Patterico's Pontifications

10/17/2006

Lefty Blogger Outs Senator As Gay

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:09 pm

Outing specialist Mike Rogers has “outed” Senator Larry Craig as a closet homosexual.

And he promises more to come.

The Democrats want to make this an election about gay sex.

And people say the Republicans deserve to lose?

UPDATE: Craig denies the allegations.

UPDATE x2: I truly believe this sort of tactic is going to create a backlash. At least I hope it will. It should.

UPDATE x3: Daily Kos already has a diary on this that is linked on the front page. It has 680 comments as of 6:23 p.m. Pacific.

UPDATE x4: The Kos diary has a poll: “Do you agree with outing Gay Republicans?” It’s currently running 2032 “yes” (70%) to 848 “no” (29%).

UPDATE x5: The folks at Democratic Underground struggle to reconcile their delight at the news with their discomfort at the obvious thuggishness of the outing. They quickly find it’s easy to do, and any discomfort is quickly brushed aside.

UPDATE x6: Captain Ed weighs in:

People wonder why we don’t attract a wider range of qualified candidates for public office. Michael Rogers sets himself up as Exhibit #1. The personal and degrading attacks convince many people to skip the trouble, and the people who do dare to run for office usually wind up experiencing the ruination of their reputations in one form or other. It comes from all sides to some degree, but this ghastly mudslinging really marks a new low.

Will Democrats denounce this sleaze with the same ferocity? Somehow, I doubt it.

274 Responses to “Lefty Blogger Outs Senator As Gay”

  1. Ugh.

    I have little sympathy with people who simultaneously (a) are gay and (b) publically denounce gay people as a class for political purposes.

    I have more sympathy for gay people who are closeted, but wish that they would find the personal courage to stop being closeted; in this culture, I think keeping being gay a secret is a sign of personal weakness.

    But I have *zero* sympathy for this type of political outing. Someone’s decision to remain closeted should remain their decision. Senator Craig’s sex life, until it crosses into the illegal, is none of my business.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  2. The Democrats want to make this an election about gay sex.

    The? or A?

    actus (10527e)

  3. I don’t know how much of a backlash it should cause, though. From what I can see this is a lone jerk operating without the support of the Democratic party establishment.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  4. You might want to check UPDATE x3, actus.

    Patterico (de0616)

  5. You might want to check UPDATE x3, actus.

    I suppose you writing up the story is different.

    It would be terrible if we were to have the gay marriage debate with examples. Thats so classless.

    actus (10527e)

  6. Oh, and UPDATE x4, showing the Kossacks’ overwhelming support for outing gay Republicans.

    Patterico (de0616)

  7. Oh, and UPDATE x4, showing the Kossacks’ overwhelming support for outing gay Republicans.

    I suppose online polls set democrat election strategy.

    actus (10527e)

  8. Patterico: which just goes to show that the kossacks are extremist.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  9. I suppose online polls set democrat election strategy.

    Patterico: which just goes to show that the kossacks are extremist.

    But doesn’t Kos have influence over Democrat election strategy?

    Patterico (de0616)

  10. But doesn’t Kos have influence over Democrat election strategy?

    I don’t know. How does a diary by ‘benito’ and an online poll inform us of how he uses whatever influence he has?

    actus (10527e)

  11. It’s linked on the Kos front page.

    Patterico (de0616)

  12. It’s linked on the Kos front page.

    I’m sure its going to be on a LOT of front pages.

    actus (10527e)

  13. [...] Three kids, nine grandkids. Supposedly spending his leisure time in the men’s room at Union Station. Which Rogers claims he knows because he’s corroborated Craig’s “personal characteristics” with four of his alleged paramours. [...]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » Mike Rogers “outs” Senator Larry Craig as gay (d4224a)

  14. Patterico: Markos has influence over Democrat election strategy, sure. But the presence of a story on the front page of dKos is one thing; Markos pushing that as a matter of strategy is another, and i’m not sure it’s fair to assume that the one implies the other. Especially given the fact that the diary wasn’t posted by Markos or by someone who is known to be close to Markos.

    Should the Democrats adopt this as a strategy, I’ll be among the people denouncing them for it. But I don’t think this establishes that they are so adopting.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  15. Should the Democrats adopt this as a strategy, I’ll be among the people denouncing them for it. But I don’t think this establishes that they are so adopting.

    Oh, I expect you’ll see Democrats publicly regretting things getting personal . . . but pointing out that it just goes to show you that the Republicans shouldn’t pursue anti-gay policies . . . which is how you twist the knife in a genteel way.

    If I see any prominent Democrats actually appear to get genuinely angry about the outing, I’ll be surprised.

    Patterico (de0616)

  16. I’m sure its going to be on a LOT of front pages.

    True enough. Easy solution for lefties who want to write about it, then: condemn it. Ask Rogers not to do it anymore.

    Allah (bab333)

  17. Easy solution for lefties who want to write about it, then: condemn it. Ask Rogers not to do it anymore.

    Patterico could pitch in with one of his demand-threads. I think we can all get behind this effort.

    actus (10527e)

  18. I believe Craig. This is not an outing. It’s libel.

    nk (47858f)

  19. Patterico could pitch in with one of his demand-threads. I think we can all get behind this effort.

    I’m sure he will, right after he gets back from Tbogg’s comments.

    fishbane (3389fc)

  20. Backlash? Not much. I’ll just vote straight Republican at 7:01 a.m. on November 7.

    nk (47858f)

  21. Sherrod Brown, Ned Lamont, Jim Webb…

    To Sherrod Brown, Ned Lamont, Jim Webb to the tune of $130k and all other Dems. I emailed a link to a few bloggers, not sure if I would post on it. Thus far, two have decided to pick it…

    Riehl World View (72c8fd)

  22. Patterico could pitch in with one of his demand-threads. I think we can all get behind this effort.

    Feel free to denounce Rogers, actus. aphrael did, and I didn’t even have to ask.

    Patterico (de0616)

  23. Frankly, I don’t care, didn’t care about Foley and his keyboard sex, but, the Democrats ran the scam the first time with some success, the second time is going to blow up in their faces.

    Fool me once, fool me twice … not a chance.

    If it weren’t for election fraud and voter fraud, Democrats may never win another election.

    bill (26027c)

  24. Patterico: Markos has influence over Democrat election strategy, sure. But the presence of a story on the front page of dKos is one thing; Markos pushing that as a matter of strategy is another, and i’m not sure it’s fair to assume that the one implies the other. Especially given the fact that the diary wasn’t posted by Markos or by someone who is known to be close to Markos.

    But Markos is only influential because of his web community. If Markos were a blogger with no diarist or commenters, he’d have no influence. The man isn’t especially pithy or clever.
    These are the people he’s build his reputation with. You see what they stand for, and if he denounces them we’ll see what he stands for.

    MayBee (8aec89)

  25. I don’t think actus will denounce it. If memory serves me right, he didn’t even have it in him to denounce Deb Frisch when she went psycho on Jeff Goldstein’s kid.

    So why should we expect this time to be any different?

    EFG (33db69)

  26. actus will say Mike Rogers has mental problems.

    Patterico (de0616)

  27. I have little sympathy with people who simultaneously (a) are gay and (b) publically denounce gay people as a class for political purposes.

    If those were the only two possibilities I might agree. Unfortunately, your statement is somewhat of a false dichotomy. There’s a lot of middle ground and “nuance” that you’ve missed with your limitation to the extremes. But are we arguing here that this is what gay republicans do? Isn’t it possible to be gay and still honestly believe that heterosexual marriage should be preferred as a matter of public policy or to simply espouse public policy that fairly represents your constituents’ views? Does a public person have to be “in your face” with your sexual orientation to avoid being labled as hypocritical? These politicians are, after all, representing constituents.

    As one who is a conservative and an evangelical Christian, and with what I believe to be a biblical view of sexuality (among other things), I hate to disappoint those engaged in the current leftist “outing” campaign but I vote for the man or woman based on their guiding principles as I understand them, not what they might or might not be doing in the privacy of their bedroom, which unless it involves children is NONE of my business. This whole campaign, ISTM, is based on a leftist misunderstanding of the conservative Christians in the republican base and I believe it will totally backfire.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  28. He will condemn the “wrongfulness” of his act based off whether or not Mike perceived the “wrongfulness” or his act.

    EFG (33db69)

  29. actus will say Mike Rogers has mental problems.

    Or, per #5, terrible and classless.

    actus (10527e)

  30. But you haven’t, have you?

    EFG (33db69)

  31. Trying to go after Larry Craig for his support for illegal immigration and his ties to growers that all but admit to hiring illegal aliens and that publicly whine for illegal alien labor was apparently too complicated for this guy.

    This is in line with everything the Dems have had to offer so far: just smears, no ideas.

    TLB (05c6a0)

  32. He will condemn the “wrongfulness” of his act based off whether or not Mike perceived the “wrongfulness” or his act.

    Why would I do that?

    actus (10527e)

  33. Just as I figured.

    EFG (33db69)

  34. Mike Rogers “outs” Senator Larry Craig…

    Lefty Blogger Outs Senator As Gay Patterico Outing specialist Mike Rogers has “outed” Senator Larry Craig as a closet homosexual. And he promises more to come. The Democrats want to make this an election about gay sex. And people say…

    Bill's Bites (72c8fd)

  35. actus, your comment #5 is incomprehensible gobbledygook.

    Patterico (de0616)

  36. Should we really have expected anything else?

    It was only an attempt to misdirect.

    EFG (33db69)

  37. actus, your comment #5 is incomprehensible gobbledygook.

    Oh. its terrible and classless that we be outing gay people in order to use them as examples of people who could benefit from equal rights for gays.

    actus (10527e)

  38. We?

    Still waiting for that denouncement…

    EFG (33db69)

  39. Still waiting for that denouncement…

    Its no so fun when you do it. Its patterico that really runs the demand threads well. C’mmon. Tell me how terrible and classless don’t cut it.

    actus (10527e)

  40. So say it.

    EFG (33db69)

  41. Say what Mike Rogers did was terrible and classless and you condemn his actions.

    EFG (33db69)

  42. No body is demanding anything of you, actus.

    This is something you have to offer of your own free will.

    Of your own accord.

    EFG (33db69)

  43. So say it.

    Terrible and classless. Sure. for the what? the fifth time?

    actus (10527e)

  44. [...] Mike Rogers, noted best buddy of AmericaBlog’s John Trichinosis, has decided, after having threatened for a long time to out allegedly homosexual Republicans unless they vote as he wants them to vote, to make good on his extortionist threats by alleging that Idaho’s Larry Craig is gay (go to the link for more, it’s being continuously updated). [...]

    Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Blog Archive » Liberal Gaybashing Continues (502642)

  45. You’ve got 800 plus comments on Kos about this outing of an allegedly gay Senator from Idaho. That’s 800 or so pissants in this world; they’ll bitch and moan about privacy when it comes to intercepting phone calls between the US and terrorists overseas, but privacy goes out the window when it’s convenient for them.

    I could care less if the Senator sleeps with sheep; (he’s apparently got a wife and kids and grandkids). But this kind of cheap political shop for a perceived advantage says more about the small moral compass of the outers–and the Kossack types who support the outing, than it does about the Senator from Idaho.

    Mike Myers (af249e)

  46. You still haven’t said it actus.

    Not even once.

    EFG (33db69)

  47. Good night actus.

    Over half an hour and comments go back and forth and you still won’t denounce it.

    EFG (33db69)

  48. [...] Patterico has the details here, with a link to the scumbag’s site. [...]

    SLEAZY ASSAULT ON SEN. CRAIG « Texas Hold ‘Em Blogger (26ab31)

  49. The GOP is the party that started this round of making homosexuality a political issue. They used it as a wedge issue in two election years (2004 and 2006), proposing what would have been the first amendment since Prohibition to reduce people’s rights.

    Sorry, but this isn’t about Democrats making this elections about gay sex; Republicans started this. Appealing to voters’ distaste for a minority is dirty pool, and when a closeted gay man supports these tactics, I say out him.

    Tommy (6a68a2)

  50. If a U.S. Senator was going to have a tryst — especially a gay tryst — would he really do it in the men’s room of one of the busiest places in D.C.? How would that thought process work, exactly? “It would totally wreck my career if people knew I was gay. And on that note, off to Union Station for a BJ.”

    Allah (bab333)

  51. Gay Terrorists…

    He’s no different than the Islamic terrorists… How can they demand legislation to prevent discrimination against gays when they themselves discriminate against them? …

    Sensible Mom (72c8fd)

  52. You never know, Allah. Some people get off on risky behavior. Not saying that’s this guy’s thing, because I know nothing about him.

    I’m just relishing the “Good Night and Good Luck” crowd explaining to themselves that it isn’t bad to invade Craig’s privacy because he’s a hypocrit.

    MayBee (8aec89)

  53. There’s nothing hypocritical about voting for the Defense of Marriage Act and being gay. Or bi. Or curious. The Mike Rogers’ of the world want straights supporting gay marriage rights liberated from stigma, scorn and slur. But gays are not allowed to consult their conscience without risking those same censures.

    Rogers wants people judged on how they treat others, not how they make love. An ideal he thinks can slide until more people are outed.

    steve (fd60b6)

  54. It’s really simple. The democ’rat party has admitted that they have no plan to better life for the American people so they resort to slime and slander, oh, and digging up names from the cemetary to vote for them. If it wasn’t for their criminal activity they wouldn’t get as many votes as the loser in a race for mayor in small town America.

    They will come up with two or three people to lie (if needed) and say the had homosexual sex with the Senator. Democ’rats are proficient at lying, just look at the slime ball Dirty Harry Reid.

