For those of you who may live in or travel through Sterling Park, and are wondering “who are these people with Eugene Delgaudio signs in their yards,” this is absolutely priceless.
A full time job that consists of lying about the GLBT community for monetary gain is bad enough, but I’m pretty sure this constitutes criminal behavior:
I just got back from my first “official” investigative trip to Sterling Park (SP). While driving through SP over the past few weeks I had noticed the Delgaudio signs in a couple of yards and stopped to chat. Today I visited 14 homes. I would have stopped at more but it got too dark and too rainy. Here is a summary of the results (I have the addresses and some names but I’m not listing them here):
Only one home actually had a registered voter living there. I spoke with him and he is very aware of the situation and said that he takes the sign down from his front lawn almost every day and another sign appears the next morning. He showed me a pile of 6 signs he has removed.
Most of the homes I visited were right on Sterling Blvd. I picked the homes that I stopped at based on two things, the first being that they had obvious violations, the second being an obvious indication that Latinos live there (bumper stickers on cars, seeing people out in the yard, etc).
The first four homes all said basically the same thing, which was someone came by and asked if they could put the sign there and they all said yes. None of them knew who Delgaudio is nor did they know about the local elections.
Six homes all said that they just woke up and the signs were in the yard. This is tricky though. In one of those cases a sheepish room mate admitted that someone had knocked on the door and said something he did not understand at all and then planted the sign.
Two homes said that they were under the distinct impression that they were required to have the sign up (both homes on Church Street). One person understood that Delgaudio was the Supervisor and as such “nosotros tenemos que siguiere sus ordenes” or “we have to follow his orders”. The other person was told by a friend that she would be fined if she took it down.
The last group of homes I stopped at talked about a guy coming by asking for permission to put the sign up and said that he would be inviting them all to a big party to which they could bring their families to and get plenty of free food.
It seems like homes in the same area are being told the same things. I have a name of a family that I plan to talk to tomorrow who says that they were actually told they would be fined $50 if the sign comes down. I have not verified this first hand yet.
Everyone I spoke to was horrified when I told them Delgaudio’s position on illegal immigration and shared some of his quotes.
The funniest thing I heard was one of a group of guys who described the person who put the sign in the yard as being, “Un flaco, todo raro, creo que era maricon, por su forma de caminar y hablar pues.” translated: “A skinny guy, really weird, I think he was gay because of the way that he walked and talked.” Could this have been Delgaudio himeslf? Who knows…
Posted by: Laura Valle
I suppose we should be surprised by these underhanded actions. But I’m not. If Eugene spent more time helping his constituency they might know who he was. Anyone who has driven through that area can tell that he has done nothing to help his people. He’s too busy marrying women to donkeys in D.C.
This tactic reeks of voter intimidation. Is it possible that the Delgaudio campaign is in violation of the voting rights act?
Since he is specifically targeting non-voters, I would say no; but telling people that they will be fined if they take down his signs, or implying that they must follow his orders because he is their “supervisor,” certainly constitutes fraud.
I bet that his campaign is using the voter file in reverse for this – the home that actually had a registered voter was a fluke.
One correction: As I recall, Eugene was marrying men to donkeys in D.C. It doesn’t make much difference to me, but seems important to him. So.
Now if it were me who said ” A skinny guy, really wierd, I think he was GAY because of the way he walked and talked ” I can only imagine how fast all of you would be coming unglued. I would be a homophobic poster boy for new hate crime legislation.
But wait it was not me, it was a latino ( possibly illegal ) being interviewed by someone with an ax to grind against a common foe, the hated Delgaudio. Further, the interviewer by her own admission thought the description of the skinny GAY guy was funny. How insensitive. As long as we are making fun of a skinny white guy and that skinny white is a political target then everything is OK. Let the roles reverse and you guys are calling for a hate crime investigation.
How come no one asked the following questions.
How does a GAY guy walk anyway? I guess this latino believes all GAY guys walk the same way.
How does a GAY guy talk anyway ? I guess thsi latino believes all GAY guys talk the same way.
I don’t care if you love or hate Delgaudio. All I want is some intellectual honesty here.
Often the voices screaming for tolerance are the most intolerant.
