That phrase might well describe how a lot of people feel about L'Affaire de Larry Craig: shock, outrage, sadness, pity, you name it. The best media coverage for capturing that mood comes from an article by the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz featuring Idaho Statesman Reporter Dan Popkey, whose investigation has done much to add depth to the storyline of the current public drama.
Kurtz's piece was also run in the Seattle Times yesterday, and is most definitely worth a read. Whatever your thoughts on Larry Craig, the story exposes the many shades of gray that often accompany our human life, not the absolute black and whites that so often dominate our discourse.
This writer's feelings are especially mixed, having worked directly with both Craig and Popkey on a very limited basis. In my professional duties in Idaho I'm well acquainted with both their work and their reputations. Between that and having frequently walked down the street juxtaposed behind Craig in the heart of the great little downtown of Boise as he gave his now infamous news conference it's all just very...well...eerie.
Popkey captures Craig's former professional standing well, which matches the view of him both within the US Capitol and in Idaho: "'He is a tough guy. He loves his job. He cares about what he does. He cares about the people he serves. This has been his life.'" Sadly, that's not how he's going to be remembered now.
Human tragedy and the implosion of a lifetime of public service, unfolding live on TV and a computer screen near you. Simply amazing.
UPDATE: link fixed.
Posted by Eric Earling at August 31, 2007 07:53 AM | Email Thishttp://www.spokesmanreview.com/media/video/?ID=1228
Posted by: JDH on August 31, 2007 07:37 AMI'm as shocked by the defenses of Craig as I am of Katie Couric and Matt Lauer's defense of West. There seems to be this weakly thought out opinion that somehow an accusation of sex crimes against a gay is somehow homophobia.
As far as that whole 'cycle of abuse' thing goes I'd bet that homosexuals have been victimized more so than straights, but I wouldn't even venture a guess as to how much more.
As to the FIRST standard by which to judge anyone - how about their OWN???
Meanwhile I'll be keeping my eyes open in every public restroom between Spokane and Boise, as well as other known conservative Republican hangouts....
:-)
-Douglas Tooley
Lincoln District, Tacoma
The thing that tempers my sympathy is the hypocrisy. The policies he supported made life difficult for millions of his fellow gays and lesbians. Like so many other republicans who have recently gotten in trouble the problem is not so much the crime, but the hypocrisy. To demonize gay people, who's only crime is wanting to get married and raise a family, while you troll bathrooms for sex is an unpardonable sin.
My hunch is that he is far from the last. Often those who are most scared of the big bad gays and their desire to live well adjusted lives, are more scared of the desires lurking inside themselves. In the end I believe that this is a good thing. I am tired of the holier then thow types dressing up bigotry and fear as moral imperatives.
While it is sad when a life implodes in front of us, it is more sad that his inability to just be gay has helped support the denial of rights to millions of people.
Posted by: Giffy on August 31, 2007 07:54 AMHomosexuality is a sickness and perversion.
I have clearly seen its results in people close to me.
Posted by: Independent Voter on August 31, 2007 07:58 AMSin aside, I think this is the fine line that elected representatives face. Do you act on your own personal beliefs, or those of the constituents who elected you? For better or worse if Craig ran as a gay - or bisexual - man, he would have lost, overwhelmingly.
If he is "honest and true" to himself, then he will necessarily go against the will of those who elected him. It's a moral and ethical dilemma for Craig, but I think the fact he voted the way he did - even when it may have conflicted with his personal life - shows that at least he had enough understanding of his job to carry out the will of his constituents.
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on August 31, 2007 08:07 AMPosted by: Giffy on August 31, 2007 08:21 AM
The is another answer besides hypocrisy that can generate the conflict that appears to affect Larry Craig.
Is the drunkard who detests alcohol a hypocrit? Is not the very disaster of his own life a testimony of just how much he can personally attest to the destructive power of his illness that he is in a unique place to want to eliminate the demon that haunts his life?
Is it not possible that someone who believes that their addiction to illicit sex is wrong and believes that it is detrimental to his life can wish to minimize its impact on himself and society? Can one not believe that the more society embraces what he believes is negatively affecting his life that it would further impact his life in a negative fashion and also lead others to a behavior he feels is negative and self-destructive?
It is not hypocrisy to hate what you do even while you do it. If not then we are all rank hypocrits because we are all guilty of doing that which we believe is wrong at times.
Maybe Mr Craig is more qualified to determine that what he engages in in bathrooms is not in the slightest related to healthy marital relationships and that he is aware that marriage to a man would in no way assuage his propensity to seek anonymous encounters in bathroom stalls.
