When Avenue Q Met Larry Craig

The tape is pretty interesting.  The officer said he doesn't go to the media.  I can't recall the last time the police released interrogation tapes BEFORE a trial occured.  The officer kept saying this was "embarrassing" and "disgraceful" trying to shame Larry Craig into giving him the answers he wanted.  I think they purposefully released this tape to further embarrass him.  They did bolster Craig's claim that he wanted this to go away and that he was shaken.  The police officer gave him his options: plead guilty, pay a fine, and have it go away or plead not guilty and face a trial.  We know what he picked.

Near the end the police officer says to Craig that he voted for him.  The police officer lives in Minnesota so how did he vote for Larry Craig who represents Idaho?  I don't believe this officer.

First, whoever mashed up the footage of Larry Craig's press conference AND the clip of ''If I Were Gay'' from ''Avenue Q'' is a genius, and deserves an award for editing.

Second, Craig lost all credibility when he pleaded guilty and paid the fine. What kind of guilty person would do that? Here, Craig genuinely believed this matter would all go away if he pleaded to a misdemeanor and coughed up a few bucks. He wanted to keep it quiet, which is why he never told his family, his friends, his staff or his lawyer. And he almost got away with it - if it weren't for an anonymous tip to Roll Call.

Finally, I've been channel-surfing among the various networks (CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc.) and how they've covered it, and ''Larry King'' is the ONLY show in which I've seen an openly gay person commenting (Judge David Young, who'll have a syndicated show in the fall). Is it really so hard to find an openly gay person who'll go on-camera? How about Andrew Sullivan? Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post? John Aravosis? The National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association is currently holding its convention in San Diego; is it that hard to find someone there to do a remote?

Sometimes I get the sense that the ''news shows'' are largely a bunch of rich, white straight guys holding a frat party. Anyone else see how Dan Abrams, Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson were all chortling about gay bashing on MSNBC? I think covering the Craig story without offering any input from anyone gay is like covering race without talking to any black people. Oh, wait. I just saw that the other night on Fox News. Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes were discussing the reaction of the black community to the Michael Vick coverage, and the 3 guest commentators were all white!  

When I referred to ''Larry King,'' I did mean ''an openly gay man.'' And I usually watch Keith Olbermann, so I must've missed his segment on Larry Craig with Rachel Maddow. I love her on the radio. ... I guess the broadcast media learned nothing from the Imus imbroglio. They need to reflect more diversity in their guests.

I have no sympathy for Craig. It's one thing to be closeted, but quite another to legislate against your own community.

Worse, Craig puts a bad face on closeted homosexuals as if they all have anonymous sex in public bathrooms. It only plays into people's fears and stereotypes of gays.

I worry about the backlash to come, and fear it'll encourage more hatemongering.

I very much enjoy seeing hypocrisy exposed in the Republican party. :-) I don't know if this is statistically true across the board, but it sure seems that when someone in politics or the media tries to prevent other people from exercising their rights, then that person is often hiding something in themselves that they cannot accept. Larry Craig seems so transparent, at least in hindsight. I am impressed and encouraged by the amount of letters to editors and blog postings that I have seen by gay people who can see a little of their past struggles in Larry Craig. In this sense, these compassionate people are able to do what Larry Craig cannot; they can see a little of themselves in a tragic figure and not be repulsed to the point of blindness.