Public Likely More "Divided" on Outing Than Rogers, AP Think

Professional tormenter Mike Rogers over at BragActively is trumpeting an online poll (totally unscientific, of course) that essentially shows an even split among the public on the issue of whether to "out secretly gay public figures," a result obtained even after he prodded his supposed legions of Kool Aid-drinkers to vote.

Rogers calls this dubious outcome a "mandate" to continue his bullying.

Putting aside the, again, unscientific nature of online polls and Rogers' desperate efforts to skew the results, the pollsters and the media never fail to gloss over the more controversial targeting of staff, garden-variety campaign hacks and even interns – and virtually not a single Democrat among them.  If the public were asked whether it were OK for someone's sex life to be dragged across the Web merely because he signed up Republican voters, for instance, I imagine the response would be a resounding "no."

Rogers, however, makes no distinction.  It is hard to see his "reporting" as anything but a poorly disguised and wholly partisan vendetta.  The one Republican that Rogers holds out ad nauseum as remotely appreciative of his efforts is a clear case of Stockholm syndrome who outed himself before Rogers could do it for him.

But back to the poll: If you would like to "skew back," the link is here.

Comments

[Josh]

This is shocking, shocking, I tell you! I never would have GUESSED BlogActive would deign to twist reality to justify his morally repugnant, fascist campaign!

Well, yes I would. Good snag, though. Kick his ass.

[Paul, Houston TX]

Yo! Lime - no self respecting Homo should care if "most straight Americans would likely find his actions reprehensible" Give me a break! We are all justified in Outing any closted homosexual that actively works against Gay Rights.

It's the HyPoCrIsY StUpiD!

[Robbie]

No self-respecting homo would channel his bitterness and hatred towards other homos.

And I have yet found anyone capable of being able to explain what the hypocrisy is. There is no hypocrisy. Unfortunately, the outers are too dull-witted to understand these complex concepts.

It requires, like, thinking and stuff.

[The Malcontent]

Mike Rogers and his defenders should always be required to add the word "situational" before the word "hypocrisy." It is completely selective, it is how they define it, and the definitions always change when it suits their partisan purposes. They have turned "hypocrisy" into an Orwellian buzzword that is devoid of any meaning.

[The Malcontent]

P.S. -- WTF is "Lime"??

[Robbie]

The Lime Shurbet in your original post.

You need sleep =)

[Paul, Houston TX]

"No self-respecting homo would channel his bitterness and hatred towards other homos." -- Robbie

Funny... I believe the same can/should be said for any closeted elected official (whether Mayor, Governor, Senator et al -- regardless of political party affiliation), who cast their vote(s) for legislation that denies Gay American's civil rights and more especially when they espouse platforms or support ideas that specifically denounce Gay Americans - in silence.

A self respecting homo would stand up for his/her brother's and sister's and denounce hateful legislation and attempts to denigrate Gay American's. Anything less is unacceptable. Anything less is cowardly. Anything less should be called out for what it is - hypocrisy!

[The Malcontent]

Robbie and I are mostly in sync on this issue. I oppose "outing" in general terms, but I am much more open to a case where an elected official is involved, and their record is egregious. But the crusaders don't seem to choose one valid, coherent set of criteria beyond partisanship.

[Michigan-Matt]

Nice post, MalC. Discount the poll results, people.

Keep the focus on the truth that BlogActive's repugnant practice is nothing more than "sales", creating controversy to secure more readers and gain some vindication in their dark, sinster, ferral world.

Hollow, shallow, self-interested, vindictive and partisan gays using "outing" to advance their own agenda --and it isn't "our" agenda; it's theirs.

[Robbie]

Paul, your version of rights are not necessarily someone else's version of rights. It is more than possible for a gay libertarian to oppose hate crimes legislation or even discrimination laws based on their constitutional beliefs. There are plenty of homosexuals on the Left and the Right who oppose gay marriage for their own reasons. In my experience, those on the Left who oppose it think either 1. the government has no business in marriage or 2. it's "assimilationist" and bad for gays.

That does not make any of those people hypocrites.

