October 17, 2006

Democratic Blogger "Outs" Senator

Pretty disgusting behavior, but par for the course for Mike Rogers, who seems to get off on this sort of thing. Rogers accuses Idaho Republican Larry Craig, a father of three and a grandfather of nine, of being a closeted homosexual. Craig denies the charge.

I suppose it is possible Craig or other Republicans are closeted gays, but... so what?

I personally find women attractive, but should that be the only defining trait I use to weigh and measure every activity and interest I have? Why should my sexual orientation be the driving force in my life, overriding all other considerations?

Most people I know primarily care about issues of national security, taxes, crime, controlling growth, education, personal finances, and their family's spiritual and physical well-being. They aren't so emotionally stunted that they can only see their entire world through a single narrow prism of sexual preference, trying to somehow relate it it to all things. Average folks don't twist their realities this way. They have multi-faceted lives.

Sadly, Rogers has generated a tremendous amount of support from blog-reading Democrats, as presently a supermajority of them (70%) support "outing" as a political tool.

I'm rather disgusted by this, and I am not alone.

Conservatives want to fight terrorists, and Democrats want to fight homosexuals.

Sounds like someone has their priorities really screwed up.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at October 17, 2006 10:29 PM | TrackBack

Evidently the democ'rat party has a problem with gays that the republicans don't have. Live and let live is the republican party line while the democ'rats have became as bad as the Loon Kim in North Korea at 'forcing' their thoughts on everyone else. Soon they will be sending people on midnight trips of no return.

Posted by: Scrapiron at October 17, 2006 11:03 PM

the loony left wants to fiught homos who are not of the left.


to the left evrything about one's self is derived from one's membership in certain predefined classes.

if one is gay or black or handicapped or old then one MUST be a dem.

if one is a fundamentalist, then one be a republican or a member of alqaeda.

the left wants people to get admitted to schools and to get jobs based on their memebrshipo in certain classes/their ID.

steele and rice and gay GOP'ers violate this identity politics. that's whay the left considers them fair game.

it is a fundamentally anti-libertarian and anti-individualistic creed. it's why they are fascists at heart: the fasci is a bundle of straws; alone each straw breaks; together they are strong. the left wants to break the indivisual and force them to join the fasci. (just like the jihadists. which is why they are not asthreatened by them. they are both anti-individualist/statist creeds.

the left has always uswed whatewvcer tactics they thought would advance their leftist cause.

in the 1960's they campaigned AGAINST marriage - inorder to destroy this bourgwoise institution. now they campaign for GAY marriage for the same reason.

when privacy suits them they are for it, but when ignoring privact rights suits their ultimate goals then they put it aside - in a flash.

when it comes to roe v wade they argue that the US Consitution is writ in stone; it's "ESTABLISHED LAW", they sya. But when they want to overturn something them they argue that "IT'S A LIVING INSTITUTION."

In other words: they are dangerously FOS.

their only principle is to do whatver they can to destroy industrialism, captialism, and traditional bourgeiose culture. arguably the things which have mst improved the lives of most people in the world since 1840.

they would prefer we all lived in a prison - with healthcare, free eduaction, and unlimited sex.

since the USSR failed and china and india became more captialist and indistrialized - and thus exposed socialism as a totally bankrupt creed which couldn't ever deliver the goods - literally and figuratively - the left has declined and become nothing more that a party of post-modern nihilists and hedonistic libertines.

BTW: i have been a registered dem since 1974 - the fact that the left now controls the party makes me angry and nauseus.

Posted by: reliapundit at October 17, 2006 11:13 PM


Asserting that "Live and let live is the republican party line" while one discusses homosexuality is an idea of such vast mendacity that it has taken me since yesterday just to walk around its circumference and get back here to post.

Never in my experience have Republicans ever been "live and let live" with respect to homosexuality. Where were they on "don't ask, don't tell?" What about gay marriage? I'm just grabbing two recent topics off the shelf; this isn't an exhaustive list.

Do you really believe what you wrote (which would be terrifying) or are you just writing a whole bunch of whatever in order to make yourself feel good (which would be par for the course)?

To forestall the inevitable "you said/no I didn't" flame war, I'm not addressing the issue of outing gay Republican representatives in any way. I'm only addressing your post.

Posted by: Doc Washboard at October 18, 2006 08:10 AM

I can't issues responses for an entire political party and tens of millions of supporters, but I personally support openly gay military service, and I've written about it in the past:

I have always supported the idea that any able-bodied American willing to serve their country should have the opportunity. It is unfair to exclude gays from the armed forces or make them hide who they are, while simultaneously telling them they should be proud of the character the military is supposed to have helped them develop. It was and is an intellectually dishonest position.

American soldiers who have the mettle to handle withering enemy fire can handle the sexuality of their fellow soldiers.

As for gay marriage,"marriage" is a religious and legal issue, not merely a legal issue. I'm all for legally binding contracts allowing gay couples full spousal rights within a legal framework, but by trying to force gay "marriage," you are attempting to infringe upon the religious beleifs of many faiths, and the beliefs of the vast majority of Americans, Democrat and Republican.

As usual, you aren't addressing what I wrote, just how you would like to misconstrue what I wrote to fit within your ideological framework.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 18, 2006 08:42 AM

Rogers is a gay terrorist.

Posted by: Sensible Mom at October 18, 2006 09:01 AM

Umm, CY, doc washboard is a troll. That's what they do. He doesn't care what the issue is. He's just here to vomit idiocy.

