Brokeback GOP

What's up with Republican politicos getting arrested by undercover cops for soliciting sex in public restrooms? First, Florida state representative Bob Allen, formerly John McCain's state campaign co-chair, was arrested in July after he offered a police officer $20 for the privilege of performing oral sex. And today, news broke that back in June, Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho), long the subject of gay rumors, was arrested in a Minnesota airport by a plainclothes cop investigating lewd conduct in the men's bathroom. Both men are married--to women. (See Max Blumenthal at Campaign Matters for more details.)

The moment is so thick with irony, I scarcely know where to begin. But let's start with their incredibly lame attempts at damage control. Upon arrest, both Allen and Craig attempted to use their positions of power to escape charges (Craig handed over his US Senate business card to the officer and asked, "What do you think about that?).

Post-arrest, Allen, appealing at once to homophobia and racism, mounted a "black (gay) panic" defense. You see he wasn't really interested in giving head, he was just trying to save his neck. Apparently, the cop was "a pretty stocky black guy" and "there were nothing but other black guys around in the park." Fearing he was "about to become a statistic," Allen did what any other, rational, straight (straight!), white man would do if he just so happened to find himself cruising a public restroom full of black men: fork over a Jackson and drop to your knees.

Less hysterical, but equally flimsy, is Craig's story. Through his spokesman, Craig said that the whole incident was just a "he said/he said misunderstanding." Last year, when gay blogger Mike Rogers alleged that Craig had engaged in same-sex relations, Craig called the story "absolutely ridiculous, almost laughable." I wonder if Craig was laughing on August 8--when he plead guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct charges in a Minnesota County Court.

Of course, both Republicans have a long history of support for anti-gay legislation--in Craig's case votes for the Federal Marriage Amendment and in Allen's a court brief against gay adoption and authorship of a failed bill to ratchet up penalties for "unnatural and lascivious acts."

I'm sure as the press digests the Craig scandal, you'll hear a lot about "hypocrisy," "repressed homosexuality" and "internalized homophobia." Good enough, I suppose, for making a somewhat cheap political point and sweeping these undeniably creepy, tragic guys back into the Brokeback Mountain days from whence they apparently came. But I wonder if the GOP's burgeoning "bathroom problem" isn't reflective of something larger than just a bunch of conservative dudes who couldn't come out of the closet. There's something palpably sad to me about what happened to Allen and Craig too, something oddly touching about their misplaced faith in the fading world of secret, anonymous gay sex. That world--once found in bathrooms, parks, piers and adult bookstores; the furtive refuges of adventuresome queers, married men, the curious--has been swept away by so many police raids, privatization schemes, quality of life campaigns and internet dating services. But mostly, it's fallen away as gays have become increasingly integrated into the mainstream, and also, paradoxically, more marked than ever. "You're either gay or you're not" seems to be the equation.

Until someone like Craig, Allen, Mark Foley, Ted Haggard or Jim McGreevey shows up to ripple momentarily the waters of public discourse on sex. These guys have problems, no doubt. But we might also pause to wonder if there's some cultural knot that gay liberation--despite its original and best intentions--has left in place. At the very least the link between public power and domestic heterosexuality--with all the fetishistic displays of family life that entails--has yet to be completely severed. Just ask Rudy Guiliani, or Hillary Clinton! Moreover, that knot, perhaps best described as sexual propriety, is what fuels the moral campaigns against homosexuality that have become one of the Republican Party's identifying causes--loyally supported by the likes of Craig, Haggard, Foley, et. al. It's also what leads Bob Allen to the stunning and revealing calculation that it would be better to be seen in the public eye as an avowed racist than as someone who likes to have sex with men sometimes.

Comments (130)

1. It really is a shame that people have to live lies.

   I pity Craig and Allen.

   Posted by hhemwm at 08/27/2007 @ 8:26pm

2. The interesting thing about all of this is that it is understandable how people would want to keep their private sexual lives exactly that- private. Nowadays it is harder and harder for people in public life to keep much of anything under wraps.

   I just have to wonder why these men would not have more sympathy for earnest gay people who want to be married and publicly proclaim their affections and commitment. I suppose they fear their own constituencies and colleagues on this subject; that is tragic.

   But there is something else going on here too, as this article thoughtfully observes.

   Posted by hhemwm at 08/27/2007 @ 8:29pm

3. Both men are married--to women.

   well, they couldn't marry other men, could they.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 08/27/2007 @ 8:56pm

4. HHEMWM, RICHARD KIM,

   I don't quite think so. I think what this shows is that this is a country that has gone mad thinking that racism and homophobia are more important than saving lives and building lasting, just socieities. The idea that anyone can use as an excuse for being gay that since there was nothing but big stocky black men around that it would be better to give head than be killed AND BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, shows just how useless and laughable a society America has become. The idea that U.S. Senators can be caught in open public places getting it on with members of the same sex and then vote for legislation that goes against what they are is a sign of an America that has long ago lost is moorings. But hey, look at the upside of things: Bashing gays, profiling all Arabs and Muslims as terrorists, profiling all blacks driving nice cars as drug dealers, and giving the working poor the shaft, while poor working whites vote to stop all abortions, what more could America want..............???

   Posted by POSEIDON at 08/27/2007 @ 9:06pm

5. Wasn't there a study just a few weeks ago that showed that the most visceral homophobes in men....

   showed the greatest arousal to gay porn?

   Seriously, in the Age of Post-Bush from 2009 onwards, will the social conservatives really have much more impact, given from Haggerd to Craig, they're shown not only as hateful idiots...but hypocrites?

   Posted by Mask at 08/27/2007 @ 10:19pm

6. "I suppose they fear their own constituencies and colleagues on this subject; that is tragic."

   Posted by HHEMWM 08/27/2007 @ 8:29pm

   How about the fear of a good divorce lawyer?

   Posted by ACook at 08/27/2007 @ 10:20pm

7. Mask, the hypocrites are everywhere and the political establishment is no exception.

   Posted by ACook at 08/27/2007 @ 10:23pm

8. Posted by ACOOK 08/27/2007 @ 10:23pm

   Sure, ACOOK. But a liberal gets rich, calls for tax hikes, then hides their cash in some foreign bank account...that doesn't HURT anybody or treat them like second class citizens.

   Some holier-than-thou "fags getting married will destroy our precious institution of marriage" right-winger....who hoovers some guy in a public restroom, then goes out and votes for anti-gay rights legislation because that's what gets him elected by Leviticus-quoting morons....does.

   Posted by Mask at 08/27/2007 @ 10:42pm

9. I'm sure as the press digests the Craig scandal, you'll hear a lot about "hypocrisy," "repressed homosexuality" and "internalized homophobia."

   Of course. The media couldn't be as intelligent to think that just MAYBE, those politicians are acting,legislatively, in the will and interests of the 98% of their constituencies that aren't gay. Notwithstanding their private lives. Isn't THAT the whole purpose of a representative Republic? But the media will take the shallow approach for ratings anyway...Yawn!

   That world--once found in bathrooms, parks, piers and adult bookstores

   Be as absolutely gay as you want to be, in private, and nobody cares what you do. Considering yourself to be a victim of some kind of bigotry because you got busted on your knees in public won't draw any sympathy. Even straight people get busted for that. Just be an adult and find some privacy to do your thing.

   Posted by Sliver at 08/27/2007 @ 10:45pm

10. "Sure, ACOOK. But a liberal gets rich, calls for tax hikes, then hides their cash in some foreign bank account...that doesn't HURT anybody or treat them like second class citizens."

    "Some holier-than-thou "fags getting married will destroy our precious institution of marriage" right-winger....who hoovers some guy in a public restroom, then goes out and votes for anti-gay rights legislation because that's what gets him elected by Leviticus-quoting morons....does."

    Posted by MASK 08/27/2007 @ 10:42pm

    Excuse me?!! Liberals have plenty of closeted gays too. They voted against the same anti-gay legislation. And, as far as hiding cash, it hurts plenty. Stealing tax payer money in the name of "tax hikes" and God knows what else is far worst than two men trying to blow each other over $20.

    Also, don't go name calling good Christian folks "Leviticus-quoting morons". They didn't know the guy was on the DL.

    Posted by ACook at 08/27/2007 @ 11:05pm

11. Hair-raising: 62-year old man and from Idaho, one of the most conservative red places in America. He's supposed to be a Red Army commissar. Ah, no, sex is great, greater than his fellow Mitt Romney.

    Posted by Helen DAO at 08/27/2007 @ 11:49pm

12. A couple things....

    The Good News (hey, I'm trying) is that it's rather surprising, in a positive way, that there seems to be more gays in the GOP than one might have thought.....odd, I can name more likely (or sure) gay Repub pols than Dems....That is pretty remarkable! It tells me, a socially moderate/liberal Repub, that if the GOP can `lighten up' some on policy issues, we can not only hold but and make gains among the gay/bi electorates!

    The Distasteful News: Why is a supposedly liberal magazine SO INTERESTED in the indiscretions of the personal lives of GOP pols? Such indiscretions pale in comparison to the much larger reality of pols being hypocrites on things much, much more important to GOVERNING! Is this the blow back due to Clinton who by his lonesome self, generated years of sexual indiscretions? or is there something truly HYPOCRITICAL going on right here at The nation?