His situation is no less tragic because he believes in a value that he struggles to uphold in his own life even if he fails.
Posted by: Eyago on August 31, 2007 08:27 AMThe crimes that Mr. West committed effectively consisted of being a conservative Republican who desperately concealed his sexual identity. The original allegations of child abuse that appeared in the S/R at the beginning of the scandal quietly disappeared as it became clear that 1. they had no basis in fact, and 2. the citizens of Spokane could be motivated sufficiently by the hatred and loathing whipped up by Steven Smith, the S/R editor. No facts or proof were needed!
Any actual harm that Mr. West, whose life mercifully ended the following summer following a long and painful struggle with cancer, did to Spokane pales in comparison with the ill-feeling and revulsion that attends the ghoulish and vindictive Mr. Smith, who of course retains his position of power at the only newspaper in Spokane, and seeks new targets to discourage from public service in our city, which remains permanently mired in suspicion, resentment, and prejudice.
As I wrote the NPR following their excellent expose ("A Hidden Life") of the S/R's smear campaign against West:
"At Jim West's funeral, which I attended, a lone bigot, consumed with hatred for West even after his death, stood up and shouted "Child abuser! THAT'S his legacy!" before being hustled outside. A final, venomous lie about a man whose life was consumed by physical and mental suffering: this is the end result of the efforts of Mr. Smith and his colleagues. May God have mercy on their souls -- the kind of mercy they denied Jim West."
Posted by: Rey Smith on August 31, 2007 08:30 AMHypocrisy is not characterized by doing what you say you should not but more like telling others to do it but saying it is ok if you do it. Something along the lines of telling people to get rid of their SUVs but saying you can keep your own.
In other words you are a hypocrit if you say you are allowed to do what you tell others they cannot, not that you fail to live up to your own standards even though you try.
Posted by: Eyago on August 31, 2007 08:33 AMYou'd think the justice system would need more evidence than what was on that tape and citation to convict someone. Yeah, if the guy has done what is alleged (not disorderly conduct that was plead to but soliciting) toss him out, but my gosh, the stuff they have on him in Minnesota I would be scared to death if that is all they needed to arrest me while I was using a public restroom.
Posted by: Doug on August 31, 2007 08:36 AMBoth acts are illegal and both men should step down.
When will politicians figure out that we want them to be honest with us? We don't care about their sexual orientation as long as they don't try to hide it. What we DO care about is that they promote conservative values.
There are many who say Craig was a hypocrite becasue he led a gay life, but did not vote for the gay agenda. I happen to disagree. He was voting the way his constituents wanted and what he felt was right. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you always follow their agenda. Using that logic, all straight people who vote for gay rights are hypocritical because they don't follow the hetero agenda (as if there was one).
Posted by: Ken on August 31, 2007 09:39 AMThat's a rather presumptuous of you to say that. Just because a man is married to another man does not mean they will still go trolling for anonymous gay sex in the mens room. A lot of gay couples are quite happy with their partners and don't need to go anonymous encounters in bathroom stalls.
For proof look no farther than some notable monogamous gay men around here, people like Dan Savage, Ed Murray, and Jamie Pederson. Heck, Dan Savage even raises a kid with his monogamous gay partner.
I was not referring to ALL men, just to the hypothetical situation that might apply to Craig. Don't generalize my specific case and then shoot down the generalization that you made.
Posted by: Eyago on August 31, 2007 09:49 AMI would bet that if Craig had just come as a gay man to his constituents, but promised to continue upholding the basic Conservative principals he was elected for, the majority of Idahoans would support him. My understanding is that a majority of that state supports civil unions.
It's the hypocrisy thing that bothers me, and the bathroom sex thing too I guess... kinda gross regardless of your orientation in my opinion.
Posted by: Splinter on August 31, 2007 10:00 AMSplinter @ 20:
I agree, but from all accounts it sounds like he was on his way anyway (may not have run in 2008). This way the GOP is in a much better position to find and back a replacement for next years election. The Gov. announcing his replacement is a good way to get early name recognition.
If he does resign I think he'd taking one for the team at this point more than doing what's right for his constituents.
I'm not sure how "more specific" I can be when the sentence you quote from begins with the words: "Maybe Mr. Craig..."
Posted by: eyago on August 31, 2007 10:53 AMI predict Craig is out by the end of next week.
Posted by: pbj on August 31, 2007 10:53 AMWell that and giving out government jobs and other perks to his nookie boys.
Posted by: pbj on August 31, 2007 10:59 AMAs much as it pains me, I agree with pbj on that one.
I would be fired in a split second at my private sector company for offering job positions on gay.com or in exchange for sexual favors. Elected officials should be held at least to that standard.
