The Most Feared Man on the Hill?

[Janett_Reno]

The Most Feared Man on the Hill?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...301396_pf.html


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 Rogers's mind, if you're against gay rights in your public life and you live a secret homosexual life, all bets are off.

In 2004, one of the first public officials he targeted was then-Virginia congressman Ed Schrock because of his voting record on such issues as gays in the military, same-sex marriage and gay adoption. In 2000, for instance, Schrock told the Virginian-Pilot: "You're in the showers with them, you're in the bunk room with them, you're in staterooms with them." Schrock decided not to run for reelection because of the rumors.

In 2005, Rogers blogged about Mark Foley, months before his inappropriate instant-messages to male congressional pages became public and he was forced to resign. The former Florida congressman had a varied record, sometimes voting in favor of gay rights, but at one point voting against adoption by same-sex couples.

And last October, he says, he targeted Craig -- months before an undercover sex sting in a Minneapolis airport men's room, and before the Idaho Statesman started its months-long investigation. Two years earlier, Rogers notes, the three-term senator had voted for the failed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

"Hypocrisy," Rogers sneers, "plain, hate-filled hypocrisy."

In the coming months, he plans to post the names of "a few more" closeted Congress members on his blog, he says, all of them Republicans. There are 33 names on his published list, most of them men, 30 from the GOP. That fact reveals more about the Republicans, he says, than about him. Although a registered Democrat, he says he is bipartisan.

"I write about closeted people whose records are anti-gay," he says. "If you're a closeted Democrat or Republican and you don't bash gays or vote against gay rights to gain political points, I won't out you."

The Craig scandal has gripped the capital. For many gays, the episode harks back to times when closeted homosexuals were arrested in the city's cruising spots for "disorderly behavior." For many people, gay and straight, parsing out the details -- toe-tapping, fingers under the partition -- has been incredibly intriguing, and sometimes awkward.

Out of that discomfort, so many jokes to make, some exacerbated by Craig himself. A new catchphrase was born: "I have a wide stance."

Rogers, still sitting on his club chair, laughs about that one. He turns serious, takes a sip of soda and goes on a tirade: "We, as a society, are afraid of talking about two men having sex. Lesbian sex? 'That's hot!' But gay male sex? Well, nothing makes straight men more uncomfortable. Look at the reaction from the right, the double standard. . . . Take [David] Vitter, the senator who's on the D.C. madam's list. . . . Where were the calls for his resignation? . . . Yes, Craig pleaded guilty to a crime but that's not really the reason why they're throwing him under the bus."

Here comes the other "h" word. Not just "hypocrisy." But "homophobic."

At 43, Rogers came out in his early 20s and has spent the bulk of his life working for gay organizations. A native of the New York metropolitan area, he's lived in the District for more than a decade. Although his blog isn't his main source of income -- he was a fundraising consultant and currently runs Page One News Media, a gay-oriented online company -- the Web site has become more than a full-time job. He's a student of the gay rights movement and considers Larry Kramer, the writer and AIDS activist, and Franklin E. Kameny, the lifelong Washington firebrand, as models.


"Mike's always been active, very involved, in the gay community," says Andy Humm, a reporter for Gay City News in New York and Rogers's friend of nearly 20 years. Like Kramer and Kameny, Rogers, some activists say, is fearless, aggressive, in-your-face. But unlike them, he's got a blog, which since its inception has become a must-read among certain sets in Washington, especially its sizable gay population.

The way Rogers tells it, his online activism began when the Republican-controlled Senate scheduled a vote against same-sex marriage in June 2004.

The birth of the Internet has been a boon for gay socializing and organizing, and one of the first things Rogers did was post a profile on Gay.com, a popular site among gays. The profile read: "If you're against the Federal Marriage Amendment and know someone who's closeted, send that information to me." And while Hill groups such as the Gay, Lesbian & Allies U.S. Senate Staff Caucus and the Lesbian and Gay Congressional Staff Association opposed his actions, word got around. E-mails poured in, many anonymous. He investigates his tips by working the phones; on rare occasions, he flies around the country to meet with sources. Among his sources was a 40-year-old man who claimed to have had oral sex with Craig in a bathroom in Union Station.

