When All Else Fails, Blackmail

What else can be made of Mike Rogers' clumsy, pseudo Bond villain threat to a sitting U.S. Senator over Justice Alito's confirmation vote?

Mr. Senator:

Tomorrow you will be faced with a vote that may have the longest aftereffects of any other you have cast in your Senate career.

Tomorrow you will decide if your political position is worth more than doing what is right for others like you. For others like you, Mr. Senator, who engage in oral sex with other men. (Although, Mr. Senator, most of us don't do in the bathrooms of Union Station!) Your fake marriage, by the way, will NOT protect you from the truth being told on this blog.

How does this blog decide who to report on? It's simple. We report on hypocrites. In this case, hypocrites who vote against the gay and lesbian community while engaging in gay sex themselves*.

When you cast that vote, Mr. Senator, represent your own...it's the least you could do.

Michael Rogers
blogACTIVE.com

*While votes on many matters are considered, votes "FOR" either the Alito nomination and the Federal Marriage Amendment are enough to qualify legislators for reporting on this site.

As noted by Mal and myself, Samuel Alito has a mixed record on gay rights. There is no substantial, objective basis for gay rights groups and others to charge Justice Alito with homophobia or any other anti-gay attitudes. Instead, they must resort to cherry-picking cases in order to provide cover for their blatant Democratic partisanship.

In one fell swoop, Mike Rogers' has unmasked himself as truly unconcerned with gay rights as much as he wishes all to adhere to one partisan ideology, or else they must be destroyed. As this man reached unhinged some time ago, I'm at something of a loss in providing him with a new adjective to describe the level of delusion and crazy involved in trying to blackmail a U.S. Senator.

Perhaps starting a list of medications as suggestions wouldn't be out of place.

h/t Ace (because I sure as shit don't read over there)

Comments

[Josh]

OMG!!! Mike Rogers is a partisan democrat who feigns concern for gay rights!!!

Seriously, while this is absolutely vile (something I've written about before), is it really all that surprising? I'd kind of expect it at this point.

[Robbie]

Oh, his general moonbattery I've learned to ignore. You have to be deep in the bitter and crazy to hold the attitudes he does. No, I haven't paid attention to him in awhile. But, this article started floating around, and this is a new level of crazy, an escalation in the batshit sweepstakes. An actual blackmail attempt. That's impressive. If he can't be famous, happy, and loved, I suppose infamous, hateful, and despised is the consolation he's settling for.

[Josh]

So he's like an American Idol contestant, then?

[Queer Conservative]

I used to laugh at suggestions that liberals were going collectively crazy...now I believe it and I'm positively frightened...and tingly as I think about how much fun it's going to be to watch them in the run up the election. As Dane Cook would say: "It's gonna be a blasty blast!"

[Shawn]

You are right: Alito does not have a record of anti-gay decisions. However, his opposition to abortion comes from his belief that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. This opposition is extremely troubling. You may remember that the right to privacy was a crucial element in Lawrence v. Texas (striking down anti-sodomy laws). So, to say gays should not fear Alito is not exactly true.

[Malcontent]

If you're looking for an adjective, as others have begun pointing out, it is: criminal. In the most literal sense of the word.

[Dan]

Ah, the sanctimonious hand-wringing whenever some liberal goes off the deep end... fun stuff, isn't it?

How many batshit crazy GOP pundits are there? I think you might wanna take the advice of Jack Nicholson's character in As Good As It Gets - "Go crazy somewhere else; we're all stocked up here"

[Dan]

And while this is certainly a sleazy tactic, good luck with a criminal blackmail case. This is a notoriously tricky thing to prosecute unless money is involved. Chill out and enjoy it for the cheesy, tasteless, soap opera-like drama that it is.

[Robbie]

Actually, Dan, Mal and I have been at odds with Mike Rogers for awhile. There's a history of conflict there. So, no, I did not just pick "some liberal," to complain about. I picked a specific liberal that I've had a very big problem with for some time, and who I've spoken against many times before.

Brain before mouth might be a good practice you'll want to start getting into. I might also recommend rediscovering the "Sane" portion of your online monikker, because the reflexive moonbat stuff is growing rapidly wearisome.

[Dan]

OK, you're right. Because you've been consistently hypocritical in attacking this Mike Rogers guy it's OK. Makes sense to me.

[Joe.My.God.]

I'm going to make my very first ever donation to a blog.

Thanks, Mike Rogers.

[Robbie]

Dan - There is nothing hypocritical about it. I have been firmly against outing, no matter what the political affiliation of the people involved, from the very beginning. There's a search bar in the upper right. You might want to start using it before you open your mouth and reveal you've not a half-clue of what you're talking about.

