubious of Political Human Sacrifice, I’ve heard of nothing as plausible as John & Ken’s admittedly desperate idea.
Posted by: clark smith at September 23, 2004 12:28 PM (Permalink)Kaltes, you crossed the line on that one.
I've known Angry Clam to at points be rough and even intemperate, but out of the respect due him I strongly object to you calling him
very stupid, and very ignorant
I must say that in a way your statement earned the disdainful tone of Justin's retort, though just the same I wish we could all chill out here a little bit, and let each man return to a neutral corner.
There's no need for any of us to put each other down.
How does that saying go ... Can't we all just get along?
Compare that to, say
or
Incidentally, C is the average score for Congress.
Posted by: The Angry Clam at September 23, 2004 04:13 PM (Permalink)Gay men and lesbians have every right to be against gay marriage and adoption just as women have every right to be against abortion and other minorities have the right to be against affirmative action. When a female member of congress speaks out against abortion, however, she's obviously female and her constituents can see for themselves that she is a member of the member of the group she is seeking to restrict. David Dreier, on the other hand, is duping his constituents, the residents of D.C. (Dreier voted to prohibit gays and lesbians from adopting children in DC), and the American people by not publicly acknowledging his sexuality. This has nothing to do with his opinions or his right to vote as he wishes but David Dreier has a responsibility to acknowledge that he is a member of the group he is seeking to legislate against.
Posted by: Michael Rogers at September 23, 2004 05:51 PM (Permalink)michael rogers
First, you are assuming that Dreier is confirmedly gay. That question is still very much in doubt.
Second, gays 'outing' other gays for the purpose of spite, vindictiveness, or political gain, seems to me an intrinsic wrong that cannot be nicely explained away by cool matters of policy that pretend to justify the shafting of all those who do not vote according to one's wishes.
Oh, he's gay all right.
That's been common knowledge in Hill circles for the past decade, at least.
I've been mentioning it for over a year, if you recall.
Posted by: The Angry Clam at September 23, 2004 08:58 PM (Permalink)Clam,
You're so sure Dreier's gay? Even Boi has expressed substantial doubts on the matter.
Oh yes.
And not due to reports read in recent days.
Posted by: The Angry Clam at September 23, 2004 10:19 PM (Permalink)hey Michael Rogers:
THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY
What Dreier does or does not do to other men's asses in the privacy of his own home or the local bath house is his business and not yours or mine.
Dreier is not a 'member of the group' because he is not some spineless pussy sellout without an identity that needs to go join some fucking group to know who he is. Membership in these bullshit minority groups is voluntary, not compulsory, which is why free-thinking INDIVIDUALS choose to not surrender to the pressure of group-think and live their lives free of the labels society tries to shove down their throats.
If Dreier is gay, I will respect him more, because it proves I can trust him to do his job and represent his constituents without letting gay identity bullshit cloud his judgment.
Keep it up with those hypocritically flaccid self-serving justifications though, I'm sure it helps you sleep at night.
Posted by: Kaltes at September 24, 2004 11:29 PM (Permalink)Levine: "It looks like you too have gotten a taste of kaltes's [sarcasm]superior and unassailable[/sarcasm] debating skills."
(1) Levine, are you still bruised over the beatings I gave you? Grow up, get over it, and move on. Your comment is just more of the same juvenile garbage from you. Not one whit of substance.
Smith: "Even if I could vote in that district, I would not vote for Dreier's opponent."
(2) I'm no big Dreier fan. I'd love to see him get mauled in the primary by a opponent who is strong on immigration. I think we pretty much agree on that. I also share your sense of urgency on the immigration issue. The problem is that J&K are essentially promising magic hair growth gel and we are all bald men. Desperation makes people stupid, you know, like alcohol and love. You want to believe anything or try anything, so it makes you an easy mark for charlatans. J&K's idea is bold, but stupid. I'd like to see them invest their efforts and talents in other, more productive ways.
"I've known Angry Clam to at points be rough and even intemperate, but out of the respect due him I strongly object to you calling him"
(3) Read my comment again. I did not call HIM any names, I said his WORDS were stupid and ignorant. Those particular words were. The vast majority of what he says is not, and even the most intelligent and wise among us can intellectually crap our pants from time to time, so it was nothing against him personally. Saying that matthews is VERY GOOD on immigration is just wrong. It is mind-blowing. Saying Dreier's record is worse than most democrats is also absurd. Dreier has made a few bad votes in the last few years, but his overall record is not that bad.
The Angry Clam: "Recent Votes by Dreier: D-."
(4) Career Grade for Dreier: B-
Nice cherry-picking of liberals, by the way, here is how the california delegation really breaks down:
DEMOCRATS(33): GPA = 0.45
A's: 0
B's: 0
C's: 1
D's: 13
F's: 19
REPUBLICANS(20): GPA = 3.05
A's: 10
B's: 4
C's: 3
D's: 3
F's: 0
That still places Dreier among the bottom of the pack for the CAGOP.
Screw him.
Posted by: The Angry Clam at September 25, 2004 01:06 AM (Permalink)David Drier is a traitor to rank and file Republicans. He has said one thing and done another on the illegal alien issue. I could care less is the guy is in the "closet" about anything. Who knows and who cares if that's true or not. What matters is that he has betrayed the Republican rank and file when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration and for that he must be dealt with at the ballot box. FIRE DRIER!!!!!!
Posted by: Boston Bob at October 30, 2004 12:06 AM (Permalink)You can also check the sites about insurance quotes insurance quotes http://insurance-quotes.rulo.biz/ poker poker http://poker.rulo.biz/ debt consolidation loans debt consolidation loans http://debt-consolidation-loans.rulo.biz/ bad credit auto loans bad credit auto loans http://bad-credit-auto-loans.rulo.biz/ countrywide home loans countrywide home loans http://countrywide-home-loans.rulo.biz/ unsecured loans unsecured loans http://unsecured-loans.rulo.biz/ homeowners insurance homeowners insurance http://homeowners-insurance.rulo.biz/ canadian pharmacy canadian pharmacy http://canadian-pharmacy.rulo.biz/ online pharmacies online pharmacies http://online-pharmacies.rulo.biz/ canadian pharmacies canadian pharmacies http://canadian-pharmacies.rulo.biz/ reductil reductil http://reductil.rulo.biz/ butalbital butalbital http://butalbital.rulo.biz/ propecia propecia http://propecia.rulo.biz/ clonazepam clonazepam http://clonazepam.rulo.biz/ fluoxetine fluoxetine http://www.rulo.biz/ wellbutrin wellbutrin http://wellbutrin.rulo.biz/ slots slots http://slots.rulo.biz/ black jack black jack http://black-jack.rulo.biz/ craps craps http://craps.rulo.biz/ roulette roulette http://roulette.rulo.biz/ ... Thanks!!!
Posted by: insurance quotes at January 22, 2005 03:40 PM (Permalink)