Rumors about some members of Congress have swirled for years, but for the most part, they've stayed just that: rumors. There have been "outing scares" before, when a gay activist would write about this or that elected official. But until Rogers and his blog came along, few people off the Hill knew of the rumors. .

Says Kelly McBride, who teaches about ethics at the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank: "In the past, when the mainstream media were the gatekeepers of information, you could scream all of you want -- 'A conservative senator from Idaho is gay!' -- and nobody would hear you. But now people can hear anyone, and that's changed how mainstream media makes decisions about what to publish."

To some, Rogers is a hero, which is what BlogPac, a political action committee that funds progressive blogs, called him in July when presenting him with an award. His supporters say he's been more effective than the established gay press and gay organizations in exposing the GOP's "image problem."

"He's a sort of a muckraker, and he's sharing good information that other people don't," says Matt Stoller, the liberal blogger who heads BlogPac.

Critics, though, say he's a "pariah" who's hurting the gay community more than he's helping it.


"To many of us, coming-out is a process, a very personal journey dictated by the individual. My objection to outing is not about the people who are being outed. It's about us," says Mark Agrast, a former top aide to former representative Gerry Studds, the Massachusetts Democrat who was the first openly gay member of Congress. Agrast was one of the founding members of the Lesbian and Gay Congressional Staff Association.

"We don't have to admire the choices that Craig has made in his life," says Agrast, "to feel some compassion for a 62-year-old man who seeks anonymous encounters because he can't come to terms with who he is."

To some of the people on Rogers's list, such as former GOP official Dan Gurley, Rogers is "despicable."

Rogers blogged about Gurley, the former national field director at the Republican National Committee, in September 2004. Gurley, as Rogers tells it, had signed off on an RNC flier sent to conservative voting districts that shows one man proposing to another man. "The GOP wanted to scare voters. 'Look what will happen if the Democrats win!' " Rogers says. Gurley, however, says that he raised objections to the flier and that it wasn't his decision.

"What was I supposed to do?" Gurley says in an interview. He adds: "Who does Rogers think he is? God? What gives him the right to bully people around and tell us what to think or how to conduct our lives?"

When Rogers posted Gurley's Gay.com profile on his blog, the GOP fired Gurley, who's left Washington and lives in North Carolina.


Rogers is sitting on his apartment's balcony, feet stretched out, still sipping soda. It's been a very busy week. He's been on CNN, the "Today" show, National Public Radio. Repeatedly he gets asked whether he feels vindicated. The answer's always yes.

So does he have any secrets?

"Don't we all?"

Has he ever had sex in a public bathroom?

"How is that relevant? Look, I'm not a politician making laws and rules and regulations for 275 million people. You know what happens when you're in the U.S. military and you're brought up on charges of being gay or lesbian? Your life is ruined. You're at risk for death, for physical violence. And there's Craig . . . who was chairman and was the ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, not allowing gays to serve in the military?"

A little volume titled "The Book of Questions: Business, Politics and Ethics" is tucked under his coffee table. There, on Page 193, is the question: "How much right do we have to know about the private lives of elected officials?"

Rogers says, "When those private lives are in direct conflict with the public policy that these officials espouse, I think it's fair game that their private lives be brought into this. And I have to blog to do that with. Here's the question: What community is expected to protect its own enemies? Don't beat up the gay community, and then expect us to protect your secrets and your double life. It's just not right."

[dude1394]

Nice...I guess I shouldn't hold my breath for the dems to denounce this type of blackmail.

[Janett_Reno]

Blackmail? Let's try hypocrites.

30 more Republicans and 3 Democrats he is going to blow the whistle on, is what it says in that article.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

Blackmail? Let's try hypocrites.

30 more Republicans and 3 Democrats he is going to blow the whistle on, is what it says in that article.

No let's try blackmail. So are you also in favor of outing everyone who's had an abortion, who's currently doing S&M or who's watching porn? You think maybe we should get everyone's video rentals and out them? Is there anything private that is private anymore?

Talk about hyporcrite. It's all well and good to rail against folks getting into someone's bedroom, until it gets a little political power to do so?

[dude1394]

Here's a gay man's take on the Larry Craig instance and I can't agree more. The left continues to want to push deviance right into the homes of everyone.

