Blogger Mike Rogers ID-ed Northwest homeboy, and conservative Republican Sen. Larry Craig, stating, "My sources are individual men who have had sexual encounters with the Senator. I am willing to spend the rest of my life in prison to protect their identity."
In his fourth term, Craig, 61, is married to a woman, with three children and nine grandchildren. He sits on the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee and is the chairman of the Veteran Affairs Committee. He also sits on the board of directors of the National Rifle Association. Craig has a zero rating from the Human Rights Campaign.
Here's the rest of Craig's anti-homo record:
* Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
* Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
* Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
* Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
The "big tent" the GOP loves brag about has turned out to be the "big closet." With all these gay R's now out in open, do you suppose we can have a real national discussion about gay rights, and gay marriage? probably not...
~~
Listen to Ed Shultz Show today, (KPTK m-f,12-3p) to hear Michael Rogers of Blogactive.com out a Republican senator who has sexual encounters with men yet regularly votes against gays.
Read all about it here.
Wow, You don't see the hypocrisy exibited by Ed Schultz in doing this? I thought he was a Progressive & thought Progressives were open to diversity. Attacking a Gay person just for being Gay? Nice way to ruin someones life, very progressive. Oh that's right, he has some different political ideas than old Ed, that can't be tolerated , all must conform!
Posted by: brianE | October 17, 2006 at 12:17 PM
sorry. if you're a public official in the closet and you work against gay people, your hypocrisy needs to be exposed. Jim West, the late State Senator and Spokane mayor worked hard against gay rights legislation and ran on homophobic sloganeering. Yet at night he was internetting young men and meating them for sexual trysts. People need to know about that.
Posted by: blathering michael | October 17, 2006 at 12:30 PM
Indeed, I will tune in to hear which republican will be destroyed.
Posted by: coiler | October 17, 2006 at 12:50 PM
coiler, could you post it when you hear it, Please? I just cant listen to bubba...
I have mixed feelings about this--normally, I think it is nobody's business...but when a gay person hypocritically trashes other gays, and votes for things that hurt them and their families, then I think the truth should be told--especially if they are currently involved in a relationship instead of being celibate, as the religious right demands they be.
Posted by: sparky | October 17, 2006 at 01:11 PM
He is going to announce 1 off a list of twenty today
Robert F. Bennett (R-UT)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Norm Coleman (R-MN)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Larry E. Craig (R-ID)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Michael B. Enzi (R-WY)
James M. Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Mel Martinez (R-FL)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Richard C. Shelby (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)
David Vitter (R-LA)
George V. Voinovich (R-OH)
Posted by: coiler | October 17, 2006 at 01:25 PM
Normally, I'm also all about keeping private lives private, but Michael's right -- it's the blistering hypocrisy that makes this an item. Just like if Gore went tooling around in a Hummer in his off hours, or Ashcroft had been a nudist when he wasn't frantically covering statue boobies.
Posted by: bunyip | October 17, 2006 at 01:28 PM
oh now its gonna take awhile to get that picture out of my mind....thanks a lot.
I think it is also because gays are vilified by the Right as being evil BECAUSE they are gay, not because they might be a bad or good person, sex life aside. That is the part that is hypocritcal.
Posted by: sparky | October 17, 2006 at 02:16 PM
please oh please let it be Saxby Chambliss or
Cornyn....
I heard this guy on Friday and he said he will do this every day until they quit legislating against gays.....every day? Wow--there must be a lot of them...
Posted by: sparky | October 17, 2006 at 02:18 PM
it is rumored to be one of the senators from Idaho
Posted by: coiler | October 17, 2006 at 02:22 PM
from wonkette.com
According to activist Mike Rogers, one of the two gentlemen on the right is a gay. They are Sens. Mike Crapo and Larry Craig, and if you didn't even know they were in the Senate, that's because they're from Idaho....
...
Anyway, Craig was in that [expletive] Babershop Quartet with Jeffords, Lott, and Ashcroft, so we're pretty sure it's him.
Rogers will announce this at 5:30 eastern on something called "The Ed Schultz Show."
Posted by: sparky | October 17, 2006 at 02:23 PM
I could really do without Ed's giggling about it all
Posted by: sparky | October 17, 2006 at 02:34 PM
OK, Craig is alleged to be a fruit, gay, homosexual, bi, etc. I am not convinced by this guy that it is true. This is a rather disgusting last minute revelation.
At the same time, it just is not important what his sex life is. It never has been any of my business what anyones sexual preferances may be. As long as it does not involve children.
I think the left will need to find something else. This will just piss us right leaning voters off.
It will not keep us away. It may just inspire participation in some.
My vote just does not matter in this area, but it will still be there.
Posted by: chucks | October 17, 2006 at 02:52 PM
A lot of your colleagues on the Right do not share your open mindedness, Chucks.
