GOP Hypocrisy Alert: Rove's Gay Stepfather

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

A new book about White House political strategist Karl Rove hit store shelves Tuesday, claiming that the stepfather of President George W. Bush's right-hand man was gay.

In "The Architect: Karl Rove and the Master Plan for Absolute Power," authors James Moore and Wayne Slater claim Louis Rove, who was characterized as Karl Rove's primary father figure, lived an openly gay life while his stepson was launching a campaign against same-sex rights.

The authors draw on interviews with gay acquaintances of Rove's stepfather and say he starting living an openly gay life after divorcing Karl Rove's mother, who later committed suicide. (God, no wonder Turd Blossom is so messed in the head!)

Louis Rove died just as Karl Rove was in the midst of launching the anti-gay issues campaign that was part of President Bush's re-election platform, the book's authors say.

"Many people on the extremist side of the right wing -- Phyllis Schlafly and her gay son, (State Sen.) Pete Knight and his gay son, Alan (Keyes) and his gay daughter -- this seems to be a pattern in extremist politics where you have people bashing the rights of gay people, and yet in their own families, we're there," said Thom Lynch, executive director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center in San Francisco.

http://www.topix.net/content/cbs/0552217759155197559106393032121591474340

[DBruleU]

John Edwards, is that you?

Pretty low in my opinion.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Pretty low in my opinion.

Pretty low of Karl Rove to orchestrate a political campaign based, in large part, on an anti-gay rights platform when his own stepfather is a gay man.

Rove was close to his stepfather and didn't judge his sexuality, the authors say.

http://www.topix.net/content/cbs/0552217759155197559106393032121591474340

Talk about a double standard and puke-inducing hypocrisy.

[footstepsfrom#27]

One of the silliler threads on this board.

Karl Rove's stepfather, Phyllus Schlafly's son, Alan Keyes daughter...etc...have squat to do with anything. The idea that one must adopt a political philosophy held hostage to the realities of their surrounding family's personal problems or views is laughable.

My father's an atheist, my mother's a fundie, my sister had an abortion at 16...this has zip to do with how I live my life or what I believe.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

One of the silliler threads on this board.

Karl Rove's stepfather, Phyllus Schlafly's son, Alan Keyes daughter...etc...have squat to do with anything. The idea that one must adopt a political philosophy held hostage to the realities of their surrounding family's personal problems or views is laughable.

My father's an atheist, my mother's a fundie, my sister had an abortion at 16...this has zip to do with how I live my life or what I believe.

Wrong.

The critical difference here is that you aren't the advisor to and campaign architect for the most powerful man in the world.

You, as far as we know, are not using your enormous political power and influence to deny rights to members of your own family based on their sexual orientation.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Wrong.

The critical difference here is that you aren't the advisor to and campaign architect for the most powerful man in the world.
Bush comes to his views on homosexuality apart from anything Karl Rove thinks. Rove is there because of what Bush believes...Bush does not believe what he does because Rove is there.
You, as far as we know, are not using your enormous political power and influence to deny rights to members of your own family based on their sexual orientation.
The underlying assumption being that gay "rights" exist under any document the framers created (which they don't), and second; that Rove is somehow obligated to protect these phantom "rights" because his stepfather was gay.

Utter nonsense.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush comes to his views on homosexuality apart from anything Karl Rove thinks. Rove is there because of what Bush believes...Bush does not believe what he does because Rove is there.

Anyone who has followed the Bush/Rove alliance from the beginning knows just the opposite is true.

It was Rove who convinced Bush that he could win the TX governor's race by pandering to the Christian right (and by smearing the incumbent with lies about - guess what? - her sexual orientation) before Bush even considered running.

Bush's supposed "Christianity" is nothing but a media creation.

The underlying assumption being that gay "rights" exist under any document the framers created (which they don't), and second; that Rove is somehow obligated to protect these phantom "rights" because his stepfather was gay.

Utter nonsense.

This "underlying assumption" only exists in your mind.

The point here is the hypocrisy. That is, Rove and other repugs are using their power to disenfranchise gays (all for the sake of garnering "political capital") when members of their own immediate families are gay.

This would be like me running for president on the campaign promise to cut funds for disabled people when my own father was in a wheelchair.

And, BTW, gays have the same rights under the Constitution as anyone else.

[footstepsfrom#27]

It was Rove who convinced Bush that he could win the TX governor's race by pandering to the Christian right (and by smearing the incumbent with lies about - guess what? - her sexual orientation) before Bush even considered running.
Actually it was former Texas GOP governor Clayton Williams who first accused Ann Richards of being a lesbian during the campaign when she defeated him for the governor's office. Rove is a first class ***wipe and yes, he taught Bush how to fight dirty...doesn't mean he changed his mind about homosexuality. Are you suggesting Bush would have been pro gay rights if Rove hadn't been around? That's a stretch.
Bush's supposed "Christianity" is nothing but a media creation.
Agreed.
The point here is the hypocrisy. That is, Rove and other repugs are using their power to disenfranchise gays (all for the sake of garnering "political capital") when members of their own immediate families are gay.
Again, family members have nothing to do with what one is obligated to believe. What you call "disenfranchising gays", I call checking a power grab for special rights in the culture wars.
This would be like me running for president on the campaign promise to cut funds for disabled people when my own father was in a wheelchair.
Your analogy implies the removal of rights already held by the special class in question, which is not the case here.
And, BTW, gays have the same rights under the Constitution as anyone else.
That's not what they claim.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Actually it was former Texas GOP governor Clayton Williams who first accused Ann Richards of being a lesbian during the campaign when she defeated him for the governor's office.

