McCain's Chief-of-Staff Outed

[Daniel]

This throws a bright light on at least one person who supports the anti-gay platform of McCain and his running mate. Does it matter? What do you think?

My own opinion is that it matters in the sense that it highlights the policies of the McCain/Palin campaign as well as the hypocritical stance of McCain himself: he made a sharp turn to the right which could be viewed- I think rightly- as a cynical and calculated effort to court the evangelical vote.

http://www.towleroad.com/2008/09/signorile-roger.html


Signorile, Rogers: John McCain Chief-of-Staff Mark Buse is Gay

Bloggers Mike Rogers and Michelangelo Signorile have been working simultaneously on the same story, which they broke today on their respective blogs as well as Signorile's Sirius radio show. Both Signorile and Rogers, you may know, have become known for outing high-ranking political figures, and today they're reporting that former lobbyist and John McCain's chief-of-staff Mark Buse is gay.

Rogers and Signorile decided to go public because of John McCain's anti-gay platform as well as Sarah Palin's Evangelical Christian background.

As you may know, John McCain doesn't even know what the acronym LGBT stands for. He also doesn't really believe in gay adoption, supports a ban on gays in the military, is worried if his clothing looks too gay, isn't sure if condoms stop the spread of HIV, thinks same-sex marriage ceremonies are okay as long as they're just pretend, and has promised right-wing religious groups that he'll start speaking out more vocally against LGBT causes.

Writes Signorile: "Over the past month I’ve been contacted by three different individuals (two of them members of the Log Cabin Republicans) claiming that McCain’s Senate chief of state, Mark Buse, is gay. None of these individuals would be quoted by name, though each described Buse as being rather 'open' to those around him and to his family – in a 'glass closet' rather than deeply undercover or trying to appear heterosexual. Then I was contacted in recent weeks by 46-year-old Brian Davis, an Arizona resident, who told me about his intimate relationship with Mark Buse (confirmed by his mother, as well as by a long-time friend), and who decided he needed to tell the truth about Buse, on the record, in light of John McCain’s dramatic shift to the ideological religious right in this election and his choice of Sarah Palin, starlet of the evangelical movement, as a running mate."

Rogers went to McCain's office on Friday to present him with his "Roy Cohn Award" but Buse apparently hid in his office and wouldn't come out. Rogers has a video up on his site.

Signorile posted a very brief video clip given to him by Buse's ex-boyfriend when they were dating.

Signorile's blog, which goes into much greater detail.

