Gay Blogger about to expose 30 more closet gays, all from GOP

[pathansen]

"THE MOST FEARED MAN ON THE HILL?"
Washington Post
See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090301396.html?nav=hcmodule

He was one of the first to expose both Larry Craig and Mark Foley.

"In the coming months, he plans to post the names of "a few more" closeted Congress members on his blog, he says, all of them Republicans. There are 33 names on his published list, most of them men, 30 from the GOP"

"I write about closeted people whose records are anti-gay," he says. "If you're a closeted Democrat or Republican and you don't bash gays or vote against gay rights to gain political points, I won't out you."

This could get interesting
:woohoo:

[wake.up.america]

1. Too bad it had to come to this.

[Sherman A1]

2. Precisely

IT is a shame, but as the wise man once told me "Most Wounds Are Self Inflicted". It's not about the sex (gay or straight) it's about the hypocrisy.

[depakid]

3. Ironically

If they didn't promote (and profit from) homophobia among their constituents, it would most often be a non-story.

[Quantess]

10. Here's what Tom Tomorrow says about it:

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/09/03/tomo/

Excellent TOON. You won't be disappointed.

[pathansen]

11. Very well worded

and funny too.

[pathansen]

4. What's wrong about exposing the gay bashing hypocrites?

You think its too bad Larry Craig and Mark Foley were exposed?

[wake.up.america]

5. No, I was trying to say is that it is a shame the Craigs of the world have to be exposed...

and removed from high ranking, decision making, positions as opposed to them realizing that being a hypocrite is not conducive to creating a better, kinder society.

[Maribelle]

12. Craig and Foley were exposed because they broke laws, not because they were hypocrites.

A problem with exposing some because they appear to be gay bashing hypocrites, is that it leaves other hypocrites of the same-worst- order totally unanswerable for their hypocrisy, vis-à-vis Vitter of Louisiana.

[sofa king]

20. Exposed, yes. Driven out of town, no.

At least in Larry Craig's case, he plea-bargained a misdemeanor and that's it on the legal front. He's probably done with all that.

Furthermore, the Senate may have convened some embarrassing ethics hearings on the subject, but it's almost impossible to remove a sitting Member of Congress if that Member refuses to go.

No, what got Larry Craig was the Republican Party and the slimy undercurrent of hate that oozed the Republican Party to power in the first place.

So he's gotta go, and the people telling him that are the Republicans, not us.

The GOP led the trogs to the polls with gay-bait, so to me it seems only fair that the gay community leads them right back home with the same stuff.

[Prophet 451]

6. Agreed

Ideally, the decision of when to come out should be left to the individual but when those people are actively pushing anti-gay measures and speech, outing them becomes a form of self-defence.

[Igel]

17. What if the reps are doing what their constituents would want?

Is it the case that a gay representative has to represent himself (and only himself) or not run for office?

Does this hold for other reps for other issues?

(I say this because when I held a student government office, there was more than one time when I was "hypocritical" and argued for--and even obtained--what the folks I was representing wanted when they had made their case and had shown it was reasoned. Then again, that was when I was still largely a fundie, and much more conservative than I am now.)

[Prophet 451]

21. Oooh, good question

The honest answer is, I don't know.

[shooter1965]

19. Not so sorry Charlie

http://theprogressivepost.blogspot.com/2007/09/not-so-sorry-charlie.html

[anniebelle]

7. Nobody likes a hypocrite and it's the chickens coming

to roost. I hope their dirty laundry gets aired from one end of our country to the other. I'm sick of hearing their hypocritical lies and their pompous holier-than-thou attitudes.

[Demeter]

8. Craig and His Ilk Redefined "Public Service"

Time to take the English language back from the weasels.

[cascadiance]

9. I wonder if Duke Cunningham will be "confirmed" on his list...

The Dukestir as an outwardly anti-gay person certainly should be on his list if they have the goods on him.

A lot of the articles hae been wiped on the net, but here's one from a google cached URL from the Washington Blade that talks about the Dukestir and other GOP gay folks at length...

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:j-0FJUSwd6IJ:www.washblade.com/2005/12-2/view/editorial/cunningham.cfm&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&client=firefox-a

[Baby Snooks]

13. The real "sin"

The real "sin" in Washington is not being homosexual or bisexual but getting caught and then outed and anyone who has spent any time in the "hallowed halls" of Congress will tell you that when someone is outed it comes as no great shock to anyone. Everyone in Washington already knew. Which makes the hypocrisy even more appalling. They are allowed their private lives - as long as they don't get caught and then outed - but the rest of us are not. The very mixed message to the American people, by both parties, is "Do as I say, not as I do." The hypocrisy of the two parties, however, is as different as day and night. The Democrats tend to leave it to the constituents to decide. The Republicans pull out the morality machine and execute the "sinner." Merely to divert attention from themselves.

Both parties pander to a small minority in this country which unfortunately is the majority when it comes to the money. And to quote the former wife of a Reagan administration cabinet member, "It's all about the money, honey." It is indeed.

The hypocrisy of the mysogynist attitude of heterosexual men, the few that actually exist in Washington, towards bisexuality is even worse than the hypocrisy of the attitude towards homosexuality. How on earth can a man like both? But, oh, my, how fun when a woman does. Let the orgy begin.

We've come a long way, baby. But not far enough.

Let the outing begin. More power to you, Mike.

[Lindsey]

15. They can't be the party of "family values" in public and literally have

crucified Clinton as they did (that tape of Larry Craig on Matthews was just freaky-creepy)and then be exactly what they say they're against in private.

[momster]

14. The Best Part

was toward the end:

<<Rogers blogged about Gurley, the former national field director at the Republican National Committee, in September 2004. Gurley, as Rogers tells it, had signed off on an RNC flier sent to conservative voting districts that shows one man proposing to another man. "The GOP wanted to scare voters. 'Look what will happen if the Democrats win!' " Rogers says. Gurley, however, says that he raised objections to the flier and that it wasn't his decision.

"What was I supposed to do?" Gurley says in an interview. He adds: "Who does Rogers think he is? God? What gives him the right to bully people around and tell us what to think or how to conduct our lives?">>

Hmmm...resign so you kept your self-respect instead of getting fired when your masters found out your orientation? Maybe stop serving people who want to 'bully people around and tell us what to think or how to conduct our lives'. Either would have been a better choice, brother.

[Mabus]

16. Atta boy Mike!

I've had the opportunity to meet and spend time with Mike Rogers. He's a great guy. I support what he is doing and I can't wait for him to start exposing away.

fwiw, I think it is kinda funny that people thought Mike exposed Larry Craig too early (not an election year). As it turns out, if Mike hadn't exposed Larry when he did this year's story might not have had the punch it did. I think Mike has good instincts and I can't wait to see the list.

[DuaneBidoux]

18. I think he ought to wait until after the nominations for 08 have been made and they all face dems.

That would be really cool!!

Can you imagine them as they "all fall down."