10/17/2007
Larry Craig and Wife Tap Toes with Matt Lauer in First Interview
Here's a transcript of last night's Matt Lauer interview with Idaho Senator Larry Craig if you missed it, and a short clip.
The interview was, for the most part, a rehash of what we have already heard before from Craig, though this time the home fires were burning and Craig was surrounded by a defense wall of artfully-arranged family photos that filled the front of the frame in many camera shots, no doubt strategically placed to boost Craig's image as a devoted husband and father. Craig and his wife seemed poised, unshaken.
And Lauer's interview was a softball event. It seemed odd that in his 49 years, Lauer had never come across the term "cruising" before - "whatever that means". The gay "lifestyle" was referred to time and time again. Also annoying were the constant apologies with which he prefaced his questions.
Near the end, some fresh territory:
Matt Lauer: You have taken, senator, several opportunities to say, come out point blank and say, "I am not a homosexual."
Larry Craig: Uh-huh (affirm).
Matt Lauer: Which raises two questions in my mind. One of them, and you're going to have to forgive me for this, are you technically not a homosexual? Is it possible you're bisexual?
Larry Craig: It's no to both.
Matt Lauer: The other question is do you think it would be something that would be awful? In other words, do you view it as something that would be awful to have to admit that you were gay?
Larry Craig: I don't agree with the lifestyle. And I've said so by my votes over the years and by my expressions. Have I viewed it as awful? I viewed it as a lifestyle I don't agree with.
Matt Lauer: You wouldn't view it as one-- something that would be a source of great shame if you had to admit it?
Larry Craig: I'm not sure that I've ever looked at anyone else's sex life as great shame.
What is a shame is that no efforts were made to point out that the gay "lifestyle" to which they refer — the clandestine naughtiness in airport men's rooms — is an activity taken on, to my knowledge, by men who identify as straight. Being gay is an orientation, certainly not something that is chosen, which "lifestyle" of course implies. What is a choice is to not come clean about one's orientation. What is a choice is for a lawmaker to work feverishly for "family values" and against gay rights while engaging in homosexual liaisons in airport men's rooms.
Tom Shales at the Washington Post brings up some good points about this in his criticism of the interview:
"Craig himself brought up his voting record and said of homosexuality, 'I don't approve of the lifestyle.' Lauer should have followed up; why did he call it a 'lifestyle' and what about it does he disapprove of? At one point, reading from Craig's history, Lauer said the records included 'a guy who claims you 'cruised' him -- whatever that is.' This, it seemed, was Lauer's way of winking into the camera and saying, 'I'm not gay.' You hardly have to be gay in 21st-century America to know what the phrase 'cruising' means. It was even the title of a movie starring Al Pacino. Lauer needs to worry less about his own image and more about getting valuable information when conducting an interview. It seemed highly likely that Craig and his wife agreed to sit down with Lauer because they knew they had nothing, really, to fear."
Sen. Larry Craig's interview with Matt Lauer [msnbc]
Posted 8:42 AM EST by Andy Towle in Idaho, Larry Craig, Matt Lauer, News, Republican Party | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Here's the bow that ties it all together...
Lauer got the interview because of Judy Smith. Smith is Billy Martin's spin doctor...
I'd say Billy needs a new spin doctor.
Before starting her own firm, Ms. Smith served as Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications for NBC. Ms Smith reported directly to the President & CEO, Robert C. Wright, and was the chief spokesperson for the company's domestic and international programming and business ventures. Ms. Smith managed a staff of 100 and coordinated Media Relations for all NBC divisions, including Corporate, NBC News, Sports, Entertainment, CNBC, AT (America's Talking), NBC Super Channel, Canal de Noticias-NBC, CNBC Asia, and TV Azteca. Ms. Smith also managed NBC Employee Communications, Editorial Services, Guest Relations, Corporate Philanthropy and NBC's Retail Operations.
