Family Values Chronicles: Larry Craig Edition
At Roll Call:
Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested in June at a Minnesota airport by a plainclothes police officer investigating lewd conduct complaints in a men’s public restroom, according to an arrest report obtained by Roll Call Monday afternoon.
At Roll Call:
Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested in June at a Minnesota airport by a plainclothes police officer investigating lewd conduct complaints in a men’s public restroom, according to an arrest report obtained by Roll Call Monday afternoon.
posted by Winston Smith at
8:30 PM
25 Comments:
I want a list of all the anti-gay, pro-"family values" Republicans that have been found to be gay and soliciting sex from minors, in bathrooms, through escort services, etc.
It'd probably blow your mind.
No pun intended.
Actually, family values needs to bifurcate the family and the sexual relationship of the spouses. Preserving the structure is more important than having the hots for each other.
Of course, and what will be lost in all this, is that the 2008 presidential candidate who by far endured the most to preserve their family is...Hillary Clinton.
Did you see Glenn Greenwald's summary of conservative flip-flops over Sen. Craig?
The reaction to the Larry Craig story provides one of the most vivid illustrations yet of how the right-wing movement works. Last October, just weeks before the midterm election, gay activist Mike Rogers reported that the married, GOP "family values" Senator repeatedly had sex with anonymous men in public bathrooms. His report was based on "extensive research," including interviews with several men whom Craig solicited for bathroom sex.
...
[I]t is hard to overstate the intense fury that this pre-election report triggered from the Right -- not at Senator Craig for engaging in this behavior, but at Rogers for reporting it. A virtually unanimous chorus on the Right furiously insisted that nothing could be more irrelevant than whether the married family values Senator had sex with men in bathrooms (acts that are simultaneously criminal and adulterous).
... [Examples cited, with links] ...
But now, with the election safely over, a fundamentally different view -- one might say the exact opposite view -- has arisen among this same political faction (and, in some cases, though not all, even among the same individuals) over the Craig bathroom sex story, one which confirmed the truth of Rogers' October report. Michelle Malkin yesterday called Craig a "weasel," accused him of not caring about the "dignity of his office," and demanded that he resign. Various other right-wing blogs -- noting that a GOP governor will appoint his replacement -- also are calling for Craig to resign.
[Links from original not included.]
Read the whole thing -- it is exquisite.
Mystic, Democratic stretegist Cliff Schecter has a piece entitled "Republican Sexcapades" every Thursday morning -- this might be a start for your catalog!
Tom, good point on HRC.
Yeah, well, I get weak sometimes.
I must object to Greenwald, as usual. He conflates the gay aspect with the cruising for sex in a public restroom aspect. The calls on the right for his resignation are due to the latter. (Puzzlingly, Greenwald, in fairness reports that that's exactly what folks on the right are saying, then proceeds to ignore the words in front of his very own face.
Greenwald (also in fairness) reports that many on the right are opposed to "outing" someone just because they oppose gay marriage. I believe on the whole, gays in America also support that view, except for a few extreme partisans on the left. And I saw on a gay blog that the Idaho Statesman had been staking out the restroom in hopes of catching Craig.
If true, that's the most disgusting thing about the whole affair, IMO.
Tom asserts that:
[Greenwald] conflates the gay aspect with the cruising for sex in a public restroom aspect.
I fear Tom may have missed the thrust of Greenwald's argument.
1) In October of 2006, during the election campaign, several prominent conservatives asserted that the "report about Craig was completely irrelevant even if it were true, because it was only about Craig's private sexual behavior, which should be immune from public consideration." [Greenwald's words]
2) In August of 2007 -- after the election, and in a situation a GOP governor would (presumably) appoint a Republican to finish the term of Craig, should he resign -- many of the same conservatives called on Craig to resign for the identical behavior that, 10 months earlier, they considered to be irelevant to his fitness to hold office.
3) Greenwald concludes:
"Who would ever listen to anyone who engages in such patently duplicitous advocacy? Shouldn't all the people who were depicting Mike Rogers as Satan's spawn for reporting something so clearly irrelevant as Senator Craig's bathroom sex be condemning with equal vigor their comrades who, today, cite that same bathroom sex as a ground for mocking Craig and even demanding that he resign from the Senate?"
Greenwald has conflated nothing.
(Greenwald also notes in the Update that the claims of last October were not predicated on the lack of proof of Craig's then-alleged behavior. The claims of last October were that even if Craig had been cruising for sex in public restrooms, it had no relevance to his being Senator. The same people that made that claim now call on him to resign for having been convicted of that irrelevant behavior.)
