Immediately after every Republican gay sex scandal, we have an opportunity to inventory the irony, which usually involves an excited tromp through Lexis. Most Republicans vote against gay marriage bills, so that's often the first thing uncovered. Some publicly rail against the evils of gay marriage. Some were apoplectic over Clinton's indiscretions in the mid-90s. But Republican Senator Larry Craig hits the hypocrisy trifecta:
Voted against gay marriage bills:
Craig voted for the failed measure [a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage] July 14, 2004. He also has opposed allowing gays or lesbians in the military and voted against extending civil rights protections to homosexuals in the workplace.Railed against gay marriage:
"You can have a civil union, but you can't commandeer the institution of marriage. That's very special, religious, culturally, and you can't go there."On Clinton:
MR. RUSSERT: Larry Craig, would you want the last word from the Senate be an acquittal of the president and no censure?Craig manages to top all this though. In a May interview with the Idaho Statesman (one month before the arrest), Craig was asked to respond to rumors that he was gay (an allegation echoed by a number of accusers, but not enough, apparently for the Idaho Statesman to go on the record). Here's how he responded:
SEN. CRAIG: Well, I don’t know where the Senate’s going to be on that issue of an up or down vote on impeachment, but I will tell you that the Senate certainly can bring about a censure reslution and it’s a slap on the wrist. It’s a, “Bad boy, Bill Clinton. You’re a naughty boy.” The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy, a naughty boy.
"I've been in this business 27 years in the public eye here. I don't go around anywhere hitting on men, and by God, if I did, I wouldn't do it in Boise, Idaho! Jiminy!"He would do it in Minnesota. Sometimes the specificity of a denial is a clue in itself.
Besides the hypocrisy, two other things interest me here.
I'm a bit creeped out that Minnesota so concerned with the problem of gay public bathroom sex as to organize sting operations to combat it, but even more creeped out that an arrest (and guilty plea) was made from these facts. By 'these facts', I mean:
- Craig placed his bag on the floor of the stall.
- Craig tapped his foot.
- Craig reached toward the floor where his hand became visible to the person (the undercover officer) in the next stall.
Of course, Craig mooted any possible ambiguity by pleading guilty. He now hilariously alleges that he made his plea without the advice of counsel. I don't doubt that that's true, actually. Any lawyer who advised Craig to plead guilty on those facts should be disbarred. But Craig had two months between the arrest and the plea, which is more than enough time for anyone to get counsel, much less a United States Senator.