Senator Larry Craig is caught playing footsies with an undercover police officer in a public restroom, but that's not what has progressives in an outrage. The Taliban of tolerance are angry the Idaho senator doesn't support same-sex marriage. According to gay activists, if you're willing to get physical before you flush, you should also be willing to support the idea of changing the definition of marriage so that aspiring couples can share more than a bathroom stall.

For homosexuals, cruising is a sacred pastime right up there with re-runs of Will and Grace, circuit parties and lip-syncing drag queens. Public sex is supposed to be "hot," and I have some knowledge of this having co-starred in the high-end fantasy film Tijuana Toilet Tramps. In reality, for gays, a subset that defines itself by bodily function, it is no secret that the way to a homosexual's heart is somewhere beneath the stomach. These are people who can't separate who they "are" from what they "do."

To protect the inalienable right to loiter in latrines with impunity, LAMDA, a gay rights advocate group, publishes "The Little Black Book," a guide for "safely engaging in public sex." This book is filled with ideal locations, many in malls and amusement parks where children are present. It seems that all those complaints about keeping the government out of the bedroom, also apply to public restrooms, highway rest stops, alleys, theatres, arcades, public beaches, city parks…et al.

"If you cruise in parks, bathrooms or other spaces open to public view, trust your instincts, be aware of your surroundings — and know your rights."

LAMDA lawyers working to get men off from "unfair prosecution" for the "right" to public sex has to be an enormous drain from the organization's other legal pet projects like getting those horrible Boy Scouts banned from public property, ensuring local government will pay for sex-change operations and the all-important gay marriage campaign, but as gays get their priorities straight, I'm certain the wedding altar could be just a hand reach away from the porcelain altar.

Of course, The Little Black Book emphasizes the need for "safe sex" especially in public places, but in gay ghettos where the HIV infection rate is 20 times higher than elsewhere, LAMDA may be having more success with changing that stuffy old definition of marriage. At least, they'll have a long-term justification for the yearly AIDS fundraisers.

Matt Foreman, head of the Gay and Lesbian Task Force, whose mission is "to build the grassroots power of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community," claims there's even a fiscal issue here "… why are Minneapolis tax dollars being used to have plainclothes police officers lurking idly in airport restroom stalls?" Yes, Matt, those dollars should be spent on free condom dispensers so you can express yourself without worrying about those pesky STDs, and if little children are present, this will just help them embrace the diversity of all activity, either sitting or standing.

Liberals say the real problem here is "repression." In other words, if gay men are going to rotor their rooter in public, they should at least own up to it—be proud. Democrats have a point; in their party this is precisely the type of behavior that gets a politician appointed to special committees and a standing ovation from his colleagues.

In other words, it's fine to toe wrestle with your neighbors in public restrooms; it's not your fault you were just born with a penchant for urinals. Just make sure you support gay marriage, because you've got to be down for the real struggle.

On Bill Maher's cable TV show, openly gay Congressman Barney Frank said Craig was a hypocrite. The lisp-lipped Frank of Massachusetts accused the senator of making a hypothetical 15-year-old "gay" teenager "somewhere out there" feel bad about himself. Relax, Representative Frank, the15-year-old victim can rest assured that bliss is right down the hall, in the nearest school restroom and LAMDA will defend his rights to these intra-mural activities and plea "tolerance."

Liberals will always shout hypocrisy in a tizzy-fit attempt to claim truth and honesty; you know all the things you live up to when you're checking out the shoe size of the guy in the stall next to you.

Some will claim that not all gay men are taking too long to zip it up in bathrooms, but by their very own accusations of the senator's sexuality, it's only a gay man who would be interested in cruising a restroom. Activists shout homophobia is the real culprit here, and they're right. Once you're no longer homophobic, sex in public places will seem acceptable to you, too.

Sexual deviants say this is a battle for tolerance, and that getting rid of a hypocrite like Senator Craig advances their cause. Real progress will only come when these matters are not hidden, and as far as the gay agenda is concerned, they've mostly succeeded. A few years ago, the entire Craig scandal would have been inappropriate for the mainstream news. Now, we, as a people, are so numb to perversity all the major networks, even the highbrow PBS are slipping down the same glory hole.

