Craig attempts to change Guilty plea

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by skylark

Vicious assumptions? I was merely meaning that it would not be unreasonable to think out of 170 something people none of them were "out." I certainly didn't mean to imply any "vicious assumptions" and quite frankly am not even quite sure what these assumptions would include. Maybe that is because I don't live in a blue state and so do not hear what is said about us in what I've heard described as the "flyover states."

What does that last sentence even mean?

I see your point much more clearly now, but that's not exactly what you said - in fact, you appeared (to me, at least) to imply that Craig's small-town upbringing would make it significantly more likely for him to be closeted, or that it would be much more difficult for him to come out because he's from a small town.

I've never lived in a small town, but you've never lived in this guy's town, so I don't really think either one of us is really able to comment on the likelihood of comfort with his own sexuality as a result, you know?

I'm not trying to be difficult here, I just think you're really reaching to make a fairly superfluous point (although I think it's in earnest).

[skylark]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I've never lived in a small town, but you've never lived in this guy's town, so I don't really think either one of us is really able to comment on the likelihood of comfort with his own sexuality as a result, you know?

I'm not trying to be difficult here, I just think you're really reaching to make a fairly superfluous point (although I think it's in earnest).

Well, I've never lived in his town, but I spent a part of my childhood in a town only slightly larger than Midvale and I have actually been to Midvale, Idaho about 4-5 times in the last 2 years. Yes, that is sad even for an Idahoan, but it is right in between my home and another place in Idaho that I visit, so it happens to be the best place to grab a meal sometimes. I don't, however, think you need to have been to someone's home town to imagine that it would be difficult to come out in a small, conservative town especially if you would be the only one. I think it is kind of an obvious point to say that it is easier to come out growing up in a larger town/city because after you come out, there is at least an opportunity to be part of an "out" community. Sure that is a generalization, and there are always exceptions, but just because it isn't true all of the time doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to talk about it as a possible factor as to why Larry Craig might live his entire life in the closet.

And yes, it is a fairly superfluous point. It started out as one line about him and Al Gore that a couple people took issue with and I attempted to clarify what I meant by it so that no one thought "skylark thinks gay politics is like global warming" or "skylark thinks having sex with a man once is being gay" or anything else my posts were being rewritten to seem like. I am sorry that this thread somewhat got hijacked about this one line that really was just an optimistic fantasy about where the publicity over Larry Craig could have gone in a way that could have eventually maybe improved the climate in gay politics... and honestly I don't care that someone doesn't agree but I care about having a comment mischaracterized in order to be attacked.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

What does that last sentence even mean?

It means that I live in a state that isn't privied to hearing the things that you meant by "vicious assumptions." I find it funny to be accused of making assumptions about people that come from small, rural towns since I live in one of the states with small, rural towns that people make assumptions about.

[VandalSquirrel]

Skylark I am assuming we live in the same state, and based on geography, people are a hell of a lot more likely to be out and safe where you live, than where I live (except for Moscow proper). With that said, if Craig does not believe he is gay, why would he come out and be a gay rights champion? I am not sure if you came to Moscow for your JD or went elsewhere, but even in somewhat safe environments, such as the University town and the Boise Treasure Valley area, people who are gay may not openly identify as such, so why would a public official who has shown from his allegiances and voting record that he is not supportive of anything that isn't family values centered suddenly be leading the Boise Pride Parade?

Someone quoted a Dave Chappelle episode, and it may be tacky and out of place, but sometimes "a mouth is a mouth" and that goes along with what KSigRC mentioned in regards to Dan Savage. Some people are just opportunists and gender isn't an issue as to with who they get their freak on.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

why would a public official who has shown from his allegiances and voting record that he is not supportive of anything that isn't family values centered suddenly be leading the Boise Pride Parade?

So, I thought I had cleared this up in several other posts (but obviously I'm still not being clear, here) I meant my comment in a "wouldn't it be nice if ..." sort of way. I don't realistically think he will do this, but I was making a comment about how he (in my own political fantasy) had an opportunity to do something good and wouldn't it have been great in a pie in the sky sort of universe if he was able to take the opportunity to come out and start a national conversation on sexuality, gay/lesbian political issues, etc. Obviously I need to use emoticons or hedge my comments more or do something to make the tone of my posts more clear since obviously not just one person has had trouble understanding them.

Can we all just get back to talking about the real Larry Craig and stop dwelling on what was a tangential comment? I'm feeling kind of ridiculous having to spend 10 or so posts explaining something that wasn't meant to be my most important idea or closely held belief ever or anything.

