« Fair Daze and Foley - Negron Haze | Main | Remember Abdul Rahman? »

And then what?

One of the most infuriating things is dealing with people who simply can not think things through. They get upset about something and decide that they have to do SOMETHING, then pat themselves on the back for having "taken a stand" and "taken action" -- when, most of the time, they've improved things not a whit, or often made them worse.

Liberals are notorious for this. They seem to think that "feelings" trump reality, that as long as you FEEL like you've achieved something, you've actually done something. It's the same sort of attitude that has them banning keeping score in children's sporting events -- that way everyone can "feel" like a winner.

The latest reminder of this is the current craze among some of the crazier leftists out there -- "outing" allegedly gay Republicans.

Others are doing a fine job of debating the ethics of the actions, the truth of these accusations, and other matters. What I find myself wondering is just what the hell these "outers" are hoping to achieve -- and what they actually might achieve.

Let's say that the next target of these morons is my own senior senator, Judd Gregg. (For the record: to the absolute best of my knowledge, Gregg is a firmly committed heterosexual, married with children and all that. I'm picking on him because 1) I know a little bit more about him than several other senators; B) as a lifelong New Hampshirite, I can gauge my fellow Granite Staters' response better than I could those from other states; and III) I don't particularly like him, so if I end up saying something mean, I won't feel bad.)

OK, Mike Rogers says Judd Gregg is gay, and has a long list of Gregg's male lovers -- along with incrinating photographs and suggestive video. He announces this to the world. What do I, a constituent of Gregg's, do about that?

The first thing is, I do NOT lambaste Gregg as a hypocrite. I'm still old-fashioned enough to think that what two (or more) consenting adults do in private is strictly their business. A person's sexuality is strictly their own matter, and only the business of those who they choose to share it with. So unless Senator Gregg starts sending me suggestive e-mails, I don't care.

The second thing is, I feel a little sympathy for the guy. (And as I said I don't like for him, and even voted for the guaranteed-to-lose Doris "Granny D" Haddock instead of him in 2004, that says a LOT.) He's just trying to live his life as he sees fit, not really hurting anyone, and now something that he's tried like hell to keep private is getting it dragged out for all to see. I would personally like to see him take the offensive against the press:

"Senator Gregg, are you gay?"

"Unless you're coming on to me, Katie, that's none of your goddamned business."

The third thing I'd think of is I'd start remembering a bunch of the standard liberal talking points. President Bush and the Republicans want to wiretap everyone without search warrants, the NSA is secretly tracing and recording every single phone call in the US, the whole notion of privacy is being eroded in the "war on terror" -- so we should immediately support the party that has its people investigating and revealing details of people's sex lives? I think I'd PREFER that the government know about my phone bill than my sex life. (Such as it isn't, currently.) Hell, I'll gladly e-mail them a copy of my cell phone statement every month if they promise to stay out of my bedroom.

The key element, in many elections, is which candidates do you trust -- or, as is more often the case, do you distrust less. The very essence of the act of "outing" is betrayal -- betrayal of trust, betrayal of confidences, betrayal of privacy. My gut instinct is to in no way reward such actions, but rather to strongly condemn them and firmly reject any side that embraces -- or even tolerates -- such conduct.

So, what was behind the move to "out" (allegedly) Senator Larry Craig? What was Mr. Rogers' intended goal when he set out to do this?

Well, it couldn't have been to get Craig out of office. His current term doesn't expire until 2008.

It couldn't have been to get Craig to "soften" his stance on gay issues. Craig has a fairly well-established voting record against those issues, and has won re-election while holding them. To change his stance would be to risk alienating his base.

It couldn't have been to help the overall climate for gay people. The message being sent is that if you're gay, you goddamned better well remember that your pansy asses belong to the Left, and if you even THINK of deviating from the accepted political dogma, we'll destroy you fruits. That's pretty damned similar to queer-bashing, and could easily lead to the same climate of fear that kept the gays so oppressed for so long. And it actually leaves them open to blackmail, much like homosexuality used to be grounds for denial or loss of security clearance -- it forces people to keep their identity secret, or they risk losing their careers. That reason died (and with good cause) when more and more gays stopped hiding and pretending, and the threat of "revealing" their homosexuality became laughable.

What was Mr. Rogers' goal in all this? I strongly suspect it was the one goal he's achieved with stellar results -- a whole bunch of people talking about him. The germaneness -- or even the veracity -- of his charges are utterly irrelevant.

And damn me, I'm playing right along with it all.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference And then what?:

» Joust The Facts linked with Read 'Em, Please

» Another Blogger linked with Gay Republicans: What’s the Point?

» The Thunder Run linked with Web Reconnaissance for 10/19/2006

Comments (11)

Mike Rogers actions say far... (Below threshold)

Mike Rogers actions say far more about him & his character, than it does about any of the people he is outing.

1) "I am selfish."
Assumes if one is gay, one must promote all the gay issues, because personal issues (like union causes, etc.) are MORE important than war, the budget, health care, immigration, etc. which affect the larger populations.