http://www.signorile2003.blogspot.com/


Mark Buse’s sexual orientation and his relationship with McCain certainly are relevant facts in light of Palin’s positions, beliefs, past political career and silence on the issues right now. And John McCain is the person responsible for making them relevant by choosing Sarah Palin as a running mate.

~~~~~~~

Interestingly, I just saw Mark Buse in action on The Lehrer Hour on PBS (Monday, September 22nd, 2008), in a profile on John McCain. You can undoubtedly see this piece at the PBS website.

[Emproph]

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/carlapryor/Crocodile_Tears.jpg

So we have an unrepentant adulterer whose cheif of staff wants to destroy the world, a woman for back up, and no punchline.

Little help?

[Daniel]

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/carlapryor/Crocodile_Tears.jpg

So we have an unrepentant adulterer whose chief of staff wants to destroy the world, a woman for back up, and no punchline.

Little help?

I laughed so hard reading your post that I almost fell off my chair! :lol:

[labguy22]

...or do others out there think that "Chief of Staff" is a fabulous title for a Gay man to have? Perhaps redundant, like me driving a Miata; "but I gotta be me". :pirate:

[Eugene]

Rogers and Signorile decided to go public because of John McCain's anti-gay platform as well as Sarah Palin's Evangelical Christian background.


I heard that the Log Cabin Republicans endorsed McCain/Palin. So what is the point?

Too bad that any positive influence the "outed" chief-of-staff might have exerted is now impossible. The coastal guardians of gay rights strike again! They won't be satisfied until every gay man in middle-America is unable to feed or clothe himself because he can't keep a job.

[Daniel]

I heard that the Log Cabin Republicans endorsed McCain/Palin. So what is the point?

Too bad that any positive influence the "outed" chief-of-staff might have exerted is now impossible. The coastal guardians of gay rights strike again! They won't be satisfied until every gay man in middle-America is unable to feed or clothe himself because he can't keep a job.


Ok. I'll go with your argument for a minute.

How much longer do you think Buse needs to 'influence' McCain- assuming, of course, that Buse actually cares about gay rights?

From what I've read Buse has had a 20 year association with McCain. If he had any influence at all, isn't it rational is posit that he would have made it by now? As for McCain's record, he gotten more anti-gay over time.

As it see it, either McCain takes Buse for granted, or Buse is happy to please, at all costs.

[Eugene]

How much longer do you think Buse needs to 'influence' McCain- assuming, of course, that Buse actually cares about gay rights?


I don't have the right to determine that. Neither do you. Neither does Michaelangelo Signorile.

From what I've read Buse has had a 20 year association with McCain. If he had any influence at all, isn't it rational is posit that he would have made it by now?

That is the real issue. Some gay men are Republicans. Some gay men are religious. Some gay men are in the closet at work, because they need their jobs.

But most "out" gay men -- particularly professional gay activists -- aren't. And they think every gay American man should be a liberal, secular Democrat.

[Emproph]

That is the real issue. Some gay men are Republicans. Some gay men are religious. Some gay men are in the closet at work, because they need their jobs.

But most "out" gay men -- particularly professional gay activists -- aren't.We prefer to be called militant homosexual activists.

The militant part scares people, the homoSEXual part reminds people of genitalia, and the activist part just kind of wraps it all up. Kind of like we're an army who could wage war with our genitals at any moment.

And they think every gay American man should be a liberal, secular Democrat.

We do. And they should. :D

[sauu4equality]

Ok. I posted a post that stated that Log Cabinism upset me immensely. I'm going to go back on that point after reading some Log Cabin Blogs. First of all, for the most part, Log Cabins seem to take criticism well, understand the frustrations of Gays that don't agree with them and be working hard for our cause. This is quite a transformation I know. For a man that goes to a church that criticizes Bush and other Republicans at the pulpit I'm astonished as I'm typing it.