Save me your future lectures on tolerence.
PS : maybe we can get this Latino on a hate crime and get his arse deported at the same time. Let’s face it we don’t want Latino homophobes running around sterling. Do we ?
Guess what, Greg? I know exactly what he means, and I don’t have enough information to be offended. The guy may or may not be anti-gay; I don’t know him, and I wasn’t there. If he is anti-gay, that’s too bad. My assumption in that case would be that he’s educable.
It’s also funny if you are familiar with Mr. Delgaudio and his peculiar obsession.
Now, I really don’t know you, either. If you were to make the remark you cite, would you do so because you dislike gay men? I’ve been told many things about the Help Save Loudoun/Help Save Herndon crowd, and one of them is that, in spite of the sometimes familiar dehumanizing rhetoric, these are not the same people that make up the anti-gay crowd. In fact, someone from HSL made a point of approaching me at last year’s Town Hall meeting with Bob McDonnell to tell me how stupid they thought the so-called “marriage amendment” was. Are you also in that camp? I make no assumptions.
As for any future lectures on tolerance I might give, they will likely involve this thought: It’s a big world, and we will for the most part agree on some things but not on others. I choose to make alliances where I can, and believe I should. Others are free to do the same.
The “skinny white guy” in this case is someone with a bully pulpit and the power to make public policy. The other guy is someone who is being targeted by the skinny white guy because he is not white – just as I am being targeted by the skinny white guy because I am not straight, not straight-acting, and not closeted.
Your moral equivalency doesn’t add up.
And why would you assume that this guy could be deported, per your PS? Is it because he is Latino?
For the record, he did not say it in a mean way at all. I did not get the impression that he meant it in a bad way. The funny part to me was the idea that he could have been talking about Delgaudio, in which case it is hysterical! Truth is I have no idea who the skinny white guy was. And the guy that said it was in the group that told me that someone actually talked to them and asked permission to put the sign up.
But Delgaudio is skinny, and he is white, and he is weird…
It was just so ironic that he would have said that given he had no idea who Delagudio is and what he does for a living. I had lots of other really intersting coversations that I didn’t include in that post but I would be happy to share.
Thanks for the added information, Laura. True, we don’t know that the “skinny white guy” was Delgaudio himself, and I shouldn’t have made the statement as if we do. On the other hand, even if it was just somebody working for him it’s almost as funny. Who does he have going door to door other than Patrick Henry students and Public Advocate interns?
Please share!
David:
This is not about Delgaudio. This was simply an excellent example of selective outrage. As long as the target is ED it is all justifiable.
When you guys start using one rule book for everyone then we will get somewhere. Don’t confuse tolerence for exceptence.
Greg,
This post, the one you are reading right now, is precisely about Delgaudio. It is about Delgaudio and his unethical, possibly even criminal, campaign behavior, of which this is only the most recent example.
If you know of any other candidates engaging in similar behavior, please let me know and I promise to be outraged about it.
The word you wanted (I think) was “acceptance,” although I’m not sure what you mean by your last sentence. Acceptance or tolerance of what?
You are correct the thread was about ED. I was speaking specifically about my comments and the blatent double standard that exists as it pertained to Laura and her detailed story of the latino. I was just wondering out loud had I or some other middle aged conservative white guy said the exact same thing as the Latino would you have been so tolerant ? my guess would be no. I submit your tolerance is due in large part to the offenders sympathtic status. After all he was a Latino living in Sterling park who for all we know could be an illegal. His status and the fact that he was dupped into having a Delgaudio sign in his yard casts him as a sympathic figure. Status trumps outrage anyday. Further the story teller, a like minded female Hispanic working for the rights of illegals must be given a pass at all costs.
Remember, this is not about what I thought about the remarks. I am simply pointing out the double standard.
You are also correct it is acceptance. Sometimes trying to type and get out the door at the same time errors are made. In my case many.
Greg,
I think that your perception of a double standard here is based on a faulty assumption – specifically that it would in all cases be offensive to point out that someone embodies a stereotype of gay men. That is, in fact, something that gay men do all the time.
