Gay Activist to Announce Idaho Political Leader's Hypocrisy Today on National Radio [5:30pm Eastern]

U.S. Newswire ^ | 10/17/2006

[Hadean]

To: Assignment Desk, Daybook Editor

Contact: Mike Rogers of Proud of Who We Are, 202-667-1639

News Advisory:

Mike Rogers, the nation's top gay activist blogger, will make a major announcement today about a key figure in Idaho's political establishment.

Rogers, the president of Proud of Who We Are, will make the announcement Tuesday, Oct. 17, at 3:30 p.m. Mountain time (2:30 p.m. Pacific / 5:30 p.m. Eastern) on the nationally syndicated Ed Schultz Show. On the show, Rogers will reveal his reporting on the hypocrisy of this prominent politician and call on him to tell the truth to Idaho citizens.

The Ed Schultz Show is broadcast on stations across the country, including 1280 AM in Spokane, Washington. The show can also be heard live in streaming audio at http://www.bigeddieradio.com.

Rogers has been a leading gay activist voice in the fallout of the Mark Foley scandal. Over the last two weeks, he has been featured on NPR's "All Things Considered," Fox News's "O'Reilly Factor," MSNBC's "Tucker," CNN Headline News's "Nancy Grace," the Ed Schultz Show, and a number of other national programs.

[little jeremiah]

Later HA pingout.

[Fury]

Thanks for the reply. I understand what you mean.

[BigSkyFreeper]

He's not just "outing" Republicans, he's going to "out" gay Republicans who have worked against the homosexual agenda.

[ElPatriota]

..I agree completely. I am so disappointed in Jim Inhofe and him having a open homosexual as his Chief of Staff.... Yes, and you, WE should be outraged at Republican candidates who cuddle homos... Because if we keep quiet, and these Republican get re-elected... they might interpret their re-election as a tacit approval (it's OK with us :) for them to emply homos in their offices. We should make it clear this is NOT OK. As to why having homos working for Reps is DANGEROUS, that is another argument for another day... suffient to say, that homos, by their VERY PRESENCE, are if fact already affecting conservative, voter-values causes.... just by being there and of course I mean "outed" homos.

correction: All homos affect policy by their very presence... but of course, we don't know this if the homo is what? "hidden"... dont know the proper language for :)... oh "closeted" right?... and therefore we can' do anything about it.

[jennyjenny]

Isn't it possible for someone who is homosexual to NOT buy into the whole "gays need to marry, etc, etc."?

Yes, it is. I know some.

[ElPatriota]

Problem is that too many good people buy the marketing ploy.

Yeap... But we have no choice, we have to keep fighting on this. take care. We, including our leaders, have been too quiet on this... well, mainly because we thought the issue "had been settled," They live their life and left us alone and we looked the othe way :)... but it turned out they want a heck of a lot more :)

[NinoFan]

My money is on Larry Craig

[NinoFan]

That he is.

[NinoFan]

That he is.

[Stone Mountain]

Perhaps, but he hasn't been wrong yet...

[Jane Austen]

Exactly. Besdies, that does not make him a hypocrite.

[Fury]

Perhaps, but he hasn't been wrong yet...

Unless someone declares in public he/she is gay, how do we know for sure? Follow them around? Tape phone conversations? Ask repeatedly "are you gay"?

No good can come of this for Dems. Rogers is outing people because of what he perceives as hypocrisy on the part of Repubs (in the case of Foley, it was hypocrisy).

[Stone Mountain]

Unless someone declares in public he/she is gay, how do we know for sure? Follow them around? Tape phone conversations? Ask repeatedly "are you gay"?

Well, in the last case, a WH staffer had a internet profile up saying he was looking for guys to meet and date. Also, the gay community is (if you'll forgive the expression) pretty inbred and the community knows who their members are. He's not outing gay people who have kept their life so under wraps that nobody knows they are gay. He's outing people who are in the gay community who have been living a gay lifestyle, basically out in the open, but it hasn't been reported on. Take Foley, for example. Everyone in Washington knew he was gay - he brought his partner to official White House events. But he still could have been "outed" to his constituency.

[Fury]

Well, in the last case, a WH staffer had a internet profile up saying he was looking for guys to meet and date. Also, the gay community is (if you'll forgive the expression) pretty inbred and the community knows who their members are. He's not outing gay people who have kept their life so under wraps that nobody knows they are gay. He's outing people who are in the gay community who have been living a gay lifestyle, basically out in the open, but it hasn't been reported on. Take Foley, for example. Everyone in Washington knew he was gay - he brought his partner to official White House events. But he still could have been "outed" to his constituency

Rogers is outing people in an attempt to try and disenfranchise the Republican base (which I think will fail).

Do I have this wrong - should be be thanking Rogers?

[Stone Mountain]

Rogers is outing people in an attempt to try and disenfranchise the Republican base (which I think will fail). Do I have this wrong - should be be thanking Rogers?

Well, that's definitely why Rogers is doing it. If it fails, it probably will backfire in which case we will have Rogers to thank...

[technochick99]

For those of us who vote on economic issues, and certain social issues (eg pro-life, pro-gun), rather than on someone's sexuality, it doesn't matter.

Anyone voting and believing as me can represent me. Thus, I can vote for a black, a man, or a Jew. It doesn't matter to me, and probably not to all that many other people.

[ElPatriota]

I feel tempted to respond to you, but I would not be telling you nothing knew. What can I tell you, if you feel that way fine. I happen to feel differently :). I participate in FR to "reinforce" the vies of "my side" and let the world out there, the way people like us feel about issues.

There is a pro-homosexual group here in FR which is doing the same thing I am doing... promoting their views, and it sounds very much like yours: "we don't care about people's sexuality." Ours, my side, is we DO, when they try to impose it on everyone else (who does not want it), and affect the culture and institutions we care about (Catholic church, boys-scouts, pages, etc)... you know the rest :)

[yellowdoghunter]

There is a pro-homosexual group here in FR which is doing the same thing I am doing... promoting their views, and it sounds very much like yours: "we don't care about people's sexuality."

That is correct. People are tyring to normalize homosexuality and act like it is no big deal. I dread the day when Republicans follow Democrats and embrace the homosexual agenda....which it appears that is already happening and I just didn't realize it!

[longtermmemmory]

How much of the AIDS money will not be spent on normalizing homosexuality through AIDS funded materials?

Will this AIDS czar be like the homosexual who was ambasador in the balkans? (wild parties and an complete embarasment to the USA)


footnote: I never thought of Condi Rice as a f*g h*g till this political faux pas.

[longtermmemmory]

There in lies the normalizing.

Homosexuality is ONLY about sex. Recreational Sex.


Here our Secretary of State was up there saying "I would like to honor this man who sticks his penis in other men"

or

"We honor this man who pops orgasms only with another man"

It is no different than condi rice standing up there and saying "today we honor a man who has sex with dogs." (cheats on his wife, swaps his wife, likest to stain presidential carpets etc.)