It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush-Cheney campaign pressured papers to keep campaign manager’s sexuality secret

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Two New York newspapers received calls from the Bush-Cheney campaign during the Republican National Convention urging them not to run a story suggesting that the campaign manager and public face of the campaign was gay, RAW STORY has learned.

Bush-Cheney campaign manager Ken Mehlman, who is now in the running to be chairman of the Republican Party, has repeatedly refused to answer questions about his sexuality in both public and private settings.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.




Steve Schmidt, deputy communications director for the Bush-Cheney campaign, also refused to deny that Mehlman was gay on the record in a telephone call with the activist weblog, blogACTIVE, which has been outing homophobic public officials, including California Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) and former Rep. Ed Schrock (R-Va.). Schmidt did not return a call seeking comment today.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
Source: www.rawstory.com...

Well look at that, just more contradicting Bush behavior. What does it really take to show people that Bush was not conservative? Not only is Bush not conservative, he is far more liberal than most Democrats and enacted some of the most "liberal" policies this country has ever seen, fiscally speaking.

Many people continue to think that Bush was a conservative because that's what FOX News and the rest of the MSM says. Now, I normally don't buy into the whole left-right paradigm of American politics because I believe it to only be a facade, designed to hide a system of corruption and tyranny behind the fake assumption of the existence of an opposition. However, judging by the conditions that most people equate to this false left-right paradigm, Bush was as liberal as it gets.

With that being said, many people no longer even know what a real conservative is, though I can certainly tell you what it isn't. Bush, a supposed conservative, oversaw one of the biggest spending/debt/deficit sprees that this country has ever faced. Furthermore, Bush grew government at a rate that would make the most hardened liberal jealous.

Many people like to falsely equate conservatism with the religious right however these two are not synonymous and really have nothing to do with each other, though in reality, they may only share a very few of the same political beliefs. Bush liked to hide behind the religious right to make him appear as if he was a conservative, all the while spending like a democrat and growing government like a Stalinist statist.

Conservatives are usually for smaller government, thus less spending but you can't be for those ideals and also be for war, seeing how war will almost always lead to huge government and runaway spending.

So in all reality, the only thing Bush had to equate him with conservatism, is the religious right but as we are now finding out, even that was faked, just one big lie.... After another. So, if he now no longer can even hide behind the religious right, he and his neo-con friends should be outed as what they are, liberal-statist liars on the frenge of a social-fascist system, who also hind behind the religious right to appear as if they are down-home conservatives.

Bush really gave a blow to conservatives, as many started to question their political stances after the Bush regime. They believed Bush to be a conservative, though they felt that his views and policies didn't match their own. Little do these people know, that they don't match because he is not a conservative.

--airspoon

[edit on 26-8-2010 by airspoon]




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   
I didn't care for bush. He was an entitled rich guy just like Al Gore and Edward Kennedy. However urged is not synonymous with pressured.






posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by pacific_waters
 


When "urging" is done by the White House or POTUS, it can easily be seen as pressuring, especially when their viable existence is on the line. For example, if I have a gun in your face and I urge you to dance, am I pressuring you or am I just simply urging you to do it?

--airspoon


[edit on 26-8-2010 by airspoon]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
This is not surprising news at all. Back when W was running for Governor of Texas, he and Rove "promised" not to fear monger concerning Ann Richards rumored sexuality. Yeah, they broke that promise in about five seconds. Sad.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 08:46 AM
link   
I think a guy's private life should not be used as cannon fodder unless say your running a gay prostitution ring out of your house like Bawny Fwanks.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   
I don't think one's sexuality should be at issue either, however one's actions support one's words, especially for a politician and even more so for the POTUS. The issue here is not that the guy is gay so much as it exposes the phoniness that is Bush, as if everything else wouldn't adequatetly do the job.

--airspoon



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   
I'm guessing the guy didn't want to be "outed" and asked Bush to help him out.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   
airspoon, I always love your threads.



Originally posted by airspoon
Not only is Bush not conservative, he is far more liberal than most Democrats and enacted some of the most "liberal" policies this country has ever seen, fiscally speaking.


I agree that Bush is not a conservative. No problem there. But liberal? I agree that he enacted some liberal policies (depending on what votes he needed or what would gain him monetary support), but he was much more of a "corporate whore" than anything political. Because he had a gay person (supposedly) as his campaign manager, that doesn't make him liberal... Maybe I'm mistaken, but that's what your post seems to suggest, at least partially.

IMO, Bush is neither conservative nor liberal. He belongs to some sort of whacked-out political ideology that goes: "If I like it, I'm for it. If I don't like it, I'm against it." His "politics" were completely situational, based on what he likes and thought would get him the most support. He didn't base his policies on the Constitution, as a good conservative would. THAT'S why he wasn't a conservative, not because he had a gay guy on his team.

I apologize if I have misunderstood your point.
But keeping a guy's sexuality a secret is the LEAST of Bush's crimes against this nation.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
By the way, u r so right about bush. he gave conservatives a bad name.






posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by pacific_waters
 


When "urging" is done by the White House or POTUS, it can easily be seen as pressuring, especially when their viable existence is on the line. For example, if I have a gun in your face and I urge you to dance, am I pressuring you or am I just simply urging you to do it?

--airspoon


[edit on 26-8-2010 by airspoon]


So, is it "urging" or "pressuring" that's coming out of the White House these days? As in fire your CEO, or ...



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

But keeping a guy's sexuality a secret is the LEAST of Bush's crimes against this nation.


And it's a shame that respecting someone's privacy in such a personal matter is still considered a crime...