The main reason for my new found respect for Log Cabin Republicans is that I agree with the above poster that Gay people are diverse and should exist in every political party and demographic of a society. I think many Log Cabins think the only way to make a difference is to make Gay Rights a Country issue rather than a one party issue. I cannot argue with that. My personal feeling is to get a party to come to your side you must take your vote elsewhere, but maybe Log Cabins see the writing on the wall, know how racist our society is and that Obama cannot win in our racist society and know that when McCain is the president we could use some allies. Just to be clear, the only reason Obama will lose this election is racism...if my party was winning because of this, I would vote for the other party (I'm an independent anyway). But I do have respect for the work that Gay Republicans, especially Log Cabins, have done for me and hope that they continue to push their party to promote Gay Rights. And I know that John McCain voted against the Marriage Ban twice and I respect him for this...I just wish he didn't have to lie to his constituency to win the election. This public anti-gay sentiment that we have seen from him on the Ellen Degeneres show and others will take its toll on GLBT people. It may even cause more teenage suicide and gay bashing. So, don't tell me you'd rather win a war than an election because you have shown that you will lie, cheat and steal (and accept a bid to be president based on racism) to win this one. But one poor political performance doesn't take away from a pretty balanced Conservative Liberal political career. Maybe McCain is just senile. I still don't think he knew what he was getting with Palin and I'd be willing to bet they don't get along. Maybe finding out that there are other religions besides Christianity will change Palin (she's meeting world leaders today or maybe that was yesterday).

Well, that's as close as I'm going to get to a peace offering to Gay Republicans. It's difficult to come to your side when the only Gay Republicans I know believe that Democrats are Communists and Black people are lazy. And I cannot get any Log Cabin people to return a phone call or an e-mail, so I guess my vote is not important to them.

[Daniel]

I don't have the right to determine that. Neither do you. Neither does Michaelangelo Signorile.

That is the real issue. Some gay men are Republicans. Some gay men are religious. Some gay men are in the closet at work, because they need their jobs.

But most "out" gay men -- particularly professional gay activists -- aren't. And they think every gay American man should be a liberal, secular Democrat.

It's very ironic, you know, to talk about rights when gay people have so little of them.

Here's my question: At what point does the right to self-determination (ie being in the closet to keep one's job) trump the right of others who work for civil rights- that is- laws that prevent one from being fired from one's job?

Lastly, one thing bothers me about your post. And that is the word secular. In point of fact, we do live in a secular democratic society, even though evangelicals would like us to think otherwise. I would posit that the advancement of civil and gay rights depends on it.

Thank God for the separation of church and state.

[Matt Algren]

I heard that the Log Cabin Republicans endorsed McCain/Palin. So what is the point?

Too bad that any positive influence the "outed" chief-of-staff might have exerted is now impossible. The coastal guardians of gay rights strike again! They won't be satisfied until every gay man in middle-America is unable to feed or clothe himself because he can't keep a job.
Exactly what "positive influence" were you expecting?

[nmwolfboy]

The coastal guardians of gay rights strike again! They won't be satisfied until every gay man in middle-America is unable to feed or clothe himself because he can't keep a job.

I don't have the right to determine that. Neither do you. Neither does Michaelangelo Signorile.

That is the real issue. Some gay men are Republicans. Some gay men are religious. Some gay men are in the closet at work, because they need their jobs.

But most "out" gay men -- particularly professional gay activists -- aren't. And they think every gay American man should be a liberal, secular Democrat.

Well, at least your opinion about gay activists, Democrats, and liberals is clear. :lol: But Eugene, you sure are painting with a broad brush. Of course lgbt people (and not just men, by the way) exist across the ideological (as well as economic, cultural, religious, etc.) spectrum. That's certainly shouldn't be an epiphany for anyone who has their eyes open. In fact, that diversity is one of the things i love about being gay.

After reading & re-reading your posts, i'm still not clear as to what actual point you're trying to make. It sounds more like you have some personal axe to grind. Care to enlighten rather than just carp?

And Nick - i think i'd prefer to be the "Special Assistant to the President for Cabinet Liaison." That sounds much more gay than 'Chief of Staff'! :rofl:

Pax et bonum,
scott

[Daniel]

http://www.365gay.com/opinion/besen-no-more-gay-republicans/


Log Cabin’s tragic endorsement of John McCain exhibits an obdurate denial of his anti-gay record and a stubborn unwillingness to admit that their one-time hero is now hopeless. McCain’s VP choice, Sarah Palin, a favorite of the fundamentalist fringe, should have lead to a reevaluation, if not reversal of their endorsement. Like Palin, they didn’t blink, and are shamefully in cahoots with destructive forces that would deny GLBT people the most basic rights.