You are correct in that it depends on who does it, and how and why they do it. However, that’s not determined by whether it’s a middle aged white guy, or a Latino guy, or any other demographic. It’s determined by intent, which is conveyed by tone of voice and other cues.
Obviously not ALL gay men walk and talk the same way, but if there weren’t some truth to the stereotype the guy was referring to, why would anyone ever specify that they are seeking someone “straight-acting and -appearing” in a personal ad, for example?
I appreciate your sensitivity to potential insults to gay men, but from what I can tell this was just not especially offensive. Even if he did mean it in a hateful way, first of all he doesn’t get a pass, and that is secondary to the irony Laura was pointing out. It would still be peripheral. It seems like you are trying to make something out of nothing.
Let me ask you this. If, for the sake of argument, this individual did mean what he said in a hateful way, should I then be glad that Delgaudio duped him or intimidated him into displaying a yard sign, and feel that he deserved this? I don’t see how that helps anybody.
“I think that your perception of a double standard here is based on a faulty assumption – specifically that it would in all cases be offensive to point out that someone embodies a stereotype of gay men. That is, in fact, something that gay men do all the time.”
If I read that correctly, gay men “point out that someone embodies a stereotype of gay men… all the time.”
If my reading is correct, can you tell us when it is offensive and when it is not?
This is ridiculous. After all of that information these guys are going to fixate on a comment made, that I still think is hilarious btw, and completely ignore the rest of the information. Joe B is even saying that I am a liar, that I made this all up. In the end, I don’t expect them to acknowlege what the real issue is or to condem the actions.
David:
If it is intent and intent is conveyed by tone of voice or other clues ( very open ) then how would you ever draw any conclusions from forums such as this in which all you have to go by is the written word.
What I really hear you saying is that due to some inherant ability that only you and a certain select group possess, it is you alone who will determine the offensivness in any given statement. This way you are off the hook for being offended if it happens to be a political ally.
You are not alone when it comes to selective outrage. I submit to you that the biggest offenders in my observations over some period of time are the radical feminists who quite often overlook the transgressions of like minded males as long as it serves the greater cause. From the same group sometimes you get outrage and verbal flogging and other times you get crickets. It often depends on the transgressor’s political affilation. Imigine the outrage had lets say George Bush boinked an intern in the oval office. The feminists would have had him tarred and feathered. But because it was Bill Clinton all we got was crickets.
Having said a thing or two in these many forums to upset a few of you, I am just trying to figure out the rules as they pertain to what does and does not constitute offensive content. Are we operating from a single rule book ? Are their multiple books ? or do the rules morph based on the sensibility index of the listener.
I can’t wait to use some of these new acceptable sterotypes. However, I am not holding my breath that I will get the same latitude as Laura.
If my reading is correct, can you tell us when it is offensive and when it is not?
Yes.
That’s the point. Jack and Greg, if a comment is made about gay men, it is the purview of gay men, and no one else, to decide whether or not it is offensive to us. This may occasionally lead to misunderstandings and the perception that life is not fair.
There is one rule that I think applies to everyone across the board: Be respectful and don’t assume that you know what someone else thinks or what their experience is; if in doubt, ask. I freely admit to being as guilty as anyone else of violating this rule. We all have our blind spots.
More to the point of this post, can either one of you justify a candidate for public office intimidating or bribing residents to display a yard sign?
DMC,
I’m the one who said this probably constitutes illegal behavior, especially to the extent that it involves intimidation, but you raise a good question. I don’t think we’ll know unless someone is willing to file a complaint, which people who are being intimidated are understandably hesitant to do.
The comments have expanded beyond Eugene Delgaudio’s behavior only because his supporters want to direct the focus elsewhere, so thank you for bringing it back on topic.
It amazes me that I still encounter gay folk in Sterling who don’t know what this bizarre little man stands for and does for a living – I guess we aren’t doing our job well enough. It’s that, and low turnout. He counts on low turnout, so anything you can do to help get reasonable voters to the polls will help.
P.S. Nice paintings.
Oh please Greg, feminists WERE outraged by Bill Clinton. I suppose you don’t subscribe to NOW or speak to feminists or you would know that. And why shouldn’t we be outraged by ED? It’s not about how he looks, walks, wiggles or talks. It’s about his pathetic performance as supervisor. Period, the end.
