Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Larry Craig's Pullout Strategy
Will he or won't he? Let's consult the Ouija board of Washington sex-scandals past:
- Bill Clinton: Democrat, had actual sexual contact with female intern in the Oval Office. In.
- Sen. David Vitter: Republican, had actual sex (we assume, or he should get his money back) with female prostitute. In.
- Rep. Mark Foley: Republican, wrote flirtatious messages to male pages (which, unless you're a wishful thinking 14-year-old, doesn't constitute actual sex). Out.
Thus, in all likelihood Sen. Larry Craig, Republican, who did nothing more than play footsie with an undercover male cop in an airport restroom, will likely be out. Out of his job, that is. Definitely not out of the closet yet.
Because both parties, though they like to dress up in puritanical values like a little girl in a white dress on confirmation day, are clearly all-too-comfortable in the sweat-stained wife beater of homophobia. This isn't exactly a grand revelation when it comes to the Republicans. Increasingly over the last several decades, Republicans have relied on right wing moralizing to unite voters around them by inflaming bigotry against others.
But in denouncing Craig, the Democrats are revealing their own true nature isn't very different. Yes, Craig attacked gay rights while seeking male companionship in public restrooms. Studies show that very often, the most virulent homophobes are, in fact, closet cases. Indignation at Craig's hypocrisy can be tempered with downright pity for a prominent Senator so ashamed and repressed in his sexuality that he was forced to troll for action in the Minneapolis airport of all places. Still, Craig's hypocrisy --- born out of self-loathing and desperation --- is nothing compared with the Democrats, whose hypocrisy is calculating, manipulative and far more destructive in the long haul.
After all, Craig is just one hypocritical senator from Idaho. The Democratic party, on the other hand, is responsible for half of the political playing field in our country --- and deciding what constitutes a foul versus fair game. In this case, they've taken some cheap shots themselves --- and, just as problematically, have joined teams with Craig's homophobic critics, the Democrats angling to gain points from political backlash instead of blowing the whistle against injustice.
So when Bill Clinton boinked a White House intern in the Oval Office, the Democrats defended him. When Larry Craig did a few hand signals with a consenting adult in a bathroom stall, Democrats are positively giddy with the opportunity to attack. For instance, on its website, the Democratic Party includes Craig on it's list of Republican Embarrassments. Of course, the site doesn't mention that Craig's "disorderly conduct" was with a man. We already know that, and now know that the Democrats think that gay sex is embarrassing.
(Mind you, the Democrats don't say anything about Craig's hypocritical anti-gay public policy. How could they when they're not exactly Episcopalian choir boys on the subject, if you know what I mean.)
The lesson here is that homophobia knows no party. Either party is happy to tap into anti-gay undercurrents in our society to ingratiate themselves to the homophobic masses. Never mind that the majority of Americans support rights like civil unions and death benefits for gay couples. The very nature of discrimination is that people can concede to granting a community rights even though they think that community is decidedly inferior. The same can be said with race and racial justice. White folks say they support creating opportunities for African Americans and other historically marginalized communities of color. But politicians are nonetheless quick to use racialized stereotypes like the "welfare queen" to trigger and manipulate deep racism among voters. And the voters, in turn, respond.
In other words, when push comes to shove, the Democrats are just as likely to throw the gay folks and African Americans and other communities they've courted overboard to appeal to presumably racist soccer moms and homophobic Nascar dads --- the coveted "swing" voters who don't seem all that important if the base of the party is lost. But Democrats, who should already be ashamed of their pathetic lack of leadership on gay rights, should be even more ashamed that they have helped to fan the anti-gay flames engulfing Larry Craig.
Craig didn't actually have sex with anyone. For all we know, had he successfully picked up the gentleman in the next stall, the two would have gone off to a nearby airport motel --- since there wasn't an oval office nearby.
Flirting isn't illegal. Even with a man. Even in Minneapolis. Nor is it immoral. What is immoral are Democrats trying to tell us otherwise.
