Flynt Has Sights On Another Gay Closeted Senator

Flynt said he also unearthed the phone numbers of two national news anchors in the records of the Washington escort service, but he chose not to disclose their names because they do not hold public office and cannot cast a vote that could "affect my way of life."

Although Flynt said Vitter is the only officeholder whose name has turned up in the escort service phone records, the publisher said he still has to wade through 3,000 phone numbers. He said he also has his sights on a closeted gay senator who he said consistently votes against gay rights.

Read the full story here.

Comments

[Purple Girl]

GO BABY GO !!!!

But don't just focus on the gay aspect alone, prostitution is prostitution and that clashes with their "family values" judgements.
And don't stop with just the sensational info- put light on htose that talk any talk, but walk a totally different walk. that includes theose liberals who are also lying. I what to know I'm voting for a person who acts as they claim they will. Not just blowing smoke up my liberal ass.

[joebaggadonuts]

There was genius in our founding fathers who placed the first amendment at the fore of the bill of rights.

That we owe so much in our investigation of the crimes of this administration and its enablers to a pornographer says it all. Here is a man who has taken the lowest place in our society
http://www.catholicexchange.com/node/65195
and from it, he brings us pearls of knowledge crucial to our campaign to change the regime of criminal enterprise which has taken over our country.

God bless America.

[WTFbush]

Laughing my fucking balls off! Thanks Larry!

[average joe]

Larry right on the only good fag a dead one.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

"Flynt Has Sights On Another Gay Closeted Senator"

Only one?

[skepticali]

As much as I would love to go and proudly buy a hustler, in support that is, my sweet lady keeps telling me no.

[thos]

What if she's a Democrat?

[ghostsofamerica]

http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2005_08_21_archive.html


"..Official US reaction has been low-key. US Admiral Gary Roughead told Associated Press last week: “We are very interested in the exercise, we’re interested in the types of things that they’ll do.” The Pentagon sent two spy planes and two warships to the area to gather information. USStateDepartment spokesman SeanMcCormack added a note of warning: “We would hope that anything that they [Russia and China] do is not something that would be disruptive to the current atmosphere in the region.” "



hmmm.

top of the Navy Command is brother to the outed DC Madam visitor?


someone asked the question.....Did the blackmail potential come before or after the agreement for the USA to bomb Iran?


-------------

Paul Craig Roberts is prescient here...


http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06182007.html


Is Bush Planning to Nuke Iran? If So, Say Goodbye to Democratic Outcomes

The Reign of the Tyrants is at Hand


"...
The Bush regime's plan to attack Iran with nuclear weapons puts GeneralPace's departure in a different light. How can PresidentBush succeed with an order to attack with nuclear weapons when America's highest ranking military officer says that such an order is"illegal and immoral"and that everyone in the military has an "absolute responsibility" to disobey it


An alternative explanation for Pace's departure is that Pace had to go so that malleable toadies can be installed in his place.

Pace's departure removes a known obstacle to a nuclear attack on Iran,thus advancing that possible course of action. A plan to attack Iran with nuclear weapons might also explain the otherwise inexplicable "NationalSecurity and HomelandSe­curityPres­identialDi­rective" (NSPD-51 AND HSPD-20) that Bush issued on May9.

Bush's directive allows him to declare a "national emergency" on his authority alone without ratification by Congress. Once Bush declares a national emergency,he can take over all functions of government at every level,as well as private organizations and businesses,and remain in total control until he declares the emergency to be over.

Who among us would trust Bush, or any president, with this power?.."

[patanderson]

Well let's look at the amount La taxpayers shelled out for Vitter's hooker.

2 x a week @ $300 ea = $600
4 weeks in a month = $2400
4 months of visits = $9600

yep...$9600 for a hooker. Wonder what that money would have done for a Katrina victim, maybe a school or hospital that was leveled?

Think La voters will realize that their tax dollars that are used to pay this "family values man" we're spent on a hooker?

Do you think they should care?

[shaggles]

I love seeing Republicans exposed for what they really are and I love to see Flynt make them squirm but let me play devil's advocate for a minute. Is a closeted homosexual with a record of voting against gay rights neccessarily a hypocrite? John Edwards advocates for the poor. The right have been calling him a hypocrite because he himself is wealthy but I don't see it that way. He's calling for higher taxes on the rich. Taxes he himself would be subject to. Far from being hypocritical I think that's noble. A gay senator who votes against gay rights because he doesn't believe gays need or deserve extra protection from the law is in the same boat. I don't agree with him but if he stands by his principals even when it doesn't benefit himself he is acting in a noble way. Or he would be if he were openly gay. Also a senator or congressman is meant to represent the people that elected him. We're constantly complaining here about the refusal by the Dems in congress to end the war when that's what their constituants want. That's how they won the majority but they refuse to do the will of the people. If a gay senator votes against gay rights because that's what the people in his state want that isn't really hypocritical. It's expressing the will of the people. As for Vitter his sexual indiscretions are his own business just like Clinton's were. They have nothing to do with his ability to serve although I think he'll need to change his campaign strategy next election. His own party however should treat him the way they treated Clinton. More harshly in fact because of his moral posturing. But they won't because they are the real hypocrits. Forget everything I said. Go get 'em Larry.

[cynara]

We all know John Edwards is rich, although he supports the poor. If you wanna gay bash while being open about your public bathroom explorations, go for it. We don't expect John Edwards to pretend to be a beggar, and I tired of Republicans pretending to be angels.

[CitizenML]

The list is getting longer and longer.

See the pride of the party, Craig, Vitter and Foley on American idol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUNjcE5tw0o

[zendem1]

Im betting Lindsay Graham is now hard at work deleting e-mails, changing his cell-phone number and getting his staff to sign non-disclosure agreements. Go get him Larry!

[jacobomorales]

you de man Larry!!!!

[cognate]

Publish the names Larry! The media is in bed with the politicians.

[cynara]

TV news anchors are not creating anti-gay. "pro-family" legislation. Nor are the running campaigns touting their "holier than thou" Christianity. I have no interest in just exposing random people in the street, what they do and who they do it with is their business.

But hypocracy, that bothers me. When your taring your opponent for not sharing your "christian values" while getting it on with some hooker on the hood of a car or denying civil liberty to gays while looking for a little love in a public bathroom, well I think the public has a right to know.


"Judge not lest you be judged". And if your not juding, it ain't none of my business.

[dora rice]

seems to me, this guy is an incurable sleeze ball, let his wife deal with it. Chances are she won't , because fame and fortune are more important.