"What do you think about that?"
I'm sorry I didn't get the chance to weigh in on this yesterday, but everybody's talking about Senator Larry Craig. The story:
Craig has a difficult moral problem if, as it seems, he has a gay sexual orientation, but he has chosen to marry a woman. Cheating on his wife and obtruding on the bathroom-going public is no way to deal with his predicament. It's especially ugly if he's taking this miserable course in order to maintain his grip on political power with an electorate that wouldn't tolerate him if he lived his life openly and honestly.
Worst of all, to my mind, is the proffering of the business card and the "What do you think about that?"
UPDATE: I see Glenn Greenwald is attacking me about the Senator Craig story:
Let's see if Greenwald apologizes and corrects his post. Now that he can see how inaccurate and inappropriate his attack is, a failure to correct is outright deceit.
Also, Greenwald's post is incredibly boring and windy. Maybe he actually can't understand things that aren't blathered about at great length. Ugh!
NEXT DAY UPDATE: Over 300 comments, and I know some of them are abusive. I'm not able to comb through and delete, so I apologize to readers who find some of this offensive. Please try harder to argue with each other in a way that doesn't involve name-calling. And don't use the F word!
Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested in June at a Minnesota airport by a plainclothes police officer investigating lewd conduct complaints in a men’s public restroom... On Aug. 8, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct...What do I think about that? I think the fact that he did that suggests it works sometimes to get him off the hook. It certainly shows that he thinks it can and he's willing to use his power that way. He should resign for that alone.
After he was arrested, Craig, who is married, was taken to the Airport Police Operations Center to be interviewed about the lewd conduct incident, according to the police report. At one point during the interview, Craig handed the plainclothes sergeant who arrested him a business card that identified him as a U.S. Senator and said, “What do you think about that?” the report states....
[Sgt. Dave Karsnia, a plainclothes officer,] entered the bathroom at noon that day and about 13 minutes after taking a seat in a stall, he stated he could see “an older white male with grey hair standing outside my stall.”...What a sad, pathetic scene! It's awful that public bathrooms -- especially in places like airports -- are used for sexual activity. The police have to figure out how to drive this activity elsewhere. Karsnia has a tough job, but he seems to handle it with efficiency and as much dignity as you can when it involves sitting on a toilet and letting someone watch you through the crack in the door.
“I could see Craig look through the crack in the door from his position. Craig would look down at his hands, ‘fidget’ with his fingers, and then look through the crack into my stall again. Craig would repeat this cycle for about two minutes,” the report states.
Craig then entered the stall next to Karsnia’s and placed his roller bag against the front of the stall door.
“My experience has shown that individuals engaging in lewd conduct use their bags to block the view from the front of their stall,” Karsnia stated in his report. “From my seated position, I could observe the shoes and ankles of Craig seated to the left of me.”
Craig was wearing dress pants with black dress shoes.
“At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. While this was occurring, the male in the stall to my right was still present. I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area,” the report states.
Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times, and Karsnia noted in his report that “I could ... see Craig had a gold ring on his ring finger as his hand was on my side of the stall divider.”
Karsnia then held his police identification down by the floor so that Craig could see it.
“With my left hand near the floor, I pointed towards the exit. Craig responded, ‘No!’ I again pointed towards the exit. Craig exited the stall with his roller bags without flushing the toilet. ... Craig said he would not go. I told Craig that he was under arrest, he had to go, and that I didn’t want to make a scene. Craig then left the restroom.”
Craig has a difficult moral problem if, as it seems, he has a gay sexual orientation, but he has chosen to marry a woman. Cheating on his wife and obtruding on the bathroom-going public is no way to deal with his predicament. It's especially ugly if he's taking this miserable course in order to maintain his grip on political power with an electorate that wouldn't tolerate him if he lived his life openly and honestly.
Worst of all, to my mind, is the proffering of the business card and the "What do you think about that?"
UPDATE: I see Glenn Greenwald is attacking me about the Senator Craig story:
The reaction to the Larry Craig story provides one of the most vivid illustrations yet of how the right-wing movement works. Last October, just weeks before the midterm election, gay activist Mike Rogers reported that the married, GOP "family values" Senator repeatedly had sex with anonymous men in public bathrooms. His report was based on "extensive research," including interviews with several men whom Craig solicited for bathroom sex.So this is a link back to something I wrote in October 2006. I have to go back and check because I don't remember writing about Craig before. Here's the old post:
As Rogers argued at the time, the story was relevant -- just as the Vitter prostitute story was -- in light of Craig's frequent political exploitation of issues of sexual morality and his opposition to virtually every gay rights bill. Rogers' story, as a factual matter, seemed relatively credible, both because of his history of accurate outings and because there is no discernible reason why, if he were intent on fabricating, he would single out someone as obscure as Larry Craig, who was not even up for re-election....
Among right-wing pundits -- weeks before the election -- there was nothing but support for Craig and outrage over the reporting of this story. The most hysterical outrage of all was from Glenn Reynolds, who went so far as repeatedly to predict -- literally -- that the country would be so repulsed by Rogers' reporting that it might actually swing the election in favor of the Republicans. More absurdly still, Reynolds cited a grand total of two reasons why he voted for GOP's Bob Corker over Harold Ford in the Tennessee Senate race, one of which was actually Rogers' report on Craig ("the sexual McCarthyism from the pro-outing crowd . . . . has convinced me that [Democrats] just don't deserve a victory with those tactics").
