[nmh]

"Robert Traynham ... is widely respected and admired on Capitol Hill, both among the press corps and among the congressional staff, as a communications professional. Not only is Mr. Traynham an exemplary staffer, but he is also a trusted friend confidente to me and my family. Mr. Traynham is a valued member of my staff and I regret that this effort on behalf of people who oppose me has made him a target of bigotry in their eyes.

"It is entirely unacceptable that my staffs' personal lives are considered fair game by partisans looking for arguments to bolster my opponent's campaign. Mr. Traynham continues to have my full support and confidence as well as my prayers as he navigates this rude and mean spirited invasion of his personal life."

Santorum is a self serving HYPOCRITE!

His "personal life" is PUBLIC when you are in a PUBLIC position.

Defending a homosexual when you claim to be AGAINST their life style choice is disgusting when it BENEFITS you.


Disgusting.

[Dems_R_Losers]

So you think Sen. Santorum should have a policy of not hiring homosexuals who are otherwise qualified to work for him, or he should fire any staffer who reveals himself or herself to be a homosexual? You think that would go over well with the people of Pennsylvania?

[Sloth]

What, exactly, is hypocritical here? Has Santorum at some point in the past condemned employing homos?

[Dan from Michigan]

It's not Santorum who is "outed". It's a staff member who is apparently well qualified at his job.

If I'm a businessman, I hire the best person for the job. As long as he's not a criminal, I don't care about his personal life even though I may not agree with it. I care about his work for the senate office.

[RicocheT]

A conservative who supports man/woman marriage does not have to hate homosexuals. Supporting man/woman marriage means it is the basic unit of a stable long range growth and savings society. That unit deserves the special status of marriage as it is our economic engine, main savings and investment unit and produces the most healthy children to continue all of society.

Supporting marriage does not mean hating homosexuals. They can live and work among us and be left alone as long as they do not flaunt their life style in our living rooms, front yards or in schools where our children are educated. They even can have their "dykes on bikes" parade as long as we get notice and we can then take the kids away to the zoo that day. Both life styles can co exist with some modest accommodations.

Conservatives can still have moral reasons to not promote homosexuality without hating or attacking those that are of that persuasion.

[Delphinium]

claining that a pervert is "a trusted friend confidente to me and my family."bothers me.

[EDINVA]

conversely no gay should support a conservative Republican? Is that your logic?

[Petronski]

What would you have Santorum do? Stone him?



I hope you're not as ugly a person as your post implies.

[Recovering Hermit]

Defending a homosexual when you claim to be AGAINST their life style choice is disgusting when it BENEFITS you.

Huh?

If you were Santorum, would you have opted for "I am against homosexuality so I fired the fag on the spot?"

I think his statement was entirely appropriate.

[sruleoflaw]

I frankly don't understand what's disgusting...and I think your attack on Sen. Santorum is inapproriate and out of line.

[Concerned]

NMH WROTE: "Santorum is a self serving HYPOCRITE!"

NMH ADDED: "His "personal life" is PUBLIC when you are in a PUBLIC position."

NMH ADDED: "Defending a homosexual when you claim to be AGAINST their life style choice is disgusting when it BENEFITS you."

NMH ADDED: "Disgusting."

Senator Santorum is an elected public official. His staff is NOT.

I am about as pro-life and anti-sodomite-lifestyle as one can get, yet I have no problem with Santorum's stance. (BTW, I prefer to use the Biblical term for such behaviour.)

I used to work as a sales person with someone I strongly suspect was a sodomite. We worked together, however---as a TEAM---extremely well and we were the TOP two in sales in the store.

He NEVER said a word about what he did in his bedroom or with anyone he might have been involved with. In fact, I have NO idea IF he was seeing anyone because he NEVER mentioned it.

THE KEY is that it is NOT what people do in their BEDROOM that offends people so much---it is what they do and FORCE you to see IN PUBLIC!!!

To me, it really makes NO difference whether you are FORCED to see PUBLIC indecency by two sodomites, two heterosexuals, a pedophile and their victim or anyone participating in indecent behaviour IN PUBLIC---I don't want to see ANY of it!

Let me ask you: If you had a sales business, i.e. your business DEPENDED on sales volume, and a sodomite was a fantastic salesperson and in fact, was the TOP salesperson in your sales force, wouldn't YOU want to have the VERY BEST PRODUCING SALESPERSON work for YOU??? I sure would! And apparently, Senator Santorum thinks the same way.

BTW, we ALL have sinned and fall short of the Glory of GOD!

[willyboyishere]

Were you there last October advising John Edwards's wife when she said Cheney's daughter was "fair game" when Kerry compulsively brought up her sexual orientation on national
television? You can't see the forest for the trees, dude.

[John Robertson]

Thanks for the outburst.

From the tone of it, I'm fairly certain this will be lost on you, but here goes: Santorum is one of those hate-the-sin, love-the-sinner types on this issue.

