Self Loathing: Voting Record of Secretly Queer Senator Is 100% Anti-Gay

The hypocrisy of the voting record of Sen. Larry Craig, the Idaho Republican who has outed himself by pleading guilty to naughty behavior in a men’s room, is just sad:

“Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy.” — Sen. Craig, in 1999
  • 1996: Voted YES on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) prohibiting same-sex marriage.
  • 2000: Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation.
  • 2002: Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.
  • 2002: Rated 25 percent by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record.
  • 2006: Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.

And let’s not forget that Craig is very much married (to a woman), thus adding adultery to his catalog of sins. In 1999, he stated his feelings about the character of cheating spouses on “Meet the Press,” reacting to a question about the Clinton impeachment:

MR. RUSSERT: Larry Craig, would you want the last word from the Senate be an acquittal of the president and no censure?

SEN. CRAIG: Well, I don’t know where the Senate’s going to be on that issue of an up or down vote on impeachment, but I will tell you that the Senate certainly can bring about a censure reslution and it’s a slap on the wrist. It’s a, “Bad boy, Bill Clinton. You’re a naughty boy.” The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy, a naughty boy.

I’m going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy. The question issue now is simply this: Did he lie under oath? Did he perjure himself and did he obstruct justice? And that’s where we’re trying to go now in this truth-seeking process.

In statement on his website today, Craig says he pleaded guilty too hastily:

“I should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this matter. In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously.”

But go here to read the testimony against Sen. Craig by an undercover cop, and you’ll see that pleading guilty was the only option he had.

9 Comments

  • nikolai
    August 27, 2007 - 8:50 pm | Permalink

    The old “Tell a lie so big (almost) everyone will believe it”, or, “Hide something by making it obvious”. Typical Republican (nazi)psychology. Take your pick; Craig’s thinking was one or the other, or even more twisted, BOTH. What a sick f*&#!

  • Pingback: www.buzzflash.net

  • August 28, 2007 - 3:11 am | Permalink

    I understand that hypocrisy is rampant, but I feel that at a certain level in society (i.e. Congress would probably be way way above the cut-off line) it would make sense to have some legal system for dealing with such extreme hypocrisy.

    I mean, people are elected to represent the people based on who they are, and who they are is a function of what they believe. In cases where such blatant misrepresentation has been made for personal gain, this in my mind is at least equivalent of lying to a judge or a court.

    It is lying to the people one has been elected to represent.

  • owlathome
    August 28, 2007 - 7:14 am | Permalink

    As for Sen. Craig’s supposed “wide stance” while relieving himself, it’s nothing compared to the mental gulf between what he thinks and what he does. As a gay man, I’m more and more convinced that some gays come out, others become Republicans.

  • tikiloungelizard
    August 28, 2007 - 9:35 am | Permalink

    The only part of this piece that I would disagree with is “pleading guilty was the only option he had”. While I have no doubt that he was doing what the prosecutor will claim he did, a good lawyer can find some squirm room with having his foot and then hand under the stall divider. In fact, a good lawyer can help you get away with almost anything: Just ask O.J.

  • jim slaybaugh
    August 28, 2007 - 10:15 am | Permalink

    An outspokenly homophobic republican politician caught soliciting homosexual pleasures in a “JOHN”..Just another day in murka…

  • August 28, 2007 - 10:24 am | Permalink

    tikiloungelizard, I take your point. But the way I gamed it out, from Craig’s POV, considering the fact that he has an election coming up, going to trial was not an option. He and his people obviously gave this a lot of thought. Even before his guilty plea, they’d come up with a plan: He’d plead guilty, then they would sit on it as long as possible, which turned out to be about two and a half weeks. Immediately after the news came out, he would issue a statement saying that, in retrospect, the plea was a mistake. All of this with the hope of keeping the story off the front burner as much as possible.

    The “plea was a mistake” gambit worked. Rightwing outlets like the Washington Times went with that lead: Craig Says Guilty Plea Was a Mistake, instead of Craig Caught in Airport Fellatio Caper.

    If the case had gone to trial, Craig would have faced the prospect of the undercover cop presenting lurid details in testimony before a packed court room and the media. Even if crafty lawyering produced an not-guilty verdict, he’d take a much bigger hit politically from the public airing of down-low behavior.

  • Pingback: Creative Loafing tampa » The Political Whore » Blog Archive » Afternoon Roundup

  • Pingback: Peace Arena » Craig’s `wide Stance’ Enters Lexicon

  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>