Well, I don't read it that way---the objection was to "outing" Craig for political reasons. But it's certainly possible that some have wanted it both ways, tho I don't see it here. Greenwald's condemnation of them as "how the right-wing movement works" is a bit glib and universal, tho. The comments he attempts to fisk are from mere bloggers after all, (altho some think blogs are the real world, including, apparently, Greenwald).
I haven't found any right-wingers in the real world calling for Craig's resignation based on the gender of the object of his affections.
But outing Craig certainly was: some feel it's morally permissible if the fellow's opposed to gay marriage. Fortunately, most gay folk disagree.
I went through Glenn Greenwald's post on Sen. Craig yet again, and have concluded that the post fails to support his premise that:
There is a trend among right-wing commenters to denounce Craig now for his sexual actions (because it is politically safe to do so) when the same commenters were claiming that Craig's sexuality was irrelevant in the face of the same accusations during the 2006 election. [My paraphrase]
In particular, the links Greenwald gives to support the claim that in 2006 that "A virtually unanimous chorus on the Right furiously insisted that nothing could be more irrelevant than whether the married family values Senator had sex with men in bathrooms" do not, on the whole, directly support his claim.
The only example cited that expressly fits this description is that of Dean Barnett who wrote:
"I assume he’s [Craig] straight as do most readers, but the overwhelming sentiment we all share is indifference."
It is true that the general tone of the posts Greenwald cites is, as he also states, an "insist[ance] that Rogers had reached a new and despicable low in politics even by reporting this." One might argue that this tone implies the belief that the accusations were irrelevant even if true, but Greenwald's opening is stronger than that.
Ooops --- hit "post" too soon!
So, I now agree with Tom's statement that:
"But it's certainly possible that some have wanted it both ways, tho I don't see it here. Greenwald's condemnation of them as "how the right-wing movement works" is a bit glib and universal, tho."
The only example given by Greenwald of someone who "wants it both ways" is Barnett, who claimed, in Oct. '06 to be indifferent to Craig crusing men's rooms for sex, and is now silent when conservatives attack Craig for crusing Men's rooms for sex. If the actions called for indifference 10 months ago, surely it is wrong to pillary Craig for them now.
But, Dean Barnett alone is not the "right-wing movement."
But Jim, the "actions" are not synonymous with Craig's "sexuality." This is the conflation.
Or we might say, Craig's sin is getting caught, which makes it a legal/prudential issue, not a moral one. I think Republicans stand on their heads to avoid and sexual-preference McCarthyism.
Which brings us to
"insist[ance] that Rogers had reached a new and despicable low in politics even by reporting this [meaning publishing when it was just rumor and hearsay]."
IMO, he did, and I think many gay folk, even on the left, agree. there are many people in the closet in ranking posts in the GOP, and even straight people have some functioning level of gaydar. They're dimly aware, and that's how they like it, with the emphasis in "dim," not "aware."
If somebody wants to be closeted, most people are willing to honor that. Even Barnett (whose remarks, agreed, are the most vulnerable) didn't call for an investigation to find out the "truth" about Craig, and write that if true he should be bounced.
Are you now or have you ever...?
I don't really care much about this issue...but one interesting point here is that the GOP can't live up to its own irrational, puritanical standards.
Now, when someone advocates one standard and lives another, it might be that their standard is right but they suffer from weakness of will. There are several other possibilities, but one is that, in their heart of hearts, they recognize that the standard they advocate is BS.
It's irrational to ban sex on the sidewalk, too, I suppose. Everybody seems to draw their line, just a question of where.
It's irrational to ban sex on the sidewalk, too, I suppose.
No, most reasonable persons would agree with Mrs. Patrick Campbells' remark, "As long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses."
If somebody wants to be closeted, most people are willing to honor that.
Unfortunately, in this case Craig outed himself, what the Brits call an 'own goal'.
What both left and right could agree upon that it was hypocritical for Craig to invest himself in anti-gay rhetoric while presumably doing a version of the 'downlow'
as defined here:
In recent years, in the gay community, the down-low has referred to married men, or other men professing to be heterosexual, having sex with other men but identifying themselves as neither homosexual nor bisexual. Many homosexual men use the term down-low to refer to their choice not to broadcast their sexual preference.
In some sectors of male sub-culture (called "men on the DL" or "down-low"), men may rationalize that same-sex sexual behavior is solely a matter of physical pleasure and not a reflection of one's sexual orientation. Thus, men on the "down-low" may engage in regular, secret, sex acts with other men while continuing sexual and romantic relationships with women. This behavior has been associated with communities in which traditional families and concepts of masculinity are greatly valued, so that being openly gay could lead to considerable stigma.
It seems a version of quod licet Iovi non licet bovi or what is permitted to Jupiter is not permitted to an ox
If an important person does something, it does not necessarily mean that everyone can do it (cf. double standard). Iovi (also commonly rendered Jovi) is the dative form of Iuppiter ("Jupiter" or "Jove"), the chief god of the Romans.
