1) While I will never entirely understand the existence of gay Republicans, it’s certainly not surprising that every single one of them in elected office would be in the closet. If Republicans don’t believe gays are entitled to get married or serve in the military, they sure as hell won’t knowingly vote for one to represent them in Congress.
That being said, and considering that getting outed is career suicide for an elected Republican, I’m always amazed when one of them shows so little discretion.
2) Can we please retire the notion that sexual orientation is a choice? Why on earth would a Larry Craig (R-Stallabama) or a Ted Haggard choose to be gay? I just don’t think “to piss off the liberals” really works here.
3) CREW asks an interesting question: Why was the GOP Senate leadership on board with an ethics investigation for Craig (R-RR), but not for Vitter? I think it’s about 80% homophobia, and 20% anger that he was practically asking to get caught. At least Vitter indulged his diaper fetish in private.
4) So far, it doesn’t look like the media is very excited about this story, and it will probably be all but forgotten in a few days. I have come up with a perfectly reasonable, innocent explanation for why the media is always so much more interested in Democratic scandals, and why they always make a point to identify Democrats in trouble, but not Republicans (or else they misidentify the Republicans as Democrats).
It’s very simple: Republicans being sleazy sexual hypocrites or just plain criminals isn’t news – it’s like reporting that the sun rose in the East. “Ho hum, a bunch of politicians got busted for being crooks… but one of them was a Democrat this time!” Which is not to say that there aren’t Democratic crooks – it’s just not as commonplace, and therefore needs to be pointed out as an exception condition.
My theory also explains why the media doesn’t like to report on the Bush administration lying, breaking the law, or just generally fucking up. It would only be news if they didn’t.
[Note: Tongue and cheek may be closer than they appear.]