Immigration Reform and Outing A Senator
Honestly, I wasn’t sure what to title this post since the subject matter doesn’t exactly flow. But it seems that the immigration debate has taken a turn…
William Gheen, head of the conservative, anti-“amnesty,” anti-illegal immigration group Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC), spoke at a Greenville, S.C. Tea Party rally this weekend and called for Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to “come out of that log cabin closet.”
According to Gheen, being gay is “a secret that Lindsey Graham has.”
Gheen told the crowd: “I hope this secret isn’t being used as leverage over Senator Graham, so today I think Senator Graham, you need to come forward and tell people about your alternative lifestyle and your homosexuality.”
Oh my. But Gheen is only concerned about his country, not about Graham’s sexual orientation. (I crack myself up!)
“US Senator Lindsey Graham is gay and while many people in South Carolina and Washington DC know that, the general public and Graham’s constituents do not,” Gheen said in the statement. Though Gheen claimed, both in the statement and at the Tea Party rally, that he does “not care about Graham’s private life,” he again said that Graham must declare his supposed homsexuality “so the public can rest assured he is not being manipulated with his secret.”
“I need to figure out why you’re trying to sell out your own countrymen and I need to make sure you being gay isn’t it,” Gheen said over the weekend.
You know when I know people are gay? When they tell me they are gay.
Tags: Homosexuality, Immigration, Lindsey Graham, Republicans
Shorter Gheen:
For the good of the country, Graham must out himself.
Isn’t that silly? What does it matter for immigration reform?
“not care about Graham’s private life,”
Clearly. That’s why you’re talking about it in front of thousands of people.
I just have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that someone could be gay and also Republican.At least now.Rockefeller Republican OK,I’d get it.
Because obviously, being manipulated through blackmail is the only reason that someone could be concerned about immigration reform. Sigh. Anyone remember the good old days when we had two political parties, both populated by adults?
Seriously, what’s next? Bob Corker has cooties because he’s on board with financial reform?
Scott, back then I think people used chicken-bartering to pay for doctor’s visits.
Fine, then I’m gay, too. Am I, really? No, but call me gay and screw off, homophobes.
You’re gay, Smitty! 😉
Yay! Screw off, homophobes!
Hmm…suddenly, my wife is calling me on my cell… 😀
I heard RSmitty is married to a thespian.
LOL…got the reference, but funny that…she has been on stage a few times.
@11:53 – That reminds me of the infamous George Smathers “speech” (which never happened):
“Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism with his sister-in-law, and he has a sister who was once a thespian in wicked New York. Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, habitually practiced celibacy.”
Who is and who isn’t gay on Capitol Hill is an open secret. The only time we in the gay community get upset is when these closeted legislators (and they’re in both parties) vote against equality, otherwise, we could care less.
@ UI:And we can thank Mrs.Steele from Ocean View,De.for ruining our ability to pay our doctors with chickens.She’s the one who introduced the concept of factory farming and force-feeding chicks to broiler status as quickly as possible to the world.And all the excess manure that goes into our rivers and bays and screws up the enviroment.Thanks Mizz Steele!
Sen. Lindsey Graham is an example of a “pragmatic conservative” who has taken the lead on environmental and immigration issues within the GOP. He’s taken heat for it, to be sure, but he won South Carolina by almost 60% of the vote in ’08. The immigration “amnesty” issue is a canard- the bipartisan reform proposal Sen. Graham put forward with Sen. Schumer includes an “earned legalization” program.
There is high irony in Mr. Gheen attacking Sen. Graham from the right over “amnesty”- after all, the proponent of the largest immigration amnesty in American history (1986’s IRCA) was none other then President Ronald Reagan.
This is not a new rumor, its been put out there before. I have no way of assessing its veracity, but I am certain of its irrelevancy. Today, we need more pragmatic legislators on both sides of the aisle like Sen. Graham in D.C., no matter their sexual orientation.
Well I think the legitimate concern here is that Sen. Graham might be being blackmailed by person or persons unknown** into taking a pro-Amnesty position. Obviously that would be of great concern to his constituents. Now as far as I know, this is sheer speculation–nothing more. But it is something that people could reasonably wonder about, and worry about.
**To clarify, I mean conceivably the blackmail could be being done by “buddies” of Sen. Graham–if you know what I mean. heh heh. Again, this is all just speculation. But it is odd that he would take positions so contrary to the values and interests of his constituents.
CharlieBarlie
“But it is something that people could reasonably wonder about, and worry about.”
Wrong. Not “people.” “Cretins** like me” might make it a true sentence, just as “cretins like me” would substitute nicely for “his constituents.” In fact, you should grow more accustomed to using the phrase, “cretins like me.”
**Apologies to the world’s actual cretins, who didn’t choose to be that way. Charlie did.
Thanks, Geez. I love you, too. But not the way you may be hoping–heh heh. I love all the world’s sputtering old fools because they remind me of my grandfather.
Your friend, Charliebarlie
Beats being a young fool. If you had thought for, oh, about two seconds you would realize the paranoid lack of logic of your position: Every time Lindsay Graham casts a vote you disagree with, it’s because someone is blackmailing him to vote that way, against his own natural inclinations. Further, you claim it’s “legitimate” to hold this view — while overlooking the fact that this rumor has been around so long it couldn’t possibly surprise anyone if the “secret” were revealed.
This isn’t a Larry Craig situation, where the guy is married and leading a closeted life. This isn’t Tom Foley, where the guy is hitting on inappropriately young men in the workplace. What does he have to lose, his Senate seat? Wouldn’t he lose that anyway by casting the “wrong” votes?