    Scrapiron (71415b)

  55. So everyone here is so concerned about people’s privacy? What a crock of shit. All of you have absolutely zero problem imprisoning gay people for having sex in the privacy of their own bedrooms (i.e. by favoring the overturning of Lawrence v. Texas and reimposing sodomy laws).

    So as long as you favor regulating the private sex lives of gay people – don’t be surprised when gay people shine a spotlight on the hypocrites who support those laws (as Larry Craig does).

    And sex in a public place is NOT a private activity. Don’t want to be outed – then don’t have gay sex. It’s simple.

    Being gay is NOT a private thing. Would you be upset if someone outed you as being straight? There’s no difference.

    Downtown Lad (d1ab59)

  56. But gays are not allowed to consult their conscience without risking those same censures.

    Yes. Gays have the right to ‘protect traditional marriage’ like the rest of us. From the comfort of the closet.

    actus (10527e)

  57. Is being gay however voting no to gay marriage like being rich and voting for higher taxes for everyone else? Hypocrisy is part of the human condition, however to choose to decide to tell on someone something they have not chosen to tell is just hateful. Misery loves company.

    Rigthmom (c8d596)

  58. If a U.S. Senator was going to have a tryst — especially a gay tryst — would he really do it in the men’s room of one of the busiest places in D.C.? How would that thought process work, exactly? “It would totally wreck my career if people knew I was gay. And on that note, off to Union Station for a BJ.” – Allah

    It’s probably one the last places you’d troll. A made-up scenario concocted for maximum mongering.

    steve (fd60b6)

  59. Rigthmom – When did you choose to tell people you were straight? Or did people just figure it out.

    Well – looks like we just figured it out that Larry Craig is gay. But of course he’s part of the Barbershop Quartet – so it’s not like he didn’t announce to this to the world already.

    Don’t want to be outed – then don’t have gay sex. Because once you have sex with OTHER – it’s no longer your personal business. The four men who had sex with him were talking about THEIR sex lives. How dare you stop their right to free speech.

    Downtown Lad (d1ab59)

  60. I seem to be in the minority here but if a US Senator is really having sex in public restrooms then I definitely think it should be reported. Among other things isn’t this illegal?

    On the other hand if the story is an invention then that is despicable.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  61. Would you be upset if someone outed you as being straight? There’s no difference.

    No difference? Then why is Craig supposedly hypocritical for not supporting gays being a hate-crime protected group?
    Why would there even need to be a law protecting gay people from being fired because they are gay?

    If there is no difference between the way gay people and straight people are received, you shouldn’t be upset at most of Craig’s votes.
    He’s actually the one supporting the idea that gay people don’t need different protections than straight people.

    MayBee (8aec89)

  62. If the stories are false, as Craig states, then fine, let’s see if he sues Rogers. I doubt he will, because I’ll wager the stories are accurate. Apparently, Craig’s double life isn’t such a secret around Idaho’s politicos.

    And, good for Rogers. It’s not that someone who has sex with men, but claims otherwise, can’t vote against gay-friendly laws, its that the public should be able to see for themselves when someone has a voting record that’s hypocritical to their personal life. It’s like a black politician voting against pro-minority bills. In that case, it’s obvious what they’re doing. In Craig’s case, and other closeted politicians, it’s not.

    MyOwnNotsoPrivateIdaho (73fbde)

  63. “We have to face the fact that putting a homosexual in charge of AIDS policy is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse,” says Sprigg. “But even beyond that, the deferential treatment that was given not only to him but his partner and his partner’s family by the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is very distressing.” – Peter Sprigg, Family Research Council

    Yup – the conservatives aren’t homophobic at all. Not!

    Downtown Lad (d1ab59)

  64. “He’s actually the one supporting the idea that gay people don’t need different protections than straight people.” – Maybee

    Yeah right. Then why does he support hate crime laws for religious groups? Larry Craig supports laws that would imprison gay people for having sex in the privacy of their own home. That’s despicable. Out him!

    Downtown Lad (d1ab59)

  65. Patrick, why you put up with actus is beyond me. I’d have canned his ass a long time ago.

    antimedia (11f72e)

  66. Tommy, … proposing what would have been the first amendment since Prohibition to reduce people’s rights. I’m sorry, which rights were those being reduced? If you would be so kind to point me to the particular item in the Bill of Rights it would help me with my education on the subject.

    DL, All of you have absolutely zero problem imprisoning gay people for having sex in the privacy of their own bedrooms (i.e. by favoring the overturning of Lawrence v. Texas and reimposing sodomy laws). Huh? Virtually none of my evangelical Christian conservative friends espouses the viewpoint you’ve just picked from wherever you picked it from. It certainly didn’t come out of my thoughts, though you seem to suggest you can read them. The problem with Lawrence v. Texas was not with what was happening in bedrooms but whether various activist courts overstepped their constitutional authority in usurping this decision from the people of Texas to decide democratically.

    And from this you’ve decided that it would just make my day to imprison gay people? Talk about stereotypes.

    Being gay is NOT a private thing. Would you be upset if someone outed you as being straight? There’s no difference. Huh (again)? Of course being gay, or straight for that matter, is a private thing. I thought you just argued in the preceding paragraph that we have no business invading the privacy of someone else’s bedroom. Well, should we or shouldn’t we? So one’s sexual orientation is private when it suits you and “NOT private” when it suits you?

    And, yes, I would be perturbed if someone decided they needed to be concerned with my sexuality. I liked your first idea better than your second: it’s not anyone’s business, which is generally considered to be equivalent to “it’s personal.” You just can’t have this both ways.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  67. #62: Sue him? Read New York Times v. Sullivan. It’s impossible for a public official to bring a case for libel over something like this. The lying piece of garbage, Rogers, knows it and that’s why he’s doing it. There are no comebacks for him. He throws out the dirt, he’s a hero to the loonies whether it sticks or not, and nobody can do anything to him about it.

    nk (5e5670)

  68. Yeah right. Then why does he support hate crime laws for religious groups?

    You said there is no difference in being known to be gay or straight. I have no idea what that has to do with hate crimes for religious groups.

    For the record, I only wish we lived in a world where there is no stigma to being gay. We aren’t there yet. Your argument equating being known as gay to being known as straight is specious.

    MayBee (8aec89)

  69. MONPI, …its that the public should be able to see for themselves when someone has a voting record that’s hypocritical to their personal life. It’s like a black politician voting against pro-minority bills. In that case, it’s obvious what they’re doing.. Not really.

    Are you saying that black politicians must vote a certain way on a “pro-minority” bill? That seems rather condescending, perhaps even racist to me. Perhaps some “black politicians” might have enough intelligence to make a judgement call on whether a bill was good public policy as opposed to whether it merely catered to the interests of a particular racial group. Nah, too nuanced for their simple black minds I suppose.

    Poppycock. This whole hypocrite argument is specious. It’s simply a rationalization for publicizing that which by its very nature is and should be a private matter.

    DL, Yup – the conservatives aren’t homophobic at all. Not! Careful with the argument that one stupid sound bite from a single conservative impugns all conservatives. Does that argument work for the leftists also? Stereotypical blatantly political ad hominems aside, I will again assure you that this tactic won’t work with the preponderance of the republican base. But do keep up the good work energizing the republican get out the vote effort. It’s working.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  70. Yup – the conservatives aren’t homophobic at all. Not!

    And neither are the “liberals” who have been beating the “Gay men can’t be trusted around adolescent males” drum ala Foley, right?

    The sheer disengenuousness of the the gaybaiters and the so-called gay “rights” activities is breathtaking.

    Screaming “homophobe” at someone who questions the wisdom of redefining the public institution of marriage clearly demonstrates that the screamer is not interested in debate OR democracy…only getting his/her perks ala judicial fiat and SCREW the legislative process.

    No wonder the far-Left are apologists for every anti-Western totalitarian regime/ideology that comes down the pike.

    Darleen (03346c)

  71. typo — so-called gay “rights” activists

    Darleen (03346c)

  72. Hey he may in A Barbershp quartet but at least he wasn’t a male chearleader or something really gay like that. Leave the man alone.

    jerry (caff6d)

  73. Darleen, No wonder the far-Left are apologists for every anti-Western totalitarian regime/ideology that comes down the pike. how true.

    Unfortunately, the far left fails to understand that when the islamo-fascists win, among the first to be beheaded with be gay people, since the concept of tolerance is a largely western construct. Certainly not a tenant of radical islam. I don’t see much chance for same sex marriage under those conditions, but then I could be wrong.

    Did I neglect to mention that the feminists and the abortionists will be beheaded next. At this point the base of the modern democratic party will be pretty much decimated. Don’t see much future for the ACLU either.

    If I were a lefty I would pray daily, oops, bad choice of words, … I would think positive thoughts while hugging my favorite tree …, that the islamo-fascists are defeated.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  74. GAY! GAY! GAY!!!!!!!…

    Since it’s so close to Halloween, I thought I’d take a page from the Democrat playbook and scare y’all with the homersexshual. You know, cuz the Dems really seem to think that anyone to the right of them just must……

    Darleen's Place (1650a7)

  75. Actually, if he is having sex in public restrooms, I think that is within bounds to report. I don’t think anyone who does that should be a congressman. Too many possibilities for blackmail. (Which in this case already happened).

    fred (4d468e)

  76. [...] UPDATE: Others: Patterico, Confederate Yankee, Riehl World View, Captain's Quarters, [...]

    Blue Crab Boulevard » Blog Archive » Having Long Since Hit Bottom (a177fd)

  77. [...] Larry Craig, the US Senator from Idaho was “outed” on Ed Schulz’s show, apparently for not heeding Mr. Rogers “friendly” warning. According to Patterico (follow the links) Rogers has vowed to expose more and more Republicans who are gay as the days go on. A Democrat activist is making sexual orientation an issue, and the hatred spews…check this out. It’s along the same lines as calling a Black Republican “slavishly”. The lesson learned, of course, is don’t be a minority of any sort and disagree with a Democrat…they’ll make your life hell because they know what’s better for you than you do. God forbid a homosexual exists who doesn’t want marriage to be legal, or a black man who disagrees with affirmative action…they’re branded as race traitors, and “outed”. [...]

    The Stout Republican » Blog Archive » The Tolerant Left Strikes Again (2d8ea5)

  78. Hey fred

    Have you stopped molesting children yet?

    I mean, I have no proof, just some anonymous rumors, but you know, where there’s smoke….

    Darleen (03346c)

  79. Is this the Democrats “winning” election strategy?

    Christoph (9824e6)

  80. “Actually, if he is having sex in public restrooms, I think that is within bounds to report. I don’t think anyone who does that should be a congressman. Too many possibilities for blackmail.”

    Hmmm… what about sex in another public place — the oval office?

    Christoph (9824e6)

  81. Actually, if he is having sex in public restrooms, I think that is within bounds to report. I don’t think anyone who does that should be a congressman. Too many possibilities for blackmail.

    Sooo true. Anyone having sex outside of marriage shouldn’t be in politics. Too many possibilites for blackmail. I mean, you might think you are just having sex with the intern but she might be blabbing to a friend who’s recording the whole thing! Now that could lead to blackmail.
    Out, all you adulterers! Get out all you secret sex-having politicians! You are more dangerous to us than the non-existent terrorists!

    MayBee (8aec89)

  82. Christoph said:

    “Hmmm… what about sex in another public place — the oval office?”

    The oval office is not a public place like a public restroom since it is not open to the public.

    I agree with fred.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  83. The oval office is not a public place like a public restroom since it is not open to the public.

    It’s public as soon as someone besides the President is in it. Like a young intern or JFK’s prostitutes.

    MayBee (8aec89)

  84. The beautiful thing about this if it’s true is that people have been planted to supply Rogers with false information about physical characteristics of people so he’s going to claim this as proof that they have talked to their sex partners.

    And of course it’s going to be blown up in their faces.

    Steph (a90377)

  85. That slime ball is going to meet someone that knows the justice system is broken and the only true justice left comes in the form of a 240 Grain hollow point out of the end of a 44 Mag. Watch, it will happen. He’s too easy to find. If i’m on the jury it will at worst be a hung jury.

    [OK, this isn't a threat, exactly, so I'm not going to delete it -- but Jesus, Scrapiron. Avoid that kind of talk. I've warned you about this kind of thing before, and I mean it. I'll ban you if you can't refrain from saying stupid things like that that border on threats. -- Patterico]

    Scrapiron (71415b)

  86. James B

    Have you stopped beating your wife?

    Darleen (03346c)

  87. Scrapiron, who the hell are you talking about?

    Christoph (9824e6)

  88. I’ve been pretty disillusioned with the GOP of late and wasn’t planning on voting this fall. But with this trash combined with actus’ idiot rationalizations, I’ll be voting straight Republican.

    Jason (a2e765)

  89. Jason, your soldiers are on the battlefield. Do you think now is the time for Republican voters to have a fit and let Democrats take the Congress?

    Christoph (24f655)

  90. I just had sex with Nancy Pelosi. I thought I should take one for the team. I feel sooo….dirty, somehow. I’m a Republican after all. Isn’t this HYPOCRITICAL.

    I think I need to be outed.

    daleyrocks (bbbd35)

  91. Gay Avenger’s Blackmail Subject Identified (UPDATED)…

    Interesting to note about Rogers’ little outfest today. With his usual hyperbolic statements, Rogers let comments slip that identify this Senator as the one he was trying to blackmail to vote against Judge Alito’s confirmation. Obviously Rogers knew …

    Chickenhawk Express (59ce3a)

  92. Darleen, what kind of proof you need to report something is a different argument. Also ‘outing’ in general is different than ‘outing’ for having sex in public restrooms (although Rogers may have outed him regardless).

    fred (4d468e)

  93. Harry: of course it’s possible that closeted gay people who issue public denunciations of gay people are doing so out of a sense of principle; a point i’d like to make if I ever find the time to blog about this is that adopting positions which are harmful to your self-interest is often taken as a sign of being principled in other venues, so it seems odd that it would be automatically considered a sign of hypocricy when it comes to gay rights.