Sally Kohn is the director of the Movement Vision Project, working with grassroots community-led organizations across the United States to identify our shared, long-term vision for the future.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



20 Comments so far
Show AllSally Sally Sally. Craig was NOT flirting, with plans of going to go to an airport hotel. He was worried about missing his flight. He was just looking for quick sex in a public men's room. That's ILLEGAL. And it should be. AND it was immoral. AND it was hypocritical considering his homophobic congressional voting record. Craig should be humiliated and tossed out off office. No one should condone his bahavior. Your argument that he didn't actually have sex with the cop so he didn't break any laws -- That is like saying the robber with the mask walking into a bank with a gun didn't break any laws because the cops sacked him once he was inside. Just because Craig didn't get to feel up a guy when he reached under the stall divider doesn't mean he's not guilty. And he knew it when he pled guilty.
The Sexual Outlaws
"Powerful gays who could afford to be daring, remain in silence. The quiet rich, the closeted politicians, uncommitted gay move directors, cowardly producers, clowning gay writers. And the often politically reactionary gay middle class threatened by the prospect of having to see prosecution of homosexuals in the context of all other minority prosecution; they cringe -- these uptight middle class homosexuals -- in stylishly decored, ferned homes -- at the thought of street sex. Soothed now by the now-reactionary lisps of the largest-circulation gay newspaper -- The Advocate -- they forget, the silent rich, the cozy students, the "quiet" couples -- that the outlaw absorbs the hatred that would otherwise swallow them." - John Rechy, The Sexual Outlaw: A Documentary, 1984
I dodn't think the Democrats defended Clinton. They voted against forcing him from office because they did not feel that he had committed a crime that was warranted the action the GOP demanded. And it is not now the Democrats who are insisting that Sen. Craig resign. It is the same GOP. They want him out of the way so that they can appoint his successor who will have a year to solidify his position before the 08 elections. The Democrats tolerate openly gay members in their party. The GOP wants to claim they don't exist. Which is the honest approach?
The key point is the one she makes where she points out that in their reaction to the Craig case, the Democrats have revealed themselves to be just as homophobic as the Republicans. Wow, yet another issue where there is no difference between the two corporate parties.
The Dems have a long history of this. They have certain special interest groups that tend to support them in elections. So the Dems basically lie too these groups constantly. The Dems lie and lie and lie in pretending to be allies of groups like the gays and lesbians (and minorities, and the anti-war movement, and the environmentalists, and people who oppose bush's police state, etc). The Dems will go to groups like the gays and make great little speeches that create the illusion of support.
It takes something like this case where you can easily see that the Democrats are as homophobic as the Republicans to show the lie that is the core of what the Democrats are. The Dems are another corporate party that lies to these groups to get their support. The trick is to notice that the Dems never actually do anything to help these groups. And then to notice the times like the Craig case when short-term political advantage causes the Democrats to drop the veil and the lies and reveal their true nature. When you see they are as mean and nasty and as homophobic as the Republicans, then you know what you are dealing with in the Democrats.
ruscle: I dislike Craig's hypocrisy and I don't agree with his methods of picking people up (but then he *is* an old-school closet-case, and in the repressive anti-gay environment he's been surrounded by his whole life it isn't surprising). however, he didn't do a single thing wrong--except allow a PIG to entrap and humiliate him.
As long as people are discreet I don't care what they do in bathroom stalls together. The bigger issue here is this: why do we have PIGS waiting in bathrooms trying to entrap gay men? What kind of screwed up priorities are those? Are we afraid of gay terrorists in our airports or something?
Eh????
A deceptive Republican pushing against rights of gays being busted by a cop trained to pick up on signals for public sex propositioning? (Albeit a dumb cop who should have waited for something like Rep. Robert "Bob" Allen's scenario http://christopherstreet.vox.com/library/post/another-republican-another-sex-scandal.html )
C'mon, nobody stares through a crack in a stall for 2 minutes. You look in to see if someone is there then wait for them to leave if you're just checking for your own toilet needs. Also next time on the can with your pants down see how easy it is to spread your legs to touch the foot of the person next to you.
The link to the Dems your reporting states only this:
"Larry Craig - Sen. Craig pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in incident where police report documented conduct in a Minneapolis airport restroom. Craig also returned $43,500 in campaign contributions received from Brent Wilkes and his business associates after an Idaho repored that he sponsored an amendment to earmark a $3 million contract to Wilkes' company."
