Blackmailing Liberal Blogger Praised in WaPo Profile
Whether senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was outed for political purposes remains a subject of pure speculation one thing, however, is clear: There is a very dedicated group of left-wing gay activists out there who have made it their goal to drag gay Republicans' sex lives out into the public eye unless they toe the line politically.
Regardless of whether you think the Republican party should be more accepting of homosexuality, this tactic of invading people's private lives and exposing them to the public is nothing short of blackmail. Instead of condemning it, however, the liberal press celebrates such efforts as Patterico points out in a blog entry debunking a fawning Washington Post profile of gay blogger Mike Rogers:
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?
Read the whole thing.