Dissecting The Infamous Outer Mike Rogers ("Doesn’t Like The Way You Vote".."Fair Game")

sistertoldjah.com ^ | 9/4/2007 | Sister Toldjah

[fight_truth_decay]

Last year during the Foley scandal, we, unfortunately, became well acquainted with one of the left’s more notorious “heroes” Mike Rogers, who, after the Foley scandal broke - with his help - moved to target Senator Larry Craig for the purposes of outing him as a “hypocrite.” As it turns out, Craig jumped into his own pail of hot water after it surfaced last week that he was caught soliciting for sex in one of the men’s restrooms at Minneapolis International Airport. Craig resigned, effective Sept. 30.

Today, the Washington Post features a puff piece on Rogers, which Patterico dissects and fisks soundly here, appropriately labelling Rogers as an extortionist.

Rogers is part of a group Tammy Bruce has routinely and rightly called the “gay gestapo.” The intentions of the gay gestapo are to target supposed “hypocrites” in the Republican party who are closet gays who don’t follow the gay line on issues of importance to them, like gay marriage, and other so-called gay “rights” issues. In the case of Craig, Rogers and Co. were after him for that very reason, as if to suggest that gay Republicans are hypocrites for believing that there is an overwhelming societal benefit to keeping marriage between one man and one woman.

This is also how far left groups treat other “minorities” who don’t fall in lock step with their marching orders, especially in the black community, where black conservatives who don’t support unconstitutional programs like affirmative action, and who don’t believe the white man is the root of all evil are described as “Uncle Toms” amd “Oreos,” among other despicable classifications, by supposedly “tolerant” liberals, some of whom have admitted that such terms are “fair game” for black conservatives who have strayed from the ” official black liberal line.”

[fight_truth_decay]

"Soon, a new name will pop up on Mike Rogers's hit list," writes Jose Antonio Vargas,
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 4, 2007;
Page C01

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."

Patterico of Patterico's Pontification "Let me turn the tables on you for a moment with a hypothetical.

Imagine that a conservative Republican senator from Idaho typically votes according to the views of his conservative constituents — with one notable exception: he supports a wide range of proposals endorsed by homosexual activists. He supports gay marriage, allowing gays to serve openly in the military, and laws that confer “protected class” status upon homosexuals for purposes of filing discrimination lawsuits. His constituents are puzzled by this one uncharacteristic breach in his conservative facade, but accept his explanation that he is motivated by principle.

But he doesn’t tell constituents that he, personally, is gay.

Now imagine that an anti-homosexual activist has learned that the senator is gay, and tells the senator that he will expose the senator’s secret homosexual life . . . unless the senator decides to start voting against the gay rights agenda, in which case the activist will remain silent.

That would be extortion. But the activist could justify it with arguments similar to those advanced by Rogers. The revelation of the senator’s secret life would expose as a half-truth his lofty principled reasons for supporting the gay agenda. Instead of concerns about equality, maybe his votes were cast to keep his lover(s) happy. By revealing this, the activist could argue that he was simply exposing dishonesty. And there are all sorts of other possible conflicts lurking under the surface in such a situation. For example, the activist could even argue that the senator voted for the gay agenda out of fear of being exposed by someone like Mike Rogers!

Somehow, if a conservative thug threatened to out a Congressman unless he voted against the homosexual agenda, I don’t think the extortionist would be the subject of a puff piece in the Washington Post. Do you?

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.

[Philistone]

I was talking to a friend of mine the other day. Two of his cousins, a step-brother and five high school friends of his were Pages from around 1983-1990. They ALL told him that they had been warned about sexual predators among the Senators (including Craig).

WHY? WHY? WHY do Pages get that information while we voters don’t. If we did, we wouldn’t vote for these guys in the first place. Instead, we get treated to these “outings”, generally timed to screw us in an upcoming election (not this time, thankfully since Craig outed himself).

[Red Badger]

That means SOMEBODY knew and if ONE side knows, then BOTH sides know. Yet there was no warning given to voters?.........

[freekitty]

Never heard of this guy; but I wonder why he has set himself up as holier than thou moralistc puke. I also wonder why his word would be any good since he is not outing anyone but one party and won’t even out himself or atleast be up front about the fact that he is gay.

