Not That There's Anything Wrong With That, But We Feel You Should Know

I remember in 2004 when Democrats and libertarians condemned Karl Rove for his strategy of using gay marriage as a hot button issue to push up evengelical turnout in key battleground states. This year, it appears the Dems have decided to use gays as an issue to drive down evengelical turnout.

I'm not even talking about the Foley imbroglio, which appears to be fading as an issue but certainly had an impact on the race. I think Eric Schie might have the best take on that, by the way...

While it is true that in general the Democrats are better on many sexual and social issues, there's also that sexual identity politics thing, which I don't like too much. And I just don't see sex as the leading issue in American politics. At least, I don't think it should be. In this regard, the Foley scandal has caused me to be more disgusted with the Democrats than the Republicans, for I think their exploitation of the scandal is cheap demagoguery at its absolute worst. It might be revenge for Monica Lewinsky, but at least that involved actual sex (as opposed to cyber raunch), and it also involved perjury. Ordinary voters, though, seem to think Foley/Masturgate is actually an important reason to vote the Republicans out.

That people can be so stupid astounds me. I mean, it's not as if there aren't plenty of reasons to vote the Republicans out, but a single congressman talking dirty to street-wise pages? For which he's already out on his ass?

(hat tip: Instapundit) With that being said, the latest sexual issue being pushed by the left seems to be the desire to out gay Republican officeholders and staff. As noted previously, the left is already circulating a list of people who work for the GOP who are secretly gay (and as others have noted, Joe McCarthy would be proud). Now, Patterico points us to the news that one erstwhile left-wing geek has outed a GOP Senator, Larry Craig of Idaho. I'm not linking to the actual idiot (he's getting enough traffic), but Patterico and Captain Ed both have links, and I'll let Captain Ed take the lead with a typically well-written analysis...

People wonder why we don't attract a wider range of qualified candidates for public office. Michael Rogers sets himself up as Exhibit #1. The personal and degrading attacks convince many people to skip the trouble, and the people who do dare to run for office usually wind up experiencing the ruination of their reputations in one form or other. It comes from all sides to some degree, but this ghastly mudslinging really marks a new low.

These kind of slimy allegations have no way to be proven or disproven, leaving Craig with limited options to clear the air. How does one disprove a sexual orientation? He has three children with his wife Suzanne, and nine grandchildren. That seems to be proof that he has a heterosexual orientation, but Rogers and the scandal brigade will argue that Craig's just in denial. It's a no-win argument, and its use of anonymous sourcing is especially egregious and despicable. Rogers wants to ruin Craig politically, and yet he doesn't produce a single source for his allegations to go on the record.

Once again, the Left shows its obsession with sexuality, but it's really more than that. The Left obsesses over identity politics in all forms, and that obsession comes out in pathological terms. Rogers reveals this in his blog post, demanding that gay staffers on the Hill identify their orientation publicly, or else he will do it for them. Sexual identity is everything to him, and the concept of sexual privacy has no value to him at all. He wants to humiliate gays who prefer to keep their sexual activity private, forcing them to wear the virtual pink triangle against their will to experience obloquy and castigation.

The left's obsession with identity politics usually rears its ugly head when left-wing Dems attack African-American Republicans like Michael Steele, but this is even worse. Taking a person's sexual orientation public for no reason other than smear politics crosses the bounds of decency, and it also sets you up for libel (although the blogger in question may well be judgment-proof anyway). At least in the Foley case, we had a person who might have been abusing his power over others and/or soliciting minors for sex. Unless Rogers is trying to start a crusade to stop people from having sex in the bathrooms at Union Station (which is the charge he's levelling), I'm not sure why this interests the public.

I'm sure the folks in favor of this policy on the left seem to believe gay people shouldn't be Republicans -- because even if gay people favor strong national defense, low taxes and oppose abortion, they should be repulsed by the GOP opposition to gay marriage (which is shared by most Democrats). Personally, I'd leave that up to each person to decide whom they want to vote for, based on the issues they deem important. But I guess there are people who deem someone's sexual orientation important in making their decision on whom to vote for -- and I'm sure those are exactly the people the left wants to have voting for their candidates.

In the end, I don't mind that politics is dirty. But I really hate the transparent stupidity.