That some fools, starting with Mike Rogers, think that this is an important issue shows you the complete and utter unseriousness of these people who think that sexual preferences are more important than say - the war on terror, the economy, taxes, Social Security funding, entitlements, and national defense (in no particular order).
And the Democrats seem to have no problem accepting money from the likes of those who are trying to out Republicans for their sexual preferences. Can you imagine the howling if Republicans outed Democrats? It would be a major scandal. That Democrats are not doing anything to put an end to this disgusting and outrageous behavior shows their unseriousness about issues of privacy, and that their pursuit of power has blinded them to the means and methods they're using.
Well, this is a major scandal, if you believe that there are some things that can and should remain private.
LaShawn Barber has a most interesting take on the subject, a portion of which follows:
Now if Senator Craig really is a homosexual, bisexual — whatever — that’s not my business, either. That’s between himself and his family. But here is where I depart with fellow conservative bloggers: If a person speaks out against laws, policies, lifestyles, etc., that you support and you find out he is doing the thing he speaks against, should you expose them as a hypocrite?These are good points, and begs the question of where the line is drawn. Apparently the line appears drawn not on ethics or honesty or on personal sexual preferences, but on political party affiliation. Some issues, like corruption and ethical misdealings, such as Sen. Harry Reid's ongoing troubles, are given short shrift by the media, while questions about Sen. Craig's sexual preferences are a big deal? Reid makes a big deal about how the Democrats are the party with the ethics and morals, while GOPers are the party of culture of corruption. Is that not hypocrisy too?
I suppose the equivalent for me would be a “closeted” Christian lawmaker pushing for IRS investigations of churches and Christian non-profit organizations, or criticizing the “religious right” as nuts. Let’s say this person goes to church secretly and shares the Gospel with strangers. Through various sources, I find a few people who’ve heard the politician’s testimony or saw him sitting in a pew in disguise or something. It’s a stretch, but you get the idea. Do I expose him or protect his privacy? If I think he’s harassing churches and being unnecessarily critical and anti-Christian, do I sit on the info, or blog it for the world to see?
The bottom line is that what Rogers is doing may not be classy. On some level, it might be awful. But if someone were preaching (real or imagined) at you or voting against laws helpful to your cause, and you knew for a fact they weren’t practicing what they preached, what would you do?
Both are dealing and voting on issues of serious import - from issues of gay marriage to the appropriations of money to their home states and their constituents. Which one deserves to be outed for their behavior? And is it not the least bit hypocritcal that a truly personal issue such as sexual preference, which is supposedly a cornerstone of the Democrat party (the party of inclusion and openness as they like to say) is being used as a divisive issue to undermine a GOP candidate?
Quite a few folks are vigorously denouncing Mike Rogers' and his actions: The Moderate Voice, Blue Crab Boulevard thinks that Rogers better find himself a real good lawyer, Patterico, Confederate Yankee, Ed Morrissey, Hot Air.
Jonah Goldberg is absolutely correct when he says that this incident will have repercussions in ways that the Democrats have not intended or foreseen.
"The sort of scorched earth attack liberals have mounted in the wake of Foley is creating precedents I guarantee will haunt them in unexpected ways in years to come."That is, unless, the Democrats are planning on using GOP use of tactics that are identical to the ones being used on GOPers now as a club to hit them with charges of being gay-baiters unworthy of election?
Now this is a rant against Rogers and his ilk.
I don’t care if Larry Craig or anybody else is as gay as a tree full of monkeys on nitrous oxide. What they do with consenting adults of legal age behind closed doors is nobody’s business but theirs and, furthermore, it does not in the least bit affect my personal opinion of them. They have a problem with G-d, but that’s not for me to sort out, nor do I want any part of it.Ouch.
What I do care about a great deal is mindless thugs like you and your execrable friend, John Trichinosis, who, faced with the harsh reality that your intellects are too minute to impress an oyster on the half shell, resort to extortion, threats and assorted other hallmarks of Idiotarians seriously under-endowed in the ethical, intellectual and moral departments.
So what else is being said on blogs about the outing of Craig, the moral and ethical fallout from such activities, and its implications going forward? As you can expect, there's quite a bit of digital ink being spilled on this. And some of it is downright ugly.
Dan Riehl and John Cole are having at it, and the results are not pretty at all. Indeed, it's downright ugly and both ought to consider thinking before committing their thoughts to a blog post. In fact, that's a phenomenon that people should really take to heart. Think about what you are saying before you hit [post].
Positive Liberty doesn't seem to have a problem with outing a politician, if there's sufficient evidence to back up the claims. Well, there's one mighty interesting standard. This particular train of thought supposes that politicians should be held to a higher level of scrutiny than others.
Okay, let's assume that to be the case, then why not treat actual criminal and ethical violations and the accusations thereof with a higher level of attention than Larry Craig's sexual preferences? Is it that sex is simply more salacious and headline grabbing than a run-of-the-mill payola/graft scandal? I'd put someone's failure to declare financial dealings to be ahead of whether someone prefers gay relations to straight. Frankly, I think most people would agree.
Whatever happened to "don't ask, don't tell?" We've gone from there to "we'll out, and you spin." That's not a move in the right direction.
Lots of people are throwing out platitudes and soundbites like tolerance, family values, and other such pablum without realizing or recognizing what they actually mean. Democrats who think that outing a politican are not showing themselves to be tolerant or supporting family values by supporting those who out such people. Those who are hiding their sexual identities and activities are doing so because there are more than a few people who are highly intolerant. Does someone who votes on so-called family values act hypocritcally if they are closeted? Perhaps. Do we have a right to know if such people are hypocrites? Perhaps. It is a balance between what is private and what needs to be made public.
And who should be the ones to make such information public. Sexual preference is not something that means a whole lot to me - there are other more pressing issues. Anyone can publish statements such as the one Rogers made, and people will buy into them - regardless of the veracity.
That's not denying the issue, or even avoiding a straight answer. It deserves to be discussed in a serious manner.
As an issue of politics, I'd wonder if those who have no problem with outing Craig would have a problem if their own favorite politican was outed in a similar fashion. Would they be urging restraint, accomodate and embrace those who outed the politician, or would they vow retaliation and revenge?
Others blogging: Lawyers, Guns, and Money (who thinks this is a kabuki play - he's right, it is, but not for the reasons he lists), Flopping Aces, Hot Air, Sister Toldjah.
Technorati: larry craig, mike rogers, gop, outing, gay,