Posted by Cockney Robin | Ever anxious to improve my understanding of the American political scene, I have made a quick tour of Blogland to see what there is to see on the insane over-reaction to Larry Craig's "misconduct." Notable quotes from some of those I examined follow.
At WaPo's Capitol Briefing, Paul Kane puts the tragic aspects of the Craig debacle (and the GOP's unceremoniously stripping him of his committee assignments) into grim perspective:
Make no mistake, this is a major event in the political life of a politician who once envisioned himself as Senate majority leader. Unlike Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who had been in the Senate barely two years when he admitted a "sin" when his name ended up on the client list of the "D.C. Madam", Craig has been a major force in the Senate for almost two decades. On gun rights, Craig is a member of the board of directors of the National Rifle Association and has been the leading GOP voice opposing any efforts at restricting gun rights on the Senate floor for years. A co-chairman of the Congressional Property Rights Coalition, Craig's biography begins by touting how he was born and raised on his family ranch in Midvale, Idaho.
A member of the Appropriations Committee, Craig is the top Republican on the subcommittee that doles out funding for the Interior Department and several other agencies.
And within the Senate Republican Conference, Craig had charted a course through the party's leadership ranks beginning in the early 1990s. He chaired the informal Steering Committee, a caucus that was formed in the 1980s to push the conservative agenda back when GOP moderates such as then-Sens. Bob Packwood (Ore.), William Cohen (Maine) and Alan Simpson (Wyo.) cast major influence in the party. Craig used that perch to win a narrow leadership victory in June 1996 over then-Sen. Dan Coats (Ind.) to become the Republican Policy Committee chairman. Craig assembled a strong staff that was in charge of putting out policy missives designed to back up the conservative flank. [On Way to Gonzales Vote, Craig's GOP Star Extinguished]
....But then I stumbled across Truth Hunter's post at What Happened to My Country?, where she quotes from Craig's statement during the Clinton impeachment nonsense:
"But I would submit that if a generation of young people are taught by our actions in this case that a lie carries no consequences, then the nation is at risk. If our citizens conclude that lawlessness in the highest office is acceptable, that their elected representatives are complicit in that corruption, and that nothing can be done to stop it, then the nation is at risk." [Hypocrisy, Thy Name is "GOP Values" (quoting from the Congressional Record)]
...at which Craig's resemblance to those nice scribes and pharisees (who reportedly used to infuriate Christ by parading their "righteousness" when they were anything but) is brought sharply home to me, and my sympathy ebbs away, at least briefly.
I suppose when you get down to it, I'm not especially fond of seeing anyone get his "just deserts" or of witnessing karma suddenly popping up like a pantomime goblin from a trapdoor to bite someone on the arse, however deserving the arse.
Romney apparently hasn't been content to refrain from judging according to Jonathan Martin of The Politico. "[S]eeking to tie Craig's alleged search for a gay liasion to the broader pattern of corruption permeating Washington in recent years," Romney said:
"I think it reminds us of Mark Foley and Bill Clinton," Romney told Kudlow, in remarks reported on the network's First Read blog. "I think it reminds us of the fact that people who are elected to public office continue to disappoint, and they somehow think that if they vote the right way on issues of significance or they can speak a good game, that we'll just forgive and forget."
"And the truth of the matter is, the most important thing we expect from... an elected official is a level of dignity and character that we can point to for our kids and our grandkids, and say, `Hey, someday I hope you grow up and you're someone like that person.' And we've seen disappointment in the White House, we've seen it in the Senate, we've seen it in Congress. And frankly, it's disgusting." [Romney throws Craig under bus]
Frankly, it is, and I'm not talking about what The Crux calls Craig's "bathroom blunder." At ReidBlog, jreid remarks: "Romney called his former campaign co-chair "disgusting," which should go over really well with the Log Cabin Republicans ... and he cancelled a trip to Idaho by one of his war campaign veteran sons ..." [When you're a Republican] There again, I don't quite understand how there are "Log Cabin Republicans," so perhaps I oughtn't to be wastiing too much sympathy on them (?)