Well, he did out himself with something analogous to having sex on the sidewalk, but it's not that others didn't try, such as the aforementioned gay leftist blogger, and the Idaho Statesman newspaper.
I can't find much that Craig said or did politically except opposition to gay marriage [with an apparent openness to civil unions] and objections to entering sexual preference into hate crimes legislation. This brings down the pejorative "anti-gay," a hideous term of art, on the order of "baby-killer."
If one is "anti-gay," is he fair game for outing, or being stalked by a major newspaper? Apparently some people think that's A-OK.
As for the downlow, it hardly seems proper that the GOP should gather rumors and kick out anyone who's suspected of being on it. It seems neither A-OK nor is there any genuine enthusiasm for it. Mark Foley's closet was half-open, but what would have been the hue and cry if the GOP had made an issue of his improper advances?
We know the answer to that: "anti-gay," heads or tails.
Here's what one of Craigs' constituents had to say about him:
I’m an Idahoan, and we’ve known for years that Senator Craig is gay. Farmers know it, business men and women know it; everyone knows it, he’s known as “Idaho’s gay Senator.” But he’s untouchable when it comes to the media — even after he’s arrested for lewd conduct. On the local news tonight, the anchor made sure he emphasized “alleged” many times, and made the report sound like the police said this thing which wasn’t true. The news also buried the report, calling it today’s lead story, but they didn’t get around to reporting on it until the 3rd commercial break.
Once again, we see an ultra - conservative arrested for lewd conduct. Here’s what we know for a fact.
1) Senator Craig openly admits that he is so inept, that he pleads guilty to something he says he didn’t do. I, for one, demand a slightly higher IQ for my state’s Senator.
2) He hides the charge for over 2 months. Like other conservative politicians, Craig will say and do anything to further his own interests, including deceiving the public he serves.
3) He refused to talk about it. If he’s so innocent, then hold a press conference, and let the public know the “facts.” In Craig’s case, he’s refused all interviews and is only issuing a canned statement.
And like other conservatives who get in trouble, he will continue to deny any wrongdoing, he will continue to live a lie while claiming to have the moral superiority and authority to speak for the people of Idaho.
This is one Idahoan who hopes he keeps his job long enough for a democrat to take his post in the coming elections. May more Senator Craig’s get arrested!
and this is part of the response from the Idaho Values Alliance:
One larger issue must be addressed. The Republican Party platform clearly rejects the agenda of homosexual activists. The Party, in the wake of the Mark Foley incident in particular, can no longer straddle the fence on the issue of homosexual behavior. Even setting Senator Craig’s situation aside, the Party should regard participation in the self-destructive homosexual lifestyle as incompatible with public service on behalf of the GOP.
No member of the Republican Party in the 1860s could represent his party and be a slaveholder at the same time. Nor can the Republican Party of today speak with authority and clarity to the moral issues that confront our society and at the same time send ambivalent messages about sexual behavior. It is time for the Republican Party to be the party that defends the American family in word, deed, and by personal example.
TPM link
The Democrats, OTOH, have taken Napoleons' advice as to the course of action to take when ones' opponent has blundered.
The political calculation seems to be that the issue will do more for the party if it is simply left alone. Thus far the Republican knee-jerk reaction — to reassure the conservative base — has had the side effect of energizing gay groups. Why attack him and risk the ire of gay-rights groups when Democrats can sit back and watch the GOP eat their own?
The silence is being welcomed by gay activists. "I'll never complain about Democrats actually staying on message," said John Marble, communications director for Stonewall Democrats, a national gay, lesbian bi-sexual and transgender umbrella group for Democratic activists, in a telephone interview. "If anything, we'd like to see them use this opportunity to speak positively about gay families and gay Americans and be very clear that they support equal rights for the gay community."
I’m an Idahoan, and we’ve known for years that Senator Craig is gay. Farmers know it, business men and women know it; everyone knows it, he’s known as “Idaho’s gay Senator.”
Exactly. Still, they reelected him. (The author's use of "ultra - conservative" and "moral superiority" are the usual mindless left-wing boilerplate. Craig never got his vote we can be sure, and not because he's gay.)
Now, there are certainly folks out there like the Idaho Values Alliance, whoever that is, but obviously the voters of Idaho are less interested in hunting down and outing gays than certain leftist bloggers and the "journalists" of the Idaho Statesman.
BTW, Dean Barnett defends himself from Greenwald's scurrilous garbage here, making many of the same arguments I've posted. He hardly seems like a member of the Idaho Values Alliance. Seems like a nice fellow.