And Rove took the baton and ran with it.

Are you suggesting Bush would have been pro gay rights if Rove hadn't been around?

No.

But this sort of "which came first - the chicken or the egg?" debate is irrelevant. The point is that Rove, as the architect of the Bush presidency, doesn't have any scruples about his role in denying rights to a group to which his own stepfather belongs.

Again, family members have nothing to do with what one is obligated to believe. What you call "disenfranchising gays", I call checking a power grab for special rights in the culture wars.

This isn't about what you believe - it's about what you do.

Believing homosexuality is a sin is one thing - using your power to deny rights to people on the basis of their sexual orientation is another.

Your analogy implies the removal of rights already held by the special class in question, which is not the case here.

I probably could have come up with a better analogy, but I believe my point still remains valid.

That's not what they claim.

I can't speak for them, but this was my point:

You said:

The underlying assumption being that gay "rights" exist under any document the framers created

The framers didn't indicate that there was to be one Constitution for heterosexuals and another seperate Constitution for homosexuals.

[W*GS]

Believing homosexuality is a sin is one thing - using your power to deny rights to people on the basis of their sexual orientation is another.

Indeed.

"The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C, is a federal law of the United States passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996."

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Why did Clinton use his power "to deny rights to people on the basis of their sexual orientation"?

[Barry Ramey]

If it's a thread started by someone who is on the left, it's the norm.

"One of the sillier threads on this board."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If it's a thread started by someone who is on the left, it's the norm.

"One of the sillier threads on this board."

Translation:

"I can't really address the topic at hand, so I guess my only option is to make an ignorant generalization and act like I've made some sort of point."

[Atlas]

The gay issue is just an agenda. Like the abortion issue. Most Republicans could care less if gays get married unfortunatley their leader and the religious right demands that those issues be the center piece of their platform.

The republicans have to gay bash if they want to get elected.
http://z.about.com/d/atheism/1/7/Z/z/2/KnifedGayAgenda-e.jpg

[RaiderH8r]

The gay issue is just an agenda. Like the abortion issue. Most Republicans could care less if gays get married unfortunatley their leader and the religious right demands that those issues be the center piece of their platform.

The republicans have to gay bash if they want to get elected.

It cuts both ways. Dems use those same issues to drum up support and $$. Controversy creates turnout and payout. So ease up, it's all part of the process. Check out how much $$ the PACs of NARAL, NOW, Emily's list et al have and how much they dole out. Check out how much bank they make on their issue. If abortion is settled those people have to find jobs, they're whipping up the frenzy for their own ends as well.

Everybody, step back and take a breath. This is gotcha politics at its finest.

[Atlas]

It cuts both ways. Dems use those same issues to drum up support and $$. Controversy creates turnout and payout. So ease up, it's all part of the process. Check out how much $$ the PACs of NARAL, NOW, Emily's list et al have and how much they dole out. Check out how much bank they make on their issue. If abortion is settled those people have to find jobs, they're whipping up the frenzy for their own ends as well.

Everybody, step back and take a breath. This is gotcha politics at its finest.

True but 99% of Democrats believe in Free choice and Gay rights.

The republicans are being forced to support agendas that they don't support.

I mean Chenny's daughter is gay. He is for gay rights but he has to hide those feelings as not to upset the base.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

True but 99% of Democrats believe in Free choice and Gay rights.

The republicans are being forced to support agendas that they don't support.

I mean Chenny's daughter is gay. He is for gay rights but he has to hide those feelings as not to upset the base.

Bingo.

This book by a gay, former right-wing spin jobber breaks the GOP hypocrisy re: gays down quite well:

http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/P/0812930991.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[BroncoBuff]

One of the silliler threads on this board.

Karl Rove's stepfather, Phyllus Schlafly's son, Alan Keyes daughter...etc...have squat to do with anything. The idea that one must adopt a political philosophy held hostage to the realities of their surrounding family's personal problems or views is laughable.

My father's an atheist, my mother's a fundie, my sister had an abortion at 16...this has zip to do with how I live my life or what I believe.

You're right, of course. This is America. And it's not "hypocritical," it's "ironic."

But you'll at least grant the point that it's unseemly to take such hostile positions against groups with whom persons close to you are affiliated. At least Cheney [*gulp*] comes correct on such issues by refusing to speak on, or become a party to GOP anti-gay platform or efforts. Rove should be half so classy ... (gad - did I just compliment Cheney?! :saywhat: )

LABF, your points about this kind of "unseemly and ironic hostility," as I'll put it, are well intentioned, but they sound exactly like the points you made yesterday (http://orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?p=1281471#post1281471) to SteveCoulter13.

Think about it .... say I had a brother/cousin who has committed three felonies in California. Am I barred from advocating or voting for a "Three Strikes" law ?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LABF, your points about this kind of "unseemly and ironic hostility," as I'll put it, are well intentioned, but they sound exactly like the points you made yesterday (http://orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?p=1281471#post1281471) to SteveCoulter13.

And your argument here is just as weak and full of holes as it was there.

Think about it .... say I had a brother/cousin who has committed three felonies in California. Am I barred from advocating or voting for a "Three Strikes" law ?

You're really trying to construct an analogy that compares laws re: criminal behavior to laws re: marriage?

I gave you credit for more smarts than that. :oyvey: