« Checklist. | Main | Originally a Nader post, but now it's a Rice one... »

April 06, 2004

Comments

As a Texan, I am right proud to defend my state and its patriotic residents and representatives against any scurrilous attacks that may be made against us.

Ain't a one of us would wear white pumps after labor day, or fail to accessorize in the most exquisite possible taste.

The line that, while it doesn't surprise me at all, bemuses me is: "... was assured there was nothing more than 'cross-dressing' involved."

Thank goodness. Now, if Bad Body Parts touched, it would all be over.

Abstractly, I kinda-sorta understand what the assumptions and mindset is that thinks that way, but I can't really entirely wrap my head around it to fully grok it, if you'll pardon the expression.

To me, though, it's a hell of a lot weirder than cross-dressing or simple homosexuality.

See, this is why I'm unlikely to run for any public office higher than very, very local. It's not that I don't think I'd be good at public service--it's that I have too much scandal fodder that most everyone who knows me knows about--none of which I feel deserves a denial or cover-up. My response to the feces-stirrers would be something along the lines of "yeah, and this is relevant /how/?" It seriously boggles me that people in public office think they can keep things like DUIs and kinky hobbies from eventually going public these days, though.

America really needs to get over its knee-jerk cultural "holy shit!" reaction to the merest whiff of sexual scandal. Our puritanical roots are never too far below the surface, and it's baggage that we as a nation would be healthier for shedding.

Pardon the mixed metaphors. It's late. :>

I can say quite definitely that of all the scandals that might surface with regard to a Republican candidate, cross-dressing is one that... well, it's not that it would make me want to vote for a Republican, but it certainly wouldn't add to the multiple reasons anyone should have for never voting Republican. Might even subtract from them.

"It's not that I don't think I'd be good at public service--it's that I have too much scandal fodder that most everyone who knows me knows about--none of which I feel deserves a denial or cover-up."

Tell me about it. Although in my case it's more things that I've said - comments about the War on Some Drugs, public flirtations with Objectivism when I was younger, hell, this blog - that'd doom me.

Moe - posts like these fill me with admiration for your writing. Funny and serious, a jab at piccadillos yet sensitive and add to that your timing and rhythem and it makes a great read. If you were a lefty I'd nominate you for a Koufax award.

Nominate him for the Drysdale, instead.

Nominate him for some award, anyway. Or name an award after him: The Moe Lane Award For Cross-Political Appreciation. ;-)

More evidence of Big-tent Republicanism!

The funny, or sad, part is that even my former wives, fer chris'sake, wouldn't wear that "feminine" clothing. (And, trust me, they were definitely women.) So it's not really cross-dressing, but weird costume dressing.

As for Hoover, the guy was the most noted blackmailer and dirty-tricks artist in America. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

All y'all just remember these kind words when I'm serving up particularly right-wing fare... :)

Moe

PS: serial catowner, I do not dispute that J Edgar Hoover was a first-class schmuck - just that there's no real evidence that he was a cross-dressing one - and that being the latter is certainly not required for being the former. :)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad