Lefty Blogger Outs Senator As Gay
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.
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.
Comment by aphrael — 10/17/2006 @ 6:19 pm
The? or A?
Comment by actus — 10/17/2006 @ 6:24 pm
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.
Comment by aphrael — 10/17/2006 @ 6:24 pm
You might want to check UPDATE x3, actus.
Comment by Patterico — 10/17/2006 @ 6:30 pm
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.
Comment by actus — 10/17/2006 @ 6:35 pm
Oh, and UPDATE x4, showing the Kossacks’ overwhelming support for outing gay Republicans.
Comment by Patterico — 10/17/2006 @ 6:36 pm
I suppose online polls set democrat election strategy.
Comment by actus — 10/17/2006 @ 6:37 pm
Patterico: which just goes to show that the kossacks are extremist.
Comment by aphrael — 10/17/2006 @ 6:38 pm
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?
Comment by Patterico — 10/17/2006 @ 6:42 pm
I don’t know. How does a diary by ‘benito’ and an online poll inform us of how he uses whatever influence he has?
Comment by actus — 10/17/2006 @ 6:44 pm
It’s linked on the Kos front page.
Comment by Patterico — 10/17/2006 @ 6:45 pm
I’m sure its going to be on a LOT of front pages.
Comment by actus — 10/17/2006 @ 6:46 pm
[...] 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. [...]
Pingback by Hot Air » Blog Archive » Mike Rogers “outs” Senator Larry Craig as gay — 10/17/2006 @ 6:49 pm
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.
Comment by aphrael — 10/17/2006 @ 6:50 pm
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.
Comment by Patterico — 10/17/2006 @ 6:58 pm
True enough. Easy solution for lefties who want to write about it, then: condemn it. Ask Rogers not to do it anymore.
Comment by Allah — 10/17/2006 @ 6:59 pm
Patterico could pitch in with one of his demand-threads. I think we can all get behind this effort.
Comment by actus — 10/17/2006 @ 7:05 pm
I believe Craig. This is not an outing. It’s libel.
Comment by nk — 10/17/2006 @ 7:05 pm
I’m sure he will, right after he gets back from Tbogg’s comments.
Comment by fishbane — 10/17/2006 @ 7:09 pm
Backlash? Not much. I’ll just vote straight Republican at 7:01 a.m. on November 7.
Comment by nk — 10/17/2006 @ 7:10 pm
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…
Trackback by Riehl World View — 10/17/2006 @ 7:10 pm
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.
Comment by Patterico — 10/17/2006 @ 7:11 pm
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.
Comment by bill — 10/17/2006 @ 7:11 pm
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.
Comment by MayBee — 10/17/2006 @ 7:17 pm
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?
Comment by EFG — 10/17/2006 @ 7:25 pm
actus will say Mike Rogers has mental problems.
Comment by Patterico — 10/17/2006 @ 7:41 pm
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.
Comment by Harry Arthur — 10/17/2006 @ 7:42 pm
He will condemn the “wrongfulness” of his act based off whether or not Mike perceived the “wrongfulness” or his act.
Comment by EFG — 10/17/2006 @ 7:43 pm
Or, per #5, terrible and classless.
Comment by actus — 10/17/2006 @ 7:43 pm
But you haven’t, have you?
Comment by EFG — 10/17/2006 @ 7:44 pm
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.
Comment by TLB — 10/17/2006 @ 7:44 pm
Why would I do that?
Comment by actus — 10/17/2006 @ 7:45 pm
Just as I figured.
Comment by EFG — 10/17/2006 @ 7:45 pm
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…
Trackback by Bill's Bites — 10/17/2006 @ 7:46 pm
actus, your comment #5 is incomprehensible gobbledygook.
Comment by Patterico — 10/17/2006 @ 7:46 pm
Should we really have expected anything else?
It was only an attempt to misdirect.
Comment by EFG — 10/17/2006 @ 7:47 pm
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.
Comment by actus — 10/17/2006 @ 7:50 pm
We?
Still waiting for that denouncement…
Comment by EFG — 10/17/2006 @ 7:51 pm
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.
Comment by actus — 10/17/2006 @ 7:52 pm
So say it.
Comment by EFG — 10/17/2006 @ 7:53 pm
Say what Mike Rogers did was terrible and classless and you condemn his actions.
Comment by EFG — 10/17/2006 @ 7:54 pm
No body is demanding anything of you, actus.
This is something you have to offer of your own free will.
Of your own accord.
Comment by EFG — 10/17/2006 @ 7:56 pm
Terrible and classless. Sure. for the what? the fifth time?
Comment by actus — 10/17/2006 @ 7:57 pm
[...] 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). [...]
Pingback by Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Blog Archive » Liberal Gaybashing Continues — 10/17/2006 @ 7:57 pm
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.
Comment by Mike Myers — 10/17/2006 @ 7:57 pm
You still haven’t said it actus.
Not even once.
Comment by EFG — 10/17/2006 @ 7:57 pm
Good night actus.
Over half an hour and comments go back and forth and you still won’t denounce it.
Comment by EFG — 10/17/2006 @ 8:01 pm
[...] Patterico has the details here, with a link to the scumbag’s site. [...]
Pingback by SLEAZY ASSAULT ON SEN. CRAIG « Texas Hold ‘Em Blogger — 10/17/2006 @ 8:03 pm
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.
Comment by Tommy — 10/17/2006 @ 8:07 pm
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.”
Comment by Allah — 10/17/2006 @ 8:11 pm
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? …
Trackback by Sensible Mom — 10/17/2006 @ 8:29 pm
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.
Comment by MayBee — 10/17/2006 @ 8:31 pm
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.
Comment by steve — 10/17/2006 @ 8:31 pm
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.
Comment by Scrapiron — 10/17/2006 @ 8:35 pm
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.
Comment by Downtown Lad — 10/17/2006 @ 8:42 pm
Yes. Gays have the right to ‘protect traditional marriage’ like the rest of us. From the comfort of the closet.
Comment by actus — 10/17/2006 @ 8:47 pm
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.
Comment by Rigthmom — 10/17/2006 @ 8:47 pm
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.
Comment by steve — 10/17/2006 @ 8:52 pm
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.
Comment by Downtown Lad — 10/17/2006 @ 9:01 pm
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.
Comment by James B. Shearer — 10/17/2006 @ 9:03 pm
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.
Comment by MayBee — 10/17/2006 @ 9:03 pm
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.
Comment by MyOwnNotsoPrivateIdaho — 10/17/2006 @ 9:05 pm
“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!
Comment by Downtown Lad — 10/17/2006 @ 9:05 pm
“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!
Comment by Downtown Lad — 10/17/2006 @ 9:08 pm
Patrick, why you put up with actus is beyond me. I’d have canned his ass a long time ago.
Comment by antimedia — 10/17/2006 @ 9:10 pm
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.
Comment by Harry Arthur — 10/17/2006 @ 9:10 pm
#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.
Comment by nk — 10/17/2006 @ 9:20 pm
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.
Comment by MayBee — 10/17/2006 @ 9:26 pm
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.
Comment by Harry Arthur — 10/17/2006 @ 9:29 pm
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.
Comment by Darleen — 10/17/2006 @ 9:29 pm
typo — so-called gay “rights” activists
Comment by Darleen — 10/17/2006 @ 9:30 pm
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.
Comment by jerry — 10/17/2006 @ 9:42 pm
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.
Comment by Harry Arthur — 10/17/2006 @ 9:42 pm
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……
Trackback by Darleen's Place — 10/17/2006 @ 9:57 pm
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).
Comment by fred — 10/17/2006 @ 10:01 pm
[...] UPDATE: Others: Patterico, Confederate Yankee, Riehl World View, Captain's Quarters, [...]
