The Most Feared Man on Capitol Hill? For Gay Blogger, Craig's Resignation Is Just Latest on His List

[DeepModem Mom]

WP: The Most Feared Man on the Hill?
For Gay Blogger, Craig's Resignation Is Just the Latest on His List
By Jose Antonio Vargas
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 4, 2007; C01

Soon, a new name will pop up on Mike Rogers's hit list. Larry Craig wasn't "the first on my list," the gay blogger says. And the Idaho senator, who announced his resignation Saturday, "won't be the last." Rogers, sitting on a club chair in his Northwest Washington apartment, is basking in the attention. For three years now, he's been a feared one-man machine, "outing," he says, nearly three dozen senior political and congressional staffers, White House aides and, most damagingly, Congress members on his blog. On Capitol Hill, a typical phone call from Rogers -- "Are you gay?" he'd ask -- is "a call from Satan himself," says a former high-ranking congressional staffer whose name is on the list.

Rogers reasons that there's justice behind his tactics -- "odious," "outrageous" and "over-the-line" as they might seem to his detractors. In Rogers's mind, if you're against gay rights in your public life and you live a secret homosexual life, all bets are off.

In 2004, one of the first public officials he targeted was then-Virginia congressman Ed Schrock because of his voting record on such issues as gays in the military, same-sex marriage and gay adoption. In 2000, for instance, Schrock told the Virginian-Pilot: "You're in the showers with them, you're in the bunk room with them, you're in staterooms with them." Schrock decided not to run for reelection because of the rumors. In 2005, Rogers blogged about Mark Foley, months before his inappropriate instant-messages to male congressional pages became public and he was forced to resign. The former Florida congressman had a varied record, sometimes voting in favor of gay rights, but at one point voting against adoption by same-sex couples.

And last October, he says, he targeted Craig -- months before an undercover sex sting in a Minneapolis airport men's room, and before the Idaho Statesman started its months-long investigation. Two years earlier, Rogers notes, the three-term senator had voted for the failed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. "Hypocrisy," Rogers sneers, "plain, hate-filled hypocrisy."

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. That fact reveals more about the Republicans, he says, than about him. Although a registered Democrat, he says he is bipartisan. "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."...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090301396_pf.html

[SpiralHawk]

1. republicon homelander hypocrites

There are SO many

[lonestarnot]

2. Interesting.

[LiberalFighter]

3. Increasing the odds that Craig married for appearances sake.

He was single and 35 back in 1980 during his first term in office.
He denied being part of the page scandal back in 1982 even though no one was identified.
He adopted the children of his wife.
He does not have any children from the marriage.

I wonder if his wife knew he was gay back then or did Craig hide it so well that she didn't suspect?

How often did they had sex since their marriage in 1983?

[Mutineer]

4. Okay, here's my problem witth this Rogers guy:

Why not just out them all at once? Why he is leaking names one at a time, like a drip-drip-drip? Is he more interested in prolonging his own 15 minutes of fame or is he truly interested in outing these hypocrites?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. Because things get lost in a media circus like that.

I'm sure Senator Craig would have loved to have some of the attention diverted away from him. Rogers isn't allowing that to happen.

[Cirque du So-What]

5. I have no problem with what Mike Rogers is doing

To work against the rights of gay Americans while living in the closet is the height of sanctimonious hypocrisy.

I'll use this opportunity to expand on this issue to include a host of other peccadilloes that individual republicks may embrace.

What I have is only a hypothesis at this stage, but I believe that republicks actually desire 'compromised' individuals in office - as long as the information isn't too widely disseminated. That way, the party leadership can exert control over these compromised officeholders and get them to vote in lockstep with their goals.

Besides the obvious problems arising from this de facto blackmail, the possibility also exists that whatever skeletons lurk in the closets of these compromised lawmakers can become known to other interests - including those who desire the outright downfall of our nation. Vulernability to extortion is the same, whether it's party leadership or foreign interests who are pulling the strings.

Consider that many closeted gays in the republick party have gone to the extraordinary lengths of actually marrying and fathering children in order to provide cover for their true sexuality. It's not outside the realm of possiblilty that these hypocrites would vote against the best interests of this nation upon the orders of blackmailers.

This goes well beyond the issue of whether outing closeted gays is morally correct or not; it becomes a matter of national security. Those who are beholden to blackmailers must be removed from office at all costs.

[bryant69]

7. It's nice to know that Roberts apaprentlhy has high standards

He wouldn't out someone who was, say, voting to continue sending our troops to the Iraq Meatgrinder, so long as they don't upset his particular applecart.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com