Click here to listen to Mike Rogers of BlogActive.com, who is the nations top gay activist blogger, out Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho as being involved with same sex activities.
http://audio.wegoted.com/podcasting/101706RogersMike.mp3

Check out how people are reacting
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/17/174357/85

The reaction of the liberal echo chamber is one thing, that in the heartland will be quite yet another.

Chip

I heard part of it. I understand the hypocrisy, but I'm not very comfortable with the outing. I don't really like it at all.

But it will certainly destroy the Republican Party. The only question is, which way will it fall?

GoU

Wow. I did not get to listen to that show. While I am against "outing" people, I will take exception to people who are hypocrites and vote against civil rights. This Mike Rogers is a brave guy though, that is for sure. I just hope is "sources" really are sure and true. This is homewreckin' kind of stuff!

I completely respect your feelings about outing; I used to feel the same way.

I've changed my mind recently; I no longer have a pre-Mark Foley mentality.

Well, I'm on the fence. It certainly makes me uneasy.

GoU

There are over 600 replies over on the KOS.

This was revealed just 3 hours ago.

The logic of outing of closeted Gays can very quickly be turned to the outing of the victim's of sexual crimes. There appears to be an active debate in the Progressive community about the outing of victim's of rape. The logic behind this goes along the lines of destigmatizing the crime in order to increase the open reporting of it.

It's a Pandora's box that we're opening.

Best Regards,

Craig's office denies

http://www.newwest.net/index.php/city/arti...airs/C108/L108/

Hell Yes I agree with outing gay republican politicians! ABSOLUTELY, 100%!

They have spent 25 years running and hijacking power with their self-righteous, sanctimonious "hollier-than-thou" platform, all too happy to gain votes by bashing gays, condemning "deviant" behaviour and passing themselves as the guardians, defenders and practitioners of all that is "moral" and "righteous" as if God Alighty Himself had appointed them to the task. Modern-Day puritans they claimed to be.

Yeah, the republicans could be incompetent and greedy, they could be filthy rich and ignore the needs of the poor, they could wage wars based on lies, and ignore poor people drowing in a flood.

They could do all that because because at least they were not going to pursue the "gay agenda".

I for once, I am happy to see that the GOP's "moral" facade is crumbling like a house of cards.

Yes. OUT ALL GAY GOP POLITICIANS! ... ALL OF THEM! It is about time they are outed and exposed, not for their homosexuality (I have nothing against homosexuality), but for their HYPOCRISY. Take the gloves, off, they are fair game.

Aloha.

If true, this is indeed shocking news to me. I live basically right next door to Craig's district and have heard nothing of this in the past. I really don't know how I feel about the way this outing was done since he really has not done anything wrong, other than be a hypocrit. I can understand why Rogers is doing what he is but still do not know if I go along with it.

Here's how I react: (yawn)

You see Holmey (may I call you that?) here's how it will play out:
The GOP gays are outed. The GOP bids farewell, and the fundamentalists say "GOOD! We think they are an abomination!" Most of the outed will join the party of enlightenment... the DEMS of course, because we welcome ALL comers. The right will say "SEE? It's the VALUES!" and the sheep will listen.
Net gain: More divisiveness. More Limbagh talking points. The right latches harder on to the fundy vote. We "appear" to "lose", when in fact we win.

Outing a victim of rape is not acceptable. Outing a hypocritical 'tard who claims to be so moral, stabs gays in the back while hiding in the closet, OUT THE SOB! Let that SOB feel the hate directed at him daily. Let that SOB know how it feels to be a second class citizen that can be fired from a job and kicked out of their housing all because of their orientation. If he wasn't so publicly anti-gay and was in the closet, let him stay there. Mess with my life, you are outted.

This I disagree with. First, being gay is NOT a crime. Also, a gay person, being gay is NOT a victim.

You're wayyyy off base here, IVEATCH.

