Dissecting the infamous outer Mike Rogers

Posted by: ST on September 4, 2007 at 11:05 am

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. And as we know at this point, Craig has 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.” We’ve even seen in some instances where black liberal “leaders” have encouraged voters not to vote for another Democrat – because she was white. Remember the national outcry over that? Nope, I don’t either – because it didn’t happen, due to the fact that white liberal Democrats, as well as the media, have long been complicit in letting black racists get away with remarks a white Republican would have to resign over if made by them. Heck, for that matter, white Republicans have resigned, or apologized, or at the very least taken a significant amount of heat over remarks (scroll) that were pereceived to be racist, but in reality were not. But because certain remarks challenge Accepted Truths that we are not supposed to question, the yelling and screaming almost inevitably begins from the usual corners.

Far left liberals like Mike Rogers wear the “hypocrite exposer” banner like a badge of honor, but the real hypocrites in all this are Rogers and others like him in the Democratic party who seek to punish “minorities” who don’t cotton to the groupthink mentality that is demanded of them. These supposed defenders of “free thought” like Rogers are always among the very first to try and punish any ideas that they found “offensive” and “counterproductive” to their “cause.”

As a matter of fact, you don’t even have to be in a minority group for the groupthinkers to go after you for daring to dissent. Case in point.

Free thought Democrats. An oxymoron if I ever heard one.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


  • JammieWearingFool trackbacked with Thug Extortionist Gets Glowing WaPo Puffpiece
  • Chickenhawk Express trackbacked with A Blackmailer Gets Profiled in the Washington Post
  • 6 Responses to “Dissecting the infamous outer Mike Rogers”


    1. Drewsmom says:

      I think I saw this scum bag on one of the cable shows last evening. washington post, what a rag, indeed.
      A butt :(|), both of em.

    2. from Schmitz Blitz:

      I am somewhat conflicted about the tactics of Rogers. The process of accepting and disclosing one’s gayness is very stressful and scary–you have to worry about rejection from the people you care about the most, and begin to deal with the changes that come with being identified as a gay American. When someone else outs you, you loose control over this very difficult process, and it adds to the emotional turmoil.

      What’s more, Rogers’ tactics create a new sort of McCarthyism targeting gays. It makes me somewhat uncomfortable to see again this kind of a witch hunt going on within the walls of our government.

      Those concerns noted, I ultimately support the outing of anti-gay politicians. These politicians take their own shame and self-hatred over being gay out on open gays who just want to live their lives with dignity (as opposed to finding sexual fulfillment through secret trysts in public restrooms and parks). To me, using your democratically elected office as a closet is an abuse of power, and we need people like Rogers to expose that.

    3. Baklava says:

      Elizabeth wrote, “Those concerns noted, I ultimately support the outing of anti-gay politicians.

      So the ends justify the means I hear you saying. Because you disagree with him on policy you support something you don’t support. That’s beautiful!! Thanks for your honesty.

      So…. Just for the record. I don’t support graffiti or vandalism but if Elizabeth’s house were targeted with graffiti or vandalism I’d support it because of her positions… There. Analogy complete. Hope you like it.

      Hope you approve !!

    4. Great White Rat says:

      From Elizabeth:

      I ultimately support the outing of anti-gay politicians.

      Two points:

      1. Exactly what constitutes “anti-gay” to you? Do you mean anyone who doesn’t sign on to the most radical demands of the homosexual activists, such as being designated an accredited “victim” group, or dismantling traditional values such as defining marriage as one man and one woman? Let’s make it clear here.

      2. It’s interesting that you don’t specify that the politicians you want pilloried must be homosexuals. So if a sleazebag like Rogers paints a heterosexual political figure with a “he’s gay” slander, you’re OK with that, as long as he’s “anti-gay”, whatever that means?