Craig rumors resurfacing -- Editor's Notebook

There have always been persistent rumors about Sen. Larry Craig's sexual orientation.

It never helped that during the 1982 congressional page scandal, Craig, without ever being named in the scandal, nevertheless was the only member of Congress to issue a press release denying he was involved. It looked weird at the time. Very weird. Suspiciously weird.

But over the years a number of Idaho and national newspapers have tried to pin down the rumors, especially considering his anti-gay stands on several issues. No one was ever able to come up with any hard evidence, however. It's tough to prove anything about anyone's sexual activity, since those matters are usually quite private, which they should be -- a person's sexual orientation really isn't anybody's business, unless it impacts public policy. In this case, it might and would indicate a level of hypocrisy that isn't exactly uncommon among politicians -- if it were true.

Even Tuesday's story in the Idaho Statesman didn't quite reach the level of officially "outing" Craig (not that they claimed that it did). The evidence presented, which covered pretty much all the allegations I've heard over the years, probably wouldn't stand up in a court of law as "proof." It's tough, for example, to prove whether Craig was "hitting on" someone, or if his actions were innocent and merely misinterpreted. His named accusers all have reasons to cite rumors as facts, or to embellish or make up their stories. Or, they could be telling the truth but because their own credibility is in question, it's tough to know.

But it's amazing how often rumors, if they run around long enough, can become "fact" in the minds of people.

And the arrest report, which is floating around the internet, is suspicious, but not absolutely compelling. His actions could be interpreted either way. It didn't help his denials that he immediately pleaded guilty.

There's a lot of smoke here, but I'm still not sure anyone has actually seen a fire.

People I know who know Craig well have never indicated they thought he was gay (or at the least, bisexual). But nobody would ever accuse him of having a John Wayne tough-guy image, either.

For all I know, he might be gay or bisexual, but before he gets smeared too badly (and he is taking some major hits right now), he probably deserves the benefit of the doubt. People should always be considered innocent until proven guilty.

The story is definitely titillating, and considering that the current standing of Washington, D.C., politicians is an an all-time low (heck, they rank even lower than newsman right now, and we're usually below prostitutes and used car salesman in public opinion polls concerning our credibility), it definitely is tempting to many to want to believe the charges. Americans love to see the mighty knocked down a peg or two, especially if it's a politician who turns out to be a hypocrite (something Republicans have suffered from all too often in recent years).

At a personal level, I've always found Larry to be a nice guy, although a little humorless. He's always seemed awfully focused on his work as a representative of this state.

In fact, in that regard, he's done a very good job. He's risen to power in the Republican party over the years, and you have to wonder if the people who elevated him to those positions would have done so if they thought there was anything substantial behind the rumors (although that's not proof one way or the other, weirder things have happened in Washington, D.C.).

I do know he's been an able and effective voice for the majority of Idaho citizens. He works hard at his job and he's good at it.

These allegations, however, are going to seriously undermine his effectiveness, and since it's impossible to prove a negative (that he isn't gay), they're going to haunt him for a long time.

Larry may not run again when the time comes for re-election. If he doesn't, most people will point to this scandal as the cause, although I've been hearing for over a year from the state's top GOP leaders that he's been considering retiring, so the real truth is likely to be that it was something he'd been planning for a long time. But once again, the truth and the perception are probably not going to be the same thing.

Either way, this will tarnish his legacy of an otherwise excellent record on behalf of the state of Idaho. And he does deserve considerable credit for that record. Give credit where credit is due.

I can't say I know for sure if any of the allegations are true or false. What I can say is that he probably deserves the benefit of the doubt, until better proof comes along. That's only fair.

But doubt in the eyes of the voters is going to haunt him for a long time.