Mark Kirk is a Republican in Illinois. Kirk is running for another office. A rival of his has taken out ads claiming :
a) Mark Kirk is Gay
b) Mark Kirk helped cover up former Rep. Foley's dalliances with congressional pages. These boy pages were around 16 years old and therefore Kirk is a pedophile by default.
Political speech is the most protected form of speech. Therefore there are few rules limiting political speech. And, if any television or other ad producer runs and ad for a candidate, they are bound by law to run all ads by any candidate regardless of content.
Once again we have people who want to lead scapegoating homosexuals to further their agendas.
The recently divorced Mark Kirk denies that he is gay. He should not have to.
As for the second claim, that Kirk is a pedophile by default for covering up Foley's gay affairs with congressional pages: There are really three separate claims:
1) That Kirk's alleged homosexuality makes him more likely to be or assist pedophilia.
2) That Kirk helped Foley cover up his behavior.
3) That Foley's actions constituted pedophilia
Not to argue the "wrongness" or legality of what Foley did, but to label it pedophilia is inaccurate. And it demeans the claim of pedophilia. And to imply that homosexuality equals gay or that homosexuality is on its own a valid reason to disqualify a candidate echoes millenia of verbal hatred towards minority groups. After all, if homosexuality is reason enough to make someone "bad" why not the Jew as well?
Its time voters everywhere sent their candidates a message: we are tired of campaigns run on scapegoating and fluff and lies and rhetoric.
But it isn't really. After all, you can't argue with success. Apparently people like being bamboozled.