As usual, Bush-supporting bloggers like Ann Althouse and Patterico dutifully echoed Reynolds' line: "I truly believe this sort of tactic is going to create a backlash."
"Lefty Blogger Outs Senator As Gay."Well, this isn't about Senator Craig or sex in public bathrooms. (And it doesn't link to Glenn Reynolds either.) This is about the general practice of outing gay Republicans, which I find offensive. Moreover, I didn't even say that I thought this would produce a backlash. I said that lefties wouldn't use this tactic if they didn't think it would stimulate homophobia and turn voters away from socially conservative Republicans. Of course, I am hoping the tactic backfires and that the voters are not really homophobic. This is a longstanding theme here, and Greenwald either can't understand it, won't take the time to see what I'm saying, or is deliberately misstating what I say in a low, sleazy attack. Which is it?
Patterico notes. Captain Ed comments.
Kos is taking a poll. "Do you agree with outing Gay Republicans?" 70% say "yes. But don't you think this percentage would change if the strategy backfires? I think aggressive characters like our "lefty blogger" think that uncovering gay Republicans will disgust social conservatives and change their voting behavior. They might also believe that they are demonstrating hypocrisy and that doing so will motivate Republicans to abandon social conservatism. I would like to see Republicans abandon social conservatism, and I'm not cheering on these slimy outings. But, honestly, I think these creepy, gleeful efforts at outing will only make social conservatives more conservative, and they will continue to look to the Republican party to serve their needs.
Let's see if Greenwald apologizes and corrects his post. Now that he can see how inaccurate and inappropriate his attack is, a failure to correct is outright deceit.
Also, Greenwald's post is incredibly boring and windy. Maybe he actually can't understand things that aren't blathered about at great length. Ugh!
NEXT DAY UPDATE: Over 300 comments, and I know some of them are abusive. I'm not able to comb through and delete, so I apologize to readers who find some of this offensive. Please try harder to argue with each other in a way that doesn't involve name-calling. And don't use the F word!
Labels: conservatism, Greenwald, Idaho, Minnesota, Senator Craig, Tennessee
posted by Ann Althouse at 7:19 AM
327 Comments:
Pathetic.
And yes, he should resign.
I'm sorry to say I feel a bit of schadenfreude at Sen. Craig. Is that wrong?
I suppose not, considering that the Republiocan party embraced the Drudge-style personal politics in the 1990's to attack CLinton.
And seriously, just HOW mnay closeted GOP people are there? We're running out of elected officials, it sometimes seems!
For the country, Craig should at the very least not seek re-election. That behavior is unbecoming of a U.S. Senator. For the Republican party, Craig should resign and let Gov. Otter appoint a replacement prior to the upcoming election.
Craig has been a great Senator, but he has been in government for too long.
The policeman's report contains very interesting, telling details such as Craig exited the stall with his roller bags without flushing the toilet.
Not much to add that hasn't been said elsewhere. I don't think he'll resign.
What Tim, Hugh and Ed said. I've said before that "people ought to be required sign a release as a prerequisite for seeking public office on the GOP ticket. If you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, you consent to the party lopping it off. And if you get caught with your anything else inside of anyone else, same rules apply. I'm so sick of routinely reading headlines of these walking screwups tarnishing the party's reputation."
He should be horsewhipped and drummed out of the party. But I'll settle for immediate resignation.
He has been in Congress since 1981. Damn. He's looking at a nice pension.
I feel sorry for the man. I can't imagine enduring the humiliation of being caught in such a sordid act and then having it broadcast around the world as a news story. Can you imagine it?
We all have our secrets, secrets we pray are never revealed. The fact that Craig was so reckless in protecting one of his secrets is inconprehensible.
Among the similarities to the Foley case, Craig was thinking of retiring, but party leaders were pressing him to run again.
"Craig has been a great Senator, but he has been in government for too long."
Sloan,
I agree with your prescription, but not your diagnosis. Do you really think he was trolling the airport bathroom for gay sex and displaying his business card as a badge because he has been in government too long? That might explain the business card, but not the initial choice to look for gay sex in a public bathroom.
I think he should resign because he plead to committing a crime; whipping out the U.S. Senator business card as some kind of "get out of jail free" card adds a fatal dose of hubris to the equation.
As for his party affiliation, as a Republican I don't care that he's gay (notwithstanding his marriage); I just wish he was honest about it. And yes, I realize, of course, that gay Republicans would have extraordinarily difficult times winning primary elections. But that's a different issue for another time.
Will he go on Oprah like Jim McGreevy?
Others have pointed out that Craig's actual behavior in the bathroom isn't clearly criminal and that authorities should probably have more important priorities for distributing their limited resources at airports than monitoring foottapping in bathroom stalls. It sounds like his "What do you think about that?" line inspired them to pursue charges that otherwise probably would have been forgone for lack of evidence and low priority.