You’re apparently living in 1959, when hidden homosexuality drove the plot of the anti-Communist screed “Advise and Consent” (it won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction the next year, illustrating that the “liberal” institutions despised by the right weren’t very liberal back then, either).
Of course many gay people could not be blackmailed in 2010. But I would think that a Southern senator (of either party) probably could be blackmailed, especially if there were someone who had very concrete information about specific activities he might be engaging in. E.g., Larry Craig type activities, heh heh.
I granted at the outset that it is a conjecture for which there is little evidence as far as I know. But it is an intriguing possibility.
As to why it is worth entertaining with regard to illegal immigration, well it certainly is striking that this man takes this position that his constituents find to be a complete anathema, because from their perspective it rewards lawbreaking. Of course he denies that it rewards lawbreaking, but the arguments there are quite specious; he says that because there will be some fines and some waiting period before citizenship, there was no reward. But this makes no sense, since the question is: are they getting an advantage in admission to the US over what they would have gotten had they stayed home and applied at the US Consulate. And the answer, for every amnesty proposal, is Yes. He also denies that it is amnesty, but again, the penalty to be imposed is always trivial compared to what it would be for all the people who were, say, caught yesterday–they were deported!
So here this “conservative” is taking a position that favors amnesty and rewards for lawbreakers, and his constituents are outraged. And yet he persists. There is no obvious electoral advantage being gained. Yes it is possible that he is so sympathetic to these lawbreakers because they are poor, but there is nothing else in his record to suggest that sort of sentimentality.
Charlie
Charlie (heh heh) seems to know an aweful lot about this lifetyle. I think he must be being blackmailed into making these arguments…. 🙂
Charlie: My problem with your conjectures is the notion that there could be no larger impetus for Graham to take his position. Yet the bill “conservatives” are complaining about was proposed by a conservative president (not as conservative as some in Congress, but then, Congresscritters don’t have to stand before the entire electorate, just a gerrymandered slice). Furthermore, it offered clear long-range political motivations to the GOP: in 2000, Bush got more than 40% of the Hispanic vote. In short, Republicans have a lot to lose down the road if they pose as opponents of immigration reform today.
My conjecture is that William Gheen dislikes gays as much as he dislikes immigrants, and he’s proving it by wallowing in the gutter like this. He also knows that he’s unlikely to be called on his prejudices by any in the Tea Party crowd.
Sure, it is possible that the senator takes that position for the strategic reason you mention (although the electoral advantages to republicans are very doubtful–poor unskilled people always vote left–they would be crazy not to want more welfare programs since they take out rather than pay in to them.)
Or the senator may just take this position to curry favor with mainstream media, who love amnesties for illegals (probably because they are so dependent upon their nannies, maids, and garden help, and make themselves feel better about exploiting these people if they try to help them out–by passing along all the costs of unskilled immigration to their fellow citizens.)
Charlie
That last is complete bullshit. You don’t know anything about “mainstream media” if that’s what you think. Most of its members make average American wages, not six figures. Or by “mainstream media” do you mean “network talking heads”?
The electoral advantages of wooing Hispanics were anything but doubtful when Bush and Rove proposed their path-to-citizenship bill. I read your link, which mainly attacks national exit polls for allegedly inflating Hispanic votes for the GOP (Let’s leave aside, for now, what the supposed motivation for such behavior might be, since it presupposes a long chain of actions all pointing toward the nefarious goal of “opening America’s borders to 6 billion people” of Earth.)
Even if you accept VDARE’s estimate of what Hispanic voting patterns in 2004 really were — more like the low 30’s than the low 40’s — it still represents a 50% increase over the typical 21% Hispanics typically got previously. Granted, his position on immigration might have had nothing to do with this — many Hispanics are devoutly religious and have strong family values, which would make them ripe for GOP recruitment anyway, and those in Texas are surely aware that Bush is a fluent Spanish speaker.
Whatever the reason, that’s a significant jump in support (the guy who wrote the “analysis” you linked to isn’t much of a statistician, despite his fevered speculation about exit polls). And while much of it stayed GOP for McCain (exit polls claim 31%), believing that means you would have to believe that exit polls were 10 points off in 2004 but completely accurate in 2008.
ONe more point: It’s not the actual immigration policy that might alienate illegal aliens — indeed, 47% of Hispanic voters in Arizona voted FOR a crackdown referendum in 2004, showing that Latino citizens don’t appreciate illegal immigration any more than Anglos do.
The problem is the racist overtones spewed by people like William Gheen. When Anglos complain about people speaking Spanish, they’re not attacking only illegals; they’re attacking all Spanish speakers. It’s not a winning formula unless you believe, like the “analyst” you linked to, that the GOP should concentrate on its core costituency of whites — as the author explicitly espouses.
Jeez, Geez, let’s not get into exit polls from past elections–it’s too darned boring. I think it is not clear what would constitute good tactics on this issue for either party–there are obviously lots of perils associated with any choice they might make, and I doubt we can make any useful predictions here. I do think, though, that for some guy worrying about his own career in SoCarolina, the Senator has made some strange choices. However, as you say, there can be many reasons for that. The only thing I think is very clear is what would be good public policy for the US. Putting aside the whole issue of rewarding lawbreakers, legalizing millions of people with very low skill levels and educational aspirations, at a time when the world economy is increasingly tech driven, when the Chinese economy is exploding, when Asia is graduating millions of high performing engineers–to me, this has got to be about the stupidest thing we could possibly do if we want to retain our status as a first world country.
Anyway, it was fun talking with you, Geez–you are more of a stimulating and informed guy than I realized from your first comments on this blog. heh heh.
Charlie