GoU

Outing a gay person for political gain strikes me as wrong. Hypocrit or not, there are many gay people that lean towards conservative views. This just strikes me as only for political gain at expense of a person not ready to come out or who is not gay and incorrectly labeled by Rogers. Heard Rogers say his sources were "solid", have heard this before (Truthout). Think Ed is making a bad choice here, was disapointed in Ed when I heard this today on his show. Actually one of few times I have turned channel when I was listening to a segment. But it is all about the win and when it comes down to it that is what both sides really care about.

HEY HOLMEY,i wish big eddie would put together a list on the web of the family values GAY OLD PARTY.

HEY UNION,you have to take no prisoners with this crowd.they will knock you down,beat you unconscious and then mutilate you, then turn you into ground sausage.

I am not in favor of outing people that are Gay that wish to remain in the closet. It's their life, not mine. There are those that may use the word 'Hypocrisy' to justify the outing. How much hypocrisy is needed? Is there a threshold amount? Who judges exactly what is hypocrisy? Who defines it? It is a dangerous and slippery slope. I believe that there are those that will stretch 'outing' to include crime victims. THAT IS ALSO wrong!

I view Mister Mike Rogers as an opportunist. It doesn't matter if he is right or wrong with his accusation. He gets to make a mess and let others clean it up all in the name of righteous indignation. How is he different from a Firey Preacher that 'outs in the name of the Lord'? Just because his targets happen to be hypocrites, this doesn't make it right. Its just a mental line of justification.

Maybe one of his outed victims will committ suicide someday.

Do you think that Mike Rogers would be proud if this happened? Or would he stop and think........

Best Regards,

Excellent first post, Kingdom of Heaven. Well written!

Thanks for posting and welcome to the board. I hope this won't be your last post as you seem to be a well-reasoned individual. I also have some misgivings, as I stated above. I have to assume that Mike has his evidence signed, sealed, and delivered. Otherwise he knows that he is leaving himself open for a series of massive liable suits, so I tend to believe him. I also understand the reasons why someone wouldn't want to be outed, especially if he has been publicly making statements against gays while practicing it behind closed doors. Hopefully these outings (if nothing else) will open a dialogue and start to make this lifestyle more acceptable in the public eye so that people don't have to remain closeted.

I will wait for the chips to fall on this one and the smoke to clear. I will also have to do some soul searching to see where I really stand on tihs issue as well. I have disagreed with Big Ed on a few issues in the past and I guess that this may end up being one of them.

When progressives err on the side of caution, privacy and respectability - we lose elections. However, I am conflicted on outing even a 'hypocrite'. Don't think ESS should be tabloid in style...you will ruin all that you have earned in trust capital. Let someone else get the 'get'. After it is exposed then go after it and take it to 'em.

If you say his personal life is fair game then you have no defense for the witch hunt that was Ken Starr.

When a closeted gay man votes for discrimination against out gay people, then they flat deserve to be outed. If they don't want outed, then damn well remain neutral on such issues. Don't come preaching about so called 'moral values'. They are living a damn lie and I do not want them deciding how I should live my life.

When they are in a position of power to make life hell for others, they get what they deserve. James West, Spokane's former mayor, or as Franken put it 'Spokane's anti-gay, gay mayor' used to be in the state legislature. Every anti-gay bill that came up, he voted for. He voted for discrimination. Discrimination in the workplace, discrimination in healthcare, discrimination in hiring/firing and discrimination in housing. Turns out, he was closeted. He got caught offering jobs to young men in exchange for sexual favors.

We voted his ass out of office in a special election. Not because he was gay, but because he was a hypocrite.

Life in the closet is no way to live. It is a life of lies and deception.

I voted West out not because he was either gay or a hypocrit. I voted him out because he used his position (and government resources) to procure young men. I didn't support his hypocracy, but I hated his use of his time and cmputers, etc that I paid for with my tax dollars to solicit gay sex with youngsters.

I will be wathcing with interest to see what unfolds next regarding Senator Craig.

That was the reason I voted him out too. Makes one wonder if he would've done what he did if he had been openly gay.

