Bob Tiernan defends topless bondage club expenditure. Seriously.

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

Huge props to Jeff Mapes at the Oregonian. He got Republican Party of Oregon chairman Bob Tiernan to talk on the record about that controversial RNC expenditure at a West Hollywood topless bondage club. And Tiernan actually tried to wave his arms around and claim it wasn't that big a deal.

But Tiernan, who says he has also been in on "some very important conference calls" regarding the flap, was also quick to say that the news media was making the club sound more racy than it really is.

"It's an extremely high-end bar, it's not a topless or bottomless or strip joint kind of place," Tiernan said. "They cover a hell of a lot more than a lot of nightclubs do."

Uh huh. Sure, Bob.

To be fair, as Mapes notes, Tiernan says he hasn't actually been there. But Mapes did a quick check on Yelp, and here's what he found:

This club is amazing. There are topless "dancers" acting out S&M scenes throughout the night on one of the side stages, there's a half-naked girl hanging from a net across the ceiling and at one point I walked to the bathroom and pretty much just stopped dead in my tracks to watch two girls...

And if you pop over to Yelp, the entertainment review site, there's more:

Since there are topless women all throughout the club, there is a strict no photo policy, even if you're taking pictures of your friends and the go-go dancers are nowhere in view of your camera. ...

I think this is one of the hottest places that I've been to in my many years in LA. The half naked models and topless dancers alone is worth the price of admission. ...

Very unique place, their models kinda reminded me of lady gaga except topless...

And that's all on the first screen of reviews.

Seriously, Bob? You're trying to minimize the stupidity of the National Republican Committee approving an expense reimbursement for a topless bondage club?

Next time, before you open your mouth, you might try doing the Google thing.

  • Rulial (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari, I think you're missing the link to Mapes's post.

    If Republicans want to waste their money taking people to strip clubs, they aren't going to get any complaint from me.

  • Rulial (unverified)
    (Show?)

    (That doesn't mean, though, that's it's a bad idea to keep reminding potential RNC donors that the RNC wasted its money at such a club, especially social conservatives that might shudder at their money being used at such an establishment.)

  • J├Ągermeister (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So in other words, more money for naked bondage lesbian simulated sex acts and booze, less money for mass transit.

  • Scott in Damascus (unverified)
    (Show?)

    So basically the republican party does not support two women who love each other and want to express that love in a legally binding relationship.

    But they will pay those same two women to perform bondaged-themed lesbian sex acts in a nightclub.

    Sexually repressed hypocrites.

  • Chuck Finley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Actually, this might be the smartest move that the R's ever made. Heck, I'm thinking of re-registering.

  • Paul Johnson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I seem to recall that Bob Tiernan was trolling the Oregon newsgroups a while back as well... glad to see he still has his integrity.

  • Satchel (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Classic case of IOKIYAR ("It's Okay If You're a Republican") syndrome. Catch the DNC pulling a stunt like that and watch the self-righteous rhetoric fly!

  • Kurt Hagadakis (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I have a theory. Hand count. How many males that self identify as liberal would like that kind of thing, if it was paid for?

    Rulial has a point though. Would you rather they spend their money putting things like M66/67 on the ballot?

    Posted by: J├Ągermeister | Apr 2, 2010 1:51:18 PM So in other words, more money for naked bondage lesbian simulated sex acts and booze, less money for mass transit.

    Well, I'm not sure that's where their money ever goes, unless they carpooled to get there. Which is probably the real story if there is one. If they didn't, did they all drive? Surely someone was over the limit, if so. A slightly bigger story?

  • Kurt Chapman (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Every time the DNC lowers the bar, the republicans find a unique and special way to get it even lower. Simply amazing.

  • Scott in Damascus (unverified)
    (Show?)

    No Kurt, republicans, and only republicans, are responsible for their behavior and how they spend their donations.

    And yet Vitter, Sanford and Ensign still have jobs.

  • (Show?)

    How many males that self identify as liberal would like that kind of thing, if it was paid for?

    I've been to Scappoose and back, and going to a sexually themed club is totally acceptable behavior as far as I'm concerned.

    It is not, however, acceptable behavior to the vast majority of the shrunken Republican base.

    So we play it up, because everybody hates overt and blatant hypocrisy, and when Republican leaders dis their base, it should be brought to the attention of said base.

    <hr/>

    Increasingly, over the past 30 years, the Republicans have been an alliance between religious fundamentalists with a rigid moral code (at least around sexual issues) and libertarians who are pretty socially liberal.

    Publicity informs. Can't be bad.

  • H Bruce Miller (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Let's be fair: Tiernan did not defend the $2,000 expenditure, which he told Mapes was inappropriate. He merely said the club wasn't as kinky as the media made it out to be.

  • Kurt Chapman (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ah, but Mr Miller the true and accurate quote wouldn't play well for Mandate Media now would it?

    Again, the democrats should volunteer to help pay this bill because it took their shenanigan's off the front page.

  • (Show?)

    Tiernan basically said, "Hey, I'm not defending it, but it's not as bad as you think." which is, of course, defending it.

    "I seem to recall that Bob Tiernan was trolling the Oregon newsgroups a while back". -- no, that's the other Bob Tiernan, the libertarian from Gresham, who comments here too.

  • Kurt Hagadakis (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Posted by: Pat Ryan | Apr 3, 2010 10:14:45 AM

    How many males that self identify as liberal would like that kind of thing, if it was paid for?

    I've been to Scappoose and back, and going to a sexually themed club is totally acceptable behavior as far as I'm concerned.

    It is not, however, acceptable behavior to the vast majority of the shrunken Republican base.