    Posted by Happy at 08/27/2007 @ 11:59pm

13. Posted by POSEIDON 08/27/2007

    I'm not going to disagree with you. But I am not going to completely agree with you either. I choose not to see things as uniformly poor and disreputable or that American society has lost its moorings because I am not sure what moorings it ever had to begin with.

    If you mean that we have misplaced priorities, I agree. And we always have. But whose priorities are we talking about? The United States is about more than its politicians, its media elite and its bigots.

    Posted by hhemwm at 08/28/2007 @ 01:28am

14. Posted by ACOOK 08/27/2007 @ 11:05pm

    1. If they're voting against gay rights, they're not "liberals".

    2. A tax hike, one that you and I would oppose, doesn't tell somebody they're a second-class citizen because if they get married to the person they love it "doesn't count".

    3. Those who quote Leviticus for opposition to homosexuality, yet "oddly" fail to quote it on things like "wearing garments of two different cloth" or "death being the penalty for working on the Sabbath" or "selling your daughter into slavery" ARE morons who are picking and choosing their outrage for somethings and deciding "Well, THAT stuff doesn't count since Jesus came and over-rode The Law" for OTHER things.

    As for Craig, if he was honest about who he was...he could oppose all the tax hikes in the world, but he'd never get elected by the Religious Right, who ARE more concerned about "two men trying to blow each other over $20" than keeping the Government out of our pocketbooks.

    Posted by Mask at 08/28/2007 @ 09:07am

15. Another hypocritical Republican "family values" pervert has been outed. Hey, LUVLIBERTY, how much did you give to the pervert's election fund?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/28/2007 @ 09:20am

16. or is there something truly HYPOCRITICAL going on right here at The nation?

    Posted by HAPPY 08/27/2007 @ 11:59pm

    Nope, just pointing out the hypocrisy of your party

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/28/2007 @ 09:21am

17. Posted by MASK

    Here! Here!

    Posted by hhemwm at 08/28/2007 @ 09:31am

18. Posted by HHEMWM 08/28/2007 @ 09:31am

    What will be interesting is to see if the really vehemently anti-gay politicians, even ministers, keep it up?

    After Ted Haggard, Craig, et al. won't a cloud of suspicion rise up over any strongly anti-gay speaker that...."maybe they're hiding something" or "me thinks he doest protest too much"?

    Posted by Mask at 08/28/2007 @ 09:42am

19. Post-arrest, Allen, appealing at once to homophobia and racism, mounted a "black (gay) panic" defense. You see he wasn't really interested in giving head, he was just trying to save his neck. Apparently, the cop was "a pretty stocky black guy" and "there were nothing but other black guys around in the park." Fearing he was "about to become a statistic," Allen did what any other, rational, straight (straight!), white man would do if he just so happened to find himself cruising a public restroom full of black men: fork over a Jackson and drop to your knees.

    This sounds like something the old man would plead.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/28/2007 @ 10:18am

20. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/28/2007 @ 10:18am

    Hmmm....a homophobe offering up lame excuses for their homophobia?

    Hey, Empty, you might be onto something there! Wonder what excuse Craig would give for using terms like "fruit", "fag", or "mary"?

    Posted by Mask at 08/28/2007 @ 10:21am

21. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD

    Yes, there is a great deal of hypocrisy in both parties, but don't try using the hypocrisy of liberals to excuse the hypocrisy of the right. Neither is right; you, however, can only control what you do, not what others do. Whenever something like this is reported the righties immediately begin chirping the name of Bill Clinton, Al Gore...rather than facing the hypocrisy of their own leaders, their own believes.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/28/2007 @ 10:30am

22. Hmmm....a homophobe offering up lame excuses for their homophobia?

    Hey, Empty, you might be onto something there! Wonder what excuse Craig would give for using terms like "fruit", "fag", or "mary"?

    Posted by MASK

    Refering to a sniveling little liar like you with various epiteths doesn't make me a homophobe. (Your persistent attempt to paint me as a homophobe in Goebbels fashion only serves to prove my point.) You're a weasel, a worm; you act like a petulant little girl. You're called insulting names because of the underhanded, dishonest way you choose to behave. So quit your whining, mary. Nobody cares.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/28/2007 @ 10:33am

23. These stories will not go away until politicians stop legislating their discomfort with sexual orientation questions. In a truly civilized and enlightened nation, Republican / Democrat Senators wouldn't have to go to Airport Stalls for sex/love, and they wouldn't have to marry a member of the opposite sex for cover. REMEMBER REPUBLICANS- YOU WERE THE ONES WHO COINED THE "GAYS, GUNS, AND GOD STRATEGY, SO DON'T CRY FOUL NOW THAT IT HAS BLOWN UP IN YOUR FACES AND PROBABLY COST YOU THE 2006 CONGRESSIONAL MAJORITIES.

    Posted by phillymark at 08/28/2007 @ 10:45am

24. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/28/2007 @ 10:33am

    You don't REALLY think you can get on a thread about homophobia....and not have THIS thrown in your face, do you?--

    BLOG | Posted 05/24/2007 @ 11:36am Comments for "Blogging for Business" by Ari Berman

    "But this constant barrage of "little fruit" or other gay allusions or epithets as insults or put-downs....is rather strange from someone who purportedly is a "progressive"?!?!?"----Posted by MASK

    "Says you. I'm not all that concerned with the speech police....And fruit is not something I would call a gay man. Fruit, faggot, butt pirate, sucker of cocks--these are epiteths for people like you. You intentionally distort, fabricate, play little games that are not characteristic of what I consider a man."----Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/25/2007 @ 11:16am

    Posted by Mask at 08/28/2007 @ 10:50am

25. REMEMBER REPUBLICANS- YOU WERE THE ONES WHO COINED THE "GAYS, GUNS, AND GOD STRATEGY, SO DON'T CRY FOUL NOW THAT IT HAS BLOWN UP IN YOUR FACES AND PROBABLY COST YOU THE 2006 CONGRESSIONAL MAJORITIES.

    Posted by PHILLYMARK

    Exactly. Bunch of hypocrites.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/28/2007 @ 10:51am

26. Also- Based on the accounts I've read, the Senator was arrested for tapping on the foot of the man next to him, whom he did not know to be a cop, and he reached his hand under the stall. I did not read an account where he physically touched the cop with that hand? If this is correct, even if a sexual invitation was implied, why was this behavior deemed illegal. I have a much bigger problem with the details of the arrest. BTW the "wide stance" argument will live on humorously forever- that's why smart / rich people get good lawyers.

    Posted by phillymark at 08/28/2007 @ 10:52am

27. Posted by MASK

    You cry more than a little girl.

    Being progressive doesn't mean you can't call a spade a spade, especially when the spade is such a dispicable little insect as you. If you must cry, go cry to your mommie, mary.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/28/2007 @ 10:54am

28. You intentionally distort, fabricate, play little games that are not characteristic of what I consider a man."----Posted by MTSPENCE05 05/25/2007 @ 11:16am

    Posted by MASK

    Care to deny it?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/28/2007 @ 10:55am

29. Why can't these folks just go get laid? It would save a lot of time and allow the police to go and fight actual crime.

    But I guess this is what happens when your entire political modus operandi centers on sexual repression: you end up on your knees in a bathroom trying to give head to an undercover cop.

    Like I said, just go get laid. Damn!

    Posted by edwriter at 08/28/2007 @ 11:17am

30. And you gotta wonder...are they astute enough to at least be wearing knee pads when they do this..or is part of the self-loathing thing that's obviously involved experiencing discomfort and pleasure at the same time?

    Posted by edwriter at 08/28/2007 @ 11:19am

31. Hey MASK and MTSPENCE,

    You are both right, in a way. Mask can be sensitive sometimes, and MTSpence has clearly established himself as a homophobe.

    Posted by BlueSpark at 08/28/2007 @ 12:17pm

32. "Being progressive doesn't mean you can't call a spade a spade...." ----Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/28/2007 @ 10:54am

    "spade"? Hmmm, doesn't THAT have a connutation too?

    Oops, forgot...you "not all that concerned for the speech police"!

    Posted by Mask at 08/28/2007 @ 12:17pm

33. Posted by BLUESPARK 08/28/2007 @ 12:17pm

    I'm not sensitive, BLUESPARK. An acknowledged homophobe like RIO using terms like "fag", "fruit", or "mary"....that's expected.

    Somebody who CLAIMS to be a "progressive", who uses them, and then claims "But, of course I'm not a homophobe...I just like using insulting terms for homosexuals to attack my political opponents...doesn't mean I have anything against homosexuals!"....

    that's hypocritical b.s.

    Posted by Mask at 08/28/2007 @ 12:20pm

34. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/28/2007 @ 09:38am

    well said (my god, i agree with you)

    although i have only verified the veracity of some of your examples (and some perhaps could use a little "asteriskation"*), the general gist is spot on.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/28/2007 @ 10:30am

    but don't try using the hypocrisy of liberals to excuse the hypocrisy of the right.

    as this post contains a litany of "conservative" hypocrisies**, it is only fair that MISS(LE)MARY ask for "A little perspective, please."

    as for her seeing the hypocrisy of "conservative" "leaders", i'm sure (MARY, where are you?--please agree) she does.

    it's all too evident.