Robin: Nice try, you would have had to been living on another planet to know thst President pantlaod did not get a pass
on his behavior. I suspect you were in front of the line suggesting he resign for being chief scum bag. I ‘ll bet you were outraged to end by his behavior.
Cathy, have you spoken with these households in Sterling Park? Please share your experience if it is different. Laura shared her experience; is there something else you are reading into this?
It doesn’t sound as if either Cathy or Greg knows much about NOW, or the much wider universe of feminism, other than what is said by anti-feminists. That’s not a very good resource on feminist thought.
Then please do so. When is it “offensive to point out that someone embodies a stereotype of gay men” and when is it not?
I think that you may have misunderstood me. The “rule,” if you want to call it that, is not just about this specific comment. It is a general approach of respecting people that applies across the board. If I were to say something about Episcopalians that I didn’t think was offensive and didn’t intend to be offensive, but that offended you anyway, I need to listen to you and understand how you perceived what I said. I don’t get to dismiss you and say that you shouldn’t be offended, and that I know better than you what should offend you. That’s the sense that I get from some of the comments here, only I’m being told what I should be offended by.
Like I said, this “may occasionally lead to misunderstandings and the perception that life is not fair,” but it applies equally to everyone.
What you seem to be asking for is an absolute rule about what can and cannot be said. No such rule exists. I’m sure that within your own family there are jokes you can make with each other that would be entirely inappropriate for someone outside that circle of intimacy. That’s all that I’m talking about here, context.
Cathy, again you are demonstrating no knowledge of contemporary feminist thought. The fact that you are unaware of any is not a argument. What have you read, what feminist theorists have you studied?
The only feminist organization you can name is NOW? Demonstrate to me some knowledge about the history of NOW and perhaps we can discuss it; otherwise this is irrelevant and a waste of time.
I already pointed out the obvious, that Laura simply shared her experience of talking to folks in Sterling Park. It is what it is. It’s kind of funny that on the one hand I’m supposed to be all offended by one guy’s “maricon” remark, but on the other hand the whole story supposedly didn’t even happen. Please choose one.
For the record – I do not hate Delgaudio. I can’t think of anyone that I actually hate. I am not a hateful person. I do think that Delgaudio is an embarrassment to our County, this after watching him during so many board meeting over the years, and when he has an R majority is an outright danger. I extremely dislike Greg Stone, this is true. To a lesser degree I dislike Greg Alhemann because I never really bought that “he’s such a nice, honest guy thing” and I feel my intuition was proven right over the whole traffic ticket thing. If he was not running for office I would probably not have any feelings one way or another.
And also, for the record, I had a hard time getting out to Sterling Park but I did so in the end because I was getting swamped by e-mails from all over Loudoun and from all over the political spectrum (but mainly Conservatives, interestingly) about reports of goings on in Sterling Park. I have to say that so far nothing I have found is as bad as what people were telling me (outright bribes and threats), but it is pretty unethical nonetheless.
“What you seem to be asking for is an absolute rule about what can and cannot be said.”
Not at all. We have a specific situation, “[pointing] out that someone embodies a stereotype of gay men.” When is that offensive, and when is it not?
In this specific situation, I wasn’t there. Laura says she didn’t get the impression that he meant it in an offensive way, more in an observational way, and I’m taking her word for it because she knows the language and culture, and I know her. I can’t really answer your question any better.
If I could talk to the guy, maybe I could, but it isn’t really that important in the overall context of the incident. We have bigger fish to fry here.
To try to give you a more general answer, which is what I think you want, if it was said with obvious disgust and hostility toward male effeminacy, that’s clearly offensive. If it’s said as a mere observation of fact, that yes, some men are effeminate, and that’s a gay stereotype, and by the way, there’s all kinds of people in the world, I would say that it’s not.
Laura:
Thank you. I have moved up from dislike to extreme dislike. I am making progress. Give me 30 days and I will change that I don’t hate anybody routine of yours.
Come on don’t you hate me just a little bit ?
Those who preach tolerance are usually the least tolerant.
