For me, the issue isn't so much the "crime" he committed but the fact that he lives his public life in direct conflict with his private life. That is fine if you are into anonymous same-gender sex, own it! Don't become a senator who makes every opportunity to bash and discriminate against people who make the same life choices but choose to be honest about it.

I've met Sen. Craig and he seems like a nice guy. I honestly wish he would have taken the opportunity to just come out. He could have done for gay rights what Al Gore did for global warming.

I doubt it. There are no religious groups against global warming, and it really isn't a "social" issue. Science can prove or disprove global warming...nothing can prove or disprove people's stance on gay rights.

You're really conflating two completely different things under a kind of halcyon ideal of what would happen . . . realistically, though, everybody on Capitol Hill has to lead two lives, a public and a private, it's just that his was much more . . . stark (and probably hypocritical to some extent, although it's not like he was engaging in gay marriages, just gay sex acts - did he try to ban the latter?).

Party lines will always force people to make voting decisions they don't want to make, and etc. - and this is without getting into the fact that he likely isn't even gay (or, at least/more accurately, gay-identified).

What they should do is send him to Iran. He can not be gay over there.

-Rudey

Just to clarify my last post making a connection between Larry Craig to Al Gore ... I know that global warming and gay/lesbian rights are very different issues and distinguishable in many many ways. What I think Craig could have done was become a distinguished voice and face on this political issue. He has for many years been well-respected and it would probably open up a lot of people's minds if he came out. My comparison to Al Gore was that Gore gave America a face and voice of someone relatively mainstream as a proponent of concern over global warming. Having a recognizable face people can associate with a cause is very powerful in politics, and Larry Craig had an opportunity to spearhead what could have been a meaningful national debate on the issue.

A lot of people in Idaho are upset about this, no doubt, but I care less about his private life, and much more that he was a senior senator and we've lost what little influence and clout we had in DC. Now we're left with Bill Sali who believes that breast caner and abortion are linked http://www.spokesmanreview.com/idaho....asp?ID=157294 and it is going to take a lot of time to regain what we've lost as a result of Craig.

I also feel horrible for his wife. If, in fact, he has had anonymous sex he may have exposed her to disease, and that is unforgivable regardless of who or what a person decides to be intimate with.

I think we're not really speaking the same language here. I mean . . .

He's not a face for gay America, because Larry Craig a.) doesn't do anything positive for gay communities or even represent their interests when he's getting head in a bathroom and b.) HE LIKELY ISN'T EVEN GAY, IN SPITE OF HIS ACTS

I said that Craig had an opportunity to be a political face and voice for gay America and that it was unfortunate that he didn't take that opportunity ... not that he is a face or voice for gay America.

Skylark....

http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/howard/61485/

Frank speaks on Craig.

How did he have this opportunity?

How would taking this opportunity NOT require him to be a voice for gay America?

Is he even gay?

Would it really help/would he actually be that voice you're claiming he could be?

I just think you're being quite short-sighted here - no such opportunity existed, and in fact he has the distinct opportunity to be a voice against gay America in many ways, no matter how positive he may act.

With his record....he could go either way.... no pun intended.

Good points.
Mcgreevey did not become a 'spokesman' for gay America- he really tried to position himself that way, but people think he's a lying sleazy asshole for the most part.

ASSUMING the rumors that had circulated around Craigs sexuality for decades are in fact true (I think there is no question, based on the fact that the rumors come from completely independent sources) then I think that IF Craig had taken the opportunity to come out, saying something to the effect of how embarrassing it is that because of his position in the government he felt that he had to hide his true sexuality, that it would have been good for the gay rights political movement. I think it would have been positive because:

a) people in conservative religious regions of the US might realize that people they know and respect are gay (the stereotypical effeminate san francisco spandex wearing gay man is something that a lot of people still think of in communities where being openly gay is not an accepted lifestyle). Breaking down stereotypes is a very powerful thing.

b) it would be easier for future gay political candidates to seem more legitimate because Craig, who was all but untouchable as a successful politician in Idaho for decades, did a good job and proved that being gay doesn't necessarily mean you are anti-gun or any of the other things that republicans tend to stand for (besides being against gay rights).

c) individuals who are living in areas that are more conservative, like Idaho, might feel more comfortable coming out and talking about their sexuality if their senator had come out in a respectful way.

I realize I am being totally optimistic, but my comment was meant to be an optimistic reflection on how Craig could have turned this into a positive thing for America and lesbian/gay rights and, quite frankly, his own life, since now the questions and looks will always be there. (Assuming he is gay) wouldn't it be easier for him to just stop fighting the rumors and finally embrace who he is, even if initially it might be difficult for his family and loved ones? Arguably, his family and loved ones are probably going through worse right now because of all the questions and scrutiny.

Again, though, this is assuming that he self-identifies as gay, whether way in the back of the closet or not. From what I have seen, though, I don't believe that he self-identifies as gay; I think he truly believes it when he says "I'm not gay."

Or, it may have confirmed the belief some conservatives hold: that gays are sexual offenders who get down in airport bathrooms. I think there's no way for him to have spun this any better than he did.