Glenn Greenwald On Larry Craig And The Right Wing

(Convocation of right-wing media tastemakers.) 

In a just world, Glenn Greenwald would be running the New York Times.  In this one, he’s writing for Salon — and is, along with Joe Conason and Sidney Blumenthal, the chief reason to read Salon.

Just check out his expert filleting of the right-wing community’s abrupt 180-degree turn on Larry Craig:

The reaction to the Larry Craig story provides one of the most vivid illustrations yet of how the right-wing movement works. Last October, just weeks before the midterm election, gay activist Mike Rogers reported that the married, GOP “family values” Senator repeatedly had sex with anonymous men in public bathrooms. His report was based on “extensive research,” including interviews with several men whom Craig solicited for bathroom sex.

As Rogers argued at the time, the story was relevant — just as the Vitter prostitute story was — in light of Craig’s frequent political exploitation of issues of sexual morality and his opposition to virtually every gay rights bill. Rogers’ story, as a factual matter, seemed relatively credible, both because of his history of accurate outings and because there is no discernible reason why, if he were intent on fabricating, he would single out someone as obscure as Larry Craig, who was not even up for re-election.

Nonetheless, it is hard to overstate the intense fury that this pre-election report triggered from the Right — not at Senator Craig for engaging in this behavior, but at Rogers for reporting it. A virtually unanimous chorus on the Right furiously insisted that nothing could be more irrelevant than whether the married family values Senator had sex with men in bathrooms (acts that are simultaneously criminal and adulterous). The same political movement that impeached Bill Clinton and which has made a living exploiting issues of private morality for political gain insisted that Rogers had reached a new and despicable low in politics even by reporting this.

This reaction was so widespread that only a fraction can be identified here for illustrative purposes. At Hugh Hewitt’s blog, Dean Barnett pronounced: “The thuggishness continues . . . . [A] benumbed nation can only look on in horror at what has become of the Democratic Party.” Barnett accused Rogers of being a liar (“Rogers will maintain the anonymity of these three men, presumably because they . . . . don’t exist”) and also claimed that he hasn’t “heard from a single conservative who gives a hoot about Larry Craig’s sexuality.” According to Barnett (and many others), the Left only thought the story would matter because it mistakenly assumes that Christian conservatives actually dislike homosexuals:

I assume he’s straight as do most readers, but the overwhelming sentiment we all share is indifference. . . .But if those on the left actually knew more practicing Christians, they would know that the stuff about condemning the sin but loving the sinner isn’t mere lip service. If the members of the left actually knew the people that they so casually and easily defame, they would also understand that infinite forgiveness is a hallmark of America’s Christian community. . . .

If the left actually took the time to understand the dynamics of the community they so loathe, they would know that professional Outing Scumbag Mike Rogers will inspire the Republican base, not the opposite.

And at least at the time, Barnett was right. Among right-wing pundits — weeks before the election — there was nothing but support for Craig and outrage over the reporting of this story. The most hysterical outrage of all was from Glenn Reynolds, who went so far as repeatedly to predict — literally — that the country would be so repulsed by Rogers’ reporting that it might actually swing the election in favor of the Republicans. More absurdly still, Reynolds cited a grand total of two reasons why he voted for GOP’s Bob Corker over Harold Ford in the Tennessee Senate race, one of which was actually Rogers’ report on Craig (“the sexual McCarthyism from the pro-outing crowd . . . . has convinced me that [Democrats] just don’t deserve a victory with those tactics”).

This is only a small portion of what Greenwald had to show us.  And he cites more right-wing pundits to back up his thesis.  Elegant, simply elegant.