To brighten your evening: Far-Right GOP bigot Outed, Resigns

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 8/30/04 at 10:47pm

It's always the quiet, upstanding, oh-so-Christian ones that are the most insatiable....

And a CO-SPONSOR of the Federal Marriage Amendment, too....

*** The Republican was ranked 2nd most conservative in Congress by the conservative standard-bearer the National Journal ***


Rep. Ed Schrock, a two-term Republican congressman from Virginia, announced that he would resign abruptly today, citing unspecified allegations.

Schrock said only: “In recent weeks, allegations have surfaced that have called into question my ability to represent the citizens of Virginia’s Second Congressional Distict.” He would not elaborate on the allegations.

Over the past two weeks, a Washington-based Web site has spread claims that Schrock was gay, and the Virginia Pilot noted this in their article but failed to elaborate. That site claims that gay activists are in posession of tapes of several phone calls to gay phone sex lines.

A ranking member of a popular liberal blog site, Daily Kos, has said that he has heard one of the tapes. The tape is now available on the Internet, at BlogActive.

Raw Story’s transcript of the tape is as follows.
“Uh, hi, I weigh 200 pounds, I’m ****** (inaudible) blond hair….very muscular, very buffed up, uh, very tanned, uh, I just like to get together a guy from time to time, just to, just to play. I’d like him to be very good shape, flat stomach, good chest, good arms, cut, just get naked, play, and see what happens, nothing real heavy duty, but just, fun time, go down on him, he can go down on me, and just take it from there… hope to hear from you. Bye.”

Rep. Schrock was one of several dozen to cosponsor the Federal Marriage Amendment of July 2004, which aimed to constitutionally prohibit gay marriage.

The member noted, “The National Journal ties him as the second most conservative person in all of Congress in 2003, behind only Dennis Hastert. A strong family man with a wife and kids, Schrock was a co-sponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment and opposes any possible rights for gay people, including non-discrimination in employment.”

The Virginia Pilot reported in October 2000 that Schrock favored ending the Clinton administration’s ‘’don’t ask, don’t tell'’ policy on gays in the military, BlogActive said.

“He supports asking enlistees whether they have had homosexual experiences in an effort to to try to keep gays from serving. ‘You’re in the showers with them, you’re in the bunk room with them, you’re in staterooms with them,’ Schrock said.”

Schrock has a 92 percent vote rating from the Christian coalition, and a zero percent rating from the Human Rights Campaign.


Playtime with Daddy

Updated On: 8/30/04 at 10:47 PM

[Matt_G]

Posted: 8/30/04 at 10:49pm

Damn. That was the guy I was gonna hook up with tomorrow night.

[Plum]

Posted: 8/30/04 at 11:03pm

Oh geez. I'm tempted to just hate him for being such a frickin' hypocrite, but he must have some serious issues with himself to do that stuff.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/30/04 at 11:18pm

ALL the people who do that sort of stuff have serious issues. We SEE you Rick Santorum!

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/30/04 at 11:30pm

‘You’re in the showers with them, you’re in the bunk room with them, you’re in staterooms with them,’ Schrock said.”

One thing leads to another, you bring out your bottle of Kama Sutra Massage Oil and you don't want to find out the guy's gay as you're doing a deep muscle penetration technique.

Updated On: 8/30/04 at 11:30 PM

[marlomanners]

Posted: 8/30/04 at 11:47pm

I would say I was surprised but then I realized he's just a run-of-the-mill hypocritical Republican Christian assh0le like the rest of them.

[lildogs]

Posted: 8/31/04 at 8:56am

and he's just the tip of the iceberg....although it is a little hypocritical to judge this man because of his sexuality--he shouldn't be blackmailed, but then again he's persecuting people in a group of which he is a member, albeit a closeted one....what is the proper way to handle these people?

[Broadwayboobs]

Posted: 8/31/04 at 9:02am

Hand them over to Zola and Matt_G...they'll take care of these people.