Sgt. Dave Karsnia, a plainclothes officer,] entered the bathroom at noon that day and about 13 minutes after taking a seat in a stall,
I think someone needs more fibre in his diet.
But seriously, I think there may be a misconception of what a hypocrite is versus a poser. Actually I think there are really very few hypocrites and a lot more posers. A true hypocrite is one who does the complete opposite of what he/she preaches and fully justifies it in his/her mind. A poser is one who adopts a certain persona, such as a moralistic, family values type to appeal to a certain constituency and then uses that to hide his/her true values. Or building a self image of a global warming crusader while owning 3 homes and parading around in private jets. Or touting the values of public schools and sending one’s kid to a private one. Or decrying Wall Street greed and making $100,000 in cattle futures. The examples are endless and hypocrites and posers are plentiful on both sides of the aisle.
That said, after reading the Star Tribune of what the cop described as lewd behavior I was kind of surprised. I thought he would have been arrested for exposing himself or maybe grabbing the guy but tapping his foot? Waving under the stall? The cop mentioned that in his ‘experience’ these are telltale signs of illegal solicitation. Does this happen a lot in the Twin Cities that they have undercover cops staking out the restrooms? Note to self: If I’m at the airport taking a constitutional while listening to my Ipod, I should refrain from tapping my foot and humming to YMCA otherwise someone might get the wrong idea.
Worst of all, to my mind, is the proffering of the business card and the "What do you think about that?"
Typical of many people who see themselves in positions of power. I recall a certain congresswomen with a similar attitude smacking a DC cop. Power corrupts no matter what ideology you have.
I agree with your prescription, but not your diagnosis. Do you really think he was trolling the airport bathroom for gay sex and displaying his business card as a badge because he has been in government too long
Althouse's point about him showing his card is a symptom of losing touch with reality. I think that after being in Congress for 25 years, one starts to lose touch with what it is like to be an average American. People have said "yes sir" to you for far too long.
1. Resign. Today.
2. Schadenfreude is difficult to pass up. One should then expect to serve in the same role oneself at some point.
3. I wonder, from DTL and Titus, what if anything is wrong with airport toilet stall sex? Aside from his hypocrisy, does the location of the act warrant disapproval? Why? Or is it merely schadenfreude, an event otherwise acceptable for, say, a Democratic Senator?
Sloan - It really does help the case for term limits, doesn't it...
what if anything is wrong with airport toilet stall sex?
Speaking as the person in the next stall over, who is there just trying to get rid of some airplane food, it's a little noisy.
Just a small note: my reading of the Senate business card and the "What do you think about that?" is that was a come-on during the pre-arrest flirtation, not an attempt to get out of it once the cop revealed himself.
Note to self: If I’m at the airport taking a constitutional while listening to my Ipod, I should refrain from tapping my foot and humming to YMCA otherwise someone might get the wrong idea.
Funny stuff Hoosier, I thought the same thing while reading the story, except the part about him reaching his hand under the stall and the touching of the feet separates a typical bathroom experience that you describe from Craig.
Is the hand under the stall enough for a lewd behavior charge? Imagine being the officer sitting in the other stall - I would be getting the major willies!
No doubt it was entrapment.
It also seems odd that a Republican U.S. Senator was caught in the trap. Is he just an idiot? Or was he set up by the Dems.... hmmm.
Ann wants to highlight this fellow throwing his weight around. Politicians leveraging their position and power to obtain special treatment....dog bites man. That's what I think about it.
I also think about how to prevent some of these painful scenarios from occuring in the first place. I don't have an answer, but I am wondering if the terrible stigmatization of homosexuality is not contributing to the problem.
How many on this list know of at least one man, woman, marriage and child who has been affected by the stigma we continue to place upon homosexuality.
I remember one married fellow who had a son, pursued a professional career and supressed his homosexuality until both his parents died. With his son grown, this fifty-something year old attempted to resurrect his true self and claim his homosexuality. By then it was too late...he was psychologically crippled, perpetually miserable and unable to experience any form of emotional contentment.
I recall my wife's close friend, married for two years, learn of her husband's homosexuality when he left her for another man the day their only child was born. He was raised in a small southern town. Why he waited until the birth of his son to come out is anybodies guess. Maybe it was the straw the broke the camel's back. Yet, everyone suffers.
Freud discussed the unconscious defense mechanism of 'reaction formation' early in the 20th century, especially around sexual issues. Funny, how in some circles, little has changed.
I thought the same thing while reading the story, except the part about him reaching his hand under the stall and the touching of the feet separates a typical bathroom experience that you describe from Craig
I agree 100% although I was trying to add a bit of levity to the situation. I tend to think that abhorrent as this behavior is, it also seems to be a misallocation of police resources and this kind of behavior can be resolved by a good ass kicking of the offending party. But that's the red state cretin in me coming out I guess. Then again, is this kind of behavior so prevalent that they need undercover vice hanging out in the bathrooms?
Is he just an idiot? Or was he set up by the Dems
He's an idiot. Hope that clears things up for you.