[Eugene]

Here's my question: At what point does the right to self-determination (ie being in the closet to keep one's job) trump the right of others who work for civil rights- that is- laws that prevent one from being fired from one's job?


I have the right and obligation to feed myself and keep a roof over my head regardless of the aims and arguments of the gay establishment. That has to do with my being human, not gay.

That doesn't mean I don't support gay rights organizations with my finances. But they had better appreciate that my financial assistance is dependent on maintaining a job in a region of the US where a proclamation of my sexual orientation in the workplace -- whether by me or someone else -- might result in unemployment with no legal recourse.

So of course I see little worth cheering when someone is "outed" -- especially when it is someone who isn't pretending to be heterosexual. McCain's chief-of-staff wasn't in the closet with family and friends, according to what you posted.

Lastly, one thing bothers me about your post. And that is the word secular. In point of fact, we do live in a secular democratic society, even though evangelicals would like us to think otherwise. I would posit that the advancement of civil and gay rights depends on it.


I don't disagree. But I am convinced that despite their overtures, gay rights organizations "don't get it" when it comes to traditionally religious homosexuals.

[Daniel]

I don't disagree. But I am convinced that despite their overtures, gay rights organizations "don't get it" when it comes to traditionally religious homosexuals.

This is what really pisses me off about conservatives. And I take it you are a conservative, so I won't be shy. Your post pisses me off. Why?

You assert that you have to the right to stay in the closet because you don't have any protection against being fired. But you dismissively characterize those who work on your behalf as the gay establishment.

This strikes me as wanting all the benefits without any risk. I don't think this kind of math doesn't work in the financial realm anymore that it works in one's personal life. After all, didn't Jesus have something to say about the man who hid his talent in the ground?

[Eugene]

This is what really pisses me off about conservatives. And I take it you are a conservative, so I won't be shy. Your post pisses me off.

Probably more conservative than you. Though not as conservative as some.

Well I'm glad that my posting at least has an effect. It would be a bigger waste of time, otherwise.

This strikes me as wanting all the benefits without any risk.

I am reminded of a parable from 1 Cor. 12. We can't all be activists.

After all, didn't Jesus have something to say about the man who hid his talent in the ground?

And the fallacy in application here would be that everyone isn't given the same gift.

[Matt Algren]

I have the right and obligation to feed myself and keep a roof over my head regardless of the aims and arguments of the gay establishment. That has to do with my being human, not gay.That right ends when it impinges upon others' rights and that's where the McCain Chief-of-Staff comes in.

Part of his job is to make sure we're kept in the back of the bus. I'm not a big proponent of outing anybody, but when someone in a leadership role is actively and hypocritically promoting bigoted and prejudicial policies, I see no problem with pointing out their hypocrisy. If pointing out that hypocrisy exposes their secret (and pointing out any hypocrisy always does), so be it.

I don't disagree. But I am convinced that despite their overtures, gay rights organizations "don't get it" when it comes to traditionally religious homosexuals.The word traditional has been so abused and redefined that I'm not sure what you mean by it.

[Daniel]

And the fallacy in application here would be that everyone isn't given the same gift.

(buzzer going off!)

Wrong answer!

The parable of the talents is not about the quantity of one's gift, but hiding whatever gift one has out of fear. That's why the one who has the least- and hides his talent in the ground- has the little that he has taken away from him.

Mr. Buse? He's buried his talent but good. And his public face has now been taken away from him. That's the price he pays for hiding in the closet while furthering the anti-gay platform of his boss.

[u-dog]

Yes! Right answer! Victory in the Biblical exegesis round goes to Daniel from New York. ;)

[Matt Algren]

But what if my gift is hiding my gift in the ground? What then?!?

[Daniel]

Yes! Right answer! Victory in the Biblical exegesis round goes to Daniel from New York. ;)

Ah......

What's exegisis? Something to do with Jesus and sneezing?

And to think, I haven't had a class in Biblical Studies since college. :rolleyes: I guess something stuck from those stoneage days. Or maybe that was the preshistoric era- that is- Vacation Bible School. ;)