    I'm not talking about a free expression issue, I'm saying, "do you like it". Maybe I have a weird circle of friends, but I've never met anyone that found it entertaining. Unless that's what "going to Scappoose and back" means.

  • (Show?)

    Any truth tho the rumor that enrollment in the Young Eagles increased by 537% after the press got hold of this? ;^)

  • (Show?)

    Pat Ryan sez: "I've been to Scappoose and back"

    Pat, what did Scappoose ever do to you? Why pick on the home of ROP?

    But on a much more serious note: where are the fundies when a class action lawsuit against the RNC for wasting their money?

  • (Show?)

    oops, I meant to writ "But on a much more serious note: where are the fundies when a class action lawsuit against the RNC for wasting their money would be a most appropriate response"?

  • (Show?)

    My Old Da was a tramp logger up and down the coast back in the fifties.

    When his peer group wanted to demonstrate their cosmopolitan credentials they'd say. "I've been to Scappoose and back."

  • alcatross (unverified)
    (Show?)

    ari commented: "Tiernan basically said, "Hey, I'm not defending it, but it's not as bad as you think." which is, of course, defending it."

    This is Kari's interpretation, of course - and Kari is undeniably biased. Since Kari neglected to include a link to the full Mapes article (can't have the peeps out here making our own judgements now, can we Kari?), I include it here for reference.

    Let's note the first sentence of Mapes' article:

    Oregon Republican Chairman Bob Tiernan, who is a top adviser to GOP Chairman Michael Steele, told me Wednesday that he had no doubt that the party shouldn't have approved spending nearly $2,000 on the now notorious Voyeur nightclub in West Hollywood.

    Hmmm... doesn't sound like much defending going on to me.

    Then we have the line from the article Kari left out after 'Tiernan said he hasn't actually been to the club.'

    And he (Tiernan) hastened to add that he wasn't making any excuses for the expenditure, saying that the party should not be reimbursing people for "spending $1,900 for drinks with your buddies."

    Yep... quite a defense there, Kari.

    Then there's Mapes picking the most extreme comment he could find out of the 18 on Yelp - a comment by a single 20-something wide-eyed Canadian-transplant 'Jennifer M' who characterizes herself as 'young, broke, and fabulous' driving around LA in her leased Mercedes-Benz clubbing with her 6 girlfriends, shopping, YELPing, and blogging her weekly 'playlist'... seriously. 'Jennifer' hails from Oshawa, Ontario - home of the famous Oshawa Centre... the largest shopping mall in Ontario east of Toronto! No doubt where 'Jennifer' spent many hours in training during her formative years.

    In all things like this (including Kari's post here), one is always advised to consider the source...

    And Kari, just remember YOUR readers can do the Google-thing too.

  • Julie Fahey (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Objectively, I get the sense that this place is more like a "nightclub with risque dancers" vs. what you would think of when you hear "strip club" or "bondage club". Just like in Vegas shows where there can be toplessness without it being a "strip club", I think the same principle applies here. It's 100% definitely not okay for the Republicans to reimburse a $2k expense there -- but characterizing it as a bondage club goes a bit too far in my opinion.

  • H Bruce Miller (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Again, the democrats should volunteer to help pay this bill because it took their shenanigan's off the front page."

    What "shenanigan's" are you talking about?

  • jamie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It's 100% definitely not okay for the Republicans to reimburse a $2k expense there -- but characterizing it as a bondage club goes a bit too far in my opinion.

    So, a (1) club at which (2) partially nude women (3) engage in bondage and (4) simulated oral sex for (5) people to come and watch should not be described as a bondage club?

    Granted, it appears that the titilation is a spectator sport at this locale, as opposed to the more participatory clubs. I'm not sure why that is supposed to make it somehow better to the folks who want to play "I'm not defending it by defending it, but listen to me while I defend it."

    In any case, it hardly matters, because at least some of the non-hypocritical prudes in the religious right are already taking their money and going elsewhere. I suspect the mid-term bounce the Repubs are counting on is going to feel very little like 1994 - Steele and the bondage-voyeurs are foot-bulleting the party as fast as they can, the welfare queens speaking for the Tea Partiers are self-refuting to anyone who doesn't want to join a militia, and the most electable 2012 candidates are (1) a 1/2-term quitter who can't form complete sentences and (2) the recent architect of a healthcare reform program remarkably similar to the one his erstwhile base is busy calling social-hitler-fascism.

    The Southern Strategy is looking a bit threadbare, and even the nominally apolitical low-information voter types are aware of the fact the Republicans are being unprincipled obstructionist jerks in the middle of a serious recession, and now they get to hear apologists go on about how a $2K visit to lesbian bondage strip club is a reimbursable expense for the party of Social Conservatism. Of course, that's just the top of the chart right now - this is after Diaper Dave Vitter, Wide-Stance, and everyone's favorite new euphemism about hiking the Appalachian Trail.

    For those apologists attempting to draw an equivalence, here's a hint: one of the distinguishing characteristics of many liberals is a live-and-let-live approach to other's sexual lives. Even if Republican fantasies about Pelosi as a dominatrix were true, the fact is that it simply wouldn't matter to people like me. You've already locked up the vote on the panty-sniffer-moralists who care about what other people do in bed.

    The reason BondageGate is funny, and humiliating, is twofold: (1) blatant, stupid, arrogant hypocrisy and (2) the simple joy of watching the other team metaphorically take a careful, steady aim at their foot, calmly pull the trigger, and apparently be completely surprised by the outcome.

  • gerard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    RE: Bondagegate

    Dear GOP: hahahahahaha!!!!

    <h2>xoxoxox (not!)</h2>

connect with blueoregon