Full Version: Gay Republicans
A blogger named Mike Rogers has outed Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) as gay. Craig says it isn't true. Rogers says Senator Craig is a hypocrite and an "enemy of the gay community" for voting against same-sex marriage. He's promised to "out" more gay Republicans.
Is "outing" ever a legitimate political tactic?
What will be the political effects of Mike Rogers' current "outing" campaign?
Is "outing" ever a legitimate political tactic?
What will be the political effects of Mike Rogers' current "outing" campaign?
Is "outing" ever a legitimate political tactic?
Absolutely. If you are a publically elected figure, and have made a stand on social issues, and don't or do live by that social issue- it is a legitmate campaign tactic. Just as rich liberals not being earth friendly and talking at an earth friendly forum- it is absolutely a valid "outing" - and shows what kind of person you have running for office, or the way he/she does business there. I am not for outings that either:
1) Using goverment resources to out the person- say, use FBI survellance or a special prosecutor fishing trip like with the Clintons. If a person is discreet enough to have thier private life and it is not at odds with legislation they have proposed, I am all for that being thier business.
2) When unneccesary intrusion into private lives- stuff that would normally allow Law enforcement to even do by search warrant- in other words, setting up surveliance or listening devices, or taking tapes or something that is thier private party (stealing the stuff- like with the Pamela lee porno stuff)
What will be the political effects of Mike Rogers' current "outing" campaign?
He is a lying, conniving hypocrite and should be fired. If you are gay and vote against gay legislation, ya, you deserve what you get.
Absolutely. If you are a publically elected figure, and have made a stand on social issues, and don't or do live by that social issue- it is a legitmate campaign tactic. Just as rich liberals not being earth friendly and talking at an earth friendly forum- it is absolutely a valid "outing" - and shows what kind of person you have running for office, or the way he/she does business there. I am not for outings that either:
1) Using goverment resources to out the person- say, use FBI survellance or a special prosecutor fishing trip like with the Clintons. If a person is discreet enough to have thier private life and it is not at odds with legislation they have proposed, I am all for that being thier business.
2) When unneccesary intrusion into private lives- stuff that would normally allow Law enforcement to even do by search warrant- in other words, setting up surveliance or listening devices, or taking tapes or something that is thier private party (stealing the stuff- like with the Pamela lee porno stuff)
What will be the political effects of Mike Rogers' current "outing" campaign?
He is a lying, conniving hypocrite and should be fired. If you are gay and vote against gay legislation, ya, you deserve what you get.
Is "outing" ever a legitimate political tactic?
It's pretty low. I much prefer a debate on the issues. I don't think I can categorically condemn it -- imagine, say, a white segregationist who had an illegitimate child with a black woman. I can see the poetic justice in putting that news out. In the current case, I agree with Andrew Sullivan:
I won't argue with your description of Mike Rogers, but I don't think you can get fired from blogging. Perhaps you were referring to Senator Craig.
So far the press has mostly stayed away from the evil Mr. Mike's outing campaign, but if it starts to get coverage, I think it will backfire. In much the same way as the Oreo-epithet-throwers say black people can't be Republicans, Mike Rogers thinks there's only one acceptable political position for gay people. If you don't agree with him, he'll out you. I think most people are put off by this kind of blackmail.
It's pretty low. I much prefer a debate on the issues. I don't think I can categorically condemn it -- imagine, say, a white segregationist who had an illegitimate child with a black woman. I can see the poetic justice in putting that news out. In the current case, I agree with Andrew Sullivan:
QUOTE(Andrew Sullivan)
If the gay left thinks it will advance gay dignity by using tactics that depend on homophobia to work, that violate privacy, that demonizes gay people, then all I can say is: they are wrong. They will regret it. It will come back to haunt them. And they should cut it out. The fact that their motives might be good is no excuse. Everybody on a witchhunt believes their motives are good.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Oct 18 2006, 04:05 PM) 
What will be the political effects of Mike Rogers' current "outing" campaign?
He is a lying, conniving hypocrite and should be fired. If you are gay and vote against gay legislation, ya, you deserve what you get.
He is a lying, conniving hypocrite and should be fired. If you are gay and vote against gay legislation, ya, you deserve what you get.
I won't argue with your description of Mike Rogers, but I don't think you can get fired from blogging. Perhaps you were referring to Senator Craig.
So far the press has mostly stayed away from the evil Mr. Mike's outing campaign, but if it starts to get coverage, I think it will backfire. In much the same way as the Oreo-epithet-throwers say black people can't be Republicans, Mike Rogers thinks there's only one acceptable political position for gay people. If you don't agree with him, he'll out you. I think most people are put off by this kind of blackmail.
I will say this- if he is not gay, then yes, it is very dirty campaign tactic- and it SHOULD harm mike more than the other dude- but, if the 'pub is in the closet, and sponsoring anti-gay legislation- well, he deserves what he gets, no doubt about it- that kind of thing should always be exposed. It is like Rush and the drug issue- would have been no problem had he not made statements in the past that drug dealing merits the death penalty- it is the hypocrisy of thier life vs the public statements that needs outing.
What will be the political effects of Mike Rogers' current "outing" campaign?
Larry Craig was reelected in 2002. His six year term will end in 2008. He is not up for reelection this cycle. The dust will settle by then. I doubt this will have any immediate impact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig
Larry Craig was reelected in 2002. His six year term will end in 2008. He is not up for reelection this cycle. The dust will settle by then. I doubt this will have any immediate impact.