Then again- I did sit through a zillion sermons while singing in the choir stalls of the Episocopal Church here in the City of Sin.

Must'a come from somewhere.

Ok..

Where's my tupperware?

Isn't that the standard prize for such things?

[keltic63]

Or maybe that was the preshistoric era- that is- Vacation Bible School. ;)




VBS???? OMG, I was there too!

I pledge allegiance to the Bible, God's Holy Word, I will make it a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path and will hide its words in my heart that I might not sin against God.

http://www.christianhomeschoolers.com/images/bible1.gif

[Daniel]

VBS???? OMG, I was there too!

I pledge allegiance to the Bible, God's Holy Word, I will make it a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path and will hide its words in my heart that I might not sin against God.

http://www.christianhomeschoolers.com/images/bible1.gif

I remember that! :eek: Right up there with the pledge of allegiance. I think we said that first. Or maybe is was the other way around?

God before country.

Hey- maybe that's the definition of a conservative! ;)

[tymejumper]

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p242/carlapryor/Crocodile_Tears.jpg

So we have an unrepentant adulterer whose cheif of staff wants to destroy the world, a woman for back up, and no punchline.

Little help?




Is gay the new black?

What could make the LGBT community back McCain and his gay chief of staff? *drumroll* Lipstick! :lol::lol: (on the chief of staff, he'd be fabulous then, of course!)


Sorry, couldn't resist.:rolleyes:

[tymejumper]

Mr. Buse? He's buried his talent but good. And his public face has now been taken away from him. That's the price he pays for hiding in the closet while furthering the anti-gay platform of his boss.


Daniel, you believe as I do, you reap what you sow, it's called Karma.

He chose to put in with someone who was not open to gay rights and who does not see us as equal people whom deserve the same as straight persons. I reason that he deserves no protection either. Why should he keep his job as a gay man when he was willing to work for a man whom saw no need to try to gain protections for gay individuals?(workplace protections)

Is it sad? Certainly, fair? no, but it's not any more than the rest of us have to go through daily at our jobs. The fear of being found out and the ramifications of losing our jobs if we are.

And while it is true not all of us can be activists, and no one expects them to be, we should understand there are just followers. Some people do not chose to make a stand and so they do not. Look at Cheneys daughter. She is partnered and she gave money to fight for propostion 8 in CA. She is also Republican. I find it rather sad that she has internalized homophobia.

Those whom give up freedom for protection and safety desrve neither. This was said by Thomas Jefferson.

[Eugene]

(buzzer going off!)

Wrong answer!

The parable of the talents is not about the quantity of one's gift, but hiding whatever gift one has out of fear. That's why the one who has the least- and hides his talent in the ground- has the little that he has taken away from him.

Mr. Buse? He's buried his talent but good. And his public face has now been taken away from him. That's the price he pays for hiding in the closet while furthering the anti-gay platform of his boss.


Excuse me? Did I say anything about quantity? I said:

And the fallacy in application here would be that everyone isn't given the same gift.

In response to:

This strikes me as wanting all the benefits without any risk. I don't think this kind of math doesn't work in the financial realm anymore that it works in one's personal life. After all, didn't Jesus have something to say about the man who hid his talent in the ground?

Clearly you were implying that I am hiding my gift in the ground because I am not "out" at work or not an activist.

If activism is your thing, then that's great. But don't misapply the Bible to condemn me for NOT being an activist and for needing my job enough to put social statement second. You don't know what my gift is.

I think I am pretty sound on exegesis, personally. And along those lines, I wouldn't seriously use either 1 Cor. 12 or the parable of the talents in this context. Something in me rebels against viewing gay activism as a spiritual gift. And I really don't expect it to be a basis for reward at the 2nd coming -- especially given that those who practice it the most vocally aren't known for believing in the 2nd coming.

I think I have exhausted any worthwhile contribution to this thread. Thanks for the repartee.

[Eugene]

Those whom give up freedom for protection and safety desrve neither. This was said by Thomas Jefferson.


Hmmm. Revolutionary rhetoric directed at Loyalists, no doubt. If I had been alive at the time and had been a serious student of Scripture, I doubt I would have participated in the American Revolution.

