Well, at least a CONUNDRUM. Like many liberals, I really don't care who solicits who for sex--just so it's not me, my kid or my main squeeze. So I'm a little surprised why many libs, even the esteemed Josh Marshall, is gloating over the Larry Craig meltdown. Sure, Craig suppressed gay rights. Sure, he voted conservative on most issues. Does any of that matter? Should it, really?
Nope. The man is who is is, just as we are who we are.
In H'wood there's an old saying, "no one sets out to make a bad movie." Similarly, I would suggest, no one sets out to make a bad life. You get what you get and you try to make the best of it. Larry Craig is no exception. He is what he is, he's trying to deal with it.
Aren't we all in the same position?
While I can't comment on his anti-gay votes, I would gently suggest that maybe hard-core gay Repubs might have a tougher time keeping their job than would hard-core straight Repubs. Given the Repub anti-gay minefield, it's reasonable to assume that a gay Republican might have to--let's say--overcompensate just to keep their job.
How much damage this sort of perspective did to the United States or it's constitution is a matter for historians to consider. Certainly, anyone wanting to pursue this thesis would also want to carefully review the governmental history of characters like Bradley Shlotzman, Kyle Sampson, Karl Rove, that creepy lil sumbitch with the German name,. . .okay, the FoolMeister himself,George W. Bush (he GW, you and Laura doin' okay YET?), Georgie's Pearland Texas Mafia AS WELL AS the Bobby Perry Swiftboat Alliance. Listen, you guys: there are literally hundreds of people in Austin who would spill the beans about yer proclivities for the price of a fracking margarita. Deal with it.
In the broader perspective, overcompensation vis-a-vis sexual persuasion as the operative protocol may have resulted in all sorts of bad things happening in this world.
Journos looking for a book to write? Come to Austin.
But Liberals, listen to me on this: Larry Craig is salvageable. He's smart, he's committed (to the wrong things, maybe), and, by the Stevens/Young standard, he's not REALLY corrup (okay, no one is as corrupt as those two.) So what if Craig's maybe gay and doesn't know it? So what if he isn't gay but acts that way out of ignorance or happenstance? What if it IS entrapment? If any group should not only be uninterested in his sexuality--but fracking defending him in this, it's the Libs. Harsh and embarrassing, but you know it's true.
Hard Fact: If you want to be fair about Larry Craig, then Leave. Him. Alone.
If Craig comes out of this in one piece (and I hope he does) he'll have a chance to get a perspective on things. Best guess: he'll reconsider siding with the Rethugs. And, if some of the lib pundits would ever take a break from Mattel's Political Chessboard Game, they'll realize that the Democratic side is also associated with real decency--and egalitarianism.
Or so we hope.