MRed at a blog called Invincible Armor feels that Matt Drudge either is---or is not; I am afraid I didn't quite follow---behaving in the appropriate manner for a conservative in giving this story the coverage he has. " Matt Drudge, who is called conservative, can't get enough of this or any other "gay" story." Since MRed lists several Drudge-produced postings, I'm assuming that he (or she) thinks this is okay, or why would he or she perpetuate them?
MRed, being clad (I am going by the banner at the top of his/her page) invincibly in armor of his/her specific morality---cosy, I am sure, if presumably rather confining--- isn't in the least concerned about refraining from censuring others:
This behavior is unacceptable. It is unacceptable for all people including politicians. Democrats are all over this story with glee. Just look at FDL, Huffpo, etc., and you can read the glee filled hate overflowing.
Conservatives, and to a lesser degree Republicans, have noted it and moved on, except for homosexual conservatives and Republicans. To them this is an important subject to be given the gravity it deserves. They question why conservatives are the subject of these headlines when democrats are not. They question (insert point here). They insist (insert brilliant political statement here). Why?
In many instances they do so because they want to mainstream their own homosexual behavior. Make it normal by making it appear to be happening everywhere by everybody. Even by conservatives.
Sounds like self serving behavior by homosexuals using conservatism as their vehicle.
That is also unacceptable. [Gay Conservatives Seeking Acceptance Through Sen. Larry Craig]
I can only say, speaking as a Brit, that the very notion that any human being---I mean to say, any fellow struggler through the vicissitudes of life's grim struggle---should have to seek "acceptance" as opposed to endure the judgment, I am happy to say, quite (literally!) foreign to me.
We Britons are a godless lot, and even the politicians who are not have the sense not to attribute their own opinions to God. To quote John Prescott yet again, "I am not a religious man myself, but I always thought the Christian religion was meant to be about compassion and tolerance." And I see "precious little of either" expressed in the above. But perhaps I misread it and this MRed will set me straight.
But MRed definitely needs to read Jon Swift's remarks.
MRed is right in a way about the gloating and gleefulness, though wrong about the reason. Again, as I noted earlier, it ain't the sin, but the hypocrisy. At Lifelike Pundits (and people ask, "What's in a name?"!), Aaron, having lambasted "the left" for assuming that Craig was seeking sexual contact,proceeds unapologetically to eat his words without much straining the quality of mercy.
First he wrote:
The left wants Senator Craig to go down for tapping his foot in the stall...and then go on to accuse Republicans as hypocrites because if some republicans are gay then the only credible position is to support gay marriage.
I'm gay and I don't support gay marriage. [Republican Senator Taps Foot in Restroom, Arrested]
I'm British and I don't give a rat's arse about the issue one way or another, but I know a non sequitur when I see one. Liberals in this country seem to be obsessed with fairness, which doesn't seem to go down too well with the country's conservatives, who aren't what I'd call "conservative" so much as "reactionary."
After Aaron learned that the "left" (and the right) might accurately have interpreted Craig's actions, he wrote:
I will not apologize for my original reaction - which was to criticize the hysterical reaction by the left to flimsy reports about foot tapping and an arrest. I was not defending lewd behavior. [Senator Craig Must Resign]
Of course, it wasn't the "left" that instantly stripped poor old Craig of his committee appointments or bumped him from the Romney campaign on the strength of the said foot-tapping and hand-groping, but why bother with accuracy when you're in polemical vein, I always say..
And this answers my question, sort of, about Log Cabin Republicans. "Lewd behaviour," eh?
This behavior is reckless, dangerous and criminal; Senator Craig should resign immediately. His excuses of "wide stance" and "picking up a piece of paper" on top of the fact that this bathroom is known for this activity shows he has done this before and knows what to say to get out of it.
The Republicans should publicly demand his resignation and the people of Idaho should recall him if he refuses to resign.