    BTW if we are looking for hypocrites, the best place to start is at home. after all, that is "where the heart is".

    *from latin: "astrum"--star

    **english is messed up--check and see how many spellings of hypocrisy are found on this page alone. just image how much money would be saved (no more hours wasted spell-checking; no more hours wasted "teaching" spelling) and how much faster you could assimilate "all them foreign types who won't learn god's tongue" if it were phonetic (couldn't do that--god would smite us).

    let thu revulooshin beegin!!!!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2007 @ 12:33pm

35. Somebody who CLAIMS to be a "progressive", who uses them, and then claims "But, of course I'm not a homophobe...I just like using insulting terms for homosexuals to attack my political opponents...doesn't mean I have anything against homosexuals!"....

    that's hypocritical b.s.

    Posted by MARYT

    What a cry baby. Go tell mommie, mary, maybe she'll care.

    You're a weasel of the worse kind. You are in no way deserving of any kind of respect. You bring it all on yourself, bitch boy.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/28/2007 @ 12:53pm

36. You are both right, in a way. Mask can be sensitive sometimes, and MTSpence has clearly established himself as a homophobe.

    Posted by BLUESPARK

    Really? How is that? Have I ever posted anything endorsing discrimination against gays, lesbians? Have I ever posted hateful words for gays, lesbians? No. I issue the little bitch a few insults; if you want to call that homophobic, knock yourself out, buy into mary's little game. I don't live in such a rarified atmosphere. Maybe you can get mary a tissue.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/28/2007 @ 12:59pm

37. ::"Also- Based on the accounts I've read, the Senator was arrested for tapping on the foot of the man next to him, whom he did not know to be a cop, and he reached his hand under the stall. I did not read an account where he physically touched the cop with that hand? If this is correct, even if a sexual invitation was implied, why was this behavior deemed illegal. I have a much bigger problem with the details of the arrest. BTW the "wide stance" argument will live on humorously forever- that's why smart / rich people get good lawyers. Posted by PHILLYMARK 08/28/2007 @ 10:52am | ignore this person "::

    I too question the arrest- tapping someone's foot makes you guilty of lewd behavoir?? wouldn't he have to say something, make obscene gestures...I dunno, something more severe than a foot tap?

    Posted by jro555 at 08/28/2007 @ 1:06pm

38. Holy shit, as if I didn't have enough to worry about while traveling. Now I gotta watch out for GOP Senators in the airport johns prowling for BJ's.

    Posted by Stevorama at 08/28/2007 @ 1:07pm

39. I'M JUST WAITING FOR RUDY GIULIANI TO BE HIS OWN FIRST LADY...

    This is a bit off topic, I guess, and I know that cross-dressing is not ipso facto gay. (In point of fact, evidently, a lot of heterosexual men cross-dress because it "turns them on" -- or so I've read.) But cross-dressing is, at the very least, kinky and an indication, perhaps, of unsuitability for high office. (Could this be what the founders meant by "high...misdemeanors"?)

    What I want to know is, WHY HAVEN'T THE DEMOCRATS PICKED UP ON GIULIANI'S CROSS-DRESSING VIDEO??? It's out there on the Internet for everyone to see -- drag-queen "Rudia" in the godawful calf-lenght floral print dress -- and I guarantee that if this were a DEMOCRATIC candidate for president, the Republicans would be all over a pecadillo like this! Sure, in reality it's a total non-issue but let's NOT be "fair" for a change. Let's use the Republicans' own tactics on THEM, for a change. If you're in a street fight (and politics definitely is one) and your opponent is fighting dirty while you're making nice and "playing fair," who do think is going to win the fight?

    Republicans certainly don't have a lock on moral hypocrisy but when it comes to gay sex -- in fact, when it comes to human sexuality in general (think of the kinds of programs they want to substite for sex education and effective birth control) -- but they're definitely way out ahead of everyone else.

    Posted by w_m_bear at 08/28/2007 @ 1:08pm

40. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/28/2007 @ 09:38am

    Typical. Try to change the subject, as usual. This is a thread about how the family values Republican crowd has a lot of hypocritical gay boys in it.

    You are incapable of defending the hypocritical bigoted busy-bodies, so what do you do? You try to obfuscate and change the subject.

    This is tantamount to admission that you cannot defend the hypocrites of your party. Too bad you don't have the balls just to admit it.

    And you also don't have the moral courage to admit one other HUGE fact. The examples you cite from the left are not people trying to poke their big noses into our bedrooms and tell us how to live our private lives.

    But the homosexual hypocrites that you won't condemn are doing just that. Well, keep your chickenshit hypocritical nose out of America's bedrooms!

    And one more thing - just for once grow a set of balls and admit you have no defense. Sheesh, what a pussy.... You shouldn't be posting here because YOU GOT NOTHIN'!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/28/2007 @ 1:09pm

41. Maybe we need to designate seperate but equal mens' restrooms for Republicans.

    Posted by Stevorama at 08/28/2007 @ 1:10pm

42. Posted by W_M_BEAR

    I always wondered why the Dems didn't play a clip from "Pumping Iron" when Arnold first ran for governor. "It feels just like I'm coming," Arnold told the camera, in a thick Austrian accent, while he described the sensation of pumping up.

    "Just like I'm coming." Over and over again, and then: "This man wants to be your governor."

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/28/2007 @ 1:18pm

43. Holy shit, as if I didn't have enough to worry about while traveling. Now I gotta watch out for GOP Senators in the airport johns prowling for BJ's.

    Posted by STEVORAMA 08/28/2007 @ 1:07pm

    dunno............

    might be fun.

    these guys sure blow a huge head of steam on the senate floor. that kind of killer technique must cum in hand[y]. (apologies to all--humour makes the world go round)

    BTW i hope senator craig can make peace within himself and his family. i wish him luck (not as a politician, but as a human)

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2007 @ 1:24pm

44. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/28/2007 @ 1:18pm

    better yet, check out this "classic" [en.wikipedia.org] by the arnold.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2007 @ 1:26pm

45. Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/28/2007 @ 12:22am

    OH, CHRIST...

    Not that tired, trite old "blame Clinton" rubric again. Every time conservatives get into trouble -- especially sex trouble -- they point to Clinton as though that makes everything OK. Here are a couple of the logical fallacies involved in this lame tactic:

    1) Changing the subject -- The subject is not Clinton, it is the current, recently unveiled moral hypocrisy of a Republican Senator.

    2) The Tu Atque or "you too" fallacy -- Because I point to someone else's ("your") bad behavior in a similar enough vein, that excuses my own bad behavior in that vein. A different example of the conservative use of tu atque lies in their defense of the Bush administrations use of torture against prisoners on the grounds that "our enemies" torture THEIR prisoners in a much more gruesome fashion. Catch a gay Republican Senator out on "morals" charges? Tu Atque! Clinton, Clinton, Clinton!

    Posted by w_m_bear at 08/28/2007 @ 1:28pm

46. It's a good thing Craig and Allen weren't busted trolling for sex in the public restrooms in Fort Lauderdale; Mayor Naugle would be chasing them around with prods and handcuffs! (which they'd all probably enjoy...) Maybe that's why Naugle is so freaked out about gay men supposedly having sex in toilets; they're all of his fellow GOP party men...

    Posted by JohnVP at 08/28/2007 @ 1:36pm

47. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/28/2007 @ 1:18pm

    Yeah, I don't know what the problem the Democrats seem to have with doing this kind of ad is. It's practically the only kind of ad Republican candidates use any more. I think the problem the Dems have with this type of "negative ads" stems ultimately from the one they ran way back in 1964 during the Goldwater vs. Johnson campaign, when they kept playing an image of little girl smelling and picking flowers and then, all at once, everything completely obliterated by a mushroom cloud (this, of course, to emphasize Goldwater's reputedly nuclear trigger-happy mentality). Boy, did the Republicans scream about that one. And it WAS effective. Goldwater lost in '64 by nearly as much as McGovern lost in '72. Problem is, the Dems LISTENED to the Republicans' outraged screams and basically said W-E-E-E-E'RE sorry! Won't do it again.

    Posted by w_m_bear at 08/28/2007 @ 1:37pm

48. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/28/2007 @ 12:52pm

    See, FROSTY, I wouldn't be offended by you using those terms at me, because A. you're obviously do it in a satirical way and B. Canadians have this reputation for being pretty open-minded and liberal....

    while "working class Texans" who probably grew up saying things like "queers and steers only thing in Oklahoma"...are a bit more suspect.

    (BTW, lest anybody think this is purely a MASK thing...CKA2ND, our resident socialist, has called Empty on his use of homophobic slurs as well!)

    Posted by Mask at 08/28/2007 @ 2:12pm

49. If my math is correct..

    I think the estimates are that 3% of the population are/is gay.., so of the 50% eligible voters vote, that number would be around 60 million? , so 43% claim liberal and 43% claim conservative, then 43% of 60 million is 25,800,000...then 3% of that group, 774,000 should be gay..also it is safe to say that the dems get 80% or so of the gay vote, just because of single issue voting..that leaves 154,000 gays left in the Repub party..divided by 50 states...3080 gays Repubs per state...so therefore, if there is 1 airport and say 1.4 % of population is traveling by air at any given time , that is 43 gay repubs at the airport,and 30 bathrooms in an airport is 1.4 gay repubs per bathroom, 1/2 bathrooms are male gives .071 gay repubs per bath room, if there are 10 staslls, then you have a 1 in 10 chance of of meeting .0071 of a gay man who is repub at an airport stall...

