"I did not have sex with that policeman..."

You know who I feel sorry for?
Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota.
Senator who?

Sure you remember him. The mass feeding frenzy that took place when he was stricken suddenly with a brain injury. The then endless speculation of if he went, how would that affect the Senate balance. Oh sure, they recognized -- some acknowledged -- the fetidness of it all. Wait until the body is cold to go counting up your hand, some of us believe. And don't speak ill of the dead unnecessarily is another. Hey they're dead.

But Senator Johnson foiled the speculations. He fought back hard, he's still alive, and he's heading back into work at a measured pace. Good job Senator, keep it up.

Now this other one...
and again folks, your ugliness is showing. I happen to think Nick Coleman got it right:

If Craig weren't now convicted by cable TV as being a Likely Gay Person, or LGP, or if he had been caught with a woman instead of playing patty-fingers with a guy, there might be sympathy for him when he complains he was entrapped by a loitering lawman with a killer "come-hither" look. But he pleaded guilty after he fell for the cop's promise that it would just be their little secret. Until it all came out.

When it did, Craig had to resign. The one thing conservatives hate more than Hollywood and Hillary is a Republican who might be gay.

A lot of Democrats seem to think they won something from this spectacle, but a lot of Democrats are dopes. Hypocrisy knows no party, and human beings are pretty much the same.

You know who is losing here, again?
Gay people.

In their delight to cackle over this man, bloggers of a certain age -- ok, brought up in the majority boom times -- trip over themselves in glee. Here's Susan Estrich, a mother, so fearful she is worried about sending her teenage son in alone to the mens rooms. Nice defying the stereotypes Susan; is there a two-fer there?

And today the newlywed Andrew Sullivan points out that the senator's children, who are standing behind their dad, are adopted. Because it's somehow relevant to the man's sexuality, you know.

Then we've got two South Florida funsters tossing around all the gay stereotypes fit to print: Carl Hiaasen of the Florida corruption comedy genre, and Frank Cerabino, another parent columnist all-around funny family guy.

Nevermind counting all the armchair psych doctors who have the senator diagnosed and labeled all from his previous rumored actions.

Let me in on this one, from a perspective a few years younger? Y'all should be ashamed of yourselves. Do you really think this is helping the gay rights movement, young gay people today, politics, or do you not care? Please, enough copy already, let it go.

This senator is a person, first and foremost. He grew up in an ugly age, where if you chose to be true to yourself, you paid the price in terms of family, community, career, maybe longevity due to lifestyle. He made a choice, maybe consciously and maybe not. His life, his choice.

Hey ugly Andrew: Maybe he wanted to be a parent. Not much chance of that back then, eh? Suddenly adopted children are "lessers" now, their voice somehow affected because he's not the natural father? I'm happy you're self-satisfied with your work, Mr. Sullivan. Elitist gay marriage is now available in select regions, and your premature push, many would say, has the rest of us living under state constitutional bans. Why couldn't you just work outside the system, like so many lesbian families and longstanding gay partners did, without pushing your needs on the entire country and bringing about such a swift and condemning backlash? You are always down on the Human Rights Campaign, but surely they have raised awareness in American families and communities and in trying to organize the fight to serve the greatest numbers of gay people in the greatest numbers of states, eh? Instead, you wanted it all ... and you may have gotten it for yourself (the barebacking period when younger, now societal recognition of the primacy of your current union), but what of the rest of us?

Did you know, like Mr. Pitts and Mr. Hiaasen surely do, that if the senator were an out man in their state he would not have been allowed to adopt? Do you care? Can you respect someone's personal choice -- making the best decision for themselves under their circumstances even if you don't share their desire for a family that includes children?

You know who wins?
Not the gays. Nope. In a good majority of minds now, bathroom sex is what gay people do. They're afraid for their children what the homosexual sex drive will do. You think I'm kidding, I'm not. You know this outcry for family values? In the cynic world, it's not real. But in so many circles, it is. Who's attractive now? Mitt Romney. He's real. He's a family man, with biological children -- always important. Mostly sons too. Successful business background -- not into this permissive culture where anything goes anywhere. And he seems to be a "mind your own business" kind of guy.

Is that what y'all want? Mitt Romney America?
Please, keep it up then. Because in concentrating our attentions on that senator -- in piling on his problems because you think you're racking up points with overall America -- we lose track of the hard work people like Senator Johnson put in physically to reach his goals. And I'm sure it was painful, undignified, and wearying to try to gain control of your body again like that. Please be careful pundits. I don't think the Democrats exactly have a lock on the future just yet.

Instead, we got another hot game going of Smear the Queer, a game where identifying your target to others was enough. Funny to see it's still so popular. Jerry Lewis, sure I could see that from the man's times and experiences. The rest of you? Shame on you for not broadening your column topics and settling for thrice-raked over comedy, fears, and stereotypes. Maybe where you're at gay people are set and don't have to make such choices today between parenting (can you afford the sperm implantation and single parenthood; do you marry a friend with honesty and respect for both families all the way around?) and living the gay lifestyle. Maybe in your circles, coming out and being public about your gayness advances your career. Other places, maybe not.

Pro-choice.
As much as possible, putting the life choices and consequences of an individual upon that individual, who surely knows his or her environment and circumstances best, right? Dignity and mercy, as much as possible. That too can survive in the gay lifestyle, right?

If you didn't think then President Clinton should resign for the choices and immediate denials he made, why do the sexual circumstances of what the senator allegedly did in any way affect his job performance? If the gay rights movement was built on bullying closet politicians for their support via the threat of outing them in exchange for those votes, my that's a mighty shaky foundation you'd have us all crawl into.

Be careful your tactics today.
No matter what you choose, you have to accept the consequences for your actions tomorrow. You know what? Accepting consequences -- that's exactly what the senator here appears to be trying to do.

Politically, the Democrats have been in a lot of "can't lose" situations before, and they lost. Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Kennedy. Now Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama. Surely one of these senators, surely a Dem will be our next president, right? Sorry, but that's a losing track record, and some folks feel the losses more than others. Just take care is all I'm saying, understand how your words are being taken by real-life voters. And for God's sake people, get out there and generate your own copy. This thrice-told samey-same nonsense makes me wonder about all the stories out there you're missing in playing silly games.