Not that the Senator apparently has any sense of honor, but had he, he would apologize to wife and family and resign immediately. The use of public places for sex is bad enough; when coupled with the Senator's "moral stands" on DODT or Gay Marriage justifies some schadenfreude. Do these people not learn? Do they think positions of power insulate them from consequences? Apparently yes.
As an aside, in a heavily LDS state like Idaho, Craig is toast.
How many on this list know of at least one man, woman, marriage and child who has been affected by the stigma we continue to place upon homosexuality.
None although I know several gay people. They're about as open as gay can be, flaming in fact. Then again, Indianapolis has a pretty high percentage of gays. It's not uncommon to see same sex couples walking hand in hand.
I think there is more 'self-stigmatization' in the gay community than what society poses on them which aside from the usual bigots, is more tolerant of thier lifestyle than many gays want to admit. Tolerance doesn't equate acceptance which I think is what the gay community expects.
Even if he didn't flush, I hope Sen. Craig and the officer both washed their hands.
Craig should just follow what is now SOP for all scandals:
1.) Tearful Oprah confession
2.) Claim drug and/or alcohol and/or sex addiction problems. Preferably all 3. Imply childhood abuse is to blame.
3.) Enter rehab.
4.) Write self-congratulatory "redemption tale" book featuring pictures with new partner, if homosexual.
4.) Proceed to bank.
Hoosier Daddy wrote:
I think there is more 'self-stigmatization' in the gay community than what society poses on them
What might be the mechanism(s) for this 'self-stigmatization'?
So far, toilet stall sex is wrong because it's noisy?
What might be the mechanism(s) for this 'self-stigmatization'?
Portaying oneself as a perpetual victim? Again, I think society today is quite tolerant of gays, as opposed to say the 1950s or even the 1980s for that matter. But I don't think tolerance is good enough for some and they demand acceptance.
From the article:
"According to the incident report, Sgt. Dave Karsnia was working as a plainclothes officer on June 11 investigating civilian complaints regarding sexual activity in the men’s public restroom in which Craig was arrested.
Airport police previously had made numerous arrests in the men’s restroom of the Northstar Crossing in the Lindbergh Terminal in connection with sexual activity."
Obviously, this type of behavior has been going on long before Craig flew into town.
Then, Mindsteps opines: "... I am wondering if the terrible stigmatization of homosexuality is not contributing to the problem."
Could it be possible, if men just want to use the bathroom without being subjected to homosexual advances? Would that be too much to ask for?
Wait a minute.
If a U.S. senator’s business card can’t get him out of a crummy, little misdemeanor disorderly conduct, then why did I pay good money for an associate membership in the F.O.P and put those stickers on my car?
I’ve been had!
And by the cops, yet!
Truth is stranger than fiction.
Remember the golden rule: exploiting the public's fear and disgust over homosexuals is fine when it involves taking down a Republican.
I don't have much sympathy for this man, but there's something about the glee that accompanies these "outings" that makes me a little uncomfortable. People like a good sex scandal, I realize, especially when it involves a "moralistic" politician, but I think that liberals and libertarians should be aware what other, less pleasant human impulses toward prejudice that they are exploiting when they enjoy these embarrassing perp walks from the lavatory.
Not that the Senator apparently has any sense of honor, but had he, he would apologize to wife and family and resign immediately.
It could be that his wife knows and doesn't care. Not all marriages are based on a "loving relationship." e.g., the Clintons!
pogo, I would add unsafe to noisy as well. Do TSS partners share medical histories? (I wonder if Mrs. Craig has been tested for HIV...she should be).
If you can't have sex in the open, why allow TSS? Is there really that big an expectation of privacy in a toilet stall in a busy airport?
I personally do not want to see two people engaged in sex. I think my opinion is shared by the majority of citizens. If you walked into a airport restroom and two people were going at it on the countertop next to the sink, would you just go about your business? I don't think I could. I'd be invading their privacy, which in that venue they shouldn't expect. And then there's the public health aspect again...
Point taken, Sloan
I do have to add that I consider the public bathroom about the most distasteful and un-arousing a venue for personal intimacy that I can imagine. If you've ever smelled a well-used men's public toilet, especially one in an airport or train station, you might agree that it's not the most sensual or appealing aroma. That's the last thing I want to smell when I'm getting it on. Plus, no one's cock looks good under that horrible fluorescent lighting.
MadisonMan, I appreciate the response, and am glad also for Palladian's take on this.
I was trying to elicit what Palladian said very well, that "exploiting the public's fear and disgust over homosexuals is fine when it involves taking down a Republican."
I just find it curious when anyone on the left uses anti-gay or anti-minority sentiment to further their cause.
Like you, TSS is just wrong, and not because the guy's a Senator, or that he's married, or that he's Republican. It's not anti-gay to say it is wrong. It's hypocritical to enjoy this by the political meaning, because it implies that you wouldn't otherwise give a hoot were it between two consenting men.
WTH is it with Repblican congress-criters and gay sex scandals?
I am SO GLAD I changed to Independent. What a disgrace.
I couldn't care less who the senator humps in the privacy of his own home. I don't care a whit nor should anyone.
This was, however, a public facility and last I knew it is used by dirty old men and innocent kids without regard to anything other than nature's needs.
The cop was on duty due to some probably complaints about such stuff. Don't blame him or law enforcement.