Posted by: bri at October 18, 2006 09:16 AM

Unless you think there's something wrong about being gay, being outed really isn't a bad thing.

Posted by: jpe at October 18, 2006 09:20 AM

And I'm sure you'll also denounce Sean Hannity, who just two nights ago, defended Melanie Morgan and her co-author's claim in their new book that Cindy Sheehan had an affair with Lew Rockwell and is "addicted to online porn." Let's hear some more from Bush supporters about how terrible it is that the "left" is using private sexual behavior for political gain and exposing people who enter the public arena to such terrible, invasive scrutiny.

Posted by: Ed at October 18, 2006 10:17 AM

Well, now that I've heard of it, sure. I doubt her "addiction” exists, but even if it did, it would hardly be the nuttiest aspect of her increasingly bizarre life.

Not seeing or listening to Hannity, I didn't know there was a book, and certainly have no intention of reading it. As for any relationship between Sheehan and Rockwell, rumors of such aren't exactly news. I first heard about it months ago, but didn’t think it was worth mentioning. I didn’t—and still don’t—view their personal relationship as worth my time as a political blogger.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 18, 2006 11:30 AM

You'll also be blasting Ken Blackwell for his smearing of Ted Strickland, right?

It's OK, I'll wait...

Posted by: dave™© at October 18, 2006 12:24 PM

Again, if it's no big deal that the senator is gay, why the outrage? Is it just political posturing?

Posted by: jpe at October 18, 2006 12:30 PM


I've got better things to do today than research and respond to every single petty example you can dig up. I don't know what blackwell said, and frankly don't care. He's outside of my normal range of coverage. Direct that question to someone who cares.

As for jpe's question:

Again, if it's no big deal that the senator is gay, why the outrage? Is it just political posturing?

Again, I could care less about his sexuality, just the disgusting method used to alledge it("outing," and an outing by anonymous sources at that). I'm laso sickened by the overwhelming support of such a disgusting tactic by an supermajority of liberal readers at Daily Kos.

I take it you approve of the tactic?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 18, 2006 12:41 PM
the disgusting method used to alledge it

Talk radio?

Posted by: jpe at October 18, 2006 01:21 PM


Unless Scrapiron is your sock puppet, I wasn't responding to you in my post above; it was specifically addressed to Scrapiron. It should not, therefore, be surprising that I didn't address what you wrote.


Is this a mutual backpatting society, or is it a discussion board?

Posted by: Doc Washboard at October 18, 2006 01:26 PM

If you mean, is this a liberal blog where 458 comments complement the poster of every article, then no. Have you missed all the snide comments you and your pals make? In that sense, I guess the discussion board has faltered a bit recently.

Posted by: bre at October 18, 2006 01:56 PM

So Dave....did Brian Ross and the rest of MSM carry Blackwell's issue?

I agree with CY though - it is not the issue of whether someone is gay or not. It is the fact that if they wish not to make that public, that is their right. People should be allowed their own personal privacy. What Rogers is doing is trying to get his way through blackmail. And that is plain wrong.

Bri - you are correct - maytag is a troll.

Posted by: Specter at October 18, 2006 02:59 PM
It is the fact that if they wish not to make that public, that is their right.

If it's morally neutral, and not "disgusting," what difference does it make who does the outing?

Posted by: jpe at October 18, 2006 05:13 PM
If it's morally neutral, and not "disgusting," what difference does it make who does the outing?

Why do an "outing" at all? Who stands to gain from the outing?

Why are the "outings" being done in the form of an attack?

They are being done as part of a liberal plan to suppress and disenfranchise a portion of the voting populace. It is assumed that by suppressing this populace, that liberal politicians will be able to pick up gains and thus get back into power.

These outings are not being done out of love or the for best interests of the people being outed. They are being done out of hate and the pursuit of political power.

Democrats want to scream and holler about voter suppression and disenfranchisement - well this is the clearest example of one of the most pernicious forms of voter suppression: the politics of personal destruction.

Posted by: SouthernRoots at October 18, 2006 05:23 PM

Bre (or Bri--whichever):

If you're contemptuous of left-wing blogs where every post is preaching to the choir and nobody has anything contrary to offer, why are you also so contemptuous of the fact that I disagree with much of what appears here?

You're not making much sense.

On the one hand, you attack what you see as a "yes man" attitude in the progressive blogosphere; on the other, you dismiss me as a troll, with my sole objective being to "vomit idiocy."

Which is it? Do you want people to be all in agreement here, or do you want some discussion? Choose; you can't have it both ways.

Even better: respond substantively to my initial idea--specifically, that the Republican party is clearly anti-gay, and that pretending otherwise is rank hypocrisy.

Posted by: Doc Washboard at October 18, 2006 06:09 PM
Why do an "outing" at all? Who stands to gain from the outing?

For one thing, it forces people that had thought of gay people as "those people" to recognize that gay people are like you and me. Gay people are our friends, our family, our associates.

For another, the closet is a destructive place (Mark Foley being the most recent cautionary example).

Posted by: jpe at October 18, 2006 06:36 PM
For one thing, it forces people that had thought of gay people as "those people" to recognize that gay people are like you and me. Gay people are our friends, our family, our associates.

So outing someone that hasn't done it themselves is for the good of society at large and to help the outed from the destructive confines of the closet?

That's just so kind of you to be so thoughtful.

Is this program only for one party, or will we be seeing a group of Democrats benefiting from this form of tough love?

You guys are sick.

Posted by: SouthernRoots at October 18, 2006 06:51 PM