The videos I did were labeled as adult fantasy and you had to be over 18 to get your hands on them, but thanks to the coarsening of American culture we've made this stuff a public access reality. Activists will never condemn bad bathroom etiquette, because they really believe it to be acceptable. Now, that's progressive!

This content was used with the permission of Matt Sanchez

[jacktruth]

It seems to me that a person can be gay, but against gay power. It's not hypocrisy. It's hypocrisy to say you are not gay and actually be gay. It's hypocrisy to say you are in favor of gay rights, and then vote against them. But being gay and being in favor of gay rights isn't neccesarily hypocrisy. I would rather a gay politician vote against gay rights than a gay politician that votes for them.

I am highly opposed to extramarital sex no matter the sexual preference. I'm also highly opposed to illegal activity. Those are the realy crimes here.

By the way, it IShypocrisy to be against the war, but confirm a new general that is in favor of the war, and vote to fully fund the war.

It IS hypocrisy to say you will end "pork", but include record amounts of "pork" into the budget.

[DevinFuture]

It seems to me that a person can be gay, but against gay power.

Depends on what you mean by gay power. There are different issues. If you mean trying to prevent employers or landlords denying employment/housing to people based on nothing but their sexual orientation, a gay person who opposes that is most certainly a hypocrit. If you mean gay marriage, I don't think that one is necessarily as cut and dry. If you mean a government official who refuses to pledge that his office will not discriminate against homosexuals and then goes into the men's room seeking homosexual acts, then that's pretty clearly hypocrisy as well.

By the way, it IShypocrisy to be against the war, but confirm a new general that is in favor of the war, and vote to fully fund the war.

And yes. I would say that counts as hypocrisy, not to mention cowardice.

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Here's a gay man's take on the Larry Craig instance and I can't agree more. The left continues to want to push deviance right into the homes of everyone.

Dude, your facts seem to be just a little bit askew--despite a previous career in the adult film industry, Matt Sánchez professes to be heterosexual.

He's also a 36 year-old college senior at Columbia University who made disputed claims of harassment against anti-war protesters on Columbia's campus. He has parlayed these claims of harassment (which are said to be either exaggerated or fabricated) into several media appearances on Fox programs such as Hannity & Colmes and The O'Reilly Factor, and is being treated as a pet by conservative wags. His adult film career was brought to light ("outed"?) after he was an award recipient at the Conservative Political Action Conference where Ann Coulter referred to John Edwards as a "faggot". He's been spewing ridiculous bile ever since trying to regain favor and bleach the cum stains out of his conservative credentials. Can you say "overcompensate"?

It's so easy to do a little objectivity check these days.

That piece is so ridiculous, it's barely comprehensible. He sounds like a hungover fratboy the morning after being found in bed drunk with a frat buddy, and he can hardly bash fags hard enough to prove he's not one. Yeah, that'll show 'em.

[Janett_Reno]

Don't twist the article or my words dude. The man clearly states and if you will watch Fox news or MSNBC news and many others, you will see his position. If you vote one way and go home and live the opposite way you vote, he is blowing the whistle.

For instance, if you can't understand what he says i will lay it out in terms you will understand.

Larry Craig demanded Clinton be impeached and that he was very bad and immoral. Larry Craig voted against all homosexual bills. He and guys like Ted Haggard preach daily of the sins of homosexuals. They preach faith and values. The same with Mark Foley. Republicans came to Mike Rogers asking him to please blow the whistle on Foley but do not tell that i told on him. He already knew about Foley and also he was a boy scout leader and Foley was a Republican in FL that dated underage boys. He also was against and voted against homosexuality. Rogers was the one that got him ousted but with Republican help, they wanted him gone because it could possibly destroy faith and values. Not just homo sex but undersage homo sex.

Larry Craig has had many encounters with men and in bathrooms across the usa. It was reported on years before they caught him in a sting operation. That bathroom was feared and people wanted it stopped because of prostitutes known for that bathroom Craig went in and was looking for sex. It is many that have came forward and said they have had sex with Craig.

Now do you know the word hypocrite and what it means? Maybe you need to go look it up. If i preach faith and values, morals, if i vote against gay's and look at my record at the poor, homeless, abortion and other things. If my votting record is to vote gays down, to vote the poor down, and then i go home and patroll the streets for gay secret closet sex, then i am a hypocrite. That goes for any Democrat, Republican or Independent. If you vote one way and live another way, that is not morally right.