What do you think? Was this the first time for him? Was it a "gosh I read about sex in public bathrooms, think I'll give a 1 shot try"...type of thing?
If this works within his marriage well then God bless her. What bothers me more is that his voting record on major legislation involving the gay community may be more of coverup of his personal conduct than it was reasoned positions and that really really stinks.
He gets what he gets.
I personally do not want to see two people engaged in sex. I think my opinion is shared by the majority of citizens. If you walked into a airport restroom and two people were going at it on the countertop next to the sink, would you just go about your business?
True, but if Craig would have been able to by a "public lewd behavior offset," then his activity would have been perfectly allowable. For example, while engaging in the act, if you tap him on the shoulder and say "stop it, we are in a public bathroom!" he could just present you with the previously purchase offset (i.e., an investment in "private" bath houses in the Netherlands or investments in extra public restrooms in another airport).
Didn't an episode of Friends have Monica and Chandler getting it on in a men's bathroom?
Hoosier Daddy said...
What might be the mechanism(s) for this 'self-stigmatization'?
Portaying oneself as a perpetual victim? Again, I think society today is quite tolerant of gays, as opposed to say the 1950s or even the 1980s for that matter. But I don't think tolerance is good enough for some and they demand acceptance
Obviously, there has been progress since the 50's. However, I believe that you may be over-generalizing and over-stating when you speak of society as a whole as quite tolerant of homosexuality. There continue to be large circles where strong stigmas still exist. Vast areas of the country (e.g. the south), religious groups (e.g. evangelicals), rural areas and smaller towns vs. larger cosmopolitan areas, ethnic and cultural groups, certain occupations, and political affiliiation (e.g. Republican) continue the stigmatization. While the tolerance you speak of may represent an advancement from more destructive and earlier forms of persecution, I don't see it as isolated or as limited as you. Ultimately, perceiving acceptance from others is probably key in the development of self-acceptance, especially during development.
Moreover, you may not know of anyone or any family personally or professionally who has suffered, but unless you have avoided the media, you have observed individuals and their families in the spotlight who apparently have struggled with their sexuality, in part, because of the stigma they may have taken in from their surroundings.
Echo hdhouse's 9:55 comment.
However, I believe that you may be over-generalizing and over-stating when you speak of society as a whole as quite tolerant of homosexuality. There continue to be large circles where strong stigmas still exist. Vast areas of the country (e.g. the south), religious groups (e.g. evangelicals), rural areas and smaller towns vs. larger cosmopolitan areas, ethnic and cultural groups, certain occupations, and political affiliiation (e.g. Republican) continue the stigmatization.
I don’t doubt that at all but I was speaking in general terms. There will always be some stigmatization/prejudice because that is simply human nature and crosses all lines and political affiliations including Democrats. Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian and he certainly didn’t shun her. Rudy is GOP and supports gay marriage.
Ultimately, perceiving acceptance from others is probably key in the development of self-acceptance, especially during development.
Well don’t hold your breath on that. I am all for tolerance but I vehemently resist anyone telling me I ‘have to accept them’ whether it be their particular lifestyle, sexual preference or religion. Case in point, I am tolerant of other religions but do not accept any other than my own.
Moreover, you may not know of anyone or any family personally or professionally who has suffered, but unless you have avoided the media, you have observed individuals and their families in the spotlight who apparently have struggled with their sexuality, in part, because of the stigma they may have taken in from their surroundings.
You posed the comment in the thread about personal knowledge and I responded with my personal experience. I don’t disagree that there are people who have struggled with their sexuality, I just don’t know any personally. Are there areas in which gay people will be stigmatized? You bet as a gay bar would be as unwelcome in backwater Mississippi as much as Dearborn, Michigan but as you pointed out, in a society as diverse as ours, ethnically and culturally, we are remarkably tolerant.
Minsteps, i think you're making precisely the mistake HoosierDaddy alluded to: tolerance and acceptance are not the same thing. People can reasonably expect tolerance of their quirks, but they shouldn't expect acceptance, that is, validation by society that what they do is perfectly fine. And they shouldn't be so shallow as to need anyone's "acceptance" but their own and that of a willing partner. If what you do disgusts you, maybe you should stop doing it instead of asking society to pat you on the head and tell you it's not actually so bad.
"There continue to be large circles where strong stigmas still exist. Vast areas of the country (e.g. the south), religious groups (e.g. evangelicals), rural areas and smaller towns vs. larger cosmopolitan areas, ethnic and cultural groups, certain occupations, and political affiliiation (e.g. Republican) continue the stigmatization."
How do you know that, by personal experience or what you read in the papers?
Read Tammy Bruce (I know, a dropout from the left) about how Christians have accepted her.
And, yes, Craig should resign. Personally I think it was desperation that made him flash his badge, but he's gotta go, whether he's trolling bathrooms for excitement or because he feels conflicted. Either way, he's violating standards of civil behavior.