There is another word that he probably would have used if he meant it in a bad way, a word i don’t know how to spell (and he would not have used that word to a stranger, much less a lady – that would be me), just as there are other words in English that are very offensive. If you really want to beat this deal horse, it’s not likely that he would say it in any way offensively because we were still strangers and so our conversation was more formal. He wouldn’t likely be insulting someone in that way with a stranger. Back to the UD vs tu.
In this case, as David says, it was just an observation that he felt comfortable telling me about after we chatted for a while. I don’t think he thought too much about it and the only reason that I did is because it struck me as hilarious, the possibility that it could have been Delgaudio himself (though, again, I don’t think that it was because if I saw Delgaudio without knowing him I might observe that he was weird and was wearing an orange hat, but not that he is skinny and gay). It still strikes me as funny that anyone posting signs for Delgaudio could be perceived as being gay, under the circumstances.
Doesn’t all this pale in comparison to the issue at hand?
Why should anyone in their right mind be tolerant of someone who has promoted hatred? Do you want to tolerate hatred?
David help me out here:
So you a gay man are more plugged into contemporary feminists thought than Cathy who is a women ? I am not saying that she is a feminist by virtue of being a women, but is it not possible that she is and you don’t know it . What if she is a feminist and disagrees with other more liberal ( leftists ) feminists is she any less a feminist ?
How about my favorite contemporary feminist, Tammy Bruce. Would you not agree that Tammy represents contemporary feminism ? I do. After reading her book The New Thought Police, I thought wow this is one smart woman. She has authored two other books, The Death of Right and Wrong and The New American Revolution. I hope to read both this winter. Surely no one would deny that Tammy is a relevant contemporary feminist. If so, I would content their motivations to be suspect and have more to do with leftist dogma than any real interpetation of contemporary feminism.
Tammy and I have many things in common. Two of which are we both like woman and we both like guns. Hay, does that make me a contemporary feminists?
Cathy,
I’m actually not the one who suggested discussing feminism on this thread; as you’ll recall, I think it’s off-topic. I’m also not upset about it, nor was I trying to upset you.
I asked about your academic background, because without that there’s no basis for discussion of an academic subject. If you’d rather not, that’s fine (see above paragraph).
Back to the topic: Can you explain why people who previously had Delgaudio signs in their yards have now taken them down? It may be the same reason that all the Latino folks removed the stickers Delgaudio slapped on them as they walked by, once the interpreter showed up.
Cathy- are you a lawyer?
Go ahead and express your opinion; all I’m saying is that I’m disinclined to have a conversation about your opinion. Maybe someone else wants to.
David:
Based on your logic Einstein would not be qualified to engage you on this blog due to his lack of a formal education. Please.
Talk about elitist.
Cathy,
I’d like to hear your opinions on third wave feminism and GLBT rights. There will be plenty of opportunities to express them. This particular thread isn’t the right forum in my humble opinion.
Einstein’s hypotheses were validated through observation. Regardless of background, his work was mathematically correct and physically verifiable. I’ve never seen evidence that David would discount good political or sociological analysis simply because he didn’t agree with the conclusions.
Exactly, Jonathan. Cathy, this blog is full of good discussion, and if we all agreed on everything there wouldn’t be much to discuss. Obviously, I’m happy to engage with ideas that differ from my own. You really seem to have a chip on your shoulder.
Cathy,
I’m David’s husband. You may call me his henchman or whatever you want but it doesn’t make for good conversation. I answered you objection by stating that it was Einsteins work product, not his education that mattered. The same goes for your work product (your comments). If you write unsubstantiated opinions, they will be treated as such. If your comments contain well thought out testable analysis, they will merit a well thought out response.
Yep, that tone does not encourage me to take the prospect of honest conversation seriously, either. If you look at this post, or most of the ones about the Soulforce Equality Ride, or numerous others for that matter, our readers have been able to disagree without being disagreeable, and even converse with humor.
Cathy, when you make a statement like “If you want to use modern feminists as examples I am not even sure where you would find them” it demonstrates that you don’t know anything about contemporary feminism. You may have an opinion, but it’s not grounded in knowledge of the subject. That in and of itself wouldn’t preclude discussing it; of course there is no “academic background” requirement, just as there is no requirement that we agree. But there is a good faith requirement.
