This is pretty commonplace -- it seems to me like the only time I can really remember the GOP successfully using this tactic was after Kerry mentioned Dick Cheney's daughter was a lesbian -- every other time it's just been more heat around a media story.
This is a moderately tricky moral issue -- the same one as in the Mary Cheney mentions in the 2004 debates. As Democrats, (and, you know, decent civilized people), our position is that there isn't a thing wrong with being gay, and no one who is has anything to be ashamed of on those grounds. Social conservatives, on the other hand, have made a lot of political hay taking the position that homosexuality is harmful to society and wrong in itself.
It's not wrong to try and take away their political power to the extent it's based on bigotry, by pointing out that they're a bunch of hypocrites. On the other hand, the way that works is by exposing them to the bigotry of their horrible supporters. I don't think this is wrong, on a 'live by the sword, die by the sword' basis, but it's something to be careful about -- there's an incredible moral difference between saying "Yo, queer-bashers! Even though I support gay rights, Craig isn't any better for you, he's gay himself. Stay home if you want a sincerely queerbashing candidate," and "Yo, queer-bashers; Craig's gay. I'm not. Who are you going to vote for now?"
The first is fine, and commendable. It's worth worrying over the possibility that someone might slip into the second, which would be foul.
Personally, I couldn't care less what Larry Craig does with his wrinkly bits. That's between him and his wife and for all I know they may even have an understanding about this. More power to them if they do. But having watched the GOP suck up to the hate-filled Xian fringe with their gay-bashing constitutional amendments and referenda and the like, I'm going to sit back and enjoy the spectacle.
Craig's up for re-election in '08, fwiw.
Top comment at NewWest points out the deep hypocrisy of opposing invasions of privacy by the justice department and CIA while simultaneously condoning invasion of privacy by Mike Rogers.
I went looking for Craig's reaction to this alleged outing. I didn't find anything on his site about the story, but, funnily, the second most recent press release is this one.
"This week, a list that is said to name gay Republican staffers has been circulated to several Christian and family values groups — presumably to encourage an outing and purge. [Chief lobbyist for the Family Research Council Tom] McClusky acknowledged seeing the list but said his group did not produce it and had no intention of using it."--Some Seek 'Pink Purge' in the GOP
Weird. I was just about to post that link, Paul.
Outing and purge. Well, if you're gonna court that electorate, you deserve what you get, I suppose.
I know a moderate number of homophobic ,old-fashioned Democrats around here, and given their attitudes they've been good sports and stuck with the Democratic Party, but it's been pretty rough for them to 1.) continually see Democrats being queerbaited by Republicans and 2.) seeing a lot of nasty in or out gays doing the Republicans' dirty work for them.
The Democrats' gay contingent and their Old Labor contingent often have "trouble communicating" in the sense of pretty much hating one another.
7 -- I'm betting that list was cirulated by Norbizness.
9: My sentiment exactly. The Family Research Council, American Family Association, and the Christian Coalition ought to be punchlines on the order of NAMBLA, Avakian's RCP, and the LaRouchers. Driving a wedge between them and the traditional standardbearers of the GOP is nothing but good for the country.
his group did not produce it and had no intention of using it
That's so beautiful, in a twisted sort of way: "Well, yesss, I know. But between you and me, I can keep a secret." Is it homophobic to imagine Tom McClusky speaking in Truman Capote's voice?
Apparently it's not about the outing, it's about the extortion.
I think LB gets it right. Do you remember when the Advocate was outing all sorts of people in an effort to show that gay included some "normal" people, not just drag queens and flamers? I used to live in Cong. Dave Dreier's district. It was at best a non spoken secret that he is gay, and he has had no problem getting re-elected. But if a primary opponent made his sexuality an issue I think it would be worse for the opponent. But then again, he is not married and pretending to be straight.
I would find this a lot more amusing and less angry-making if Ken Blackwell, the African-American theocrat running for governor of Ohio, hadn't decided that the way to make up his twenty-odd percent deficit to his Democratic opponent, the Rev. Ted Strickland, wasn't to accuse him repeatedly of being a closeted gay pedophile. Here's the latest.
Live by the closet, die by the closet. I think outing is a perfectly valid tactic for dealing with those of social, cultural or political weight who have climbed their ladder by stepping on the heads of those of us who are honest about who we are. If they build their career by homophobia then they can lose that career by homophobia.
I understand and respect the distinction you want to make, LB, and my most civilized self agrees with you, but my inner 9th grader just wants bloody revenge on these people and the more painful and vindictive the better.
Re 16: That's probably alright because its just an untrue smear and inuendo. If what Blackwell were saying wastrue, that would be reprehensible.
This is funny: John Cole writes a post saying that while outing Craig is regrettable, the GOP is really just getting what they've earned after two decades of gaybashing for political profit and that the WingNet really ought to put a sock in their indignation. Dan Riehl's response?
And when self-professed holier than thou jerk-offs who lie, or create myths to support the genuinely disturbed and disturbing sexual McCarthyism of their unprincipled colleagues, as I said, I’ll just assume they are genuine, even if closeted, c***s******, too.
Classy.
This pretty much says it all.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2006/10/its_the_homos_s_1.html
So what you're saying is you prefer sincere homophobia to opportunistic false homophobia?
Sincerity is always my preference. The homophobia is just extra.
It makes me feel a little sick and a little sad whenever I see the queer-baiting. I'm sure it's good for the near-term progressive agenda, and I freely confess to enjoying the thrill of gossip as much as the next faggot; but there's just not enough lipstick for this pig, I'm sorry.
I know it makes me no friends, but I'll keep saying it: bigotry is a monster that can't be tamed. I'm sure there a few Jewish bankers in Weimar Germany really were selfish and greedy. Looking back, it's a bit hard to pick them out of the crowd.
Holy crap, did you see the update on Cole's post, apo?
Does anybody remember a piece that was linked on one of the lefty sites--Atrios?--maybe a year or so ago in which some religious right type was holding forth on how of course it would be more fun to have sex with people of our own gender if pleasure were all we cared about, but we must be moral enough to do our duty to God by limiting ourselves to heterosexual sex so that the species can continue? It was breathtaking.
Oh my. Google produces this gem from the Spokane Spokesman-Review story on the outing: "Smith said the senator was campaigning Tuesday afternoon with Rep. Butch Otter, who is running for governor, and didn't hear the broadcast."
Damn, just when I'm all up on my high horse & shit. Butch Otter? Butch Otter? That's priceless.
Also, posting without previewing my tags? Never again.
Could another Republican sex scandal be brewing at the highest levels of government? Condi Rice appears to have been fooling around with Ben Stiller on her way to Tokyo. See the photo evidence for yourself.
Holy crap, did you see the update on Cole's post, apo?
Holy smokes. Unhinged is an understatement.