Everyone knows that most Republicans are in favor of illegal wiretapping and that they consider it a patriotic activity to suppress suspected terrorists, gay or otherwise. A little gay foottapping somehow seems rather mild and less terroristic by comparison. Maybe I'm wrong, but just what did Senator Craig have in his roll bag? Were there condoms or fuses in there? Or, was he trying to prevent voyeurism and keep a little privacy for himself. Hypocrite! A closeted gay Republican domestic terrorist fond of (private) public bathroom sexual encounters, now that's gotta be the frosting on the cake!
Ann,
You can't avoid not saying something negative about Greenwald, can you? And sure, you think that his post is "boring" and "windy." You are so predictable. Of course you find something "boring" when you don't have any substantive arguments.
I think it is you who should apologize to him and not the other way around. He is 100% correct in stating that you dutifully echoed Reynolds' line that this (outing of Craig) is going to backfire. Where is he wrong? Any objective reader of your post can see that you thought and hoped that Rogers' post would backfire against "lefty bloggers". And now you confirm that you were HOPING that it would backfire. So, again, where is Greenwald wrong?
You are so blinded by your hate of "lefty bloggers" that you stubbornly refuse to see the right's (not necessarily yours) hypocrisy that Greenwald points out: before the elections Craig's conduct was fine, and now, the very similar conduct is suddenly the worst of the worst.
Please try to be more objective.
Hypothetical (OK--too much Volokh reading): Had Senator Craig been a champion of gay rights should he still be condemned?) (the man versus the behavior)
Althouse --- I think you're overreacting to Greenwald's passing reference to your original thoughts on Craig's outing. He wasn't "attacking" you, he referenced your belief (shared by conservative pundits and bloggers) that outings of closeted gay Republicans would backfire against those doing the outing (in your argument, by actually making social conservatives MORE conservative because of the "slimy" and "creepy" nature of the outings).
Calling his passing reference to your employment of tired right wing conventional wisdom ("this will only STRENGTHEN the Republican Party") a "low, sleazy attack" is more than a little hyperbolic --- perhaps a thicker skin would help.
Moreover, I didn't even say that I thought this would produce a backlash.
Uh, so saying that the "creepy, gleeful" outings will only make social conservatives "more conservative" doesn't count as predicting a backlash? Surely it falls into the "unintended adverse consequence" category, though, right? You hack?
This post has been removed by the author.
perhaps he just forgot that it's not acceptable to cruise for gay love in airport restrooms
Glenn Greenwald can make even a gay sex scandal sound like someone reading tax law.
That post from Oct '06 is a classic. It's very entertaining to re-read something from before the election.
Also Greenwald didn't say you linked to Reynolds.
BTW this is Ann's best election-related post, in which she finally admits her depression over the Republican defeat, and disappointment in Americans for opposing the manifestly beneficial Iraq War.
She rarely admits holding these horrible opinions, usually just linking to other, more honest wingnuts, so it's worth remembering when she does.
You are so blinded by your hate of "lefty bloggers" that you stubbornly refuse to see the right's (not necessarily yours) hypocrisy that Greenwald points out: before the elections Craig's conduct was fine, and now, the very similar conduct is suddenly the worst of the worst.
Except that the source for Craig before the elections were democratic operatives (the same sources that revealed the Foley story) whose intent is to expose "closet" gay Republicans in order to win elections, even though the democratic operatives themselves see nothing wrong with the behavior. From the operatives point of view, truth is not required - only that a rumor gets spread and that the rumor affects Craig's perceived anti-gay base.
Althouse and Reynolds were right to criticise them for using gay issues in this way because the democratic party asserts itself as being all things for all gays.
In this case the source is a police officer doing his job of trying to maintain law and order at the restrooms. Unlike the democratice operatives, the officer was not doing it to out gay senators for political purposes. There is a world of difference between the sources for the two stories.
Here's the things I don't understand; why do people continue reading Glenn Greenwald given his style which never fails to get mentioned as unbearable, here and everywhere, and given his persistent misreading and general wrongness? Same question with Andrew Sullivan.
Why bother?
Next question; airport? Com'on! Minnesota hot and happening, for a start.
I feel a Photoshop® coming on.
One thing about Rudy, at least he goes running around in dresses in public, not in urinals, as far as we know. This is what happens when Republicans overlook good old family values.
Hey Ann, I think Greenwald just cut you a new one. And if "windy" and "boring" were a criteria, you wouldn't have a job (or so I'm told by your former students).
I would just encourage everyone to click on the link that Doyle posted and read what Ann actually said in that post; read what she wrote, don't take at face-value Doyle's distortion of it.
Back to the question of whether outing Republicans is an ugly act. It all depends on whether they are being hypocrites. This would hold true for all politicians. An anti-gun liberal who holds a concealed carry permit should be held up to ridicule as much as the anti-gay Republican who has anonymous gay sex.
After looking around Senator Craig's website, I can't find any reference to him using sexual morality as a platform (I couldn't even find any statement about homosexuality!) In this case, my judgment is that outing him would be unfair. (Being "outed" by getting caught soliciting sex in a bathroom, however, is another matter.)
But Simon, that would mean I would have to read Doyle's post in the first place.
As a gay man who enjoys sex I can tell you bathroom sex is not a venue where a "normal gay" has sex.
This is a venue for closeted gays because they believe they can't meet another gay man through more conventional means. They tend to be married and living a life of a lie.