In your first two comments on this blog you made a declaratory statement that Sheriff Simpson and Mike George had “refused” and were “afraid” to be interviewed here. That statement was both untrue and a startling assumption on your part. There were three potential explanations for your statement. One, that you jumped to that conclusion without thinking it through; two, that you were actively campaigning for Greg Ahlemann by badmouthing his opponents; and three, that you actually believed your own statement to be true (which would be, in fact, ‘not terribly bright’).
If the first explanation were true, you wouldn’t have responded the way you did when I questioned you. Instead of acknowledging that you had twice made an unsubstantiated, disparaging statement (“oops, I guess I shouldn’t have assumed that” for example), you suggested that your assumption was perfectly valid. We are publishing these interviews because we think the Sheriff’s race is important, and we wouldn’t do it unless we were being fair to all three candidates. Our mission is to inform and advocate for the GLBT community, not to be a forum for partisan hacks. I don’t particularly like that someone planted a nasty rumor about Greg in our comments, and that’s how this project got started. I didn’t like your behavior any better, frankly. If you support Greg, that’s great, but advocate for him on his merits as a candidate. Anyone else making unsupportable disparaging statements like that will also be called on it, no matter who it is. I think we’ve demonstrated that.
The remark from me to which you took such offense was intended to give you a graceful way out, not to insult you. My suggestion was that maybe you didn’t realize how your comments sounded. Your ongoing response to all of this suggests to me that you did not come here in good faith, for an honest exchange of ideas, but only to campaign and attack. Your treatment of Laura is consistent with this assessment. As soon as she disagrees with you the snide attributions of motives and beliefs appear. I wouldn’t dream of speaking for her, but I do not have the time or inclination for such discourse.
In case anyone reading this thread was wondering why Cathy dislikes me so much, there ya go. Apologies to everyone else for this off-topic detour.
I would also like to take this opportunity to apologize for my barnyard story in a previous thread. Please note, I was trying to be funny but it could have come across as petty and rude. For the record, I would rather be the jackass than the duck.
SometimeI think humor can be just the right thing. I have no other way to respond to Cathy, who can be quite contrary, except with humor.
I think I will refrain from responding altogether, to the extent that it does detract from the important issues at hand. David, thank you for your service.
Here is one last little tit for Cathy’s tat. I went back to waiting tables this week and all of the servers and I had a good laugh over the idea that two young Hispanic ladies carrying loads of cash at Costco must have been illegal aliens.
Although its not really funny at all given the recent reports of attacks on Hispanics made by people who assume they must be undocumented and carrying lots of cash around, therefore easy victims who will not report the crime.
If people didn’t see that Washington Post article (I put the link in the comments to the Simpson interview) here it is again:
Robbers Stalk Hispanic Immigrants, Seeing Ideal Prey
Finally, after a few days of phone tag, I spoke with Sheriff Simpson and got responses to the questions readers left in that thread. Sorry about that taking so long. He just does not do anything on the computer, apparently.
Here’s what he said.
A couple things:
“Gang members target other illegals..” That’s a slur, implying both that gang members are here illegally, and that people here illegally are equivalent to gang criminals. Neither statement is true.
Yes, suggesting that your disparaging statement was made unintentionally because you weren’t thinking, and didn’t realize that it sounded not very bright was intended to give you a graceful way out. I freely admit that I was startled and angered by your repetition of such a disparaging and unsupportable statement, and clearly that came across in my tone. I admit it, and I’m sorry for hurting your feelings.
As for discussing feminism, I’m not the one who brought it up as a topic, so why complain to me? Time to move on, folks. The interview with Mike George will be up shortly.
I replied on the Simpson thread although I don’t think he will be answering any more questions.
I think you are right, this late in the game – although I’m happy to call him again if you have a follow up. I have to say, it gives me pause that he apparently doesn’t even check his email. He just doesn’t like computers. I don’t know what to make of that.
For everyone here who is agonizing over what gay stereotypes are acceptable to make fun of, and when, you may enjoy this.
David,
The Ruben Bolling cartoon is too funny. I’m going to have to send it out to a pastor or two.