But pbj, Republicans are not exactly lilly-white innocent when it comes to electing crooks like Jefferson... just to be fair.
Posted by: Splinter on August 31, 2007 11:04 AMIf he propositioned her in the ladies room I think he probably would.
Posted by: RBW on August 31, 2007 11:17 AMUmmm...yeah. Why is Sen. Vitter still in power then? His phone number was all over the DC Madam's phone list.
How about Bill Frist's comments about the medical status of Terri Schiavo. The autopsy clearly proved him wrong.
Finally there's George Nethercutt's pledge to serve only three terms?
Yup, it goes both ways.
Posted by: Cato on August 31, 2007 11:33 AMI think you could both spend the rest of the day naming individuals for the opposite party that are financially or morally corrupt. And you would both be right. That would probably explain the approval ratings of congress and the need for a viable third party.
My problem with people like Craig, or any Democrat for that matter that does the same thing, is when you run you campaign on being morally superior to the other party when it turns out you have a closet full of immoral baggage.
Posted by: Splinter on August 31, 2007 12:22 PMSecondly, he is unelectable in North Utah, I mean Idaho. The state is a mormon stronghold and generally flat-out hates gays.
Posted by: John Galt on August 31, 2007 12:24 PM"I think in your premise, if you had listed all the Democrats that are having problems right now, it would have been different. You see the Democrats re-elect the people with their problems. Republicans kick them out."
DeLay mentioned several Democrats who have been afflicted by scandal, according to a transcript provided by the Media Research Center: "You have right now, Alan Mollohan, a Congressman from West Virginia, who is being investigated by the FBI, and the Democrats have kept him on as chairman of the committee that has oversight of the budget of the FBI. You have William Jefferson..."
Lauer cut in: "So, you're saying it's a positive thing. Is it a positive thing that the Republicans do this, they weed out immediately?"
A testy DeLay responded: "You don't want me to finish it? Because you don't want me to..."
LAUER: "No, no go ahead."
DELAY: "You have William Jefferson caught with $90,000 of marked bills in a freezer. And they did put him off the Ways and Means Committee, but they put him on a highly sensitive Homeland Security Committee. You have Barney Frank, who was caught with a homosexual prostitute who was re-elected over and over again. Gerry Studds who was caught in a bathroom with an under-aged page and he was re-elected."
Later on DeLay told Lauer: "The point here ... is the Republicans handle it. They look at it, and when the evidence is right on that someone is guilty, they do something about it. On the other hand, the Democrats don't. And the media, the double standard in the media is amazing. The feeding frenzy, the sharks in the water that's going on right now because of a Republican. Where is the frenzy on Alan Mollohan from West Virginia or William Jefferson from Louisiana?"
LAUER: "I think you mentioned William Jefferson. There was an awful lot of coverage of William Jefferson when that story broke, Congressman."
DELAY: "Yeah, for just a couple of days and then we went on. In the case of a Republican, believe me, I've experienced this, it's day in and day out in the media, and they write this story over and over and over again. We all know the double standard in the media. It's amazing."
Posted by: JDH on August 31, 2007 12:48 PMPosted by: bfr on August 31, 2007 12:52 PM
Bullshit. Check the record:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hiddenlife/
West appointed one guy (Ryan Oerlich) to the Human Rights Commission, a voluntary board, in an unpaid position. West appointed dozens of people to dozens of voluntary boards. It was part of his job as mayor. Also, according to the Spokesman-Review's computer masquerader, West OFFERED him an internship -- but in the many hours of taped conversations which this sting operator made, WEST NEVER MENTIONS AN INTERNSHIP, though it was mentioned many times in a helpfully leading way by the spy -- who was paid handsomely by the Spokesman-Review to entrap West.
So -- where are the "government jobs and other bennies", smartass?
If you have anything to offer, put up --- or SHUT THE FUCK UP about a man who is dead and cannot defend himself.
Posted by: Rey Smith on August 31, 2007 01:04 PMIt's not just the gay thing why Craig's being pushed out - it's that his replacement will be named by a Republican governor.
Compare to David Vitter. As always, political expediency drives standards of conduct.
Hence, Vitter gets a standing O while Craig gets shown the door.
(Not that I'd expect any less flexible morality on the other side of the aisle...)
Posted by: ho hummer on August 31, 2007 02:29 PMThis allegation set off a series of investigations by the California government, the United States Department of Justice, and the Senate Ethics Committee. The ethics committee's investigation focused on five senators: Alan Cranston (D-CA); Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ); John Glenn (D-OH); John McCain (R-AZ); and Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (D-MI), who became known as the Keating Five.