QUOTE
In 1990, Craig announced his candidacy for the United States Senate seat vacated by the retiring Jim McClure. Craig defeated Idaho Attorney General Jim Jones in the Republican primary and former state legislator Ron J. Twilegar in the general election. Craig was reelected in 1996 and 2002.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig
QUOTE(BoF @ Oct 18 2006, 05:47 PM)
What will be the political effects of Mike Rogers' current "outing" campaign?
Larry Craig was reelected in 2002. His six year term will end in 2008. He is not up for reelection this cycle. The dust will settle by then. I doubt this will have any immediate impact.
Thanks for the info on Senator Craig, BoF. I assumed the news stories would have mentioned if he'd been up for re-election, but it's good to have the confirmation. But Mike Rogers, the blogger who "outed" Larry Craig, promises to continue his outing campaign, presumably in this election cycle:
QUOTE(Mike Rogers)
If they think this stuff is splitting them up now...wait till they see what I have in store for them next.
If the (overwhelmingly liberal and Democratic) media are smart, most Americans won't even hear about this. But if the story has legs, what do you think the political effects will be?
QUOTE(Jobius @ Oct 18 2006, 11:39 PM)
If the (overwhelmingly liberal and Democratic) media are smart, most Americans won't even hear about this. But if the story has legs, what do you think the political effects will be?
Timing is important. I really don't think this will have legs, simply because Mike Rogers did it at the wrong time. Two years is a long time to keep a ball of this nature in the air.
Larry Craig can deny, confirm or ignore this rumor. Unless something else comes up, I doubt he'll lose his seat.
QUOTE(BoF @ Oct 18 2006, 10:09 PM)
Timing is important. I really don't think this will have legs, simply because Mike Rogers did it at the wrong time. Two years is a long time to keep a ball of this nature in the air.
Larry Craig can deny, confirm or ignore this rumor. Unless something else comes up, I doubt he'll lose his seat.
Larry Craig can deny, confirm or ignore this rumor. Unless something else comes up, I doubt he'll lose his seat.
I guess I wasn't clear. The blogger in question has outed other gay Republicans, and says he'll to do continue to do so during this election cycle. Assuming some of them are up for re-election, do you expect any political fallout, one way or the other?
QUOTE(Jobius @ Oct 19 2006, 12:19 AM)
I guess I wasn't clear. The blogger in question has outed other gay Republicans, and says he'll to do continue to do so during this election cycle. Assuming some of them are up for re-election, do you expect any political fallout, one way or the other?
I really don't know. One of the dynmics would be who the alleged gay Republicans are and the composition of their districts. I can't even begin to predict fallout if/until he actually outs someone else.
QUOTE(Jobius @ Oct 18 2006, 09:19 PM)
QUOTE(BoF @ Oct 18 2006, 10:09 PM)
Timing is important. I really don't think this will have legs, simply because Mike Rogers did it at the wrong time. Two years is a long time to keep a ball of this nature in the air.
Larry Craig can deny, confirm or ignore this rumor. Unless something else comes up, I doubt he'll lose his seat.
Larry Craig can deny, confirm or ignore this rumor. Unless something else comes up, I doubt he'll lose his seat.
I guess I wasn't clear. The blogger in question has outed other gay Republicans, and says he'll to do continue to do so during this election cycle. Assuming some of them are up for re-election, do you expect any political fallout, one way or the other?
I expect political fallout to ANY "closeted" gays in the Republican party, and even more so if he/she votes contrary to thier private, or not so private, lives.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Oct 18 2006, 07:05 PM)
Is "outing" ever a legitimate political tactic?
Absolutely. If you are a publically elected figure, and have made a stand on social issues, and don't or do live by that social issue- it is a legitmate campaign tactic.
But that's certainly not borne out by what Rogers was alleging about Craig. He claimed he was a hypocrite for voting against same-sex marriage. Even if Craig is homosexual, there's nothing hypocritical about that stance whatsoever. Now if Craig had married himself to another man in some jurisdiction, and then came out against same-sex marriage, that would be hypocrisy.
Remember, it wasn't very long ago that even among people who took a very tolerant view of homosexuality, same-sex marriage was still considered a very fringe notion, existing only in the minds of "right-wing scaremongerers" inveighing against any kind of homosexual-rights legislation. Check out the 1989 Boston Globe editorial that the highlighted text on this page directs you to.
Is "outing" ever a legitimate political tactic?
No. I don’t care who Rush Limbaugh had to pay for sex while on vacation; I’m not interested in the details of a nasty divorce. Generally speaking, I give a politician the benefit of the doubt when they have sexual “issues”. If it doesn't negatively affect his job and therefore my life, I don't care.
What will be the political effects of Mike Rogers's current "outing" campaign?
I first heard about Mike Rogers when Jobius mentioned him in the first Foley thread. I clicked on the link at the bottom of Jobius’s post, gave it the once over, closed the window, and decided to take Jobius at his word.
I don’t think this will an effect. In fact if Republicans, including Andrew Sullivan, bring attention to Rogers’s one-man campaign to out gay Republicans it will backfire. Rogers is an obscure figure. Trying to make him representative of a Democratic double standard when it comes to privacy could further tip the voters’ fatigue scale in favor of the Democratic Party.
I can’t find a popular liberal blog praising this guy, let alone elected Democratic officials acknowledging him. I wonder about a curious dichotomy between both parties when it comes to holding one to their word, and giving the other party plenty of slack. It has been suggested that Rogers is behind Foley’s bust and conservatives simultaneously ignore attempts by other conservatives to expose the page. Allegations of a “list” and a gay conspiracy have made their rounds, and last Thursday Blackwell’s campaign “distributed harsh comments by radio talk show host Bill Cunningham related to Ted Strickland’s sexuality and about a former campaign aide arrested in 1994 for public indecency” (Blackwell steps up attack). Blackwell is too Rogers-chicken to say his challenger and former Methodist minister is gay himself, but he doesn’t have a problem peddling Fox News’ “outing”.