    However willing I am to admit that intellectually, though, it’s difficult for me to grasp emotionally the notion of a gay man taking a principled stand against, for example, laws protecting gay people from employment discrimination. And i’m more rational than most gay activists on the subject.

    aphrael (7d1ae6)

  94. Patterico: of course I denounced it. I view this sort of thing *very* personally.

    I was closeted until I was 27. The closet *sucks*; a more miserable existence is hard to imagine than one in which you are constantly afraid that everyone around you will find out some terrible secret of yours and suddenly desert you, leaving you alone. The feeling that all of your relationships are built on sand and will turn to dust if you let certain things be known is miserable.

    I’ve since come to recognize my tendency to be paralyzed by fear as a character flaw, a weakness I must work to overcome. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t empathize with the reasons that people stay in the closet; and involuntarily outing them for political purposes is just WRONG. Subjecting someone to one of their worst fears, without their consent, is simply abusing them.

    No matter what sins you think someone has committed, abusing them isn’t justifiable.

    aphrael (7d1ae6)

  95. However willing I am to admit that intellectually, though, it’s difficult for me to grasp emotionally the notion of a gay man taking a principled stand against, for example, laws protecting gay people from employment discrimination.

    How big of a problem does the US have with people getting fired because they are gay?

    A conservative is much less likely to build difficult-to-define employment protections into laws. Most white-collar workers can be fired for any reason, and a conservative is going to lean toward not creating certain groups of individuals that will be harder to fire than others. It is a conservative/liberal isue, not particularly a gay rights issue.

    MayBee (8aec89)

  96. I commend you in your courage to come out and be true to yourself, aphrael.

    Even if I completely disagree — “poontang” is all!

    I would so be lesbian if I was female. I almost am now.

    Christoph (9824e6)

  97. Here is proof that being a male heterosexual (or even female homosexual) is right. I mean, can anyone argue with this proof?

    Christoph (24f655)

  98. Actus:

    Democrats and their extremist left base wail constantly about homo “rights” and conservative “oppression,” but the only ones trying to harm queers are lefties. “Outing” Republican queers while protecting the far more numerous democrat queers is contemptible.

    you’re contemptible for excusing this travesty. If you had a conscience, this would bother you. Asswipe.

    Jeff Bargholz (62d4dd)

  99. Do you know how important an individual blog is with the thousands to choose from? It is of zero importance to any individual so when you read this you will no longer be in my bookmarks.

    Scrapiron (71415b)

  100. I think that will work out best for everyone.

    Patterico (de0616)

  101. Has Mike Rogers adopted a cool middle name yet to go with his self appointed status as guardian and ayotollah of the gay moral code? I was thinking something along the lines of “The Truth” or “The Way” for when he publishes his NY Times best seller telling gays how they must live their lives. The book, of course will be required reading in the gay community, guaranteeing Mike “The Way” Rogers that coveted best seller status, under threat of blackmail of as yet an undisclosed nature.

    daleyrocks (bbbd35)

  102. The Democratic Party: We will not rest until we find the gays in your midst.

    P.S.: On terrorists? Good luck with that.

    Also? Vote Democrats! Because if you vote for any other party, you’re cheating. Because the Diebolds are rigged. Unless the Democrats win, because that can only mean the people have spoken.

    Pawchikapawpaw (31c17e)

  103. [...] A Lefty weblogger thought it would be a good idea and smart political move to “out” Sen. Larry Craig [via Hot Air]. The Senator denies it. The Kos Kids think it’s cool to make one’s sexual orientation political fodder. [...]

    The American Mind / Charlie’s Show Prep #183 (dc94e7)

  104. Is ‘Outing’ Closeted Homosexuals Wrong?…

    Woe to the people running for and holding public office with big skeletons in their closets.
    Nothing is private or off limits or sacred.
    If there’s dirt to dish, somebody, somewhere will find it.
    If you run for public office, your private bu…

    La Shawn Barber's Corner (1b383c)

  105. Crapiron:

    Do you know how important an individual blog is with the thousands to choose from?

    Not too important, but more imporant than one puffed up reader with delusions of adequacy.

    It is of zero importance to any individual so when you read this you will no longer be in my bookmarks.

    Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.

    Xrlq (739fa7)

  106. Their own worst enemies…

    Attention, Democratic Party morons: Turn on the radio at 12:06 p.m. today, and listen as Rush Limbaugh does a victory dance on your thick little skulls. One gay Democrat blogger — by singlehandedly staging this year’s Wellstone memorial — has just h…

    Alabama Liberation Front (6ed3f8)

  107. aphrael, However willing I am to admit that intellectually, though, it’s difficult for me to grasp emotionally the notion of a gay man taking a principled stand against, for example, laws protecting gay people from employment discrimination. I believe MayBee has it about right in his second paragraph #95.

    There is also arguably the point to be made that all of these politicians represent a large number of voters, not simply those with whom they share a particular sexual orientation. My second point was that it’s simply their job to represent everyone. Of course this may even cause them to be personally conflicted on a particular issue.

    Unfortunately I think there is a tendency with those who disagree on these issues to stereotype and impugn the motives of these people who serve in Congress without actually being able to even know the motivation behind the votes.

    I do know this much: All people should be treated with dignity and respect. As long as one’s sexual orientation is an appropriate subject for public discussion, I don’t believe this will be the case. I certainly don’t believe that “outing” others is in any way respectful or dignified. Therefore, my opinion is that this is a private matter that does not belong in the public square.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  108. Rogers has his reasons to out people in political life and they are logical for the cause he espouses. Should it be done? Well, if you choose to make yourself into a public figure by entering politics, I don’t think a person should be surprised, if they are a closeted gay, if they are outted.

    Now just this last weekend a minister at the LIberty Sunday meeting in Boston called for all gay men in the (republican) party to come out of the closet. And it would seem that he meant not just congessmen and senators, but staffers, researchers and other associated with the party.

    So it seems you have half the party calling for outtings and the other half (as seen above) deriding it.

    Lij (2fab13)

  109. That slime ball is going to meet someone that knows the justice system is broken and the only true justice left comes in the form of a 240 Grain hollow point out of the end of a 44 Mag.

    You shouldn’t talk this way about a senator.

    Democrats and their extremist left base wail constantly about homo “rights” and conservative “oppression,” but the only ones trying to harm queers are lefties.

    Thus the popularity of all the gay hate amendments among lefties who want to harm “queers.”

    actus (10527e)

  110. [...] A liberal blogger who has taken it upon himself to be the Republican gay police is claiming Senator Larry Craig is a closet homosexual. Patterico has the details on this disgusting tactic that surely must backfire on the scumbags who are employing these tactics. [...]

    TimChapmanBlog.com » Blog Archive » Liberal blogger continues slander streak (acd9fb)

  111. [...] Allah: Patterico expects a backlash. So do I. In fact, I haven’t felt this motivated to vote in weeks. [...]

    MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Nutroots “gay terrorist” Mike Rogers and “Screw ‘em” Kos want you to stay home on November 7 (1b383c)

  112. Lij, Now just this last weekend a minister at the LIberty Sunday meeting in Boston called for all gay men in the (republican) party to come out of the closet. And it would seem that he meant not just congessmen and senators, but staffers, researchers and other associated with the party.

    So it seems you have half the party calling for outtings and the other half (as seen above) deriding it. So one “minister” equals “half the party”? Really?

    I would argue that the preponderance of the republican party, and certainly the preponderance of the base, believes this is a private issue best chosen by the individual. That’s the position that recognizes and respects the dignity and humanity of the individual making the choice. It is nothing short of condescending arrogance to suggest that any individual should make these decisions for others.

    I’m left wondering how it is that those who proclaim that they believe in “choice” don’t allow the option for gay people, of whatever party. I agree that this is about to become another Wellstone moment for the electorate as the left exposes its true attitudes about people who happen to be gay.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  113. So one “minister” equals “half the party”? Really?

    Hey, at least he doesn’t equal the entire party, like Mike Rogers does. But I do sympathize for you.

    actus (10527e)

  114. actus, Hey, at least he doesn’t equal the entire party, like Mike Rogers does. Nice one liner, but I don’t believe I’ve made that point, nor do I believe that Mike Rogers speaks for the entire democratic party. Perhaps you conflated my generalization of the term “leftist” with the “democratic party.” I understand the distinction might be easy to miss these days …

    In my case, however, in #69 I even asked the rhetorical question of DL whether the “one represents all” argument can be applied to leftists as well as conservatives, and cautioned against generalizations, so in context I don’t believe that I have made the argument myself. As is the case with conservatives saying stupid things, leftists do also, and the voting public will naturally tend to see this in a generalized manner, just as they erroneously see Jerry Falwell or James Dobson as representations of conservative Christians in general, and just as they saw the Wellstone “memorial” service as an over-reaching moment on the part of democrats in general.

    Having said that, there does seem to be a lack of general distaste on the left for condeming the sort of actions undertaken by the likes of Mike Rogers as long as republicans are his target. Of course there are exceptions and of course one cannot rationally generalize the “lack of distaste” but the general silence and even acquiessence in the “outings” is arguably telling. And I might add that leftists do generally engage in mind reading exercises in which they determine the evil motives of those with whom they disagree politically.

    But I do sympathize for you. No need to sympathize with me. I am simply making a humanitarian and libertarian argument that we ought to treat each other with respect and dignity, including those whose sexual orientation , political views, or pigmentation might differ from mine. I see no need to either apologize for that nor do I feel a need for sympathy. If the sympathy is for me as a conservative, in that the ox of republicans is being gored by these “outings”, none is required there either, since this will undoubtedly be an over-reach by these individuals on the leftist side of the political spectrum that will almost certainly backfire on those with whom they share common political leanings, i.e., democrats.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  115. [...] Gay thug is at it again, read the rest at Patterico’s Pontifications. Apparently Gay Thug is flying about the country looking for anyone who says that they met a gay republican in a mens room. [...]

    Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense » Blog Archive » Gay thug at it again (ca15f9)

  116. Golly gosh, I don’t know which part of this kerfluffle is better: Democrats misunderestimating conservative Christians (guess they think Jesus Camp represents all conservative Christians) or that the party that decried clinton’s impeachment as being “about sex” and that “sex is a private matter” seem to be, well, OBSESSED with sex…as long as one of the participants is a Republican.

    This election is looking up!

    sharon (dfeb10)

  117. sharon, when your sole idea is “we hate Bush, elect us and we’ll do better”, then sex is pretty much all that’s left.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  118. [...] 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. [...]

    Sister Toldjah » The ‘outting’ of Republican Senator Larry Craig (1466f5)

  119. [...] Hot Air » Blog Archive – Mike Rogers “outs” Senator Larry Craig as gay Three kids, nine grandkids. Supposedly spending his leisure time in the men’s room at Union Station. Which Rogers claims he knows because he’s corroborated Craig’s “personal characteristics” with four of his alleged paramours. [...]

    186k Per Second - » Why is it only the Democrats and Progressives are yelling about Gay Politicians? (14eee5)

  120. Daily Kos already has a diary on this that is linked on the front page

    As Patterico says, it was linked. But just to be clear, it was not a front page article at Kos. It was a “recommended diary”, which just means lots of Kossacks clicked a recommend button for it. Surpisingly, it is already no longer recommended.

    As for 70% of Kossacks approving of outing gay Republicans, am I the only one so cynical to be surpised that that number is so low?

    Crust (399898)

  121. To give some sense of what the other 30% of Kossacks think here is I think a thoughtful comment:

    Then why are gay hypocrites attacked with so much more virulence than all the other hypocrites? It may be that some people are actually attacking the hypocrite part, but I would wager that in the minds of the many, the idea is to get republican voters not to vote for him because he is gay, not because he is a hypocrite. And if that’s the case, isn’t that just a little…what’s the word…hypocritical?

    Crust (399898)

  122. While Mr Rogers’ “outing” of Senator Craig (whether true or false) is repugnant, I have taken the position that all politicians must be truthful and specific about this.

    Ignoring Senator Craig for the moment, since we don’t know whether Mr Rogers’ claims are true or false, look at Mark Foley. There were rumors he was homosexual when he first ran for Congress, and then again when he considered a Senate run; naturally, he denied them.

    But this means he was lying to his constituents, right from the get-go. How ethical is it for someone to present himself to the voters as heterosexual when he knows it is a lie? Mr Foley started his congressional career with a huge lie!

    Now, look where that led.

    It might be true that a candidate who tells his prospective constituents that he is homosexual will have less of a chance of winning; so what? If winning is so important that it must be based on a pretty fundamental lie, then you are seeing a candidate who cares more about himself and his prospective career than he does about the country and the people he is asking to serve, and that, to me, is fundamentally disqualifying.

    Mr Rogers is a scumbag, no doubt about that; were he set on fire, I wouldn’t urinate on him to put it out. But if his claim is accurate (and Senator Craig has denied it, but in the cases of other politicians he has exposed, some have been correct), then Senator Craig would have set himself up for such by not being honest from the very beginning.

    Way back in the early 1980s, I was processed for a security clearance. I was (and still am) married, and I was asked very bluntly about whether I had ever cheated on my wife or whether I had ever had any homosexual encounters. The reason was obvious and simple: had such been true, and were I unwilling to disclose them, I would have been blackmailable. Were such true, and I did disclose them to the people who would be affected, I would not have been blackmailable, and thus it would not have been an issue for a clearance.