There doesn’t seem to be any credibility here.

[lesser_satan]

bump

[roses of sharon]

Yikes, the gay mafia in a turf war?

Gross, why can’t they keep their anal sex proclivities to themselves!

[Dems_R_Losers]

Mike Rogers is part of a massive and well organized effort by Democrats to suppress voting by social conservatives. They think if they continue to expose a small number of Republican officeholders as perverts, we will all stay home and not vote for any other Republicans. This campaign was developed in direct response to the 2004 election when “values” turned out to be the #1 issue in the exit polls. Democrats realized that Republicans won across the board on 2004 because the GOP was able to get so many more religious conservatives to the polls. They dropped the Mark Foley bomb (which they knew about for MONTHS) deliberately right as Republicans were starting to come back in the polls. They know they cannot win in 2008 unless they get conservatives to stay home. It’s extremely cynical and has nothing to do with “promoting the gay agenda” or “exposing Republican hypocrites” anything that high-minded. It is strictly about getting “values voters” to stay home. Woe to us if we let them get away with it!!

[Dems_R_Losers]

I forgot to add that I am convinced the leak to Roll Call about Sen. Craig’s arrest came from a Republican. Democrats knew all about it but were planning to hold it until at least after the filing deadline in Idaho, and probably until 30 days before the election, just like they did with Mark Foley. Some wise Republican got wind of it and preempted the Dems. Now the GOP will keep that Senate seat and the whole thing will have died down well before the 2008 election.

[13Sisters76]

Do we EVER have to be reminded of the sort of people we are dealing with on the left? How many times do we have to be blind-sided by these people before we get right back in their faces?

Here’s the big difference between them and us- we kick our mistakes to the curb. Whether Craig did anything wrong or not, it smells bad and republicans don’t usually elect pols we know are gay. We can’t trust them. Whether it’s faggotry, campaign funds shenanigans, lying about a conservative record, we just DON’T vote for them. Unlike, of course, the dems who hold their perverts and crooks up as heroes and re-elect the nitwits.

Vote in the primaries, people! Turn out for those the same way you turn out for the general election. Those who vote “third parties” or stay home in a snit, PLEASE remember what kind of country we leave for our kids if we don’t STOP the left right now. And if we don’t vote, they WILL win which is a tragedy I cannot think about without getting sick to my stomach.

[Chickenhawk Warmonger]

This is the guy that leaked the info to the media about Rep. Mark Foley.
http://chickenhawkexpress.blogspot.com/2006/10/foley-gate-was-this-outing-planned.html
**************
He also attempted to blackmail Sen Craig to get him to change his vote on Judge Alito’s confirmation.

“...Interesting to note about Rogers’ little outfest today. With his usual hyperbolic statements, Rogers let comments slip that identify this Senator as the one he was trying to blackmail to vote against Judge Alito’s confirmation. Obviously Rogers knew about this Senator’s sexual exploits back in January 2006 but less than 3 weeks before the election, he issues this “breaking news”.”
http://chickenhawkexpress.blogspot.com/2006/10/gay-avengers-blackmail-subject.html

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/michael-rogers-tried-to-blackmail-senator-on-alito-vote

http://patterico.com/2006/10/17/lefty-blogger-outs-senator-as-gay/
*****************
Also here’s a tidbit about the Gay Avengers and their gay fatwah... including John Aravosis from Americablog....

“Not likely, say Mike Rogers and John Aravosis, the two men loosely heading an ongoing outing campaign on the Hill. As the date nears for a Senate vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban gay marriages in the Constitution, Rogers said the outings have picked up steam — from 13 documented offices to nearly 20 currently on a target list provided by Rogers to the Blade.

Despite Foley’s FMA opposition, Aravosis purported to out Foley as well, taking him to task for supporting President Bush, who endorsed the measure late last winter. Labeling Foley as “our latest closeted gay hypocrite,” Aravosis said Foley made the list for putting politics ahead of his own community by “whoring for an anti-gay president.”

Both Aravosis and Rogers said they continue to collect information from their network of sources, which include employees of the Human Rights Campaign and Log Cabin Republicans, and plan on outing more staffers and members.”
http://www.expressgaynews.com/2004/7-9/news/national/outed.cfm

[Belasarius]

>>Here’s the big difference between them and us- we kick our mistakes to the curb<<

Nope. They do also but there’s a big difference in the type of people we kick. The Dem’s kicked Joe Liebermann and Zell Miller to the curb.