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


I'm not saying that keeping the guy's sexuality private is bad or even that him being gay is bad. What I am saying, is that Bush and Cheney don't practice what they preach and they are really neighter alligned with the real conservatives nor the religious right. Furthermore, it would be foolish to think that Bush & Co. "urged" the media not to disclose this guy's sexuality because they cared about his privacy. Since when did Bush value the privacy of anyone other than himself? With the warrantless wiretaps, Patriot Act and HGTP Act, I think that privacy for others is the furthest from their minds. No, in reality, he wanted to keep it hidden for political reasons, seeing that he was pandering to the religious right and fooling the rest of America.

--airspoon

[edit on 27-8-2010 by airspoon]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


Bad choice of wording on my part. Certainly it's not a crime. My point was that Bush DID commit crimes against this country and that's where the focus should be, not on this guy's sexuality.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by mishigas
 


Bad choice of wording on my part. Certainly it's not a crime. My point was that Bush DID commit crimes against this country and that's where the focus should be, not on this guy's sexuality.


Oh, I know those weren't your feelings. You're not like that at all.
But the sad fact is there are still people who feel that it is their right to know about another's sexuality and to judge them accordingly.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 




I'm not saying that keeping the guy's sexuality private is bad or even that him being gay is bad. What I am saying, is that Bush and Cheney don't practice what they preach and they are really neighter alligned with the real conservatives nor the religious right.


AfaiIk, neither Bush nor Cheney is gay, so you're wrong - they do practice what they preach.


Furthermore, it would be foolish to think that Bush & Co. "urged" the media not to disclose this guy's sexuality because they cared about his privacy. Since when did Bush value the privacy of anyone other than himself? With the warrantless wiretaps, Patriot Act and HGTP Act, I think that privacy for others is the furthest from their minds. No, in reality, he wanted to keep it hidden for political reasons, seeing that he was pandering to the religious right and fooling the rest of America.

--airspoon


We should never purport to know what is in another person's heart or mind.

Besides, so what if they did it for political purposes? All politicians do that.

I always liked Ken Mehlman - I thought he was bright and upcoming. We should destroy him because he is gay?



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Gotta love how the gay community was thrown under a bus in 2000, an entire segment of our population, so that Bush could get elected. Bush doesn't care about gays one way or the other, he and Cheney are business men. Cheney's daughter as well all know it a lesbian, yet Cheney being the evil turd he is wanted everyone to keep quiet on it even though he was okaying nation policy against gays. He almost shot lasers out of his eyes when Wolf Blitzer brought it up. What a fraud those years were, so much BS propagated.

I guess they could overlook that he was gay since he was such a valuable member of their team.
How kind of them. Maybe even the Nazis had a few Jews on their side.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by ghaleon12]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ghaleon12
 



Cheney's daughter as well all know it a lesbian, yet Cheney being the evil turd he is wanted everyone to keep quiet on it even though he was okaying nation policy against gays.


Which brings up the old question: Are politicians elected to do the will of those who elected them, or to do what they think is right?



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
Which brings up the old question: Are politicians elected to do the will of those who elected them, or to do what they think is right?


Indeed. Jimmy carter was a man of principle, but look where it got him. As much as we would like to believe in a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington...politics, at best, is compromise with the opposition to get things done, at least it was up until about a couple decades ago. Politics at its worst is what we see today.

Applying the Karl Rove strategy of "fifty-plus-one", all you need is to influence the "1" in order to win (either an election or passing legislation).

If you can influence a "1" minority to solidly vote on election day, you can win with a minority vote. And then, as long as you have power in Washington, you have to pay the piper, those corporate lobbyists who gave you the cash to put you in power, even if it goes against what you think is right.

It is especially effective, if the corporate lobbyists can whip up sentiment in the "base" (the "1" minority vote who WILL go to the voting booth) that reflects what the corporate interest wants. Of course trans-national corporations want a smaller govt that will stay out of their business, not regulate them/or regulate them ineffectively (BP comes to mind, likewise beef/egg producers), and they and the wealthy of course want less taxes.

As the world becomes increasingly complex, of course the trans-nationals would like to whip up the sentiment of "returning to the Founding Fathers, the Constitution", a simpler time when today's specific problems didn't exist.

For example, to get the "base" to the polls over the years, various rallying cries (hot button issues) have been used. Being a Christian, anti-abortion, pro-gun, tough on crime/defense, traditional values, military patriotism, anti-gay, anti-gay marriage, anti-Muslim, anti-mosque, anti-immigrant. Whatever it took to get the "1" to vote into power politicians who would do the bidding of corporate lobbyists.

The base is satisfied that their vote was counted, the corporation glad to have that politician in power to pay the piper.

Ken and his party could not do anything that would pierce the illusion that garnered them votes to stay in power. This time, the compromise was not with the opposing party, rather it was personal compromise.

Ken already compromised his personal values, and by doing that, he did harm to others. No matter what he now professes he wants to see happen, the damage has been done. Ask gays (and a nation!) who could have been helped by Ken's honesty earlier. Ask Matthew Shepard if Ken etal should have spoken out sooner .... no, wait, Matthew is dead, and the nation's moral, compassionate compass was left broken for too long.

Quisling, Ken. Look up that word. Maybe you're a good man, Ken, but you allowed to flourish exactly what you didn't want.

If the "will of the voter" is a manipulation set up to align with amoral/immoral trans-national interest, and the "right thing to do" cannot be done, because it won't align with corporate interest, then America has truly traded away its moral compass for its "thirty pieces of silver."

"What good is it for a man (nation) to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?"



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join