Thursday, September 06, 2007

All the wrong reasons

Yes, we are all sick of hearing about Larry Craig. But there is one thing which keeps going unsaid, and should be said. Despite the claims of the Republican leadership that this is not about Craig being gay, in fact that is exactly what it is all about. The only one who seems to get that is Craig himself, whose major public statements have consisted of repeated, desperate denials that he is gay.

It is a wonderful illustration of the problem the Republicans have bought themselves by relying on hate to build their coalition. They cannot come out and say they are throwing one of their own under the bus for being gay. That would cement their position as the party of intolerance. But they have to satisfy their base, which, to be honest, doesn't give a damn about some minor infraction in an airport mens' room. All you have to do is listen to the conservative radio folks to know that, for them, Craig's homosexuality IS what it's all about, and they want Craig out. So the Senate leaders pretend it is about the infraction, while tacitly reassuring their "base" that they can be counted on to root out any sign of queerness from the ranks.

This writer is no fan of Larry Craig. He has been wrong on a lot of stuff, most of all in his hypocritical campaign against human rights in America. But he should not be losing his office over this. As in the Ted Haggard case, the Republicans, handed a golden opportunity to re-examine their doctrine of intolerance, have instead dug themselves deeper into the hole. And Craig, handed a golden opportunity to come out and become a free man, has thrown away the key to his own prison.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Carlos - my point on this is sideways to yours. Does it make any sense that Airport bathrooms are hotbeds for gay activity? Where is the privacy to even start the thrill? A thrill comes from the chance of getting caught, not the inevitability. Aren't there better places for that? If so, why is the vice squad not there?

Also ... if you were single and hetero, is it against the law to try to pick up a gal at an airport bar with secret hand signals?

I think Craig's proclivities were known, he was targeted, and he arrogantly went with the dangerous fun. You can tell ... he had no sense of the consequences of some simple acts. I think it's entrapment.

Call me a conspiracy theorists, or, call me someone who just one day decides to ask ... does this make any sense?

As to who wins out of all this, I really don't care to speculate. I think our political process is so corrupt to the heart of the mission (not in bribes,) that it really doesn't matter who initiated it. Everyone is piling on with their own pork barrel.

E ... your fan. Write a book, Carlos.

September 08, 2007 3:44 PM  
Blogger Carlos Zapato said...

Who knows if it was a sting...? If so, that really strains credulity. When they went after Clinton for his private shenanigans, I had the same reaction: who gives a flying f---? If you're going to throw a guy out of office, for gods' sake, do it for reasons that matter! I don't care what party they're from, I want them judged on what they do on the job, not what they do on the side.

September 09, 2007 12:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, I know, but who uses fairplay in business or life? A few, who are worth being around. A big system goes by the lowest common denominator, and to your point ... it doesn't matter what you think the criteria for action should be. It's what is most expedient to the people doing it ...

February 22, 2008 6:54 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home