Larry Craig

[Guest StuCotts]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/washingt...5charge.html?hp

It looks like the Republicans are preparing to tear each other to shreds to the delight of all writers of lurid headlines. But I can't help thinking that at some point gays are going to be scapegoated as the villains of the piece for everybody else to dump on.

[Guest Conway]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/washingt...5charge.html?hp

It looks like the Republicans are preparing to tear each other to shreds to the delight of all writers of lurid headlines. But I can't help thinking that at some point gays are going to be scapegoated as the villains of the piece for everybody else to dump on.

I I think that, to a certain degree, that you've hit the nail on the head where the ultimate impact of both the Mark Foley and the Larry Craig stories have ended up. While certain vocal members of the "gay leadership" are quick to jump on the bandwagon of celebration, there's no real victory in terms of rights or positive recognition for the gay community as a result of these highly publicized dalliances of the conservative leadership.

Mark Foley's constituents were no more likely to put a gay friendly politician in office after his resignation than they were before his emails were made public. The good voters of North Dakota are no more likely to vote for a progressive candidate on gay issues than they were when they elected Larry Craig. If anything, those voters will probably more discerning of their conservative choices than they were when they chose Foley and Craig to represent them.

Even outside of that, it seems to me that Democratic politicians who embrace gay voters in primaries tend to forget that we exist as general elections move closer. Bill Clinton certainly drastically changed his policy on gays in the military between the time he was a candidate and the time he became President. John Edwards and Barak Obama have each made statements that make one question their commitment to the "gay political agenda" because they fear the backlash that such an endorsement could bring from middle America.

The truth is that there are an awful lot of gay men like me out there who don't associate our sexuality with a political agenda of any certain persuasion. Those facets of our intellect and personalities are both distinct and separate from one another.

I still believe that, if one supports the national gay agenda, the best way to achieve success is through gradual compromise on a legislative basis.

[TotallyOz]

I still believe that, if one supports the national gay agenda, the best way to achieve success is through gradual compromise on a legislative basis.

Unfortunately, I agree with you on this. This is not the way it should be but I do believe that the ground work is being laid for change. I also see the attitude of those who were fearful of gays for many years changing. Slowly. But, changing.

[Guest Conway]

My concern is that incidents like the Craig and Foley incidents only reinforce negative stereotypes about gays being child molestors and bathroom sex perverts among the general population. In the end, i think that's bad for us.

[Guest BewareofNick]

The Republicans are never going to support any openly gay member or anyone involved in a gay scandal. In fact, if took special notice of the Fox "News" coverage of both the Larry Craig and Mark Foley scandals, you will see a vast difference in how they are handled.

When a Democrat gets into trouble, like William Jefferson or contributor Norman Hsu, Fox puts the word Democrat in almost every sentence. When Larry Craig was being covered, they went to great pains to avoid saying the word Republican or putting an R on the chyron. When Mark Foley got busted, Fox put on their chyron Congressman Mark Foley (D-FL) and even repeated it three more times (including on the O'Lielly Factor)

While the GOP has been calling for Craig's resignation, they have been silent on the DC Madam scandal involving David Vitter. That's partly because it's a straight sex scandal, and partly because Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco is a Democrat and would appoint a Democrat to replace Vitter. Idaho's governor is a Republican and would appoint a Republican to replace Craig.

It also helps Joe Lieberman sleep at night, knowing he still controls the Senate. At least until the next election.

[Guest Conway]

Oh, come now, Nick. The entire media has portrayed Craig as the "right wing congressman opponent of gay rights" caught soliciting sex in a public bathroom. It is silly to suggest that he has caught some kind of break due t the fact that he's a Republican.

As for Vitter, if we made every congressman who's entertained a hooker resign from Congress, the halls of both houses would be silent.

The problem with both Craig and Foley is not the legality of what they did (as a meter of fact, Foley broke no law). It was the completely inappropriate nature of their actions according to the moral perception of the large majority of the voting public. While the perception of the enlightened participants of this forum may be quite different, Middle America is never going to buy into acceptance of solicitation of sex in restrooms and having sexually charged conversations with teenagers. No matter what Fox News says or doesn't say.

[Guest StuCotts]

Oh, come now, Nick. The entire media has portrayed Craig as the "right wing congressman opponent of gay rights" caught soliciting sex in a public bathroom. It is silly to suggest that he has caught some kind of break due t the fact that he's a Republican.

As for Vitter, if we made every congressman who's entertained a hooker resign from Congress, the halls of both houses would be silent.

The problem with both Craig and Foley is not the legality of what they did (as a meter of fact, Foley broke no law). It was the completely inappropriate nature of their actions according to the moral perception of the large majority of the voting public. While the perception of the enlightened participants of this forum may be quite different, Middle America is never going to buy into acceptance of solicitation of sex in restrooms and having sexually charged conversations with teenagers. No matter what Fox News says or doesn't say.

"The entire media" is a dismissible straw man. Nick doesn't mention the entire media . His dispute is with Fox's squalid policy if nonstop lies, distortions and vilifications in lieu of reporting the news. "No matter what Fox says or doesn't say" is a cop-out. Their policy is vile and there is no defense for it.

[Guest BewareofNick]

Oh, come now, Nick. The entire media has portrayed Craig as the "right wing congressman opponent of gay rights" caught soliciting sex in a public bathroom. It is silly to suggest that he has caught some kind of break due t the fact that he's a Republican.

As for Vitter, if we made every congressman who's entertained a hooker resign from Congress, the halls of both houses would be silent.

The problem with both Craig and Foley is not the legality of what they did (as a meter of fact, Foley broke no law). It was the completely inappropriate nature of their actions according to the moral perception of the large majority of the voting public. While the perception of the enlightened participants of this forum may be quite different, Middle America is never going to buy into acceptance of solicitation of sex in restrooms and having sexually charged conversations with teenagers. No matter what Fox News says or doesn't say.

You're making my point for me. Craig caught a break on Fox "News" because he is a Republican. Fox "News" tried to make its viewers think that Mark Foley was a Democrat. Fox always softpedals and downplays Republican scandals while going full bore after any Democrats involved in scandals.

While you make an adulterous point about Congress and hookers, why are you giving Vitter a pass? There's no difference between what he did and what Larry did. What Vitter has done is just as inappropriate, yet it doesn't even get the same coverage in the conservative media. However, if it did, you can be sure that Fox "News" would be there either to play apologist for Vitter or he would be mistakenly labeled as D-La.

[Guest Conway]

You're making my point for me. Craig caught a break on Fox "News" because he is a Republican. Fox "News" tried to make its viewers think that Mark Foley was a Democrat. Fox always softpedals and downplays Republican scandals while going full bore after any Democrats involved in scandals.

While you make an adulterous point about Congress and hookers, why are you giving Vitter a pass? There's no difference between what he did and what Larry did. What Vitter has done is just as inappropriate, yet it doesn't even get the same coverage in the conservative media. However, if it did, you can be sure that Fox "News" would be there either to play apologist for Vitter or he would be mistakenly labeled as D-La.

I think that there's a big difference in what Craig and Vitter did. The solicitation of sex, be it gay sex or straight sex in a public place creates, in the eyes of the law, a public menace. Vitter's offense, while still a crime, is victimless whether he hires a male prostitute or a female prostitute.

As for the "appropriateness" of the two incidents. I think that "appropriateness" is determined by the individual values of people viewing these incidents versus the law. You have to be hiding under a rock in this country to not understand that Fox News has an editorial viewpoint that appeals to conservatives. God knows there are years of historical evidence pointing to the fact that been biased otherwise politically over the years.

The American voting public is intelligent. They take the information disseminated to them by various media sources and judge it based on their own intelligence and ability to reason.

As for your statement regarding Mark Foley, I don't recall any segment of the media publicly avoiding his party affiliation- even though Foley never broke any laws. If anything, the whole Foley situation created political fodder at the expense of the GOP in numerous tight congressional races last fall.

[Guest BewareofNick]

I think that there's a big difference in what Craig and Vitter did. The solicitation of sex, be it gay sex or straight sex in a public place creates, in the eyes of the law, a public menace. Vitter's offense, while still a crime, is victimless whether he hires a male prostitute or a female prostitute.

What crime did Larry Craig commit? While I think we all know what Larry was after, he never actually solicited anyone for sex. David Vitter did. Vitter's crime was not victimless either, unless you discount his wife.

As for the "appropriateness" of the two incidents. I think that "appropriateness" is determined by the individual values of people viewing these incidents versus the law. You have to be hiding under a rock in this country to not understand that Fox News has an editorial viewpoint that appeals to conservatives. God knows there are years of historical evidence pointing to the fact that been biased otherwise politically over the years.

It is not just their editorial viewpoint that is biased. They slant all their news presentations to favor conservatives and make Democrats look bad. Rupert Murdoch himself stated that one of his directives at Fox "News" was to spin the Iraq war the president's way.

The American voting public is intelligent. They take the information disseminated to them by various media sources and judge it based on their own intelligence and ability to reason.

If the American public were that intelligent, there wouldn't BE a Fox "News". Fox viewers were the most likely to believe that Saddam and Iraq had a connection to 9/11. Fox viewers fervently believe that Bush let the UN weapons inspectors finish their job in Iraq when he did not. The list goes on...

As for your statement regarding Mark Foley, I don't recall any segment of the media publicly avoiding his party affiliation- even though Foley never broke any laws. If anything, the whole Foley situation created political fodder at the expense of the GOP in numerous tight congressional races last fall.

While there's no question that the Foley scandal was one of the many things that helped the GOP go down to defeat in '06, Fox did its best to try and minimize that damage, like it always does since it is the media arm of the GOP.

[Guest Conway]

Gosh, there's an awful lot of emotional things you've posted there most of which are matters of opinion rather than fact or law.

But, just for shits and giggles, please do tell what crime you believe it was that was committed against Vitter's wife. He broke the seventh commandment? Maybe?

[Guest BewareofNick]

Gosh, there's an awful lot of emotional things you've posted there most of which are matters of opinion rather than fact or law.

But, just for shits and giggles, please do tell what crime you believe it was that was committed against Vitter's wife. He broke the seventh commandment? Maybe?

Sweetie, I can back up every one of those statements with documentation and facts, not to be confused with the Fox 'News" version of "facts".

I am sure that Mrs. Vitter would not consider her marraige vows "shits and giggles". What he did is grounds for divorce.

[Guest Conway]

Sweetie, I can back up every one of those statements with documentation and facts, not to be confused with the Fox 'News" version of "facts".

I am sure that Mrs. Vitter would not consider her marraige vows "shits and giggles". What he did is grounds for divorce.

Sorry, Nick. But, to the best of my knowledge, violation of one's one's marriage vows don't constitute breaking a law. If you can find me a Louisiana statute that creates criminal liability for that act, I'll be happy to consider it.

You really need to be more careful in the way that you choose your words.

[Guest StuCotts]

I detect a deviation from the original point, which had nothing to do with breaking the law, despite Craig's plea of guilty to an illegal act, and everything to do with publicly preaching virtue while privately practising vice.

Craig et al lived in glass houses and threw stones. As a result they are, according to their own preachments, deserving of punishment on moral grounds. It's called taking personal responsibility, much preached but little practised by our right-wing brethren. As it happens, Vitter will probably get away with it. Craig may not.

Reports say that Craig's colleagues have been shunning him since he returned to work. They take criminality, largely their own, in stride every day, so his guilty plea can't be the reason. It must be fear of guilt by association with anything homosexual, accompanied by a sense of "There but for the grace of God go I".

P.S. I hope the irritating speculation about Craig being gay subsides. He is not. He has none of the honesty or self-awareness that goes into identifying as gay. He is quite simply what the media will never call him: a classic closet tearoom queen, with all the poverty of perception and bleakness of spirit that implies.

[caeron]

P.S. I hope the irritating speculation about Craig being gay subsides. He is not. He has none of the honesty or self-awareness that goes into identifying as gay. He is quite simply what the media will never call him: a classic closet tearoom queen, with all the poverty of perception and bleakness of spirit that implies.

I am gay.

Craig is a cock-sucker.

There is a difference.

[Guest Conway]

I detect a deviation from the original point, which had nothing to do with breaking the law, despite Craig's plea of guilty to an illegal act, and everything to do with publicly preaching virtue while privately practising vice.

Craig et al lived in glass houses and threw stones. As a result they are, according to their own preachments, deserving of punishment on moral grounds. It's called taking personal responsibility, much preached but little practised by our right-wing brethren. As it happens, Vitter will probably get away with it. Craig may not.

Reports say that Craig's colleagues have been shunning him since he returned to work. They take criminality, largely their own, in stride every day, so his guilty plea can't be the reason. It must be fear of guilt by association with anything homosexual, accompanied by a sense of "There but for the grace of God go I".

P.S. I hope the irritating speculation about Craig being gay subsides. He is not. He has none of the honesty or self-awareness that goes into identifying as gay. He is quite simply what the media will never call him: a classic closet tearoom queen, with all the poverty of perception and bleakness of spirit that implies.

I agree with everything that you say (su-prise!!), Stu with the exception that I believe that our, or should I say my, right wing brethren hold no exclusive claim to lack of personal accountability where public figures are concerned.

We have turned our electoral process into a circus of soundbites, as evidenced by posts in this very thread, where the entire intended content of a man's idea is less important than the headline grabbing misconstrued soundbite that may be contained within it.

[lookin]

a classic closet tearoom queen . . .

A classic closet tearoom queen

Is seldom heard and rarely seen.

She’ll never show her arm or leg,

Or tap her foot like Larry Craig.

She sits quite still upon the throne,

And marks the time she’s all alone.

But once you flash your nine-inch bat,

She’s on her knees in seconds flat.

[Guest StuCotts]

I agree with everything that you say (su-prise!!), Stu with the exception that I believe that our, or should I say my, right wing brethren hold no exclusive claim to lack of personal accountability where public figures are concerned.

We have turned our electoral process into a circus of soundbites, as evidenced by posts in this very thread, where the entire intended content of a man's idea is less important than the headline grabbing misconstrued soundbite that may be contained within it.

Right-wingers have no monopoly on lack of personal responsibility. They do take the blue ribbon for preaching it. The contrast is what earns them the contempt that attends their moral failings.

[Guest StuCotts]

A classic closet tearoom queen

Is seldom heard and rarely seen.

She’ll never show her arm or leg,

Or tap her foot like Larry Craig.

She sits quite still upon the throne,

And marks the time she’s all alone.

But once you flash your nine-inch bat,

She’s on her knees in seconds flat.

Write an innocent little clause in iambic tetrameter, and before you know it everybody's a poet. I'm condemned to inarticulate envy.

[lookin]

Write an innocent little clause in iambic tetrameter, and before you know it everybody's a poet. I'm condemned to inarticulate envy.

Innocent, maybe. Little, perhaps. But a prettier one I've never seen.

You have a gift, mister!

[AdamSmith]

a classic closet tearoom queen, with all the poverty of perception and bleakness of spirit that implies.

Far from little, to me this moves toward the piercing sweep of closing lines in late Whitman.

The whole post is a model of discernment and expression, for my money.

Come to think of it, this entire thread is how good political debate ought to go.

[lookin]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/washingt...5charge.html?hp

It looks like the Republicans are preparing to tear each other to shreds to the delight of all writers of lurid headlines. But I can't help thinking that at some point gays are going to be scapegoated as the villains of the piece for everybody else to dump on.

You may very well be right. It will be interesting to see if the Senate Ethics Committee builds a mock-up of the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport stalls, just to show how it’s done. I’ve been practicing my footwork, in case they need an expert witness.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20071004/D8S2LR3O0.html

Craig Vows to Stay Despite Court Loss

Oct 4, 5:37 PM (ET)

WASHINGTON (AP) - Idaho Sen. Larry Craig defiantly vowed to serve out his term in office on Thursday despite losing a court attempt to rescind his guilty plea in a men's room sex sting.

"I have seen that it is possible for me to work here effectively," Craig said in a written statement certain to disappoint fellow Republicans who have long urged him to step down.

. . .

Craig's decision to stay and fight raises the strong possibility of public hearings - virtually certain to be televised live - centered on the issue of gay sex.

. . .

Craig says his actions in the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport bathroom June 11 were misconstrued by the police officer who arrested him.

The officer said Craig had looked into his bathroom stall, and tapped his foot and moved his hand under the divider in a way that suggested he was looking for a sexual partner.

Craig denied that in an interview with the officer after his arrest.

. . .

[Guest StuCotts]

You may very well be right. It will be interesting to see if the Senate Ethics Committee builds a mock-up of the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport stalls, just to show how it’s done. I’ve been practicing my footwork, in case they need an expert witness.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20071004/D8S2LR3O0.html

Craig Vows to Stay Despite Court Loss

Oct 4, 5:37 PM (ET)

WASHINGTON (AP) - Idaho Sen. Larry Craig defiantly vowed to serve out his term in office on Thursday despite losing a court attempt to rescind his guilty plea in a men's room sex sting.

"I have seen that it is possible for me to work here effectively," Craig said in a written statement certain to disappoint fellow Republicans who have long urged him to step down.

. . .

Craig's decision to stay and fight raises the strong possibility of public hearings - virtually certain to be televised live - centered on the issue of gay sex.

. . .

Craig says his actions in the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport bathroom June 11 were misconstrued by the police officer who arrested him.

The officer said Craig had looked into his bathroom stall, and tapped his foot and moved his hand under the divider in a way that suggested he was looking for a sexual partner.

Craig denied that in an interview with the officer after his arrest.

. . .

Assuming that the Senate Ethics (sic) Committee hearings are not only public but exhaustively televised, expect the long knives to be in evidence from word one. There will be much horror expressed about gay sex in public toilets. That will do us arguably more harm than it does to Craig because it will be aimed at a constituency that a priori thinks the worst of gays.

We know the difference between what we are and what Craig is. The distinction will be lost on Mr. and Mrs. America.

Thr Republicans, in their grotesquely delusional state, will be determined to restore as much lustre as possible to their severely scuffed self-image as champions of civic and family virtue drenched in heavenly grace. They will deflect shame from themselves by any available means. And whatever loss of face they suffer in the hearings, they will stop at nothing to insure that others suffer more. That's us.

I'm reminded of an analogous case. When high school massacres first erupted, there was a movement among clean-living heartland folk to blame it all on the evil influences emanating from the big bad cities. It died quickly under the weight of its own ridiculousness. The significant thing is that it was attempted at all.

[Guest StuCotts]

Craig's latest consignment of bullshit, courtesy of NBC and Matt Lauer, reminds me of:

I always did the kind of thing I orta. Sorta.

To you I was a faithful as can be. Fer me.

Those stories about how I lost my bloomers. Rumors!

A lot of tempest in a pot of tea.

I wonder what kind of ratings the interview got. My guess is low ones.