I find this article quite exaggerated as the hypocrisy be it psychological or otherwise should be addressed, and a good rationale for convincing Conservatives to wake up to the reality of their party which is not what it appears.
Besides Craig is still in denial of the truth of himself and the situation. If this is about closet gay peccadillos shouldn't we be more concerned with his denial and a recant on his stance against gay rights?
I find that the greater issue here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cQ3Y4OIhgU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72ZO6w0rl6Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF6eRIAA6mE
(been waiting ages for a craig story to post these)
While I loathe everything Mr. Craig represents, what's going to be funny is when Senator Craig gets his plea changed and the entire case tossed out of court -- his arrest was unconstitutional because he is a member of Congress who was either on his way to or from Congress. The constitution is pretty clear about this.
And don't the security people at airports have better things to do than hang around the toilets trying to stop sexual encounters? Like maybe, stopping a hijacking or something?
And as usual, you should be asking:
WHAT WAS HAPPENING WHILE THE ARREST OF LARRY CRAIG CAUSED THIS OPPORTUNE DISTRACTION?
It's tempting to make a joke out of the title "Larry Craig's Pullout Strategy" but I won't do it. HAHA
I would think the reason why the security people at the airport are hanging around the bathrooms trying to stop sexual encounters is because this is a public place with the potential for minors to enter. Picture this scenario, a mom is at the airport with her son. The son has to go to the bathroom; the mom cannot accompany him. Would you want your son to enter into a bathroom alone knowing that the bathroom is being used for potential sexual encounters? The point is not to "entrap gay men", the point is to protect the public from persons who are exhibiting predatory sexual behaviors. To me, this is a very appropriate use of security.
With that said, I could care less what consenting adults do together. I live in the State of Idaho, and I would rather have a gay senator than a lying senator.
This is getting annoying. Sally, you should get your facts straight rather than from the MSN. Monica was not, repeat not, a White House intern at the time of her affair with Slick Willie. To be fair, virtually everyone in the news media makes this mistake, but it still is wrong.
Should we refer to you as a high school graduate rather than as the director of the Movement Vision Project? It'd be just as accurate.
Lorax,
Go ahead and make the joke - It fits right in with the Senator thanking the press for "Coming Out'.
There is little enough to laugh about in the daily news, don't waste the few chances that are handed to you on a platter!
Ha Ha! Ha Ha! and Ha Ha yet again!
And the article didn't even explain just what the 'pull out strategy' was. Guess we'll have to wait for a later edition.
Why was this Article even selected for CommonDreams?!? A more confused mish-mash of illogic I have never seen on this site. What IS her Point???
That some Democrats have made a bit of political hay out of this is quite irrelevant.
The Point IS, that this Criminal - by the Laws that He Himself helped to Create was caught. Such utter Hypocracy is difficult for me to understand. Yet, it exists. This Criminal, Craig, had diminished the lives of millions ! Stolen their Civil Rights, incarcerated thousands, and denied basic Human Rights to uncountable millions of Americans. That is the Point! Those of his Ilk...can anyone say Guillotine.
Yep, norm, I personally don't care who is gay and who is not and I think gay people should be given all the same rights as "straight" people. The point here is, this gay bashing, self hating fool is the one that pressed for exactly this kind of law enforcement and is now stewing in his own pot...He deserves everything he is getting and more, it's called Karma and rarely to we get to witness it in such a grand fashion...
It is probably true that there is not much difference in the personal actions of both political party members. The difference is that the Repulsives set themselves up as saints and hide behind some twisted religious blather while the Dems expect that their members will get out of line occasionally and do not constantly preach how pure they are.
"Would you want your son to enter into a bathroom alone knowing that the bathroom is being used for potential sexual encounters?" MarklarMan maybe the question should be: would you want your son to enter into a public bathroom alone knowing a politician was in there?
He's in, no he's out, he's in, he's out, in, out, in, ou-
ooohhhh, yuk.
Just another farcical act in the tragicomedy that America has become. norm I agree - doesn't seem to square with what has been appearing on the news. Seems to me it is the Repugs doing all the screaming. Just what the hell was she talking about?