[Janett_Reno]

I will add this also, if i want to vote for Barney Frank and knowing he is gay, then i can vote for him or not. I have the choice. If David Vitter want's my vote and tells me he is in church daily, is for faith and morals, and tells me where he stands, then i vote for him and he lives his life the opposite of what he told me. I have been cheated with my vote and i don't like it.

I don't call it morally right, when you date and pay for prostitutes and you are married. I can go on and on with more that was selling drugs and also having sex outside the marriage and again i find both morally wrong. If i want to vote for Craig and he is a morals man and he is asking men across the usa if he can have oral sex with them, i am sorry my vote has been cheated. He stole my vote because he tricked me. The public keeps electing Barney Frank but he tells the world, i am gay. It is no big secret.

The day's of one liners are over. Mission accomplished, God Bless America, and i am your morals man and vote for me. It won't ever work that way again. The public now watches and sees how you vote, how you live and they expect more than a puppet and hypocrite. If you play that game, you will be ousted next election.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Gay.

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

That piece is so ridiculous, it's barely comprehensible. He sounds like a hungover fratboy the morning after being found in bed drunk with a frat buddy, and he can hardly bash fags hard enough to prove he's not one. Yeah, that'll show 'em.

It's called "reaction formation". Freud 101.

[dude1394]

I guess you are right jack...Everyone's bedroom habits should be out in the open so we can vote on them. I mean why shouldn't we know that hillary used to run a train in arkansas or something.

It's crap imo, the whole outting for political purposes. It probably works for the dems because 'if it feels good, do it" is their mantra.

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by dude1394

I guess you are right jack...Everyone's bedroom habits should be out in the open so we can vote on them. I mean why shouldn't we know that hillary used to run a train in arkansas or something.

It's crap imo, the whole outting for political purposes. It probably works for the dems because 'if it feels good, do it" is their mantra.

Politicians and sex? Well, this is a little more interesting to discuss, at least. Come on, Dude, please don't expect us to believe that you didn't delight in Bill Clinton's miseries with the rest of us. I mean, he wasn't even being explicitly hypocritical--voters KNEW, or shoulda known what they were getting when they voted that clown into office. Wouldn't you have wanted him to be honest before the elections about what he'd been doing in the Oral Office? You know he'd have gone down in flames.

Re outing for political purposes, greyer. One of those things that I might never be able to do, but can kinda understand the logic of.

I mean, for one candidate o out another candidate hoping that voters will vote against him/her just because he/she's gay? Over the line. Probably won't work in a lot of places either.

But to point out a gross inconsistency in stated policy and private personal behavior of a sitting, office-holding politician? I mean, suppose you found out that one (or more) or Mitt's daughters (or daughers-in-law) had had abortions at his insistence. Should that remain out of the political debate? Do ya imagine there's any chance it would?

Larry Craig is a pathetic figure in many respects. I sincerely hate to see someone destroyed that way, but in truth, it was his own actions that did him in. The Oregon newspaper had investigated him but decided not to run the story UNTIL his arrest and plea became public.

So many questions about him to answer:

1) Do I think he has had homosexual exchanges throughout his life? Yeah, more than likely.

2) Do I think he went to the airport restroom looking for a sexual exchange? Yeah, more than likely.

3) Would I, as a juror, vote to convict him even for disorderly conduct on the basis of what's been reported? Nah, no way.

4) Do I think he should resign his office? Well, not so much based on what he did in the restroom, in and of itself, although that demonstrates some incredibly poor personal judgment. More based on his handling of the aftermath. I do think that if he stays on it will be disastrously bad for Republicans over the next year. That's why most of them are trying to hustle him off the public stage STAT ASAP. This thing is gonna leave a welt though.

5) Should law enforcement spend time policing airport restrooms? Absolutely. Especially if there are particular places that develop a reputation for activity. And yeah, they should prosecute and publicize cases to deter activity. However, they would need a far higher standard of proof than winks, nods and toe taps. Unless there is some imminent lip (or at least hand) contact with penis, no conviction. If he don't unzip, you must acquit.

