Print
Email Friend
Add to Favorites
del.icio.us
Digg It!
Slashdot It!
This past week-end I spent at least an hour over a rather fabulous dinner at 1480 KPHX sponsor Harley's Italian eaterie, with a very good friend (also rather fabulous I might add) discussing Senator Larry Craig. My friend it seems, with the idealistic principles of Dennis Kucinich minus the desire to act on them, held the position that Democrats were missing a perfect opportunity. He thought Larry Craig the gay man, should find champions in some faction of the Democratic party, at least the GLBT sector, to come out (no pun intended) and advocate for his rights! Craig was, after all, being persecuted by Republicans for being gay, not for a misdemeanor crime. Senator David Vinter on the other hand is *not* facing Republican ousting (presuming he did have sex "with that woman") because he is straight.
While I spent most of the time arguing that having sex with the same sex did not make you gay (ambi-homosexuals and ambi-heterosexuals may be less known but make up some portion of "homosexual" activity) and secondarily that it was not in Democrats best interest to back a guy that was first, a hypocrite and second, accused of a crime, my friend kept hammering on the "principle" thing; it was a mater of principle: being gay should not net the punishment of expulsion from public service (again, no pun intended) and Democrats should be the party willing to say it!
Given all that, now that Larry has decided to fight back should he just "come out" as a gay man and fight the misdemeanor charge (maybe it was entrapment) still registered as a Republican? I think so, because that of course allows people like me to mercilessly roast the entire Republican party for throwing poor Larry "at" (not even under) the bus while the Gay Old Party goes into denial over Vinter, but what does it do for Craig?
Well, if --when the investigation gets really ugly decoding the Madam's diary linking Vinter with oh-- gay WH press/hooker Jeff Gannon --Larry's little rub (okay, that was a pun) starts to look like positively great news! Then Craig can reregister as an Independent, caucusing with Democrats to screw Republicans on important "family values" legislation (not to mention war funding) and throw the whole damn party under the bus!!
Well, it wasn't me who was arguing about principles!
Will The Gay Larry Craig Please Come Out?
|
Posted By: CLB Posted on: Sep. 5, 2007 at 9:03 AM  24 Comments
|
2.5 / 5
Based on 3 ratings.
|
Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.
Signup for an accountComments:
|
Sep. 5, 2007 at 09:58:58 AM
|
Rating for this article
|
| Yea, but what if it was entrapment? What if the cop was lingering there giving out some kind of "come hither" gay signals hoping to reel in a prize? Did he know the guy was a Senator? And what if (like any sane politician) he decided it would cause him much less public embarassment to just plead guilty and hope it went away? Maybe it was even his wife's idea to just plead and get it over with. I'm sure she was not interested in the gossip. How did his story finally get out? I don't have such a rigid view on the law; a crime is a crime is a crime kind of thing. To me murder? Now that's criminal. Sex? Well, except in Texas, hardly. and misdemeanors are barely crimes--look at driving infractions. They don't get you booted out of politics! |
||
|
Sep. 5, 2007 at 10:11:59 AM
|
|
| There's no problem with the Democratic Party opening wide (that was a pun) to gay men. There's is a problem with welcoming hypocrites however. That is the only crime Craig is really guilty of, and given that this hypocrite directly made it possible to enact the very same anti-gay legislation that pushed him underground to seek his sex in airport restrooms in the first place, and then get arrested for doing so, I think that neither party should touch him with a ten foot pole (another pun). Now this hypocrite wants to convince us that he is not what he is, and to stay in office where he can continues to push more intolerance our way. A double whammy of despicableness. He deserves every inch of our scorn. We must remain rigid in our opposition to his backdoor political tactics, and impale him upon his own duplicitous rhetoric. Ultimately, under the constant pounding of our righteous wrath, we will force Craig to pull out, swallow his pride, hobble away in shame, and wipe that s***-eating grin off his face. |
||
|
Sep. 5, 2007 at 10:44:09 AM
|
|
| I don't disagree with the possibility of entrapment. I don't put it past anyone. I just find it a little hard to believe that a cop sitting in a bathroom stall would know that a Senator was lurking around outside. On top of that, these activities happened in Minneapolis. Not exactly his stomping grounds. How would police know that he was traveling through? On top of that, I am not sure that a Minneapolis police officer would even know who he was. I do stand corrected on the level of the charge. A misdemeanor is a lot different from a felony. I may have been reacting to frustration with all politicians these days. I just am really tired of all of them hiding from their own personal responsibilities. If they are going to be so lofty in their opinions, they better live the life that they preach (that may have been a Freudian slip). |
||
|
Sep. 5, 2007 at 03:51:15 PM
|
|