    The same is certainly true for elected officials: if they are homosexuals, and keep it a secret, they are setting themselves up for what Mr Craig has suffered, at the very least, and possibly blackmail.

    Dana (3e4784)

  123. Dana, I don’t think Foley ever claimed to be heterosexual, he just refused to answer the question which is fair enough. So no hypocrisy there. (Obviously he’s still a scumbag for the page stuff.)

    Crust (399898)

  124. Why would he feel the need to hide his homosexuality? I wonder. Could it be the party he’s a member of, and it’s willingness to pander to gay-bashing conservatives?

    It’s just a thought.

    Xanthippas (a4855e)

  125. Idaho, you’re kidding right?

    If i’m black and vote against affirmative action, i’m white? Because if I thought black kids should hit the books like everyone else instead of treated like they’re incapable of learning?

    If I voted for Voter IDs am I anti-black, or should I vote against them because people think blacks are incapable of having enough sense to get ID… and want someone else to pay for it? Do you know in NYC, if you’re pulled aside on the street and have no ID you’re toast? Every citizen of this country should want only citizens voting, period.

    These types are the same ones who moan about jobs going to illegals, hence taking their jobs away, yet support dems who dropped victim one for illegal voters (the new civil rights movement)… hence no voter IDs.

    Country comes first. I never cease to be surprised that the party who never holds their members accountable (no ethics rules against it’s members), demands so much from those who do.

    Till this day I haven’t seen proof of the IMs actually coming from Foley (maybe I missed it)… I have seen the altered emails though. He resigned so obviously something was up, but where’s the proof?

    I know… it’s for the children, hence they held the info for two years… so concerned; The same children the dems push sex in the classroom for… Who need a parents signature for an aspirin but should have privacy if a twelve year old wants to get an abortion; The same party that extols Ginsburg for saying same 12 year olds should have sex. This is the party to bring values and morals back to the hill? I remember when Studds was applauded and reelected several times… that was okay?

    Now this clown goes on radio to out yet another person with ‘anonymous sources’, how would anyone here feel about that being done to them? I know two people that killed themselves when outed… did anyone think about that?

    If they think gays don’t see this as bashing, they’re totally wrong. And they wonder why the DCCC had to take out a loan for candidates.
    The socialists/communists need to go to the appropriate countries… and feel the acceptance.

    They want more privacy for terrorists and porn kings than Americans. Equal but special… Their way or the highway.

    Mike Rogers… thank you for Wellstone 2006.

    Ali (c3e71e)

  126. [...] This morning I couldn’t stop thinking about the news that Mike Rogers “outs” Senator Larry Craig. This scares the crap out of me because they are going back to the mentality of a witch hunt or lynching… this is only the first step. [...]

    StuntShack.com » Morning Coffee (3979c6)

  127. It is specious to pretend public figures have privacy in their sex lives. When you engage in sexual activity wiith another person, your actions become an advertisable fact. That is recognized by our defamation laws, and for good reason. The public’s right to know about public figures is not cordoned off to their criminal or job-related activities. Any pretense that it is long gone.

    As for Rogers, assuming his sources are real, he is engaged in dirty political maneuvers. He’s out of bounds of good taste, but within his rights. You can’t ascribe it to the Democratic party no matter how many commenters showed up in Kos.

    biwah (2dcf66)

  128. i pay a lot to support this government. it isn’t very responsive to my wishes. both parties have lost their way. right now, the republicans are more dangerous than the democrats. sodomy on the street corner doesn’t scare me as much as christocorporate fascism. some days, all i can hope for in return for my money is a laugh, so i take it eagerly. this is pretty funny.
    “senator craig is gay.” really? allegations of this nature are not self-authenticating. three children weigh against it in the record, but they are, of course, not entirely determinative. it’s just one blogger claiming four correspondents who, if they exist, all said something like “senator craig has a birthmark shaped like a scarab beetle three inches away from his penis at 11 o’clock.” the senator is unlikely to drop his pants on tv to confirm or disprove this. did you know anybody can be a blogger?
    i don’t care if he’s gay or not, i just want his party out of power. there’s plenty of hypocrisy around for two parties. as a libertarian, i applauded the texas case that went to the u.s. supreme court and conferred constitutional protection on private, consensual sodomy between adults, but this wasn’t enough for the gays, they immediately pressed for legal marriage. naturally the electorate was inflamed, and the republicans played the trailer park evangelicals like a cello.
    gayness is just the flavor of outrage for today. when i was very young, it was communism, but you don’t get traction anymore by calling somebody a communist. i didn’t decide for it to be this, it just gradually took shape while i was gardening and fishing. what will succeed this? i dunno, maybe something involving tieing the ears of rabbits together in knots, and if i were running a campaign against a republican senator, yes, i would photoshop a bunny into the incumbent’s pic for the greater good of my country.

    assistant devil's advocate (993dc4)

  129. I’ve Had My Share of the Outing Game…

    First there are snitches.
    Then there are lies.
    And, then before you know where you are, you’re being outed by a gay gangster who claims he knows people who caught you with your Senatorial pants down in the men’s room at Union Station with……

    Mary Katharine Ham (95d97e)

  130. ada:

    there’s plenty of hypocrisy around for two parties. as a libertarian, i applauded the texas case that went to the u.s. supreme court and conferred constitutional protection on private, consensual sodomy between adults, but this wasn’t enough for the gays, they immediately pressed for legal marriage. naturally the electorate was inflamed, and the republicans played the trailer park evangelicals like a cello.

    I agree with this narrative on how we got here.

    biwah (2dcf66)

  131. Another closeted homosexual outed?…

    I think the indignation over Mr Rogers’ nasty tactics misses the point. Sis is absolutely right about what she wrote, but the problem that I see is one of honesty between politicians and their constituents.

    ……

    Common Sense Political Thought (819604)

  132. Outings…

    Since when is it acceptable behavior for someone to go around and out people of the opposing political party for their sexual preferences? Is this even relevant to the matters of the day? And why should Senators have to go around denying these rumors…..

    A Blog For All (59ce3a)

  133. It is specious to pretend public figures have privacy in their sex lives. even presidents?

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  134. Well, Democratic presidents, anyway….

    Lurking Observer (ea88e8)

  135. 133 & 134:

    Predictable, yet inane. Nice.

    biwah (2dcf66)

  136. The first comment seals it for me.

    Rogers is despicable as are all the pundits of bullshit – on either side of the political spectrum – who do nothing but obscure what’s significant with this type of faux invesgative bullshit.

    He needs to fins something better to do with his time.

    cooper (9592d7)

  137. cooper:

    I’ll buy that.

    biwah:

    So, Democratic President’s sexual escapades are beyond question (it’s just about sex, lying is natural), but for congresscritters, it is specious to pretend public figures have privacy in their sex lives.

    But whether George HW Bush had been having an affair was fair game when he was running for President. And I’m sure that if there were an outing of a Democratic congressman, you’d be saying the same thing about it being specious?

    Inane? Or simply double-standard?

    Lurking Observer (ea88e8)

  138. Democratic President’s sexual escapades are beyond question

    WHERE have I stated this?

    biwah (2dcf66)

  139. Anyway LO, my overall point is that it doesn’t matter what you or I think is appropriate. The public sphere is rought and tumble. Each side tries to draw a line based on whatever standards of civility are relevant at that moment, but can’t adhere to them if it means passing on a character assassination. So what we have, de facto, is not much gentility in the public sphere regarding the privacy of public figures.

    That’s why your outrage is either insincere or ineffectual. I’m not saying I don’t share it at some level.

    biwah (2dcf66)

  140. Live by the sword, die by the sword. How’s that “San Francisco Democrat” sound bite working out, anyway?

    If Larry Craig had spent his career behaving as though people’s private sexual behavior was irrelevant politically, I’d have sympathy for him.

    But instead, he’s been a malignant gay-basher, playing on the bigotry of conservatives to accumulate power for himself.

    Serves you homophobes right.

    Here’s a hint: if you don’t want people’s sexual preference to BE a political issue, if you don’t want appeals to anti-gay prejudice to be used as a politcal weapon…

    THEN STOP USING ANTI-GAY PREJUDICE AS A POLITICAL WEAPON, AND STOP MAKING PEOPLE’S SEXUAL ORIENTATION A POLITICAL ISSUE.

    Until then, don’t be suprised if your years of lying down with bigotted dogs causes you to wake up with the occasional fles.

    joe (41b41f)

  141. 133 & 134:

    Predictable, yet inane. Nice. Just looking for some consistency in your specious argument. I’m thinking this is about doing what it takes to obtain political power, not at all about the public’s “right to know” whether their representatives are “living a lie” by failing to disclose, among other things, their sexual orientation.

    But then I could be wrong …

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  142. I Know All I Want To Know About the Outing Game…

    First there are snitches.
    Then there are lies.
    And, then before you know where you are, you’re being outed by a gay gangster who claims he knows people who caught you with your Senatorial pants down in the men’s room at Union Station with……

    Mary Katharine Ham (95d97e)

  143. Moving from

    Outing specialist Mike Rogers has “outed” Senator Larry Craig as a closet homosexual.
    And he promises more to come.

    to

    The Democrats want to make this an election about gay sex.

    is a howling non sequitur.

    Not sure how I feel about outing in general, but Joe’s comments at 9:51 seem apposite.

    liver (2c0c13)

  144. the very instant someone says that gay people are not as worthy as straight people or even hint/ allude to that effect , they are fair game.
    hypocrisy is killing america

    jim (42a385)

  145. I agree 100%. The hypocritical dems are wrong again. I don’t care if my Republican Senator rapes babies and runs a teen prostitution ring, I would still vote for him over some pansy liberal. Keeping conservatives in control is ALL that matters. We can’t afford to let this country slip away.

    Proud Republican in Oklahoma

    Gary in Ok (25f7be)

  146. Perhaps I am missing the point of this insanity… is this Rodger’s guy saying that a person’s sexual preference makes them competent / incompetent as a Representative of the people – or is he just trying to make people look bad by supposedly outing them? (Which returns to my original question…) Or isn’t it allowed for someone to be gay and republican? If Craig isn’t gay, doesn’t this make Rodgers look more asinine for lying? I can’t see where anyone would want this jerkoff outing anyone else…

    ethne (7c07f4)

  147. You guys are something….you switch your convictions based on what your political party does. Give me a break. Making the elections about gay sex: what the hell was the last election about–gay marriage.

    And if this had been a democrat, the whole Clinton and sexual corruption in the white house would be an issue.

    I say continue to vote Republican. And when, as it has to some degree already, your quality of life declines, don’t complain.

    kathy (437d3a)

  148. kathy, in general we’ve reacted consistently across the political spectrum on this issue. One only need read through the posts to understand that.

    I will continue to vote republican not because I agree with them on every issue, I don’t, but because I believe the alternative is bad for our security. Just to relieve your concern, my quality of life hasn’t declined in the slightest nor do I expect it to unless we end up with endless congressional investigations, another impeachment and precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, hence my decision to vote republican again.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  149. you switch your convictions based on what your political party does. Give me a break.

    Ok, take five minutes. But I would rather see people vote in line with their convictions, rather than by strict party lines.

    And when, as it has to some degree already, your quality of life declines, don’t complain.

    As it has already? I think mine is better with the current administration. If yours isn’t, I’m sorry to hear it. I will continue to vote mostly Republican though, thanks. I do reserve the right to complain about things I disagree with, no matter who wins. If the GOP wins and screws up, you’ll hear me complain plenty. If the Dems win and screw up, you’ll probably hear more. It’s called civil discourse when you complain with respect, whether you won or lost. Ranting at people with baseless accusations (“You guys are something….you switch your convictions based on what your political party does.”) is called something else.

    Stashiu3 (168d43)

  150. “But instead, he’s been a malignant gay-basher, playing on the bigotry of conservatives to accumulate power for himself.”

    How did he “bash” gays?

    sharon (dfeb10)

  151. [...] P.S. Of course, some not-insignificant bloggers are fanning the flames without even stopping to ask themselves whether it’s true. Probably the worst single headline belongs to Patrick Frey: Lefty Blogger Outs Senator As Gay [...]

    A Tree Falls in the Forest at Blog P.I. (d5399d)

  152. Somehow I REALLY don’t think Hillary Clinton wants to spend the rest of this campaign talking about politicians’ sex lives! I look for Mr. Rogers to get shut down very quickly now. He was used to get Mark Foley. Now he is hurting the cause. He will learn how quickly the Clintons turn on those they use.

    momof2 (fbd1c7)

  153. Oh yeah, and you liberals are going to have some fun when the news about Jim Webb’s affair with a Naval Academy midshipwoman and sexual harrassment of a lobbyist hit the papers. After all, as biwah said, “It is specious to pretend public figures have privacy in their sex lives. When you engage in sexual activity wiith another person, your actions become an advertisable fact. “

    momof2 (fbd1c7)

  154. I do not have a problem with his liking other men, but he was showing awful taste in using the Union Station men’s room. For those of you who are in Idaho, Union Station is a railroad station within walking distance of the Senate offices on Capitol Hill. Cheap, sleazy and rather ridiculous. I would out him for using Union Station even if he had taken his wife there.

    dd (b8978d)

  155. hey, halfwit:

    Won any cases lately without having the judge make your case for you, you talentless incompetent moron?

    What’s the matter, you afraid they’re going to “out” you for all that “going down” on your superiors you do to keep your job?