6) Should anyone (man or woman) pursue sexual asignations in public bathrooms? Generally not. For one reason, the hygiene issue is just too great to overcome. And there's just too much room for ambiguity, mixed signals, etc. Seriously, two (or more) consenting individuals gettin' their freaks on behind closed doors of PRIVATE spaces (not public restroom stalls) ? Go for it. But I think it's an entirely legitimate argument from law enforcement's perspective that unchecked activity of this sort will not remain small scale, and first thing you know some 11-year old boy is getting firsthand Full Uncle Monty without really being in a position to make an informed, consenting adult judgment on the question.

Get a room, y'all.

[dude1394]

Clinton's dalliances just proved his lack of morals. His ability to look me in the eye and lie to me with that bony finger just proved it. Who was the politician who said they had never seen anyone who could lie like bubba?

But if he was a closet gay dude, I wouldn't want him "outed". The problem with monica (as usual) was his felony cover-up, it always was. Of course it came out because he was being investigated for yet more improprieties (i.e. whitewater).

Clinton lacked character, that is ONE of my problems with him. And it wasn't JUST character in his personal life, he was frivolous and lacked character as a leader.

It appears that craig also lacks character and as I've said I have no problem with him resigning or being tossed. I do have problems however with some sleazeball digging up bedroom habits and using them for political gain. Clear enough?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

Politicians and sex? Well, this is a little more interesting to discuss, at least. Come on, Dude, please don't expect us to believe that you didn't delight in Bill Clinton's miseries with the rest of us. I mean, he wasn't even being explicitly hypocritical--voters KNEW, or shoulda known what they were getting when they voted that clown into office. Wouldn't you have wanted him to be honest before the elections about what he'd been doing in the Oral Office? You know he'd have gone down in flames. .

Well actually his dalliances were pretty well known before the election. Don't you recall that farce of a "stand by my man" moment on 60 minutes. Clinton was a known philander, but it just didn't matter much to the democrat party, did it. Never does.

[Janett_Reno]

The Republicans and many Republicans put Bubba in office. The south just does not vote Democratic. Bubba won some southern red states. He had to have Repunlican and Independent votes to win and he did just that. Bubba was a nobody and said who is this Bubba? That Bubba was elected twice. He left his position with the usa having having lots of money and the strongest country in the nation. This pres now has left us bankrupted. These debts won't be paid probably ever.

Now back to Craig. No one has any problem with Craig being a homo. No one has a problem with Haggard being a homo. No one has a problem with Vitter datting prostitutes. The problems are, if you are a Republican preacher and you preach faith and values and stay around the white house with all your moral friends but then on the side, you are out patrolling the streets, paying men for sex. Buying meth off the streets. This sounds like a hypocrite to me. Not faith and values.

How do you preach on homo's, how do you preach on faith and values and sex, when you are having homo sex and buying street drugs? No one cares if Craig is a homo. People care that he has a wife and he cheats on her with his homo bathroom runs. People care that he want's Bubba impeached because he has oral sex with a female. People care when he votes against homo's but is hiding the fact he is a homo. People care that he is in office and he pleads guilty and then begs the police department to make it go away and not tell anyone.

No more hiding the hypocrites. You spew things out and don't back them up. Where does it say Hillary has run a train? Show us with links and back it up? I don't think you can. The poll i showed in Ohio is no fluke and it is going to get worse. Keep spewing out the one liners and see if it works.

If i am married and i run my mouth on tv about faith and values, if i am out datting other women and men in bathroom stalls, plus being married or trying to get them underage like Foley, then yes it is a big problem and the public needs to know and the public most likely will demand i step down. How else would Mr Foley be exposed and was it very healthy for him being a boy scout leader? No, i don't think so. I can either tell the truth or i can be a hypocrite and play bathroom stall games with people, i can vote down the line against homo's when i would be a homo, i can run other peoples life and vote for them but live the total opposite. I can plead guilty but then say it wasn't all that bad. Let's get back to work.

With the internet, with wide world media, the days of one liners and voting one way and living another is over. You will get exposed for what you are. If Democrats, Republicans and Independents don't think so and want to keep the little sex acts and other things, then go ahead and knock yourself out but you are taking a huge risk and playing a dangerous game.

