Burnt Orange Report

The Fruitcake Flap

By Byron LaMasters

Well, it looks like Democrats are anti-gay and hypocrites for not criticizing Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) for calling Rep. Scott McInnis (R-CO) a fruitcake during the now infamous Ways and Means Committee meeting. Nice try. If you'll recall, that was the meeting where Chairman Bill Thomas (R-CA) called the capitol police to evict the Democratic members of the committee from the library. Typically, Fox News has the story. And not only that, they shamelessly embellish it:

Republican sources also claim that during the chaotic scene in the committee, Stark fired another gay slur in the direction of Chairman Thomas. The word is too vulgar to print in full, but the last half of it is "sucker."

Big whoop. I guess Stark called Thomas a cocksucker. OK. So, why isn't the gay community out lynching Stark? Well, it’s obvious. Stark has a perfect lifetime rating from the Human Rights Campaign. It was a poor choice of words, sure, but it was a heated exchange where several people lost their tempers. So what is appropriate and what isn't? I think that the way to look at these things is to look to see if there was malicious intent or an alarming amount of insensitivity. When someone like Dick Armey calls Barney Frank "Barney Fag", that’s pretty malicious in my opinion, and it's extremely insensitive. It's hard to see Stark as maliciously targeting gays, because he's been one of the gay communities strongest allies in his political career. Sure, his comments show some insensitivity, but not what I would call an alarming amount. Call it double standards all you want, but his apology, in my opinion is sufficient.

“Much has been made today about my conduct in the Ways and Means Committee markup of HR 1776. Let’s be clear. I am not the issue here. Never was I approached by a police officer or questioned about what happened.

“The issue is that the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee called the police to throw Democrats out of a room where they were meeting to determine how to respond to a bill we first saw this morning. It is yet another step in there continued effort to shut out Democrats and stifle debate.

“Sometimes I feel so passionate about an issue that I am not as diplomatic as I should be. Whatever was said, I never physically threatened anyone. I did exchange words that were not becoming of my office. I regret that.

“Republicans are using my intemperate words as a diversionary tactic. Republicans cannot stand up and defend the calling of the police to remove Democrats from a room in the people’s House. Chairman Thomas’ behavior today should not be allowed in a democracy. It’s reminiscent of a police state, not America. That’s the issue.”

Well, good job. End of story? Of course not. Fox News, and their allies (see: Rod Dreher @ Jul 25, 11:25 AM) are trying to make Stark's wisecracks the story, instead of the undemocratic behavior of Bill Thomas. Even more amusing is the fact that Florida Congressman *ahem* closet case *ahem* Congressman Mark Foley was quoted in the FOX News article.

Now, one Republican wants to know where is the outrage at the Democrat for his seemingly intolerant remarks.

"This isn't the first time. That's the problem here. The Democrats fail to recognize this is an ongoing problem," said Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla.

This is coming from someone who has held a press conference for the sole purpose of addressing gay rumors, where he called accusations that he was gay as "revolting and unforgivable", but refused to deny that he was gay. At the time, I wrote this:

If calling him gay is, as Foley says, "revolting and unforgivable", then you would think that Foley would also say that he's not gay. Instead, one can only assume that Foley is gay, but considers it, and himself to be revolting. Sounds like a bad attitude to me.

I'm amused. Back to reality, guys.

Posted by Byron LaMasters at July 25, 2003 03:55 PM | TrackBack