Much of this blog post originally appeared in The American Thinker
Everyone knows that politics is a rough game and not for those with weak stomachs or too many skeletons in their closet.
But there used to be lines that just weren’t crossed regardless of the provocation. Letting it be known that a candidate’s wife was a drunk or a floozy was one such barrier although what earthly difference it would make to voters was never quite made clear. Regardless, the press was usually pretty good about refereeing the political playing field, coming down hard on any campaign that crossed the boundaries of taste and what passes for “fair play” in such a cutthroat world.
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 the twisted, gutter mind of Rogers, if you oppose “gay rights” (whatever that is) and you are a closet homosexual, “all bets are off.”
To say that this is perhaps the most nauseating example of how the left can justify using double standards to advance their political agenda is to state the obvious. But where Roger’s transgressions against decency and humanity really sink to levels unseen before in American politics is his towering conceit about what constitutes “hypocrisy” and how that self defined character flaw in someone else should lead to either ruining their political careers or their lives.
Someone like Larry Craig who is “outed” by his own behavior is something different entirely. The people who Rogers has deemed unworthy of being allowed to maintain their privacy regarding their sexual preference have not broken any law nor have they transgressed against any rules in Congress that would make their homosexuality an issue in any way, shape or form. Instead, Rogers applies an extraordinary narrow, close minded, indeed ignorant yardstick to determine whether someone “deserves” to be “outed.
In short, if you oppose his own definition of “gay rights” and refuse to “out” yourself, Rogers will do it for you.
Patterico mixes exactly the right amount of outrage with unmitigated contempt:
Mike Rogers is an extortionist. He is a blackmailer. He is a thug. And today, he is lionized on the pages of the Washington Post.It should be utterly uncontroversial that Rogers is nothing more than a political shakedown artist. He makes this quite clear in the Post article, eschewing the usual indirectness of the professional blackmailer for the shockingly direct threat:
Of course, to Rogers, any vote against gay rights is cast “to gain political points†— because he can’t conceive of such a vote being cast on principle.
And so, Rogers’s message to politicians is simple and straightforward: if he doesn’t like the way you vote, he will expose embarrassing information about you. If you toe the line, however, he will protect you.
That is the classic position of the extortionist.
Indeed, Patterico (who is a prosecutor when not blogging) convicts Rogers from statements out of his own mouth several times over. How any decent Democrat can stomach this worthless specimen of humanity is one reason I will never switch parties. I may be very angry with the Republican party at the moment, despise parts of its agenda, and have nothing but contempt for a broad swath of its leaders. But the GOP has nothing comparable to the Rogers operation.
Oh, they have their oppo researchers and underhanded tactics. But that’s politics boys and girls, get used to it or get out. What Rogers does has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with personal aggrandizement and the accumulation of power. And the fact that the Democratic left latches on to this lickspittle of a man and gives him encouragement puts them beyond the pale in my book.
There are many gay Republicans who oppose much of what Rogers considers “gay rights” including gay marriage. Conservative gays have wide ranging opinions on what constitutes gay rights. For Rogers to set himself up as an arbiter of opinion among conservatives – gay or not – about what people should believe is an astonishing demonstration of arrogance.
Quite simply, it’s none of his business. This is especially true of Congressional staffers who are not responsible to the voters but rather to the Member of Congress they work for. To “out” a staffer just because Rogers hears rumors about him is beyond belief. What possible difference can it make to Rogers except by outing the aide, he can put another notch on his gun. One more victim of his one man pogrom against gay Republicans who won’t slavishly think as he does.
This man is a blight on American politics and should be banished from public life forever. Instead, like his partner in “exposing Republican hypocrisy” porn magnate Larry Flynt, they receive the plaudits and adoration of the left for their efforts.
Times have changed…
3:33 pm
Mike Rogers tries to make a buck off Larry Craig:
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZpageonenews
If the left doesn’t “come out” against this slug, can we paint them with the same broad brush that Rogers wants to use?
4:08 pm
It’s a symptom of what’s wrong with the Donkeys. They will do anything to regain power, even using worthless lowlifes like this jackass.
Conservatives will put up with a lot from a person, as long as they come clean about it. I know almost no conservative who has issues with gay people, but with the gay movement. Liberals somehow think this means all gay people are part of the movement, so to have issues with the movement means you have issues with the people. This is what happens when you see people as groups instead of individuals.