    It must have been a set up...

    Conclusions..the majority of men at airprot stalls in mensroom are gay are liberal democrats,...so the problem is gay democrats at the airport..right?...not Repubs at airports..

    There, my work is finished here.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/28/2007 @ 2:12pm

50. Have I ever posted hateful words for gays, lesbians? No.

    Actually, you often do so. Gleefully, in fact.

    Posted by BlueSpark at 08/28/2007 @ 2:23pm

51. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/28/2007 @ 2:12pm

    You'd better hurry and get this important formula to the press. GO! NOW! Before the republicans look any worse in the eyes of the public!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/28/2007 @ 2:25pm

52. "If I really dislike someone, and think they have a bad character and lie and act like a crybaby, I refer to them with words normally reserved for making derogatory comments about gays--like faggot, mary, butt pirate, turd burglar--but, hey, I got nothing against gays. Just like if I call someone a "lazy nigger," that doesn't mean I am racist, as long as my target is a white person."--MTSPENCE

    (Giant eye roll)--REST OF WORLD

    Posted by BlueSpark at 08/28/2007 @ 2:28pm

53. MTSPENCE-- You're fucked. You look like a complete homophobe now. It'd be the same if you used the n-word and tried to explain that you're not racist. Using the epithets that homosexuals, blacks, or any other historically oppressed group of people hate being called renders you prejudicial. Why pursue the ad hominem attack anyway? Attempting to emasculate Mask by calling him Mary, or a little girl makes it seem that you must think it's a lowly thing to be a woman or a effeminate. It's mysoginistic. It also makes whatever original point you were trying to make seem flimsy in that you had to resort to throwing out the insults when logic failed you.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/28/2007 @ 2:36pm

54. Temporary timeout from the bathroom talk......The People's Republic of Santa Barbara up to their UNusual stuff....UNBELIEVABLE!

    JAMES Q. WILSON EMAILS: "On August 26, 2007, the Los Angeles Times published an article explaining why the city council of Santa Barbara has been prevented from painting a blue line across the city to mark how high the water will be if you believe Al Gore's prediction that global warming will make the oceans rise by 23 feet. The idea was not defeated because people realize that Gore's prediction is silly and wrong, but because a realtor threatened a law suit based on the argument that property values below the line would fall."

    Posted by Happy at 08/28/2007 @ 2:46pm

55. "...turd burglar--.."

    --MTSPENCE

    Now you've done it.. this requires an apology to all offended bank robbers from all the prisons and from all the years back since the founding of the republic..

    The next thing you know, EMPTY will be insulting another entire group again..like train robbers...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/28/2007 @ 2:46pm

56. Wow!

    MT dropped the "n-word".

    Don't know what to say to that, except that it's a brand, new low. However, you're free to say it. First Amendment allows it.

    But just because the First Amendment says you can say it, doesn't mean that you should. Calling anyone a nigger isn't cool. You're allowed to, but it isn't right.

    Wow!

    Posted by edwriter at 08/28/2007 @ 2:52pm

57. I'm loving this. I live near the state line of Idaho, so many of my co-workers live in Idaho, and I'm having a great time asking the ones who voted for Craig to explain to me the details of this case. Just a few years ago, the mayor of our great city of Spokane, anti-gay republican Jim West, was recalled after it was learned that he had been soliciting young men for sex on his computer at work, and had been giving these same men jobs in city hall. All of this in one of the country's most intollerant places, the Inland Northwest, home of the Church of the Aryan Nations. It really begs the question: how many anti-gay, but gay republicans don't we know about?

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/28/2007 @ 2:53pm

58. "but because a realtor threatened a law suit based on the argument that property values below the line would fall."

    Posted by HAPPY 08/28/2007 @ 2:46pm | ignore this person

    Or, everything above that line just increased in value 1000 fold, since you could give glass bottom boat tours of the city from your own back yard,er, dock.....

    ...and think of the tax revenue that could be generated, we could call it the "ALGORE SWIMMING LESSON TAX FUND" for all those in need of a special program involving water and related problems,sort of a FEMA only for Global Warming that only govt can solve. Boats, of course, could be exempt by purchasing carbon credits from ALGORE, himself,of course....It all works.

    Posted by john maasch at 08/28/2007 @ 2:56pm

59. I am not gay, have never been gay and will never be gay; neither do I agree or promote the gay agenda. As a matter of fact, I personally feel that homosexuality is unnatural; however, if someone chooses that lifestyle, then as long as they keep it to themselves and keep away from me, that is their life to live. In a similar vein, being a black man, if some white people decide they do not like black people and do not want to associate with me because i am black, then that is their choice. Just as long as they do not deny me the right to live a fruitful life.

    That said, I have always believed, and as is now coming to light, that there are many men (claiming to be heterosexual) who deep down have homosexual tendencies. I strongly believe this to be true both on the 'liberal' and 'conservative' sides of the aisle. Just the other day I read a story about married white men who had illicit homosexual encounters on the side. Then there was the matter of the Oprah show addressing the same issue amongst black men. Couple this with the many feministic tendencies displayed by lot of men, and you start to realize that there are a whole lot of 'closet' gays out there -- personally i peg it at 50% of men are gay.

    Difference between the liberal and conservatives is that on this matter, even though a lot of liberals might be gay, they will not condemn their brethren; however, the conservatives (even the gay ones) will speak out the loudest. I would not be surprised if there were as many gay republicans (if not even more) than gay democrats. A house built on lies, takes only one truth to bring it crashing down...i wonder what else will come out in the open.

    Posted by mansa at 08/28/2007 @ 2:57pm

60. Posted by EDWRITER 08/28/2007 @ 2:52pm

    I don't konw if you caught it on another thread, but thank you for the link to the Presidents House. I loved it and will visit the site next time I am in town..I love stuff like that..

    Thank you very much.

    John

    Posted by john maasch at 08/28/2007 @ 2:57pm

61. I am not gay, have never been gay and will never be gay; neither do I agree or promote the gay agenda. As a matter of fact, I personally feel that homosexuality is unnatural; however, if someone chooses that lifestyle, then as long as they keep it to themselves and keep away from me, that is their life to live. In a similar vein, being a black man, if some white people decide they do not like black people and do not want to associate with me because i am black, then that is their choice. Just as long as they do not deny me the right to live a fruitful life.

    That said, I have always believed, and as is now coming to light, that there are many men (claiming to be heterosexual) who deep down have homosexual tendencies. I strongly believe this to be true both on the 'liberal' and 'conservative' sides of the aisle. Just the other day I read a story about married white men who had illicit homosexual encounters on the side. Then there was the matter of the Oprah show addressing the same issue amongst black men. Couple this with the many feministic tendencies displayed by lot of men, and you start to realize that there are a whole lot of 'closet' gays out there -- personally i peg it at 50% of men are gay.

    Difference between the liberal and conservatives is that on this matter, even though a lot of liberals might be gay, they will not condemn their brethren; however, the conservatives (even the gay ones) will speak out the loudest. I would not be surprised if there were as many gay republicans (if not even more) than gay democrats. A house built on lies, takes only one truth to bring it crashing down...i wonder what else will come out in the open.

    Posted by mansa at 08/28/2007 @ 3:01pm

62. Mansa,

    "i wonder what else will come out in the open.

    Posted by MANSA 08/28/2007 @ 2:57pm "

    That Hillary actually has bigger testicles than Bill.

    Interesting post and I agree with most of it but one part..that choosing to practice homosexual sex may not be a choice for many men..I used to believe in the nurture/nature arguement, but have since changed my mind..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/28/2007 @ 3:01pm

63. Attempting to emasculate Mask by calling him Mary, or a little girl makes it seem that you must think it's a lowly thing to be a woman or a effeminate. It's mysoginistic. ====Posted by MATTMAN 08/28/2007 @ 2:36pm

    Another key thing MATT. Examine his logic---referring to an opponent by terms derogatory to homosexuals or in reference to women ("little girl")...to Empty is a "put-down".

    Now, WHY would he think that? Unless he felt there was something "inferior" and thus insulting about homosexuality or being a young girl.

    As you and BLUESPARK noted, he's smart enough (barely) to realize that he couldn't "get away" with using a racist term against somebody he wanted to insult...but he thinks he CAN get away with homophobic or misogynistic terms...

    and can justify with his "I'm not concerned with the speech police" LIMBAUGH-like comment or if he couchs it in "Oh, but I'd never call a gay man or woman such a name" quasi-defenses.

    Back on-topic, no doubt Larry Craig thought something similar (true, no pure analogy, but close). He thought he could vote against gay rights and it would somehow remove the "taint" of his own repressed sexuality.

    Such is the way of hypocrites.

    Posted by Mask at 08/28/2007 @ 3:12pm

64. Such is the way of hypocrites.

    Posted by MASK 08/28/2007 @ 3:12pm

    Is that why Democrats who behave like this guy get promoted and republicans drum them out of the core?..hypocrisy? on both?

