Posted by: ST on October 18, 2006 at 10:01 am
***8/27/07: Read the update to this story and my thoughts on it here.***
————-
The big story in the blogosphere today is the ‘outing’ of Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) by outing specialist Mike Rogers, a despicable individual who has a history of outing supposedly closeted homosexuals.
First things first, I don’t give a damn if Craig is gay or not. For the record, he’s denying it. Fine. What’s bothersome to me is Rogers’ continued insistence that ‘outing’ supposedly closeted gay politicians is fair game. From that same link:
Rogers says that digging into the private lives of politicians who support anti-gay legislation is legitimate. Because Craig supported and voted for the Defense of Marriage act, it is politically relevant to reveal these claims, Rogers said. In a letter to Craig, he wrote: “What these citizens are not being told is that some of the politicians who want their help are or have staff who are part of the so-called ‘homosexual lifestyle.’”
Let’s assume for purposes of discussion that Senator Craig is gay – are we to assume that his votes against issues that are important to the gay community were an attempt by Craig to mask his ‘hidden desires’? Or was it more Craig’s intent to represent the voters of Idaho who put him into office based, in part, on his stances on those issues? My guess would be the latter – and again, this is assuming for discussion purposes that Craig is gay, something that can’t be proven one way or another (unless there are emails, IMs, video, pix, etc – and God help us if that kind of thing surfaces).
I know a lot of conservatives are of the mindset that this is yet another more in a long list of October surprises perpetuated by Democrats, and while I wouldn’t put it past Democrats to endorse something like this, I’m not so sure I’d fall into the October surprise camp, considering that Craig will not be up for re-election until 2008. Of course, it could be that the people behind this campaign (and I know it’s more than just Rogers) are using this to try and paint the Republicans as the party that doesn’t practice what it preaches right here before the elections. I wouldn’t rule that out.
I’ve also read a few gay lefty bloggers who, astoundingly, completely (and deliberately) miss the point and instead choose to engage in pointing out supposed Republican ‘hypocrisy’ on the issue of outing gays, which is complete BS (Dean Barnett links to the chief asserter of the alleged Republican hypocrisy angle). If you’ve ever talked to a gay person about the issue of “coming out” they’ll tell you (at least this has been what I’ve been told in my conversations with gay friends)) that deciding on whether or not to come out is an intensely personal, sometimes agonizing decision to make – and the announcement should come from them. It’s theirs and theirs alone to make. Not anyone else’s. Coming out is, to put it simply, a private matter between the person coming out and their family and friends.
Several years ago, a friend of mine who I’d known since I was in elementary school came out to me. I told that friend that his coming out did not change how I felt about him as a friend. In the midst of our conversation, he mentioned that he’d been to a club recently and bumped into someone we both knew from junior and senior high school who was also gay. Out of curiosity, I asked him “who was it?” His response to me essentially was that it wasn’t his place to say, that he didn’t know if our mutal friend had told his family and friends yet that he was gay, and that the announcement that he was gay would have to come from him directly. I respected that, and later found out that what my friend said about the need for gay people who come out to make the announcement themselves was pretty consistent with I’d heard and read about the issue. Someone else coming out for a gay person can have seriously disastrous consequences if the gay person was not ready to be outed yet.
That’s what bothers me about Rogers’ little campaigns to out politicians who are supposedly gay. He’s not doing it because he thinks closeted gay politicians should be ‘held accountable’ for personal conduct that doesn’t match their public rhetoric. He engages in outting campaigns because gay Republicans don’t vote the way he wants them too. It’s sick, and in my opinion one of the lowest forms of attempted political manipulation I’ve ever seen in modern history.
If Craig is indeed gay, it’s his decision whether or not to come out - NOT MIKE ROGERS’. Rogers is a creep who should be condemned by both sides of the aisle. Sadly, as Patterico notes with links, the far left is grabbing onto this news gleefully like a rabid dog who has found a pile of chicken bones. How pathetic, and what a sad commentary on modern politics.
PM Update I: Check out Red State’s post on this regarding a possible blackmail angle to this ‘outing’. Interesting.
PM Update II: Dean Barnett has a lengthier post up on the subject this afternoon. Consider it a must-read.
PM Update III: What the hell? Here’s how the LA Times describes Mike Rogers, who is quoted in their article about an alleged “pink purge” going on within the GOP:
[...] a gay-rights activist who runs a blog to combat what he calls hypocrisy among conservative gay politicians.
ROTFL! This is like referring to the Rev. Fred Phelps as an “anti-gay rights activist who believes the First Amendment shouldn’t be violated” – without mentioning the fact that he and his ‘church’ routinely protest at military funerals!
