Gay Patriot Header Image

Conservatives Continue to Stick Up For American Gays

I find one element in our post-Foley world very encouraging.  In this atmosphere of Radical Gay Liberals hunting down gays and rooting them out of public service, it is conservatives sticking up for gay people and their privacy. 

And while the Gay Leftists continue to pursue a “mutual assured destruction” campaign against gay people our national gay groups are silent.  Our “gay leaders” are also allowing the nutty gay fringe to be the face of the gay community in the national media.  One exception — Patrick Sammon from Log Cabin on Larry King Live last night (which I was unable to watch).

First example…. Dean Barnett at Hugh Hewitt.com — “Who’s Really Being Outed?”.

More interesting is what this line of attack tells us about the left’s beliefs regarding the right. The left strongly believes that conservatives detest homosexuals and will be disgusted by the presence of a Lavender Mafia in the GOP tent. I can understand how they would reach this conclusion – certain chronic right wing embarrassments like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have historically fed such a notion.

But if those on the left actually knew more practicing Christians, they would know that the stuff about condemning the sin but loving the sinner isn’t mere lip service. If the members of the left actually knew the people that they so casually and easily defame, they would also understand that infinite forgiveness is a hallmark of America’s Christian community.

In short, this entire offensive rests on notions hatched in the left wing echo chamber without any dissenting voices available to disabuse the strategists of the their faulty assumptions. If the left actually took the time to understand the dynamics of the community they so loathe, they would know that professional Outing Scumbag Mike Rogers will inspire the Republican base, not the opposite.

BUT MOST DAMNING OF THE LEFT is the casual assumption of group-think that this exercise demonstrates. The logic is that if you’re gay, you must therefore support gay marriage. What’s more, you must support everything that someone like Glenn Greenwald supports. To do otherwise evidences self-hatred and a betrayal of the cause.

(read the WHOLE thing!)

And this from Eric at Classical Values — “Which Party Persecutes More Homosexuals?”

In what will go down as one of history’s great ironies, in enlightened, modern America, there are still people engaged in exposing and persecuting homosexuals working in the government or in important positions, and they are activists in the Democratic Party. (Michael Rogers and John Aravosis are two notorious, longtime practitioners, and the latter was recently invited to lunch with Bill Clinton.)

The difference is that the Democrats doing the persecution today can’t fire gay Republicans directly; instead they are tracking them down and exposing them in the hope that the Republicans will be bigoted enough to fire them. Unfortunately, this has failed. Even Rick Santorum, supposedly the worst gay basher of the lot, refused to fire his gay aide after the man was outed.

What this has created is a huge (if ironic) double standard between the parties. Gay Democrats have a right to their privacy, but gay Republicans are hounded and live in fear of the new (Democratic) sexual McCarthyism.

The reason they are made to live in fear while their Democrat counterparts are not is because gay Republicans are said to be self hating hypocrites. According to this argument, because the Republican Party does not support same sex marriage, any gay Republican is by definition betraying himself — even if he disagrees with the Republican Party on that issue. For that, it is fair to invade his privacy and make his identity and sexuality known to the world, in the hope that he’ll be fired by bigoted Republicans.

Yet the outed Republicans are not being fired. Their only persecutors are on the left. And they’re redoubling their efforts in order to combat more “hypocrisy.”

I’m not saying that the Republican Party is free of bigotry, because it isn’t. But if the activists keep this stuff up and ordinary voters find out about it (I’m not sure whether they have) pretty soon someone’s going to ask which party has more bigots.

This awesome salvo from Captain Ed — The Left Hates Gays?

These kind of slimy allegations have no way to be proven or disproven, leaving Craig with limited options to clear the air. How does one disprove a sexual orientation? He has three children with his wife Suzanne, and nine grandchildren. That seems to be proof that he has a heterosexual orientation, but Rogers and the scandal brigade will argue that Craig’s just in denial. It’s a no-win argument, and its use of anonymous sourcing is especially egregious and despicable. Rogers wants to ruin Craig politically, and yet he doesn’t produce a single source for his allegations to go on the record.

Once again, the Left shows its obsession with sexuality, but it’s really more than that. The Left obsesses over identity politics in all forms, and that obsession comes out in pathological terms. Rogers reveals this in his blog post, demanding that gay staffers on the Hill identify their orientation publicly, or else he will do it for them. Sexual identity is everything to him, and the concept of sexual privacy has no value to him at all. He wants to humiliate gays who prefer to keep their sexual activity private, forcing them to wear the virtual pink triangle against their will to experience obloquy and castigation.