The hypocrisy argument is almost entirely bs. It's just a way to go after conservative and Republican homosexuals, because you don't like their politics. Instead of arguing the politics and constitutional beliefs on their merits, a bunch of gossipy, bitter queens have decided to go after people's personal lives.

Some people have no shame. But hey, boogie on. You really have no idea how awful it makes you look when you adopt the hatred and tactics of the far right. How anyone thinks sexual McCarthyism is ultimately a good way to go about things is beyond me.

Insert Nietzchean quote about battling monsters here.

[Paul, Houston TX]

A great example for me is Mayor Jim West, in Seattle. Here is a professional politician, who happens to be a Republican ... who according to the SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER, "In more than 20 years in the Legislature, West had initiated legislation to outlaw sexual contact between consenting teenagers; supported a bill that would have barred gays and lesbians from working for schools, day care centers and some state agencies; voted to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman; and, as Senate majority leader, allowed a bill that would ban discrimination against gays and lesbians to die in committee without a hearing." In 1986, he supported legislation barring gays and lesbians from working in schools and day-care centers. At the time, he was actively involved in the Boy Scouts. Yet while online in February 2005 West wrote, "Remember, I'm very closeted. No one knows I like guys. Except the few guys Ive been with and highly trusted,"

Wests' actions are highly suspect. While I agree with you that a Gay Libertarian may take a Constitutional issue with 'Hate Crimes legislation' or 'Gay marriage' ... but nowhere in West's career is there even a whiff of Libertarianism. In fact, in the case of West, he's a self professed conservative Republican. ... Con't

[Robbie]

Actually, I agree with you on West. When you start barring things like gay sex (voting in favor of sodomy laws), then it is an actual hypocrisy and deserves exposure.

But being against gay marriage? Not so much. The Rogers' campaign takes a very broad view of what is and is not hypocrisy. Namely: Whoever's politics disagree with his.

I have a huge problem with that.

[Paul, Houston TX]

Con't ... From Paul, Houston TX ... However, his covert anti-gay politics may be better explained when you realize that one of his cohorts had this to say, "If West is gay, ... he would be at odds with GOP values. For the Republican mainstream I would say, yes, probably it would be incompatible."

His actions are hypocritical. Indefensible. This is the type of "career" politician that deserves to be outed ! His actions harm gay interests rather than promote them. Patrick Guerrierro (althought I disagree with him more than not - politically speaking) He got it right when he summed up a reference to Mayor West's predicament for the Seattle Weekly, " ... I've encouraged gay and lesbian conservatives, in particular, that their coming out could really help change the course of the journey to equality."

But when necessary some good old fashioned prodding and calling out ain't out of the question for the likes of the Mayor Wests'. IMHO.

[Paul, Houston TX]

For the record - I Just get "fired up" when it comes to the Mayor West types. :>) I will concede that not cases of outing are productive. But when I see what I perceive to be "hypocrisy" ... I wanna call'em on it - again, no matter what political tent the hypocrit happens to be sitting under.

[Robbie]

See, on those extreme cases like West, I really don't have a problem with it.

It's when people start going after others for things like hate crimes laws, discrimination laws, or even marriage. There are a lot of Democrats out there against gay marriage, and there is little doubt more than a few of them are probably gay themselves. However, these outing campaigns always seem to target Republicans.

It says to me this isn't about principle, but rabid, fanatical partisanship, a demand for conformity among homosexuals in thought.

I couldn't be more against that if I tried. It's too fascist for words.

[Joe]

I am a volunteer for blogactive...
your post implies that Mike seriously used the results to defend his actions. Not.

Your post implies that Mike only goes after GOPers. Not.

If you're going to attack, at least get your dmned facts correct.

[The Malcontent]

How's that, now?

He tried to skew the results. True.

He did call it a "mandate." True.

There is "virtually not a single Democrat" among his targets. True.

All incontrovertibly, irrevocably true.

My post was full of links that allow people to judge "the facts" for themselves. Your comment to it was a weak, bitchy little whine. So you are very much at home on BragActively, Joe.