Read more via: Captain Ed, Michael van der Galien at Moderate Voice, Dan Riehl, Iowa Voice, Bob Owens, La Shawn Barber, James Joyner, Blog For All
Big Government
- And so the mighty unwashed gaggle of the “secular Progressives” cult debunks yet another of the many myths, “sexual preference tolerance” – the “We care” meme, and turns, as it always does, to open Gay bashing as a political tool. You are all free now to move about the blogosphere and call them homophobes at will. Let the festivities begin.
- Bang
I’d like to hear someone on the left on this issue explain or justify this ugliness. Can you?
Larry Craig is a virulently anti-gay legislator who votes consistently against the interests of gay people in discrimination issues, hate crimes issues and marriage equality….all while secretly enjoying anonymous homosexual sex himself. Mark Rogers has a long and verified track record of exposing such hypocrisy and Washington is littered with the careers of Congressmen and Senators forced to resign or not seek re-election, thanks to Rogers. (Check his website for the list.) Rogers has never been sued and Craig will not sue either, because while Rogers has four men who say they have had sex with Craig, Craig himself must only wonder, “Which day was THAT?”.
Being gay is not a sin or crime. Being a two-faced traitor to your own people IS. Suppose a black congressman was found to secretly be a member of the KKK? (If such a thing could happen.) Is this so different?
- Justify it Bak?… When did the Left ever have to Jusitfy anything they want to do ….It’s for the “cause” don’t-cha-know… ::snort:: …Whatah buncha Moroons….
- Bang
And by the way, Sister Toldjah, I do largely agree with your assessment regarding the propriety of revealing someone’s gayness…..right up to the point in which that person’s closet begins to actively injure OTHER queer people. At that point, he has zero expectation that others will honor his closet while he works to destroy gay lives.
To use a war metaphor, in Vietnam U.S. soldiers would sometimes frag a senior officer on their own side, if his actions were putting the squad in danger. Closeted anti-gay policitians had better don a good flak jacket, cuz this fragging has only begun.
Hey, Joe, did you cut and paste that or are you just a sock puppet of Rogers?
All my work is original. Feel free to join the thousands that visit my blog daily.
Joe.My.God. “America’s Favorite Gay Blogger” Advocate Magazine, Oct.24th, 2006.
- The Lefts new campaign slogan should be:
“Secular Proggressives: We only bash Gays when we need to win elections”
- Bang
“Secular progressive: We only bash Gays when they are traitorous closet cases working everyday on a national scale to harm millions of Gay Americans.”
Also, Larry Craig is not up for re-election this term. Way to pay attention, Bang.
ST
I disagree with your position here tho’ I do believe that Rogers’ purpose for “outing” politicians is more self-serving than anything else, I do agree with some points he makes in his reasoning. As a voter I’d be highly upset if a person I voted for was secretly living a life that totally contradicts his political stance/views. As a human being I’m bothered by anyone who’d use their choice to be gay and “right” to “stay in the closet” as an excuse to cheat on their spouse. And comparing this to a case of finding out that a close friend’s spouse was cheating on them, I think that the friend being cheated on has a right to know. I know some gays as well who view “coming out of the closet” as a personal choice, yet I have more respect for gays who are open about their lifestyle choice esp. when so many gays compare their “struggle” to Blacks (which I find offensive) and as a Black man I dont have any closet to hide in.
Either way as someone who views homosexuality as wrong and anti-God, I cant turn around and defend immoral behavior esp. when it involves other people, much less voting Americans (i.e. Jim McGreevey). If Craig is gay, thats his business, but it becomes our business when he becomes a public figure/politician running as a “straight family man” and it becomes his family’s business when there are rumors circulating that he’s cheating on his wife regardless of who he’s cheating with.
I’m not defending any alleged adultry, Grey.
No, thanks, joe. I’m not bumping your miniscule hit rate, or should I say Mike Rogers. I believe Patterico caught Mike Rogers in some sock puppetry.
OKAY, you got me PCD. I really am Mike Rogers. Now give me a kiss.
Stop it, Joe.
I’m accused of being a fake and I’m told to “stop it”?
What kinda joint are you running around here? Typical. Bye.
If you can’t figure out why you were told to stop it, you really need a clue. Your initial post was like a campaign ad for Mike Rogers. “Mike Rogers has a tremendous track record of….. vote Mike Rogers!”
Don’t let the door hit ya where the Lord split ya Joe.