However, the obloquy and castigation seems to only come from Rogers and his ilk. I couldn’t care less whether Craig is attracted to men or women; it’s really none of my business, and none of Rogers’ either. As long as he’s not importuning minors, then it makes no difference to anyone except Craig and his family, and that’s if the allegations have any basis in fact. The only time it becomes a public issue is if Craig insisted on an official government status of a same-gender relationship, which as a policy issue should be decided by the people. Most conservatives, moderates, and liberals share the same conviction that sexual orientation is a private matter. Only extremists like Rogers allow themselves to get worked up over it.

The only bigot who should be ashamed of himself is Rogers. And if he’s a libeler, he better get himself a damned good lawyer.

And finally, in one of the best written blog pieces I’ve seen in a while…. the incredible satirical “It’s the Homos, Stupid” — a letter from Howard Dean (in the form of IowaHawk) to the Conservative-American Community.

[T]his is just the tip of the GOP gayberg. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, the mincing minnie who ran the GOP’s Foley coverup? A former high school “wrestling coach.” California governor Arnold Schwartzenegger? A curious fondness for flexing his oiled pecs while parading around in a pair of skimpy Speedos. “Dick Armey”? You do the math.

And if their rampant homoism weren’t enough, the GOP has further betrayed traditional conservatives by secretly nominating negros in races across the country. Yes, you read that correctly: actual negros. No matter how many times they try to hide the genetic truth from conservatives like you, GOP nominees like Michael Steele, Lynn Swann and Ken Blackwell are black as the ace of spades. Imagine the devastating impact on US property values if the world learns that more of those types have moved into the Congressional neighborhood.

Are these Republican negros also gay? It is too early to say definitively, but much more will be revealed in the upcoming weeks. Our research teams are busy still digging up evidence, but what we’ve learned already should be enough to destroy whatever shred of faith you have left in the Gay Old Party. I have, in my hand, a list of of over 200 GOP insiders suspected of sodomy, locker room towel-snapping, dancing with fat girls, and open negroism. As Christians like you, we would rather persuade them to forfeit their election campaigns peacefully, but if necessary we promise to get the charges out in time for your November 5 Sunday sermons.

Are you fed up with the GOP’s miscegenation and gay bathhouse shenanigans? I know we’ve had our differences in the past, but maybe it’s time for conservatives like you to give Democrats a fresh new look. The Republicans like to talk about having a “big tent,” but we at the DNC are actually taking concrete steps to bring conservatives back in the fold. Just look at our innovative Iraq quagmire withdrawal plan, which has earned the praise and endorsement of rock-ribbed, traditional American conservatives like Pat Buchanan, Fred Phelps, and David Duke.

Like us, these no-nonsense mainstream conservatives know it’s time to bring US troops home where they belong, protecting our children from the clutches of the Republican congressional gay negro NAMBLA mafia. With our troops safely back, the people of Iraq can then begin building a faith-based society emphasizing the same traditional values that motivate conservatives like you: women at home, prayer in school, capital punishment for homos.

I am very proud of the excellent work by the conservative blogosphere by standing up for gay Americans while our own gay community turns on itself in a feeding frenzy.  I’d like to think our voices have had some impact in how conservative bloggers view gay issues and how their perceptions may have changed over the past two years.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

40 Comments

  1. I do think the actions of those on the left in all of this are working under the impression that the GOP is full of religious bigots who “hate” anyone who is homosexual. I think they misread the majority of GOP members, and even the majority religious conservatives probably aren’t going to care outside of a few of the kooks who are kooks anyway and hardly define the GOP or the religious conservatives in the GOP.

    Comment by just me — October 19, 2006 @ 5:54 pm - October 19, 2006

  2. I grew up in a classically fundy church and it goes something like this… It’s rude to be rude to the lovely lady who thinks that Pat Robertson is the best thing on television. She’s lonely afterall and watching TBN all day to keep the house from being too quiet is better than watching soap operas. She’s involved in other national groups too, and occasionally brings a little stack of pamphlets to church. It would cause a confrontation to make an issue of it, so let the pamphlets be, smile, and maybe after a while she won’t notice if you stick them behind the “What is Baptism” flyers. It’s really not that hard to put up with her, and maybe the couple of others, but really, the old man who’s been passive-agressively mowing over anything resembling landscape planting and destroying every spruce tree planted with the snow plough for the last 50 years so so much more annoying. Waiting for him to be too infirm to run the snow plough any longer takes the patience of a saint!