    Posted by john maasch at 08/28/2007 @ 3:20pm

65. And I meant core, not corps..

    Posted by john maasch at 08/28/2007 @ 3:21pm

66. That Hillary actually has bigger testicles than Bill.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/28/2007 @ 3:01pm

    Back to bathroom talk.....

    No one has mentioned the news, published by the WSJ, on the campaign donations to Dems, including to Hillary, by the Paw family of SF....to the tune of almost $200k, since just 2004....Mr. Paw is an immigrant & a mail carrier living in a small, in-the-flight-path (of SF Int'l Airport) house. Very clear red flags of straw donors directed and funded by a rich Chinese-American biz guy out of New York! This is highly troubling, not for the usual campaign donations violations but because of the Chinese connection.....shared in common with similar stunts during Bill Clinton's years.

    Could HRC be the `Chinese Candidate'? Imagine our next POTUS (IF she wins) in the pocket of China! I hope lots more to be revealed on this dark connection to China that span two decades now!

    Posted by Happy at 08/28/2007 @ 3:21pm

67. Imagine our next POTUS (IF she wins) in the pocket of China! I hope lots more to be revealed on this dark connection to China that span two decades now!

    We'll have to see. But think of it this way: the American people have really shit the bed in choosing our last 2 presidents. Perhaps it is time to let the Chinese give it a shot.

    Posted by BlueSpark at 08/28/2007 @ 3:27pm

68. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/28/2007 @ 3:20pm

    What Democrat IS acting that way, JOHN? Voting for anti-gay legislation and then hiding his homosexuality?

    Posted by Mask at 08/28/2007 @ 3:47pm

69. I gave nothing. I told the Republican Party in 2004 that I will not give again until they begin upholding conservative values again, especially on reducing Federal spending and controlling our borders.----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/28/2007 @ 3:33pm

    Money aside, you ARE going to vote for the Republican nominee, though, right? Even if it's a PRO-gay rights, PRO-choice guy like Rudy Giuliani....right?

    Posted by Mask at 08/28/2007 @ 3:52pm

70. 1 Timothy 5:24 Remember that some people lead sinful lives, and everyone knows they will be judged. But there are others whose sin will not be revealed until later.

    LIBERTY, could this not apply to the entire GOP platform? e.g. wanting to spend more on bombs than on, ya know, helping the hungry?

    Posted by BlueSpark at 08/28/2007 @ 3:58pm

71. Posted by BLUESPARK 08/28/2007 @ 3:58pm

    Sorry, BLUE, think you've missed LVLIBERTY's take on "bombs" and how the Korean War should have been fought--

    BLOG | Posted 01/10/2007 @ 11:47am Comments for "Surge Homeward" by Katrina vanden Heuvel

    "3-5 nuclear weapons against China and a threat to Russia to keep in line or they would have been next would have given the world a much better opportunity for peace than we have seen as a result of not letting MacArthur achieve the victory that we should have."---- Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/10/2007 @ 4:32pm

    Posted by Mask at 08/28/2007 @ 4:05pm

72. Posted by HAPPY 08/28/2007 @ 3:21pm

    Don't tell Frank...

    Posted by john maasch at 08/28/2007 @ 4:18pm

73. Oh, it's so great to hear all the speech police saying you can't say this or that, especially those that support a party that advocates discrimination against gays and lesbians. I also find it odd that those defending historical figures such as Truman--a man that ordered two atomic bombs dropped on civilian centers--are so robust in their condemnation of my language. Too fing bad. I can give a rat's ass less what any asswipe thinks. It's not what you say that counts (which is the point of the two threads describing the hypocrisy of Republican politicians), but what you do. Being careful to always use the "correct" language matters very little if you're a rationalizing, lying, obfuscating hypocrite weasel.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/28/2007 @ 4:39pm

74. It is taken as a given that Craig is a family values hypocrite. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/28/2007 @ 4:18pm

    I guess it's sort of a stereotyple for republicans these days. No, more like a cliche.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/28/2007 @ 4:45pm

75. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/28/2007 @ 4:39pm

    Empty....why don't you call me the N-word or "wetback" or "Gook"?

    After all you "have little concern for the speech police" and "Being careful to always use the "correct" language matters very little"....and OF COURSE you're not a racist....so why not?

    Posted by Mask at 08/28/2007 @ 4:48pm

76. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/28/2007 @ 4:46pm

    LL, I'd like to see you once again explain how Jesus would have supported us ....vaporizing a few million Chinese during the Korean War.....to, uh, spare them Mao of course!

    Posted by Mask at 08/28/2007 @ 4:49pm

77. Attempting to emasculate Mask by calling him Mary, or a little girl makes it seem that you must think it's a lowly thing to be a woman or a effeminate. It's mysoginistic. ====Posted by MATTMAN 08/28/2007 @ 2:36pm

    Another key thing MATT. Examine his logic---referring to an opponent by terms derogatory to homosexuals or in reference to women ("little girl")...to Empty is a "put-down".

    Now, WHY would he think that? Unless he felt there was something "inferior" and thus insulting about homosexuality or being a young girl.

    Posted by MARY

    Well, if you're gay or a little girl, then no, it's not an insult; if you're a straight male it is insulting. Whining like some little girl is not way for a grown male to act. I'm sure there are many out there will want to disagree (as is their right), but I don't care.

    As for racial slurs: Let's drop the pretenses of America being color blind. We all know that's bs. That's why I've always made a point of Obama's claims to be "black." He's half white, and yet he milks the black angle for his own advantage. Many want to call Tiger Woods black even though his mother is Malaysian and he looks more Malaysian than "black." Years ago if you had any ancestory that was not white European you were sol if you lived in the USA (it was a similar situation in Nazi Germany if there was any other than "Aryan" genes).

    The whole speech police thing smacks of hypocrisy.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/28/2007 @ 4:52pm

78. It also makes whatever original point you were trying to make seem flimsy in that you had to resort to throwing out the insults when logic failed you.

    Posted by MATTMAN

    This is rich coming from the guy that doesn't know the difference between a Marxist and a liberal capitalist.

    And what logic was it that failed me?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/28/2007 @ 4:56pm

79. Being careful to always use the "correct" language matters very little if you're a rationalizing, lying, obfuscating hypocrite weasel.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/28/2007 @ 5:06pm

80. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/28/2007 @ 4:52pm

    So MT, let me understand your logic here. If you are dealing with a woman rather than a man, do you consider it an appropriate insult to call them "a little boy" because "whining like a little boy is not a way for a grown woman to act?" or if you ARE trying to put down a gay man, rather than a straight man, calling them "straight" or a "vagina-loving breeder"?

    Do you even toss around those sorts of insults?

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/28/2007 @ 5:38pm

81. And what logic was it that failed me?

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/28/2007 @ 4:56pm

    A trick question, I know. The answer is that there was none.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/28/2007 @ 5:44pm

82. Posted by HMAN23

    With a straight woman you would want to go after her feminity. A gay man (depending on exactly what kind of gay man it is) you would probably get the best results with attacking his appearance. When you're looking to cut on somebody you go for what hurts, for what is going to get the person's goat--that's the logic.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/28/2007 @ 5:44pm

83. A trick question, I know. The answer is that there was none.

    Posted by MATTMAN

    I don't know. You posted it.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/28/2007 @ 5:45pm

84. It's not what you say that counts (which is the point of the two threads describing the hypocrisy of Republican politicians), but what you do. Being careful to always use the "correct" language matters very little if you're a rationalizing, lying, obfuscating hypocrite weasel.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/28/2007 @ 5:47pm

85. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/28/2007 @ 5:47pm

    Wrong. What you say and how you say it IS important. It is probably why so few people take you seriously around here.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/28/2007 @ 5:53pm

86. Mary -

    I have no idea if MT is a homophobe or not, because I do not know him/her. But, that is not my point (maybe it is the point for some poeple). My point, is that the insults and name-calling he throws around are childish, reveal he has little to offer in terms of a substantive point, and, generally, makes him look like a fool. of course, he can say whatever the hell he wants. I could care less.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/28/2007 @ 5:59pm

87. Wrong. What you say and how you say it IS important. It is probably why so few people take you seriously around here.

    Posted by HMAN23

    Do you see that "ignore this person" there to the right of the poster's name? Maybe you should use it since you're so sensitive.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/28/2007 @ 5:59pm

88. Mary is the one charging MT with homophobia

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD

    Yep, and the little weasel is the one that brought it up.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 08/28/2007 @ 6:09pm

89. Hey, What happened to the CEO pay gap article?

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/28/2007 @ 6:01pm

    That's what I'm wondering too!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 08/28/2007 @ 6:09pm

90. Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/28/2007 @ 5:59pm

    Not "sensitive," MT. Just pointing out that you come across as immature, as well as unpersuasive.

    Posted by Hman23 at 08/28/2007 @ 6:39pm

91. Thank you Mr Kim for an excellent article.

    Mr Kim speaks of the "public discourse on sex" and suggests that "we might also pause to wonder if there's some cultural knot that gay liberation -- despite its original and best intentions --has left in place."

    The question of a cultural knot is a good one.

    For reasons, in part, of political convenience, the gay establishment, as well as of course the religious right, has bought into the basically essentialist argument of "gay, straight, or lying."