This just happened last month to McCain's Florida Republican campaign person in some rest stop in Florida. Of course, another family values hypocrite.
I have never had sex in a bathroom and to be honest with you don't know what you could possibly do sexually in a busy airport bathroom.
Also, this is a public place where many children/families and other travelers are passing through and the entire scene is nasty.
The fact that Larry Craig has voted against every gay rights inititiative is not suprising but really just sad.
I actually feel bad for him. He is also a liar because in the past the paper out there asked him in May if he ever trolled bathrooms and he said no. Than he gets arrested in June in Minneapolis. Their are stories going back to 1982 that he was involved with this kind of behavior.
He's pled guilty, he should resign, and try to find some happiness in his life as well allow his family to try and find happiness. His kids were adopted from his wifes first marriage.
What about that poor policeman's job sitting on a toilet and waiting to get propositioned? Imagine getting up in the morning and realizing you are going to be sitting on a toilet all day busting people.
If one thing the Foley, Vitter, Craig cases may do is put to rest the republicans as the family values/social conservatives.
Mindsteps: "Moreover, you may not know of anyone or any family personally or professionally who has suffered, but unless you have avoided the media, you have observed individuals and their families in the spotlight who apparently have struggled with their sexuality, in part, because of the stigma they may have taken in from their surroundings."
Straight people mess up spectacularly in their sex lives all the time, too. Is that because heterosexuality is stigmatized? I have no doubt homosexuality is looked down upon among a lot of people, but please stop asking me to feel sorry for people who feel entitled to drag along innocent non-consenting parties while they "struggle with their sexuality". I'm supposed to be consumed with understanding and compassion for some guy "who left [his wife] for another man the day their only child was born"? Strangely, I didn't think "poor, misunderstand fellow" when I read that. I thought, "wow, what a self-absorbed, self-indulgent, irresponsible jerkwad".
Hey, I've known straight men (and women) who pulled stunts like that, too - marry, reproduce, and then decide they just can't hack it and have to dump their responsibilities on other people so they can run off to "find themselves". But I guess having had your sexuality stigmatized means never having to take the rap for behaving like a complete dickhead.
He was raised in a small southern town.
Oh, well, that's different. I'm sure that's a mitigating factor for everything from adultery to axe-murder.
Ann is being disingenuous as usual. Ann's hatred of Greenwald really has nothing to do with his prose style. She is bitter because he made such a fool of her when he skewered one of her embarrassing New York Times Op-Eds.
Chip Ahoy said...
"Here's the things I don't understand; why do people continue reading Glenn Greenwald given his style which never fails to get mentioned as unbearable, here and everywhere, and given his persistent misreading and general wrongness?"
--------------
The answer is, of course, that Greenwald's style is not at all "unbearable." It gets described as such "here" ("here" being a right-leaning blog with far right-leaning commentators) and "everywhere" ("everywhere" being only other right-leaning blogs) because it's the only means of attack against his arguments. He makes excellent arguments using supposedly big words and long sentences. Since right wingers can't defeat those arguments on the merits, they sniffle and focus on the big words.
If one thing the Foley, Vitter, Craig cases may do is put to rest the republicans as the family values/social conservatives.
Ha Ha Ha, its going to take a lot more than a few bad eggs. Good try though. Face it, while Republicans have their foibles with family values, the Democratic party still can't come close.
Besides, every thoughtful conservative knows that family values often hinges more on things like low taxes, less government, and religious freedom than preaching.
Titus: that puts to rest that Foley, Vitters and Craig are hypocrites--generalizing to the entire republican party is t best a tenuous inference.
This post has been removed by the author.
The thing is when republicans talk about "family values" it is code word for marriage, abortion and anti-gay-not low taxes.
Bethesda, Md.: Lest we judge, who among hasn't innocently rubbed our shoe against a stranger's foot in a neighboring stall and waggled our hand underneath the wall? I personally find public restrooms, especially at airports, the most friendly places in the world! Some may disagree. In the words (I think)of Dennis Miller, there's no place more tense than a public men's room.
Jonathan Weisman: My colleague, Shailagh Murray, just noted said waggling among women means, "Darn, all out. May I please have some toilet paper?"
Hmm. Maybe Craig just wanted some toilet paper. And perhaps he pled guilty thinking political expediency was in his interest, the underlying facts would be suppressed, and the plea would have the equivalent impact of pleading no contest. I find these facts as amusing as anyone, but I would be very upset if I were arrested for public exposure if caught waddling from one stall to another with my pants around my ankles in search of a fresh roll of toilet paper. Especially if the press twisted into a George Michael-like event, when it wasn't.
The thing is when republicans talk about "family values" it is code word for marriage, abortion and anti-gay-not low taxes.
Actually I pulled out my decoder ring and ‘family values’ it means being a responsible parent by providing for and raising one’s family. Not having one or more out of wedlock births, being a deadbeat parent or aborting a fetus because its ‘inconvenient’ and then demanding that the government provide you with a livable wage, free health care or affordable child care because one continues to make piss poor life decisions. Family-values is more about embracing personal responsibility versus living some monastic lifestyle.
