The problem is, his constituents may soon discriminate against his employment, as Schrock also seeks out gay sex on telephone dating services, and gay activists are about to release the tapes.
(Click to enlarge.)
BlogActive has given everyone a heads-up. I've actually heard part of one tape, played to me over the phone by a "friend in high places" in DC. The tip-off was probably when he said, "You must be very discreet. I cannot overemphasize that," while the rest definitely did not sound like what a member of Congress might say. All three of Schrock's offices stopped taking calls on Friday, and the Virginia media are waiting for proof before they pounce.
In the meantime, we have a great challenger in Democrat David Ashe. A Marine Corps. lawyer, Iraq War veteran and Ground Zero bucket brigade volunteer, Ashe can compete against Schrock's record as a gay Navy veteran of 24 years who opposes gays in the military. Ashe hasn't received much funding from the party so far, but has recently appeared at rallies with both Max Cleland and John Kerry. Ashe considers himself a "proud Democrat," and was until now considered a long-shot, as the district was crafted by Republicans to discourage Democratic challengers.
Ashe criticizes Schrock as "doing what he's told" in consistently voting with Bush against his constituents' interests. Ashe says Schrock neglected veterans' benefits and mounting deficits while supporting lop-sided tax cuts for the rich, the disastrous Medicare bill, and No Irony Left Behind. Ashe would roll back tax cuts for those making over $300,000, oppose the unfunded NCLB mandate, support pay-as-you-go budget rules, and fight for a real prescription drug benefits bill. Ashe also opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment, unlike his married gay opponent, and supports fair trade as well as a woman's right to a "safe, legal and rare" abortion.
Update: There's concern by some in the comments that this is unfair to Schrock. First, this is simply the hand we were dealt. It now appears Democrats at the state and national level were aware of this when Schrock first ran, but did nothing. Now, however, an outside activist is outing him anyway. Second, how is this revelation, in this situation, a dirty tactic? As I asked in the comments, what if Schrock, an opponent of abortion, were exposed as someone who had encouraged a female mistress to have an abortion? Would exposing that be a dirty tactic as well? Both situations involve the exposure of a cheater who has opposed the private rights of others, while taking advantage of those same private rights himself.