Pingback by Blue Crab Boulevard » Blog Archive » Having Long Since Hit Bottom — 10/17/2006 @ 10:04 pm
[...] 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”. [...]
Pingback by The Stout Republican » Blog Archive » The Tolerant Left Strikes Again — 10/17/2006 @ 10:08 pm
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….
Comment by Darleen — 10/17/2006 @ 10:08 pm
Is this the Democrats “winning” election strategy?
Comment by Christoph — 10/17/2006 @ 10:09 pm
Hmmm… what about sex in another public place — the oval office?
Comment by Christoph — 10/17/2006 @ 10:10 pm
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!
Comment by MayBee — 10/17/2006 @ 10:15 pm
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.
Comment by James B. Shearer — 10/17/2006 @ 10:20 pm
It’s public as soon as someone besides the President is in it. Like a young intern or JFK’s prostitutes.
Comment by MayBee — 10/17/2006 @ 10:25 pm
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.
Comment by Steph — 10/17/2006 @ 10:29 pm
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]
Comment by Scrapiron — 10/17/2006 @ 10:31 pm
James B
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Comment by Darleen — 10/17/2006 @ 10:36 pm
Scrapiron, who the hell are you talking about?
Comment by Christoph — 10/17/2006 @ 10:38 pm
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.
Comment by Jason — 10/17/2006 @ 10:44 pm
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?
Comment by Christoph — 10/17/2006 @ 10:45 pm
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.
Comment by daleyrocks — 10/17/2006 @ 10:46 pm
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 …
Trackback by Chickenhawk Express — 10/17/2006 @ 10:59 pm
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).
Comment by fred — 10/17/2006 @ 11:26 pm
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.
Comment by aphrael — 10/17/2006 @ 11:29 pm
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.
Comment by aphrael — 10/17/2006 @ 11:32 pm
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.
Comment by MayBee — 10/17/2006 @ 11:52 pm
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.
Comment by Christoph — 10/17/2006 @ 11:53 pm
Here is proof that being a male heterosexual (or even female homosexual) is right. I mean, can anyone argue with this proof?
Comment by Christoph — 10/17/2006 @ 11:59 pm
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.
Comment by Jeff Bargholz — 10/18/2006 @ 12:06 am
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.
Comment by Scrapiron — 10/18/2006 @ 12:17 am
I think that will work out best for everyone.
Comment by Patterico — 10/18/2006 @ 12:21 am
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.
Comment by daleyrocks — 10/18/2006 @ 12:59 am
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.
Comment by Pawchikapawpaw — 10/18/2006 @ 1:44 am
[...] 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. [...]
Pingback by The American Mind / Charlie’s Show Prep #183 — 10/18/2006 @ 2:18 am
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…
Trackback by La Shawn Barber's Corner — 10/18/2006 @ 3:05 am
Crapiron:
Not too important, but more imporant than one puffed up reader with delusions of adequacy.
Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Comment by Xrlq — 10/18/2006 @ 3:53 am
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…
Trackback by Alabama Liberation Front — 10/18/2006 @ 3:55 am
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.
Comment by Harry Arthur — 10/18/2006 @ 3:56 am
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.
Comment by Lij — 10/18/2006 @ 4:12 am
You shouldn’t talk this way about a senator.
Thus the popularity of all the gay hate amendments among lefties who want to harm “queers.”
Comment by actus — 10/18/2006 @ 4:34 am
[...] 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. [...]
Pingback by TimChapmanBlog.com » Blog Archive » Liberal blogger continues slander streak — 10/18/2006 @ 4:41 am
[...] Allah: Patterico expects a backlash. So do I. In fact, I haven’t felt this motivated to vote in weeks. [...]
Pingback by MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Nutroots “gay terrorist” Mike Rogers and “Screw ‘em” Kos want you to stay home on November 7 — 10/18/2006 @ 4:56 am
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.