    Watching a drooler like you try to make yourself out as something vaguely human is funny as hell, you pathetic, illiterate, incompetent. No wonder the only job you could ever find was working for the LA District Attorney, the biggest collection of morons in the State of California.

    As far as your hypocrisy over the issue of outing someone for their sexual activities, remind me what you were doing 8 years ago, you worthless piece of far right bullshit????

    [The fringe left, ladies and gentlemen. Enjoy! -- P]

    T.M. Cleaver (44f9e5)

  156. As someone who is gay, I do not agree with publically outing anyone. People need to decide on their own terms if and when they want to let others know about their sexuality.

    Charles (ebfaec)

  157. #157 T.M. Cleaver

    Meat, (may I call you Meat? I know it’s a bit familiar, but I feel a certain understanding of you already… what can I say? You’re just that type of gay.. ummm, guy)

    Ignoring trollish behavior.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  158. Patterico- Who understands how the KOS site works? There is a numbering system for each comment such as Plus27- minus-0.
    Do you know what it is?
    I thought it was positive comments-Plus
    Negative comments-Minus
    There is a story here. And the story is…
    Anyboby want to try?

    rm (33e430)

  159. The Beaver (#157) is back. Where have you been? Writing more movies tax losses?

    nk (d5dd10)

  160. I almost forgot that Mr. Cleaver (his real name) has graced us with his presence here before. Who can forget this comment?

    Go f*ck yourself, you ignorant piece of sh*t.

    Why am I unsurprised that some halfwit goosestepper-wannabee who was probably chased home from school every day for being the kind of dweeb in desperate need of being kicked would find that the only job he could get was Assistant District Attorney in Los Angeles – a sinkhole of incompetence one can see daily in the reports of how you numbskulls screw the pooch – the only way you win your cases is with coaching from the former persecutor who buttf*cked enough politicians to become the judge.

    And I’m not using your bullsh*t “anonymity” here either.

    Do us all a favor and be the guest of honor at a single car fatality, you incompetent f*ckwit.

    I edited out the profanity.

    Here is how I responded at the time:

    Actually, Deputy D.A. is not the only job I could get. I was a clerk to a federal judge and an associate at the L.A. office of a large New York law firm before I decided to take a nearly six-digit pay cut to take a job serving the public and putting criminals away.

    When I accepted the Deputy D.A. position, I turned down offers from major law firms including O’Melveny and Myers and Irell and Manella.

    Just in the interest of factual accuracy. Because I know that concerns you.

    While I haven’t risen quite as high as you — a writer of soft-porn films with no writing credits for the past nine years — I am perfectly content with my career.

    I am sure it comes as no surprise to you that your comments are not welcome here. But I am leaving the one above, with the profanity lightly edited, as an example of the nastiness of many on the fringe left.

    I’m pretty happy with that response and see no need to change it.

    But I don’t understand what’s wrong with my spam filter. This clown wasn’t supposed to be getting through. Tech support!!

    Patterico (de0616)

  161. I went to the Kos site and read most of the sites comments regardoing The Rogers’s outing and can’t get over how sad and unfair our politics has become.
    On one hand I want to reach out and help.. And on the other hand I want to to the washroom and wash my hands because there is no point reaching out, I have tried hundreds of times.

    hangover (33e430)

  162. I detect the kind of bitterness that only comes from the smell of defeat.

    M. Simon (676c00)

  163. hangover,

    I’m an anti-prohibtionist kind of guy.

    Every time I try to reach out to the left on that issue I get my hand smacked.

    I’m voting straight Republican. Right down the ticket.

    Despite this:

    Do Republicans support drug prohibition because it finances criminals or because it finances terrorists?

    Republican Socialism. Price supports for criminals and terrorists.

    ==============

    Now there is a real issue. Naturally the Democrats won’t touch it.

    M. Simon (676c00)

  164. #160 rm
    The numbering system may be the actual number of people of registered users who “feel positively” about the post.
    If that is so, I am amazed! Not one person after the first person who rates has had the balls to score his/her post any differently.
    Anybody here taken the time to become a registered user?
    I must say there were a few posters who recognized the line being crossed vis-a-vis privacy.

    hangover (33e430)

  165. M.Simon
    I’m glad you asked! While feeding the criminal class and supporting the terror/facists there exists a more immediate reason for prohibition, imho.
    First let me say this.. While I believe I know where you are coming from, I can not be sure.
    Do You understand that our two party system is the only one that will work?
    Do you regard Chavez and li’l kim ill to be one and the same?

    hangover (33e430)

  166. M.Simon#164
    Was that directed at one who, having tried hundreds of times to engage liberals has nothing to show for it but lawsuits and sirens? Was the “bitterness that only comes from defeat” comment directed to me?
    No, you would be wrong. I won most of my bouts with liberal PC nonsence. I lost a lot too, family who won’t listen to anything but NPR in the mor. Family and friends who believe CNN is an honest delivery of the news.
    But on another track, yes, I’ve become less patient but more discerning. I used to hang out with that crowd.

    hangover (33e430)

  167. hangover,

    I took his comments as referring to Meat (T.M. Cleaver), but I could be wrong.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  168. Where I’m coming from: I have researched the issue and believe drug use is a symptom of pain.

    Just as insulin use is a symptom of some forms of diabetes.

    Is Addiction Real?

    And no Chavez is not the same as li’l kim.

    Li’l Kim has nicer tits. And she is a woman. Say maybe we aren’t talking about the same li’l kim.

    I don’t see how the subject of the two party system came up. I don’t understand where you are coming from.

    BTW the NIDA says that drug use is in part genetic and part environmental. Now I don’t favor genetic persecution any more than I favor enriching terrorists and criminals.

    Say. Do they still teach alcohol prohibition in schools?

    Despite all that I’m still voting straight Republican.

    AS I said. There are real issues the Dems could use to beat the Republicans. They won’t use any of them.

    M. Simon (676c00)

  169. #165 RE: Republican Socialism. Price supports for criminals and terrorists. Now there Is a real issue.
    I have a friend who was busted for posession of a gunnysack full of peyote and did time. He seems to have adjusted all right but at the time he was totally crushed. So was I. I’ve not been a fan of the drug laws and have been a vocal opponent as well.
    And I spent time in the innercity and have seen what the dealers have made of their neighborhoods.

    hangover (33e430)

  170. 169,

    Yes. The defeat comment was directed at Cleaver.

    I just got a push poll tonight re: Don Manzulo from his Dem opponent whose name I still can’t remember.

    I told the sucker I was voting straight R this time although I had voted Bush/Obama in ’04.

    This idiot at first thought Obama was a Republican because I had mentioned Bush’s name. Despite the fact that I said I split my ticket in ’04. Keyes polled 15 points below Bush. I helped make that happen.

    BTW the drug war stuff is for any Dem who is smart enough to pick it up. Although my guess is that the dope dealers pump a lot of $$$ into the Dems to keep dope illegal.

    Just look at the El Rukan and Blackstone Ranger scandals from many years back in Chicago. Then imagine that going on all around the country.

    I wonder if the District Attny offices around the country are checking on the political donations of the various gangs.

    M. Simon (676c00)

  171. Any way. I’m going to bed. I’ll answewr any new questions when I get up.

    Simon

    M. Simon (676c00)

  172. I was not expecting a coherant reply as I had just come from the daily chaos, and yes lil kim has nicer tits but didn’t she get tagged for having used a gun at a niteclub?
    Two party question/comment was posed before I took your post about voting straight R in Nov.
    I can tell already I won’t be able to keep up with you as I type 25wpm and juggle three remotes, twp phones, two dogs, two legal addictions and the whole thing would come to a screeching halt if I …Damnit
    My Bic is fft!

    hangover (33e430)

  173. 170I
    I don’t know why the losing dems don’t make a run at the drug issue. Clinton had eight years, no necessary war yet he chose to try and force gays into the military.

    hangover (33e430)

  174. ada

    they immediately pressed for legal marriage. naturally the electorate was inflamed, and the republicans played the trailer park evangelicals like a cello.

    So, the only people who question the wisdom, and consequences, of redefining marriage are gap-toothed, incestuous trailer park white trash?

    No bigotry there, ada, none at all.

    Darleen (03346c)

  175. M.Simon
    The reason republicans keep the legalization issue buried is that they think that by keeping it illegal they are keeping it away from kids, drawing boundaries etc.
    Take the inner-city for an example. No, take the suburbs. By prohibiting the use of drugs the family is strensthened. That is the arguement. Now, you and I know there are many deaths associated with alcohol abuse and the opposite can’t be said for cannibis but for the whole punishment and incarcerration machine to get it at the same time would be a miracle.
    And where do you idraw the line? At Education. Really I’d have thought that by now and in a time of war against facists who cross our borders to kill us, a state of emergency ruling concerning drug use and education would be a no brainer.

    hangover (33e430)

  176. So, the only people who question the wisdom, and consequences, of redefining marriage are gap-toothed, incestuous trailer park white trash?

    Just on the inside.

    actus (10527e)

  177. It’s not about “gay” it’s about “character”. Don’t cons get it?

    Craig wasn’t outed because of him being gay, it’s because he’s a hypocrite. He’s played the anti-gay card to his political advantage for years. Live by the sword, die by the sword. What’s wrong with that?

    Workfaster (9e4cdc)

  178. Workfaster

    I’ll keep the words simple, so maybe you’ll answer where so many of your fellow leftcultbots haven’t.

    What evidence do you have that Craig is

    1. Gay
    2. Engaged in public sex
    3. “played the anti-gay card”
    4. hypocrite

    EVIDENCE. As in proveable fact.

    do you enjoy being Mikey’s play tool?

    Darleen (03346c)

  179. First, please stop referring to him as gay when the only one claiming it is a sleaseball with (supposedly) four witnesses.

    Second, I will join the many other posters who really don’t care whether he is or isn’t gay. The stereotype of homophobic conservatives is untrue and Dems know it, they just don’t care.

    Third, he has fairly represented his constituents wishes. No matter his orientation, the majority of his district wants him to vote as their representative. If some of those votes are not in line with the radical gay community, he can still vote as his constituents desire, which may correspond with his personal convictions. If I don’t think the military needs more funding and am asked that question, it is not being hypocritical to answer against the military’s interests, even though I’m part of the organization.

    Fourth, any smear of hypocrisy at this stage is a reprehensible political ploy and I would condemn it being done by anyone. It’s extortion at best.

    Finally, do you really want Dems tactics used against them and considered fair? Both sides have bad apples… but Repubs have a bushel, Dems have an orchard. You need to think these things through instead of just reading the talking points at Kos and then coming here to pee on the carpet.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  180. Darleen: Good questions.

    1. I’m taking it on Mike’s report. He’s been accurate before and I have no doubt he’s incorrect this time.
    2. Same as above.
    3. Craig played the “anti gay card”…
    * Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
    * Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
    * Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
    * Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
    * Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
    Source: http://www.govote.com/Senate/Larry_Craig.htm#Civil_Rights

    4. He’s a hypocrite if he’s gay/bisexual and voted as shown above.

    Thanks
    -WF

    Workfaster (9e4cdc)

  181. By the way, why are so many of you cons foaming at the mouth about this? This has nothing to do with the elections you’re all so worked up about. Craig isn’t even on the ballot this year, so calm down. I live here in Idaho, and this clown represents my state. (Yes, he was a clown even before this news was announced.)

    I can’t believe the reaction on this board. How can you all live with yourselves, getting so worked up all the time about what people do with their bodies and then flipflopping and demanding that Craig deserves privacy? Screw him. The only thing thats changed is that you all have to acknowledge what we’ve known all along: he’s a hypocrite.

    Just relax and leave people alone.

    Workfaster (9e4cdc)

  182. All legislators vote both their conscience and their constituent wishes as he/she perceives them. If Craig knows Idahoans would overwhelmingly reject sexual orientation being added to the definition of hate crimes, he isn’t violating his conscience to agree. Blacks opposing affirmative action aren’t ‘Uncle Tom’s.’

    steve (8e37ec)

  183. How is any of that hypocritical, or playing the “anti-gay” card?

    There are gay people (out of the closet and not even self-hating!) that are against:
    - gay marriage,
    - against hate-crimes legislation in general as stifling freedom of speech (look at Europe and Canada for more perspective on where this leads, legally speaking)
    - anti-discrimination laws that go too far. (An expansive, but not irrational, read of some proposed legislation I’ve seen could give protection to polygamists and pedophiles).

    Who cares about the man’s sexual orientation and practices as long as it’s towards fellow adults fully capable of giving informed consent, and doesn’t involve a material public health risk?

    I’ll answer that question. Not too many conservatives. An awful lot of liberals.

    Sad, really.
    -Holmwood

    Holmwood (76cebf)

  184. [...] You see, it is utterly outrageous that someone’s private life is invaded, mutilated, and did I mention invaded? by ne’er do well liberalss with evil intentions. Why, it’s shocking and disturbing that some lowlife would troll through the sexual refuse of a politician and then use that information in a public manner! That’s just inconceivable! This is a perfect example of how debased the lefties are these days. Their minority and lack of control of all three branches of government must be stopped before they kill us all! [...]

    Grumpasaurus.com » Wingnuttia - Talk About Private Sexuality? Us? Never! (306e0f)

  185. The only thing thats changed is that you all have to acknowledge what we’ve known all along: he’s a hypocrite.

    Ignoring trollish behavior. Answered over and over which has been ignored.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  186. workfaster
    It is about elections and there are a lot of people here and across america who will see the hypocricy you represent so freely in this case.
    The above couple posters could clue you in as to a reasoned debate but if you have gotten this far while still posting such immature statistics then most will and have concluded that your position is that of the brown shirt/hypocrit and no argument will work with you.

    hangover (33e430)

  187. workfaster
    Boorish behavior aside, step away from your position for a moment and conduct an experiment in empathy.

