The liberal media are stirring things up again — this time engaging in the scuttlebutt that Sen. Tim Scott may be (gasp!) gay.
Axios got the ball rolling last weekend, reporting that some top GOP donors are fretting over the 57-year-old’s bachelor status. They didn’t provide names or any corroboration, merely that “two people familiar with the conversations” gave them the scoop.
Leftist feminist website Jezebel followed suit, publishing an article called “Tim Scott Being a 57-Year-Old Bachelor is Reportedly Spooking Republican Donors.”
There’s that word again — reportedly.
However, it fits into their narrative of evangelical voters who make up a lot of the GOP base:
I definitely agree, but, my guy, you’re seeking the support of Evangelical voters and conservative activist groups in Iowa and beyond who may not feel the same way because they revere marriage and procreation. Axios said potential donors have been told about Scott’s girlfriend and his views on marriage as a litmus test and, for some, it’s “only fueled their curiosity and apprehension.”
What a joke. Currently evangelicals make up a large portion of Trump supporters — a thrice-married man who paid off a porn star with whom he had a tryst while wife Number Three was pregnant. He also cheated on his first wife with his second wife. Trump was famously (or infamously) recorded bragging about grabbing women by the genitals. Yet Jezebel claims that Tim Scott’s perpetual bachelor status could derail his presidential campaign.
Wrong. That ship has sailed.
Progressives seeding the rumor mill about Scott’s sexual orientation isn’t new. In fact, on May 25 of this year, liberal talk show host David Pakman predicted that conservatives would push gay dirt on Scott in order to take him down. It’s a conspiracy to aid Trump, he insisted.
Pakman told his viewers to check out Ted Cruz’s reaction during an appearance on Newsmax TV. See, Pakman asserted, Cruz is planning some nasty attacks on Tim Scott! You can tell from the senator’s response, he insisted, nodding in a knowing manner.
Pakman also alleged:
The Right is setting up the homophobic line …
And, should Tim Scott start getting political traction (which Pakman insisted would not happen) then the homophobic right will start raising questions about his personal life.
Remember, Pakman recorded this video in May. Has Ted Cruz started dishing dirt about Tim Scott? Has the allegedly “homophobic” Republican party kept Scott from the debate stage? Hardly. In fact, Scott cleared the more onerous qualifications the party set to qualify for the second presidential debate on September 27. Republicans aren’t the ones raising the stink about Tim Scott’s alleged sex life.
In an interview with Axios in May, Scott said that he has a girlfriend, but is keeping her identity private. Nor should his bachelorhood matter, either:
The fact that half of America’s adult population is single for the first time, to suggest that somehow being married or not married is going to be the determining factor of whether you’re a good president or not — it sounds like we’re living in 1963 and not 2023.
He also told Fox News’s Brian Kilmeade that at some point he would introduce his lady friend.
Fox’s Brian Kilmeade: “What’s your status?”
2024 candidate Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC): “I have a wonderful girlfriend. We have a wonderful relationship.”
Kilmeade: “We met your mom. Will we meet your girlfriend?”
Scott: “You will, of course — at some point.”
Kilmeade: “OK. Great.” pic.twitter.com/XYFk9qiFcO
— The Recount (@therecount) September 11, 2023
Ben Terris of the Washington Post recently interviewed Tim Scott, asking him about the existence of the girlfriend, and how he met her.
Scott told Terris that a church friend had been trying for months to set him up with a woman he knew. Scott brushed him off, but then late last year, he finally called the woman.
They spoke of their shared faith and participated in an online Bible study, eventually going out to dinner in downtown Charleston. They’re still an item.
Scott added:
I can’t imagine dragging her onto the campaign trail unless I have the intention of marrying her. I hope that happens, to be honest with you.
He caught himself. Perhaps he gave out a little too much information.
I guess I should be careful about how I say that. Strike that comment.
