The matyrdom of Brian Rothenberg

Apparently ProgressOhio's Brian Rothernberg has decided to play the victim card with an all out offensive with today's Joe Hallet's column and his own self-serving lament today.  How Hallet's column passed even a cursory fact-check is beyond me:

Perceived to be reluctant about supporting gay rights, Garrison announced her support for a bill that would make it illegal to deny housing and employment to anyone based on sexual orientation.

"Perceived" suggests that it is not a matter of fact that Garrison is reluctant to supporting gay rights.  Given her history using DOMA to get elected, then opposing a GLBT-supported amendment to a bullying bill, and Garrison' own stated opposition to same-sex marriage, Garrison's reluctance to support gay rights is no matter of mere perception.  It is that very "perception" that lead Governor Strickland to rule Garrison out of the Lt. Governor slot.

Rothenberg posted the video interview on Progress Ohio's Web site, naturally expecting that like-minded liberals would be happy to learn that Garrison "was moving in the right direction when it comes to gay rights."

Except that this blog already ran multiple stories about Garrison's support of the bill, the video broke no new ground.

A public discussion of Rothenberg's sexual orientation bounced around the Web. Although many of the commentators hid behind pseudonyms, Rothenberg is familiar with Russo and others in the liberal blogging community.

"When you meet these folks in person, they're very nice and even meek. But they feel like behind a keyboard they can say whatever they want, in whatever manner they want, and as mean-spirited as they want."

Really, I missed that discussion.  My post didn't mention Rothenberg's sexual orientation.  It did express shock at Russo going so personal, but beyond that shock it didn't engage in the issue at all.  The only discussion I saw about Rothenberg's sexual orientation was in the comments when someone falsely attacked Russo for "outing" Rothernberg which both Rothenberg's post and Hallet's column confirms that I reported the situtation correctly:  Russo didn't "out" Rothenberg, but perhaps made more people aware of the fact than knew beforehand.  However, that is hardly an "outing."

I'm unaware of anyone saying anything mean-spirited about Rothenberg, not evenTim.  But I had no doubt Tim would say the same thing to Rothenberg's face, nor do I doubt Rothenberg doubts Tim would be "meek " either.  Tim didn't mention Rothenberg's sexual orientation as a slur.  I'm aware of nobody that discussed Rothenberg's private life in the manner Hallet and Rothenberg alleged.  All Tim pointed out was how Rothenberg must be doing this to carry water for Redfern because why else would an openly homosexual man in a committed relationship give Garrison such "kid glove" treatment to the point of actually misrepresenting Garrison as a moderate on issues where her record is anything but.

I honestly have no idea who Rothenberg is talking about.  He's creating a straw man to distract what my post WAS actually about:  ProgressOhio doing damage control for a Democratic primary candidate under seige by the GLBT community under the paper thin guise of "issue advocacy."  A point neither Hallet not Rothenberg ever actually address.

In fact, most of my post wasn't even about ProgressOhio at all.  It focused more on the timeline of when Garrison's support of this bill became public knowledge and whether primary politics had something to do with it.

"But I think we're on a collision course where something bad is going to happen if this kind of hate keeps up."

What hate?  I'm sorry, although Tim (and again, only Tim, there was no blog community "discussion" about Rothenberg's sexual orientation) drew attention to Rothenberg's sexual orientation, what speech constituted as not criticism, but hate?

Rothenberg admits in his post that Garrison holds strong views opposite his on abortion.  Then, if he wasn't doing damage control for Garrison, why did he phrase it on video that she's a "moderate" on abortion?  There's nothing moderate about her on abortion.  She is an extremist who oppose legal abortion except to save the life of the mother.  Victims of rape and incest need not apply.  That is what Garrison herself has told Ohio Right to Life in its candidate questionnaire.  Which is probably why Rothenberg today wrote:

[W]e have discussed my personal disagreement on issues like abortion and DOMA and her beliefs on such issues.

I don't even think Garrison would describe herself as a moderate on this issues.  And yet, we're being lynched by Rothenberg on his blog and on the Columbus Dispatch for merely raising the question as to why Rothenberg would do such a softball interview that seemed to go out of its way to make Garrison appear more middle-of-the-road moderate than her record clearly shows her to be.  How is THAT "hate speech" on par with the Teabagging radicals shouting down opponents with name-calling at townhalls?

The real irony is that Rothenberg, both on his blog and in the Dispatch, can falsely attack me by alleging I engaged in "venomous," "vulgar," "hate speech" about him without citing a single example (because none exists) while glossing over the fact that, to date, Brian Rothenberg, defender of the public discourse (apparently) has yet to lift so much as one finger to attack the very real, very well documented demogogery and vitrol Jennifer Garrison rode into office on.  THAT is exactly the point of our attack of his softball interview with Garrison.  Why we're stunned, absolutely stunned, that he'd say on video that she's a moderate on these social issues.  And why we're convinced that that interview was more about doing damage control for a prominent elected Democratic official than anything to do with "issue advocacy."

Garrison can vote for this bill, not because she's "moving in the right direction," but because she knows her primary campaign chances are doomed if she doesn't, so she might as well vote for this one piece of legislation that she knows has very little chance of ever passing the Republican-controlled Senate.  It's a safe vote for Garrison to make.  It complicates the criticism of her by the GLBT community while knowing that her vote will never result in the law from actually being changed.

But if you're going to blast people for demogogery and vitrol, of using people's private lives as a political wedge issue, I think Jennifer Garrison was in front of that line.  When is Hallet and Rothenberg going to criticize her history on the issue?

When is that criticism coming, Brian?