    Are you familiar with the Daily Kos site? Are you a reasonable person, really? Would you like to be taken seriously here? Do you think this a game? Do you feel smarter for having been able to say all that and can now show your friends how clever you are?
    Can you participate or are you not capable?

    What do the ratings above each post on Daily Kos mean

    hangover (33e430)

  188. #177 hangover,

    The drug issue is such a no brainer for the Dems if they would just look at the current government research on the matter (NIDA).

    It is a genetic disease triggered by trauma.

    We are persecuting the traumatized. It fits the Democrat narratitive about the Republicans just about perfectly. With a bunch of racisism (selective prosecution of minorities) thrown in.

    And yet I can’t get the Ds interested because I think that we have an Islamofascist problem in this world. As soon as they hear that they ignore one of the most powerful issues they have had for decades.

    God help the Republicans if the Dems ever wake up on this issue before the Rs change their minds. It will be 1932 all over again.

    The Republicans are not so hot but the Dems are brain dead. Ds don’t understand economics. They don’t get the war. And on top of that they don’t care about real civil liberties. Instead they prattle on about the Patriot act. Interrogations. Intecepting calls that cross our borders. etc. Idiots.

    At least the Rs get two out of three of my main issues.

    M. Simon (676c00)

  189. M.Simon Enjoyed your thoughts here.
    They don’t get much other than that they perceive republicans want to take over the world or some such deluded thinking (although I’m angling for a piece of the coastline)HA!

    hangover (33e430)

  190. Scrapiron -
    It’s unusual when I completely agree with Xrlq on any issue Scrapiron. But he’s correct to reject your depraved outbursts.

    You’re not even bright enough to realize that your extreme views hurt your own political party (even after Patterico has specifically explained that to you). Speaking of which, Protein Wisdom might be a better home for you in that case…

    Psyberian (9b3c88)

  191. #182

    1&2 = That’s not evidence.
    Balance = still not evidence of “anti-gay” unless you can give me some definitive anti-gay quotes from Craig

    What I see is the left-gay bigots like Rogers have staked out the position that any opposition to his LEFT “group rights” agenda is RACIST…end of discussion, lynch the homophobe.

    Balderdash. Not surprising but balderdash.

    Not surprising because Leftists and the left-subsumed portions of liberals and Dems have stopped thinking and now engage in one-word polemics

    Make English the official language? Racist!
    Question the wisdom of same-sex marriage? Homophobe!
    Repeat what Islamists say themselves about destroying the West? Islamophobe!
    Self-identify as an observant Christian? Intolerant! (add the term “godbag” to that one)
    ad nauseum

    I’d call Leftists on their own hypocrisy on demanding that anyone that disagrees with them shut up in the name of “tolerance”, but it really comes down to immature narcisism. They “feel” they are superior (as indicated by the line that anyone that questions same-sex marriage is trailer trash), so people who say things that make them “feel bad” are now inauthentic humans.

    Darleen (03346c)

  192. “He’s a hypocrite if he’s gay/bisexual and voted as shown above.”

    Does that mean if a woman voted against the ERA she was a hypocrite? This identity politics stuff is extremely silly.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  193. For all of you that are super upset that someone hurt Larry Craig’s feelings yesterday, here’s a great article that might give you a sense of perspective and balance. Don’t just listen to the echo chamber. Challenge yourself with a wider set of facts and then come to a reasoned conclusion…

    http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/10/bush-followers-outraged-over-political.html

    There. Now don’t you feel better?

    -WF

    Workfaster (be1da4)

  194. Sockpuppet has prespective and balance?

    BWHAHAHAHAH

    Thanks for the good laugh

    I notice you still haven’t given evidence and now you think Craig’s “feelings” have been hurt, rather than him being slandered.

    That’s all Leftists have…. feelings, free floating from any facts or reality.

    Good lord, let’s have these emotional adolescents run the government!!!

    Darleen (03346c)

  195. #195 WF

    Ignoring trollish behavior (but Darleen is right… Bwhahahaha!!)

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  196. Darleen,

    If your claim that Craig has been mercilessly “slandered” is correct, then there are excellent legal remedies to fix that. The troubling problem for you and Sen Craig is that Mike Rogers has said, in effect, “Bring it on”. He has practically dared the good Senator to a fight. Since one can no longer challenge another to a duel in this day and age, a lawsuit is the next best thing.

    So why is Larry Craig unwilling to defend his “honor” like a man? Hmm?

    It’s funny, you and your cohorts vacillate between making accusations of “slander” (ie you equate gay behavior with slander). In the next breath you say it doesn’t matter if he’s gay, everyone’s privacy should be respected, especially if they’re republican. In the next breath you completely miss the fact that this is mostly about “character”. If the accusations are true, how do you feel about his adultery? How do you feel about his hypocrisy? How do you reconcile his character issues?

    -WF

    Workfaster (be1da4)

  197. Workfaster said:

    “Just relax and leave people alone. ”

    It’s obvious you COMPLETELY missed the irony of that plea.

    Chris (926a19)

  198. Chris,

    No, imposing forced birth on women, and legislating morality to your particular specifications, and playing the gay-card every 2 years has been the MO of the republican party for the last 20 years at least.

    If your party hadn’t tried to control people’s lives to the extemes it has, its major figureheads and leaders wouldn’t have exposed themselves to attack on those same issues.

    So just relax and let Larry defend his “honor”, or not. The truth will come out.

    -WF

    Workfaster (be1da4)

  199. No, imposing forced birth on women, and legislating morality to your particular specifications, and playing the gay-card every 2 years has been the MO of the republican party for the last 20 years at least.

    Poppycock! Total nonsense bearing no relation to reality, and multiple stereotypical strawmen at that. I especially loved the part about my “party trying to control people’s live to the extremes it has” – rich. This is your version of political discourse?

    Harry Arthur (5af33b)

  200. It’s painfully obvious (as well as wildly entertaining) that homosexuality has become a Republican issue, Patterico. But not in the way they planned. The chikens have not only come home to roost, they’ve opened a Colonel Sanders franchise in the RNC!

    David Ehrenstein (773e48)

  201. Workfaster: re #195: I don’t care about the politics. Forcibly outing someone is wrong no matter who does it.

    It’s not my partisanship which makes me say this; I’m a registered Democrat and will probably only vote for one Republican this election. Maybe two. It’s my experience as a closeted gay man which makes me say it.

    Regardless of what beef you have with Craig, outing him isn’t the right way to deal with it.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  202. It’s painfully obvious…homosexuality has become a Republican issue, Patterico.

    I agree. You reap what you sow. However, I am not laughing. I’m actually rather pissed off (still), on behalf of gay people everywhere.

    Two years ago, Republicans orchestrated anti-gay-marriage-initiative after initiative for the primary purpose of getting conservatives to the polls in swing states. Gays and lesbians were targeted and demonized as a Rovian election strategy. It supposedly wasn’t “personal” then, right?

    Two years later, it’s STILL a liability to be a gay Republican, and there’s a revenge culture that supports this phenomenon. Furthermore, and this is my favorite part, NOW is when people become outraged about the terrible gay-bashing, not before, when it was only people not being allowed to get married or serve in the military.

    Well, guess what, folks: gay conservatives will continue to be used as political footballs precisely as long as conservatives use gay issues for political gain.

    It ain’t rocket science.

    Tom (2ae076)

  203. Sure it is, aphrael. What’s keeping you in the closet? Do you really think that in this day and ag “nobody knows”?

    David Ehrenstein (773e48)

  204. Of course such private sexual activities should never be used against a politician.

    Unless it’s against a Democrat.

    Right guys?

    Clinton?

    It’s not about homosexuality you stupid douchebags. It’s about honesty and hypocracy.

    Geez it’s like talking to a brick wall.

    Babs Johnson (317375)

  205. David: i’ve been out of the closet for many years, so your question is somewhat unanswerable. :)

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  206. Babs Johnson: I thought that Clinton’s sex life should not have been an issue, and I still don’t care about it.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  207. aphrael, I agree with you: it is profoundly regretable that there is an element which rejoices in the outing of gay Republicans.

    Even more regretable is that to do so remains so powerful because of the way homosexuality is perceived by most Republicans.

    Kerry’s Mary Cheney comment highlights this problem. It created a firestorm of controversy–yet, during the debate, I heard the same comment and thought nothing of it (until the next day, when everyone was Shocked and Appalled). Why didn’t I notice? Because I don’t view homosexuality as regretable or shameful. However, those who DO view it that way heard it as an attack.

    That is the culture that needs to change here, or we’ll keep seeing the same thing again and again. Decrying the revenge tactics are to denounce the symptoms, NOT fix the cause.

    Tom (2ae076)

  208. Tom: I hear what you’re saying, but I disagree. :)

    The issue for me isn’t calling someone gay; I don’t view that as an attack. The issue is making the choice for someone else to reveal their secrets, secrets which are not something the public has any right to know. And, in this particular case, secrets the release of which *terrifies* the person keeping them.

    It’s an abusive practice, and it should not be tolerated as part of civil debate.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  209. Workfaster said:

    “If your party hadn’t tried to control people’s lives to the extemes it has, its major figureheads and leaders wouldn’t have exposed themselves to attack on those same issues.”

    Since when did the Libertarians start doing this?

    Next time, try not to make assumptions about people’s political beliefs, you end up looking silly.

    Chris (926a19)

  210. Ok, aphrael, I’ll bite. :)

    The issue for me isn’t calling someone gay; I don’t view that as an attack.

    I know you don’t, and I don’t either. But it is an attack, as far as it is perceived by perhaps half the electorate. That, I would argue, is the larger problem here: the context which allows gays to be exploited for political gain.

    [Outing people against their will is] an abusive practice, and it should not be tolerated as part of civil debate.

    Yes. Let’s call it what it is: exploitation of gay people for political gain. It was wrong in 2004 (via anti-gay marriage initiatives in swing states) and it is wrong in instances such as these as well.

    Now, I’d like to raise a new perspective as part of civil debate.

    This issue highlights the fact that many people still view being gay a personal and/or political liability? What do you suppose can and should be done about this?

    Tom (2ae076)

  211. Tom,

    Excellent post. I agree totally. Being called gay is only an attack to people who demonize gays.

    The real attack on Craig was against his character. If the news is true, he’s an adulterer for cheating on his wife. THAT should matter to his base and his party cohorts. He’s also a hypocrite.

    -WF

    Workfaster (be1da4)

  212. #213 WF said:

    If the news is true

    That’s a big if, but ok, let’s stipulate it hypothetically just for a moment. How is it acceptable that this was held back until just before an election, for maximum political effect (and trumpeted as such)? I don’t have to “question the timing”, the reason for the timing was given at the same time the accusation was made. It’s a sleazeball tactic no matter who did it.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  213. “So why is Larry Craig unwilling to defend his “honor” like a man?”

    Go read NY Times v. Sullivan and you will have your answer. It’s almost impossible for a public figure (and a politician would probably qualify as one) to win a libel and/or slander suit. That’s why.

    “The real attack on Craig was against his character. If the news is true, he’s an adulterer for cheating on his wife. THAT should matter to his base and his party cohorts. He’s also a hypocrite.”

    This is a new argument being made. The former argument was that he was a hypocrite because he voted against the so-called gay agenda. I’ll ask again: if a woman voted against the ERA, would that have been hypocritical? It’s nice you avoided answering that.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  214. Sharon,

    If Craig is unjustly accused, he should be willing to defend his honor, even if he doesn’t win $$. MY guess is that a he’s concerned a trial would lead to the truth and uncover evidence. He may not really want that.

    ERA and gay bashing are 2 different things entirely. Not voting for the ERA is not even close to calling women a slippery slope to man on dog sex, or equating being a woman with being a pedophile, or saying God is against women, or saying that being a woman is a choice, etc…

    And the character argument isn’t new at all (see #198) and should have been obvious to everyone here. Anyone with character should have recognized it immediately. Craig lacks character if he’s gay and associates with a party that attacks gays, and he is lacking character if he associates himself with the party condemns Clinton for his affair and he’s an adulterer himself…

    -WF

    Workfaster (be1da4)

  215. #216 WF

    I am astounded by how groundless so many of your assumptions are. Every single one of your points has been addressed already and you keep going as if your points still make sense. I suggest people start ignoring your posts until you can actually participate in a logical discussion. I don’t intend wasting further time with you.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  216. Not voting for the ERA is not even close to calling women a slippery slope to man on dog sex, or equating being a woman with being a pedophile, or saying God is against women, or saying that being a woman is a choice, etc… Care to cite some examples or are we making this up as we go? Ad hominem nonsense.

    …a party that attacks gays … We’re doing the “horse hockey two step” here. Let’s just throw a bunch of horse hockey against the barn door and see how much sticks. Nonsense.

    I have no problem with reasoned arguments vis-a-vis abortion, same sex marriage, or particular court cases but it’s simply not rational to put words into others mouths and then condemn them for statements never made.

    As Senator Moynahan once said, everyone is entitled to your interpretation of the facts but you’re not entitled to your own facts.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  217. Harry Arthur: but the signature of the current political era is that each major political group is operating with its own facts and refusing to listen to the facts of the others!

    Of course we can all have our own facts. After the politics of the last decade, how can you deny it?

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  218. I’m actually rather pissed off (still), on behalf of gay people everywhere.

    Wow, I bow before the King of the Gays!

    Sire, can you tell me when You received the crown? And what are Your brilliant plans to deal with the apostates who Dare Disagree With You?