Comment by Harry Arthur — 10/18/2006 @ 5:35 am
Hey, at least he doesn’t equal the entire party, like Mike Rogers does. But I do sympathize for you.
Comment by actus — 10/18/2006 @ 5:37 am
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.
Comment by Harry Arthur — 10/18/2006 @ 6:27 am
[...] 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. [...]
Pingback by Macsmind - Conservative Commentary and Common Sense » Blog Archive » Gay thug at it again — 10/18/2006 @ 6:34 am
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!
Comment by sharon — 10/18/2006 @ 6:36 am
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.
Comment by Harry Arthur — 10/18/2006 @ 7:01 am
[...] 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. [...]
Pingback by Sister Toldjah » The ‘outting’ of Republican Senator Larry Craig — 10/18/2006 @ 7:02 am
[...] 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. [...]
Pingback by 186k Per Second - » Why is it only the Democrats and Progressives are yelling about Gay Politicians? — 10/18/2006 @ 7:26 am
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?
Comment by Crust — 10/18/2006 @ 7:28 am
To give some sense of what the other 30% of Kossacks think here is I think a thoughtful comment:
Comment by Crust — 10/18/2006 @ 7:34 am
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.
Comment by Dana — 10/18/2006 @ 7:46 am
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.)
Comment by Crust — 10/18/2006 @ 7:54 am
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.
Comment by Xanthippas — 10/18/2006 @ 8:11 am
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.
Comment by Ali — 10/18/2006 @ 8:20 am
[...] 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. [...]
Pingback by StuntShack.com » Morning Coffee — 10/18/2006 @ 8:27 am
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.
Comment by biwah — 10/18/2006 @ 8:47 am
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.
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 10/18/2006 @ 8:59 am
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……
Trackback by Mary Katharine Ham — 10/18/2006 @ 9:06 am
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.
Comment by biwah — 10/18/2006 @ 9:07 am
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.
……
Trackback by Common Sense Political Thought — 10/18/2006 @ 9:08 am
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…..
Trackback by A Blog For All — 10/18/2006 @ 9:13 am
It is specious to pretend public figures have privacy in their sex lives. even presidents?
Comment by Harry Arthur — 10/18/2006 @ 9:17 am
Well, Democratic presidents, anyway….
Comment by Lurking Observer — 10/18/2006 @ 9:19 am
133 & 134:
Predictable, yet inane. Nice.
Comment by biwah — 10/18/2006 @ 9:20 am
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.
Comment by cooper — 10/18/2006 @ 9:32 am
[...] Paterico’s Pontifications [...]
Pingback by “7.62mm Justice” » Homosexuals Outed By Liberals — 10/18/2006 @ 9:35 am
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?
Comment by Lurking Observer — 10/18/2006 @ 9:36 am
Democratic President’s sexual escapades are beyond question
WHERE have I stated this?
Comment by biwah — 10/18/2006 @ 9:39 am
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.
Comment by biwah — 10/18/2006 @ 9:50 am
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.
Comment by joe — 10/18/2006 @ 9:51 am
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 …
Comment by Harry Arthur — 10/18/2006 @ 9:56 am
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……
Trackback by Mary Katharine Ham — 10/18/2006 @ 10:05 am
[...] Patterico’s Pontifications [...]
Pingback by Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » More Disgraceful Lefty Tactics — 10/18/2006 @ 10:49 am
Moving from
to
is a howling non sequitur.
Not sure how I feel about outing in general, but Joe’s comments at 9:51 seem apposite.
Comment by liver — 10/18/2006 @ 11:15 am
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
Comment by jim — 10/18/2006 @ 11:17 am
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
Comment by Gary in Ok — 10/18/2006 @ 11:39 am
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…
Comment by ethne — 10/18/2006 @ 11:41 am
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.
Comment by kathy — 10/18/2006 @ 11:55 am
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.