    I was thinking, when I read about whoever it was all het up about Condi’s horrific “mother-in-law” remarks, that the actual local support for these groups is probably not any where near what it seems to be. They might be able to swing a few votes for national elections but how much of an impact do they actually have on local elections? They do get church ladies all involved to spread the word but within a church, a lack of dissent, as it were, really doesn’t mean much. The pamphlets may be ending up behind the baptism brochure. The national membership may be large but how many members are in any given district?

    Marriage is a issue with broader pull because it affects people directly. They are chin deep in the social fall-out from our cultural abandonment of fidelity and, right or wrong, see gay marriage as yet another blow to it (not to mention, a way not to have to take personal responsibility otherwise… which is human nature) but it’s not about hating gay people, not for more than an extreme minority of conservative Christians.

    Comment by Synova — October 19, 2006 @ 6:44 pm - October 19, 2006

  3. Except this story contradicts your headline. The Republicans are clearly gay baiting in the Ohio gubernatorial race. Isn’t Ted Strickland’s sexuality a private matter too?

    You decry an outing campaign on Capitol Hill, but say nothing of the outing campaign being waged in Ohio? The faux moral outrage is so blatantly obvious.

    http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061019/NEWS01/310190019/-1/CINCI

    Comment by Chase — October 19, 2006 @ 6:52 pm - October 19, 2006

  4. I like this quote being sent out by the Blackwell campaign: “After the (1998) election Ted Strickland flies off to the shores of Naples, Italy in order to enjoy a little fun with this 26-year-old boy toy.”

    Being 26 years old myself, i’m flattered that one might still consider someone my age a “boy toy.”

    Comment by Chase — October 19, 2006 @ 6:59 pm - October 19, 2006

  5. I’ve never understood “the ends justify the means” attitude of the gay socialist left.I’ve always considered myself to be a classical homosexual.I’ve always been attracted to men who,regardless of fem or butch,value honor,courage and loyalty over individualism and the personal advancement of the sub-groups agenda.My Gay heroes are Alexander The Great,Hadrian and Richard The Lionheart.If these men were alive today and were Americans,they would most certainly value the prosperity and survival of the republic over their own personal privledges as gay men.This is honor…this is courage…this is loyalty.Where have all the stoics gone?

    Comment by L.C. Sula — October 19, 2006 @ 7:01 pm - October 19, 2006

  6. [Comment deleted.  This commenter has been repeatedly banned.]

    Comment by Frank Felcher — October 19, 2006 @ 7:14 pm - October 19, 2006

  7. Isn’t Ted Strickland’s sexuality a private matter too?

    Yes it is, Chase, and I fully and completely oppose what the Blackwell campaign is doing. Outing is wrong regardless of who does it.

    Now, let’s see you apply your faux outrage to when Democrats like Mike Rogers start digging through peoples’ lives.

    (crickets chirping)

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 19, 2006 @ 7:43 pm - October 19, 2006

  8. The Republicans are clearly gay baiting in the Ohio gubernatorial race. Isn’t Ted Strickland’s sexuality a private matter too?

    Ahem. What Ted Strickland is being “outed” about are his opposition to a 1999 House Resolution condemning the sexual abuse of children, and the apparent presence of a sex offender on his campaign staff.

    Or is not opposing child-rape and hanging out with sex offenders now party of the accepted gay lifestyle?

    Comment by V the K — October 19, 2006 @ 8:01 pm - October 19, 2006

  9. #6 – Gee, FF, I thought you were banned from this blog.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 19, 2006 @ 9:00 pm - October 19, 2006

  10. #5 – I agree, LC.

    #7 – #8 – I find this a tough call. From what I’ve heard, Blackwell is blowing it by carrying certain insinuations just too far. But the stuff V mentions are fair game. That Strickland voted “present” on an anti-child-abuse resolution is fact, and is reprehensible.

    #9 – Kewpie, oops I mean FF, is trying his “credibility-building” shtick where he says halfway responsible or Republican-ish things for a short while. Don’t worry – he’ll be back on the snark, soon enough. LOL 🙂

    #0 – Now what I came to say: Bruce, thank you for another post that just nails it perfect.

