Posted on 10/19/2006 1:46:19 PM PDT by rface
...Also, can we just take a moment to say that we can't recall another time when the core of the Republican party seemed so fragile. We may have a new gay revolution on our hands, kiddies. Get excited!.....
.
Yes, we know there's a big debate surrounding the so-called politics of outing. While we've yet to come to a concrete conclusion on where we stand, Michael Rogers and his Blogactive homies know exactly where they stand.
After years of investigating political hypocrisy with little results, Rogers etc are breaking out the big guns by outing gay anti-gay politicians. On today's hit list: Larry Craig, the Republican from Idaho who has never made his homo-hating ways a secret. Too bad Craig's allegedly a big homo. According to Rogers:
I have done extensive research into this case, including trips to the Pacific Northwest to meet with men who have say they have physical relations with the Senator. I have also met with a man here in Washington, D.C., who says the same -- and that these incidents occurred in the bathrooms of Union Station. None of these men know each other, or knew that I was talking to others. They all reported similar personal characteristics about the Senator, which lead me to believe, beyond any doubt, that their stories are valid.
This isn't the first time Craig's sexuality has come under fire. Back in 1982, during the Congressional page scandal that would lead to the documentary, Conspiracy of Silence, Craig preemptively announced that he had no role in the affair, prompting many to dig a little deeper into his personal life. For video of that denial, head over to Blogactive's article.
Given his past would-be outings, it's not surprising that Craig and his office have already issued a statement. New West reports:
Senator Craig’s office flatly rejected the claims. "The Senator says this story is absolutely ridiculous – almost laughable," said press secretary Sid Smith. “It has no basis in fact.”
Well, if it has "no basis in fact", then they should push forward with a slander suit. Of course, we're sure the Senator doesn't want a full investigation, so we suspect that he'll just sweep it under the carpet. Like his sexuality, perhaps?
Also, can we just take a moment to say that we can't recall another time when the core of the Republican party seemed so fragile. We may have a new gay revolution on our hands, kiddies. Get excited!
It's like a weird re-make of the Senator Robert C Byrd Klansmen
Internet blog Sewage
Totalitarian homos = gaystapo
Because it is highly unlikely Craig would win as the author of the rumor would claim "satire" or some other journalist B.S. and hide behind the 1st Amendment.
"Well, if it has "no basis in fact", then they should push forward with a slander suit. Of course, we're sure the Senator doesn't want a full investigation, so we suspect that he'll just sweep it under the carpet. Like his sexuality, perhaps?"
The authors of this screed are not stupid, just evil. They are smart enough to know that they wrote that line just for the ignorant that do not know that it is very difficult for public figures to win slander suits, on a he-said he-said story. So, the full purpose of that line was to convince the ignorant that the lack of a lawsuit by the Senator lends truth to the charges. It doesn't.
How is Senator Craig anti-gay? Did he support the Defense of Marriage Act and/or the Marriage Amendment? Isn't it possible to be gay, and in favor of gay rights in general, and opposed same sex marriage? Have we reached a point where gays have to support a radical gay agenda, all blacks must support radical black efforts, i.e. slave reparations, or else they will be considered to be hypocrites and bigots themselves?
there is a substantial part of the voting public who have reached this point
I really hope someone looks into his threats. If this is the DNC's other shoe, they should stop off at Payless and find another.
Senator Craig ought to sue him for every penny he's got.
Why would the Senator want to give these pieces of filth any more publicity?!
As a former Capitol Hill staffer, let me tell you guys about my own experience getting to know Senator Larry Craig, who at the time was Congressman Craig and had yet to become Senator. I worked in the Longworth House Office Building and was eating lunch by myself very quickly in a crowded cafeteria one day when Congressman Craig introduced himself and asked to join me. He asked who I worked for, and after realizing that I was a fellow right wing Republican, he really opened up and started a long and detailed conversation about life, politics, philosophy, etc...
To be honest, I was a little creeped out at first, since he did give off that "homo vibe" a little bit, but after this and future meetings, I realized that he was merely a very friendly guy who was very interested in younger Republicans and the future of the party. I got to know him pretty well when I was there and I would be VERY shocked if it turned out he was gay.
But that said, his behavior and "over-friendly" nature around younger men could easily be mis-construed or manipulated. Believe me, there WAS a closeted Gay Republican Congressman that we all knew about back in the late 1980's and early 1990's, but it was NOT Larry Craig.
Maybe he'd win in a landslide. I think you can tell if someone is gay by the way they punch.
Possible Legislative Misconduct(South Dakota page scandal by a D)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1721812/posts
.
.
.
I don't see why not, although the gay mafia has a problem with it.
I know heterosexuals who are opposed to heterosexual marriage. And they'd be treated as heroes by the left wing.
He is destroying people's lives and trying his damnest to destroy our country as we know it...
I hope he gets what he deserves...
He is destroying people's lives and trying his damnest to destroy our country as we know it...
I hope he gets what he deserves...
A homosexual Republican is not what we may want but it's not the end of the earth as long as they are representing their state. What Democrat homosexuals don't get is Republicans are not identified by their sexual behavior but our character and values that represent our voters. On their side, it's all about identity politics. On our side it's about representing our values. If one of those is off base we will judge the representative on his or her total character, not one issue.
If anyone wants proof, just consider the Joe Lieberman candidacy. I would never vote for Lieberman but I accept his state of CT is not my state of CO. But because of one issue the Democrats have thrown him overboard and continue to bash him and disparage him. That too is a disgrace. To be a Democrat one has to accept all their crazy ideas and positions or your dumped.
Ooops...sorry...not sure that bore repeating...*blush*
Yawn...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.