Opposition To Alito Turns Into Gay Witch Hunt
Blogger Michael Rogers has threatened to "out" an allegedly gay Republican Senator if he doesn't vote the right way on the Alito nomination tomorrow.
This seems really, really stupid.
Alito is in. The last chance for the opposition was a filibuster, but that got shot down today. All that's required now is a simple majority vote in the Senate. With more Democrats crossing to Alito's side than Republicans turning against him there's no chance that he'll lose. So using such a harsh tactic at this stage in the game does little else but tell us that the person employing it is a desperate, bitter partisan.
Plus, what a fantastically hypocritical thing for someone on the "tolerant, compassionate" left to do. Hypocrite or not, delving into someone's personal life to dredge up details about their sex life in order to manipulate them into taking political action favorable to your own views is morally and ethically repugnant. Even more so in that the Senator's sex life has absolutely nothing to do with Sam Alito's qualifications to sit on the high court.
Last night I read a post by Oliver Willis where complained about Democrat politicians not making liberal blogs part of their "message machine." Given the above, it is little wonder mainstream Democrats don't want to make themselves more beholden to the liberal blogosphere. The liberal bloggers, by an large, are on the fringes of American politics. They are constantly trying to pull the DNC further and further to the left despite every indication (from Howard Dean's lackluster performance as a fundraiser to the very liberal Kerry's thumping at the hands of a President who barely beat out the comparatively more conservative Al Gore in 2000) that the American electore lays further to the right.
Update:
Don't look now, but this gay witch hunt may well be against the law:
Makes sense to me.
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.
This seems really, really stupid.
Alito is in. The last chance for the opposition was a filibuster, but that got shot down today. All that's required now is a simple majority vote in the Senate. With more Democrats crossing to Alito's side than Republicans turning against him there's no chance that he'll lose. So using such a harsh tactic at this stage in the game does little else but tell us that the person employing it is a desperate, bitter partisan.
Plus, what a fantastically hypocritical thing for someone on the "tolerant, compassionate" left to do. Hypocrite or not, delving into someone's personal life to dredge up details about their sex life in order to manipulate them into taking political action favorable to your own views is morally and ethically repugnant. Even more so in that the Senator's sex life has absolutely nothing to do with Sam Alito's qualifications to sit on the high court.
Last night I read a post by Oliver Willis where complained about Democrat politicians not making liberal blogs part of their "message machine." Given the above, it is little wonder mainstream Democrats don't want to make themselves more beholden to the liberal blogosphere. The liberal bloggers, by an large, are on the fringes of American politics. They are constantly trying to pull the DNC further and further to the left despite every indication (from Howard Dean's lackluster performance as a fundraiser to the very liberal Kerry's thumping at the hands of a President who barely beat out the comparatively more conservative Al Gore in 2000) that the American electore lays further to the right.
Update:
Don't look now, but this gay witch hunt may well be against the law:
The post on BlogActive may constitute blackmail under the criminal law of Washington, D.C. As set forth on Lexis - Nexis, section 22-3252 of the District Columbia Code provides:
(a) A person commits the offense of blackmail, if, with intent to obtain property of another or to cause another to do or refrain from doing any act, that person threatens:
(1) To accuse any person of a crime;
(2) To expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule; or
(3) To impair the reputation of any person, including a deceased person.
(b) Any person convicted of blackmail shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.
Makes sense to me.