Posted by: sparky | October 17, 2006 at 02:58 PM
Once again, it's about hypocrisy. Something the righties never learn.
Posted by: coiler | October 17, 2006 at 03:03 PM
I didnt even know Sen. Craig even HAD a drinking problem....
Posted by: sparky | October 17, 2006 at 03:05 PM
Craig's voting record
Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
Rated 25% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Posted by: Zerbina | October 17, 2006 at 03:10 PM
my my..
Posted by: coiler | October 17, 2006 at 03:27 PM
Just found this on Craig's website
http://craig.senate.gov/idwomen.cfm
"Idahoans of the Gay Nineties sometimes savored fairly simple pleasures such as a summer picnic at Robie's Creek in the foothills above Boise."
Posted by: coiler | October 17, 2006 at 03:30 PM
Republicans mounted an anti-gay crusade in Boise in the 50's.
Posted by: Zerbina | October 17, 2006 at 03:49 PM
Isn't a Senators job to represent the wishes of their constituency? I'm sure if you polled the voters in Idaho their responses would fall EXACTLY in line with the way he voted on gay issues.
Oh, but I'm sure accurate representation in a democratic government isn't anything you lefties are concerned with.
Posted by: brianE | October 17, 2006 at 04:06 PM
Well, this is probably dangerous for me to say, but here goes. The only vote that I would disagree with is his Sept 1996 job discrimination vote. As for a 25% ACLU approval rating, that can be overlooked. It is 5 times what I would have hoped for.
I am still undecided on gay marriage, but the other issues are special laws that serve to harm my middle class white male status.
I do not see the need for "hate crimes" laws. Crime is crime and victims are victims. Does not matter to me who the victim is or who the criminal is. Protect the innocent and punish the criminals.
Posted by: chucks | October 17, 2006 at 04:25 PM
If Larry Craig turns out to be straight...somebody got some splaining to do.
Posted by: umo | October 17, 2006 at 05:15 PM
listen up y'all....the chickens is comin' home to roost for you Republicans, aight.
Posted by: Shaniqua | October 17, 2006 at 05:21 PM
"meating them for sexual trysts"? Michael, you are a funny guy!
Posted by: Rick | October 17, 2006 at 05:24 PM
I find this obsession with people's personal lives to be interesting, particularly coming from those who claim the constitution protects privacy, and to be the final defenders of gays and lesbians. I found someone who states the case better than I can:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/008309.php#comments
Posted by: Janet S | October 17, 2006 at 09:15 PM
He wasnt outed for being gay....there are many others who are gay and are not on this guy's list for outing...he is focusing on the ones who hurt other gays with their actions. And these people are not a secret within the gay community.
The GBLTs Im reading are all quite happy about it--they understand the difference..
If it does end up being covered by the MSM, and so far it has not, it will be interesting to see what the GOP does with this kind of information. Will they attempt to purge the party of all gays?
Posted by: sparky | October 17, 2006 at 09:19 PM
I imagine you do! I imagine you'd be perfectly happy to keep these little peccadillos permanently closeted, wouldn't you, Janet.
Unless, of couse, we're talking about Clinton's penis. Oh my! Then it is worth a $50 million investigation! For the public good, of course.
Posted by: joanie | October 17, 2006 at 09:24 PM
Joanie - Clinton was doing the same nonsense as Foley - preying on volunteer pages and others unable to say no. Also, he was cheating on a spouse, which shows low moral character.
Yes, Monica came looking for it. But, in business, that doesn't excuse the boss from taking advantage of the youngster in the office. What he was accused of was harrassment. And he lost.
Roberts has made an accusation of infidelity with absolutely no proof. It is not a gay or straight issue, it is a privacy issue. Roberts found no one to go on record with their allegations. And he presents no evidence that Craig in any way used his position in govt to provide favor to anyone or to prey on anyone.
There is nothing shameful with gay or lesbian relationships. There is something shameful to cheat on a spouse. If you are going to allege it, have solid proof.
Posted by: Janet S | October 17, 2006 at 10:07 PM
Brainee Brian gives us this vom:
Isn't a Senators job to represent the wishes of their constituency? I'm sure if you polled the voters in Idaho their responses would fall EXACTLY in line with the way he voted on gay issues.
Oh, but I'm sure accurate representation in a democratic government isn't anything you lefties are concerned with.
A.) First off, Fuck Idaho. There, I said it.
B.) Secondly, this in no way negates Craig's hypocrisy. If he's actively doing one thing (men), while actively doing the opposite (fundamentalist hand-jobs), then he deserves fall on his sword.
C.) Bla'M is on the right track: The GOP is a reversed closet. They preted they are one thing: open to a rainbow of diverse ideas, faiths, and people. But once you open the closet, you find out otherwise: a steaming pile of Fundy Ayatollahs.
Posted by: mercifurious | October 17, 2006 at 10:10 PM
Craig is not accused of providing favors to anyone...he is accused of being a hypocrite for bashing gays. That's it.
Posted by: sparky | October 17, 2006 at 10:14 PM
Janet, she was twenty-three. TWENTY-THREE. Jackie was married to Jack at twenty-four. He was thirty-six. What is it with you and language anyway. Twenty-three is not a "youngster."
And, as you said, this young woman came looking for it. Your words. Prove that he preyed on anyone.
Any guy who is cheating with another guy is cheating on his wife. Isn't that low moral character? Seems that there is a lot of it to go around these days.
The whole charade cost taxpayers, you, Janet, and me, $50 million.
One thing of which we can all be sure: when the Republicans are in office, they will find something expensive to buy.
Posted by: joanie | October 17, 2006 at 10:42 PM
I wonder if Congress really will learn anything from this...
BOSTON - Former Rep. Gerry Studds, the first openly gay member of Congress, was married to another man in Massachusetts at the time of his death, but the federal government will not pay death benefits to his spouse.
Studds married Dean Hara in 2004 after gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts. But Hara will not be eligible to receive any portion of Studds' estimated $114,337 annual pension because the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act bars the federal government from recognizing Studds' marriage.
Peter Graves, a spokesman for the Office of Personnel Management, which administers the congressional pension program, said same-sex partners are not recognized as spouses for any marriage benefits. He said Studds' case was the first of its kind known to the agency.
Under federal law, pensions can be denied only to lawmakers' same-sex partners and people convicted of espionage or treason, Graves said.
Studds, 69, had his homosexuality exposed during a teenage page sex scandal in 1983. He died Saturday, several days after collapsing while walking his dog. Doctors said he had developed two blood clots.
Gary Buseck, legal director for an advocacy group called Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, said Studds' case may offer "a moment of education for Congress."
"Now they have a death in the congressional family of one of their distinguished members whose spouse is being treated differently than any of their spouses," Buseck said.
Posted by: sparky | October 18, 2006 at 08:25 AM
This entire thing is troubling both the hypocracy and that the Democrats are using this as a campaign tactic. Sex is an easy way to get attention, there are so many issues at the forefront that can justify replacing this congress as well as administration.
It is interesting as well as the exposition of George Allen being Jewish.
Posted by: Mike Barer | October 18, 2006 at 11:09 AM
Democrats are not using this as any "tactic."
One man, went on one radio show and made this announcement.
Most people I know have not heard about this.
It is not going to have any effect. Craig is not even up for re-election right now.
Posted by: sparky | October 18, 2006 at 11:46 AM
"Unless, of couse, we're talking about Clinton's penis. Oh my! Then it is worth a $50 million investigation! For the public good, of course."
Clinton wasn't investigated for what he did with his penis. He was investigated for lying under oath, which is why he was disbarred as an attorney.
Posted by: brianE | October 18, 2006 at 12:23 PM
Correct.
And Craig wasnt outed for being gay.
If Senator A fought for legislation against illegals and then was found to be hiring thousands of them--'out" him/her
If Senator B is fighting against pollution controls and was found to own businesses that are major polluters--"out" him/her
If Senator W has made a career of working against legislation for gays, and has made a lot of money for organazations that promote discrimination against gays, and then turns out to be gay? "out" him /her
Posted by: sparky | October 18, 2006 at 01:12 PM
Fair enough!
~~~I miss Allan Prell!
Posted by: brianE | October 18, 2006 at 01:55 PM
And Brianne . . . why was he having to answer questions under oath? Why was the evidence a blue dress? But it wasn't about sex . . . (lol!) Seems like your chasing your tail with that response.
Posted by: joanie | October 18, 2006 at 07:57 PM
In the next few days, watch for an additional scandal, this time from Illinois, regarding a female 16 yr old page and Jerry Weller, congress critter....
Posted by: sparky | October 18, 2006 at 09:25 PM
Notice how, when presented with facts, Janet S runs?
By the way, Republican Foley had homosexual relations with minors and used the Internet, in violation of a law he sponsored, to seduce them. Then, according to at least three Republicans who have come forward, the GOP leadership covered it all up to save a seat.
There is no relationship, NONE to what Foley and Clinton did. But you righties, who all of a sudden think private lives should stay private, didn't feel that way then. Well turnabout's fair play isn't it?
Posted by: RightEqualStooopid | October 19, 2006 at 03:55 AM
It is so sad to see someone be so hypocrtrically righteous with their public persona, and so "liberal" with their personal life.
Posted by: Mike | September 01, 2007 at 02:57 PM