"Outrage" - Documentary Outs Gay Politicians Who Fight Gay Rights

[injest]

This is opening in SF on May 08th...

It should just be a free download off the net....and highly circulated and emailed.

oh I don't doubt there will be bootleg copies everywhere.

and for the record, we know all about Las Vegas...and about the obsession to nitpick every word written (Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals). It is a transparent and boring tactic but works very effectively when you have a chorus of 'Me toos' to back you up.

fact is that in the VAST MAJORITY of the country, prostitution is not legal and no politician would have his name attached to it if they intended to run for national office.

[oilgun]

oh I don't doubt there will be bootleg copies everywhere.

and for the record, we know all about Las Vegas...and about the obsession to nitpick every word written (Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals). It is a transparent and boring tactic but works very effectively when you have a chorus of 'Me toos' to back you up.
fact is that in the VAST MAJORITY of the country, prostitution is not legal and no politician would have his name attached to it if they intended to run for national office.

And of course the conservatives on this site don't do it at all....
Talk about transparent...they are the biggest offenders.

[loneleeb3]

My God, I thought everybody, at least in the U.S., knew that prostitution is legal in (at least parts of) Nevada. 

I knew I knew!!!
Do I get a prize?
If so will it be a booby prize?

[oilgun]

Booby prize, I love it! 

I found an interview with the director Kirby Dick that is well worth reading:

Excerpt:

You criticize mainstream media for turning a blind eye to these stories. Why do you think they have been so reluctant to cover closeted politicians?
I think it’s for a number of reasons. To their credit, these politicians are very closeted, so it’s hard to get a certain level of information that they’re comfortable with. But on the other hand, if it looks like hypocrisy, there’s nothing wrong with asking the question: If you’re gay or straight, if you’re voting on these issues, particularly if you’re voting against them. Secondly, one of the reasons they don’t is they think they’re somehow protecting people’s privacy. And maybe they are, but at the expense of a very important issue in this country, and at the expense of millions of people being harmed. And then finally, I think it’s an issue of access. The media are able to do their business by maintaining close professional relationships with these politicians. If they were even to ask that question, it would be the last moment they would even have access to that politician. I mean, they should ask it anyway.

Full Interview:
HYPOCRISY ON TRIAL :  http://www.out.com/detail.asp?page=1&id=25177

[Jeff Wrangler]

I knew I knew!!!
Do I get a prize?
If so will it be a booby prize?

 

Naw, you just get a big ol' hug when I see you again. 

[injest]

I knew I knew!!!
Do I get a prize?
If so will it be a booby prize?

now what would you do with a buncha boobies??

[oilgun]

A review of the film:
http://www.afterelton.com/movie/2009/5/outrage

Excerpt: 

The structure of Outrage is simple: Starting with Senator Larry Craig (the film begins with a recording of his police interrogation following his airport bathroom arrest), the film neatly and thoroughly outs a half-dozen men whose professional efforts in promoting an anti-gay agenda are at direct odds with the fact that they secretly have sex with other men, often while maintaining marriages to women.

Using some firsthand accounts of former sexual partners, old campaign footage (to occasionally humorous effect) and commentary from gay political media watchdogs, the film makes the case for each man's homosexuality, and presents his lifetime gay rights voting record. In each instance, the disconnect is staggering.

The usual suspects are all there: Craig, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, former New York mayor Ed Koch, former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey, former Rep. Ed Schrock, even dusty McCarthy relic Roy Cohn. Again, if you're reading this review, then you're likely no stranger to gay media, particularly gay online media (which is credited in the film as being one of the few places where these scandals are openly discussed) and none of these men is an unfamiliar candidate for speculation.

[louisev]

A review of the film:
http://www.afterelton.com/movie/2009/5/outrage

Excerpt: 

The structure of Outrage is simple: Starting with Senator Larry Craig (the film begins with a recording of his police interrogation following his airport bathroom arrest), the film neatly and thoroughly outs a half-dozen men whose professional efforts in promoting an anti-gay agenda are at direct odds with the fact that they secretly have sex with other men, often while maintaining marriages to women.

Using some firsthand accounts of former sexual partners, old campaign footage (to occasionally humorous effect) and commentary from gay political media watchdogs, the film makes the case for each man's homosexuality, and presents his lifetime gay rights voting record. In each instance, the disconnect is staggering.

The usual suspects are all there: Craig, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, former New York mayor Ed Koch, former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey, former Rep. Ed Schrock, even dusty McCarthy relic Roy Cohn. Again, if you're reading this review, then you're likely no stranger to gay media, particularly gay online media (which is credited in the film as being one of the few places where these scandals are openly discussed) and none of these men is an unfamiliar candidate for speculation.

so, as expected, nobody in the film was forcibly outed who hasn't been covered in the media extensively already. 

[milomorris]

so, as expected, nobody in the film was forcibly outed who hasn't been covered in the media extensively already. 

Well, that's some good news. But it leaves me even more baffled as to the point of making the film in the first place if this is all old news.

[injest]

Well, that's some good news. But it leaves me even more baffled as to the point of making the film in the first place if this is all old news.

I would guess it is to set a precedent so we will accept in the future that whores and innuendo are acceptable 'proof'. This is probably more for propanganda "look what we can do to you" than for any other reason.