Here’s the double standard. Democrats (mostly) make no bones about their views on taxation and social issues. When they hold the purse strings we need to watch them like a hawk, because the economy might tank. When Republicans state they’re fiscal conservatives the public continues deferring to their statement even though pork spending is unprecedented.
And when Democrats say they’re for gay marriage and gay rights and some guy with a loose screw makes it his mission to destroy the career of gay Republicans, it’s proof that Democrats are hypocritical according to Republicans and conservatives who never seem to notice their own party has an excellent outing track record:
Ad nauseam. As long as elected officials stick to the Democratic agenda what should they worry about?
No. I don’t care who Rush Limbaugh had to pay for sex while on vacation; I’m not interested in the details of a nasty divorce. Generally speaking, I give a politician the benefit of the doubt when they have sexual “issues”. If it doesn't negatively affect his job and therefore my life, I don't care.
What will be the political effects of Mike Rogers's current "outing" campaign?
I first heard about Mike Rogers when Jobius mentioned him in the first Foley thread. I clicked on the link at the bottom of Jobius’s post, gave it the once over, closed the window, and decided to take Jobius at his word.
I don’t think this will an effect. In fact if Republicans, including Andrew Sullivan, bring attention to Rogers’s one-man campaign to out gay Republicans it will backfire. Rogers is an obscure figure. Trying to make him representative of a Democratic double standard when it comes to privacy could further tip the voters’ fatigue scale in favor of the Democratic Party.
I can’t find a popular liberal blog praising this guy, let alone elected Democratic officials acknowledging him. I wonder about a curious dichotomy between both parties when it comes to holding one to their word, and giving the other party plenty of slack. It has been suggested that Rogers is behind Foley’s bust and conservatives simultaneously ignore attempts by other conservatives to expose the page. Allegations of a “list” and a gay conspiracy have made their rounds, and last Thursday Blackwell’s campaign “distributed harsh comments by radio talk show host Bill Cunningham related to Ted Strickland’s sexuality and about a former campaign aide arrested in 1994 for public indecency” (Blackwell steps up attack). Blackwell is too Rogers-chicken to say his challenger and former Methodist minister is gay himself, but he doesn’t have a problem peddling Fox News’ “outing”.
Here’s the double standard. Democrats (mostly) make no bones about their views on taxation and social issues. When they hold the purse strings we need to watch them like a hawk, because the economy might tank. When Republicans state they’re fiscal conservatives the public continues deferring to their statement even though pork spending is unprecedented.
And when Democrats say they’re for gay marriage and gay rights and some guy with a loose screw makes it his mission to destroy the career of gay Republicans, it’s proof that Democrats are hypocritical according to Republicans and conservatives who never seem to notice their own party has an excellent outing track record:
QUOTE(Glenn Greenwald)
Scads of right-wing bloggers are scandalized and outraged today because it has been reported that GOP social conservative Senator Larry Craig routinely engages in anonymous sex with men. Why, they are just furious that anyone would introduce issues of someone's private sexual affairs into the public arena, and particularly can't believe that someone would try to use a person's homosexuality as a political weapon. Most movingly, they lament that exploiting private sexual behavior this way will drive good people out of political life.
Are they aware of the history and behavior of their political movement when they deliver these sermons or, like the chaos and civil war they brought to Iraq, do they block those facts out and create a different reality for themselves? Are they cognizant of any of this:
From Joe Conason's definitive account in Salon of how the odd "distinguishing spots" on Bill Clinton's penis became a major news story in our country: […]
Matt Drudge, the right-wing Walter Cronkite, "exposing" John Kerry's secret affair with an intern during the 2004 campaign: […]
Rush Limbaugh on Hillary Clinton's lesbianism […]
Jonah Goldberg on Bill Clinton's secret child that he abandoned […]
The Boston Globe (via Daily Kos), March 21, 2004, on how George Bush beat John McCain in South Carolina: [i.e. McCain’s black love child…]
- Bush followers outraged over the political use of homosexuality and sex—seriously
Are they aware of the history and behavior of their political movement when they deliver these sermons or, like the chaos and civil war they brought to Iraq, do they block those facts out and create a different reality for themselves? Are they cognizant of any of this:
From Joe Conason's definitive account in Salon of how the odd "distinguishing spots" on Bill Clinton's penis became a major news story in our country: […]
Matt Drudge, the right-wing Walter Cronkite, "exposing" John Kerry's secret affair with an intern during the 2004 campaign: […]
Rush Limbaugh on Hillary Clinton's lesbianism […]
Jonah Goldberg on Bill Clinton's secret child that he abandoned […]
The Boston Globe (via Daily Kos), March 21, 2004, on how George Bush beat John McCain in South Carolina: [i.e. McCain’s black love child…]
- Bush followers outraged over the political use of homosexuality and sex—seriously
Ad nauseam. As long as elected officials stick to the Democratic agenda what should they worry about?
QUOTE(Jobius @ Oct 18 2006, 04:31 PM)
A blogger named Mike Rogers has outed Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) as gay. Craig says it isn't true. Rogers says Senator Craig is a hypocrite and an "enemy of the gay community" for voting against same-sex marriage. He's promised to "out" more gay Republicans.
