Rep. stands down amid allegations of faggotry – Is this really where we’re at?

[Mystech]

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Rep. Ed Schrock, one of the most conservative members of the House of Representatives, unexpectedly dropped his bid for a third term Monday amid unverified allegations that he called a gay phone sex line.

This move just makes no sense at all to me. So what if the man called a gay phone sex line? I’m in big trouble if this sort of thing can still prevent someone from holding public office in the US. . . let’s just hope the media never gets hold of my IRC chat logs!

Sure, Shrock was a major supporter of the federal marriage amendment which would have amended the constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but that doesn’t necessarily make him a hypocrite (even if he is gay), after all damaging self-loathing and hatred is a pretty classical symptom of many closeted fags, this sort of behavior is to be expected.

This allegation seems as if it’d be just a little bit too good. After all, the fact that the FMA, could even get up to a vote in Congress was fairly question begging, “What sort of nut-jobs would support this sort of thing?” the answer, ironically being that it is indeed homophobes desperately trying to distract themselves from their own homoerotic desires!

Somehow I just don’t’ buy into it, though, it’d all work out just a little bit too well if that were the case. What I can’t account for, however, is how Shrock is handling this situation. He’s not even trying to fight the allegations, he’s just quietly stepping aside. Is that all it takes to get a politician out of office these days; Just make allegations that they like guys? If this is really the point we’re still at in this country, then can we at least use it to our advantage, and get some good use out of it?

Maybe we can start our own 527 to start calling dubbaya a queer! Wouldn’t it be great if it was just that easy? If anyone’s up for it, I’ll be in New York this Thursday, flying into JFK just a few hours before the President speaks at Madison Square Garden. I’ll be visiting a friend who’s never been out west, so I planned on walking off the plane in a pair of cowboy boots and a ten gallon hat for laughs. maybe I can find my way into the convention, posing as a Texas delegate (who else in New York would be wearing a denim shirt and cowboy hat?) where the President just might rub against me inappropriately and whisper something into my ear in passing! Wouldn’t that be a thrill? I’ve always had a thing for older men, and power is a definite turn on. If all else fails I can always bring a bottle of Jack-D with me, and I’m practically assured to have the Bush gals all over me and willing to put themselves in some rather compromising positions. I’m sure we could work this thing out if we work hard enough.

So, how about it, is placing a phone call, or even full out homosexuality enough that a public official should step aside? I thought we as a nation were beyond that. . . and hell maybe we were, but four years of republican rule seems to have taken us back a few decades. Makes sense, that’s been their aim all along, hasn’t it?
___________
• http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/31/virginia.congressman/

 

[Tiassa]

The bugger about buggery?

This move just makes no sense at all to me. So what if the man called a gay phone sex line?

I agree, who cares?

But this man is a Republican, and there comes a point where we stake our politics on our integrity, and depending on what he's said and done in the past, it might be advisable to resign not for the "offense" itself, but the conflict of history it may invoke.

It may not be that Schrock feels the calls themselves are what "have called into question (his) ability to represent the citizens", but rather the implications the situation brings. Perhaps it is merely the tip of a closeted and debilitating porn addiction that he's kept concealed; perhaps he feels that as a closeted gay man he's not fit to be a Republican elected on a false front; perhaps he sees a coming controversy that will cripple his service in office.

The story really does seem bizarre:

Schrock, 63, cited unspecified allegations in a statement he released Monday as the reason he decided not to seek a third term for Congress. He said the claims "have called into question my ability to represent the citizens of Virginia's Second Congressional District." . . . .

. . . . Claims that Schrock is gay were posted on a Web log Aug. 19 by Michael Rogers, who said his blog is aimed at exposing "hypocrites" in Congress.

"We're shocked and stunned more than saddened right now," said Virginia Beach Republican Chairman Mark McKinney, who said Schrock retired because of the accusation posted on blogactive.com. "What I read on the Internet was a complete and utter surprise to me."

(Opponent David B.) Ashe said he was shocked by the move.

"Wow. I had not heard that. That's really something," Ashe said in a telephone interview. He said his thoughts were with Schrock and his family and he thanked the congressman for his career of service.

Schrock is married and a conservative who has voted for legislation to ban gay marriages . . . .

. . . . "I am totally, totally shocked and disappointed. Whatever it is, he should have stayed in and fought it. He's a good Republican," said Juanita Bailey of Newport News, a delegate at the Republican National Convention in New York.

Source: SFGate/AP

Perhaps the blogger struck a hidden nerve; perhaps there's something else entirely going on and this is the best way out. (I wouldn't care to imagine that circumstance.)

But even if the issue is "merely" (I use that word cautiously) one of the conflict between his life's homosexuality and the lies he told to achieve what he did (e.g. Naval service, voting against gay marriage, and even his own marriage) may be enough to cast a cloud over his own confidence in his credibility, and even moreso for others.

Mayhaps. Only Schrock knows for sure. And even that's not a guarantee.
_______________________

• Lewis, Bob (AP). "Republican Rep. Ed Schrock of Virginia announces retirement following claims he is gay". SFGate.com, August 31, 2004. See http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/08/31/politics1053EDT0552.DTL

 

[Stokes Pennwalt]

He was embarassed and wussed out. I'm laughing at him.

I'm also laughing at your thread title. Nice work mate.

 

[Tiassa]

They just played the tape on The Daily Show ... I hadn't heard it yet. I ... don't know what to say. Make sure you catch it on a rebroadcast. Or the web. I'll look around. If that's actually him on the tape, all I can say, I guess, is that I feel kind of sorry for him. It's been a tight closet he's kept himself in.

 

[Mystech]

He was embarassed and wussed out. I'm laughing at him.

I'm also laughing at your thread title. Nice work mate.

I didn't realize until it was too late that the title got cut off. It should read "Representative stands down amid allegations of faggotry - is this really where we're at?" Not a big loss, but I feel it needs some closure.

They just played the tape on The Daily Show

I heard it there for the first time as well. Upon listening to it I can't help but wonder why this sort of thing would cause him to keep from running for re-election! I mean the tape was just filthy and shameless, true, but it was also sort of half garbled, and indestinct. I mean he doesn't seem to have a very distinct voice in the first place, and I don't think that it would have been unreasonable for him to say "Not my voice!" I think the idea that it's just an internet hoax would be more credable. By reacting this way too it he's doing a lot more to confirm that the tape is authentic than anything else.

 

[Repo Man]

I could be wrong, but I think Stokes was more amused by your use of the word faggotry than anything.

Here is a site with links to the audio clips, http://rawstory.com/ .

It has become such a cliche to talk about projection when homophobes are discussed. But this sort of thing happens over and over and over again.

I'm sure the right will use this as an example of how openly gay people even cause the righteous to stray from the path by their very existence. Similar to the episode of Southpark where Butter's dad blamed his bath house excursions on the internet. As though if only the idea could be wiped out, no one would ever come up with it again independently.

I personally do not care where my elected officials wiggle their wienies. Sadly, I'm part of a tiny minority who share that outlook.

 

[Mystech]

I personally do not care where my elected officials wiggle their wienies. Sadly, I'm part of a tiny minority who share that outlook.

This is a very reasonable view. I mean it's not like we're electing to sleep with them, or anything. I don't care where the penis of the guy who fixes my car has been. . . so why should it matter so much with elected officials?

Oh, and yes, faggotry is a good word.

 

[Stokes Pennwalt]

Oh, and yes, faggotry is a good word.

Heh yeah, that's all I was commenting on. But thanks for the clarification anyway.