- S’ok ST… If Joe is gullible enough to buy into the idea that this has anything to do with protecting the interests of the Gay community, there’s really nothing you or I could say to educate him. I just let the rants go.
- You’d think that a group who values their Political position so dearly, would be greatly sensitive to being used, and highly annoyed when it happens, but in politics all things are possible.
- Bang
“Typical” my a$$. I’m trying to stop a flame war before it starts. If you don’t like the way I run this blog, then you are doing the right thing by leaving it.
Excellent point that Common Sense Poitical Thought makes in his/her trackback above!
Being gay is not a sin or crime. Being a two-faced traitor to your own people IS
It is? What law did he break? Is he under arrest? Is he under investigation? Details please….
- They hated his votes NC. the Left in general used that to out him, and now some Gays are getting suckered into seeing that as a poaitive, not realizing they’re being used. they are hoping to chase him out of office and open up another possible Dem seat. The Gays are either misreading this or in Joes case, he’s probably a Lefty cheerleader.
- Bang
This is nothing more than scaring old people. It is a manipulation of the people. I am beginning to think that “We the People” are getting bored with this serious lack of ideas October Surprises. Now if Rove could pull OBL outta his tush, THAT would be an October Surprise, Outing gays, not so much. /Yawn Next Stupid Trival Scandal Please. But God Forbid these idiots come to the table and actually attempt to discuss some ideas. – Lorica
joe, you must really hate your gay brothers and sisters and mike rogers ain’t helping the gay issue with his assine behavior …. I don’t care what people do in their private lives as long as it does not affect MY LIFE … I think most people feel that way, just don’t shove your way of live down my throat or my kid’s throat in school .. keep your mouths shut, we don’t talk about hetrosexual stuff 24/7 … give it a friggin rest will ya.!!!!
Severian wrote:
Congratulations, Severian! You have won a free subscription to Common Sense Political Thought! It’s made fresh, and free, every day!
(PS – The check’s in the mail.)
PCD wrote:
Well, at least to judge by the fact his site attracts more reader comments than mine, I can’t call his hit rate “miniscule.”
I’m pleased to see people like Joe visit sites where his position is in the minority, just as I visit lib sites occasionally. If we never talked to each other, even in this fashion, things would be a lot worse.
I’d like to think that the things I write are not entirely preaching to the choir!
Dana, I don’t think anyone here has a problem visiting liberal sites for other view points or conversing with liberals who visit this site who offer rational viewpoints. Joe, though, has defended that scumbag Mark Rogers, called Larry Craig a “two-faced traitor” who “works to destroy gay lives”, thinks it’s ok to “out” a politician simply because that politician doesn’t vote the way he wants them to, etc. Essentially, he has no problem whatsoever with what Mark Rogers did. If you find his comments to be worthy of a rational response and discussion, perhaps Joe will consider it an invitation to visit your blog as well and post the same type of incendiary commentary he did here. Good luck with the rational dialogue.
This really isn’t about not wanting liberal visitors, and not wanting to visit liberal blogs. It’s about whether or not the comments posted are worthy of a rational response. I don’t think Joe’s were, and it doesn’t sound like PCD did either, and I can’t say as I blame him. Joe’s welcome to post here, but he’s not entitled to be taken seriously unless he acts serious.
And by “serious”, I presume you mean that as “agreeing with me”? The post was about Mike Rogers. I took a contrary position to yours. Is that just not allowed at all here, “seriously”?
You call Mike Rogers a “scumbag” and I’m the incendiary one? And do you “seriously” believe that what Senator Craig does with his legislation does NOT hurt gay people? REALLY?
I do not engage in ad hominem attacks against my fellow commenters, so I can’t see what vigorous defense of my positions do to harm the discourse here. I see by your Sitemeter that my site enjoys about 5 times the traffic as yours, Sister. And as I gently suggested to you in my unrequited email, fostering a healthy debate amongst your readers is the best route to growing your audience.
“And by “serious”, I presume you mean that as “agreeing with me”?”
No.
“The post was about Mike Rogers. I took a contrary position to yours. Is that just not allowed at all here, “seriously”?”
Continue to build the strawman all you want to, but your belief that I censor comments here simply because I disagree with them is simply untrue. Perhaps you should read around a little more rather than making assumptions about a blog you’ve only just started visiting today.
“You call Mike Rogers a “scumbag” and I’m the incendiary one?’
Yes, you are. It’s contemptable that anyone would support outing a supposedly gay politician simply because that politician didn’t toe the official line on gay issues. And you want to accuse ME of not tolerating different viewpoints? What a freaking laugh.