Is "outing" ever a legitimate political tactic?
What will be the political effects of Mike Rogers' current "outing" campaign?
Here's another one for you. Left wing HBO host Bill Maher uses the politics of personal destruction to "out" RNC chairman, Ken Mehlman on Larry King.
Maher on Larry King
This tactic is becoming popular. And it's just another symptom of the personal destruction campaign that leftists feel is not only legitimate, but their "moral duty".
What I find more interesting is the psychology behind this ultra-judgemental attitude.
The left is quick to condemn the "religious right" for their judgemental attitude toward others. Yet, they follow the same pattern almost to a "t". Character assassination has become a basic arrow in the left wing quiver.
If one opposes "gay marriage" one is a homophobe and a bigot.
If one opposes "affirmative action", one is a racist and a bigot.
If one opposes the radical feminist agenda and/or opposes abortion, one is a sexist and a bigot.
If one doesn't buy into the global warming hypothesis, one is "for pollution" and wants to "destroy the planet".
If one opposes reactionary protectionism, one is "anti-middle class".
The list goes on and on.
I myself have been the receipient of such hate speech from several posters in this A-D forum from time to time. It's not enough that the left disagrees with my views, they have to demonize me as a "bigot", a "reprehensible character", and declare that they "feel sorry for my children".
The real question I have is why do liberals put themselves on such a moral pedestal on issue after issue after issue?
When conservatives see a liberal, they see someone who is misguided but not necessarily a "bad person". They believe they could convince this person to see things there way given time and the correct circumstances. Yet my personal observation is that left wingers take a different view. Those who don't see things there way are "evil", "immoral", and sub-human characters who possess a deep and irreversible character flaw. That explains why the hate that leftists display toward our current president and the GOP in general exceeds the hate they display toward the Jihadists. Jihadists, after all, must be treated with dignity and respect. Their Islamist beliefs are to be tolerated and even celebrated under the banner of "diversity" while the subhuman conservatives are to be condemned, socially outcast, and personally destroyed by "any means necessary".
Even President Bush who has sustained the worst sort of seditious behavior possible; the undermining of our troops and our government when we are at WAR, give the left the benefit of the doubt. He has stated time and time again that he doesn't "question the patriotism of his critics, only their judgement".
Yet one doesn't hear this sort of adult moderate language from the other side. Bush is a "war criminal", he should "be impeached and tried", yada, yada, yada.
The politics of personal destruction is alive and well. And the worst offenders are those on the so-called "progressive side".
Who would have thunk it?
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Nov 12 2006, 12:51 PM)
Here's another one for you. Left wing HBO host Bill Maher uses the politics of personal destruction to "out" RNC chairman, Ken Mehlman on Larry King.
Well, as a quick aside, I'm not entirely sure one can call this an 'outing' considering it is so well known. This is hardly the first case of someone discussing Mahlman's sexuality.
However, back to the original point: No, 'Outing' somebody is a violation of privacy and should not be condoned. If the gay person is 'in the closet' there is usually a good reason for it, and given the attitude of some in the far-right and many in the religious right in the United States towards homosexuality, its not unreasonable to keep these things hidden.
QUOTE
If one opposes "gay marriage" one is a homophobe and a bigot.
If one opposes "affirmative action", one is a racist and a bigot.
If one opposes the radical feminist agenda and/or opposes abortion, one is a sexist and a bigot.
If one doesn't buy into the global warming hypothesis, one is "for pollution" and wants to "destroy the planet".
If one opposes reactionary protectionism, one is "anti-middle class".
If one opposes "affirmative action", one is a racist and a bigot.
If one opposes the radical feminist agenda and/or opposes abortion, one is a sexist and a bigot.
If one doesn't buy into the global warming hypothesis, one is "for pollution" and wants to "destroy the planet".
If one opposes reactionary protectionism, one is "anti-middle class".
Again, I don't think any of this is true at all (with the exception of a small fanatic ringe of these groups). Somebody who opposes gay marriage is not in and of themselves a homophobe. However one needs to look at WHY they oppose gay marriage, as that can be quite revealing. It is not unreasonable to say that some people who oppose gay marriage ARE homophobes, and their bigotry is a direct link to their opposition. Others are NOT, and have what they feel are good reasons behind their choice.
Same with Affirmative Action. Opposing AA does not make you racist, not at all. There are some blacks who oppose AA. Again however, you need to look at the reasoning. If you oppose AA because you honestly believe there is NO endemic racism in the US system, and you think any disadvantage blacks have is 'all their fault' because they go to job interviews in low-riders, copurt shoes and gang colours, then that does meet the dictionary definition of racist. Its not the stance, its ALL about the justification.
As for the other three, they have little connection to reality. I don't think many outside the lunatic fringe would call opposing abortion 'sexist'. That's a bizarre assertion.
QUOTE
The real question I have is why do liberals put themselves on such a moral pedestal on issue after issue after issue?
Speaking of bizarre assertions...
For decades the Republicans have campaigned on the 'moral party' pitch, exclaiming that they have a lock on morality, and the Democrats are 'immoral' for advocating such things as gay marriage. This has been a standard tactic for years and years. Every Republican candidate for President has spoken about his superiority on 'moral isues' and what they determine to be 'family values'. The Republicans have spent tens of millions of dollars positioning themselves as the party of morality, and demonising the Democrats.
That is a MIGHTY glass house you are living in there Lordhelmet...
QUOTE
That explains why the hate that leftists display toward our current president and the GOP in general exceeds the hate they display toward the Jihadists.
Wow.