[ckeaton]

Posted: 8/31/04 at 9:07am

just a run-of-the-mill hypocritical Republican Christian assh0le like the rest of them.

Hey, are you a run-of-the-mill hypocritical Democrat atheist dumb-fu*k like the rest of them?

No... because they're not all like that. It's incredibly stupid to generalize like that, you just end up looking like a moron.

[Zola Q. LaPlaya]

Posted: 8/31/04 at 9:23am

I was all squishy on this issue of outing and the website. And, how wrong I was... I think it's good. Good for holding elected officials accountable, good for that the closet is more dangerous than being openly gay, and good for gays.

Chris, I understand your anger at the generalization, but please don't go down the slippery slope of trying to show that the Republican party is as good as the Democrats on gay issues. I don't have the energy today -- my boyfriend came home last night and we were up ******** and ******* and ****-**** and ***** *** ***** until all hours.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 8/31/04 at 9:37am

Oh you guys! You have no sympathy. Do you know how hard it for a 63 year old man to get laid? In ... Virginia? Who's not a stunt double in DELIVERANCE?? Cut an old fella a lil' slack, y'all.

[Zola Q. LaPlaya]

Posted: 8/31/04 at 10:16am

Augs, I love the guy. I did him. He's great. Matt_G did him, too -- right after me and he was still as tight as a drum.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/31/04 at 10:17am

So you can verify his claims of being "very muscular, very, uh, buffed up."

[Zola Q. LaPlaya]

Posted: 8/31/04 at 10:21am

Actually, Namo, I'm sure you'll understand that I didn't actually see his body. He was in the other stall and I could just see his wingtips and socks. After he was done carving out that hole with his pocketknife, it was glorious.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/31/04 at 10:31am

I just did a Google image search. I'm sure he was "very muscular, uh, um, very buffed up" back in the day. Now he just looks like a tired, old queen who, although into nothing "too heavy duty," looks as if his ears have endured some very heavy duty yanking.

And let me say this about human psychology: the more a homophobe goes on and on describing a homosexual panic response to sharing a shower or a bunk room with a gay man, you should just know it's his own fantasies that come out in terror. That's what you wanted Ed Schrock, now enjoy your retirment getting those ears pulled some more.

And ckeaton, the fact of the matter is, people talk about this compassionate face of conservatism and god knows that's what we're going to see at night during the convention, but unfortunately your party's platform belies this notion. I know not every Republican believes the platform about reproductive freedom, civil liberties for gay and lesbian people, etc., but far too many Republicans I care about hold their noses and vote Republican anyway. I'd like to know what you are personally doing to tell the people who are speaking for you and your party that they are, in fact, not?

[ckeaton]

Posted: 8/31/04 at 10:50am

Namo, I have had many arguments with members of the GOP, as well as my Congressional representative. I go to the monthly meeting, and I speak my mind. I tell my party mates, and our leaders that:

• I don't believe in limiting anyone's civil liberties on a federal level regardless of race, sexual orientation, or any other demographic characteristics.
  
• I believe that the government should be doing everything it can to support the race for a cure to the diseases that plague us, and if funding stem-cell research is the way to go, then amen.
  
• I believe that a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy if she is at risk, physically or psychologically. (I do not believe in abortion as a means of birth-control, though)
  
• I believe that the federal government should penalize companies that send labor offshore, and reward the ones that keep jobs on U.S. soil.
  

These are 4 issues that I hold near and dear to my heart, in no particular order. (I'm at risk of sounding like our dear departed Bobo, but...) These are also the issues that can tend to ostracize me from the far-right GOP and conservatives. On the lion's share of the other issues including military funding, the war in the Middle East, social programs, homeland security, etc. I fall pretty firmly into the GOP camp.

So I'm doing everything that I feel I can with my mouth and with my keyboard to share my opinions. I've written letters to members of Congress, I've spoken to them in person, I fear though, that I can't change much from where I am now. The only way to fix things is from the inside, in some cases. Perhaps someday, I'll run for office. Chances are I wouldn't get support from my party because I refuse to blindly follow them on ALL of the issues.

