Vile

I've sat on this one for a couple of days on purpose, until my blood pressure came back somewhere close to normal. Even for Dan Riehl, this is appalling. (I've encountered Riehl's comments on gays before -- he's an empty gasbag.) It's one of the most disgusting pieces of slander I've ever read, from anyone. Riehl, who admits he has absolutely no basis for anything he writes here, has decided that the census worker murdered in Kentucky, Bill Sparkman, was a child molester. Oh, he doesn't actually claim that, he's just "speculating" on the basis of -- well, nothing:

Before any more people start going bonkers that I'm accusing Sparkman of anything, take a breath. I've done a fair amount of crime blogging mixed in with politics over time. One doesn't rule anything in or out without some firm answers. People feel free to speculate about Meth labs and pot fields but none have been reported in the area, yet. All I'm doing is looking at any and all possibilities. You'd think a moonshiner, or Meth head would have just buried the guy. Why hang him and invite the Feds into it by writing Fed on his chest? Why strip him naked and bind and gag him, which has serious sexual overtones?

I have no idea what happened, but from the reporting I've seen, neither does anyone else. If he adopted a boy as a single man, or was married and split with the wife and kids, who knows. But I never assume I know a story or motive until I know it. Right now we don't. I'm simply speculating on one possible alternative, however impolite.

Let me be equally impolite: Right off the bat, Riehl as good as says that he has no background and no qualifications (other than his standing as a professional homophobe) to be speculating on this. ("Crime blogger"? WTF is a "crime blogger"?) Riehl is bringing up this "possible motive" because it's somewhat more than impolite, and that's the only reason. It's safe, if you happen to be a right-wing professional homophobe -- Sparkman isn't in a position to defend himself, the circumstances point in an entirely different direction -- directly at the crazed wingnut Beckbots that Riehl seems to be attempting to cultivate -- and it's a golden opportunity to smear gays as a group, because after all, everyone knows that gay men only adopt boys to molest them. (Although I must also point out that Riehl offers absolutely no evidence that Sparkman was gay, either.) (Another note -- further reading on this revealed the fact that Sparkman's son is in his twenties.)

Sullivan, I think, treats this too lightly:

But the far right is obviously concerned that its violent anti-government rhetoric might at some point be implicated. So what do these people do? Notorious homophobe Dan Riehl pre-emptively asks if Sparkman was a gay child predator, because he had an adopted son. He has no other evidence at all.

Sorry, Andrew, but the fact of a single man adopting a son is not evidence of anything. It's not that Riehl is offering "no other evidence" -- it's that he's offering no evidence at all.

I do think, however, that Sullivan points to a plausible motivation: gods forbid that the Limbaugh-Beck-O'Reilly complex (which Riehl apparently wants to join) should actually suffer consequences for their hate speech, so best to deflect as soon as possible when something really happens.

You know, the anti-gay right doesn't really have to continue to prove itself morally bankrupt -- we've already gotten the message loud and clear. And has anyone spoken to Riehl about the psychological process of projection, and how easy it is to spot? Like, maybe he should be a little more circumspect about voicing his fantasies?

Riehl may have achieved one of his goals -- he got lots of attention in the blogosphere. Robert Farley, John Cole, and Jesse Taylor all come to the same conclusion, in almost identical terms:

1.) What if he was?

2.) Wouldn’t it be irresponsible not to theorize?

Ed Brayton goes into slightly more detail, but comes to the same conclusion.

Jeff Fecke alerted us to a piece by Dave Weigel, who managed to get a statement on this from Dan Riehl's godmother, Michelle Bachman (R-Our Lady of Bethlehem), who hates census workers:

After the speech, Bachmann had only a few minutes to sign autographs and collect a stack of CDs and books from fans who’d followed her into the lobby. I caught up to her as she headed outside and asked if she had any response to the murder of a Kentucky census worker, having noticed that the Census, a constant target for Bachmann, did not figure into her speech. Bachmann recoiled a little at the question and turned to enter her limo.

“Thank you so much!” she said.

But then, it would appear that Bachmann is exactly the sort of loon that Riehl is trying to protect here.

Let's summarize: A notorious right-wing homophobe, commenting on the murder of a census worker, pulls out of his ass the idea that the man was killed for being a child molester. There is no basis for that supposition whatsoever, and the investigation to date has, in fact, pointed toward the obvious conclusion -- the man was murdered for being a "federal agent." But that's not going to stop Dan Riehl, who has managed to kill two birds with one stone: he's deflecting criticism from his own cronies on the right, and smearing a whole group of people, all in one completely irresponsible commentary.

A pre-publication update: Here's Barbara O'Brien on Riehl. It's brilliant.

Before any more people start going bonkers that I’m accusing Dan Riehl of anything, take a breath. I’m just saying one doesn’t rule anything in or out without some firm answers. After all, Riehl is a man, and most serial rapists are men. All I’m doing is looking at any and all possibilities.

And the first commenter at O'Brien's post brings this up, which I also ran across in relation to this piece:

Apparently now he’s twittered that it was meant as Lib bait, as in, “gee, can’t you Libs take a joke?”

You have to ask yourself, which kind of person (to use the term in its broadest sense) would smear the reputation of a murder victim as a joke?