US Senator - Framed?

[Slim]

Now he's certainly a hypocrite when he tried to portray himself as upholding family values--a married man seeking anonymous sex in a public bathroom is not--under any definition--an example of "family values."

--Philistine

Hypocrisy in politics is the norm. Scratch the surface and they all are hypocrites to some extent. If this was a disqualification by itself, there would be no politicians.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

They want him out because he has a problem controlling himself and has shown poor judgement for a leadership postion.

And for forcing the conservative wing of the GOP to have to admit:

"Do as we say...not....er...umm....as we...ahh...well...do."

when homophobically stump-speeching.

[contre-Sixte]

All liberals -like me - should be supporting this guy, not delighting in his predicament. So what if he's a hypocrite? What about Bill Clinton's hypocrisy regarding his sexual conduct? Is the hypocrisy OK so long as it come from a Democrat... a heterosexual? Are we suggesting that a politician's private behavior has to square perfectly with their public pronouncements and their voting records. MLK jr. couldn't live up to that standard, Ted Kennedy can't, Newt Gingrich couldn't. Why should we expect more from this Craig guy.

[jeff]

So there are no gay republicans or gay conservatives? And anyone that disagrees with the gay agenda is a homophobe and a victimizer and gays are victims? Jeff, give me a freaking break.

I really have to laugh at this whole..."well, he did this, and therefore he must be gay since he must be gay, he has to adhere to the gay agenda or he's a bad, bad man."

Unless of course, he celebrates his gayness and participates as the MC of the the next GayDay parade. Then he's AOK.

There is a Gay party within the democrat party. I think gay republicans are the ones being victimized.

Nice to hear from you after so long, and good to see you're totally missing the point as usual, How defensive of you, especially when it's Republicans that threw Larry Craig under the bus, not Democrats.

Of course there are gay republicans - look at the Log Cabin group. There's your Gay Party within the Republican party. Or were you ignorant of their existance? Of course there are gay conservatives - such as the libertarian Andrew Sullivan.

The point isn't whether or not somebody supports the "gay agenda" (a phrase you parrot from the Falwell's ilk). What we have here is somebody who went along with homophobic policies of the Republican party while apparently being a closeted gay himself. It's hypocrisy, along with acting the family man while maintaining a secret life. He couldn't have survived as a Republican as an out gay. Even without the issue of sexual orientation: soliciting sex in public places is nasty business we should expect public officials to be censured for regardless of orientation, and pleading guilty and then trying to cover it up completely stupid. Not to mention flashing his Senate ID to try to intimidate a cop. What a schmuck.

Contrasting with Vitter (R. La.) is that Vitter's brothel issues were hetero, and perhaps more importantly, with a Democratic governor in Louisiana, he would be replaced by a Democrat were he to be removed from office. With Craig, the Republican governor Otter will appoint another Republican. That makes it easier for for Senate Republicans to dump Craig but not Vitter.

In either case, this should help put to bed (double entendre!) forever the silly idea that the Republicans are the party of high moral standards; a claim they manage to try to run on every election cycle. Even now, Mitt Romney is making a big deal over being "on his first wife", unlike his competitors in the primaries, like Guiliani. This has always been a big part of "getting out the base", so we should expect to see it in the general elections. Having a sinner who went to brothels might fly, especially if he expressed contrition, but having a guilty-pleading, sex-soliciting, closeted gay still holding office as a Republican Senator would infuriate the social conservatives and religious right that Republicans count on for vote. So, they moved quickly to remove the albatross from their necks.

To your last point, for once you're right "gay republicans are the ones being victimized" - by other Republicans, to be specific. That gay Republicans are victimized by the party they belong, and by the homophobic policies they openly supported is either a form of justice or irony. Take your pick.

[mrbiggs]

What about Bill Clinton's hypocrisy regarding his sexual conduct?

I don't think there are many who thought that what he did was OK.

And even if there were people who did, I don't think that should absolve all future politicians of responsibility for their hypocrisy or for their inappropriate conduct.

[Philistine]

And this is because he may be gay? Wow, you really do believe "all republicans are homophobes" hype.