You call him a "hypocrite" for standing by a loyal staffer. He can well stand by his belief of "disapproving" of a "lifestyle"--yet still be friends and colleagues with those who live that lifestyle.

While we're at it, I completely disagree that Traynham's personal life is fair game, because he's in a "public position." That's crap. You and I never heard of him before this. Are you saying anyone connected to Santorum, in any way--since HE'S a public figure--gives up their right to privacy?

Santorum didn't engage in "defending a homosexual" because it would "benefit" him. He spoke out against the Dem ops who would drag someone's name throught the dirt in order to smear him. I look on it as standing up for a friend.

I usually read all the posts before responding, but yours was so over the top and off the mark, I had to pop back immediately. I'm going to read the rest now, and I fully expect to take pleasure in all the posts that will no doubt kick you in your unreasonable butt.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Being against gay "marriage" is not proof that one hates homosexuals. There is no linkage whatsoever.

It is the left that is constantly making that connection. Which is absolute crappola.

Marriage is designed to be a union between man and woman. Period. There is no logical step from that to hating gays.

Completely illogical supposition. Same reasoning as "republicans want to reform social security; ipso facto, republicans hate and want to starve old people". Actually, it's not reasoning at all. It's DIMocrat talking points, for simple political purposes. In truth, that is really where the hypocrisy resides.

[brityank]

Wrong, idiot.

Santorum follows his principles, as I would expect all to do. You don't, therefor you are the hypocrite.

"Hate the sin, but love the sinner."




'' In the online interview, Traynham defended his decision to work with the senator. "Sen. Santorum is a man of principle, he is a man who sticks up for what he believes in. I strongly do support Sen. Santorum. ''

[Doctor Stochastic]

Then you won't be supporting Santorum's nomination to the Supreme Court?

[Republican Wildcat]

The only thing disgusting here is you.

[goldstategop]

I don't approve of homosexuality. But at the same time, its NONE of my business what people do in their personal life. There are a lot of gay conservatives. Now it happens I don't think homosexuality ought to be approved of morally or given sanction by society through its laws but at the same time there's a big difference between people living their own lives and activists seeking to force their personal lifestyle choices upon society. Robert Trayhan didn't deserve to have his personal life exposed for the Left's political gain. That's even more offensive than the fact he's gay.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[zbigreddogz]

?!?!?!?!?!?!

So, you have to approve of EVERYTHING SOMEONE DOES and EVERY BELIEF THEY HAVE before you can employ them?

Yah. I'll remember that :extreme sarcasm:

[griffin]

Re post 4, I agree with your take on this.

Santorum equates the BEHAVIOR of homosexuality with that of incest..illegal activity. Ok to employ seudo-criminals?

Bad behavior is the effect of poor judgement. This staffer exercises poor judgement in his personal life that is proven in studies to reduce life expectancy drastically. At a minimum this staffer has a conflict of interest with a key stance Santorum has taken. At a minimum this staffer's judgement is certainly to be questioned.

Regarding other people's claims that homosexuality is common among conservatives, I shudder and can now understand the party's long term trend of sliding to the left and embrace of humanism and hedonism.

[photodawg]

What is important here, I believe, is individual rights and freedom. Most republicans, dare I generalize, judge people as individuals based on the persons character and actions. Thus, it is possible to be homosexual, struggling with your sexuality, hetero, struggling with your sexuality, promiscuous from either modality, and a vast array in between. We are all sinners. I think republicans would tend to look at the individual and his actions to base friendships, hiring decisions, associations, etc.
It therefore, becomes very possible to be heterosexual and have a gay friend, associate, or coworker. It is not hypocritical to be against gay marriage and yet to hire a qualified gay. It is also possible for someone to be gay, and not support gay marriage, or equal rights for gays, or whatever.
The liberal on the other hand, openly admits that he cares nothing about your character or your individual uniqueness in the eyes of god. The liberal says, " I'll hire you because you're black, or because you're a woman, or because you're gay, not because you are qualified. That is the real hypocrisy. The VP has a gay daughter, the libs expect him to either renounce his daughter as a wicked aberration, or become liberal and renounce conservatism. The VP has to do neither. He loves his daughter, its just that simple.
Sexuality, like many human emotions, are fleeting transitory manifestations of the human condition. As such, they are personal and not easily nourished in public forums. Much of our sexuality is highly personal, and should be nobody's business but ours. In this tell all society, it seems everyone has to know everything.......that is absurd. I don't want to know who your are dating, having sex with, or what kind of sex you are having. Its simply not important to my life, and none of my business.
This business of "outing", is liberal nonsense. It really stands for a commitment to a liberal sexual agenda, that espouses, free sexual expression for anyone anytime, anywhere. A homosexual must be out of the "closet" so that person can join the collective voice of free, godless, sexual expression with the rest of the libs. So they can walk around bragging that, some of my best friends are, gay, black, hispanic, muslim, etc.. This makes them feel good about themselves and the whole world. But that world is divorced from reality.