The New Smear Tactic

I was bumbling around the blogosphere (as I am wont to do) and came across this editorial detailing the story of Gary Lankford, who, while on the Ohio Republican party payroll, promoted the bald-faced lie that the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, current U.S. Rep Ted Strickland, was gay.

Oh, and his wife of 20 years was gay too.

Feel free to digest that for a moment. I'll wait.

This is distrubing on so many levels that I'm having trouble keeping them all organized. Okay, most obvious one first:

1) Just the facts, ma'am. This is a bald-faced lie that has no evidence of any sort to back it up. Merely a slanderous insinuation for the purpose of hurting a Democratic candidate in an important election for Ohio.

2) Your bile is ready, sir. This sorry episode takes smear tactics to a whole new level. Suggesting that someone is unfit for public office because he's gay (which both Strickland and his wife are decidedly not)? Disgusting.

3) Being homosexual doesn't show up on an x-ray. How do you prove something like someone's sexual orientation anyway? May I heartily suggest that someone find a callgirl and perform a public show (at Mr. Lankford's expense, naturally) for Mr. Strickland. If he demonstrates visible excitement (at the biological level, mind you) then I think we can conclude a few things.

Hmm...nah, a nut like Lankford might think that's a little obscene.

I know! We'll put some cameras in Strickland's bathroom, along with a relatively tall stack of dirty magazines. It'll be like a reality tv show.

Then again, that might be considered rather promiscuous. Well, if those two options are out, I'm fresh out of ideas. Personally, I think both those options should be considered, because clearly 20 years of marriage to a person of the opposite gender clearly isn't proof enough of someone's heterosexuality.

4) Who cares? Besides whack jobs like Lankford, who honestly cares about whether their Governor might be gay? Who would honestly change their position on a bill, for example, based on their sexual orientation? "Well, normally I'd veto this bill allowing the dismemberment of kittens for public entertainment, but since I'm gay..."

Yeah...no. Who in their right mind would think that someone who is elected by the people to do their business would let such a personal decision influence their policies?

...

Okay, that last part was a poorly-worded explanation. That's just me pulling out my "politicians should be more technocratic!" cap again. But you get the idea.

This is a repugnant story of smear tactics at their very worst. It does not bode well for American politics if this sort of behavior is not punished and punished severly.