With all due respect Senihele, that is exactly the point. We liberals have been fair game from day one.... taking hit after abusive hit and fighting back by playing nice. I say enough of that. It is time we held the conservatives to the same standards and measure them with the same yardstick they use to measure us.

Like I said, Senihele, I have nothing against homosexuals, I support equal gay rights and gay marriage. However ZAT hit the nail right on the head "When a closeted gay man votes for discrimination against out gay people, then they flat deserve to be outed...." I agree 100% with that.

I have little tolerance for hypocrisy. People like Pat Robertson who fathered a son out of wedlock, that scumbag Jim Bakker who got caught with a hooker, Mark Foley and his aid Fordham (who is also gay) and Mary Cheney who never uttered a word about the anti-gay policies of his father.... I have no respect for people like that.

Bill Clinton was far from perfect, but he never claimed to be hollier than everyone else nor that he was appointed by God, and I give him respect points for that. I for once I am happy the hollier-than-thou crowd is being exposed as the phonies they are.

Aloha.

I got these two comments from posters at Rogers' blog. They pretty well sum it up.

If you have no tolerance for hypocrisy then again, you can not approve of the use of personal lives as fodder and then object to the experiences of Bill Clinton with Ken Starr! Doing so doesn't mean you lack tolerance for hypocrisy it means you bit into it!

OUT THEM!!!!!!!

I, for one am SICK AND TIRED of closeted gays. walk through the hell of comming out just like I did. If they can't do that, then what the hell are they doing in public office. If they can't be honest with themselves, then how can they be honest with their constiuents.

Living a life as a lie is fine if that is what they want to do. But, DON'T be in public office making policy out of it!

Just my dollar's worth.

Once again logical fallacies rip through the shroud of acceptance and tolerance, only to reveal suppressed tendencies toward authoritarianism.

Chip

Then it follows we must not allow closet drinkers to vote on DWI laws, people with purged criminal backgrounds to vote on criminal laws, adulterers to vote on issues concerning marriage, etc.

Where does this stop? I have to agree with Senihile on this; we are rapidly approaching the point where we have no call to complain about Ken Starr's chasing Bill Clinton down. Matter of factly; this process of destroying people started way before that and envelopes both parties. Shame on America for allowing that to rule our politics.

Shut the F up ######. When you walk in the shoes of a gay American you may pass judgement.

Weak Weak Weak and irrelevant. I highly doubt you ever complained about Ken Stars waste of tax dollars. Talk about sucking off the public tits.

If we don't hold our public officers accountable we end up in wars with no end and potentially circumventing the Constitution and could end habeas corpus. Oh wait, that has happened.

Hmmm. The old shoes of a(n) (substitute word from below) argument; meant to stifle and stop all debate;

black man
priest
teacher
politician
businessman
jew
muslim
poor
rich
uneducated
philanderer
socialist
etc. etc. etc.

Absolutely correct. How dare you presume to know anything on this topic? Unless you are a gay American, you don't have to deal with repercussions from self hating closeted gay Americans and ignorant homophobic peoples.

Now, go be a good liar and combine come corn or play golf whatever you say you are.

So if a gay man is in the closet because he knows coming out would, as an example, kill his old fashioned father, grandfather, mother, or grandmother that he loves; is it still wrong to stay in the closet?

Just wondering where destroying people stops.

If they want to stay in the clost fine. Don't be in public office making policy on it.

Round and round we go.

See post 35 above.

Being from Idaho and having many family members from Idaho, I would have expceted to have heard this before. No rumor about Larry Craig has ever reached my ears.
All that said, why does it matter? Larry is there to represent his constituents. If his constituents want him to vote a certain way, should he not vote that way whether he completely agrees or not?

Many of you just seem to be hypocrits. If a person is Gay, why do we want to ridicule? If a person is an "R", many of you will somehow hold the fact that the person is Gay against them. People are just playing politics and really do not care other than that they are an "R". in fact, people have already said that they have changed or may change their mind just because of Foley. Are you for Gay people have equal rights or not? This same mentaility happens with Black people also. If you are Black and "R" then you are an uncle Tom. Cannot Gay & Black people be more of an "R" than a "D".

