We have long held off taking swipes at the Log Cabin Republicans for two reasons--pity, and the fact that the premise of the gay GOP group is itself so absurd that it defies what passes for commentary to Buzz.
Gay Republicans? What's next, an all-hetero Judy Garland fan club?
See? It's all rather obvious and stereotypical. And frankly, the whole situation is a little dreary and twisted--like watching someone else's abusive marriage, and wanting to shout out: "Just leave him, stupid! There are plenty of fish in the sea. Democratic fish! Libertarian fish! You deserve better."
But the Log Cabin Republicans have their enablers, as it were, some of them well-connected and indubitably, undeniably, and openly straight.
Take Trammell S. Crow Jr., for instance, who The Dallas Morning News reported underwrote a video production for the group, and helpfully described him as a "heterosexual GOP donor whose father is Dallas real estate mogul Trammell Crow Sr." As in, he backs the Log Cabin group, but not that much.
Unfortunately, Trammell Jr. was the only person whose sexual orientation the News bothered to point out--to Buzz's great disappointment. We were looking for more telling details on others involved in the gay-GOP debate. For instance, how about "obviously conflicted Senate majority leader Trent Lott," or "House Majority Leader Dick 'Smile when you say my name' Armey."
Well, at least they read it. Too bad they didn't get it.
We're talking about Baron & Budd, the local law firm that was the subject of a Dallas Observer cover story and column last week. As we reported then, the firm founded by Fred Baron, a self-described supporter of the First Amendment, tried everything short of small-arms fire to keep us from reporting on some former employees' claims that Baron & Budd engages in some ethically smelly lawyering.
They're still at it, this time filing more paperwork in their effort to try to get reporter Christine Biederman to reveal who gave us a sealed court document listing the names of Baron & Budd clients who may have been improperly coached for their testimony. When Baron & Budd first hauled Biederman before an Austin judge to grill her about her sources, Biederman refused to answer questions. In a column last week by Editor Julie Lyons, we confessed that we actually did have the document, we just weren't saying who gave it to us.
Now comes Baron & Budd lawyer Alan B. Rich, again putting the arm on us, trying to force us to tell.
"Apparently, at that time [of Biederman's original court appearance] it suited the purposes of Ms. Biederman and the Observer to refuse to give testimony to this Court...It apparently now suits the Observer's and Biederman's purposes to admit that they were indeed supplied with the 'sealed court document.' This Court should not tolerate these shenanigans..."
Yeah, well, sorry, Al. One man's shenanigans are another's exercise of a free and vigorous press.
--Compiled from staff reports by Patrick Williams
Send all tips, comments, and threatening letters to email@example.com.
Get the This Week's Top Stories Newsletter
Every week we collect the latest news, music and arts stories — along with film and food reviews and the best things to do this week — so that you'll never miss Observer's biggest stories.