Gay Rights | Larry Craig | Mark Foley | News | Republican Party

BigGayDeal.com

Blogger: Idaho Senator Larry Craig Had Gay Encounters

Larry_craigMike Rogers, the blogger behind BlogActive, claimed yesterday on Sirius Satellite Radio's Ed Schultz Show that Idaho Senator Larry Craig has had homosexual encounters and accused the Senator of "gross hypocrisy" for his anti-gay voting record and relationships with anti-gay Christian groups.

Exposing hypocritical Republicans is nothing new to Rogers. In March 2005, GQ ran a story detailing the public figures whose sexuality has been thrown into question by the activist blogger. Those figures include Republican congressman Ed Schrock, former-RNC field director Dan Gurley, Representative David Dreier and Ken Mehlman, chair of the RNC.

"It's about someone who's been aggressive against the gay community," said Rogers of Craig.

Rogers stood firmly behind his statements and said he was prepared for legal recourse from the Senator's office. "Without a doubt in my mind, I am absolutely solid about the sources...The greatest defense against libel and slander is the truth."

Gayrepubs_2Said Rogers on his blog: "I have done extensive research into this case, including trips to the Pacific Northwest to meet with men who have 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."

According to the Spokesman-Review, "Craig, who is married, denied the allegations through his staff, saying they 'have no basis in fact.' Sid Smith, spokesman for the Idaho Republican, said it would be hard to independently check Rogers' sources, adding, 'saying you have anonymous sources doesn't seem very convincing to me.'"

Smith said that a lawsuit would be giving the issue "more attention than it deserves" and said that Craig categorically denies Rogers' charges: "The senator says the story is completely ridiculous. Mr. Rogers has no facts to back up his story. [The events] absolutely did not (occur); there is no basis in fact."

Rogers defended his story: "I have never been wrong, and in this, you can't be 99 percent right. It's 100 percent or nothing...You can be gay and against same-sex marriage, but you should be honest and open. Why should the gay community protect an enemy of the community?

Listen to the audio from the Ed Schultz show here.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Easily resolved--have the guys who claimed to have slept with Craig speak on the record.

    Posted by: dc-20008 | Oct 18, 2006 9:40:31 AM


  2. Unless one of his sources is willing to come out and say, "the Senator sucked me off in a bathroom stall at a rest stop outside of Pocatello," this story isn't going to get any visibility outside of the gossipy gay blogs.

    Posted by: John T | Oct 18, 2006 9:53:02 AM


  3. Mike did a great service, regardless of whether it becomes front-page news. I'm sick of hearing gay people say "oh, it's not fair to talk about people's private lives!" when these people being outed are not only talking about our private lives, they're attempting to legislate them out of existence. Craig will never sue because while he may not know which 4 squealed, he knows that 4 is the tip of the iceberg. The man voted against every gay-oriented issue that's ever come near him. His own homosexuality should matter to the people against gays (unless their values are phony) and should matter to the people for gays (unless theirs are).

    Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | Oct 18, 2006 10:08:06 AM


  4. I've never been one for outing or gossiping/speculating about other people's sexuality, but I too have lost my patience with discreet homosexuals causing damage to gays and lesbians trying to live a healthy and positive life in an ocean of hostility.

    Hurray for Rogers - but quit the gossip and present the facts. Put up or shut up!

    Posted by: BD | Oct 18, 2006 10:12:46 AM


  5. I don't understand this. The Republicans already have a laundry list of scandals this term. Let 'em dig their own graves.

    Making baseless accusations like this without any evidence just makes us out to be the monsters they all think we are.

    Posted by: chrisb | Oct 18, 2006 10:16:11 AM


  6. We're only monsters if the people being outed have done no harm to our community. When closeted politicians take active steps to curtail our civil rights or make public statements that fan the homophobia flames, then they deserve to be outed without exception. Indeed, it's the only honorable response.

    Posted by: Brian | Oct 18, 2006 11:12:14 AM


  7. There is a pretty hateful article in the L..A. Times today: "Some Seek 'Pink Purge' in the GOP" that basically ends up being an advertisement for the wingnuts. Another recent article: "For Gays, a Loud New Foe" was equally unbalanced and hurtful. Any Times reader's should contact the paper and demand more objective reporting.

    Posted by: Timothy | Oct 18, 2006 11:17:35 AM


  8. You're absolutely right, Brian. It's like years ago, some of the most ruthless, bloodthirsty members of a racist lynch mob were those who may be "passing" for white. To continue to hide the secret fact that they were racially mixed, some became the worst racists in their community. Same thing these closeted or "on the down low" motha' fu***ers do today.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Oct 18, 2006 11:21:27 AM


  9. This is so awesome.

    Posted by: bboy | Oct 18, 2006 11:29:33 AM


  10. ChrisB, EVERY time Rogers outs someone people come out of the woodwork accusing him of making "baseless accusations" without evidence. Yet he has a 100% accuracy record thus far; not one suit and not one substantial challenge.

    The reason Craig has already indicated he won’t sue is, by his own admission, because he doesn’t want to give the story more air time. He also doesn’t want people testifying under oath for the public record.

    Agree with him or not, he does his research, he deals in evidence based facts and he gets it right. He has been working on this particular case for about a year.

    I also hear a lot of people claiming that his work will do the gay community more harm than good. I consider THAT making accusations that aren't backed by evidence. Does anyone have any specific examples of how his work has negatively impacted the gay community? I have examples of how it has helped.

