On Tuesday evening, while interviewing left-wing radio host Ed Schultz, self-described “gay activist blogger” Michael Rogers announced his intention to “out” GOP Senator Larry Craig of Idaho as a closet homosexual.
“It’s my conclusion that Senator Larry Craig of Idaho engages in same-sex consensual activity,” Rogers said in the interview. “And I think that the American people need to know this, because Senator Craig has had a consistent voting record against the gay community. And it’s not his personal habits that I’m reporting on today, but it’s his gross hypocrisy and his duping of the American people.”
Rogers later reinforced the claim on his blog: “I have done extensive research into this case, including trips to the Pacific Northwest to meet with men who 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.”
Soon after the show aired, Jill Kuratis of New West reported that Craig’s press secretary, Sid Smith, was denying the allegation. “The senator says this story is absolutely ridiculous — almost laughable,” said Smith. “It has no basis in fact.”
This morning, bloggers reacted with a touch of delight and a ton of indignation.
“These kind of slimy allegations have no way to be proven or disproven, leaving Craig with limited options to clear the air,” writes a peeved Captain Ed. “How does one disprove a sexual orientation? He has three children with his wife Suzanne, and nine grandchildren … It’s a no-win argument, and its use of anonymous sourcing is especially egregious and despicable. Rogers wants to ruin Craig politically, and yet he doesn’t produce a single source for his allegations to go on the record.”
“Once again, the Left shows its obsession with sexuality, but it’s really more than that,” adds the blogger. “The Left obsesses over identity politics in all forms, and that obsession comes out in pathological terms. Rogers reveals this in his blog post, demanding that gay staffers on the Hill identify their orientation publicly, or else he will do it for them. Sexual identity is everything to him, and the concept of sexual privacy has no value to him at all. He wants to humiliate gays who prefer to keep their sexual activity private, forcing them to wear the virtual pink triangle against their will to experience obloquy and castigation.”
It’s an argument that doesn’t sit well with some liberal bloggers.
“I really hadn’t intended to write about this Larry Craig story when I read about it this morning,” writes Glenn Greenwald at Unclaimed Territory, “but then I became exposed to this disgustingly pious concern being paraded about by all sorts of right-wing pundits over dragging sexual innuendo into the public arena and subjecting political officials to unpleasant personal attacks that would drive good people from office, and how can anyone let that raging, violent hypocrisy just go uncommented upon? Their entire political movement over the last 20 years has been fueled by sleazy sexual innuendo; dragging private sexual behavior into the public arena for fun, profit and political gain; and exploiting the gay issue to drive people to vote for them.”
Elsewhere, Michael van der Galien of the Moderate Voice takes Rogers to task.
“What a sad little man Mike Rogers is,” writes van der Galien. “It is disgusting that: one — this could actually play a role in politics, and two — that Rogers thinks he has the right to ‘out’ someone he believes to be a homosexual. That American politics has dropped to this. I am too Dutch to even consider this somewhat normal or acceptable. This is none of Mike Rogers’ business. And his excuse is a pathetic one. It seems that according to Rogers every homosexual should be in favor of gay marriage … the only real sad person in this entire episode is not Sen. Craig. It is Mike Rogers who proves himself to be suffering from a complete lack of moral values.”
All of which inspired one blogger to bang out a somewhat tenuous Christian analogy.
“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,” writes La Shawn at La Shawn Barber’s Corner. “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?”
Mark Boyer was a CJR intern.