They want him out because he has a problem controlling himself and has shown poor judgement for a leadership postion.

Then why not the same treatment for Vitter--who, after all, was calling hookers from the floor of the House?

--Philistine

[jeff]

What makes it "apparent", and not a simple case of a 70 year old guy spreading his knees a little wider, is that according to the police report he followed a long, and intricate series of motions known to the community of people who seek anonymous sex in such settings. I don't have personal knowledge about this world, but what I've read in the last few days is that there is a well-known ritual by which people involve assure themselves that the person they are trying to hook up with are on the same wavelength. Probably born from the need to avoid propositioning the general population and getting beaten up. One has to be in this secret world in order to know the (ahem...) secret handshakes.

What makes it not "alleged" is that the Senator pleasded guilty.

Are you sure the arresting officer made an offer to keep things quiet? Presumably the arrest and guilty plea are a matter of public record. Apparently part of the media knew about this when it first happened (so much for the myth that the "liberal mainstream media always looks for excuses to smear Republicans"). If such an offer were made, that might be viewed as a favor - plead now, and we won't have to make a big embarrassing trial.

As far as the idea that Senators should travel with an escort, that can answered in several ways, frivolously:

- That's what Senator Craig was looking for
- That's what Rep Foley was looking for
- That's what Senator Vitters repeatedly found

(Interesting that all three made political points of their ethical positions, attacking those gosh darn homosexuals and fornicators. Sometimes that kind of public posturing is really a shield to hide personal behavior.)

Seriously: maybe they need an escort of bodyguards, but they shouldn't need an escort of "minders" to protect them from themselves.

[Epee_Pox]

I'm a little perturbed by the glee with which the ordinarily gay-protective left has been lashing out at this guy. I totally understand (note, I said "understand" and not "agree with") the right lambasting the poor fellow, because the right tends not to accept this kind of behavior. But the left is supposed to be on the side of folks like this. Where's the compassion? Does this guy have ANYONE on his side (and no, I'm not)?

What I'm seeing from the Republicans is embarrassment at his behavior, and bottom-line decisionmaking as a result. What I'm seeing from the Democrats (and european and canadian commentary) is little more than glee at this poor guy's misfortune. Sure, they dress it up in terms of political hypocrisy and similar inanity, but from where I sit it's little more than schadenfreude.

And that is categorically NOT what the modern, accepting, protective liberal is supposed to do. If the guy were a Democrat, I guarantee you there would be hand-wringing and speechifying on his behalf, and on behalf of all similarly abused and tormented men with his particular restroom-oriented sexual inclinations.

THERE lies the hypocrisy!

I'm fully prepared to accept that homosexual behavior is inborn and as unavoidable as the heterosexual drive, particularly for the male of the species. I have far too many close gay friends to have any illusions on this score.

So this guy is not only being kicked out of his party for not toeing the party line (which we'd expect of any party, of course, and would be surprised if that were not in fact the case)... and he is not only someone who appears to share his community's abhorrence of his disposition (a not at all uncommon, and tragic, condition of homosexuals, for a variety of reasons)... but he is also scorned and held up to ridicule by the very people who pretend to speak out for those in his situation.

As someone posted above, there is no hypocrisy in being gay and thinking it's wrong to be gay. To add to that thought, there's no hypocrisy in going a step further and trying to hide the fact that one is gay. In fact, that would fit the psychological imperative of the situation.

Giving in to the desires and trying to have secretive encounters with such apparently heavily-coded signals to ensure secrecy and acceptance, well how is that anything other than simple human fallibility? How on earth is that remotely deserving of finger-pointing and name-calling, beyond accusations of giving in to temptation? Giving in to temptation is weakness, not hypocrisy. Those are two very different concepts, which the pundits on the left seem to have forgotten for the nonce.

