So here is what disgraced Senator Larry Craig did. He placed his bag down in front of the airport bathroom door. He went tap, tap, tap with his foot. He reached over with his left hand and touched the leg of the fellow in the next stall. After that he did...well, nothing. The officer confronted him and accused him of soliciting, and Craig pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct and paid the fine.
Here, to get a little perspective, is what Congressman Barney Frank did several years ago. He answered a personal ad in the Washington Blade in which a male prostitute, Stephen Gobie, drew public attention to his "hot bottom" and "large endowment." Frank began to pay Gobie for sex and even invited Gobie to move in with him. When the arrangement soured, Gobie revealed to the press that he had been running a full-service prostitution ring out of Frank's Capitol Hill apartment.
Why then is Craig on the ropes while Frank continues as a Congressman in good standing? Certainly the difference isn't homosexuality, which seems to be a common factor in both cases. Nor can the explanation be found in the gravity of the offense involved. Craig's is much less serious, since the worst he did was proposition another adult to have sex, not exactly the first time in history that this has happened. Frank, by contrast, was employing a male hooker for paid favors and providing operating facilities for a D.C. prostitution ring.
I suppose the difference is that Craig has been a champion of moral values--which makes him vulnerable to the charge of hypocrisy--while Frank is a libertine which means he gets to do as he pleases. (Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy are also given free passes for similar reasons.) Another difference, as far as the mainstream media is concerned, is that Craig is a Republican. If you're looking for two-faced people who abuse their power, Craig may not be the greatest offender here.
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 11)
16. The short answer is that, unlike Craig, Frank was not abandoned by colleagues from his own party. The speed and ferocity with which Republicans have turned on Craig is impressive. (And notable, too, for its moral flexibility; see David Vitter.) Really, Dinesh, it was not the media that did him in.
It's interesting to see that Barney Frank stood up for Craig today--more than Craig could do for Frank when he voted for the Massachusetts Congressman's censure back in 1990.
R.M. at 7:11PM on Aug 31st 2007
17. Good question. The Dems turn a blind eye when one of their own is accused. They call it party loyalty. These kind of actions should not be condoned by either party. Ever notice how the liberal media closes ranks when one of their little wussy favorites is attacked for doing something wrong? It's so obvious, it's ridiculous.
Plinkoman at 7:13PM on Aug 31st 2007
18. There's a lot of differences between Sen Craig and Rep Barney Frank. Craig is in the Senate. He's elected for 6 years. The Senate is more prestigious and exclusive. There's only 50 Senators. They are held to higher standards. The House is more crazy and emotional. It's the people's house. They're elected every 2 years. There's 435 of them. You get a way with more. You can make more mistakes.
Dan P at 7:14PM on Aug 31st 2007
19. I meant 100 Senators
Dan P at 7:15PM on Aug 31st 2007
20. if Frank tries to play with an officer, gets arrested and confesses guilt, I'm all for harsh treatment.
Politicians keep bread on the table for DC prostitutes. Look at the yellow pages, it's pretty impressive how many VIP services you'll find.
mw
michael white at 7:44PM on Aug 31st 2007
21. it's amazing and chiiling to me that these right-wing nutjob foreigners, like this kook, are allowed to come into our country, then spew hatred, bash americans, and get paid to do it. listen, you third world import, you weren't even born when barney frank did what he did, so don't act like you are some expert on our american culture and history. you are profoundly lucky that we allow you creeps into our country. if it were up to me, and increasing numbers of americans, you would have no such privilege. that said, your twisted views and utter obsession with gay men, and defending those wackos who rail against gay men and others all the while they are hiring whores, seeking out gay sex in a shit-hole, etc., etc., is all the evidence i and many in the mental health world, i'm sure, need to recommende that you just give in to your truest desires, and find yourself a good third world boyfriend.
f.c. at 7:55PM on Aug 31st 2007
22. Why is it that if a man has one (or more) encounter with another man he is called 'gay' even if he also like women? Since he is married with children, doesn't that pretty much mean that he is 'bi' instead?
Carolyn Wu at 7:58PM on Aug 31st 2007
23. to keep your otherwise vile mouth occupied, that is!
f.c. at 8:00PM on Aug 31st 2007
24. It's very simple.
When Democrat politcians commit illegal sexual acts on women or men, abuse alcohol, drugs, steal or accept bribes etc. they are supported by their party as if they are victims. Then they get help and are re-elected over and over again. Rarely do they ever resign. Dems love victims unless they are Republican. In fact most like Barney Frank and the Kennedy clan where there transgressions like some sick badge of honor.
