Andrew Breitbart Quits GOProud Over Outing of Perry Adviser

[Diva667]

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/12/11/Andrew_Breitbart_Quits_GOProud_Over_Outing_of_Perr y_Adviser/


Conservative website mogul Andrew Breitbart has quit the advisory board for GOProud, saying he has a "zero tolerance" policy for outing people.

Trouble started when GOProud's Jimmy LaSalvia and Chris Barron reacted to an antigay Rick Perry television ad by angrily taking to Twitter, attacking pollster Tony Fabrizio.

"I've just about had it with faggots who line their pockets with checks from antigay homophobes while throwing the rest of us under the bus," LaSalvia wrote.


Interesting. For those of you who may not be in the know "GOProud" is the newest incarnation of the Log Cabin Republicans. Largely ignored by republicans as far as I can tell.

Rick Perry released his controversial ad (http://youtu.be/0PAJNntoRgA) just this last week, and that inspired GOProud to out one of his advisers.

What do you all think. Is working for a homophobic campaign a reason to out someone?

[bityme]

What do you all think. Is working for a homophobic campaign a reason to out someone?

Coming out is a deeply personal decision for anyone. I have a hard time finding any justification for outing someone other than a religious leader or political candidate who directly attacks the group they are actually a part of. This is not one of those two circumstances.

Fabrizio is not the candidate and he actually objected to the ad being run. Outing someone because the were able to find employment in this economy because you don't like the employer is not called for.

While the ad might be controversial to some, I don't see it that way. I do see it as stupid, however. It was not an attack on gays, It was an attack on Obama's stance on religion. Perry essentially asked: if gays can serve openly in the military, why can't children celebrate Xmas and pray in school? (The answer, of course, is that Xmas and prayer in school is governed by a different constitutional amendment.)

I could see outing Perry over the ad, if there were grounds to do so, but not Fabrizio.

Pappy

[fredtyg]

I have a hard time finding any justification for outing someone other than a religious leader or political candidate who directly attacks the group they are actually a part of. This is not one of those two circumstances.

Agreed.

[Darkside2009]

I don't know this candidate, and I'm not one of the American electorate, but it seemed a reasonable enough question to me.

In terms of what our UK politicians have to put up with, it seemed pretty tame to me. A few years ago an advisor to one of our local politicians was outed because he was homosexual. To his credit the politician refused to sack him.

If the candidate is saying one thing but acting out the opposite in his private life, I think it is fair enough to expose him as a hypocrite, but not for simply being a homosexual.

It seems more a case of they couldn't inflict damage on the candidate's views so they tried tarring him by association. Rather pathetic.

I seem to remember JF Kennedy portraying himself as a healthy and vigorous family man, all the while hobbling around on crutches behind the scenes and womanising with several different woman, including one linked with a mobster.

Did the Liberal press of the day expose his hypocrisy? No, they colluded in covering it up.

[darkeyes]

I seem to remember JF Kennedy portraying himself as a healthy and vigorous family man, all the while hobbling around on crutches behind the scenes and womanising with several different woman, including one linked with a mobster.

Did the Liberal press of the day expose his hypocrisy? No, they colluded in covering it up.

..and the conservative press of the day did what precisely?

... but I do agree with the rest of what you say.. except that if I knew of it the little shit would know I knew of it...

[æonpax]

IDid the Liberal press of the day expose his hypocrisy? No, they colluded in covering it up.

In the past, I've asked those who mindless parrot this phrase to offer some kind of evidence, some kind of proof...anything, to substantiate this claim of the media being "liberal"...but alas, no takers.

Sometimes I think the lack of critical thinking skills will be the death of the human race

[æonpax]

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/12/11/Andrew_Breitbart_Quits_GOProud_Over_Outing_of_Perr y_Adviser/Interesting. For those of you who may not be in the know "GOProud" is the newest incarnation of the Log Cabin Republicans. Largely ignored by republicans as far as I can tell. Rick Perry released his controversial ad (http://youtu.be/0PAJNntoRgA) just this last week, and that inspired GOProud to out one of his advisers.

What do you all think. Is working for a homophobic campaign a reason to out someone?

No. I've never liked "outing" as it's an abusive tool and counter productive. However, if Perry himself was "down low" and he attacked the gay community, I think telling people the truth is important.

It really doesn't matter though. Nothing but clowns running this year anyways. Time for a third US party.



http://i.imgur.com/dJrMj.jpg

[12voltman59]

On one hand---I do have a problem with those who are gay/bi but yet work with and for those who would seek to restrict the rights of GLBT people---or anyone for that matter since to me it shows that someone is very hypocritical to claim that you are a small government, libertarian type who wants to "get the government off the backs of the people" but has no problem in denying full rights to certain groups of people and even using the power of government entities to hamstring the disliked groups as much as possible.

On the other hand--I do have a problem with "outing" someone who for whatever reason does not care to be out no matter how valid it might seem for them to be "outted."

I have never been such a cultural warrior/slash and burn/scorched earth, destroy my enemies at all costs type.

I do guess though--that if you "play the game" at the level those people do--then it sort of comes with the territory that you can expect such behavior to be part and parcel to the way many of those people operate.

I do agree with you Aeon, the slate of potential nominees offered by the Republicans are a pretty sorry crowd, and I also agree that we need a third party--but go even further to say that we don't need just three parties---we need to go a a system that allows for multiple parties--with parties running the spectrum from left to the right and that they would need to form a coalition to run the country--it works in the UK, Israel and other places----it may not be a perfect way to operate---but it seems like a far sight better than the "twiddle dee, twiddle dum" system that we are operating with now---we also need two other things----some mechanism that takes down the SCOTUS's "Citizens United" ruling that basically allows unfettered and non-reported campaign contributions and for there to be only publicly financed political campaigns that set a short limit--no more than six months-- for political campaigning and with each candidate that does meet a certain basic qualification to run for president---they get a set amount of FREE commercial time on both broadcast and cable networks since those things--surely those networks that are broadcast do so on publicly owned "airwaves" and even cable since those systems use public rights of way to run their cables---and with satellite systems since they too use the "public airwaves" to send their signals. Also---the setting of voting districts would be two things: first---they would not weirdly cut up communities in funky ways and each voting district would be set up to be as competitive as possible for the different parties, for "racial" and ethnic groups, and along socioeconomic lines as well so that no one group would have unfair advantages and that to win---a candidate for office would have to run campaigns to appeal to the broadest makeup of a voting district and not represent only a few or one group. To make it actually easier for Congress members---their terms would be longer--at least four years or perhaps six years with a term limit set of say no more than three terms. It does corrupt the system in a way that those who are members of Congress have such short terms that they are basically always running a political campaign or at least concerned with fundraising.

[BiDaveDtown]

These hypocrites deserve to be outed and ridiculed.

Both Republicans and the Democrats deserve this as they are not doing anyone any good by being a politician or working in politics yet staying closeted.

The democrats are no better than the republicans and both parties are not really for LGBT rights.

Even Obama is not really a "fierce advocate" for LGBT rights like he pretends to be.