    It’s funny. Not only do the Democrats have the McCarthy-ite witch hunters these days – but, as we’ve been saying the last couple years, the Democrats have the conspiracy-mongering isolationists. I wonder if the two go together as a syndrome?

    I.e., could there a certain kind of person who naturally does both, who maybe was one of the McCarthy types in the 50s, but whose “next generation” we see at Daily Kos?

    Comment by Calarato — October 19, 2006 @ 9:58 pm - October 19, 2006

  11. I disagree, Cal; #7 and 8 are not a tough call in the least. Strickland’s sexual orientation has no relevance to the campaign; his vote may, but what Blackwell is trying to do is to claim that Strickland refused to vote against pedophiles because he’s gay and he is one.

    I don’t take that kind of shit from anyone, regardless of how much I hate their target.

    That being said, though, it’s fun to watch Democrats blow a blood vessel when a Rogers-esque chain of reasoning uncovers one of their own “hypocrites”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 19, 2006 @ 10:38 pm - October 19, 2006

  12. #11 – NDT, you underscored my points.

    —————————–
    So guys, I might be intermittent for a few weeks – Here again is how you spot a Kewpie sockpuppet –

    The biggest tip-offs together are:

    (1) A handle that is vulgar, perhaps sexualized, etc. (QueerPatriot… PussyPatriot… Frank Felcher… etc.) – In combination with –
    (2) An AOL address embedded in the blog handle area, like this: http//pussipatriotaol.com – http//frankfelcheraol.com – and so forth.

    You also have (3) the ugly snarkiness in comments, that re-emerges after a short period of “credibility building”, and (4) a characteristic set of concerns: military service – that Republicans won’t sign up or fight (an absurd falsehood, of course) – etc. Usually boils down to Kewpie flinging the “chickenhawk slur”.

    Those last criteria are pretty insufficient by themselves, of course. It’s the combo of all 4 that makes it Kewpie. Element (2) will disappear in situations where Kewpie is getting frustrated; he/she/it may invent a new sockpuppet *in the same thread*, which you then spot by its suspiciously close timing / juxtaposition to the other thing you know is Kewpie.

    I’m certain Kewpie has other sockpuppets I cannot spot. I am NOT recommending generalized paranoia about this! That would be giving Kewpie too much power. Maybe the best advice is to always remember, with anybody, that they might or might not be lying about who they are and you should focus on their arguments (or lack thereof).

    Comment by Calarato — October 19, 2006 @ 11:20 pm - October 19, 2006

  13. Well, NDT, i’m glad you are consistent. I respect that a lot.

    As for Mike Rogers, I don’t know who he is. So, I can’t give comment to that.

    Comment by Chase — October 19, 2006 @ 11:39 pm - October 19, 2006

  14. As for Mike Rogers, I don’t know who he is. So, I can’t give comment to that.

    You could start educating yourself by actually reading the series of posts which GP has so kindly laid out in this one. Every one of them mentions and goes into at least some detail on Rogers.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 19, 2006 @ 11:53 pm - October 19, 2006

  15. I know what they do, but I don’t know who they are. I take it they are reporters? That’s what I gathered from a quick skim.

    Well, it’s wrong to out people without their permission. But they do seem to be equal opportunity outers, since the one link showed they targeted Babs. Of course, I think everyone in MD knows Babs is a lacto-ovo vegetarian and doesn’t like meat, lol.

    But oh well, so it goes. What they do is wrong and they don’t represent all Democrats.

    On a side note, I just saw an article on Yahoo about the open congressional seat in Nebraska’s 3rd district. The Democratic candidate, Scott Kleeb, has to be the the hottest congressional candidate ever. OMG, he is smokin’ hot. Watching the ads on his website, I couldn’t even concentrate on what he was saying cause i was so distracted by his looks, lol.

    Comment by Chase — October 20, 2006 @ 2:36 am - October 20, 2006

  16. The Republicans are clearly gay baiting in the Ohio gubernatorial race.

    Looks to me like the liberals can dish it out, but they sure as hell can’t take it (as usual).

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 20, 2006 @ 3:01 am - October 20, 2006

  17. Chase,

    Here is a non-biased, albeit short wiki entry on Rogers:

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 20, 2006 @ 3:12 am - October 20, 2006

  18. Or you can read my longer version, which outlines Rogers’s penchant for harassment, wild diatribes, loony accusations, misrepresenting himself, trying to intimidate Democrats who disagree with him by claiming he’s working on behalf of the police……trust me, the list gets even longer.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 20, 2006 @ 3:34 am - October 20, 2006

  19. #15
    Chase, that is one hot politcian. Gotta love those square states.