| I think that Senator Craig should fight the charges and should not resign until his fate is decided by the justice system. Whether or not he is homosexual does not really matter here. The fact is, I don't see the criminal activities here. First off, it is a "he said, he said story. A police officer's "perception" that Senator Craig might commit a crime. We only know from what the police officer said that Senator Craig "peeped into the partition through the crack." Other than the officer, who else says this? Then there was all of the other things. (the tapping, the touching of the shoes, the reaching his hand under the partition) None of these things are criminal acts. Perhaps they are bizaar, I would admit that, and even may be a signal to other homosexual men. However, is it illegal, even if Senator Craig was soliciting a homosexual encounter, to do it in the bathroom? How do we know that if Senator Craig whould have been "lucky", that he would have invited his "date" to the Airport NoTell Motel for the encounter? The point is, there was no "entrapment" only because there was no crime. No words were exchanged between the police officer and Mr' Craig. No indication that he wanted a sexual encounter, and no proof that he would have committed an illegal act in the bathroom. (if it was his intent to pick up a homosexual partner) Remember, just because someone previous to Mr. Craig did these things in the bathroom is not an indication that Mr. Craig would have. Unless an illegal act in which Mr. Craig agreed to was discussed prior to the arrest, it is only the police officer's "perception" that Mr. Craig was going to commit a crime. I think that what needs to be understood here is that Mr. Craig told us why he pleaded guilty to the charge. He thought he could avoid what has happened to him now. He said "I wanted it to go away". To me, knowing this society, and how polorized it has become, I have to say I understand. I am sure that this happens every day. A police officer "strongly encourages" a person to plead guilty for fear of being publicly humilated for being a homosexual. Mr. Craig's guilty plea is the reaction to the society he understands, and no doubt, he helped to foster. We really don't know how many people have "pleaded guilty" because they feared they would not get a fair trial based on what society thinks of them. I know alot of the responders here will look at him and "assume him guilty". Ask yourself why? Is it because you assume he was trying to "pick up" a homosexual encounter, and that makes you judge him? Is it that he is against the "gay agenda"? Is it because he is repubican? Some "right wingers" here will denounce him simply because of politics. They want it to go away. I say, let him face his accusers. At least someone in Congress has a spine.
|
||
|
|
Sep. 5, 2007 at 04:38:51 PM
|
|
| Sheesh, Of course his being a homosexual doesn't matter. Who said that it does? It also doesn't matter that he broke a dumb law. I wouldn't ask him to step down if he got caught doing 65 mph in a 55 mph zone either. What matters is the hypocrisy. He is not fit be a legislator if he practices the exact opposite of what he so vehemently preaches. I don't hire ex-bank robbers as tellers; why should I hire this self-loathing closet homosexual to make legislation affecting the destiny of so many gay people? What else does he supposedly stand or not stand for. Even if he makes a successful case for entrapment, he is not exonerated from being a duplicitous hypocrite, and he should be booted from high office. |
||
|
|
Sep. 5, 2007 at 04:50:11 PM
|
|
| Zan, Interesting side of the story. If I am not mistaken, there is a law in Minnesota that does address this. I could be wrong, but I do seem to recall a legal expert pointing that out. He also pointed out that there were a number of sting operations going on at that airport due to a number of problems that they had going on. I guess my stance is that he did plead guilty! If he was innocent, why would he do that. If he felt so strongly that he was wronged, why did he not stand up and say so from the word go? He is now backtracking in order to save face and try and save his career. With all that has gone on in the government lately, you would think that he would clearly understand the implications on any action that he took. You are correct, there is no crime in being homosexual. It is a personal matter for each person and yes, it is not illegal. I am not making any beefs about that. I think I am just tired of politicians, that we are paying for with our tax dollars, that try and use their position to change the laws and procedures that they have been entrusted to draft, debate, and sign into legislation. I have politicians on both sides of the aisle use their power to avert what you and I could not. I just want politicians to stand up for what they believe in and practice it as well. |
||
|
|
Sep. 5, 2007 at 05:09:20 PM
|
|
| MiC He did not plead guilty to hypocracy !!! |
||
|
|
Sep. 5, 2007 at 05:37:47 PM
|
|
| Zan, Wasn't Craig the guy that went after Bill Clinton? I call that hypocritical. |
||
|
|
Sep. 5, 2007 at 05:49:26 PM
|
|
| I don't care what he plead guilty to -- if he was an innocent victim of a frame up, the dupe of an entrapment, or a bathroom trouser snake predator. You shouldn't care either. And if he is guilty of this crime, that in and of itself is not a reason to demand he step down. If our admission criteria to Congress was a spotless moral record free of sexual impropriety, then we would have very few Congressmen indeed. What should matter to you is if the person you elect to represent you says he stands for one thing, but actually practices another. That seems to be a pretty big conflict of interests, and the man is not fit to represent me or make laws. I'm not asking for him to go to jail or be tortured; I'm just asking him to get out of the business of representing people when he can't even represent himself accurately. |
||
I really don't care of he is gay or not. To each their own, but he has plead to a crime and that should be the basis of his dismissal. Legal experts have already pointed out that he is going to have a very difficult time getting this turned over as he had many weeks to review the charge and fully understand it. He understands English and has enough attorneys to help him interpret what was presented to him. It is just an attempt to save face. And you and I know that he will not the the support of his own party.
No matter the party, a crime is a crime. We just don't need to have them in public office. It is our tax payer dollars that pay his salary. But with that said, there may be no one left in Washington!
Report Abuse