    That argument is convenient, because it enables advocates and politicians to pursue a politics of identity, in which demands are made on the basis of those unwavering categories.

    A good example of this line of thought is gay pundit and sex advice columnist Dan Savage, who argued in a NY Times op-ed [nytimes.com] that the gay population is "tiny and stable."

    Clearly, if the population of gay men is "tiny and stable," granting that population equal rights is not a big deal.

    And that's what most of our "public discourse on sex" and particularly issues of "sexual orientation" boils down to.

    Arguments about "gay rights" based upon the notion of there being two entirely discrete categories of human being: gay and straight.

    But within the academy, there are many who argue that sexuality is "culturally constructed" -- in which case, the population not of "gay men" but of "men who have sex with men" is anything but tiny and stable.

    Rather, it shifts and changes depending upon cultural factors.

    And when the cultural factors are right, the population of "men who have sex with men" becomes virtually universal -- that is, all the guys in the culture do it.

    At other times, as is almost certainly the case in the US at this moment, the population of "men who have sex with men" fluctuates -- depending upon the power of the cultural messages which seek to prevent such activity.

    Now, Mssrs. Craig, Foley, Haggard, etc have been the bearers of such messages, and as such they're certainly a problem.

    But is it not possible also that they're playing off of "a public discourse about sex" which de facto cripples them as well.

    I'm a gay activist of many years standing, and currently I run a couple of websites for "men who have sex with men" who don't do anal sex.

    Many of our guys are "gay-identified."

    But many too are "straight-identified."

    They're all "men who have sex with men" -- but they self-define differently.

    Again, someone like Dan Savage -- or, better, Mike Rogers, the gay-identified blogger who's been seeking to out Senator Craig [proudofwhoweare.org], and who urged "Senator Craig to run for re-election as a proud gay American" -- people like Dan and Mike would say that the straight-identified guys who are having sex with guys -- aren't truly "straight" -- that they're lying.

    But the straight-identified guys who use my sites aren't lying.

    I know, because I married one of them.

    Of course now my husband identifies as bi, which is certainly more honest -- but bi is also what most people are.

    Mr Kim points out, and properly so, that Rep Allen preferred to be seen as racist rather than "someone who likes to have sex with men sometimes."

    But, in the public discourse about sex, that latter category barely exists.

    And its non-existence does tremendous harm, in my view, to all men.

    And, without question, women too.

    Nation readers who are interested in these issues from a scholarly perspective might want to look at John Ibson's Picturing Men: A Century of Male Relationships in Everyday American Photography.

    (ISBN-10: 0226368580)

    Ibson is the chair of the American Studies Department at Cal State, Fullerton, and his book is a work of considerable scholarship and erudition.

    In which he presents photographs from an era -- not terribly distant -- when intimacy between men was not merely accepted, but commonplace.

    Thank you again Mr Kim.

    Bill Weintraub

    Posted by billweintraub at 08/28/2007 @ 7:16pm

92. Posted by HMAN23 08/28/2007 @ 5:38pm

    Here's the deal, HMAN. Empty SPENCE grew up in Texas, no generalities needed to assume that in the 70s and 80s in high school he heard "the other guys" calling effeminate class members "fags" and "queers".

    Despite his liberal politics, that stuck in his head. So despite a SURFACE agreement to the rights of gays, deep down in his mind the subconscious attitude is "Fags are something inferior...somebody rubs me the wrong way (no pun intended), I call him a 'fag' or 'mary'"

    The intellect rationalizes it into "Hey, it's cool. I'm not doing it to a REAL 'fag', just somebody I want to insult by calling them a homosexual slur. I'd NEVER say that to a real homosexual, I'm open-minded!"

    Basically (in his mind) letting Empty maintain his air of sophisticated liberal....while sounding EXACTLY like his redneck "real" homophobic brethren down in Big D.

    Posted by Mask at 08/28/2007 @ 8:01pm

93. I've got to change my user name to Darin. This Mask/Mary/Marybretbrad is getting too confusing. Who know how to change usernames?

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/28/2007 @ 6:17pm

    first, log out

    then i if you go to yahoo or google or hotmail (NOT hotmale.com ;+) ) you can sign up for a new e-mail account. then go to the "click here to register" at the top of the comments on any blog post, ¡y listo!

    should work.

    let me know if it doesn't, MARYDARIN (how about MANDARIN?--nice ring to eat, political implications, good source of calcium and vitamins C and E)

    FZ

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2007 @ 8:53pm

94. ring to "it"--guess i'm hungry

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2007 @ 8:54pm

95. Posted by BILLWEINTRAUB 08/28/2007 @ 7:16pm

    good post, sir

    perhaps you could offer such well written posts on other topics as well

    FZ

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2007 @ 8:59pm

96. where's the income gap post?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/28/2007 @ 9:01pm

97. It is taken as a given that Craig is a family values hypocrite. That he voted fo anti-gay legislation. Does anyone have a concrete example of such? I mean did he vote for the "Death by Lions for Fags Act"? I think we can all agree that this would be anti-gay legislation.

    Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 08/28/2007 @ 4:18pm | ignore this person

    August 28 CNN.com article...

    In recent years, Craig's voting record has earned him top ratings from social conservative groups such as the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council.

    He has supported a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, telling his colleagues that it was "important for us to stand up now and protect traditional marriage, which is under attack by a few unelected judges and litigious activists."

    In 1996, Craig also voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal recognition to same-sex marriages and prevents states from being forced to recognize the marriages of gay and lesbian couples legally performed in other states.

    Craig also has opposed expanding the federal hate crimes law to cover offenses motivated by anti-gay bias and, in 1996, voted against a bill that would have outlawed employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, which failed by a single vote in the Senate.

    Posted by Lillian at 08/29/2007 @ 12:04am

98. Oh, it's so great to hear all the speech police saying you can't say this or that, especially those that support a party that advocates discrimination against gays and lesbians.

    Supporting a party doesn't mean that you support everything they stand for and everything they do. And you keep repeating the "speech police" nonsense: no one is telling you to stop using derogatory language; rather, we are simply pointing out what your language shows about your attitude towards gays. So that one's a red herring.

    I also find it odd that those defending historical figures such as Truman--a man that ordered two atomic bombs dropped on civilian centers--are so robust in their condemnation of my language.

    And I thought the first herring was a big one! This one is the catch of the day! What on earth does a defense of Truman have to do with anti-gay rhetoric?????

    Too fing bad. I can give a rat's ass less what any asswipe thinks.

    Ah, yes, the tried-and-true "I am above this whole argument" defense--the Escape Hatch of the Refuted.

    It's not what you say that counts (which is the point of the two threads describing the hypocrisy of Republican politicians), but what you do.

    Well, saying is a type of doing.

    Being careful to always use the "correct" language matters very little if you're a rationalizing, lying, obfuscating hypocrite weasel.

    Are you calling yourself a lying weasel here? I didn't quite follow this one. Who are you calling a liar, me? Mask? And what does that have to do with "correct" language?

    Posted by BlueSpark at 08/29/2007 @ 08:01am

99. It really is a shame that people have to live lies.

    I pity Craig and Allen.

    Posted by HHEMWM 08/27/2007 @ 8:26pm

    I'd pity them a lot more if if they hadn't been persecuting others for doing the same thing. I hope these guys stew in their own juice, not because of being gay, but because of being friggin hypocrits in powerful positions.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 08/29/2007 @ 09:32am

100. Maybe he can have Haggard ungay him like all good Christian Republicans.

     Posted by Leefeller at 08/29/2007 @ 09:41am

101. I am going to take a stab at defending Craig against the charge of hypocrisy: his voting actions and his bathroom actions are not at all inconsistent, not necessarily. He may believe that homosexuality is a sin and that it should not be condoned by law or by culture. He may also understand that the pull of homosexual urges is no less great than that of heterosexual urges. This understanding may have come about from the fact that he himself feels the pull of these urges. So he may understand why homosexuals do what they do, but also think that it is wrong, and that it should be relegated to the relative secrecy of highway rest areas, public bathrooms, and the visitor center at Mt. Rushmore. In other words, he has voted to keep gays as second-class citizens and has himself acted like a second-class citizen, begging for it in the can.

     No hypocrisy there.

     Posted by BlueSpark at 08/29/2007 @ 10:02am

102. I just want to say i love the title of the article, LOL I am laughing my ass off!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     Posted by emanism at 08/29/2007 @ 11:36am

103. Thank you ILP..U took the words right out of my mouth for MARYBRETBRAD.

     Posted by emanism at 08/29/2007 @ 11:39am

104. All These GOP polaticians that get caught doing gay perveted sexual acts have to do to get out of trouble is switch to the democrat party and all will be forgotten because they believe this sort of action is normal and since they do not claim to be moral in anyway hell he might even get a promotion if he is perveted enough.He just has to learn to lie better that's all.