Do you have ANY idea how ironic this is? I mean seriously here.
You just posted about the (largely invented) horrors of the left and their tactic of demonising and making false accusations and assertions about conservatives.
Then in the SAME PARAGRAPH, you accuse all 'leftists' of hating Bush Jr more than they hate Islamic terrorists. That dovetails nicely into previous comments of yours, when you openly called leftists 'Un-American' and 'aiding Terrorists', and traitors. I mean seriously here, I am almost tempted to assume you are making a joke here, because this level of self-contradiction is hard to fathom.
If I may be so bold, if you want to target those evil people who judge and make moral statements based on entire groups, perhaps you had best look in the mirror before you start casting stones at others...
QUOTE
Even President Bush who has sustained the worst sort of seditious behavior possible; the undermining of our troops and our government when we are at WAR,
That's right, because those who criticise the obvious and blatent errors of a Republican administration are guilty of 'the worst sort of sedition' right Lordhelmet? Those damn treasonous lefties! Damn the seditious behaviour of ALL lefties, AND their supposed habit of making gross unreasonable generalisations about entire groups!
Oh and as an aside, Bush Jr has not sustained the worst attacks ever, he has sustained the worst attacks since... well, since the Republican party spent 8 years attacking every imaginable element of Clinton, accusing him of every crime imaginable, including corruption and murder. And the attacks against Bush Jr are against his idiotic POLICIES, which have led the US to a losing war, tens of thousands of US casualties, and hundreds of billions of Dollars wasted. I think That is fair game for discusion, don't you?
Is "outing" ever a legitimate political tactic?
I will repeat- if you have supported gay marriage, have no problem with gays and say so, and are swinging from the fixtures in batman outfits- who cares? BUT if you are an evangelical preacher, that makes his living on "morality" and "family values"- and you are secretly doing meth and having gay sex with a male prostitute- then, um, yeah, not only is it legitimate, it is the civic DUTY to out these poeple. Same with Limbaugh. If you have called for the death penalty in the past for drug dealers, and have shown a big fat 0 compasion for anyone in the throws of a fatal disease or addiction- then yes, NOT ONLY should you face the full, most draconian sentence where that crime is on the books, then you should, as a civic duty- be outed. When poeple in glass houses are throwing stones, it is your civic duty to wing a boulder at them, and bring those hypocrits to the sideline where they belong. An every person that continues to follow them and support them, that had those same "anti" views- are hypocrits and as amoral as anyone on this planet. If you don't hold your leaders to the high values you espouse, and the leader espouses, and gives no mercy on- then really, you are not worthy of respect at all. For the record, I don't know but about 5 national level politicians I respect, maybe less.
What will be the political effects of Mike Rogers' current "outing" campaign?
I don't think direct, but after Haggert or Hagger or whatever his name is, the right wing preacher having gay sex and doing meth, the tactic has proven to be a good political tool- and IMHO- if you are going around moralizing while being a naughty little boy in private- I think it is a great tool for shame as it should be.
I will repeat- if you have supported gay marriage, have no problem with gays and say so, and are swinging from the fixtures in batman outfits- who cares? BUT if you are an evangelical preacher, that makes his living on "morality" and "family values"- and you are secretly doing meth and having gay sex with a male prostitute- then, um, yeah, not only is it legitimate, it is the civic DUTY to out these poeple. Same with Limbaugh. If you have called for the death penalty in the past for drug dealers, and have shown a big fat 0 compasion for anyone in the throws of a fatal disease or addiction- then yes, NOT ONLY should you face the full, most draconian sentence where that crime is on the books, then you should, as a civic duty- be outed. When poeple in glass houses are throwing stones, it is your civic duty to wing a boulder at them, and bring those hypocrits to the sideline where they belong. An every person that continues to follow them and support them, that had those same "anti" views- are hypocrits and as amoral as anyone on this planet. If you don't hold your leaders to the high values you espouse, and the leader espouses, and gives no mercy on- then really, you are not worthy of respect at all. For the record, I don't know but about 5 national level politicians I respect, maybe less.
What will be the political effects of Mike Rogers' current "outing" campaign?
I don't think direct, but after Haggert or Hagger or whatever his name is, the right wing preacher having gay sex and doing meth, the tactic has proven to be a good political tool- and IMHO- if you are going around moralizing while being a naughty little boy in private- I think it is a great tool for shame as it should be.
Is "outing" ever a legitimate political tactic?
As compared to what other tactics in politics? I could list the dirty tricks in politics and fill page after page of examples. All's fair in love and war, and in politics, even crimes. It's a matter of if one gets caught or not.
I guess that's why I find this stuff so fascinating. It's like watching a mud wrestling contest, except the contestants aren't all that good looking. Maybe more like a wreckem rodeo.
What will be the political effects of Mike Rogers' current "outing" campaign?
Not much. Election season is over, and due to the energy this one took, the next one might be pretty tame in comparison.
Haven't seen a full analysis on this, but it seems the voters don't care about personal sexuality and still want to restrict gay marriage. The outing of Haggard had little effect on this due to the timing (way too close to Election Day). Regarding other people getting outted, the impact this had was miniscule due to the timing (too far away from Election Day). Timing in politics is almost everything.
My gut feeling is that sexuality isn't a big issue in people's minds. Where this country is headed is a big deal. I'll be watching for more course corrections in 2008.
As compared to what other tactics in politics? I could list the dirty tricks in politics and fill page after page of examples. All's fair in love and war, and in politics, even crimes. It's a matter of if one gets caught or not.
