LOL. Moving on to Wonkette, the coverage of this "outing" was quite amusing.
What will the Freepi, who have been looking upon Thompson as their savior, do if the rumors are true? As senator, he often voted their way -- against ENDA and hate crimes legislation twice, and he voted for DOMA.
Actual Freeper Quotes
There goes my last hope of Santorum running for President. Perhaps a VP slot is in the works. I believe Santorum could help the GOP carry Pennsylvania in 2008.
This opens Fred to attacks, certainly. On the other hand, Santorum was reliably pro-life and pro-family, an orthodox Catholic.
This is the first time I'm dissappointed with Thompson. It makes NO sense to hire an openly homosexual in a prominent role. VP Cheney's homosexual daughter has hurt him. One of the reasons I so strongly oppose Rudy the Rumpranger is because he is to homophilic. Senator Thompson, please don't make the same mistake. You don't have to condemn homosexuals, but don't embrace them -- which gives them the "legitamacy" they desire -- either.
Senator, please don't sink your campaign so soon buy doing something stupid. Stay clear of pro-choicers, gun grabbers, and homophiles.
You don't have to condemn homosexuals, but don't embrace them
Traynham only became openly gay once he was outed by slimy gay activists [WRONG -- he was professionally closeted; Santorum knew Traynham was gay.], so it's not like he flaunts it. As long as Traynham doesn't promote a homosexual agenda, I have no problem with this. There are many, many hetereosexuals who promote the gay agenda, and I have a much bigger problem with them than with a gay man who doesn't.
Traynham isn't running, Thompson is. If Traynham is the best in the business and he can help get a conservative into office, I say, go for it.
This guy will be serving roles as Thompson's communications and press director. He will have ZERO influence on policy. He has an extensive, impeccable record; not only did he work for Santorum, he also worked with the RNC and on Capitol Hill. The fact that he's homosexual is completely irrelevant, although unfortunate.
You said: "I believe Santorum could help the GOP carry Pennsylvania in 2008."
How, he couldn't even keep his own senate seat?
VP Cheney's homosexual daughter has hurt him.
I don't see how, since it is Elizabeth Cheney (the straight one) who is an advisor.
Pennsylvania has been on the precipice of scumbag "blue" for a long time. The city parasites have continued to infest the suburbs, and there has been a huge influx of New York City garbage into Bucks County, where they fled to escape the disaster they voted themselves up north. Like Carville once said, "Pennsylvania is Philadelphia at one end, Pittsburgh at the other end, and Alabama in between." It's all about turnout, and it takes a lot of turnout by the normal people in flyover country to defeat the Democrat fraud and union mobilization efforts in Philly.
I don't have a problem with it unless his position is used as a platform to advance and promote the gay agenda.
"Big tents" are meant to include conservatives of all stripes (not Rinos). I trust Fred to hire the right guy. And while a few fringe loonies (who will still vote for Fred anyway if nominated) might "worry" about it, the likelihood is that this makes Fred less frightening to moderate voters, like gays who can now set the gay political fears aside, and vote their wallets (or handbags.)
Robert Traynham was with Fred's entourage when Fred visited New Hampshire last week. He did not act or dress "gay". From what I saw, he's a competent, hard-working fellow.
I never made any comment about the quality of his choice. I simply pointed out a fact. However, now that you mention it, the pick is one more clue as a conservative observes Fred Thompson and puts the pieces together.
Not only did Santorum lose, he lost big. And if this guy was responsible for his campaign, it's no recommendation. It was a dumb campaign with nasty, sarcastic ads on Santorum's part that turned off the voters at the outset. Santorum never got any traction at all. He tried every issue he could come up with including, at the end, dire warnings that sounded like Churchill in the 30s. Nothing worked. Casey barely campaigned and fumbled in the debates but still won, I think by about 20 percentage points.
As I said when all the Fred Frenzy started here on FR about two months ago... SLOW DOWN, TAKE A DEEP BREATH, examine the man's voting record versus position papers, and then take a DAMN good look at both his senior campaign advisors and his campaign donors. Do NOT place a priority on his campaign rhetoric. I would say this about all presidential candidates. In a very short time, you will see if we will get a true conservative on economic and social issues, or whether we get George W. Bush again for four, maybe eight years.
In the past I have hired one or two people who were lesbian or homosexual, because they were best qualified for the jobs in question, and because they were not committed to gay activism. If this guy is good at his job and is not a gay activist, then I don't see that it's really relevant.
I don't think there is anybody in the field other than Fred that is a conservative who can win. Everyone else is either a mental case or a liberal or is not electable. Thompson can be the next Reagan, just puzzled by his hiring a homosexual to be his press spokesman. If the guy has an adviser role and is not the voice of the White House in a Thompson Administration that would be the best for all concerned.
"He's been working with the GOP since the early 90s. If it was OK then, why the big deal now?"
Because it looks bad. Even if this man is not an activist, it looks bad. For Senator Thompson to look correct to the base (moral conservatives) he needs to avoid anything that makes him look two faced. Rudy's homophilic attitudes make him unacceptable (along with being a baby killer and gun grabber). Senator Thompson must avoid ANY appearance that he approves of the homosexual lifestyle. His appeal to and excitment generated in the base will go down the tube quickly if he isn't a little more circumspect in whom serves on his staff. Just as in the military, once exposed as a homosexual, you are no longer suitable for service. The same is true of a presidential candidate's staff -- if the candidate wants to appear to be a full fledged conservative. Otherwise, his will just be another "also--ran."
It just is a plain stupid move. There are plenty of other personnel out there that can serve -- without homosexual tendencies.