This idiot, Mike Rogers, sounds just like a lot of libs I know. HE knows what’s best for everyone, and if HE doesn’t like how you think, he’ll MAKE you think like he does. Quite frightening, really.
4:12 pm
Thought you were talking about Teddy K…..but this idiot will do too!
4:38 pm
“But the GOP has nothing comparable to the Rogers operation.”
Oh, I dunno. I’ve read a couple of very well researched articles lately on the state of contracting operations in Iraq. The amount of MY F’ING MONEY pouring into the hands of contracting companies makes this Rogers nonsense look as stupid as, well, it actually is.
4:40 pm
No Democrat will codemn this behavior because few Democrats find anything objectionable in what this guy is doing. Scratch a reporter or editor at any major national daily newspaper and you’ll get the same response: No outrage, nothing to see here, move along.
But if this were gome GOP gadfly-idiot, outing closeted gay Democrats for refusing to support the war???
24/7 front page news.
4:42 pm
I don’t see what’s so bad about the guy (Rogers). He exposes hypocrites who say one thing and do another. We need more people like him.
5:16 pm
It’s scary reading the comments over at the WaPo. With almost 20:1 praising Roger’s actions it just boggles the mind.
I’ve never understood this whole “Gay rights” thing anyway. Essentially, in the minds of people like Rogers, anything and everything that they ask for, if not granted to them, is a violation of their rights and anyone who may oppose them, either straight, gay or ‘undecided’ is a bigot.
Up here in Canada the issue of gay marriages has been going on for a while and I used to discuss it with my openly gay former neighbor. Both of us disliked the idea of redefining the term “marriage” to include same sex couples. Civil Unions, no problem, but the term marriage has special meaning and is more of a religious issue than a civic one.
My main concern was that as soon as gay ‘marriage’ is made a constitutional right someone will demand that some church allow them to use their building to hold their ceremony and when denied they would sue them for discrimination. This was brought to life perfectly by one of the leaders on one of the coutries largest gay and lesbian groups when he made the statement that he would never force a church to allow a gay service to take place but if they denied it he would petition the government to remove their charitable donation status.
Then there’s the issue of hate crimes, another “right” I just can’t get my head around. Why do certain people believe they should get special protections under the law because they are a member of a specific identifiable group. We’ve all seen cases where person A gets in a fight with person B for reasons completely unrelated to race, creed or sexual orientation but is brought up on hate crimes just because of an over active prosecutor. I’ve got no problem with adding generic sentencing guidelines that promotes harsher sentences (still within the regular limits as determined by the type of crime) when it can be proven that the victim was particularly selected due to reasons outside of their own actions/situation, i.e. their affiliation with some group, but it shouldn’t be a crime unto itself. That way the law covers everyone, not just those people who happen to be members of one of the “protected group of the week”.
Those are just two examples of ‘rights’ that I oppose, but despite the claims of Rogers and others like him, I have, what I believe to be, justifiable reasons to oppose them. It is not a knee-jerk reaction from some anti-gay mentality but a reasoned analysis. Others may disagree and I have no problem with that, but I’m willing to debate the issue and then accept the electorates decision.
By classifying all opponents as sexists/racists/bigots and promising to smear them using whatever means necessary, Rogers and his ilk attempt to stifle any debate on the issues, and push through their own agenda using fear tactics. Sadly more and more of todays left are just fine with that but there are still a few clear thinking liberals out there so there is still some hope for the future.
6:05 pm
A Blackmailer Gets Profiled in the Washington Post…
Wow – looks like Mike “the Gay Avenger” Rogers has hit the big time with a profile in the Washington Post. Those of us who have followed politics know all about this toad. Rogers gleefully acknowledged back in October 2006 his role in outing Rep. Mar…
6:39 pm
Thug Extortionist Gets Glowing WaPo Puffpiece…
The Washington Post’s Arts and Living section today features a shamefully glowing portrait of two-bit thug and extortionist Mike Rogers. The fact a major newspaper would devote space to a vicious smear merchant speaks volumes about their own politica….
6:52 pm
So why isn’t openly and intentionally damaging someone’s career a slamdunk lawsuit for the harmed party?
7:03 pm
I remember this sick f…well, you know, going after Gay Patriot, and how so many in the right-o-sphere defended GP, and telling him not to quit blogging. Lefties, on the other hand, love the destruction caused by Rogers.
9:18 pm
I’m stunned.
