MovieChat Forums > Outrage (2009) Discussion > Why only the Republicans?

Why only the Republicans?

posted 15 years ago by johnnycashak
13 replies | jump to latest

As a man with a gay best friend and a lesbian sister, I wanted to like this movie, but I found myself asking on more then one occasion, "why not *all* hypocritical politicians, instead of those from one party?" If the point of the documentary was to out these people in power, why lessen it's impact and honesty by only focusing on the republicans, thus turning it into a political hack job instead of an honest incrimination of smile minded people in power who live by an inexcusable double standard? Hell, this piece apparently flaunts it's double standard over attacking powerful people who flaunt their double standards! I don't know how you'd describe it, but to me, that's a clear cut case of hypocrisy.

Documentaries are only worth their salt if they are honest and even handed, and in this department, "Outrage" is a big sack of fail. I think this is sad, personally, as it could have been a wonderful thought provoking movie. Your mileage may vary, but for me, I found this film severely lacking in credibility, which is sad as this is an issue that needs to be addressed, and not just when it comes to gay rights. I think we have all had it up to here with hypocritical politicians, whatever their political affiliations may be, and are still waiting for a real documentary to capture and bring to focus that frustration, perhaps enough for the voters in this country to finally do something about it.

[–] mjp36 15 years ago

Because Republicans get their jollies coming out (no pun intended) AGAINST gay rights.

Arthur

[–] dir_by_ade 15 years ago

Didn't they EXPLAIN this in the film...
mjp36 has it right, they mention how the Republicans try to fight gay rights at every single corner when they are just downing themselves.

[–] johnnycashak 15 years ago

Way to completely ignore the issue I raised.

Well done. I'm sure you make a terrific liberal.

[–] mjp36 15 years ago

We addressed the issue you raised. You're simply trying to tapdance.

Well done. I'm sure you make a terrific conservative ... and child rapist.

Arthur

[–] crocodlle 14 years ago

Dude, come back to reality.

There are Congressmen and Congresswomen who maliciously oppose same-sex legislation at every turn even while engaging in same-sex relationships themselves.

It's not the documenter's fault that the majority of those Congresspeople are Republican. The Republican Party creates that environment on their own, so they have only themselves to blame.

They had a huge amount of closeted Republicans on that documentary. They don't have many Democrats because the super majority of Democrats who oppose same-sex legislation DO NOT ENGAGE IN SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS! And Democrats who do engage in same-sex relationships DON'T VOTE AGAINT SAME-SEX LEGISLATION!

Your blame on the creator of the documentary is unfounded. The most the creator can do is out hypocritical STRAIGHT politicians who claim to be pro-gay rights, but then pull a Bill Clinton and sign the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Then you'd have a four hour documentary, with plenty of Democrats, and almost 100% of the Republicans.

But straight is NOT gay. The documentary is about gay politicians who oppose gay legislation. You want it balanced? It's not, because the real-world politics made it that way.

Of course, YOU could make a documentary about closeted gay Democrats who oppose gay legislation. But it sure ain't gonna fill a one-hour-and-a-half movie, if it even fills fifteen minutes.

[–] MRogersDC 15 years ago

Um... It's not just Republicans. As I say on my blog, BlogActive.com, the reason I report on many more Republicans than Democrats says nothing about my work. It says A LOT about Republicans....

IF you know of closeted ANTI=GAY politicians of EITHER party, drop me a note at [email protected] and I'll get on it right away.

Oh, Ed Koch is in the movie... Ed Koch the Democrat.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cubdukat 15 years ago

If I'm not mistaken, Mr. McGreevey was a Democrat.

And as far as the movie being somewhat slanted, I daresay you will find a lot fewer Dems engaging in that kind of hypocrisy. I'm not saying they don't exist, but they are arguably fewer because IMHO, the Dems seem to be less concerned about someone's bedroom politics.

Note that the Republicans are invariably the ones that scream the loudest about matters of sex and immorality, especially homosexuality. Yet--provided Fox News doesn't "accidentally" screw up their party affiliation on the Chyron or the ticker--the majority of the scandals about sex seem to be on their side. Hell, Mark Foley held up a vote on harsher penalties for Internet child predators to engage in the EXACT BEHAVIOR THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN COVERED BY THAT VOTE! Now, is that having some chrome-plated stugats or what?

Newt Gingrich probably would have called for Bill Clinton's execution over Monica Lewinsky, yet at the time he was leading that charge, he was carrying on with his own mistress, whom he left his CANCER-STRICKEN WIFE for!

But it was straight, and that seems to be the universal key to absolution. Any sexual indiscretion, however sick, twisted and perverted, can be forgiven if you have an "R" for party affiliation and it's heterosexual.

So in short, I'm sure Kirby Dick didn't set out with that bias at the heart of the picture; it just panned out that way. Reality has a way of doing that.

And I believe that *anyone* who actively votes against other gay people while engaging in that behavior themselves deserve to be outed. If you're going to use the closet to hide in after you attack us, you don't deserve the safety it offers. No doubt it happens on both sides, but the Republicans are the most overt about it. If the Dems were equally blatant, Dick would have pilloried them as well.

"I trust everybody. It's just the devil inside them I don't trust."

[–] cookiela2001 14 years ago

[b][<< If the point of the documentary was to out these people in power, why lessen it's impact and honesty by only focusing on the republicans, thus turning it into a political hack job instead of an honest incrimination of smile minded people in power who live by an inexcusable double standard? >>[b]

This is addressed in the film, and raised again in the Special Features on the DVD (I think the footage of the Q&A at the Washington DC screening.)

There simply aren't that many known democrat politicians who are A.) closeted gays, and B.) taking an extreme line on curtailing rights and help for their fellow gays/lesbians. Those two things were the criteria for inclussion.

2 of the outed politicians were democrats, weren't they? The documentarian's job is to DOCUMENT something, not to skew the numbers.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] millerdsplaydzign 14 years ago

If you are seriously interested in the answer to your question, you need only watch the Q&A session which can be found in the supplemental material.

My personal answer would be: because Republicans, as a group, are the ones who spend an awful lot of time using fear to sell a narrow and impossible fairy tale about life and conformity to people who desperately want it to be the truth. Secretly, they live lives outside that bubble which aren't "fairy tale compliant" because privately, they all know it's a bunch of BS. That makes them big, fat, stinking liars who hurt lots of people in order to maintain the best stanglehold they can manage over a hollow status quo.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] aoa8212 11 years ago

I'm a registered Republican, myself. But let's face it, Republicans are the ones who push socially conservative legislation, including laws against gays. So there's more hypocrisy when a "family values" Republican is exposed as being a homosexual or engaging in other behavior that contradicts with his voting record. And there were Democrats in the movie. Ed Koch is a Democrat. Jim McGreevey is a Democrat. And since the movie came out, even Charlie Crist had left the Republican Party a few years ago and is now a Democrat.