Sexual Repression and Aggression
Sexual repression is closely related with aggression. This relation has several aspects: From the personal experience of aggression before and relaxation after the orgasm up to ethnographical results about higher aggression in sex-repressive societies. The results we describe here show especially one not well-known aspect of this relation:
Criminal psychopaths are usually very rigid moralists.
The relation between sex repression and aggression is a powerful argument against any form of sexual repression, inclusive the repression of pedosexual relations.
http://paedosexualitaet.de/repr/aggression.html
Unless I missed something in the last day or two, the Culprit Who Would Be Victim hasn't directly informed us yet whether he's coming or going. The last I heard, some spokesperson suggested that the Senator had reconsidered his reconsideration and was pulling out after all. No word on whether he was spilling his seed on the ground, though.
The Sunday yak shows will demand closure, Senator; it's time to shit or get off the pot-- more accurately, to do whatever it is that you think you're doing on the pot once you've established your wide stance, or get off the pot.
PS: Others may find otherwise, but I can't comment on this fulsome matter without double-entendre springing up like weeds.
Truth is, that our police should be deployed not to stop foot tapping in bathroom stalls at the airport, but into dirty book store video rooms to stop excessively nasty masturbaters. Where are our priorities here?
Sally Kohn wrote: "But Democrats, who should already be ashamed of their pathetic lack of leadership on gay rights, should be even more ashamed that they have helped to fan the anti-gay flames engulfing Larry Craig."
It's true the Dems could be stronger on the issue of gay rights -- I'm reminded here of Hillary's hemming and hawing about gay marriage -- but to the people I talk to, this isn't about being gay, it's about the stunning hypocrisy of Republicans like Craig who want to control the private sex lives of others when they can't control themselves. Put it this way: If a Democrat had pled guilty to this charge under these circumstances, would Craig have forgiven him or used it as political fodder to the decry Dems as "nasty, naughty, bad people" not fit for public office, as he did to Bill Clinton in 1999? I think the answer is obvious.
Also, as Kristina40 mentioned, it's also damn nice to watch karma unfolding when the GOP has gotten away with so much sleaze over the past six years.
"Craig didn't actually have sex with anyone. For all we know, had he successfully picked up the gentleman in the next stall, the two would have gone off to a nearby airport motel — since there wasn't an oval office nearby."
I read he had about 45 minutes between planes, so it's unlikely he would have rented a motel room. Aside from that, this isn't the first time Craig has been accused of having sexual liasons in public places; Mike Rogers has interviewed three other men who claim to have had sex with Craig, including one man who said he had a sexual encounter in the restroom of the Washington train station with Craig.
As Rogers is quoted as saying:"The Minnesota arrest is not a one-time occurrence ... Last October, I reported on three other encounters that Senator Craig had with men -- including one in a bathroom in Washington's Union Station. What's troubling about this is Larry Craig's hypocrisy: he repeatedly votes against the gay community during his day job, while engaging in same-sex encounters as extra curricular activity. Now is a good time for Larry Craig to join millions of other Americans and be proud of who he is."
-- From Pam's House Blend, Aug. 28, 2007. http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2782
Mike Rogers' Oct. 17, 2006 story about Craig: http://www.blogactive.com/2006/10/senator-larry-craig-whats-with-gay.html
Umlaut wrote: "C'mon, nobody stares through a crack in a stall for 2 minutes. You look in to see if someone is there then wait for them to leave if you're just checking for your own toilet needs."
I have a method that has served me well: You pull on the door to see if it's locked, or you lightly knock on the door. At any rate, in most case, it's obvious the stall is occupied: you can see the feet under the door. There is no need to stare at the person on the toilet.
"Also next time on the can with your pants down see how easy it is to spread your legs to touch the foot of the person next to you."
It's impossible, if you have your pants around your ankles or knees, to stick your feet in someone else's stall unless you're trying hard, so to speak. And to follow that up by reaching into the next occupied stall to retrieve a piece of toilet paper? Larry's excuses are some of the dumbest I've ever heard; he's not smart enough to be a US Senator.