I guess that's why I find this stuff so fascinating. It's like watching a mud wrestling contest, except the contestants aren't all that good looking. Maybe more like a wreckem rodeo.
What will be the political effects of Mike Rogers' current "outing" campaign?
Not much. Election season is over, and due to the energy this one took, the next one might be pretty tame in comparison.
Haven't seen a full analysis on this, but it seems the voters don't care about personal sexuality and still want to restrict gay marriage. The outing of Haggard had little effect on this due to the timing (way too close to Election Day). Regarding other people getting outted, the impact this had was miniscule due to the timing (too far away from Election Day). Timing in politics is almost everything.
My gut feeling is that sexuality isn't a big issue in people's minds. Where this country is headed is a big deal. I'll be watching for more course corrections in 2008.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Nov 12 2006, 06:44 PM)
Is "outing" ever a legitimate political tactic?
I will repeat- if you have supported gay marriage, have no problem with gays and say so, and are swinging from the fixtures in batman outfits- who cares? BUT if you are an evangelical preacher, that makes his living on "morality" and "family values"- and you are secretly doing meth and having gay sex with a male prostitute- then, um, yeah, not only is it legitimate, it is the civic DUTY to out these poeple. Same with Limbaugh. If you have called for the death penalty in the past for drug dealers, and have shown a big fat 0 compasion for anyone in the throws of a fatal disease or addiction- then yes, NOT ONLY should you face the full, most draconian sentence where that crime is on the books, then you should, as a civic duty- be outed. When poeple in glass houses are throwing stones, it is your civic duty to wing a boulder at them, and bring those hypocrits to the sideline where they belong. An every person that continues to follow them and support them, that had those same "anti" views- are hypocrits and as amoral as anyone on this planet. If you don't hold your leaders to the high values you espouse, and the leader espouses, and gives no mercy on- then really, you are not worthy of respect at all. For the record, I don't know but about 5 national level politicians I respect, maybe less.
I have NO question in my mind that you support gays and their lifestyles.
But that's not the issue.
If people decide to "come out" or to live "in the closet", it is THEIR choice, not yours.
What gives YOU or any democrat the right to violate that person's privacy?
You proclaim you are a libertarian but you defy the basic principles that Libertarians are supposed to live by; namely live and let live. It's not your civic duty to point out sinners or declare who or who isn't a hypocrite. That's nonsense.
What Maher and company have been doing is morally wrong. It's reprehensible. It's disgusting.
You should be denouncing this sort of behavior, not celebrating it.
After all, how would YOU like it if someone came after you and displayed your private life to the entire world because they disagreed with you politically?
Would stuff I (or anyone else) could dig up via google or other search engines be fair game? You Have, after all, presented yourself in a forum and taken some hard political stances. I disagree with most of them. Therefore, would it be my "civic duty" to post any dirt I would manage to dig up on YOU in public?
Why do the allies of the party who first denounced the "politics of personal destruction" practice it so often?
It's one of those ironic things, I suppose.
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Nov 13 2006, 01:35 PM)
What Maher and company have been doing is morally wrong. It's reprehensible. It's disgusting.
What is morally wrong, reprehensible, and disgusting is for someone to promote laws to treat their fellow man as second class citizens knowing their money and connections ensure they will never have to face the consequences. What is morally wrong, reprehensible and disgusting is for people who cheat on their spouses with drug dealing prostitutes to proclaim themselves "pro-marriage." What is morally wrong, reprehensible and disgusting is that people like Mark Foley want to force the rest of us into the closet because he is too much of a coward to live honestly.
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Nov 13 2006, 06:35 PM)
After all, how would YOU like it if someone came after you and displayed your private life to the entire world because they disagreed with you politically?
You mean like the Republicans and Clinton? Or the Republicans and every sexual indescretion of ANY Democrats they have exposed, harped on and glorified?
Don't try and turn this into an 'only the lefties' thing Lordhelment, I agree this is reprehensible, and it is JUST as reprehensible when the Republicans do it.
Bizarrely enough, I am in agreement with you, that personal lives are personal, and should be left that way. But unlike you, I think these tactics are unfortunate when ANYONE does them, not just when the 'lefties' do it.
QUOTE
It's one of those ironic things, I suppose.
What is ironic is how often you seem to cut-and-run from posts that oppose you using facts and logic. Notice my post 2 above yours, directly responding to you? The one you completely ignored?
Too bad, I would have liked to hear your responses to some of those facts.
A Senator is a public figure and, as is the case with celebrities, the private life of a public figure is not as protected as that of your average private citizen. This may be unfair, but it is, simply, the way it is. This is also a man who supports a particular view that may conflict with his private practices. It is certainly legitimate to call into question those private acts if they relate to his political acts. If this Senator represents a section of the population that is predominately anti-homosexual, do his constituents have the right to know if he is homosexual himself? If he is lying to remain an elected representative, do his constituents have the right to know?
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Nov 13 2006, 02:35 PM)
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Nov 12 2006, 06:44 PM)
Is "outing" ever a legitimate political tactic?
I will repeat- if you have supported gay marriage, have no problem with gays and say so, and are swinging from the fixtures in batman outfits- who cares? BUT if you are an evangelical preacher, that makes his living on "morality" and "family values"- and you are secretly doing meth and having gay sex with a male prostitute- then, um, yeah, not only is it legitimate, it is the civic DUTY to out these poeple. Same with Limbaugh. If you have called for the death penalty in the past for drug dealers, and have shown a big fat 0 compasion for anyone in the throws of a fatal disease or addiction- then yes, NOT ONLY should you face the full, most draconian sentence where that crime is on the books, then you should, as a civic duty- be outed. When poeple in glass houses are throwing stones, it is your civic duty to wing a boulder at them, and bring those hypocrits to the sideline where they belong. An every person that continues to follow them and support them, that had those same "anti" views- are hypocrits and as amoral as anyone on this planet. If you don't hold your leaders to the high values you espouse, and the leader espouses, and gives no mercy on- then really, you are not worthy of respect at all. For the record, I don't know but about 5 national level politicians I respect, maybe less.