If Bubba was a philander and it was told before he ran, why did alot of your Republican friends vote for him? I reported yesterday or day before on a life long Republican that Republican Robert Novak reported on. She was called and the Republican party wanting her faith and value dollars as they saw she had not put in any money in the garnd ole parties hat. She hung up on them and in their face but before doing so, she let them know she did not approve of their messages or actions and she would probably never give another red cent to them. Pulling the wool over peoples eyes might happen a few times but some wake up and Robert Novak reported next election is looking very, very bad. You need me to point outy who Robert Novak is?

[dude1394]

Ross Perot put bubba in office.

If i am married and i run my mouth on tv about faith and values, if i am out datting other women and men in bathroom stalls, plus being married or trying to get them underage like Foley, then yes it is a big problem and the public needs to know and the public most likely will demand i step down. How else would Mr Foley be exposed and was it very healthy for him being a boy scout leader? No, i don't think so. I can either tell the truth or i can be a hypocrite and play bathroom stall games with people, i can vote down the line against homo's when i would be a homo, i can run other peoples life and vote for them but live the total opposite. I can plead guilty but then say it wasn't all that bad. Let's get back to work.

Funny, exactly what bubba WAS doing and was called out on it. Except it wasn't bathroom stalls it was the oval office and in between the rooms of the white house.

So your opinion (I guess, i'm having a very hard time understanding it), is that everyones sexual piccaddillos(sp) should be outed, right? The things you mention are things that YOU feel are wrong and they should be outed for. Your opinion, but not others. I imagine that someone elses sexual proclivities that you DO agree is okay should not be outed.

So answer the question.

If someone is into S&M and bondage should they have their sexual lives told all over? Yes or no? If not, why not when it's another deviant lifestyle.

Althought I feel that homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle, it's really NONE OF MY BUSINESS. Just like it's no ones business if I like to get into harness and rubber and get beat.

Funny how the "liberal" is the one who feels that someones personal life is fair game for political gain.

[Mavdog]

the difference is that craig chose to have his fun in a public restroom. if he had his sexcapades in the privacy of his home there wouldn't be such a furor.

as for rogers and his "outing" campaign, he's the hypocrite. his premise is that all homosexuals MUST be for the same agenda as he is for...guess what? he's wrong.

the only "agenda" the homosexual community is truly pushing is to not be discriminated against, to have the same rights as heterosexuals do. rogers is saying that homosexuals can't be like heterosexuals and have varied opinons, that they have to speak and think the same way as he believes they should.

in affect rogers is discriminating against any homosexual who disagrees with him, and that is wrong.

every person should have the right to be public or private about their sexual orientation.

what rogers is doing is abhorent, selfish and flies in the face of equal treatment.

[Janett_Reno]

I agree with alot you said mavdog. He shouldn't believe only his way of thinking is the right way. I also think for people to vote certain ways and live opposite ways are wrong and i believe when someone tells us to live and obide by certain morals and standards but then they are not following those same morals and standards is wrong as well. As far as him shedding light on Mark Foley and getting Foley out, was probably a good thing because look at how many lifes Foley could have ruined and under aged kids. It was reported some Republicans reported Foley to Rodgers and Rodgers already knew and had reported on him. That was a sticky situation because if you knew about Foley and did not tell, then you was in trouble but then again if you sweep it under the rug, then Foley ruins more and more lifes.

Then him reporting on Craig, he did this along time before the bathroom follies. I will have to agree that he shouldn't think only his way of votting and believing is the only way even if you are homosexual.

If Rodgers is doing right or wrong i still feel that people like Vitter, Craig and others to stand up and get all over national tv and demand Clinton be impeached and to tell people he is a bad boy, a very bad boy and even a nasty boy is a hypocrite on their part. If Clinton is with a female sexually, that is not his wife, i agree it is wrong but if i get on national tv and do what Vitter, Craig and others did and said about Clinton and them have prostitutes they are datting and the other begging for men in bathrooms to have sex with him. I am sorry, i feel that is a hypocrite.

It goes both ways. Just because of your party, you can't or shouldn't hide because you are a homo or you shouldn't think you can also hide behind your party name and have prostitutes or street drugs on the side. We should all live and obide by the same laws and standards. If you are a homo be a proud homo and not a closet homo that comes out when it gets dark and prey on others.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

If you are a homo be a proud homo and not a closet homo that comes out when it gets dark and prey on others.

So decrees the thought police.