[Zola Q. LaPlaya]

Posted: 8/31/04 at 11:06am

But all those issue are enshrined in the platform of the Republican party, ckeaton -- except in opposite form. What about flag burning? Do you support, as the platform does, a constitutional amendment banning flag burning?

If you really believe all this why, then, are you a Republican? If it's for economic reasons, I'm sure you're not happy with the historic staggering deficit and the run-away government spending? I'm sure you can't be pleased with the rocky stock market or even the increase in poverty. If it's for keeping government small, I'm sure you're displeased with the creation of new agencies and departments and the increase during the number of federal employees in this Administration. Do you think that the Administration is providing great stewardship of the war in Iraq? You think that's going well? And our relations with erstwhile allies are being managed successfully?

So, if you're not with its social agenda, why are you with the party?

Updated On: 8/31/04 at 11:06 AM

[kissmycookie]

Posted: 8/31/04 at 11:07am

we could ask Giuliani the same question...

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/31/04 at 11:08am

Thank you, I am very glad that you do that. I believe that the schism between the extremist religious fundamentalists who are dominating and controlling your party and thinking people like yourselves and papa will result in a huge migration out of the GOP. It's clearly not going to be possible to change it to anything that isn't something you have to vote for with a clothespin on your nose.

[ckeaton]

Posted: 8/31/04 at 1:00pm

To address your points, and strictly in my opinion:
...historic staggering deficit and the run-away government spending...
The terrorist attacks have had a whole lot of impact on our economy, in fact according to their own mission statement, disruption of the American economy is one of their first concerns, even more so than taking lives. The billions shelled out to clean up after, and the billions shelled out to prevent another attack are all steps in the right direction. I am SURE that the economic picture would be much different had this not happened. (In my opinion this is money that would've been spent regardless of the leader's political affiliation).

I'm sure you can't be pleased with the rocky stock market or even the increase in poverty...
In terms of the stock market, the majority of the corporate scandals that have been the most severe problem were happening all along, well back into the Clinton years as well. I am pleased that they were busted... the timing isn't ideal for my parties economic yearbook, but it's better now that it's being cleaned up... corporate America is under scrutiny now, more than ever, and that is a good thing.

...I'm sure you're displeased with the creation of new agencies and departments and the increase during the number of federal employees in this Administration...
I feel that most of the postions created in the field of national security are necessary for our protection. Obviously our borders were not well protected, our airports had holes in security, our intel agencies were running on skeleton crews, and that had to change when the enemy decided to kill thousands on our own soil. I also must acknowledge that with time, there is the need to phase in and phase out certain groups, Computer technology has caused the need for entire departments to be created, as these groups serve their duty, other departments will begin to shrink or people will be reassigned to more useful functions. It takes people to phase people out into the private sector. We are in a period of technological evolution.

Do you think that the Administration is providing great stewardship of the war in Iraq? You think that's going well?
Compared to the wars and conflicts that have come before it, I think that "Iraqi Freedom" has been quite successful. I cry, and my heart pains for every soul lost or hurt by this war, and I wish that the U.S. didn't need to be involved. But the tyrant Saddam Hussein was a threat to us, and to his own people. Having one kid with a knife in his pocket is a danger to every child in the schoolyard. The people that are fighting against us are willing to blow pregnant women up to kill a few of their enemies! Their fanatacism brings to the battle ground a new element that we are not capable of defending. Introducing democracy to Iraq will prove to be a keystone of peace in that region, I hope. Time will tell.

And our relations with erstwhile allies are being managed successfully?
Our "erstwhile allies" have been skeptical of us since we first swapped spit. The French have always hated us. It's just now that we're really hearing about it.

That being said, I'm sure all of my points can be argued. But that is my opinion. It's what I believe.

Based on that... I still believe that a Bush administration is better for our next 4 years than a Kerry administration in the long run. I am willing to consider the other opinions. I read all of your thoughts, every day. I enjoy reading all of your opinions. They have moved me, and probably dragged me even closer to the middle than I already was.

