Gaetz nomination and MAP visibility
Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2024 8:55 am
Could there be an opportunity for Mu to attract mainstream attention in connection with Trump's nomination of Matt Gaetz to serve as his attorney general?
A key element of the opposition to Gaetz appears likely to be allegations he had sex with a 17 yo female. Mu could, consistently with its stated principles, argue that it is unfair to Gaetz to treat this as disqualifying on the basis it is sex with a "child." (It could be disqualifying for other reasons. The female may have been paid for sex, and Mu need not argue that paying for sex is not disqualifying, only that the difference in age between a 17 yo female and an 18 yo female should not matter.)
If the Gaetz nomination reaches the stage of a Senate confirmation hearing (it might not), the amount of public attention in the US focused on it will be huge. A timely intervention by a MAP organization criticizing the attempt to stigmatize Gaetz as a "pedophile" might be able to take advantage of this.
The attention Mu might obtain through such an intervention would most likely be negative. That is, opponents of the nomination might try to bolster their case against Gaetz by publicizing the fact that a MAP organization is seeking to "normalize" his allegedly deviant behavior. If Mu's primary task is to attain more visibility, the fact that the attention would be negative is at least potentially outweighed by traffic driven to Mu's activities and Web presence.
Neither side of the political divide that will be mobilized in support of and in opposition to the Gaetz nomination is even remotely pro-MAP, nor does Gaetz' attraction to 17 yo females qualify him as a MAP (unless almost all heterosexual men are MAPs, which maybe they are). But if the Gaetz opposition does seek to exploit a Mu intervention to further stigmatize Gaetz as a sexual deviant, the pro-Gaetz forces will need to look for ways to defend him. One possible response is that they may strategically ally themselves with Mu's claim that a 17 yo female is not a "child." There are likely significant elements within the Trump-MAGA base that would be receptive to this. But even if the Gaetz supporters avoided any challenge to the prevailing consensus that a 17 yo female is a child, any response to a Mu intervention would still help to bring attention to Mu's MAP advocacy.
For those unfamiliar with the sexual allegations against Gaetz, this plea agreement provides more detail:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/press ... 1394536/dl
Count 1 of the indictment against Joel Greenberg is the offense that would have been charged against Gaetz, had the US Department of Justice sought to charge him, which they did not. The US House of Representatives Ethics Committee continued to investigate, however, and had prepared a report which it may have been about to release when Gaetz abruptly resigned his House seat after the AG nomination, effectively terminating the power of the Committee to investigate him.
hugzu ;-p
A key element of the opposition to Gaetz appears likely to be allegations he had sex with a 17 yo female. Mu could, consistently with its stated principles, argue that it is unfair to Gaetz to treat this as disqualifying on the basis it is sex with a "child." (It could be disqualifying for other reasons. The female may have been paid for sex, and Mu need not argue that paying for sex is not disqualifying, only that the difference in age between a 17 yo female and an 18 yo female should not matter.)
If the Gaetz nomination reaches the stage of a Senate confirmation hearing (it might not), the amount of public attention in the US focused on it will be huge. A timely intervention by a MAP organization criticizing the attempt to stigmatize Gaetz as a "pedophile" might be able to take advantage of this.
The attention Mu might obtain through such an intervention would most likely be negative. That is, opponents of the nomination might try to bolster their case against Gaetz by publicizing the fact that a MAP organization is seeking to "normalize" his allegedly deviant behavior. If Mu's primary task is to attain more visibility, the fact that the attention would be negative is at least potentially outweighed by traffic driven to Mu's activities and Web presence.
Neither side of the political divide that will be mobilized in support of and in opposition to the Gaetz nomination is even remotely pro-MAP, nor does Gaetz' attraction to 17 yo females qualify him as a MAP (unless almost all heterosexual men are MAPs, which maybe they are). But if the Gaetz opposition does seek to exploit a Mu intervention to further stigmatize Gaetz as a sexual deviant, the pro-Gaetz forces will need to look for ways to defend him. One possible response is that they may strategically ally themselves with Mu's claim that a 17 yo female is not a "child." There are likely significant elements within the Trump-MAGA base that would be receptive to this. But even if the Gaetz supporters avoided any challenge to the prevailing consensus that a 17 yo female is a child, any response to a Mu intervention would still help to bring attention to Mu's MAP advocacy.
For those unfamiliar with the sexual allegations against Gaetz, this plea agreement provides more detail:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/press ... 1394536/dl
Count 1 of the indictment against Joel Greenberg is the offense that would have been charged against Gaetz, had the US Department of Justice sought to charge him, which they did not. The US House of Representatives Ethics Committee continued to investigate, however, and had prepared a report which it may have been about to release when Gaetz abruptly resigned his House seat after the AG nomination, effectively terminating the power of the Committee to investigate him.
hugzu ;-p