Scott didn’t tell Terris her name, and his campaign wouldn’t allow him to interview the woman. So, no corroboration there. But Jennifer DeCasper, Scott’s campaign manager, told Terris that she has indeed spent time with the woman. So that’s about as much corroboration we’ll get at this time.
Being unmarried — and especially gay — would’ve been political death to Tim Scott a couple of decades ago. It probably would’ve ruined any career for him.
But other than among progressives, who cannot tolerate the idea of a black man being both conservative and devoutly Christian, being single doesn’t register with the average Republican voter.
In August, Terris traveled to the Iowa State Fair to ask Republicans if they had concern about Tim Scott’s bachelor status. In short, he found that many didn’t care.
Bob Vander Plaats, the head of the Family Leader, a social conservative organization in Iowa, told him:
I think 10 or 20 years ago, people had a kind of romance with the first family. But I think our country is at the point where being married isn’t the top qualifier. It probably doesn’t make the Top 50.
While Brian Heck, a 60-year-old Iowan, said:
What matters to me is that he’s in favor of putting the family unit back together. I’d be more worried about him having a bunch of illegitimate kids than having no kids.
Besides, added 57-year-old Connie Hoksbergen, “I wouldn’t want someone to bring their children to the White House. That’s no place for them.”
But Steve Deace, an Iowa radio talk show host, warned that while Republican voters won’t care about Scott’s marital status alone, it may work against him if he fails in other ways. And if he gains too much traction, his Republican rivals will use that to come gunning for him.
If he were polling in double digits in November, there would be a super PAC running ads in Iowa pointing this stuff out.
Meanwhile, however, Tim Scott has been able to endear himself to Republican voters. He’s affable, sunny, and presents himself as the alternative to the perpetually petulant Donald Trump.
Tim Scott won’t become the Republican nominee, of course. But progressives are barking up the wrong tree if they think whispering about Scott’s sexual status will poison him among conservative Republicans. After all, those evangelicals compose the core base who nominated Donald Trump in 2016, and they’re on the path to nominate him again in 2024.
Featured image: “Tim Scott” by Gage Skidmore is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0. Cropped.
therealguyfaux says: (*cough* “Cory Booker” *cough*)
Cameron says: Fine. Punch back. Ask Democrats what their problem is. Is it because he could be gay? Is it because they hate black people? Hell, use that made up word “homophobia” against them just for fun.
rbj1 says: Um, South Carolina has also sent Lindsey Graham to the Senate. I lived there in the late 1990s and basically, keep your private life private and no one cares. Just show up to church on time
GWB says: Republicans aren’t the ones raising the stink about Tim Scott’s alleged sex life.
Ahhhh, but note how you reported it in the beginning? That Republican donors are “fretting”. So, Republicans are (supposedly) the ones with the problem, but somehow they are skittish about actually saying the homophobic things in public. It’s a very nice bit of slander, saying you heard from “those guys” the very thing you predicted they would do.
being single doesn’t register with the average Republican voter.
Hmmmm, yes and no. I think some subset of people wonder about a guy who is still single at 57 (divorced would be different). But, given that a great number of Republicans hate the “My wife will be my co-president” crap, a single guy in office might be nice for once. (Maybe it’s that many of us understand the dynamics of a boss whose wife helps him run the business, despite not being actually employed to do so. It is not the sign of a good leader, IMO.)
Tim Scott won’t become the Republican nominee, of course.
No, and he really shouldn’t. While I like some of his planks, I think he’s not vested enough in destroying the Deep State to be our presidential candidate.
BTW, notice the slander is about Republican donors. We know that a bunch of the big donors are NOT promoting Republicans to achieve a more Constitutional, more federal, less over-bearing and over-regulating national government. They are Big Business and pseudo-Libertarians (Progressives with two fewer heresies than fundamentalist Progs) who want big gov’t and want it setting barriers to entry for competitors and subsidizing their activities. But they want lower taxes, so they’re Republican. That puts the claims in a much different light, doesn’t it?
4 Comments