I ask you all, do you agree with EVERYTHING that the democratic party espouses? If so, then I admire you for your normalcy.

[robbiej]

Posted: 8/31/04 at 1:10pm

The Bush administration is better for you, Christopher.

Certainly not for me. Certainly not for any gay friends or family members you may or may not have.

That's what I find so unbelieveable about this whole thing. How does one who is actually progressive when it comes to gay and lesbian rights step into a voting booth and cast a vote for the person who will put into action a platform that expressly calls for the discrimination of a class of American taxpayers?

I have no problem with people who are Republicans. Hell...most of my family is. But I told them in no uncertain terms that to walk in a cast a vote for THIS president with THIS agenda is to render your own flesh and blood a second class citizen.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/31/04 at 3:04pm

Amen, robbiej.

Any closet case who fights against gays deserves to be outted and ridiculed for their behavior.

[ckeaton]

Posted: 8/31/04 at 6:46pm

I have enough trust in our system of government that anything truly insane, such as a constitutinal amendment would never happen.

I am truly hoping that there is a shift in power in one of the branches. I wouldn't mind losing the executive branch, if the legislative branch was soundly ours.

I am still waiting to see what comes out of the debates. I could still change my vote, based on what I hear...

Posted: 8/31/04 at 7:02pm

Something that I sense, but that most are afraid to give voice to, is the concept of 'the good of the many outweighs the good of the few.' For many people, the issue of national security is absolutely the primary concern. And for them, it doesn't make much difference what else is going on if your very life is in danger. And among those people, many feel that the current administration is the better defense mechanism to have in place. With that ideology, it is at least understandable that someone could indeed feel badly for their gay brothers and sisters, and yet still not be willing to sacrifice the safety of all to those minority concerns. And as ckeaton points out, many moderate Republicans have a belief that nothing permanently affecting could be put into place on a federal level (I believe papa feels this way as well.)

For me personally, I don't think this current adminisration is the most effective blockade against future terrorist activity - it falls too much into the old mentality of fight might with might, and I don't think that will work in this case. But the disagreement is valid, and also forms a foundation from which many of the other opinions can (and should) be put into context.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 8/31/04 at 8:23pm

RobbieJ's outrage is clear,and I concur. So many Rudy/Arnie GOPers -- and their followers -- who segregate "domestic issues" from those pertaining to national security consistently look the other way when this administration blatently and strategically uses "domestic issues" to shore up a radical right wing base.

How can gay Republicans not be deeply offended to the very marrow of their bones when their president -- in initiating a constitutional amendment to shut them out of fundamental rights -- carefully made sure to NOT make his party "a big tent." Have you ever -- EVER heard someone from the Bush regime say a single kind or compassionate thing about gay people? If Bush holds a personal belief about marriage being hetero-inclusive and yet theoretically also believes that gay people shouldn't be persecuted or denied human rights -- why not simply use the phrase "GAY PEOPLE" in a SINGLE speech? An inclusive one--that might argue that true compassion REQUIRES tolerance? Good God, these people worship JESUS -- the person who theoretically set the highest mark for tolerance in the history of the world!

No,I could almost forgive them for their "private" intolerance if they had the "public" grace, the humanity -- the so-called CHRISTIAN compassion -- to give a damn about, say, the gay teen bruised and bullied for the umpteenth time, thinking suicide is the only answer... or the lesbian girl sent into the streets, penniless by her traditional values-espousing parents because she came out. Our children -- our gay children, some of whom could grow up to write WEST SIDE STORY or THE GLASS MENAGERIE, both adored and performed regularly by Republicans--or merely be the kind neighbor down the street!-- need a safe, tolerant world to grow up and thrive in. And this president, no matter what his lip service suggests, is hell bent on NOT providing them with that safe world. I'll never forgive him for that.

Updated On: 8/31/04 at 08:23 PM