Lions, Tigers, Gay Sex!

The Republican Party has another sex scandal on its hands. From Roll Call:

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested in June at a Minnesota airport by a plainclothes police officer investigating lewd conduct complaints in a men’s public restroom, according to an arrest report obtained by Roll Call Monday afternoon.

Craig’s arrest occurred just after noon on June 11 at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. On Aug. 8, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct in the Hennepin County District Court. He paid more than $500 in fines and fees, and a 10-day jail sentence was stayed. He also was given one year of probation with the court that began on Aug. 8.

Now, that seems fairly innocent on its face. It would appear, however, that there is more to the story. It would seem that a great many knowledgeable sources on such things believe that Craig's actions are those of a man who knows the "rules" of seeking anonymous male-male sex in relatively public situations. Such meeting areas are often known as "tea rooms."

This does not look good on a Republican resume. Like so many Republicans who are later hoisted on their own petards -- as it were -- Craig was a "player hater." He continually spoke out against gay rights, particularly gay marriage. In spite of this [read: because of this], he was considered to be staunchly in the "pro family" camp. He even went so far as to demand not censure, but impeachment for President Clinton during Clinton's second term. Obviously, he doth protest too much.

In spite of the relative glee that I derive from sanctimonious buffoons being found guilty of the very "crimes" for which they have so long derided others, it is not the chief topic of this writing. What I want to discuss here today is the Republican reaction to Craig's situation versus to that of another Republican also embroiled in his own sex scandal, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA). Vitter, you may recall, has a history of hiring prostitutes, albeit female prostitutes. However, while Republicans are falling all over themselves to jump off of Craig's bandwagon, they have by and large defended Vitter. Why?

Sure, it could be that they actually believe that gay sex is worse than straight sex. Gay rights have been the Republican bogeyman, especially in the South, for a decade-plus. It is the all-purpose political tool to fix any problem. "Our shipping ports are not secure after 9/11." Gay marriage! "We don't have health insurance for our family." Gay rights! "Our factory closed down and the jobs went abroad." Gay sex! What is surprising and sad is that it works. Still, I'm not convinced that this is the reason here. Yes, it plays to the part of the religious Republican wing that would rather die than think, but that is only a bonus. (Indeed, in going after the gay "sex," it in some ways gets them off the hook for not going after straight sex out of marriage, also a no-no in some books. Of course, Craig only initiated gay sex whereas Vitter actually did the heterosexual deed, but who is keeping count anyway?) Ultimately, I think that it is the cold, hard political calculation of numbers that answers the question.

Craig is from Idaho. A retarded monkey with no arms and only one eye could run on the Republican ticket in Idaho and win, so the seat is safe even if he is removed from office. What is more, Idaho has a Republican governor and under state law, the governor would appoint Craig's replacement if he resigns or is removed from office. Thus, it is "safe" on both fronts to move against him. Vitter, on the other hand, is from Louisiana. This state, especially in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, is anything but a safe bet for Republicans. Having Vitter run -- even in the face of scandal -- with the trappings of incumbency looks mighty nice to the party. And should Vitter leave, a Democratic governor would appoint his replacement and it is this Democrat who would enjoy incumbency in the next election. Thus, once again for the Republicans it is a case of "do as I say, not as I do." We are pro-family -- whatever the hell that means -- unless and until it gets in the way of our base ambitions!

BTW, in case you are keeping tabs on other Republicans embroiled in their own scandals -- not limited to sex -- check this out. Are there enough petards to go around?

30 August 2007