This is what a weasel looks like when it's backed into a corner

[deckeda]

The “gay and dishonest” thing is relevant IF he’s gay, because of how Republican politicians vote.

I read aromantic as aromatic and thought that was odd.

[rjmacs]

deckeda wrote:
The “gay and dishonest” thing is relevant IF he’s gay, because of how Republican politicians vote.

I read aromantic as aromatic and thought that was odd.

And it's a slur against gay people either way. That was my point.

[rjmacs]

pdq wrote:
Duly noted. Personally, I don’t give a rat’s patoot about folks’ love life or relationships, as long as they’re not inherently abusive, but I honestly believe in Graham’s case it’s probably a well-known secret, and the political hypocrisy of that is where my comment came from.

I believe that in Graham's case it's a convenient way to attack his character from the left, as a hypocrite rather than as a gay person.

Saying that something is "probably a well-known secret" doubly hedges about its truth ("probably" and "secret" both undermine certainty). That telegraphs that it's not based in facts, or clear accusations, or even a history of documented evidence with unclear or conflicting implications.

To me, accusing Graham of being a closeted gay person is a cheap way to criticize his politics, and it does damage to gay people broadly, so it shouldn't be done.

There are politicians who are demonstrably two-faced about their politics and their sexuality. There are rabid conservatives who have been found with boyfriends or sex workers and exposed for their hypocrisy.

That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a politician who has been very private about his private life, and publicly said that he's a loner, and that he isn't gay. He's conservative, he's anti-gay, and he holds a ton of terrible positions and views. There are lots of legitimate reasons to criticize Graham based on his public character and record.

Choosing to smear his character by making insinuations about his sexuality that need to be doubly-hedged in order to be passable is a poor move. It centers something that isn't relevant (his sexuality) and connects it directly to his bad character (his politics), based on nothing other than the idea that if he is gay, he's a hypocrite.

Find a better way to slam Lindsey Graham. Leave gay people out of it, please. Please.

Please.

[$tevie]

I'm pretty sure that Graham being homosexual IS an open secret back home, and I'm pretty sure that his constituency does not give a fat rat's ass one way or the other because he has been representing them in DC since 1995 so they obviously think he's doing a very good job. I think the idea that he is being blackmailed about being gay is really silly. I'm inclined to think that this is about money and/or power, both of which he could lose by crossing the Trump/Russia conglomerate.

I understand the concept that accusing people of being closeted gays is homophobic, and people shouldn't try to out a man who doesn't want to be outed, but I also think that assuming it's insulting to call Graham a homosexual is a peculiarly old-timey idea. I believe most folks who are saying he is in the closet are more curious about why he has thrown his scruples out the window than they are about who he might or might not be sleeping with.

[Dennis S]

The purported gay stuff is baked in. He is compromised by either embarrassing sexual stuff on video, illicit campaign funds or dirty money in general, mob-like ties (probably with Russians,) or treasonous activities.

[deckeda]

Thanks, $tevie. You said it better than I could.

[sekker]

A weasel is a weasel, no matter their sexual preferences (or no preferences).

LG is just a politician trying to survive in the Orange Man era. I was hoping he had more stature and personal backbone to stand up to OM, but he's just like any other modern GOP person in DC and afraid he will get primaried if he fights the White House.