As I write, Conrad Burns is still struggling in Montana but I’m not hopeful. It looks like the big winner is the Democratic strategy of outing and smearing politicians who are gay, or politicians who might be gay, or politicians……

After all, the Lewinski thing was in now way connected to the Jones matter, other than as a credibility question (he had sex with an intern, therefor he’s more likely to put the moves on another staffer, even though he swears he didn’t).

As it occurs, President Clinton had previously signed the new Federal Rules of Evidence, which specifically stated that the type of questions he would be asked concerning the lovely Miss Lewinsky were considered germane in sexual harassment cases.

“So you’re assuming it’s true, James B. Shearer?”

I don’t think anyone supports making false accusations of this sort, certainly I don’t. However a lot of people seem to be claiming that this sort of thing should not be reported even if true which I don’t agree with.

My guess is that the question of whether the deponent is living a double life sexually would always be relevant for credibility purposes. Just like all those background questions you get to ask about education, employment, prior convictions, etc.

After all, the Lewinski thing was in now way connected to the Jones matter, other than as a credibility question (he had sex with an intern, therefor he’s more likely to put the moves on another staffer, even though he swears he didn’t).

It’d be so easy to make Craig’s double life relevant to anything he says: “Mr. Craig, you’ve represented to the world that you are heterosexual your whole life, and it turns out your gay. Why should we believe you when you represent to us that (insert factual claim here)?”

If he said it under oath, and a judge ruled that he had to answer because it was germane to the lawsuit (you don’t have to answer questions in a deposition if they have nothing to do with the lawsuit), then (assuming he lied) I’d be calling for him to resign.

If you threaten to burn down our building, tie our hands, and cut off our heads, we’ll cower and clam up.

Otherwise, go schtupp yourself.

There’s a passage in Advise and Consent, which was published in 1959, when a reporter from the Post calls up a Senator and tells him that another Senator has been leaking to the press evidence that the first Senator had had a gay affair during the War. The Post reporter says something to the extent of “we won’t run it, of course, but sooner or later some paper in [$small_town] will, and then we’ll have to.”

It’s been a standard part of the newsmedia playbook for *at least* half a century.