    I think it's strange that there are so many gay people who are ready to string politicians up by their balls for the least little perceived hypocritical infraction but they draw the line at outing anti-gay closeted politicians who work tirelessly for the oppression and marginalization of out, honest, respectable gays. Why is that? Is it that they believe gay public figures are entitled to special privileges and protections not given to straight politicians?

    I find it curious that those who stand strongest against exposing someone’s hypocritical sexual exploits are all too often the same ones who rolled around in the Clinton/Lewinsky story and never miss an issue of the National Enquirer or an episode of the latest Entertainment gossip show.

    Posted by: Zeke | Oct 18, 2006 12:07:54 PM


  11. When someone does evil that person must be called to task for the evil. If the evil is to one's own, then one's own must call the evil doer to task.

    For that reason, I support soldiers who refuse to fight in Iraq, whistle blowers who expose financial improprieties and gays outing gays who do evil to the gay community.

    Also, if we truly believe that being gay is normal and natural, then it ought to make no difference about discussing another's sexuality. I think opposition to "outing" is a result of thinking there is some discredit to being gay. We shouldn't use the threat of outing against a non-gay person, but any gay man or woman who is so blatantly two-faced must be called to task.

    Posted by: JT | Oct 18, 2006 12:33:10 PM


  12. "secret" hypocrisy leads only to blackmail.

    Posted by: fred | Oct 18, 2006 12:39:23 PM


  13. Zeke

    your posts always makes this atheist want to say AMEN

    :-)

    Posted by: jimmyboyo | Oct 18, 2006 12:42:18 PM


  14. Zeke et al,
    You guys are defending the concept of outing public figures. I don't have any problem with outing politicians (particularly Republicans).

    But the truth is Mike Rogers didn't actually out anyone. All he did was go on satellite radio and say he believes this senator is gay. I can't tell you how many times someone has told me that his boyfriend's cousin once knew this bartender who slept with Tom Cruise. Or John Travolta.

    Without providing concrete evidence like ABC News did with the Foley scandal, all Mike Rogers is doing is re-enforcing the notion that gay men think (and want) everyone else to be gay.

    Posted by: chrisb | Oct 18, 2006 1:12:49 PM


  15. Chrisb: A. No gay man...not one single one...WANTS Senator Craig to be gay. B. Mr. Rogers IS doing precisely what ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR and FOX (well, maybe not FOX) have done with Rep. Foley's situation...they've all kept the names of the young male pages out of bounds to protect their privacy. The difference between the three hundred thousand masseurs who've had John Travolta make a pass at them and Mr. Rogers is that Mr. Rogers doesn't make shit up. Didn't you ever watch his TV show when you were a kid? Also, he has the evidence and is prepared to bring it forward...doing so, though, will make the unfortunate guys who've had trists with the devil public.

    Posted by: JT | Oct 18, 2006 1:27:42 PM


  16. JT, you are 100% wrong. ABC News (who broke the Foley scandal) provided emails and IM transcripts proving beyond any doubt that Foley was gay.

    All Mike Rogers is doing is asking us to take his word for it. That's not good enough.

    Posted by: chrisb | Oct 18, 2006 1:43:45 PM


  17. testify sistah.

    Posted by: dc-20008 | Oct 18, 2006 1:45:46 PM


  18. Chrisb: I'm not trying to be argumentative, but Dan Rather lost his job producing copies of stuff. Copies of e-mails and transcripts provided through a third party aren't first hand evidence. But they are credible. Mr. Rogers has simply delayed producing his credible evidence.

    Posted by: JT | Oct 18, 2006 2:02:21 PM


  19. I understand the point Chrisb is making but, with Mike Roger's record, I have no doubt that he has the evidence to back up his claim.

    I suspect that Mr. Craig as well has no doubts that Mr. Rogers has sufficient evidence to back his claims. That's why he, like all the other people Roger's has outed, will complain, deny and whine but do little if anything else.

    Don't assume that just because Rogers hasn't shown his hand that he doesn't hold all the cards needed for a "queen's flush".

    Posted by: Zeke | Oct 18, 2006 4:07:12 PM


  20. Again Zeke, I agree! I do believe that every politician that votes against gay rights regardless of party affiliation should be outed! I have no regards for your party on this one. If you are gay and vote against gay issues you should be called on it!

    I do NOT agree with indiscriminate outing! It is such a personal and difficult thing to do and should be left up to the individual as to who and when people should know!!! However, if you run for public office, assume a public role and vote against your very existence, you deserve the whatever is coming to you! If you choose to spend your life in the closet, so beit. It is your loss and I am ok with that as well, but DO NOT assume a public role and vote against the rest of us.

    Posted by: RB | Oct 18, 2006 4:36:16 PM


  21. Correction...every "gay" politician that votes against gay rights should be outed!

    Posted by: RB | Oct 18, 2006 4:37:39 PM


  22. I have such a difficult time with "outing" someone who's not an evil doer. I guess I'm at the point in my life where I accept the fact that some people have jobs or positions where their sexuality being known could be an issue. I don't understand living like that, though. I do feel that any one who is gay and is an evil doer to other gay people must be called out.

    Posted by: JT | Oct 18, 2006 4:50:17 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Thanks for Keeping Towleroad on the Map« «