I think it is clear that the gleeful vitriol from the left is purely because the guy happens to be Republican. It's partisan, plain and simple. I think it's a form of antigay prejudice to do so. And I agree with some of the posters above who say it is worse than that; it is sheer arrogance to say that, simply because someone has a particular sexual orientation, that person must share particular political views. I know gay people who don't think marriage applies to them. I know felons who don't think felons should have the right to vote. I know women who don't believe abortion should be legal. It is absolutely NOT hypocritical for a member of a particular section of society to have individual thoughts and views different from the received philosophy of the activist establishment. It is little more than the common leftist arrogance that says "I know better than you what is good for you, and if you disagree then you are either ignorant or bad."

I am ashamed by his furtive (and frankly gross) come-ons in a public toilet. I am not ashamed by his party's distancing from his actions. I am far more ashamed by the left's abandonment of their principles in the cause of taking joy in his pain.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

EP:

Sure, there is a partisan interest in having a ranking Senator of the opposing party go down in very public flames. The Craig case has an added layer, though, precisely because of the hypocrisy element.

The Republican Party has had a long history of pandering to the religious conservatives and their homophobic fears. Craig was firmly strapped to that Family Values bandwagon, so by pleading guilty to this kind of offense, he left himself and his party open to serious political fallout.

If the guy were a Democrat, I guarantee you there would be hand-wringing and speechifying on his behalf, and on behalf of all similarly abused and tormented men with his particular restroom-oriented sexual inclinations.

There would be distaste, of course, and I would expect similar calls for resignation if a Democratic Senator was caught propositioning some guy-on-guy action in a public restroom, and then pled guilty to it. But remember, the Democrats haven't made a political living off repeatedly denouncing that kind of behavior.

To rise to a equivalent level of party betrayal, our Democratic Senatorial Bad Guy would have to do something like plead guilty to pulling a unlicensed hand gun at a Neo-Nazi convention, because the organizer wouldn't read the Senator's Manifesto of "No Taxes for Anyone Making over $150K a year, and the Immediate Dissolution of Medicare, Welfare, Social Security and the Head Start Program for Children."

I don't think you can blame the Democrats for exercising the equivalent of a Simpsons-esque "ha-ha," given the circumstances.

[jeff]

Epee_Pox: could you cite some examples that you find inappropriate? I've only been reading the NYT, and watching CNN: the Times criticized the Republican party in its editorials, and didn't say much about Sen. Craig himself except in the news articles, without editorialization. CNN of course had a field day with Craig, largely by playing the clips over and over, and with board panelists from Dem and Repub sides, plus their house shrink. All hands aboard, and some of the remark sympathetic, and the unsympathetic remarks more on the tone of "what a moron" rather than "what a pervert".

I think part of your cognitive dissonance is the cliche you place on Democrats and liberals as being "accepting, protective" regardless of behavior. That's obviously not the case, or they would have shrugged off, say, Sen. Lott's remarks that got him in trouble a while back. It's more accurate to say they are accepting of being homosexual, but not of being homophobes and politically profiting from it. That's what Sen. Craig is lambasted for by the left, not for being homosexual (or bi, or whatever he may turn out to be) in the first place. So, they aren't living up to the stereotype you placed on them of accepting "anything goes" - including people who profited by bigotry. That strikes me more as your misconception than their problem. A Democrat who was pro gay rights who turned out to be gay wouldn't be shunned by Democrats; one who had Craig's voting record very well could have been. McGreevy crashed and burned for deceipt and for putting a boyfriend on the payroll - and it was the latter that caused him to resign, rather than being hounded out by his own party.

The Republican response may be as much about poliical expediency as homophobia: he a lead balloon for their election cycle, and can be replaced with another Republican senator so they don't lose a seat. So, they fed him to the fish without any hesitation. Most of the anti-Craig rhetoric has come from Republicans: McConnell, Romney, McCain, and many more. No national Republican showed up at his resignation announcement. As far as they were concerned, he was a pariah..

Being "gay and closeted" doesn't describe his situation either: it's "being gay and soliciting sex" while also having profited professionally from promoting anti-gay legislation (and bragging of it). That's definitely worthy of scorn. If he were a closeted gay who hadn't profited by being publically anti-gay, and didn't try to pick up men in bathrooms, he wouldn't be so remarkable. Don't equate "being gay" with "picks up guys in bathrooms". Dan Savage was interviewed and expressed his disgust at the latter while being one of the forrmer, and he nonetheless expressed some sympathy for Craig's situation.

Regarding his acting contrary to his presumed interests: if he had said "I am a gay man, and I oppose marriage for gays and I oppose protection for gays under hate crime legislation" that would be a very different situation - it's not the same as examples you give of felons opposing voting rights for felons, or women opposing abortion rights. Under the deceitful life - and safe haven - of pretending to be a straight man, he attacked gay rights. I think that worthy of scorn. He did act according to his interests: under the pretence of being a straight man with conventional sexual behavior.

We've always had more reaction to hypocrites in high places. When the politician who campaigned on a "Demon Alcohol" temperance platform turns out to be a big sloppy drunk, that's big news and worthy of mockery - and don't be surprised if the people who want to enjoy a beer don't raise a glass to celebrate the downfall. Look at how the Foley case played out: the so-called protector of children against sexual exploitation hitting on pages. In cases like his and Craig's, it goes far beyond mere hypocrisy to "exploitation while protected by a disguise".

In any case, it seems odd to me to expect gays to be restrained at the downfall of somebody who profited by acting against them, while letting off the hook his allies and colleagues.

If you have examples of lefty gloating about Sen. Craig, I would be interested in your posting links. Everything I've seen has been pretty restrained. Compared to, for example, how Republicans went after Bill Clinton after Monica-gate, the left has been extremely quiet. The primary attacks on Craig were from his own party, and any blame you want to assign for being mean to him should be directed to them instead.. And, if there are gays who are gloating about it - well, that's only a human reaction: they guy profited by attacking them, and was hoisted on his own petard.

[keith]

I am ashamed by his furtive (and frankly gross) come-ons in a public toilet. I am not ashamed by his party's distancing from his actions. I am far more ashamed by the left's abandonment of their principles in the cause of taking joy in his pain.

Isn't the phrase 'love the sinner hate the sin'?

....but I'll call you on this claim as well - examples of 'the left' taking joy please? Fox saying it's so doesn't count.

Even most of the coverage in the European 'leftist' press has been sympathetic to Craig (but not the republican party).

[lindajdunn]

This is a congresscritter who should know a little more than the average person about legal issues and he was read his rights and did NOT say, "I will not speak to you until I first speak to my attorney."

IMHO, the real crime here was one of stupidity.

[pigeonmeister]

Having read the transcript, http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/se...transcript.pdf the arresting officer seems fairly unpleasant-deliberately using the senators status to bully a guilty plea (which I am amazed Craig gave). I suspect that Craig knew what he was doing- but I still doubt that he would have been found guilty in a court of law.

What troubles me the most is that the police gave an implicit suggestion that if Craig quickly plead guilty then the story would be kept quiet. I assume that it was then a policeman who leaked the story to the media?

However...why did he say to the policeman:

LC: You solicited me.

This kind of indicates that he was up for it- but didn't start it!

Good to see where your taxes are going though- cops hanging out in seedy toilets..

[Inquartata]

I'm really not sure what we are arguing here....

I was asking, what were your sources for the various votes and statements you allege that he made?

I'm saying that if the man is gay, and I am increasingly persuaded that he is, then he is enormously hypocritical in casting these votes.

Yes. He is after all a politician.

What are you arguing?

That "Where there's smoke there's fire" is a weak argument.

That is not just my omittance- it is what 99% of the reporting of this amendment focusses on. It is what the public understand the main thrust of the amendment to mean, it is thus what the social conservative politicians are reacting to as a vote winner.

Immaterial. What matters is what a law does, not what people think it does, or what they think it should do. The proposed amendment would in all likelihood affect far more unmarried heterosexual couples currently enjoying civil union status than it would homosexual couples eager to marry---in which case casting it as "the gay marriage prohibition" distorts both its purpose and its effect by focusing on what it means for a minority.

Not that that is a novel tactic in American politics, of course.

In this context the omittance in illuminating. Quite clearly this is an action, like the others I listed, aimed primarily at stopping gay couples from getting married or preventing their equal protection under the law.

This betrays your imperfect understanding of social conservatives. They are as against heterosexuals "living in sin" as they are against homosexuality. They are merely a bit more diffident about saying so in front of most audiences, inasmuch as they have so many constituents who are straight and "living in sin" than they do gay ones.

But if they really meant the amendment only to impinge upon gay people, have you seen any indication that they would be bashful about saying so? I haven't. Most of them seem to have no problem declaring their opposition to gay marriage.

And I will point out that even while DOMA-type laws were passing by wide margins in many US states, the one in "red" Arizona FAILED, because opponents were able to dramatize the fact that it would have affected far more civil unions between heterosexuals than it would potential gay marriages. Had it been a straightforward prohibition on the latter the polls indicate that it would have passed easily. That it was written to include civil unions demonstrates IMO the committment that social conservatives have to restricting marriage ( and its perquisites ) to one-man-one-woman arrangements...and to discouraging relationships outside of the institution of marriage.

The fact that social conservatives dissaprove of civil unions by hetrosexuals is of secondary importance to the national debate.

Rather, it is what the left has chosen to harp upon. The right has had to respond to the issue on those terms perforce.

I believe the man is gay.

I believe that Bush is an honorable, well-meaning man and Ahmedinejad is a dangerous loony. Are you inclined to accept my opinion as actionable truth?



I

The Republican Party is clearly not a party that courts, appeals to, or represents, in a meaningful way, the 10's of millions of gay people living in America.

"Tens of millions"?!?

http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html

Estimates based on Census counts run between 1% ond 5% of the population. Using a US population of 302 million that's about 15 million gay men and women.

[Inquartata]

goal number 3
http://craig.senate.gov/mission.cfm

I stand corrected. I missed that one.

[Inquartata]

The good and honorable senator from the State of Idaho has a long and storied history with gay rights. Specifically, he was one of the prime moving forces for the adoption of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2173102/nav/tap1/

Er...

Slate? Really?

"Prime moving forces"? The article you post claims only "helped to enact"...and offers as evidence only that he voted for it...

It also links to another editorial which claims that he "was vocal in his support", but gives no evidence for the assertion.

Weak, IMO.

I suspect his anti-gay rhetoric derives from the same source as the most of the homophobic rhetoric preached - his own latent homosexual impulses and actions that he is unable to deal with in a healthy, positive manner.

You may well be right. My point is that it's just speculation at this point, and speculation is not evidence.

The only relevant fact to me is that he pleaded guilty to an offense. His resignation is appropriate in light of that, but NOT in light of speculations about whether or not he is gay or a hypocrite. ( If that latter were grounds for resignation Congress would be empty and we'd all be safer. )

[Inquartata]

Seriously though, to what do you attribute the difference in Republican reactions to Craig, versus the reactions to David Vitter's admission of hiring an escort service? To my knowledge, no colleague has suggested Vitter resign.

--Philistine

Vitter has no pled guilty to an actual legal charge, AFAIK.

In the same way, Rep. Barney Frank admitted that when he was still closeted he paid for sex with a man whom he later hired as an aide, hoesekeeper and driver and helped in various other ways which IMO smack of nepotism. He gave the man the use of his apartment, which the man used to run a prostitution service---he says with Frank's knowledge, Franks says not. The main point is that Franks did not plead guilty to any offense. He was not made to resign and remains one of the most powerful Democrats in the House to this day. I think that if he had been arrested and pled guilty he would have been gone, just like Craig and NOT just like Vitter..

[pigeonmeister]

[QUOTE]

I was asking, what were your sources for the various votes and statements you allege that he made?

OK- but it was unlikely that I was going have made them up wasn't it! I believe Jeff has posted the appropriate weblinks.

Yes. He is after all a politician.

Of course

That "Where there's smoke there's fire" is a weak argument.

Where there is a guilty plea there is fire. I accept it is impossible to definitively prove the man is gay. But I am not looking to prove my belief (that he is) in a court of law- it is purely my own interpretation of his previous behaviour.

Immaterial. What matters is what a law does, not what people think it does, or what they think it should do.

I'm afraid I disagree- in politics, perception is often a lot more important than you claim. I do not, as you know, live in America. I have thus formed an opinion based purely on US media coverage of this legislation. It has irrefutably been weighted towards its effect on gay marriage and I believe that is illuminating of the nature of the national debate currently happening in the US. If this is not so, and I am obviously less well placed to gage the political climate than most on this forum, then I find the media coverage surprising and confusing.

The proposed amendment would in all likelihood affect far more unmarried heterosexual couples currently enjoying civil union status than it would homosexual couples eager to marry---in which case casting it as "the gay marriage prohibition" distorts both its purpose and its effect by focusing on what it means for a minority.

I agree that hetosexuals are probably more likely to be affected (have you any figures?) but the distortion is neither my own, nor unimportant in understanding the situation.

This betrays your imperfect understanding of social conservatives. They are as against heterosexuals "living in sin" as they are against homosexuality.

I just cannot accept this. Republican senators have had extra-marital affairs and survived, politically, yet none have 'come out' as being gay. Surely gay sex is the greater sin? Priests have no problem in marrying people who have been living together, unmarried, for years and years.

And I will point out that even while DOMA-type laws were passing by wide margins in many US states, the one in "red" Arizona FAILED, because opponents were able to dramatize the fact that it would have affected far more civil unions between heterosexuals than it would potential gay marriages. Had it been a straightforward prohibition on the latter the polls indicate that it would have passed easily.

That's an interesting case, but it does sound like the exception.

That it was written to include civil unions demonstrates IMO the committment that social conservatives have to restricting marriage ( and its perquisites ) to one-man-one-woman arrangements...and to discouraging relationships outside of the institution of marriage.

I agree, but would argue that emphasis, as seen in the media and national debate, is greatly on discouraging the former. Either that or they wanted to give a veneer of credibilty to their rampant homophobia

I believe that Bush is an honorable, well-meaning man and Ahmedinejad is a dangerous loony. Are you inclined to accept my opinion as actionable truth?

Of course not!! Gay is an absolute term- it can be demonstrated through the pursuit of homosexual activities. HonoU(!)able is subjective, as is 'well meaning'. And for what it is worth I never disputed Ahmadinejad was a dangerous loony (so is Bush of course!). I think his influence, and thus the danger he represents, is overstated. Dangerous is, again, a term that varies in degree and interpretation.

Estimates based on Census counts run between 1% ond 5% of the population. Using a US population of 302 million that's about 15 million gay men and women

What about the illegals! that makes it 310 million. I had seen figures closer to 8%. Making it 24 million. I respectfully withdraw my claim as perhaps exagerated, but ultimately unimportant to what I am saying- 15 million is a figure I will happily settle on.

[Inquartata]

OK- but it was unlikely that I was going have made them up wasn't it!

"Trust, but verify".

Where there is a guilty plea there is fire.

Not necessarily, in the US criminal justice system. Plea bargains are the rule, not the exception---because the prosecution wields such power, and because the bench is always anxious to clear its docket quickly and without undue effort. And because so many defendants are willing to take a quick deal and get on with their lives, rather than take a risk on a heavier sentence after the expense of a trial...

...of his previous behaviour.

Of his alleged behavior. We have no real evidence that this 'previous behavior' actually occurred, or occurred as it was reported.

I find the media coverage surprising and confusing.

You are never surprised by my media-founded misperceptions about goings on in Britain?

Republican senators have had extra-marital affairs and survived, politically, yet none have 'come out' as being gay.

Wrong again, and coincidentally, again from Arizona: Congressman Jim Kolbe ( now retired, but came out in 1996 and continued to serve until just this year ).

HonoU(!)able

Is that a city in Hawaii?

What about the illegals! that makes it 310 million. I had seen figures closer to 8%.

LOL, and then there are the gay bigfoots and martians!

[Neinteen]

Inquartata is weird. When i first heard this story i thought of him