     Posted by jwatkins at 08/29/2007 @ 11:59am

105. These hypocrits are the problem. Because of their own inability to stand up for their own 'human' feelings, they must operate 'under the radar'- No gay bars for them, no long term relationship- No it's better to take your sexuality in to a public bathroom. San Francisco used to have bath houses for such clandestine meetings. Just like prostitution- have a red light district- so the rest of use don't have to experience the surprised we're being propositioned while we're on the pot. These 'straight'Republicans need to realize if they just allowed homosexual to participate in human rights, they too would have some dignity and privacy in regards to their own personal preferences.It's not the acts it's the irony. It's just sad these folks must find freedom in a public bathroom

     Posted by Kimmy B at 08/29/2007 @ 12:07pm

106. I believe all gay polaticians should be outed and purged from the gov.Rep. or Dem.There priorties are out of wack.

     Posted by jwatkins at 08/29/2007 @ 12:23pm

107. Learn to spell, Watkins

     Posted by BlueSpark at 08/29/2007 @ 12:53pm

108. Basically (in his mind) letting Empty maintain his air of sophisticated liberal....while sounding EXACTLY like his redneck "real" homophobic brethren down in Big D.

     Posted by MASK

     Sophisticated liberal? Naw, that's your act, not mine. And the gullibility of some of these fools to fall for your incessant whining and crying doesn't surprise me too much. Most of them probably didn't even notice that the original post was from long ago and you it out of your little file. You're a lying little propagandist; you've got nothing coming to you but ridicule; people like you is what is wrong with the Democratic Pary (if you really are a Dem, which is more than suspect).

     Posted by mtspence05 at 08/29/2007 @ 1:28pm

109. And the gullibility of some of these fools to fall for your incessant whining and crying doesn't surprise me too much. Most of them probably didn't even notice that the original post was from long ago and you it out of your little file. ----Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/29/2007 @ 1:28pm

     Well, I'm sure HMAN, CKA2ND, BLUESPARK, and MATTMAN are happy to know that you consider them "fools" for thinking that a guy who uses terms like "fag", "fruit", or "mary" is a homophobe. Or that I was somehow "tricking" them into feeling that way...heheh.

     BTW, you REALLY need to make up your mind....Am I part of the Democratic Party and "what's wrong with it"...or a "secret Republican"? One way means you still have your excuse for not voting, but you're not even in the mainstream of American politics....the other way means the Dems are fine and dandy but you DON'T have an excuse for not voting.

     Posted by Mask at 08/29/2007 @ 2:05pm

110. And the gullibility of some of these fools to fall for your incessant whining and crying...

     I would be more apt to consider this a possibility if you would actually engage the arguments made against you on the matter. But, thus far, you have either decided upon silence or calling people "mary."

     Posted by BlueSpark at 08/29/2007 @ 3:25pm

111. I think this really is a case of pathetic, closeted men projecting their self-loathing and denial onto their fellow homosexuals. How else to explain their almost insane displayed hatred and vendettas? They're not seeing a moral problem in society as a result of homosexuality; guys like Craig, Allen, Foley, and Haggard are watching the acceptance by society of something they've tried to deny in themselves -- something their immediate circle of "friends" and relatives have taught them is evil, so they look away in disgust every time they take a gander at themselves in the mirror, unable to stop doing what their natures drive them to do yet compelled to "atone" by spewing hatred and petty vindictiveness upon their fellows.

     This would be laughable, if such outwardly-projected self-loathing did not grievously harm their fellow homosexuals. Craig, Foley, Allen, Haggard, and other closeted Republicans are compelled to go out of their way to lash out at those brave enough to be open about their sexuality. They write, pass and glorify legislation designed to keep gays in the closet, afraid of themselves and their natural inclinations -- from legislation restricting marriage and legal protections to laws forbidding gays from adopting (which requires that government snoop around your private life to make sure you're straight as an arrow). Yet all this time, these vile beasts who torment their own for being open do what they do, thinking their positions of power are enough to protect them from exposure. But then they get caught.

     Craig's problem, like Allen's and Haggard's, is that he is unable to accept himself for who and what he is. He lives in denial, telling himself perhaps that he is just doing "research" into the gay lifestyle, as if it were a conscious choice and not a biological inclination. Until he is able to come to terms with his sexual orientation, he will continue to project his self-hatred outward. Such a beast is pathetic, worthy of removal from public office and the permanent end of his career. Not for being a hypocrite, not for living in denial, but for having made it his life's mission to destroy the lives of others for doing openly what he has been doing for years in secret: being one's self.

     Posted by ARCHANGEL_M at 08/29/2007 @ 3:32pm

112. If Larry Craig wants to have sex with men, why doesn't he go to Vegas for a weekend, where anything goes and what happens there usually stays there, for real? How stupid or pathetically needy can a guy his age be, a U.S. Senator yet, to look for his thrills in a public toilet? To take a risk like that is obviously part of the whole "score" for him, like making love in a sand dune just a few feet above a heavily travelled bike trail, or doing it in the back seat of a car parked at a highway rest stop surrounded by pedestrians. I enjoyed both of these scenarios 35 years ago, when I was young and randy 24/7, and the possibility of getting "caught" added to the excitement for sure (we were still in the erotic phase of our marriage, before we had kids and gradually lost interest).

     I suppose being a rabidly anti-gay public figure, and then getting caught with your dick "in a zipper", requires you to hold a "Mad-TV"-esque press conference like the farce Craig put himself and his clueless wife through (Her decision to appear at his side, but just slightly off-camera, is another blow to the idea that political wives have advanced beyond the "Ozzie and Harriet" stage of self-esteem..I guess that's why they're called "conservative"...on the other hand, she may have been ripped on Valium).

     Craig and Allen should both be vilified not for having gay sex, but for their egregious public hypocrisy and shameless "explanations", which insult the intelligence of all but the most simple-minded among us, which come to think of it, means very few of us are insulted. I know it sounds condescending, but the fact is most Americans are political morons, and in many cases, comprehensive morons. Tell them a story, any story--no matter how outrageous, nonsensical, improbable or utterly ridiculous--and they'll stand (or more likely, lie) there with their comfort food, blank stares and gaping mouths, taking it in like they're listening to the OJ Simpson verdict.

     All you have to do is watch some clips on YouTube from the Canadian comedy show "Talking to Americans" to realize just how stupifyingly dumb many Americans are. It's enough to put a college graduate on Prozac. If anyone walks around still wondering how a certifiable putz like George Bush is spending 8 years in the White House, watch the YouTube clips. If a person can't string together two coherent words, let alone two coherent ideas, if he or she thinks Australia is South Korea or Iran on a world map, if way too many think the U.S. should invade "Saskatchewan" along with "Chechnya"--and these are the easy ones--you have to conclude we're in political deep doodoo and people will believe just about anything, like Fred Thompson's the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan or Rudy is the "hero" of 9/11, or Hillary isn't gay.

     Barney Frank had the class to swallow his scandal whole, and come clean with the public. He survived, and even gained a new measure of respect from many of his colleagues and his constituents...he's still in Congress, after all. Larry Craig comes from a state so red, white and red that he may even put over his fairytale about his "misunderstanding" in Minneapolis. We'll see if Idahoans value anything remotely resembling honesty or forthrightness over anti-gay vitriol and rank hypocrisy in their Senator? I'll lay odds on the latter. God bless America.

     Posted by stonecutter at 08/30/2007 @ 12:50am

113. Comedy is the evident disparity between reality and what an individual wants to appear to be. That is the reason why all these situations make us laugh. If it weren't for the tragedy. Tragedy is the impossibility of an individual to reach happiness, and that is what all of them have in common, and that is why we should have compassion of them because they have serious problems. Not because of being gay, but rather because of living this double life and pretending to be otherwise, and even lecturing everyone about "moral", when in practice they are doing the same.

     Practices like that in public bathrooms are really nauseating because many others can witness them and be really offended. Whomever wants sex, should have it in absolute privacy.

     The moral of the story: Remember members of the right wing, Christians. ( I am a Christian too). Do not condemn any one, even Jesus did not condemn the adulterous woman. Don't pretend you (as individuals or/and as a group) are better than other individuals and groups, those were the pharisees. Be inclusive and accept everyone in society like many of us liberals do.

     As for poor Mr. Craig, he should resign and get out of the closet and maybe tomorrow be a gay marriage advocate.

     Posted by Frank42 at 08/30/2007 @ 02:22am

114. I hesitate to disagree with "BillWeintraub's" contribution on even a minor point, but I generally take a dim view of "self-identification," just as I take a dim view of the insinuation -- not the claim, but the insinuation -- of literary theory that, since we are "culturally determined" beings, we are liberated from biological determinism.

     Even if we assume that culture does have some independence from biology, a "culturally determined" being is hardly freer than a biologically determined one. If you doubt my claim, then just try to re-define a word. Try, for example, to say that if, as a man, you have never actually had anal intercourse with another man -- although you are sexually attracted to men and have given and received sexual pleasure from them in other ways -- you therefore ought to be called "straight."

     Sorry, it is not for individuals to define what words mean. That is done by a majority of speakers of a language, and they outnumber both me and you. The opinion of this majority is that if you are attracted to men, then you are gay -- or bisexual -- but you are not straight.

     And if we cannot define what words mean, then we cannot "define ourselves" either. Others do this for us. This is what makes living in a culture so difficult.

     We can of course define ourselves TO ourselves. We can build a sense of our own self-esteem even if the world, or a majority of our peers, rejects us. But this is a lonely and difficult task. Indeed, I believe it is impossible without a loving, supportive minority community of our own. I believe the literary theorists are a little dishonest with themselves and with us when they suggest that we are as free as we imagine we are, or wish that we were, just because we are "products of culture."

     I am afraid that most attempt to change public discourse by re-defining what words mean are doomed to fail, unless they are backed by a large community. We may yet succeed in re-defining the word "santorum" -- because Dan Savage has a community of backers who claim that this word means the "frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes a product of anal intercourse." But Bill Clinton could not re-define the word "is," and I doubt that Larry Craig will re-define the word "straight."

     Posted by JakobFabian at 08/30/2007 @ 08:44am

115. Correction: "The opinion of this majority is that if, AS A MAN, you are attracted to men, then you are gay -- or bisexual -- but you are not straight."

     Sorry about that!

     Posted by JakobFabian at 08/30/2007 @ 08:51am

116. Posted by HHEMWM 08/28/2007 @ 01:28am | ignore this person

     You do remember a time when America was more than the sum of its parts? The New Deal, The G.I. Bill, Civil Rights, The era when CEOs only made about 20 times what the lowest page worker at their companies earned? Now take a snapshot of MODERN DAY AMERICAN SOCIETY: Lovers and Cravers for never ending war, a selfish aversion to paying any taxes what-so-ever for the things they claim they want (like single payer health insurance) and a fake patriotic brown-shirt jack-boot mentality that says you can not discuss how U.S. foreign policy plays a role in the desire of foreign nationals to strike back at America using terrorist methods, unqualified support for a terrorist Likud gov't in the state of Israel, etc. Those are the missing priorities we should have and the messed up skewed priorities that we currently have.

     Posted by POSEIDON at 08/30/2007 @ 10:19am

117. Posted by STONECUTTER 08/30/2007 @ 12:50am | ignore this person

     STONECUTTER,

     You pretty much have your finger on the current political pulse of America. Most anyone in the governmental arena can pretty much say anything (no matter how ridiculous) these days and be taken seriously which just goes to show you why government is corrupt to the core. Why be honest when lies will suffice just fine? Afterall, people will swallow just about anything so from that perspective it makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever to tell the truth about anything. We shall see if the state of Idaho will do the right thing and bounce Craig out on his useless behind provided he doesn't resign first, which would be preferable.

     Posted by POSEIDON at 08/30/2007 @ 10:29am

118. Posted by JWATKINS 08/29/2007 @ 11:59am | ignore this person

     How many times did your parents drop you on your head when you were a kid?

     Posted by POSEIDON at 08/30/2007 @ 10:32am

119. Posted by POSEIDON 08/30/2007 @ 10:19am

     was that your speech announcing your candidacy?

     i'd vote fer ya' (if i could).

     Posted by frosty zoom at 08/30/2007 @ 10:34am

120. Posted by JWATKINS 08/29/2007 @ 11:59am | ignore this person

     Must have been a mandatory once a day head-dropping............

     Posted by POSEIDON at 08/30/2007 @ 10:35am

121. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/30/2007 @ 10:34am | ignore this person

     The compliment is well taken. However, personally I could never be a candidate for any public office because to me organized religion is a cruel joke for suckers, truth is a curse in America reserved only for "Fringe Candidates" and to this point, Americans have shown no desire to take back their gov't from the special interests and they have shown no desire to actually vote for the things they claim they want. Until that mindset changes, (R)s and (D)s will continue to destroy America one piece at a time.

     Posted by POSEIDON at 08/30/2007 @ 10:40am

122. Posted by MASK 08/27/2007 @ 10:19pm | ignore this person

     MASK, how disgusting. How dare you slander the family values party in such a manner? This calls for honor restoration. You and Senator Craig, Duel at 5 paces, high noon, at the Minneapolis Airport Bathroom..............(LOL)

     Posted by POSEIDON at 08/30/2007 @ 10:44am

123. Posted by MASK 08/27/2007 @ 10:19pm | ignore this person

     Senator Craig's choice of weapon: SWORDS............

     Posted by POSEIDON at 08/30/2007 @ 11:46am

124. Posted by POSEIDON 08/30/2007 @ 10:44am

     Well, POSEI, you'll note I also "slander" the "party of the working man".....with Gore demanding we all cut back, while he pays off his "carbon footprint" by investing in his OWN company...

     or John Edwards talking "Two Americas", while building a 20,000 square footer outside Raleigh!

     Posted by Mask at 08/30/2007 @ 1:00pm

125. Posted by POSEIDON 08/30/2007 @ 10:40am

     what? you don't want to dance in "the K-Street Follies"?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 08/30/2007 @ 2:52pm

126. or John Edwards talking "Two Americas", while building a 20,000 square footer outside Raleigh!

     Posted by MASK 08/30/2007

     As the vaunted LILLIAN has correctly pointed out, there is always the hazard that MASK will make up quotes in response to cross-examination of his tired, recieved wisdom by splicing out words and splicing in quotation marks ... but gotta' address this as the conservimals regularly float this mindless little meme ...

     Can anyone point to the legislation that Edwards voted for that ... would ban 20k foot houses while he was constructing one for himself? That would be the homologue (pun intended) with Larry Craig's public/private schizophrenia, as well as with the other moralizing, tawdry creeps trolling about with hookers (Haggard, David Shitter).

     I heard Edward's "Two Americas" speech one time and as I recall it concerned uplifting the poor and underprivileged AND NOT -- listen close now -- NOT limiting house sizes.

     Edwards is not the pathetically untalented, useless offspring of a millionaire-MC-Ambassador-DCI-VP-POTUS, grandson of a bank mogul-Senator. Edwards lived in the vicinity of one of the two America's he talks about, by birth; and in the other by merit and good fortune that it seems he wants to spread more widely.

     Of course, conservimals do not understand MERIT anymore than they understand America; they expect it all to be granted to them by affirmative action of the rich ("heritage" admissions), cronyistic gladhanding, and outright crime, a la Conrad Black ...

     Posted by John_Shaft at 08/30/2007 @ 3:14pm

127. Posted by JOHN_SHAFT 08/30/2007 @ 3:14pm

     First, interesting you took to the defense of Edwards, not Gore. Guess not much defense for "carbon credit" buying from your own company.

     Second, does John Edwards speak on environment issues? Does he propose various "green solutions"? Does he then go out and do something that the Green movement considers one of the primary causes of environment problems...American consumerism and America's love affair with "McMansions"? (though his is much bigger)? Think the Sierra Club or National Resources Defense Council would say "I think EVERYBODY should have the opportunity to have a 20,000 s.f. home like the Edwards"...or maybe not?

     If Edwards wants to "uplift the poor and underprivileged" and "want to spread the merit and good fortune"

     ...does he want them to be lifted SO high that they can have a 20K footer like him???? If so, love to hear him say so, so that we can see what the environmentalists think of that?

     BTW, speaking of hypocrisy, I'm sure YOU have never bemoaned the "excesses" of the "super-rich" or said how "Americans are wasteful in their lifestyles (like home size and power useage)"...given you gave Senator Edwards a pass....uh...right?

     Posted by Mask at 08/30/2007 @ 8:06pm

128. Odd, isn't it, how male homosexuals who enter politics, seem to gravitate to the GOP. It's as if they want some sort of cover, so that if they are unmarried they will not be suspected of being gay--; the GOP disliking homosexuality so much these days. In much the same way, I think, that Roman Catholic homosexuals used to become priests. Roman Cahtolic priests could remain unmarried, have a profession and have access to young men and boys all of their lives. Of course some gay politicians are married, but you sometimes wonder if their marriages are what the French call "marriage blanc" that is, meant soley for show, with no hetrosexual contact.

     ***

     In any event, I suspect that the next Senator to fall from grace will probably be Lindsey Graham. He's been rather quite about this gay business involving Sen. Graig. Which means that he may be planning to out himself one of these days. Before someone else does it for him.

     Posted by Carl W. Goss at 08/31/2007 @ 3:50pm

129. Yes, of course it is natural for people (even U.S. Senators) to want to "keep their private lives private." But there's nothing private about a public restroom in a busy airport. Surely a man of Larry Craig's means could have arranged discreet encounters with willing men in a hotel room or private apartment. Yet the Idaho Statesman reports that Craig made a habit of cruising public toilets.

     Craig knew that disclosure of his proclivities would end his career, yet he chose to pursue gay sex in very risky, public places. Apparently the desire to conceal was at war with the desire to be discovered--perhaps to be punished, too. He got his wish. Now it's time for the inevitable next step--Craig will resign tommorrow (Saturday), attend church on Sunday, make a quick decision for Christ, and announce on Monday that he's come to Jesus.

     In sum, I don't feel that these revelations invaded Larry Craig's privacy. On some level, he clearly craved exposure.

     Posted by arlenehrlic at 08/31/2007 @ 8:38pm

130. The hypocracy by many republicans for example senator Craig and his public opposition to homosexuality. It could be that republicans want to keep gay sex as taboo, immoral, forbidden or illegal just to make it more fun or exciting when they engage in it in public restrooms, parks or where ever they do it as opposed to openly gay men at the privacy of their own homes. Its sad and a great shame that senators, politicians or any other closeted gays in public service have to live two lives. My sympathy for all their wives and kids.

     Posted by helib6327 at 09/02/2007 @ 10:26am