A member of NBC's President's Council, Ms. Smith helped spearhead NBC's position in the industry as a leader on the regulatory front; a company with a growing asset value; and leadership team with a vision for the future. She instituted public relations campaigns to address numerous critical issues affecting the network.
In 1991, she was appointed by President George H Bush as Deputy Press Secretary.
Posted by: wyldeboi99 | Oct 17, 2007 12:33:09 PM
Here's the bow that ties it all together...
Lauer got the interview because of Judy Smith. Smith is Billy Martin's spin doctor...
I'd say Billy needs a new spin doctor.
Before starting her own firm, Ms. Smith served as Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications for NBC. Ms Smith reported directly to the President & CEO, Robert C. Wright, and was the chief spokesperson for the company's domestic and international programming and business ventures. Ms. Smith managed a staff of 100 and coordinated Media Relations for all NBC divisions, including Corporate, NBC News, Sports, Entertainment, CNBC, AT (America's Talking), NBC Super Channel, Canal de Noticias-NBC, CNBC Asia, and TV Azteca. Ms. Smith also managed NBC Employee Communications, Editorial Services, Guest Relations, Corporate Philanthropy and NBC's Retail Operations.
A member of NBC's President's Council, Ms. Smith helped spearhead NBC's position in the industry as a leader on the regulatory front; a company with a growing asset value; and leadership team with a vision for the future. She instituted public relations campaigns to address numerous critical issues affecting the network.
In 1991, she was appointed by President George H Bush as Deputy Press Secretary.
Posted by: wyldeboi99 | Oct 17, 2007 12:34:14 PM
To me it seems that Matt Lauer lost his edge. Maybe he has been told to take it down a notch after his (great) confrontation with Tom Cruise. The interview with Britney was worthless and a waste of time, cause he has just become a whimp, and does not confront his guests anymore.
Posted by: Dutchimport | Oct 17, 2007 12:42:31 PM
What I can't imagine is being his wife. Does she really believe what he's saying? Is her life so set in stone that she can't afford to bail? I'd like to hear her answer the question, "do you believe your husband?" Her body language would say it all.
Posted by: SRB | Oct 17, 2007 12:47:57 PM
Sorry for the double post. I'm not a dumb ass..really I'm not.
Posted by: wyldeboi99 | Oct 17, 2007 12:53:16 PM
Lauer was more "cordial" than he was "skeptical," and he was more "polite" than he was "probing."
For a reporter trying to ferret out the truth, I think a healthy dose of skepticism is called for. It doesn't mean you're rude during the interview, just "tough." It means setting the right tone so that a police officer's first-hand account can't be shrugged off with a wife's (and a Senator's) smirks.
This interview just didn't have the right tone. Maybe all this was negotiated beforehand so that Lauer could land the "exclusive"?
Any interview the focus of which is airport bathroom sex should have been more ... penetrating.
Posted by: Cup of Joe | Oct 17, 2007 1:21:19 PM
What I don't understand about this whole thing is why isn't Criag's past being brought-up??? It's practically an estalished fact that Craig has engaged in homosexual liasons for practically his entire life. This airport incidenct was certainly not his first, yet the media are treating it as such!
Posted by: Dr. Christopher Blackwell | Oct 17, 2007 1:59:59 PM
Anyone with half a brain would know you weren't going to get anything useful out of the Craigs. The only approach to this would have been to interview other people who may have the dirt on Craig, but Lauer only does A-List people, so someone else will have to do the leg work. It hardly matters that one interview went bust, if the story is of any value other reporter can easily work on it and do better. Generally, if you want to target the Craigs you'd need to interview others first and then raise the new points up for Larry to deny, such as trysts in Washington DC Union Station or elsewhere. Maybe Mark Foley knows something.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Oct 17, 2007 2:00:36 PM
The most insulting thing Lauer said, in my opinion, was "...you're going to have to forgive me for this..." just prior to asking Craig if he was bisexual. Clearly, Lauer believes there is something wrong with being homosexual or bisexual otherwise he would not have asked for Craig's forgiveness before asking him the question.