I have NO question in my mind that you support gays and their lifestyles.
But that's not the issue.
If people decide to "come out" or to live "in the closet", it is THEIR choice, not yours.
What gives YOU or any democrat the right to violate that person's privacy?
You proclaim you are a libertarian but you defy the basic principles that Libertarians are supposed to live by; namely live and let live. It's not your civic duty to point out sinners or declare who or who isn't a hypocrite. That's nonsense.
What Maher and company have been doing is morally wrong. It's reprehensible. It's disgusting.
You should be denouncing this sort of behavior, not celebrating it.
After all, how would YOU like it if someone came after you and displayed your private life to the entire world because they disagreed with you politically?
Would stuff I (or anyone else) could dig up via google or other search engines be fair game? You Have, after all, presented yourself in a forum and taken some hard political stances. I disagree with most of them. Therefore, would it be my "civic duty" to post any dirt I would manage to dig up on YOU in public?
Why do the allies of the party who first denounced the "politics of personal destruction" practice it so often?
It's one of those ironic things, I suppose.
I've got the perfect answer to our rights of privacy
As Republicans like to point out, we have no rights of privacy. So there you go. If you have dirty little secrets in the closet and somebody wants to use them against you, there's no running to the USSC for your rights of privacy, at least not while the court is stacked with Republicans.
So watch out all you closet homosexuals in the Democratic Party . . . um, yeah. No, it is the Republican Party that has this serious problem, this disconnect of reality from policy.
QUOTE(Vermillion @ Nov 13 2006, 03:14 PM)
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Nov 13 2006, 06:35 PM)
After all, how would YOU like it if someone came after you and displayed your private life to the entire world because they disagreed with you politically?
You mean like the Republicans and Clinton? Or the Republicans and every sexual indiscretion of ANY Democrats they have exposed, harped on and glorified?
Don't try and turn this into an 'only the lefties' thing Lordhelment, I agree this is reprehensible, and it is JUST as reprehensible when the Republicans do it.
Bizarrely enough, I am in agreement with you, that personal lives are personal, and should be left that way. But unlike you, I think these tactics are unfortunate when ANYONE does them, not just when the 'lefties' do it.
QUOTE
It's one of those ironic things, I suppose.
What is ironic is how often you seem to cut-and-run from posts that oppose you using facts and logic. Notice my post 2 above yours, directly responding to you? The one you completely ignored?
Too bad, I would have liked to hear your responses to some of those facts.
It's funny that you're literally BEGGING me to engage in "debate" with you while you told me to (censor) in a PM and then blocked any response to yourself! Too funny!
Which way do you want to have it?
If you think that personal lives should be private then why haven't you denounced Bill Maher and the rest of the democrats who are relishing in "outing" republicans?
Clinton's "personal" life wasn't the issue. As I said before, if it were, a certain "Night Court" actress would have been a household name. It wasn't. The republicans knew what was going on and looked the other way. Why? Because it was personal. And, they looked and listened to Hillary and couldn't blame him. They were compassionate conservatives in that regard.
What Clinton did wasn't personal. He did an end run against our system of justice and lied under oath in order to cover up behavior that would have (severely) compromised his denial position against Paula Jones. It would be like an alleged bank robber being caught in petty thefts and then lying under oath to cover it up. The PATTERN would have been established and guilt would be easier to find.
I assert that Maher is a reprehensible human being for what he's doing. He's clearly caught up in his own ego which is a product of his "Hollywood celebrity". Personally, I think the guy is a pencil neck who probably got one too many swirleys in high school gym class which explains his pathological hostility toward the "jocks" and those in "power".
Don't democrats understand that they are doing gay people a disservice with this latest tactic?
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Nov 13 2006, 03:41 PM)
Don't democrats understand that they are doing gay people a disservice with this latest tactic?
Yes, why can't they just keep quiet and let gay bashing bigots keep their hypocrisy a secret? Obviously it is better for gay people to have people working against our interests in public office.
I don't have much to say in this debate since I do not have much opinion with regards to other people's sexuality, but after having read the opening post to find out what the thread was about, I noted the first line of the first post by CrusingRam:
Is "outing" ever a legitimate political tactic?
In my opinion, anything within the law is a legitimate political tactic regardless of what it is or what's its implications for elected politicians. I'd like to say that its not the done thing to pry into other people's sexuality since, as far as I can see, this has no bearing what so ever on their ability to do the job, unless they are breaking the law (child abuse, rape, that sort of thing) but I have to recognize that human beings on the whole are sexual animals and take great interest in the sexual antics of other human beings and this does not confine itself to the parameters of pornography but, like chimpanzee's, extends itself into the day to day politics of 'the group'.
It seems to me that, America in particular, and the western world in general is currently in the grip of yet another cultural/sexual revolution, and this, 'outing', is all a part of a struggle to redefine the parameters of what is and what is not acceptable. George Michael has recently made various comments about the 'normality' of cruising parks late at night and this new 'normality' of which he speaks seems to me to be at odds with what most other people would have defined as normal only a generation back, and, as far as I know, is possibly still at odds with the laws of most country's.