The Senate should also consider censure.
This was an unforced error by a Republican; it is disgusting behavior and violates the ethical standards of Republicans and he must go. [Senator Craig Must Resign]
I'm not going to comment on this because---truly---there are no words. Well, except the word "disgusting," which---as applied to one adult seeking consensual sex with another, if indeed that's what was happening---confirms as far it goes the allegations of some of the so-called "left" that the GOP response to Craig is well and truly infected with homophobia.
At Law Prof on the Loose, Jonathan Siegel asks some of the same questions I asked about this strange predisposition of Republicans to commit the very "sins" against which they primarily inveigh? [The Harder They Fall]
The Senator did get one thing right -- he says he made an error in pleading guilty without seeking the advice of counsel. What was he thinking?Faithful readers, if you are charged with a crime, get a lawyer. I'm not trying to drum up business here. I'm just pointing out that if a U.S. Senator makes a bad decision in pleading guilty, what chance do the rest of us have? [The Harder They Fall]
This does seem to be true, rather to my surprise. Had the Senator been arrested in Britain, there's no doubt in my mind that things would have gone very differently for him.
At The Moderate Voice, David Schraub has posted a thoughtful note on the gender-hypocrisy generated by this event and the disproportionate reaction of the public to one man's propositioning another:
The difference, of course, is that gay men propositioning threatens the absolute inviolability of the male sexual sphere, while street harassment only breaches the sexual autonomy of women, whose boundaries are permeable anyway. I’m not saying that street harassers deserve massive jail time... I’m only saying that the ridiculous gendered-hypocrisy this issue illuminates is unbelievable.
As usual, my hope is that when a dominant group experiences something that happens to the subordinated daily, it will create an impetus for reform among the (dominant-controlled) power brokers of our society. And as usual, I’m sure my hopes will be summarily dashed as instead we simply “purge” the “deviant” and move on with our lives. [The Analogy Game]
I'm sure too, actually, at least for the foreseeable future, and for exactly the reasons that Schraud articulates.
At Kiko's House, Shaun Mullen asks the question that can only be answered by resort to psychoanalysis or moralistic speculation:
[W]hy it is that Republican politicians seem to get caught doing naughty things much more than Democrats?
That's tough to answer, but we have yet another case of a closeted gay in a political party that officially loathes them.
The latest nominee to the GOP Hall of Closeted Pols is Larry Craig of Brokeback Mountain . . . er, Idaho, as smarmy and self righteous a conservative prig U.S. senator who has ever been caught trying to solicit sex from a guy in the Minneapolis airport. [Another GOP Hall of Closeted Pols Nominee]
Which brings me back round to the point where I started: either many Republicans suffer inordinately from "reaction formation" or else they are somehow more prone to hypocrisy than other people (which seems implausible). And incidentally back to Damozel's point about Vitter, Craig, and the rest: It's not the sin; it's the hypocrisy, stupid....
Damozel suggested to me on the phone that this Craig (assuming that he is in fact gay) could salvage his career and wreak a well-deserved revenge on his Republican critics by coming out of the closet, acknowledging with great humility that he has been wrong all along, becoming a Democrat (or at least an independent), and joining in the fight for gay rights. Which I admit I'd like to see happen, since that sort of thing only really ever happens in films.
RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTINGS:
- Sen. Craig's Arrest: Was there Enough Evidence? (Updated)
- Bathroom Blunder Causes Compassionate Conservatives to Eat Their Own
- It's the Hypocrisy, Stupid (Part 3)...
- Hypocrisy Bites: A Few Simple Rules for Imperfect Politicians It's the Hypocrisy, Stupid (Part 2)...
- It's Not the Sin; It's the Hypocrisy: Some Highly Germane Words on the Subject from Christ and Dostoevsky.
- Sen. Vitter "Ensnared" in Prostitution Scandal
- Jon Swift Quotes: Are Conservatives Less Gay than Alleged?
Comments