Joe - You don't know any better, so you I tend to cut slack. =) Besides, you already noticed the story well before you read it here. I saw you galavanting around the comments.

[Dan]

And for the record, Robbie, I never supported the Alito filibuster. I've also said (in the comments section of this very blog) that I opposed the way democrats handled the Alito hearings. While I don't like the guy, I think he went thru the necessary hoops and belongs on the court.

I know you like smearing me as a 'reflexive moonbat', but as the great sage Stuart Smalley once said: When you've got one finger pointed out, you've got three fingers pointed back.

And one pointed up, I guess.

[Dan]

And yeah, outing a person against their will sucks. Much better to be with a party that'd like nothing more than to shove us all back into the closet.

[Joe.My.God.]

I didn't mean to imply to that I got the news here, Robbie. Sorry if that's what it looked like. Actually, I did my own post on the subject about 7 hours ago.

[Robbie]

Hey, I don't mind arguments, but if you're just here to flame, don't bother. Especially if you're here to flame without having any basic facts whatsoever. Anyone familiar with the blog knows we've a big problem with what Mike Rogers does. Anyone who knows me or has read my postings knows I'm a fierce opponent of outing across the board unless it's incidental to a criminal investigation (like Mayor West or Governor McGreevy).

So, for you to come in with the assertion this is just some right-wing thing I'm doing to bash liberals, yeah, I'm going to be majorly cranky, because you could not be more wrong.

[Robbie]

Yeah, Joe, I'd confused you with something else that was floating in the back of my noggin as I was commenting.

I like the ending of your post. All that excitement, and then the inevitable anticlimax. Because no matter how hateful some left-wingers get, they're still losing, losing, losing. They'll continue to lose if they think tactics like this go anywhere with voters.

I do hear good things about persuasion, though. Maybe people like Rogers ought to give it a try. You know, just for shits and giggles.

[Joe.My.God.]

My opinion:

If you are a private citizen who for personal or professional reasons prefers to stay closeted, then whatever...that sucks for you and we will never be friends, but enjoy that darkness.

If you are public person who for personal or private reasons prefers to stay closeted while making no negative statements or actions against the gay community? Well, it sucks to be you, but enjoy that darkness.

HOWEVER, if you are a public figure actively working to injure, impede or discredit the gay movement in any way, while at the same time taking a cock or ten up your ass? You serve NOTHING but the duely earned public scorn, ridicule and humiliation that you will get when your bizarre little jig is up. You will lose *THEM*, and will *NEVER* have US.

[Dan]

I'm not flaming you, dear. I just think it's a little silly for you to get all in a lather about this Mike Rogers guy when your own backyard is looking like it does.

[Joe.My.God.]

Above: serve=deserve

blah

[Jack Malebranche]

These whacko characters have obviously never been told the old story about the boy who cried wolf.

They have no ability to choose their battles, and if they use tactics like this for a scenario as irrelevant to their goals as this one--who's going to listen to them when there is REALLY something to get excited about. If everyone is a major threat to civil rights, no one is a major threat to civil rights.

Why blow your load on Alito...so to speak? It doesn't make any sense.

[Robbie]

Of course, what is and is not injurous to the gay movement is a rather nebulous thing. You have to begin defining what does and does not harm gay people and whether or not the politician's vote is cast out of malice or ideological belief.

I, for example, don't particularly believe in hate crimes. If I were a politician in the closet and voted against hate crimes laws, is that fair justification for outing? What does who I love and have sex with have to do with my political beliefs on things like crime and punishment? What if I were an uber-libertarian and didn't believe in private discrimination laws? Is that justification for outing? Where and how are you drawing that line?

People like Rogers spare us the debate. We know where he draws the line - at Republicans. He's never pulled this tactics with closeted Democrats who have worked for legislation that is opposed by the gay rights movement.

With him, it's all about partisan convenience. If you are not a strictly partisan Democrat, he is going after you. Gay rights? Eh, it's a convenient vehicle. I hope the people who sign onto his shtick enjoy being used to enforce ideological conformity. Can't have any free-thinking homos out there. That's like, bad and stuff.

[Robbie]

Similarly Dan, I wouldn't worry about what Republicans do while you have left-wingers doing what Rogers does. That works both ways, doesn't it?

[Dan]

Is this outing thing tasteless? You bet. But you gotta cut us liberals some slack. I mean, we don't have that paragon of clean politics leading our party.

[Robbie]

Naw, you've James Carville. I'd say the sides are fairly even =)