Jim might have gotten the wrong impression by thinking of me as a Republican that loves to hate Democrats like Frank, but I’m one of those people that is not very tolerant of the LCR types that do put party before community. Tisel is not one, and so the Democrat versions of teh LCR who put party before community as well annoy me to no end.

I get it, you can consider more things when going for a candidate. Healthcare, education. There are many points in which scrutiny upon a Republican candidate is merited, but this is Tisel — a man that ran with a guy who’s made it public that his brother is gay, and chose a gay lieutenant governor. This is not a douchebag like Clarke Cooper downplaying Romney’s homophobia just to maintain access to Republican leadership. He’s different, and for Frank to casually ignore that just seems wrong.

You then make the leap that supporting a single gay Republican means placing an entire Republican majority in place of the current make-up. Let us recall that if it weren’t for Lieberman and non-partisan hacks, Reid would have been more than happy to let DADT repeal go down in flames for a campaign point.

Forgive me if I prefer to reward individuals over placing blind faith on the letter next to someone’s name. When Gillibrand was first selected as replacement for Clinton, all the gay progressives were snubbing her for not being enough to the left, and the JMG crowd had even commented on voting for her upcoming opposition. Time passed and despite her bipartisanship and seemingly blue dog image she managed to do right by the community, and suddenly the same crowd that had assumed all these things about her were now fawning over her.

Yes, I’m willing to vote for a gay MA Republican over a straight unknown Democrat, so long as said politician hasn’t aired any retrograde views like fellow MA Republicans are inclined to do. He’s not even a LCR type of sugarcoating hypocrite, so that’s what rubbed me particularly the wrong way about Frank’s dismissal. To throw under the bus your own people for the sake of some perceived “greater good”.

What’s the point of any Republican taking risks with standing up for our people if the message we send is “we won’t consider you no matter what you do because you’re in the wrong party, not even if you are one of our own”. That just creates a feedback loop where self-interested Republican politicians will rarely see the benefit of taking a controversial moral stance and we’ll continue to be stymied in our progress while waiting for that magical filibuster proof majority of Senate, House, and presidency.

’ll give him this, he did what he could to preempt the issue and get his version out first before the scandal broke. And gosh, the committee absolved him.

That’s a full two years before the scandal broke. You’re crediting him with an awful lot of prescience. I guess that’s a compliment to him, of sorts.

The stream of comments went like this:

Jim: “Please explain how this kind of legislation would have come about under a Republican majority — even in MA.”

Me: “Does that challenge include New York or New Hampshire?”

So your comment “Timothy, 4 is not a majority. You’ve made this claim before. No Republican majority has *ever* passed pro-gay rights legislation, (no, not in NY or NH either) and that’s just state.” is not relevant.

No, I didn’t say that four is a majority. And neither Jim nor I were talking about the majority of Republican legislators (although the majority of voting Republicans in New Hampshire did vote for equality and a majority of Republicans in New York did let the vote go forward).

That would not concern me in the slightest.

And if you comment about Frank being the Democrat Republicans love to hate isn’t directed at me, kindly don’t repeat it when addressing me.

You need to recheck your timeline:

* 1985 Frank hired Gobey
* 1985 Gobey moves in and continues escorting
* May 1987 Frank comes out in Boston Globe
* August 1987 Frank “learns about the problem from his landlord” and kicks the slimeball out (and we agree that Gobey was a slimeball)

The house ethic committee began its investigation in 1989. By then the scandal was in full steam. I’ll give him this, he did what he could to preempt the issue and get his version out first before the scandal broke. And gosh, the committee absolved him.

But you are flat wrong when you say that “there was no scandal attached to his coming out”. I recall the time. No one thought that coming out was purely voluntary.

Yes, Kolbe was chased out. But to think that Frank just coincidentally came out three months before discovering Gobey …. well, let’s just say I have some beachfront property for you to invest in.. it’s right down the road from where you live now.