    Darleen (03346c)

  219. Being called gay is only an attack to people who demonize gays.

    You mean like the Johns did with Mary Cheney?

    You’re using your brain as a doorstop, aren’t you?

    Darleen (03346c)

  220. Darleen: pardon me for jumping in, but I think you’re off base on #221, at least in the following sense:

    Most people who don’t see anything wrong with being gay did not perceive that as an attack on Mary Cheney. They probably did perceive it as an attack on Vice-President Cheney, insofar as it reflected on his willingness to love his daughter and not judge her; but they didn’t perceive an attack on Mary Cheney herself.

    Now, there may have been political foul play in that it’s LIKELY that the comment was *intended* to cause people who dislike gays to dislike Mary Cheney and, by extension, her father. But that’s an argument for perfidy on the part of the people making the comment, and doesn’t refute the claim that “being called gay is only an attack to people who demonize gays”.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  221. Harry: It’s not ad hominem nonsense. You really ought to follow what your nitwit right winger politicians are doing. If I cite an example, will it really do any good? Ok, I’ll bite…(so to speak). Is this example good enough… where the #3 ranking republican Senator equates homosexual marriage with a slippery slope to “man on dog” sex, and pedophilia? Here’s the source:
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm

    I trust that you now agree with me 100%.

    Stashiu3: If you’re still reading me, I’m really sorry I ignored your post. It’s just that it wasn’t very relevant. You complained about the timing of this news regarding Senator Craig. Who cares what the timing is? He’s not even up for re-election. So what’s the point? And if you’re so upset about timing, I trust you were also outraged when the DHS was issuing non-stop terror alerts on the runup to the 2004 election?

    -WF

    Workfaster (be1da4)

  222. aphrael

    The Johns’ crass, ham-handed references to the VP’s daughter were attacks. The Johns’ assumed one unethical thing and one bigotted thing. That Ms. Cheney’s private life was fair game and that “exposing” her as a lesbian would enrage the Xtian trailer trash and cause them to stampede the White House and demand the VP’s immediate removal. Again, people who use “gay” as an attack are people who demonize both gays AND the people they are trying to flog with the gaybaiting.

    Try looking at the Johns’ statements and substitute “black” for “gay” and see if you think they aren’t promoting the idea there is something scandolous about having a “X” as a family member.

    2/3 of the California electorate voted that marriage should remain a contract between one man and one woman. Yet these are voters who have no problem with employers extending health benefits to same-sex couples, or with domestic partnerships. Are you willing to make the argument that those voters are all homophobes?

    If not, then realize the paucity, no, make that bankruptcy of the reason with the assertion that questioning same-sex marriage equates with hating gays.

    Darleen (03346c)

  223. 221 & 222: We all remember that Cheney/Bush/Rove were using gay marriage as a huge “get out the vote” wedge issue in 2004. If Cheney had opposed this effort, the comment definitely would have been inappropriate. Beyond that, 222 has it right.

    Workfaster (be1da4)

  224. WF

    Let’s turn this around, shall we?

    Please give me a cogent argument against polygamy if same-sex marriage is granted as a “right” by judicial fiat.

    Darleen (03346c)

  225. WF

    They were? Wow. Yes, I remember all those rallies burning gays in effigy, or those giant paper mache puppets of Evil Gays.

    Darleen (03346c)

  226. #226 Darleen

    Please give me a cogent argument against polygamy if same-sex marriage is granted as a “right” by judicial fiat.

    What 14 people choose to do in their own bedroom is nobody’s business. You are so intolerant for not understanding that everything is relative except that Republicans are warmongering droolers who hate everything good and decent (including puppies). Shame on you.

    [/sarcasm off]

    Darleen, I wouldn’t waste my time, if you read his link, it refutes about every GOP stereotype he has vomited up here. You, Harry, Holmwood, myself, and others have shredded every point he makes. Even his own link debunks several of his points. Did he think nobody would go look? He’s not going to listen and he’s not going to change. Just my opinion, but why waste your intelligence and insight on a black hole?

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  227. Stashiu3

    Very good point. In my own defense I usually tilt at the braindead trolls not to convince them, but to outline my arguments to all the others reading.

    And WF demonstrates beautifully the cultish behavior of the Group-Rights Party. He has his seven index cards with all the one-word arguments he ever needs. Why think?

    And I just point at WF’s, et al, unseriousness and say “these are the kind of people you want in charge of the government???”

    Darleen (03346c)

  228. Darleen, no need for a defense, lol. I used to love troll-bashing. I can snark better than any of the trolls when I choose to, and without using profanity. I just got tired of it (yes, I occasionally lapse ;) ) and saw someone respond with “Ignoring trollish behavior”, which I thought was beautiful. I put too much thought into my posts to waste them on idiots who are never going to get it.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  229. Oh the irony! Sentator Craig is exposed for having no character in the same week the White House declares this…!!!!

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061013-17.html

    Ha! They must be helping with this thing. I can’t imagine what Craig did to piss them off…

    Stashiu3: Methinks you’re mocking your glorious leader. It’s not polite. Just because bush declared victory a few years early, doesn’t mean you should make fun of him. You’ve ” shredded every point” I’ve made? That’s rich.

    -WF

    Workfaster (9e4cdc)

  230. Ignoring trollish behavior *snort/giggle*

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  231. Darleen:

    Please give me a cogent argument against polygamy if same-sex marriage is granted as a “right” by judicial fiat.

    Actually, I’m not really against polygamy. My main problem is that it’s mostly practiced by fundamentalist Mormon cults who are ok with pedophilia, brainwashing, and terror. But if it’s 2 or more truly consenting adults, what’s the problem?

    Off topic somewhat, but if anyone should have the opportunity to read “Under the Banner of Heaven”… it “outs” John Smith, founder of Mormonism, for what he really was. 100% con man.. I have Mormon friends who are absolutely great people, and after reading that book, I pity them…

    -WF

    Workfaster (9e4cdc)

  232. WF

    Actually, I’m not really against polygamy

    Ah… again, more evidence why Leftbots are apologists for Islamists.

    god, you are SUCH a tool (and a bigot)

    Darleen (03346c)

  233. Wow, I bow before the King of the Gays!

    You’re using your brain as a doorstop, aren’t you?

    Darleen, your contempt seems misguided and inappropriate. If you’d rather blow poo around than address my points seriously, good for you!

    Let me know when you’ve graduated from middle school, and I’ll send you a cookie.

    Tom (2ae076)

  234. #235 Tom

    Darleen, your contempt seems misguided and inappropriate. If you’d rather blow poo around than address my points seriously, good for you!

    Your points are just as filled with unwarranted assumptions as WF’s. They can’t be addressed because the premise is flawed. You quote Dem talking points as if you understand them, stereotype all Repubs, and take on outrage for gays everywhere… many of whom would vehemently disagree with you (arrogant much?)

    Let me know when you’ve graduated from middle school, and I’ll send you a cookie.

    Pot, meet Kettle… Kettle, Pot

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  235. Tom

    When you claim to set yourself up as spokesKing for all gays, then what you earn is derision.

    Own it.

    I’ll state it again… The Left isn’t about “reason” or “logic” or even reality…it’s about feelings. They feel “bad” about gays — as a group — so anyone that hurts the feelings of their pet gays is, ergo, “homophobe” and “anti-gay”. No thought, no reason, just a one word dismissal.

    Of course, Left cultists don’t recognize individual gays, not if they aren’t within the cult. Then they are “inauthentic”, just as conservative blacks are “race traitors”.

    And look what the cultists have done to Lieberman for the apostasy of supporting the military.

    California is neither a “redstate” nor a swing state. Yet it voted by almost 2 to 1 to keep …I repeat KEEP, marriage as one man, on woman. So you’re argument that somehow Republicans have “created” a campaign to gaybait vis a vis “gay” marriage is specious at best. Republicans, a distinct minority in California didn’t “create” anything. Reasonable, logical, adults have serious questions about the wisdom of radically altering the public institution of marriage.

    Darleen (03346c)

  236. My, my. So much hypocrisy in one thread, and all generated by a discussion about hypocrisy! It kind of goes like this:

    “Libertarian. Honestly, that’s me. That’s why I think the guy deserves his privacy. Trust me, I’m all about libertarianism. I really mean it. I’m not a Republican just because I vote that way. Hey, I’m not kidding! See how I’m talking up all these points about privacy and freedom and stuff? That proves I’m a libertarian, doesn’t it? It’s just a coincidence that I prefer Republican candidates. Really! The control freaks who have taken over the GOP make me sick. I’m really very, very independent of them. In fact I hate them. But they’re more friendly to us libertarians.”

    Huh? The GOP is more in tune with your ideas? Not since the 1950′s! C’mon. Be proud of who you really are. Own it. You’re a Republican. Everything else is just self-justification.

    Radio Head (47919e)

  237. #223, thanks for the citation. I was fairly certain you were headed down this road when I read your first post. Here’s the full context of the comments by Sen Santorum. Though you might honestly differ with his opinions, particularly regarding homosexuality or of particular state laws or of where the court decisions might lead, he was clearly making the argument that the legislatures representing the people have a right to make these determinations, not the courts. His comments bear little to no resemblence to those you put in his mouth in your earlier posts and he in no way makes the equations that you stated. Perhaps it was because you had trouble following his argument.

    AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?

    SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who’s homosexual. If that’s their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it’s not the person, it’s the person’s actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

    AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

    SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we’re just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it’s my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, where it’s sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

    Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —

    AP: I’m sorry, I didn’t think I was going to talk about “man on dog” with a United States senator, it’s sort of freaking me out.

    SANTORUM: And that’s sort of where we are in today’s world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we’re seeing it in our society.

    AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don’t agree with it?

    SANTORUM: I’ve been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don’t agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn’t want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn’t agree with it, but that’s their right. But I don’t agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

    And, no I don’t now agree with you. Surprised?

    RH, So much hypocrisy in one thread I thought your side of the isle understood nuance. I would suggest you find a dictionary and look up hypocrisy. I haven’t seen a single conservative posting here where one is pretending to be other than what they are or are pretending to believe something that they don’t believe.

    Harry Arthur (5af33b)

  238. aphrael, Of course we can all have our own facts. After the politics of the last decade, how can you deny it? Then, my friend, the word “fact” has no meaning. Sen Moynahan’s statement was clearly meant to differentiate between opinions of what the facts mean and the facts themselves. Dialog and argument need occur in the realm of opinion, of what the facts mean. Occasionally, we might even disagree on what the facts are, but most often when we use the term fact, we are really talking about opinion.

    Having posted a fairly large piece of the Santorum interview, and knowing (I think) your take on the subject, I’d guess you probably disagree strongly with him on several if not all his arguments. Thats fair. What isn’t fair is to totally mischaracterize his comments and then refute his mischaracterized comments. Santorum has formed an opinion of what he believes to be the probable consequences of a particular decision by the court. He also offers his opinion of why we as a society should recognize only heterosexual monogamous marriage. I would argue that those opinions in no way demonstrate an anti-gay bias necessarily, nor do particular votes in the case of Sen Craig.

    Any of us may chose to disagree with his opinions (and they are opinions, not facts). That’s fair. We are also free to argue for alternatives. That’s also fair. Personally, I would differ with him on a point or two and agree with him on a point or two. But to suggest from his remarks, primarily directed to his criticism of the role of courts in these decisions, that he is some sort of evil menace to gay people or that this somehow demonstrates that republicans are being hypocritical in the Craig case, it seems to me, is more than a logical stretch.

    Harry Arthur (5af33b)

  239. Harry: i’m sorry; I was trying to be sarcastic and satirical, and it failed. :)

    I think one of the great problems of the political debate in recent years is that liberals and conservatives have different sets of things which they believe to be established truths, and aren’t willing to listen to each other’s established truths. :)

    That said, I do think it’s unfair to mischaracterize someone’s comments; it’s far more honest to refute the things actually said.

    aphrael (12fba5)

  240. aprael, couldn’t agree more with your comments, particularly the last paragraph.

    The fault is entirely mine, just not swift enough to detect the underlying “tongue in cheek” aspect of the comment I guess. Even if you had been serious, it was more a nuanced disagreement and I do think both conservatives and liberals occasionally fall into the trap of failing to understand the difference between “fact” and “opinion”.

    Of course I tend to conflate the terms “fact” and “truth” and that’s probably not entirely correct either. Though I admit that I “bristle” a bit when I’m informed that “you have your truth and I have mine” which makes no logical sense whatsoever and renders all discourse meaningless.

    Harry Arthur (5af33b)

  241. Harry:

    Thanks for re-posting Santorum’s interview. It’s a favorite of mine. And I agree, his argument is slightly more nuanced than I originally represented.

    * In #223, I had said that Santorum equated “homosexual marriage with a slippery slope to “man on dog” sex, and pedophilia”

    * When, in fact, Santorum had equated the legalization of homosexual marriage with a slippery slope to “man on dog” sex, and pedophilia.

    Sheesh.

    -WF

    Workfaster (be1da4)

  242. #243 WF

    When, in fact, Santorum had equated the legalization of homosexual marriage with a slippery slope to “man on dog” sex, and pedophilia.

    What Senator Santorum actually said was:

    That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not [emphasis mine], you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.

    which is the exact opposite of what you are saying. I wouldn’t characterize that as “slightly more nuanced”… I would call yours “mischaracterization”. I’m not really sure why I bothered to respond… character flaw of my own I guess. I should just let it go, it just doesn’t look like you’re going to change.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  243. Stashiu3:

    I’m afraid you are incorrect. Read the context of “It’s”… this pronoun is referring to “the definition of marriage” and not homosexuality.

    In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.