2) "I am ingnorant."
Assumes Christian/conservative voters will not elect/re-elect someone who is gay, because they think homosexuality is morally wrong--doesn't realize there are many gay Christians.

3) "I don't truly care about gay people or people in general, for that matter."
How could he when he exposes alleged secrets for children and grandchildren and the rest of the world to hear?

4) "I am desperate for attention (or maybe JUST desperate), and I haven't figured out a positive way to make a difference in the world."
Wouldn't it be nice, if these same energies were applied towards helping youth, the hungry, etc.?

Mr. Rogers' "goal in all th... (Below threshold)
Bat One:

Mr. Rogers' "goal in all this," is a good deal more sinister than mere self promotion. His objective, clearly, is to inflict injury on those who he opposes and views with contempt.

What is every bit as tragic is the hypocrisy of those on the Left. For years we've been subjected to a constant bleating that what takes place in a person's bedroom is of no concern to others, but when a waspish radical like Rogers comes along and violates the "right to privacy" of another, truthfully or not, they are predictably silent. Apparently, to those on the Left, the end does indeed justify the means.

A Republican whining about ... (Below threshold)

A Republican whining about dirty politics.......LOL.....push polls suggesting McCain is crazy because of his years as a POW, a campaign to tell America the Purple Heart is a meaningless medal.....there's lots more...but again I'd just suggest that Jay you are projecting yet again. In fact I'm so glad you brought up the idea of projecting because its so appropriate to the current Republican leadership and the 38% of cronyistic Americans who still support them by attempting to project and lay blame of all the countries current woes on any body but themselves who have had nearly 6 years of complete control and actually more like 12 years.


Why do Democrats hate gays?... (Below threshold)
Andrew Sullivan:

Why do Democrats hate gays?

Yeah liberal who belive its... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

Yeah liberal who belive its okay for someone to riot and loot and beat up others when their upset over something but dont believe we have the same right to defend ourselves our property and our families from looters and rioters

I think some of this comes ... (Below threshold)

I think some of this comes from the right hanging the term "liberal" on the left. They have seen politicians careers go down the tubes when they get firmly tagged as a "liberal". The problem of course is that the left sees being a liberal a good thing, but being CALLED a liberal a bad thing because the majority of US voters don't have a high opinion of liberals and election results flow from that. So the left would like an "instant death" term they could hang on conservatives. They are trying out the term "gay" to see if it works.

The problem is that it is hard to prove a negative (i.e. 'I am not gay'). You can prove or disprove the "liberal" tag by showing what measures a person supports or opposses. A public demonstration would not only be in poor taste, politically harmful, potentially illegal but could cause projectile vomiting (e.g. Think of Ted Kennedy proving he is not gay by publicly making the two back beast with a female). Even ignoring the hazards of "proof" on being gay, it is really only showing that you are at least bisexual or can tolerate the opposite sex well enough for political purposes.

If there is any success in this, expect 90% of republicans to be identified as gay.

From reading the leberal me... (Below threshold)

From reading the leberal message boards I'm convinced outing gay Republicans is for one reason and only one reason.

They believe that if they out gay Republicans that conservative Christians will be so disgusted and angry that they will sit out this election and not vote.

They are ignorant about what conservative Christians really believe about homosexuality. Because they believe it is a sin and are against same sex marriage some on the far left believe that conservative Christians HATE gay people and will not tolerate them in their party.

Of course conservatives know that is not true, but liberals are ignorant because of how they define hate.

In order to not HATE a gay person you have to not only tolerate them, but also accept the behavior and celebrate their lifestyle. Anything less is out and out HATE and HOMOPHOBIA-according to them.

Christians don't hate gay people and I don't believe that it will make many conservative Christians sit out the election.

What does make me LOL is how the liberals justify the gay bashing they are doing. It's the hypocracy, don't ja know?

The message being... (Below threshold)
The message being sent is that if you're gay, you goddamned better well remember that your pansy asses belong to the Left, and if you even THINK of deviating from the accepted political dogma, we'll destroy you fruits

Change 'gay' to 'black' and it's also true.

Very cult-like behavior.

Sue, right on. This is just... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Sue, right on. This is just another example of the nastiness and the meaness of the liberal left. I looked at the actions: all they have is deceptive rhetoric to conceal who they are. They don't care about the poor/oppressed in the world. They don't care about the welfare of blacks, gay, children, women. They simply have propaganda to advance their socialist ideology.

In fact, they are willing to sell out the poor/oppressed, women, children, black, gay people for their own political power. The dem party is now in the pocket of the filthy rich like Soros and Hollywood left.

<a href="http://iowahawk.ty... (Below threshold)


If that link doesn't work (yes, sorry, I should learn HTML) Instapundit linked to Iowahawk "It's the Homos, Stupid"

Set down the coke and read it. ;-)

"The message being sent is ... (Below threshold)

"The message being sent is that if you're gay, you goddamned better well remember that your pansy asses belong to the Left, and if you even THINK of deviating from the accepted political dogma, we'll destroy you fruits."

The gay bloggers at Malcontent actually used the plantation analogy, calling Rogers "Taskmaster Mike." Quite accurate, really.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy