My Larry Craig Strategy
Throughout this whole debacle with Larry Craig and his wide stance, the main theme seems to be blinding hypocrisy on virtually everyone's part. The observation would seem to be correct that he didn't actually do anything criminal, although he confessed to a misdemeanor after being pressured and implicitly threatened with exposure.
Was it entrapment? Well, duh. It used to be, not long ago when most states still had laws prohibiting sodomy, predominantly applied only to acts involving men, that the police forces in those states liked to claim that although they had the law they were actually enlightened about the gay lifestyle and never enforced it. Typically there would follow an entrapment or bar raid within about two weeks at which gay men were rounded up, harassed and incarcerated, perhaps a few were caught "resisting arrest" and had to be roughed up, and then with luck — on the part of the police — the men's names would be published in a newspaper.
This was why it was so important that the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws as unconstitutional in 2003 — yes, it was that recent — because even if they were only enforced capriciously and infrequently they were frequently used to harass, subdue, and extort. Now there are no more sodomy laws, but attitudes among policy makers, law enforcement, and the public have yet to catch up and harassment continues.
Then the question arises: should Craig resign? Hey, he's a Republican and I like to see Republican hypocrites get their comeuppance, but what's served by his resignation? The governor of Idaho appears already to be salivating to replace Craig and an appointee, so it's yet another Republican with who-know-what skeletons in his, um, closet.
Is Craig gay? Who cares, and why should you care? I don't really care what he calls himself or where he is in his personal road to self-acceptance, although I don't have much time these days for closet cases. He can call himself what he wants but no one should use the technique of "defining gay" to try to get at what was going on. Craig was soliciting for sex in a men's restroom, so he at least has once desired to have sex with another man, regardless of what one wants to call it. And, regardless of the name, there's no there there, to quote a famous lesbian (or: woman who bonded emotionally to women and may have had sex with the same).
Therefore, my considered strategy for Craig that might do some good for him and everyone else involved or observing and snickering is this: Do not resign. Announce that you will not resign because you have violated no laws nor any serious breaches of ethics in the Senate. Announce that you are indeed a man who has had sex with men, that you've denied it for too long but intend to adopt a healthier attitude from here on out, and dare anyone to call you morally broken. Announce that, since the Republican party evidently does not welcome you for the arbitrary reason that you are a man who has had sex with men, henceforth you will be a Democrat and that you intend to run for re-election as a Democrat, thus shocking both Republicans and Democrats who are feeling smug and superior.
So there.
3 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Saturday, 1 September 2007 at 01.50
Permalink
See that's his problem. If only he had broken some laws or violated some ethical code, everyone on the right would be defending him and falling all over themselves explaining why laws and ethical codes don't apply to fine people like him.
But, noooooo! He had SEX! With a man! He must be vilified. Too bad they can't stone him in the public square.
Has he found Jesus yet? I keep waiting to hear that he has but I haven't seen that reported so far.
on Saturday, 1 September 2007 at 02.20
Permalink
There's reason to believe many, maybe all, of Craig's fellow Republicans in the Senate had a strong inkling the man was not a straight-and-narrow heterosexual. Yet he encountered no trouble from them because of it, at least none that's come to light.
What got off with Senate Republicans is that, at a time when the GOP is already to scandals what Krispy Kreme is to donuts, and when the religious right has been making angry noises about its agenda getting short shrift, Craig's toilet takedown served to make matters worse. They're all about winning. This wasn't helpful.
As for Craig coming out of the closet, even if he wanted to, doing so probably would have him in deeper trouble at home and throughout Idaho.
on Saturday, 1 September 2007 at 09.56
Permalink
Senator Tappy McWidestance is on record as saying that he had no idea that those foot taps etc could be interpreted as asking for sex.
[why the very thought! clutch the pearls!]
that is belied when you read the police interview. at one point he says "You were soliciting me!".
How would he come to THAT conclusion if he had not the whisper of a notion that foot-tapping was indeed soliciting for sex?
(and, as I read elsewhere, even if he didn't [yeah, right] get the solicitation overtones of foot-tapping and finger-waggling, how does he explain the eye contact through the cubicle door crack? extended eye contact is understood even by rampant heterosexuals.)
He's sad, just as Pastor Ted of Colorado was. Enmeshed in his own rationalisations and need to deny. My sympathy for him is limited by his nastiness to homos, but he does find himself (and has for years) in a very uncomfortable and sad position.
Did you see this YouTube clip from Little Britain of a similar situation? Maybe that's how Tappy McWidestance should have spoken to the press.