[VandalSquirrel]

You're being defensive and we're not attacking you, and the fact that you live in Idaho puts your previous posts in a better perspective. I was wondering where you were coming up with your comments but since you are a resident it makes a lot more sense NOW, but before it seemed out of place.

But living here, can't you agree that this state is just not going to accept him anymore, Idaho is too conservative for him to ever regain any ground politically, and it will be unlikely in our lifetime that we'll have openly gay officials elected to the state or national level? Locally I know is viable, but that would likely only happen in Boise, Moscow, and Sun Valley.

For the broken record effect, WTF happened with Bill Sali and how can we have him representing us? I don't think I can ever forgive him for pissing off breast cancer survivors, how can people who have been affected by that disease support his ignorance by sending him out to represent us to the rest of the country.

[skylark]

Sorry for the defensiveness, but I thought I was being attacked (not by you, necessarily, but by some other posters who clearly think I'm a complete idiot and read all of my posts in that light) ... and I mistakenly assumed you were jumping on the wagon. My apologies.

I definitely agree that IF Craig were to come out in my little political fantasy, he would definitely be shunned by Idaho politics in general. It would possibly give the small gay/lesbian communities in Boise/Moscow/Sun Valley more voice (assuming Craig came out in a positive way). I saw any future success being more of a national thing. He would never get elected to anything again, but he could have become a national political figure (once again, in an optimistic alternate universe). I think it is really unfortunate when politicians get up and misstate science because every time they do that there are probably 100 people who believe them.

As far as Bill Sali goes, yes he pretty much makes me ashamed to live here. The whole thing reminds me of when a President of an African country in the late-nineties claimed that AIDS didn't exist or something to that effect (I think it was either Lesotho or S. Africa). Why is it, though, that conservative politicians get away with avoiding science all the time? Global warming, abortion (they say it influences all sorts of risks that are usually as present or less in comparison to giving birth), birth control, etc. No other public figures can get away with being so ignorant (just look at Tom Cruz's fallout after his ignorant comments about post-partum depression).

I don't understand why Idahoans elect most of the people out there, including Butch Otter [Idaho's governor]. I'm really freakin pissed off about the last two idaho supreme court appointments with him. [For out-of-staters, Idaho has 5 supreme court justices, one of them was female and in the past we've had as many as two female justices at the same time... the female justice and another justice left and so in a matter of months there were 2 appointments to make] The general consensus among some insiders I've heard is that he purposely passed over two arguably MORE qualified women because he wanted to prove the point that he didn't have to appoint another woman if he didn't want to. Considering everyone's age on the Court, it could be 10 years before another appointment opens up.

Back to Larry Craig... (reading one of your earlier posts, VandalSquirrel) I also feel pretty bad for his family. I don't know if you saw the fact that he had even his adoptive children speak on the news on behalf of his sexuality. I thought that was inappropriate, just like it was inappropriate for him to drag his wife there at that press conference. Something about her demeanor at that infamous press conference made me think she didn't want to be there. It was if he was trying to use her as evidence for his heterosexuality. I practically expected a reporter to ask about their sex life or something.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by skylark

Sorry for the defensiveness, but I thought I was being attacked (not by you, necessarily, but by some other posters who clearly think I'm a complete idiot and read all of my posts in that light) ... and I mistakenly assumed you were jumping on the wagon. My apologies.

A "reverse" ad hominem? Really?

I don't think you're stupid or incompetent or anything, I just don't think you explained yourself well, and you got very defensive right off the bat - I thought this was, in fact, a key point for you up until a few posts ago as a result.

I'm sorry if you felt like anyone attacked you personally - my intent was simply to attack your idyllic fantasy, and point out that there's no real basis for it.

Originally Posted by skylark

Back to Larry Craig... (reading one of your earlier posts, VandalSquirrel) I also feel pretty bad for his family. I don't know if you saw the fact that he had even his adoptive children speak on the news on behalf of his sexuality. I thought that was inappropriate, just like it was inappropriate for him to drag his wife there at that press conference. Something about her demeanor at that infamous press conference made me think she didn't want to be there. It was if he was trying to use her as evidence for his heterosexuality. I practically expected a reporter to ask about their sex life or something.

I agree in principle, but I'm not sure he really had any other choice - if he is indeed planning on fighting to stay in the Senate, he really has to pull the "dog and pony show" and his wife/kids are the only real fallback he has.

It likely did suck for them, however - just an odd situation for him to put people in, all the way around. I wonder which PR jockey got in his ear and convinced him he could fight to keep his seat? That seems like poor advice all the way around.