[freekitty]

They also want to keep our true Presidential conservative candidates out of the top tier too. So we are left with those to vote for we don’t want. Disgusting.

[Philistone]

The Dems don’t care about it. After all, the right to have gay sex with 16 year-old Pages is in their party platform. I think the Republican establishment just looks at numbers and says “we need that vote in the Senate. We’ll just tell the guy to keep his zipper up and hope no one finds out about it.”

Power corrupts, and it doesn’t take sides.

[13Sisters76]

Very good point

[fight_truth_decay]

One thing that I always questioned, I heard nothing about...

Starting off, the police report had nothing in it in regard to playing footsie with the undercover guy. The media played that angle. Rush mentioned this yesterday, in fact. Became a Democratic talking point.

Now, did Craig have any suggestive eye contact with this undercover guy, invitation to act, before he went into the stall. Why of all times, in this location, at this time, did Craig feel he feel secure enough with who he is as a family man to follow through with this alleged sexual offer? Does this undercover guy spend his days just standing in this stall? Was Craig followed in? Something happened before the stall moment. I just want wanna know what led up to a seems like "sure sting".

Part of the story is missing, if I was attempting a screenplay on material like this.

[Dems_R_Losers]

If this had been a Democrat politician, you know the "backstory" would be THE story. Who leaked to Roll Call about Craig's arrest? Why now - "I question the timing." Was this just another GOP dirty trick, going all the way down to a sympathetic local cop? Why all the organized talking points from the GOP about it? Etc. etc.

This whole thing is totally orchestrated. Only the timing got messed up this time.

[fight_truth_decay]

Predator?

Am not defending Craig if all this is true, but there are many parts missing, and especially a “footsie” issue which was not some tapping up and down of the foot as was not found in said police report. The post above has me asking questions.

Craigs kids say..and yes they can be biased but if they thought this was hurtful to their mother they would also go the other way in a heart beat! Mother bears protect her cubs.

Take note of Romney (media sense of duty to his country! sarcasm) leading the pack with what little he knew at the time.

The senator’s children have concluded that anyone else in a similar situation would have simply said “excuse me” after bumping their foot into someone and moved on. But their father bumped into an undercover police officer, who they say was looking for a different interpretation of his actions.

“It was tough standing next to him, but we are family and we stay together through good times and bad,” Craig said. “We know who he is and we stand behind him.”

The senator’s fellow Republicans have not supported him, though he has served more than 25 years on Capitol Hill. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney called the accusations against Larry Craig “disgusting,” a statement Craig’s children say is the most disappointing part of the whole ordeal.

I think I have to have more..the whole truth not just interpretations. And not anything this Rogers or some Liberal saying went down. I am not the only one now questioning this whole June arrest plea down scenario.

I personally find our elected Republican leaders (excluding the President) on the Hill cowards and so scared of losing in ‘08 they would toss anyone under the bus to save the Party. When it is more about strength of a given candidate on important issues effecting the safety of this country than playing up the weaknesses of others to win in ‘08. Sex sells, success in Iraq becomes overshadowed. The public is left ignorant on Iraq but well versed in sex scandals, celebrity arrests and animal abuse.

Craig has to live with himself. I personally do not care if he is guilty or not in the grand scheme of things. If his family stands by him through thick and thin..it is a private matter.

Source: http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3555208

[Delphinium]

That means SOMEBODY knew and if ONE side knows, then BOTH sides know. Yet there was no warning given to voters?....

If someone knew, how come with over 6 months, and 300 interviews that the Idaho Statesman did, why didn't anyone know?

[Red Badger]

Apparently 300 people did. Washington can keep a secret as long as it’s in their best interest, if only to expose it when that’s in their best interest.............

[Philistone]

if only to expose it when that’s in their best interest.

All the more reason for the GOP to "out" its "hyporcritical" gays before primary season and not wait for the opposition to do it 3 weeks before the general elections.

It is possible to be a gay Republican. It is not politically possible to be a gay-bashing gay Republican and the Dems know that.