How ridiculous this appears to be important.

Funny how all of a sudden you are concerned about destroying peoples lives. Your conservative agenda has been destroying peoples lives for at least six years now. Things that make you go Hmmmmm.

It doesn't matter to me if they are R or D. If they are gay and in the closet and voting on policy that hurts me and them I want them exposed. It just so happens that the party in power now is R and that is how the cookie crumbles.


"How ridiculous this appears to be important."

If this is a non-issue as it appears you are tryng to spin it, Why is the "gay card" being played throught the country in elections to bring out the bigoted christian base?

I also find it odd that normally tolerant Progressives are cheering the burning of Gay Republican Witches.

Progressives have been sounding the alarm with the warnings of a 'slippery slope' in regards to President Bush's recent actions on enemy combatants and Habeas Corpus law. Do you detect no slippery slope here?

Best Regards,

It should be a non-issue. Being gay or even in the closet should be non-important. How they vote should be how their constituents want them to vote.

The issue is being played just like issues of abortion or death penalty are played.

For some reason people believe that a "D" must be pro-gay and a "R" is anti-gay. This, of course, is just stereotyping and profiling.

The slippery slope I detect is the acceptance of homophobia and glorifying of hatred spewed from the pulpit as free speech and religious freedom. I don’t think Malcome X would have sat by quietly if black members of congress voted to reinstate slavery or voted to ban inter-racial marriage. It is also these very members who are triumphanting bush's recent actions on Habeas Corpus law who are gay, and are at the very least, not standing up to the tyrants that would place gay Americans on enemy combatants lists. They are if not the ones themselves lobbying for gay Americans to be regarded as enemy combatants.

I did not say D was pro gay and R was anti. I said it doesn't matter if they are D or R.

Are you gay?

Interestingly, I had a change of heart about this, and it came from talking to formerly closeted gay friends. I think seeking the advice of an expert is important, if you don't know about the subject matter.

At first, I thought that it was bad to allow anyone invasion into our non-criminal sex lives. I think it's invasive, and it is. I'm generally one of the people who adhere to the concept that the ends never justify the means, it's one of the bases of our system of law.

Why I was wrong: I have no problem with gays who want to be closeted. It's bad for them personally, psychologically, and emotionally. However, lots of things that are self-destructive are perfectly legal. I'd be completely fine if they wanted to be self-destructive. Where it leaves off being fine, is when they want to impose that self-destruction on the self-aware, honest and open members of the gay community. It wasn't the radio guest who gave the public an inroad to the bedroom of a private individual, it was THAT individual, when he gave the government power to do so. Now they're using that power in a way that hurts him. The legislation that hurt everyone else, is now hurting him. High time.

Okay..... fair enough. I guess that we Republicans will sternly reject any Republican that can be proven to be a closeted Gay. Now how many openly Gay Republicans were there? Looks like there will be little or no influence on Republican policy on Gays outside of the Log Cabin Republicans.

Is this what you want? Little or no influence with a party that represents 40 to 55% of the electrorate. No one working behind the scenes? No one trying to change anything?

Looks like Breeders and Gays will just have to fight each other on the Seas, on the Beaches and now finally in our own homes. No prisoners.

Do you think this will advance or retard the open acceptance of those who are Gay?

Best Regards,

If you throw respectability out of the window then you may as well sign up to be a republican.

I think the solution that would make everyone happy would be for the anti-gay republicans to line up the gay republicans against the wall and shoot them. Dems would be happy the hippocrits got what they deserved, Reps are happy to get rid of the gays and the NRA is happy guns were used.

Oh shove your condescending bile. The log cabin repugs have been a laughing stock to this administration. They haven't had any pull. Are you a log cabin repug? I say again and this is my point. If a person can't be honest enough with themselves to admit who they are, how are they going to be honest with their constituents? This is not a R or D issue. If someone is hiding who they are and voting on legislation that hurts entire groups of people because of some inability to be honest about who they are, they have no business being in public office.