Unfortunately for you, TVD, Glenn didn't do what Dean and you said he did. Here's the money quote:
I would honestly pay money to watch someone try to reconcile those two positions. Last October, Barnett depicted Rogers as an "odious presence" for violating Craig's privacy based on purely private behavior that was none of anyone's business. Today, the same Barnett demands that Craig resign from the Senate, and invokes exactly the rationale which Rogers and other "outers" use to justify these disclosures ("How a ranking public office-holder can be so thoroughly revealed as a hypocrite and still cling to his position is beyond me").
Did you find the above helpful?
No. Do you disagree that Rogers is an "odious presence" for violating Craig's privacy based on purely private behavior that was none of anyone's business?
Do you think Craig shouldn't have resigned after his arrest came out?
These are two separate questions, not one. However, I am interested in your answers.
TVD, Sen. Craig was directly involved in making public policy that related in part to purely private behavior that is/was none of anyone's business? when he voted against gay marriage.
He was allied with such folks as the IVA, who, however you want to minimize them, weren't gay-friendly by any means, and wouldn't have supported Craig if the truth were known about his private life.
His imposture was done for purely political reasons, to garner support for himself. He allied himself with folks who demonized gays when he himself should've/could've been example A of how gays are people and not the folks in the Gay Pride March Videos used to represent 'the love that dare not speak its' name'.
As for the second question, if he had the good of his party in mind when word of his arrest came out, then yes, he should've resigned.
He's a self-serving scoundrel I have no sympathy or pity for.
As a libertarian friend of mine said, "He dug his own hole, shit and pissed in it, and then jumped right in".
TVD, Sen. Craig was directly involved in making public policy that related in part to purely private behavior that is/was none of anyone's business? when he voted against gay marriage.
Some of the Democratic presidential candidates don't support gay marriage. In fact, at least one of them has been the subject of, um rumors.
What do you propose we do with them? Has the Idaho Statesman assigned a reporter to the beat?
I support the finding and exposing of hypocrites in the Congress, whether they be Republican, Democrat, etc.
It should be noted that the Idaho Statesman only ran the story after the story of Craigs' guilty plea became public, which they treated as confirming evidence that they were on the right track in their investigation, as Craigs' denial in May turned into that old Groucho Marx line, "Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?"
In fact, at least one of them has been the subject of, um rumors.
Yes, Ann Coulter, amoungst other commentators, have had no problems with spreading rumors like that.
Thank Odin that none of them have the resources of the Idaho Statesman, otherwise there'd be trouble in River City.
Has the Idaho Statesman assigned a reporter to the beat?
"Why worry if the cat is black or white, as long as it catches the mouse?"
I support the finding and exposing of hypocrites in the Congress, whether they be Republican, Democrat, etc.
Just to be nice and sparkling clear, does this mean that you support outing anyone who opposes gay marriage? And that journalists should investigate rumors to that effect, as the Statesman did?
TVD:
#1
Yes. My reasoning stems from my Latin quote supra.
#2:
I wouldn't object to the Idaho Statesman or another media outlet investigating rumors like those spread by Ann Coulter, Dick Morris, etc.
I posted the results of this inquiry over at my groupblog. I was looking for a counterargument that I could present in fairness and sympathetically.
Unfortunately, there was none, so as a courtesy, I left the heinous and hateful and unmerciful unnamed.
If anyone has a problem with my conclusions, they are, as always, invited to try their luck away from their home field.
And DA, if you're advocating a scorched earth policy---it's still so difficult to negotiate the rapids of your intellect and rhetoric---that opposition to gay marriage equals "anti-gay," and the wrath of heaven shalt be brought down upon it, then I do acknowledge your consistency, even if there is no shelter from your storm.
Thou art no hypocrite, and to you that seems to be the most important thing of all, so mazel tov, you funky avenger, you...
Sorry, TVD, but my opposition is to hypocracy, not the simplistic equation you present here that someone votes against gay marriage =anti-gay.
You've danced and refused to acknowledge the hypocracy side of things, and I'm not interested in going to your site if you use the same sophistry that you employ here on a regular basis.
And DA, if you're advocating a scorched earth policy
against hypocracy of any sort, yes, but you still haven't gotten that into your frontal lobes yet.
-it's still so difficult to negotiate the rapids of your intellect and rhetoric-
I prefer specific charges to unspecified dissatisfaction with my replies such as you've done in the past, so thank you for acknowledging my efforts which began in July, and have apparently bore some fruit.
If you can give me an explaination why hypocracy in legistlators should be tolerated by their constituents, that would be interesting.
If Craig had come out for sodomy laws or attacked gays as human beings, you might have a point. But his votes on public policy don't justify newspapers stalking and "investigating" his private life.
You disagree. That's fine. You're on record for what many, not just me, find as indefensible. Our work is done here.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home