From Wikpedia: After months of testimony revealed that all five senators acted improperly to differing degrees, the senators continually said they were following the status quo of campaign funding practices.
Craig has maintained his innocence from the beginning on this charge (including to the cop who arrested him).
Prior to the sting operation Craig had long been the subject of an "outing" operation by gay lefties and the Idaho Spokesman's staff.
That paper claims that since they didn't run the story until the arrest, they cannot be held responsible for their very overt actions in publicizing allegations that Craig is gay, but that simple semantics - not truth.
Craig's plea was made after the cop assured him that they would not publicize the charge or the plea. Somehow the Spokesman got word of the plea and immediately pounced.
I listened to the tape of the arrest interview and , while I think Craig should have gone to court to plead his innocence, I can understand how and why he made the plea.
I do not think it is fair to the Senator or to the facts (at least those facts available) to demand resignation at this point.
Let the Senate Ethics committee listen to and weigh the facts. Once that is done and the Committee has made its finding public, then it would be appropriate for me to comment either way.
Posted by: deadwood on August 31, 2007 03:02 PMCraig may not be guilty, but he showed nothing but contempt for the people who could have saved him when he led the charge charge on granting amnesty to one and to all who have entered the country illegally. He doesn't stand a chance now to weather the storm and he has only his self to blame.
Posted by: JDH on August 31, 2007 03:33 PMWe use checks and balances along with open government to minimize its affects. Thats why attempts to strengthen one branch over another, such as the move toward a unitary executive as so dangerous. Sure you might think Bush is squeaky clean and morally pure, but what about Hillary.
Eyago, I am not sure thats a good analogy. The bathroom sex stems not so much from wanting to have sex with men, but from not being able to do so in a more legal and healthy way. I think a better analogy is someone who enjoys drinking or gambling, but who publicly calls for a ban. Not because they have a problem perse, but because they think its wrong. Craig did not speak out about sex addicts or public sex so much as he spoke out about gays writ large.
Posted by: Giffy on August 31, 2007 03:52 PMIt sounds to me from the arrest record and the tape that if the arrest was correctly made then innocent citizens all over the country need to be very careful using public restrooms. If there is an undercover cop in the stall next to you, don't tap your feet or you are busted then given the opportunity to plead to disorderly conduct and make it all go away or they will rake you through the mud.
Posted by: Doug on August 31, 2007 03:53 PMThe issue is whether he should resign over the arrest in Minneapolis, not whether his views on immigration are correct.
Giffy@44:
Where is the corruption in the Craig case? There was no sex - only something that looks suspiciously like police entrapment.
Posted by: deadwood on August 31, 2007 04:05 PMI find this response indicative of the intensely narcissistic nature of liberal politics. There are numerous public policy proposals which might be perceived to be in the interest of certain groups but which nevertheless are not in the interest of the country or society as a whole. To restate it in terms the establishment press never would: are you white? Are you in favor of proposals specifically tailored to benefit white people? The appeal of liberalism is to the emotional adolescent: that is the me, me, me mentality.
There are far more outlets than bathrooms for legal and "healthy" connections. The fact that there is a significant number of people engaging in the anonymous bathroom connections when there are many other ways to connect that are both legal and "healthy" as you put it, suggests that it isn't long-term, monogamous relationships that are sought by these men.
I do not know Mr. Craig's specific stands on moral issues, only what others are implying, and I bet you are no more informed than I. All I have heard as that he was a strong proponent of the one man, one woman concept of marriage. If there are other positions that he took that show a hostility to homosexuals, then it would change things a bit, but until then, I am not sure we can say he spoke out against gays "writ large".
Posted by: Eyago on August 31, 2007 04:36 PMPersonally, I would be quite concerned if someone stuck their hand under the divider without explanation or started playing footsie. Most stalls are wide enough that it would take conscious effort to stick your foot well into the other persons side. Now I have been in situations where someone will say there is no paper in the stall and people will respond accordingly. But I doubt very much that Craig was doing the mime version of "no paper in here".
Posted by: Burdabee on August 31, 2007 04:44 PMCome to think of it, the Senate would be better for it if most of the Senators were replaced, including at least one in this state in the next two years - doubtful if that will happen without a calamity. Reminds me of the statement by Dennis Praeger; "I love people, its the humanity I can't stand".
Posted by: KS on August 31, 2007 07:04 PMNow let's get to what is important, how do you get me and others like me to support the Party once more on an across the board, "this is what I believe in," basis? It starts with ending the clubbishness which we all here recognize in the "don't rat on a brother" mentality in the Party. For God's sake set standards and ruthlessly enforce them, make it known that transgressions are not tolerated and be on the front line. Let me ask you this, you are a smart person, how many times have you seen a Congressional investigation that you have said to yourself "this is the circle this guy runs in, they ALL already ALL (Both Parties) know what he/she was doing, this is just for show?