Comment by Harry Arthur — 10/18/2006 @ 12:04 pm
Ok, take five minutes. But I would rather see people vote in line with their convictions, rather than by strict party lines.
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.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/18/2006 @ 12:17 pm
“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?
Comment by sharon — 10/18/2006 @ 12:37 pm
[...] 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 [...]
Pingback by A Tree Falls in the Forest at Blog P.I. — 10/18/2006 @ 2:25 pm
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.
Comment by momof2 — 10/18/2006 @ 3:27 pm
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. “
Comment by momof2 — 10/18/2006 @ 3:29 pm
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.
Comment by dd — 10/18/2006 @ 4:20 pm
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]
Comment by T.M. Cleaver — 10/18/2006 @ 6:03 pm
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.
Comment by Charles — 10/18/2006 @ 6:07 pm
#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.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/18/2006 @ 6:12 pm
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?
Comment by rm — 10/18/2006 @ 6:14 pm
The Beaver (#157) is back. Where have you been? Writing more
moviestax losses?Comment by nk — 10/18/2006 @ 6:34 pm
I almost forgot that Mr. Cleaver (his real name) has graced us with his presence here before. Who can forget this comment?
I edited out the profanity.
Here is how I responded at the time:
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!!
Comment by Patterico — 10/18/2006 @ 6:35 pm
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.
Comment by hangover — 10/18/2006 @ 6:52 pm
I detect the kind of bitterness that only comes from the smell of defeat.
Comment by M. Simon — 10/18/2006 @ 6:52 pm
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.
Comment by M. Simon — 10/18/2006 @ 6:57 pm
#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.
Comment by hangover — 10/18/2006 @ 6:59 pm
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?
Comment by hangover — 10/18/2006 @ 7:09 pm
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.
Comment by hangover — 10/18/2006 @ 7:25 pm
hangover,
I took his comments as referring to Meat (T.M. Cleaver), but I could be wrong.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/18/2006 @ 7:29 pm
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.
Comment by M. Simon — 10/18/2006 @ 7:36 pm
#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.
Comment by hangover — 10/18/2006 @ 7:41 pm
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.
Comment by M. Simon — 10/18/2006 @ 7:48 pm
Any way. I’m going to bed. I’ll answewr any new questions when I get up.
Simon
Comment by M. Simon — 10/18/2006 @ 7:50 pm
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!
Comment by hangover — 10/18/2006 @ 7:55 pm
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.
Comment by hangover — 10/18/2006 @ 8:00 pm
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.
Comment by Darleen — 10/18/2006 @ 8:10 pm
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.
Comment by hangover — 10/18/2006 @ 8:12 pm
Just on the inside.
Comment by actus — 10/18/2006 @ 9:04 pm
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?
Comment by Workfaster — 10/18/2006 @ 9:56 pm
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?
Comment by Darleen — 10/18/2006 @ 10:11 pm
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.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/18/2006 @ 10:19 pm
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
Comment by Workfaster — 10/18/2006 @ 10:21 pm
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.
Comment by Workfaster — 10/18/2006 @ 10:33 pm
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.’
Comment by steve — 10/18/2006 @ 10:38 pm
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
Comment by Holmwood — 10/18/2006 @ 10:39 pm
[...] 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! [...]
Pingback by Grumpasaurus.com » Wingnuttia - Talk About Private Sexuality? Us? Never! — 10/18/2006 @ 10:52 pm
Ignoring trollish behavior. Answered over and over which has been ignored.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 10/18/2006 @ 10:59 pm
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.
Comment by hangover — 10/18/2006 @ 11:00 pm
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
Comment by hangover — 10/18/2006 @ 11:15 pm
#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.
Comment by M. Simon — 10/19/2006 @ 1:46 am
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!
Comment by hangover — 10/19/2006 @ 2:12 am
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…
Comment by Psyberian — 10/19/2006 @ 4:51 am
#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!
Rep