    Before I read your comment, my choice for hot politician standing in a wheat field was was this guy from ND.

    Comment by John in IL — October 20, 2006 @ 3:42 am - October 20, 2006

  20. 5: How about the “ends justifies the means” of something like, oh, say, the iraq War? No weapons of mass destruction, no finding of ties between Saddam Huessein, no welcoming of Americans with open arms. Liked to constantly by the Republican led administration to justify the war and deflect from the fact that for all it’s kick ass talk, we’re *5 years* on since 9/11/01 and osama Bin Laden still hasn’t been caught. We’ve gone well past the time America was involved in WW II and defeated Hitler. Are we shooting to make this last longer than Vietnam?

    Comment by Kevin — October 20, 2006 @ 7:49 am - October 20, 2006

  21. 16: I don’t know about that..we’ve “taking it” form a republican led congrress since 95 and from the moron in chief since 2001. Looks like the tide is turning though……

    Comment by Kevin — October 20, 2006 @ 7:55 am - October 20, 2006

  22. Somewhat OT, but something to remember the next time a leftie insists that Democrats were united with Republicans in defeating communism and how dare you question their Patriotism. Ted Kennedy Offered to Help Soviets During Cold War

    In his book, Kengor focuses on a KGB letter written at the height of the Cold War that shows that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan’s foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts.

    Comment by V the K — October 20, 2006 @ 8:43 am - October 20, 2006

  23. So, Kevin still thinks feels Osama bin Laden is the only terrorist in the world, and if we catch him and give him a fair-by-ACLU-standards trial and maybe a spot on Oprah Winfrey, then all terrorism will be over forever. And before The Coalition BushHitlerCo went into Iraq, it was a jolly place with lovely meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.

    Comment by V the K — October 20, 2006 @ 8:48 am - October 20, 2006

  24. Kevin writes: “How about the “ends justifies the means” of something like, oh, say, the iraq War? No weapons of mass destruction, no finding of ties between Saddam Huessein, no welcoming of Americans with open arms.”

    And now the GayLeftBorg has added “we weren’t welcomed with open arms in Iraq” as proof that we went into Iraq for the wrong reasons?

    Ok, Kevin… take off the CindyZeroSheehan tin foil cap and get some air… you’re way beyond the “lost it” point.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 20, 2006 @ 9:28 am - October 20, 2006

  25. VdaK, the place you described sounds a lot like Team America’s parody of Sean Penn… lol

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 20, 2006 @ 9:35 am - October 20, 2006

  26. Kevin actually wrote that? Jeez, what rock has he been living under?

    For the record:

    (1) They did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Kevin evidently needs to read the Duelfer Report. Also, there have been several open-source accounts of chemical weapons stockpiles.

    (2) They did find that Saddam was (and by the way, STILL IS TO THIS DAY) tied to al Qaeda and other terrorists.

    (3) al Qaeda was in Iraq before 2003 (e.g., Zarqawi).

    (4) al Qaeda considers Iraq THE top theater in the GWOT (i.e., in al Qaeda’s war on the United States). Get it, Kevin?

    Comment by Calarato — October 20, 2006 @ 11:01 am - October 20, 2006

  27. I just finished reading an article which discussess a number of things. One is that Republicans in Congress many times are not anti-gay in private, but are only publicly so because that is what is demanded of their constituents in certain areas. In many cases these lawmakers are more supportive of their gay staffers than those of us on the left assumed. That is some glimmer of hope.

    I still don’t understand (even if for political gains) the concept of exploiting negative feelings towards the LGBT community in order sustain or gain power, especially when it could have unintended negative impact on the community.

    But, as it’s not my choice to do that, nor is it my choice to work for a lawmaker in that position, I suppose it is not for me to understand at all.

    Comment by James — October 20, 2006 @ 11:07 am - October 20, 2006

  28. 26: All of those facts have been laid out before. Unfortunately, real world facts cannot penetrate a mind filled with moonbat myths. People on the left want to believe that there were no WMD, they want to believe that Saddam was not supporting terror, they want to believe that Iraq has nothing to do with GWOT. Because if any of those things are true, than pacifism and everything else they believe in isn’t.