My last comment -- seriously (maybe) -- is that I am amazed at how everyone on this thread seems to consider it moral to set themselves over someone else's personal freedom.

[Daniel]

Clearly you were implying that I am hiding my gift in the ground because I am not "out" at work or not an activist.

If activism is your thing, then that's great. But don't misapply the Bible to condemn me for NOT being an activist and for needing my job enough to put social statement second. You don't know what my gift is.

Eugene- you opened the door with your comments. I simply went through it. And I don't see myself as condeming you. Being in the closet is suffering enough. Think I don't know that? I do. I simply don't agree with your thinking process and they conclusions you draw.

[Eugene]

Being in the closet is suffering enough.

Funny thing -- I don't suffer at work because I can't talk about my sexuality. I am old-fashioned enough to believe my sexuality isn't the business of my co-workers. I don't pretend to be heterosexual, nor do I condemn homosexuals. I just don't talk about sexuality -- and I don't like having to hear heterosexuals talk about it in the workplace either.

I don't consider myself closeted because I don't hide my sexual orientation at home or from my friends -- kind of like McCain's chief-of-staff, what's-his-name.

[Matt Algren]

Funny thing -- I don't suffer at work because I can't talk about my sexuality. I am old-fashioned enough to believe my sexuality isn't the business of my co-workers. I don't pretend to be heterosexual, nor do I condemn homosexuals. I just don't talk about sexuality -- and I don't like having to hear heterosexuals talk about it in the workplace either.

I don't consider myself closeted because I don't hide my sexual orientation at home or from my friends -- kind of like McCain's chief-of-staff, what's-his-name.
Do you have a boyfriend? Do you have his picture up at work like your straight colleagues do? Do you take him to the company Christmas party like your straight colleagues do? Does his name come up in conversations at lunch? When he calls, do you shut your door or lower your voice, or do you just not say "I love you" at all?

[tymejumper]

My last comment -- seriously (maybe) -- is that I am amazed at how everyone on this thread seems to consider it moral to set themselves over someone else's personal freedom.


No not moral, simply pointing out that that some people expect to get something for giving nothing. They seem to think that others can suffer for the cause while they think it's ok to reap the benefits. This Chief of Staff supports and actively works with a party that REMOVES our rights, is AGAINST our rights, and tries to keep us tax paying citizens from being EQUAL. He therfore deserves neither freedom nor safety.

Should everyone be out at work? No, not until there is guarantee that you will not be fired for being safe. So, there is NO personal freedom, at least not for us gay people. Should you live by your decisions? Yes, I believe you should. HE chose to back the party that would take away OUR rights, therefore it is universal justice that he lives by HIS decision and suffer the same fate as all of us.(losing his rights)

I am sorry you are feeling defensive about this whole thread. If you choose to not be an activist, that is YOUR personal decision. Neither Daniel nor any others here have accused you of anything. Some of us out here, can't bear the silence any longer.

[tdogg]

Hiding out in the workplace isn't the answer, although of course there are times it is needed. What is the answer, is equality and an end to discrimination everywhere. If we all worked towards equality (including conservatives), then sooner, rather than later, people wouldn't need to hide in the closet anywhere. I just don't see the Republican party doing anything to progress to equality. I see mainly obstacles being laid out to continue oppression.

I don't talk about sexuality (or sex) at work. It's not appropriate and I certainly am not interested in hearing about it from others. I do firmly uphold my right to have pictures of my spouse in my office, mention my wife to others in appropriate conversations (as opposed to keeping quiet or pretending I don't have a wife), etc. It's not about sex, it's about the right to have the same rights and priviledges that my colleagues and subordinates do. That's why I can't be in the closet. I can't pretend I'm not married, don't have a life away from work, take down my pictures.

Luckily, I work for state government in CA, where we have protections against discrimination. Thanks to those who came before me, being out and proud and sacrificing much in the struggle towards full equality.

[hippie4lyfe]

i think mark buse deserved to be outed, he is supporting an anti-gay politician. mccain isn't just not pro-gay, he is against marriage, adoption, hate crimes, and military service = anti-gay.