What will be the political effects of Mike Rogers' current "outing" campaign?
It will probably sour his reputation for ever I suppose. I'm not really in tune with current American atttitudes towards homosexuality, or even the hint of it, that I can answer this question from this angle...
Personally though, I have to say that it strikes me as being stupid in the extreme to use people's homophobia as a method of attacking (possibly) gay politicians who do not conform to the opinions of the accuser. If gay activists want more respect, and I assume this is their ultimate goal, then I can't see them getting it by playing to people's prejudisms.
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Absolutely. If you are a publically elected figure, and have made a stand on social issues
...and I have to ask, since when was being gay a 'social issue'?Is "outing" ever a legitimate political tactic?
In my opinion, anything within the law is a legitimate political tactic regardless of what it is or what's its implications for elected politicians. I'd like to say that its not the done thing to pry into other people's sexuality since, as far as I can see, this has no bearing what so ever on their ability to do the job, unless they are breaking the law (child abuse, rape, that sort of thing) but I have to recognize that human beings on the whole are sexual animals and take great interest in the sexual antics of other human beings and this does not confine itself to the parameters of pornography but, like chimpanzee's, extends itself into the day to day politics of 'the group'.
It seems to me that, America in particular, and the western world in general is currently in the grip of yet another cultural/sexual revolution, and this, 'outing', is all a part of a struggle to redefine the parameters of what is and what is not acceptable. George Michael has recently made various comments about the 'normality' of cruising parks late at night and this new 'normality' of which he speaks seems to me to be at odds with what most other people would have defined as normal only a generation back, and, as far as I know, is possibly still at odds with the laws of most country's.
What will be the political effects of Mike Rogers' current "outing" campaign?
It will probably sour his reputation for ever I suppose. I'm not really in tune with current American atttitudes towards homosexuality, or even the hint of it, that I can answer this question from this angle...
Personally though, I have to say that it strikes me as being stupid in the extreme to use people's homophobia as a method of attacking (possibly) gay politicians who do not conform to the opinions of the accuser. If gay activists want more respect, and I assume this is their ultimate goal, then I can't see them getting it by playing to people's prejudisms.
QUOTE(moif @ Nov 13 2006, 05:18 PM)
Personally though, I have to say that it strikes me as being stupid in the extreme to use people's homophobia as a method of attacking (possibly) gay politicians who do not conform to the opinions of the accuser. If gay activists want more respect, and I assume this is their ultimate goal, then I can't see them getting it by playing to people's prejudisms.
The objection is not to these people's sexuality, but rather to their hypocrisy.People aren't outing closeted gays, they are outing closeted gays who publicly promote an anti-gay agenda.
Personally, I think it's generally sad when someone for whatever reason chooses to live a lie. I'm not (and I don't know anyone who is) in favor of outing such people, though. When such people choose to attack those of us who have the courage and moral strength to live honestly, yes they deserve to be outed.
Again, the problem is not that they are gay, it is that they are hypocrites.
I must say I find it amusing that conservatives are claiming that supporting closeted gays while attacking the rest of us makes them more supportive of gays. It makes you more supportive of the closet; that is to say, lying.
QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Nov 13 2006, 09:41 PM)
It's funny that you're literally BEGGING me to engage in "debate" with you while you told me to (censor) in a PM and then blocked any response to yourself! Too funny!
Apart from the incredibly bad form of bringing a PM up in open forum, I remind you that I BEGGED you in PM to answer me in the forums, and only blocked you when you ignored my SIX requests to stop emailing me. Why is that so hard for you?
I don't think asking you to actually answer questions and issues posed of you in response to your posts in an open forum is unreasonable, and despite your protestations above, I note you still have not done so. Guess you'd rather keep cutting and running...
QUOTE
If you think that personal lives should be private then why haven't you denounced Bill Maher and the rest of the democrats who are relishing in "outing" republicans?
Oh Christ, its absolutely incredible.
PLEASE pay attention:
QUOTE( Vermillion from 10 posts ago in this thread)
Well, as a quick aside, I'm not entirely sure one can call this an 'outing' considering it is so well known. This is hardly the first case of someone discussing Mahlman's sexuality.
However, back to the original point: No, 'Outing' somebody is a violation of privacy and should not be condoned. If the gay person is 'in the closet' there is usually a good reason for it, and given the attitude of some in the far-right and many in the religious right in the United States towards homosexuality, its not unreasonable to keep these things hidden.
And:
QUOTE( Vermillion from 6 posts ago in this thread)
You mean like the Republicans and Clinton? Or the Republicans and every sexual indescretion of ANY Democrats they have exposed, harped on and glorified?
Don't try and turn this into an 'only the lefties' thing Lordhelment, I agree this is reprehensible, and it is JUST as reprehensible when the Republicans do it.
Bizarrely enough, I am in agreement with you, that personal lives are personal, and should be left that way. But unlike you, I think these tactics are unfortunate when ANYONE does them, not just when the 'lefties' do it.
Don't try and turn this into an 'only the lefties' thing Lordhelment, I agree this is reprehensible, and it is JUST as reprehensible when the Republicans do it.
Bizarrely enough, I am in agreement with you, that personal lives are personal, and should be left that way. But unlike you, I think these tactics are unfortunate when ANYONE does them, not just when the 'lefties' do it.
Its so refreshing to see you paying attention and not completely and deliberately ignoring what everyone else says for a change.
Oh wait...
So care to go back to ANY of those posts post and actually ADDRESS some of them? Cause they were all on point and topic.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.