    It’s also why there are so many far-left conspiracy nutjobs who think the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition and the Pentagon was hit by a missile. Because, if the 9-11 attacks really were carried out by brown third-worlders following a non-Christian ideology of sheer hatred… then, every belief liberalism is built on … multiculturalism, the belief in the ‘noble savage,’ that Christianity, capitalism and America are the most dangerous and diabolical forces on Earth … is a lie.

    Comment by V the K — October 20, 2006 @ 11:15 am - October 20, 2006

  29. #28 – V da K, you hit the nail on the head. Again.

    The only thing creepier about that picture you paint is the phrase “…is a lie.” I was watching a repeat of “Mommie Dearest” on Oxygen last night and when Diana Scarwid tells Faye Dunaway that “THAT…is a LIE” with such a malicious glint in her eye, you know right away that a smackdown is going to ensue. And it’s grip-the-pillow time.

    Off-topic: what is your favorite line out of “Mommie Dearest?” Just curious.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 20, 2006 @ 4:29 pm - October 20, 2006

  30. Off-topic: what is your favorite line out of “Mommie Dearest?” Just curious.

    General question? If so, then it is this:

    “I said no more wire hangers…..EVER!”

    =)

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 20, 2006 @ 4:34 pm - October 20, 2006

  31. Mine is from the same confrontation scene I quoted above:

    “Because I’m not…one of your…FANS!!!!!!!!!!!”

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 20, 2006 @ 4:37 pm - October 20, 2006

  32. LOL! I think that is good too! Great movie!

    Comment by DanielFTL — October 20, 2006 @ 5:16 pm - October 20, 2006

  33. “Don’t F*** with me fellas!! This ain’t my first time at the rodeo”

    Comment by Sydney Talon — October 20, 2006 @ 7:48 pm - October 20, 2006

  34. Off-topic: what is your favorite line out of “Mommie Dearest?” Just curious.

    Never seen it. Here’s a good line from one of my favorite movies, “Hell, I’ll kill a man in a fair fight… or if I think he’s gonna start a fair fight, or if he bothers me, or if there’s a woman, or if I’m gettin’ paid – mostly only when I’m gettin’ paid.”

    Comment by V the K — October 20, 2006 @ 10:35 pm - October 20, 2006

  35. I’ve seen Mommy Dearest and I’ll admit it was interesting. I don’t recall any lines. My favorite part was the very end when the daughter learned her lesson. I liked the slight recursiveness of it and the element of poetic justice.

    That said… Oxygen? Ack, ptewie, choke.

    Maybe V the K and I can get some popcorn and watch Serenity once again. OH! The Jaynestown episode is nearly a musical. For those musically minded. 😉 Jayne is just so… authetic.

    Comment by Synova — October 21, 2006 @ 12:24 am - October 21, 2006

  36. I’m unclear why Larry Craig hasn’t retained a lawyer to sue Michael Rogers for the videotape purporting to be of Larry Craig having gay sex in Union Station. Surely once we all see the video, we’ll know once and for all, whether it’s Larry Craig or not.

    Comment by Steven — October 23, 2006 @ 2:52 am - October 23, 2006

  37. If Republicans strongly support drawing a clear line between private behavior and public job performance, why don’t they support ENDA, which would ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation?

    If Sen. Craig thinks it’s okay for employers to contemplate their employees private lives, why isn’t the voting public allowed to do the same with regard to him?

    Comment by m.croche — October 23, 2006 @ 10:08 am - October 23, 2006

  38. How many “employers” do you know that release to the media that an employee they want to fire has had sex in public restrooms, based on “anonymous” sources?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 23, 2006 @ 12:27 pm - October 23, 2006

  39. Mike Rogers is NOT a Democratic candidate for office, is NOT a Democratic operative, and is supported by any leading Democrats. Yet somehow he has become the voice of the Democratic party. But then by some twisted logic, Republican candidates like Blackwell, who are supported by the Republican leadership, are not representative of the Republican viewpoint. Further, while you say the Dems are quiet on Rogers, the silence is even more defeaning from the Republican leadership on Blackwell. You deplore Blackwell, I deplore Rogers. So amongst us nobodies, it’s all even.

    Comment by zen_less — October 23, 2006 @ 1:05 pm - October 23, 2006

  40. I think that anyone who is paid by Representatives Slaughter and Conyers, plus has the endorsement of them and several other “tolerant” Democratic Congresspersons, would qualify as a Democratic operative, wouldn’t you?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 24, 2006 @ 1:02 am - October 24, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.