    -WF

    Workfaster (9e4cdc)

  244. WF:

    That makes no sense in context with the rest. “It’s” refers to homosexuality, to say that homosexuality is not the same as “man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.” He clearly states that he is not picking on homosexuality in the previous sentence, as well as throughout the article. If you try to say that Senator Santorum equates homosexuality with pedophilia and beastiality in this context, you are also saying that he is not picking on pedophilia and beastiality. Is that your contention? That a U.S. Senator approves of pedophilia and beastiality? By twisting the referent, the entire paragraph no longer makes sense. In fact, the rest of the article would no longer make sense.

    Is there anyone else who believes that “It’s” refers to “the institution of marriage”, or does it clearly refer to homosexuality?

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  245. Stashiu,

    When Sen. Santorum uses the word It’s to open the sentence in question, he is expounding upon the last phrase of the previous sentence. Reconstructed:

    Homosexuality (the thing I’m not picking on, and am about to prove it) is not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.

    To read it otherwise would be a small error in grammar; to intentionally desire to read it otherwise for the purpose of mischaracterizing Sen. Santorum’s point would be common liberal practice. You are entirely correct in your exegesis of the comment, and I applaud your tenacity. Character flaw, indeed. ;-)

    Freelancer (f99e36)

  246. It is a character flaw in a way… I know that ignoring him is the better course as he has demonstrated over and over that he cannot accept an opposing view, no matter how correct. Every single point he has tried to make was addressed and shredded (yes WF, shredded), and he continues to claim his points are correct. To keep responding to him just encourages him to continue as he only gets satisfaction through disrupting the thread. Regretfully, ;) this character flaw is fairly common in military folks… we hate to back off from bullying behavior. Works well on the job, not so well when dealing with internet trolls.

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  247. Regretfully, this character flaw is fairly common in military folks… we hate to back off from bullying behavior. Works well on the job, not so well when dealing with internet trolls.

    Guilty as charged. But it is a vastly preferable flaw to say, ignorance or apathy, so folks like us will just have to bear our crosses.

    Actually, it’s possible you give him too little credit. He just might be a heartfelt believer in those opinions, and is doing his level best to get us to see the issue as he does. That’s a big-boy step up from trollish, and reflects sincerity. As for him gaining satisfaction through disrupting a thread, I can see how it looks that way after re-reading his previous attempts. I’m somewhat on the fence here. He’s either a sincere boob who is unable to read correctly, or he’s a troll who wants to hijack a thread.

    As I’ve stated before here and elsewhere, folks like that are good for us to have around. They keep us on our toes and help us make sure our arguments are well-founded.

    Freelancer (f99e36)

  248. You’ve got to be kidding me. You cannot both be that obtuse! Read it! The second and third sentences are continuing and expounding upon the thought initiated in the first sentence. Santorum is not trying to lecture the reporter that homosexuality isn’t beastiality or pedophilia… (the reporter certainly wasn’t confused on this point).

    Instead, Santorum lists things that he feels the definition of marriage is not: homosexuality, beastiality, and pedophilia.

    For Freelancer, the correct reconstruction, before and after:

    Santorum Before:
    In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.

    Santorum After:
    In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality; it’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. That’s not to pick on homosexuality.

    Look, even other republican senators understood and criticized him for his idiocy (and yes, as expected, a few mouth-breather Senators complimented him for his enlightenment):
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/24/santorum.gays/

    -WF

    Workfaster (9e4cdc)

  249. Stashiu,

    It looks like WF (#250) has given me the answer to my previous ponderance.

    As you stated, trying to apply the statements as he continues to do causes them to have no point nor make any sense, either grammatically or logically. Lacking any value in continued attempts to engage in useful discussion, I will take your previously failed advice.

    Freelancer (f99e36)

  250. Ignoring trollish behavior.

    Freelancer, I agree that a vigorous discussion is healthy and everybody in lockstep is a bad thing for a democracy. People are different and need to express their differences to be understood. But this is clearly (to me) a case where it doesn’t matter what is right, he is going to insist on his points. I really don’t care that he can find some MSM spin that twists things the way he does. As you said, it’s a common liberal tactic. I am going to practice perseverance now and starve the troll. Feel free to feed it at your own risk. ;)

    Stashiu3 (404f9e)

  251. What about this is so hard for you? Senators Chafee, Snow and Frist all understood it clearly. The first two criticized him, the third complimented him for it. Google it. No one interprets it your way.

    Anyway, since you gave up, I win. You lose.

    -WF

    Workfaster (9e4cdc)

  252. Anyway, since you gave up, I win. You lose

    Oh my… I revise my estimate of WF ever downward…

    from surly, narcistic adolescent to sniveling 9 y/o playground bully.

    Darleen (03346c)

  253. The WaPo agrees with my interpretation. They also key in on the issue of hypocrisy. From TODAY….

    “In the 13 years since, even as gays have moved visibly into mainstream America, they hold a tenuous, complicated spot within the ranks of the GOP, whose earlier libertarian, live-and-let-live values have been ground down by the wedge issue of opposition to gay rights. And, even though an Inhofe staffer confirmed last week that his boss still maintains his employment ban, many gay men are key aides to Republican legislators, powerful silent partners in winning elections by pledging allegiance to religious “values voters” ever on the alert against “the homosexual agenda.”

    This dichotomy — or hypocrisy, depending on who’s doing the labeling — has been forced out of the closet by the page scandal, just as surely as Foley….”

    “In their day-to-day dealings, even the most conservative Republicans can display an ease with normalizing relations with gay people. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) ranks No. 3 in Senate leadership and has likened homosexuality to bestiality. A rumor erupted in summer 2005 that his chief spokesman, Robert Traynham, was gay. When Traynham confirmed the rumor, Santorum promptly rushed to his defense, issuing a release calling his aide “a trusted friend . . . to me and my family…”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901931_pf.html

    -WF

    Workfaster (9e4cdc)

  254. Virtual proof that you’re wrong!

    Patterico (de0616)

  255. Workfaster said:

    “Anyway, since you gave up, I win. You lose.”

    There is nothing more pathetic than someone who raises their misplaced sense of self-worth by declaring victory in an argument on the freakin’ internet, especially based on such an intellectually stunted reason. A person giving up arguing with you doesn’t mean you won the argument–particularly when taking into account your stubborn insistence on justifying blackmail to “punish” those based on the most lightweight and emotionally infantile of reasons, that they don’t think the same way you do. How very “liberal” of you.

    And by the way, it’s hard to claim that the WaPo agrees with you when you pointedly failed to bold this qualifier in their editorial:

    “depending on whos doing the labeling”

    So the argument boils down to semantics after all–it merely depends on whose political goose could get cooked, and since in this case it’s a Republican, you are more than happy to join in the basting. Your double standards would be amusing if the principles guiding them weren’t so ragingly despotic. Your arguments–in perfect harmony with those of Rogers–is little more than a homosexual Inquisition to force people to think the same way you do.

    Given these obvious motivations, there is little reason anyone should try to engage you any further–you are not interested in convincing others of the merits of your position, only in achieving the shallow fruits of “victory” on an obscure internet forum when your laughably illogical reasoning fails to convince anyone that said position is one worth engaging. That is the mark of a loser, and it’s little wonder your arguments are greeted with the contempt they deserve.

    ["Obscure"? I'm hurt. -- P]

    Chris (926a19)

  256. [“Obscure”? I’m hurt. — P]

    Sorry, dude.

    Chris (926a19)

  257. Bill Maher covers Larry Craig’s outing and his hypocrisy here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlyJmhwa1c0&eurl=

    And yes, we even see the reference to Santorum and and his equating gay marriage to “man on dog” sex. Gosh Stashiu3 and Freelancer, it must be terribly frustrating to be the only 2 people in the entire world with the special talent to understand Santorum the way you do…

    LOL

    -WF

    Workfaster (9e4cdc)

  258. #260 WF

    Ignoring trollish behavior

    Stashiu3 (0da7ed)

  259. Democratic Underground recently did a COVERT operation (11/30/06) on its own membership trying to figure out who is a holocaust denier and who is not.

    They posted a poll that asks if you believe a) the Holocaust happened, b) it happened but you do not know if all the figures/deaths/numbers reported is accurate, or c) you do not believe it happened.

    If you answer B or C they suspend your account and you receive an insulting message that you are a “Holocaust sympathizer” and they do not want to “be associated with individuals who express such views.”

    Of note is that answering B, which is a legitimate honest answer for the millions who know nothing of the Holocaust or the details, lands you in their Holocaust denier camp. Many people do not know how many people died in the holocaust – maybe DU needs to remember the world does not revolve around their view of the world. That DU would do such a sinister thing to its own membership in an attempt to cleanse it of people whom they “think” deny the holocaust is beyond belief for a site exposing democratic party ideals.

    OF course if you answer C, that is beyond the pale of reason. But if an honest guy answers B, that he knows it happened, but does not know the details of the event…..THEY CALL YOU A HOLOCAUST DENIER.

    Someone needs to send a wake up call to Democratic Underground. It start’s with “Innocent until proven Guilty” and ends with the Constitution of the United States of America.

    Josh (b406d1)

  260. [...] He was one of the senators named by the left’s McCornthyites during the Foley uproar as being in the closet. The details from Roll Call don’t explicitly corroborate that claim, [...]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » Report: Sen. Larry Craig arrested in June on suspicions of “lewd conduct” in public restroom (d4224a)

  261. I thought the Democrats were against “the politics of personal destruction”…oh wait, I forgot they didn’t really mean that.

    someguy (ee321d)

  262. Today’s revelations, which seem to confirm and corroborate the previous allegations, points up a basic truth: Support the policies and positions that you believe in; support the politicians who espouse these positions with the understanding that, if they fail you, you will be willing to distance yourself from them . . . immediately. As if the O.J. trial wasn’t lesson enough, now we have this example of why “innocent until proven guilty” is a phrase that it might be best to leave inside the courtroom. Out here, in the court of public opinion, you might want to approach these things with a more suspicious eye . . . unless you’re okay with making comments slamming the accuser’s agenda, and then winding up with maximum egg-on-your-face when it turns out that he was right on the money all along.

    Independent Conservative (890b0d)

  263. Larry Craig pleads guilty to LEWD GAY BEHAVIOR IN PUBLIC BATHROOM!

    http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/19763-1.html

    http://www.idahostatesman.com/eyepiece/story/143517.html

    And I’ll remind all the mouth breathers that this isn’t about him being gay, but rather the fact that he’s a hypocrite. He’s played the anti-gay card to his political advantage for years. Live by the sword, die by the sword. What’s wrong with that?

    Are all “family values conservatives” really perverts like Craig, Foley and Haggard?

    LOL!!!!

    -WF

    Workfaster (ac3cc6)

  264. Well, just so I will not be accused of hypocrisy, I confess right here and now that I am a heterosexual who has engaged in intimate relations with women and has even fathered a child with one.

    nk (a6ecc6)

  265. yeah nk, but you didn’t do it in the men’s room of an airport.

    the reason they call it the log cabin society is because all of them could fit in a log cabin.

    assistant devil's advocate (160827)

  266. ada,

    “As long as they don’t do it on the street and scare the horses” — Some woman whose name I don’t remember.

    “If it does not pick my pocket or break my leg” — Some founding father, maybe Jefferson, admittedly in a different context.

    nk (a6ecc6)

  267. P.S.

    yeah nk, but you didn’t do it in the men’s room of an airport.

    I never did but that was not for lack of trying.

    There are three stages in a marriage.

    First stage is casual sex. Anytime, anywhere. In the car, in the hallway, in the kitchen, while doing the laundry ….

    After a while, you both settle down to bedroom sex.

    The third stage is oral sex. As you pass each other on the way to work: “Fuck you!” “Fuck you!”

    nk (a6ecc6)

  268. [...] Glenn Greenwald points out, those that led the charges of sexual McCarthyism at the time, included the usual suspects.  They even went so far as to predict the backlash [...]

    Self-hating right wing gays at Antony Loewenstein (d9ca6e)

  269. Man, you’re surprised by this?

    The Republican party leadership has made it a point to vilify and single out homosexuals for years.

    I’m all for free market economics and limited government, but this bullshit party that gives empty lip service to such heady ideals has to die. The sooner we get rid of the Republican party and replace them with the Ron Pauls of the world the better.

    This religious crap has destroyed the party, and then a bunch of hypocrites, are shocked, SHOCKED I say, when people make a point of highlighting the hypocrisy of the goons.

    Besides having a bunch gays in the party, this party falsely claims to be anti-gay marriage, falsely claims to be against nation building, falsely claims to be against big government (it’s grown by 30% in the last 6 years), and falsely claims to be economically responsible – after 3 trillion dollars have been added to the debt.

    Good riddance to the party, and the scum that keeps this happy bullshit in existence. The Republicans are a party of hypocrites and liars that make the Dumocrats look like paragons of virtue, even after FDR stole everybody’s money by confiscating gold.

    Richard Wicks (d20858)

  270. [...] who reacted to activist Mike Rogers‘ outting of Craig before the November 2007 election with outrage, saying that it would be “irrelevant” even if true, have now had a change of heart. [...]

    Gay Orbit » Jon Swift on Larry Craig (879ae5)

  271. Why Do Conservatives Like Larry Craig Seem So Gay?…

    Thank goodness we live in a country where everyone is straight until proven gay beyond a shadow of a doubt….

    Jon Swift (59ce3a)

  272. [...] usual, Bush-supporting bloggers like Ann Althouse and Patterico dutifully echoed Reynolds’ line: “I truly believe this sort of tactic is going to create a backlash.” Identically, [...]

    Craig’s Behavior - Glenn Greenwald « Allpaths (98bdb4)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6314 secs.