In this conservative, Republican blog, where just a few posts ago the comments mostly bore the flavor of “the Repubs are the party of the True Morality, stick to your beliefs, if you believe its right follow it thru to the end or you surrender your ideals” am I now reading “how dare he try to dictate what other people should believe”? I beleive the term “hypocritical bastards” applies here.
I’m not defending him outing anybody, but the shocked outrage in the post and in the comments is deplorable, considering the sources.
9:24 pm
You are a bigot if you believe gay people all think exactly the same way about issues like gay marriage or hate crime legislation.
There’s no other way to describe someone who believes that all blacks, or all asians, or all hispanics, or all gays should believe exactly the same thing.
And if you don’t believe that then it simply cannot be hypocritical to disagree with Rogers. That is the point here. Rogers is using his own standards, his own positions on the issues to judge someone else and to ruin someone’s life. In short, if you disagree with him politically, you are fair game.
That is wrong. It is dirty, scummy politics and would not have been tolerated a few years ago.
11:21 pm
This is very interesting debate. It could be easily solved by having all actors on the political stage declare their sexual orientation. A statement such as “I am gay but I think that gay marriage or gays serving in the military is wrong” would stop Rogers cold. Is it not his point that this is impossible because of the huge anti gay bias of some Republicans. Perhaps if that could be changed we could stop discussing this rather unimportant point and star a reasonable discussion on war, life and safety.
11:50 pm
Anyone who publicly states support for a Constitutional Amendment, or any local laws for that matter, stopping homosexuals from getting married or having civil unions, while cruising public toilets looking to give out bj’s deserve to be publicly humiliated.
Same goes for the supporting staff of top officals that are also self loathing closet cases. The Religious Right doesn’t like that stuff!
Perhaps in the future the GOP will chose their wedge issues more wisely.
12:42 am
Its dirty, scummy politics . . .
“But that’s politics boys and girls, get used to it or get out.”
So the Conservative dirty underhanded tricks are okay? They are the legitimate, accepted dirty politics?
I said before . . . I’m not defending him. I agree with you that there could be a closeted elephant who opposes “gay rights” on some legitimate basis, not simply because bashing the homos scores points with the wingnut base. BUT if an Elephant is preaching the sancity of family values and the traditional family, then goes and pays hookers to screw him while he wears a diaper, then he’s a hypocrite (and comes from Louisiana, which I probably misspelled), and exposing them as such would be a good thing, yes?
He’s a fanatic, no doubt, and the hallmark of fanatics is unreasonableness. But the goal he is so poorly attempting to achieve (exposing hypocrites in government) isn’t a bad goal. He’s just blinded to being a human being while he does it.
How does this guy represent the Democratic establishment? As far as I know, he’s an independent blogger. Thats as silly as blaming Democrats for Larry Flynt’s obsessive goal of doing the exact same thing—exposing hypocrites in government.
12:54 am
“That is wrong. It is dirty, scummy politics and would not have been tolerated a few years ago.”
Perhaps you’ve never heard of a guy named Carl Rove? He plays for your team. Remember? He’s the guy who likes to remind Republicans how scary gay people really are? Remember Ohio? Or what about John McCain’s illegitimate black child… that ring any bells?
11:21 am
“Perhaps you’ve never heard of a guy named Carl Rove? He plays for your team. Remember? He’s the guy who likes to remind Republicans how scary gay people really are? Remember Ohio? Or what about John McCain’s illegitimate black child… that ring any bells?”
Ah, thepeople, you’ve got it all wrong. Exposing the truth about someone is “dirty, scummy politics”. Making up outlandish lies about an opponent is A-OK! /sarc.off
11:52 am
Don’t confuse the gay “rights” movement with anything having to do with rights. It doesn’t. What it has to do with is being declared a minority, being able to force laws giving special priviledges. If you think that it has anything to do with a $255.00 Social Security death benfits, you are dead wrong.
Gays can, and do, accomplish what everyone else can with a will. A living will determines who will make your decisions for you. A standard will determines who gets your estate. And unless they are willing to determine the difference between husband and wife, there is a problem with the Social Security rules.
Let me give you an example. A wife is entitled to the largest payment from SS depending on income. If her income is less than her husbands and she will gain more from drawing against her husband’s account and not her own, she can do that. But…..if she is older than he is, she cannot draw against his account until he reaches retirement age. So a woman who married someone five years older than her will have to wait five years to recieve the larger benefit. Also, I don’t think a man can draw against his wife’s account even if she made a larger salary and the benefits would be greater.