“And do you “seriously” believe that what Senator Craig does with his legislation does NOT hurt gay people? REALLY?”
Correct, I “REALLY” don’t believe he hurts gay people with his legislation anymore than other Republicans who vote along the same lines.
“I do not engage in ad hominem attacks against my fellow commenters, so I can’t see what vigorous defense of my positions do to harm the discourse here.”
I didn’t accuse you of ad hominem attacks against my readers.
“I see by your Sitemeter that my site enjoys about 5 times the traffic as yours, Sister.”
And Daily Kos has megatons more traffic than my site too. Popularity does not necessarily = good or worth reading.
“And as I gently suggested to you in my unrequited email, fostering a healthy debate amongst your readers is the best route to growing your audience.”
Your email will remain unrequited because I simply don’t need advice from you on how to grow the audience here. I find your condescending tone on how I run my blog insulting. If you want to find fault with my positions on the issues, do it, but don’t tell me how to run my own blog. When I need advice on blogging, I know who to go to, and it is not you.
Shrug. I understand. I won’t return. My advice was offered sincerely, as it appeared that you didn’t know how to handle a dissenter among your sycophants. Continue preachin’ to that choir, Jesse. Peace.
“Shrug. I understand. I won’t return.”
Right. That’s why you returned after saying “bye” the last time.
“My advice was offered sincerely,”
No it wasn’t.
“as it appeared that you didn’t know how to handle a dissenter among your sycophants.”
I don’t have sycophants at this blog anymore than you do at your own, and I know damn well how to handle dissenters, and that’s by arguing passionately for what I believe – unfortunately, in turn some of the dissenters who visit here don’t know how to handle being challenged. Case in point.
“Continue preachin’ to that choir, Jesse.”
You too, Rev. Al.
ST writes, It’s contemptable that anyone would support outing a supposedly gay politician simply because that politician didn’t toe the official line on gay issues.”
I am curious ST, before the ‘outting’ was there contact with the person they out before they do this, threatening to reveal or out them?
If so, wouldn’t that be blackmail?
On a separate note, I find what they do detestable also, and seems to me a bit too close to blackmail of a public official.
Besides which, what does it matter if your straight or homosexual, they should be voting and making laws on what is best for Amercia and not just for one specific group or race.
It is like accusing a black representative or voting against blacks, and they are going to “out” him…oops…that is a bit obvious, can’t do that….
It is like a woman not voting or “toeing” the womens rights line, so they are going to out her as a woman….errr…again to obvious….
Hmmm, who else can the “out”, what other kind of descrimination can throw out there. Maybe not “descriminiation”, but sure smacks of it when a group is attacking someone based on their sexuality….
Hmm who else can they out?
The deaf or hearing impaired?
The blind or vision impaired?
How about someone how lost a limb?
Or served in the military?
Should these things be used as something to judge someone by? I thought that was descrimination in itself, using something like this to judge another by.
Is it any different than calling a Black Republican a Uncle Tom? or a Slave to the Republican Party?
Essentially they are saying the same thing, that they are hypocrites because they don’t toe the line for their special group that they figure that outting will place them in.
It’s interesting, aren’t Larry’s “people” those who elected him, people from Idaho? I believe that’s what the whole “R-ID” means. It didn’t say “R-Gay.” So how is he a traitor to his people?
I know ol’ Joe has already said bye, but he does keep coming back.
Our beautiful blogmistress wrote:
I’d say whether people take Joe, or anyone else, seriously depends upon each comment that they make. Hey, if Joe comments, and people don’t think he is saying anything rationally, then Joe is hurting his own cause!
Joe wrote:
While you addressed this to Sis, I’d agree that Mr Rogers is a scumbag: his methodology is to attempt to find closeted homosexuals among politicians with whose positions he disagrees, and them expose them. I call that blackmail.
And no, I don’t believe that the positions of Senator Craig’s that have been mentioned (opposition to same-sex marriage, not wanting to expand the odious hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation, and not wishing to expand the anti-discrimination laws) are harmful to homosexuals.
Now, they certainly don’t grant the homosexual community in general, or its members individually, and particular advantages they do not now have, but that’s not the same as hurting them. Of course, I also happen to agree with Mr Craig’s votes on those issues.
Larry Craig’s no more taking positions against homosexuals than Christina Hoff Sommers (brilliant woman who wrote – Who stole Feminism) takes positions that hurt women or Ward Connerly (who wrote – Creating Equal) takes positions that hurt Black Americans.
They both would feel and I agree with them that their positions strenthen everyone including men and women no matter what your sexual orientation or race.