I agree with the posters who say that it does not serve the gay community to claim that it is ONLY closeted men who seek anonymous sex in tea rooms. There are members of the gay community who cruise public bathrooms looking for anonymous sex. Just as there are members of the gay community who are in committed, monogamous relationships. The gay community is just as diverse as the straight community.
Finally, while I am thrilled that Larry Craig is sticking around and will become a liability to the Republican party, there is a large part of me that wishes this story would just go away. It makes it seem as though every gay man cruises airport restrooms looking for anonymous sex.
Posted by: peterparker | Oct 17, 2007 2:02:10 PM
Again, Lauer is a guy who gave free publicity and greater currency to the claim that Hitler's evil was driven by his alleged homosexuality—a lie that virtually every factory in the antigay industry has repeated at some time or another.
Even if he hadn't, he's no "reporter" in the sense of being a “journalist.” He's a meat puppet for nothing more than a TV tabloid show that pays easily digestible “personalities” huge sums of money to make Americans falsely think they’re actually being informed and not pandered to by having Middle America’s idea of the status quo spoon fed to them with their morning cereal. “Today,” “Good Morning America,” and “The Early Show” occasionally use segments by proven, professional reporters from their networks’ news departments, but Lauer is not one of them; Dianne Sawyer no longer is assuming she ever was. Meredith Viera, Julie Chin, Harry Smith, et al., are of varying intelligence and integrity but none are journalists. The countries that use the term “newsREADER” rather than anchor or whatever are much more on the mark because such people as Couric now disgracing the chair made famous by Walter Cronkite really only read what real reporters and producers write for them.
Regardless, it is waaaay past time GLAAD put the “dog” back in “watch dog” and did something to change the way the Lauer, his fellow hacks, and even real TV news volk cover us. “Lifestyle,” “cruising”—that’s Gay 101.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Oct 17, 2007 2:02:59 PM
Cronkite was as much a cheerleader for the establishment as anyone. The idea in play is that A-List celebs and VIP's can only be interviewed by A-List "journalists". This idea really got going with Barbara Walters, who made a fetish of equating herself with her interviewee's status. However, PR people know that they can block access to their clients and make special demands of "journalists" who want to do interviews, so it becomes a question of who has the greater need: the journalist out looking for status or the celeb out looking for publicity. A-List journalists are almost always compromised into servitude and therefore "safe" for celebs. Presidential debates are very similar.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Oct 17, 2007 3:21:03 PM
Consistent with your usual drool, ANON [really, can't you even BUY a Net name?], you demonstrate how little you know with your reduction of Cronkite. One could give other examples, but the most famous proofs of your idiocy was Cronkite's publicly turning against the Vietnam War while the majority of his viewers were still believing the government causing President Johnson to say, "If I've lost Walter Cronkite, I've lost Middle America" and his contributions to pushing the Nixon Watergate scandal into the public's consciousness [which of course resulted in his impeachment and resignation] when they didn't want to believe that an entire administration could be so morally decayed and ruthless. Cronkite was no I.F. Stone, but he was far from the "cheerleader of the establishment" that you embarrass yourself by claiming.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Oct 17, 2007 4:07:47 PM
egad .. can't there be a comment word-limit or something imposed to keep the bile and insults from 'leland' to a minimum ? it's really getting to be a drag.
Posted by: el polacko | Oct 18, 2007 5:38:29 PM
Hey La Polacko, What's your problem? If you do not want to read Leland's comments, then just skip them and remain in your self-imposed state of blissed-out ignorance. The rest of us admire Leland's passion and his ability to clearly state his views and construct a logical argument. In contrast, I find most of your comments to be glib, facile, and not the least bit entertaining. Are you sure that you are gay?
Posted by: rudy | Oct 18, 2007 7:32:34 PM