Ann's position seems to be that pointing out the homophobia of the GOP fundie wing appeals is in itself homophobic, and that pointing to the hypocrisy of the closeted anti-gay gays of the GOP also feeds homophobia. That's a nice little Catch-22 and it provides a fine, self-righteous cover for gay-friendly people who want to vote GOP without confronting the anti-gay planks in its platform. I predict we'll see a lot more of these topics here as the presidential election comes closer and Ann positions herself to support Giuliani.
Simon said...
Minsteps, i think you're making precisely the mistake HoosierDaddy alluded to: tolerance and acceptance are not the same thing. People can reasonably expect tolerance of their quirks, but they shouldn't expect acceptance, that is, validation by society that what they do is perfectly fine. And they shouldn't be so shallow as to need anyone's "acceptance" but their own and that of a willing partner. If what you do disgusts you, maybe you should stop doing it instead of asking society to pat you on the head and tell you it's not actually so bad.
Simon:
I believe I am grasping the distinction but I am not sure. Obviously, people can tolerate or even reject certain behaviors, while accepting the person that engages in the behavior. And while it may be "shallow" to need someone's acceptance, if you read my post a little more carefully you might note that what I said was "Ultimately, perceiving acceptance from others is probably key in the development of self-acceptance, especially during development.". I believe that acceptance from important others is critical in the promotion of self-acceptance, especially as we develop (through childhood). You may find it shallow, however there is substantial research to suggest that there is a strong positive relationship between feelings of acceptance by significant others (parents, friends, teachers etc.) in childhood and later self-acceptance. Conversely, rejection by important others growing up has been associated with self-contempt and maladaptive behavior in many individuals.
Moreover, children, in particular, struggle to make distinctions when one is rejecting their behavior vs. rejecting them as persons.
Personally, I am not disgusted by homosexuality and do not believe that homosexuals need to be horsewhipped and excluded from either the democrat or republican party.
I think concepts such as "responsibility" are actually quite complex and as we progress scientifically in our understanding of the causes of human behavior (including sexuality) we will find that responsibility is not an all or none psychobiological phenomenon and that it varies across age, behaviors, environments, etc. We have more control, for example, over some behaviors, than we do others and we may have control over some behaviors for particular periods of time and not others (think of someone, say with Tourette's disorder who can supress their tics for a brief period of time, but not foreover). I also believe that the forces that lead to homosexuality are complex and probably vary from one individual to another.
This does not imply that we have to tolerate any and all behaviors. It does suggest however, that merely punishing or ignoring some activities will not necessarily extinguish the behavior. Obviously, there are very strong sanctions against homosexual behavior amongst republican politicians, yet the behavior seems to re-occur.
If you are someone who believes that homosexuality is wrong (and I don't) and that the behavior should be modified, keeping the activity secreted is not likely to be the most effective way of changing it. Indeed, acknowledging the behavior, it would seem to me, would more likely lend it to modification than keeping it hidden.
"Beth said:
Ann's position seems to be that pointing out the homophobia of the GOP fundie wing appeals is in itself homophobic, and that pointing to the hypocrisy of the closeted anti-gay gays of the GOP also feeds homophobia. That's a nice little Catch-22 and it provides a fine, self-righteous cover for gay-friendly people who want to vote GOP without confronting the anti-gay planks in its platform. I predict we'll see a lot more of these topics here as the presidential election comes closer and Ann positions herself to support Giuliani."
Precisely. I agree 100000%. Ann does not want to feel that she is a bad person for supporting the party with so many homophobes, so she's cleverly accusing anyone who points out the GOP's hypocrisy as "feeding into homophobia." Nice try, Ann.
Be honest with yourself: the GOP is full of non-gay-friendly people. The party is much less tolerant than Democrats. Do you want to support Republicans? Fine. But do it honestly and don't pretend that you don't support the party with a large anti-gay wing.
Dr. Kraapenweider of Utrecht specifically recommends tap dancing to ease constipation.
Last time I listen to a Doctor's advice!
I love Craig's office comment regarding the situation:
"A spokesman for Craig described the June 11 incident as a “he said/he said misunderstanding,” and said the senator's office would release a fuller statement later today."
titus, didn't you tell us all that you had sex in a taxi the other day? You should have been arrested.
Also, I am going to sound like Althouse now but I am not a democrat. While I was in college in Cambridge I voted for Romney (he actually liked the gay then). Also, while living in NYC I voted for Giuliani and Bloomberg twice. But those three probably don't count as real republicans because they tend to like the gay.
It seems in order to reach the entire national republican audience you need to come out against the gay (see Romney). The notheast republicans which many other republicans despise generally don't have problems with the gay (Sunnunu, Collins, Snowe, Spector, Shay, Lieberman).
The Southern Republicans should peel off from the republican party and become some other christian/social conservative party.
Do you want to support Republicans? Fine. But do it honestly
How many times does Ann have to tell you she's a centrist Democrat?
It's just her informed, deeply principled advocacy of the Iraq War that makes her sound like a Republican sometimes... And her love of unflattering takes on Dem presidential contenders... And her occasional frustration with Democrats winning elections.
But what Democrat hasn't felt those things?