WARNING: Blunt post follows. Sorry, but the Craig situation is getting a bit ridiculous.

Larry Craig, it seems, is a sitting duck. Word from the Washington rumor mill is that he's an inch or so away from resigning. Not that it matters whether he actually broke any laws. What matters is not what he did but the fact that he pleaded guilty, and for that he is being publicly shamed as an admitted pervert even though he won't admit what nearly the whole world believes he already admitted.

He has, of course, fueled this process by denying that he is gay. The apparent preposterousness of these denials makes everyone close ranks, and conclude that he must in fact be not merely a gay man (hardly a new concept) but a cowering pervert, who is so utterly ashamed to be alive that he is incapable of honesty. (Either than or a man so deeply in denial that his judgment or mental health might be open to question.)

In view of modern reality, isn't this all a bit anachronistic?

Regular readers know that I'd defend to the death the right of anyone to be in the closet, for I believe in the right to privacy as akin to human right. But that's a moral argument, and right now I want to pose a pragmatic question. (Not that I advocate coming out for people who don't want to do that. But the guilty plea changed the ordinary dynamics. And Not that there's anything wrong with* being in the closet, of course...)

Has it ever occurred to any of the political junkies that if Larry Craig were to simply "come out" and say he was gay, that he might be able to keep his job?

Certainly, it would salvage the growing doubts over the man's sanity. Because, if we look at this in terms of the most basic logic, Craig either wanted to have sex with that vice officer or he did not. If he did, well, saying he's gay would clear it up, and he might get a pass because the idea that he was gay and in the closet goes a long way towards explaining everything.

On the other hand, if Larry Craig did not want to have sex with the vice officer, what in God's name was he doing tapping his foot, and then pleading guilty? If he is completely heterosexual, well, that presents obvious problems.... I mean, what do you call a heterosexual man who goes into bathrooms and taps men on the feet?

Um, insane maybe?

Seriously, are there any other explanations? (The only other one I can think of is that he was playing a practical joke on the officer, but that possibility has never been raised.)

So, if we give him the benefit of the doubt on the gay issue, how can we give him the benefit of the doubt on the sanity issue? We can't. But by "coming out" (loathsome though the thought might be to some), Craig can clear up the issue of his sanity. No one will think he is crazy, even if he is. True, it would be at the expense of his "straighthood" but as stigmas go, what is worse? To be gay, or to be insane?

We come to the question of which possibility is more acceptable to the GOP. Right now, they're faced with the intolerable situation of a fully heterosexual man who is unable to resist tapping men's feet in bathrooms. Once again, this might not be a crime, but we're talking about image of the Republican Party. Would having a gay Republican come out destroy the party? How? It's happened before (I think it was Gerry Studds), and did anyone really care? Besides, the people who care about such things are in a minority, and they're already hot and bothered. Doubtless they're calling him a wicked evil sodomite and all the rest of it. If he comes out, he'll still be an evil and wicked sodomite, only he'll be a more honest evil and wicked sodomite. As it is, they're looking at a dishonest sodomite in denial, or a heterosexual loony tune.

I realize that there are things missing in this analysis, and of course the biggest problem is that does not involve actual sex, but the perception of sex. In that respect, Craig's "sex" is like the nonexistent sex of Mark Foley, whose crime was not sex, but sending suggestive emails. (Or Vitter, whose name was found in an address book.)

I'll take Glenn Reynolds' "what is it with these guys?" a step further.

What is it with these guys that they can't even run a proper sex scandal?

Who ever heard of sex scandals without sex?

At least when the Democrats have a sex scandal, it involves sex.

Well, yes, Bill Clinton said the sex wasn't sex. But let's face it, it was. Had Bill tapped Monica's foot, the most he'd have been accused of was playing footsie, and there'd have been little if any outcry at all, much less impeachment. And as Matthew Sheffield makes clear, the double standard is appalling; Democrats keep their jobs after drowning women in the cars or keeping male brothels, while Republicans are hounded out of office for sex scandals without even the component of sex.

If I were the American people, I'd be totally sick of sexless Republican sex scandals by now.

The GOP needs to shape up.

Starting with Larry Craig. Even the moral conservatives ought to be able to recognize that a gay sex scandal without gay sex is even more abnormal than gay sex. I mean really. It's just plain weird. Couldn't the guy have at least managed to get caught in a gay bathhhouse or something, like a normal homosexual?

So, even though it's counterintuitive and against my usual instincts, my advice right now to Larry Craig boils down to two words: COME OUT.

Plus, there's an additional advantage. If he "comes out," the moralists can always offer to "treat" him.

That might even be a win-win.

*HT Glenn Reynolds on the wrongness video.