How would that work with a same sex couple? If one makes a larger salary, would the other one be able to draw against that account even though their own payment upon retirement would be less? When they marry, would they have to declare who is considered the wife and who is declared the husband? How would that work? In order to make it equal under the law, the husband/wife requirement for the larger SS payment would have to be eliminated and would place an even greater strain on the SS Fund.
Gay rights are already guaranteed. It the work place, when it comes to buying a house (two unmarried people can have joint ownership in a home) and many companies give domestic partner insurance benefits. Of course, domestic partnership benefits is discriminatory against straight marrieds as most of the time, the insurance company has the right to ask for a copy of their marriage license (mine did) so the straight employee is already held to a different standard than one who claims domestic partnership.
So to assume that the gay movement has anything to do with rights is wrongheaded. It has everything to do with forcing the government to give special consideration to one segment of our society just as the hate crimes did. And please, if you think hate crimes are used against everyone, please provide me with one case where a minority has been prosecuted using hate crime laws.
1:00 pm
@ tHePeOPle:
Those must be the legitimate dirty scummy politics. Y’know, nothing distasteful.
2:33 pm
“And please, if you think hate crimes are used against everyone, please provide me with one case where a minority has been prosecuted using hate crime laws.”
Oh, retire05, what does this have to do with hypocrical, public toilet cruising gay Republicans? Well, here is the case you asked for anyway….
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260289,00.html
8:28 pm
Rogers is a blackmailer. He is just the sort of operative a campaign that is desperate would employ. No depths are too low and no tactic too mean.
One wonders how the MSM would react if a conservative pulled this kind of stuff.
10:53 pm
@retire05:
“Gays can, and do, accomplish what everyone else can with a will.”
Somehow, when you’re dying in the hospital, I don’t think a will is going to get your same-sex partner into your room once its “family only”.
12:57 am
if republicans werent always trying to appeal to the god and thunder morons who think all gays are going to hell, this would never be an issue. from a truly secular country (currently) we think this is all very funny. In Aus poltiticians are not outted because playing against the gays has not been a strategy of any major party to any extent. Clean your own house!
10:29 am
As might be expected in consideration of how their minds have been preconditioned in their internet echo chambers, the lefties here are having a difficult time discerning between hate and disapproval of gays, and are relying on illogical rationalizations to “justify” the deplorable tactics/actions of this Rogers character.
10:38 pm
@ Chip:
True, the subtle difference between intellectual disapproval of homosexuals and the paranoid hatred of fags gets lost on some of us on the Left side of the isle. I can only speak for myself, but I miss the distinction because I don’t see a whole lot of the former. Gays are ruining America, destroying the sancitity of marriage, weakening the military, threatening our children, etc. . . . that all comes across as virulent hatred, not as disapproval. The only thing I don’t see Rightie wingnuts blaming gays for is green-lighting the lastest Rush Hour movie. Fortunately, now that the wingnuts have an even more deplorable source of evil to target (illegal immigrants), it just doesn’t come up so much.
Must be all of that interweb conditioning, ‘cuz I sure couldn’t have come to that conclusion on my own, by listening to politicians and pundits on the Right.
11:53 pm
@Thomas Jackson:
Not sure I follow you—how is he blackmailing politicians? If he got evidence, then contacted the politician and demanded certain things (votes, monies, etc.) or else he’d release the information, that would be blackmail. Trying to discredit politicians he does not agree with isn’t blackmail, since he’s not asking for anything. If you’re gay, and if you’re a politician, and if he doesn’t like your voting record, he tries to out you. Thats punishing politicians he doesn’t agree with, not blackmail.
And if I’m understanding the tenor of the Rightie comments, apparently you all are shocked someone would smear a politician they don’t agree with. Understandable, as the wingnutters certainly don’t make rude, disparaging or embarrasing comments about Liberal Pinko Commie Hippie politicians.
p.s.—that last bit was sarcasm
10:37 am
#26
Thanks for supporting my point by attempting to pass off as “gospel truth” the very same manufactured outrage from the echo chamber to which I was referring. Come up for air and clean out your eyes/ears sometime and you’ll come to understand that even the most fervent conservative critics such as James Dobson don’t espouse hatred toward gays, but rather firmly disagree with their lifestyle and political agenda.