OK, let me put this into perspective. I dated a gal in the 80's who's best friend was on the staff of an elected in Olympia. There were exceptions, but legislators hang with other legislators, from both sides, and I saw with my own eyes that they collectively thought themselves as above the law and also KNEW what happens in Oly, stays in Oly. Both Parties looked the other way because they were both involved in the same types of transgressions (graft included in that).
This is why the hope we all had in 94 has died. We thought we had a new crop of Republicans that wasn't going to operate by those rules in DC. And that alone would guarantee a governing majority for a long time. What did we get? We got shit on, that is what we got. We got a bunch of crooks who were more interested in themselves than in what is right. We got earmarks for - you name it from your name on a library to cash and home improvements. I expect more, much more. I EXPECT a person like George Washington. Yea, that's right George Washington, who puts the good of the Country above all personal gain. I expect a person who strives towards being a PERFECT PUBLIC SERVANT, period.
Do Democrat voters expect the same? Not in my estimation, they want someone who will give the any advantage Political power/money) and they don't care one hoot about the good of the C country as a whole. It's about public stewardship, period. I'm tough in my expectations, but is a PARTY wants my support, I have to be convinced that they EXPECT and will settle for NOTHING LESS.
As for Craig, his sexual preference is his business, so long as he puts the country first and does not give scandal to those who relied on him.
OK what do I think about Senator Craig? This is a tormented man, I do think he was cruising an airport restroom, I don't think the State's case could have met the legal threshold but I think he was cruising and I do not think him irredeemable as a human being. He really impresses me as having a serious problem though. If true this behavior is not healthy in any way. At one time he did represent his constituency, regardless, and all things considered if he still represented his constituency, he could still and would still have had he even admitted homo/bi/whatever and he would have been their Senator for as long as he wanted to be(if the accusations are true). But not if it included acting out on his compulsions in a mens room. But he left the one who brought him to the dance when after years of being in D.C. he left his constituents "standing there" on such issues as amnesty.
I read the WSJ in print daily for my National news and the regional papers on line. I go to the "local" as soon as the home page pops and Senator Craig had taken a lot of stances that really peeved his constituency in the last four or five years. They gave him a lot of power and he represented them well. In the last few years he put Party above constituency in many instances and they had lost their devotion. That's what my point is, he did not have his base any longer because they saw him as no longer being their "champion." Would they keep an openly Homo/bi/whatever? I know these people and I think they would have. Could he have represented their position on "gay marriage" without the NY Times et all tearing him apart? Ask a conservative black senator what that is like and perhaps he could, but it would take a man's man to do that. I for one think Idahoans are better people than to throw him out based upon homosexuality alone, bathroom cruising is another issue all together, but he had left them behind and that is the crux of why I hold my position.
Posted by: JDH on August 31, 2007 09:42 PMCan you blame them for not standing behind him when he no longer represented what they saw as important to them?
Posted by: JDH on August 31, 2007 10:06 PMAsk for examples libs if you dare.
Posted by: JDH on August 31, 2007 10:11 PMWhat a wonderful, wholesome family activity.
Posted by: Independent Voter on September 1, 2007 06:51 AMThis was entrapment and shouldn't have happened, but clearly Craig was on his way to being outed regardless.
And his fall is another example of how the anti-gay/lesbian position implodes, like a house of cards that falls even when there is no wind.
Anita Bryant's famous campaign years ago imploded, ending with some astonishing quotes from Anita herself to the effect that she understood how gays and lesbians felt and that she ended up experiencing revulsion (not her words exactly) for some of her more virulent & zealous compatriots in the anti-gay cause.
The Republicans should be careful how fast they rush to deny their friendship with Craig, it looks plain ugly, like the homophobia that gets them and others into the hypocrisy mess in the first place.
Thanks all, new left conservative #1
Posted by: new left conservative #1 on September 1, 2007 01:52 PMBush and the White House doesn't get that and doubtful if he/they ever will. If he had the capacity to clarify positions and reasons behind doing what he did better, his rating would be significantly higher - which falls into "pigs fly" category.
On a sidebar: Getting to the heart of the issue, its not that people are gay/lesbian - rather it is the fascism displayed by the outspoken advocates of the gay/lesbian movement that turns people against them. For instance - if they had their way, organized religion would have no place in our culture.
Posted by: KS on September 1, 2007 09:03 PM