Republicans don't get the same slack. One slip up or transgression of any kind and they are out and villified as the worst person in the world. Often these Republicans resign at the prodding of their own party members, rather than cast dishonor on the party. I'm not defending the Senator, just telling it like it is.
Ter at 8:44PM on Aug 31st 2007
25. D'Souza really is a run-of-the-mill religious right lackey now isn't he? You want to know why Republicans have attracted such vehement vitriol and calls of hypocrisy and Democrats like Frank haven't?
Because Democrats, as lousy as they are policy-wise, have NEVER even remotely been guilty of hubris by suggesting that they're somehow morally superior to everyone else, like your snivelling Christian conservatives are so keen on doing. Democrats understand that they're in fact fallible human beings with sexual organs, and not divinely ordinated emissiaries of God, which is the dangerous illusion seemingly every republican beyond Giuliani is afflicted with.
Is it a coincidence that Giuliani is attacked the most by his own party, yet approved of by his non-fanatacist countrymen? I think not.
To hell with you elitist religious conservatives, this is exactly what you snobbish clowns deserve for boasting your moral supremacy while impugning that of everyone else who's personal beliefs are incompatible with your own. I can't wait till a secular renaissance overtakes this country, its only a matter of time.
And I'm NOT a liberal, so don't even try to pull that one on me. I'm a neolibertarian, so chew on that.
azandi at 8:45PM on Aug 31st 2007
26. Look moron, it's not about what he did, or Barny Franks. It's about hypocrisy. That very day when
he left Minn. he voted on a bill against homosexuals. He and all the rest tell us about
the bad things of homosexuality. HE'S A FRAUD!!!!
elmer b. johnson at 9:03PM on Aug 31st 2007
27. So what crime did Barney Frank plead guilty to? What crime was Barney Frank ever charged with? Convicted of? You saying something does not make it truth as anybody who has read even a little of the garbage you write knows. Barney Franks ex saying something does not make it truth either. Stick to the facts.. Spare us the swiftboating. The reason not many Democrats care about Barney being Gay is they're NORMAL... It is none of their business. They don't care who Barney sleeps with as long as he does the job they sent him to do. Which he does as well as anybody in Washington. If Republicans were not trying to be the Holier Than Thou Family Values Morality Police then nobody would care who they slept with either. But they are and we do. If they were not trying to oppress people for being Gay nobody would care if they were Gay. It's the Hypocrisy stupid!!!
Joe at 9:06PM on Aug 31st 2007
28. So let me get the facts straight: Craig broke a law - soliciting sexual favors in a public restroom - and got caught by an officer specifically stationed to intercept such crimes. He confessed to a lesser crime, then changed his mind and tried to lie his way out of it. His political affiliation is with the party of "morals" which is generally "anti-gay." He claims he's not gay, and that he was wrongfully accused, entrapped, confused, or whatever.
So here's what I think. Maybe he's really not gay. Maybe he's bisexual. Maybe he was just curious. Maybe he thought he was in the women's restroom. Maybe he was really really hard up - I've heard it said, by several straight guys, that a mouth is a mouth, and you can question your sexuality afterwards.
My point is, his sexual orientation is virtually irrelevant. He broke a law, he got caught, he lied. He should be removed from his position because of the nature of his crime and his attempt at a cover up, not because of his political stance on the issue of human sexuality and his own possibly conflicting personal orientation. The hypocrisy in his personal life versus his political agenda is disgraceful, but is not criminal. The infidelity to his wife and endangerment of his family is similarly disgraceful, and perhaps could be construed as criminal. Both his infidelity and his hypocrisy are clear indications of questionable morals and character - not necessarily crimes, but definitely not traits I'd look for in a political figure.
I have no idea why Barney Frank is still in office. It's admirable to be open about one's sexual lifestyle, and not let it interfere with one's political agenda. It's a horse of another color when you're allowing an illegal operation to be managed out of your home. I wonder, would the public and his party be so forgiving if his partner had been running a meth lab or managing a child-labor sweatshop instead? What if he were a straight man and his female partner were running a prostitution ring?
The focus should be on crime and proper comeuppance, not political party and sexual orientation.
lin at 9:28PM on Aug 31st 2007
29. Republicans have been waving their Bibles and playing the role of moralistic scolds for at least the past quarter century all the while depicting Democrats as sexual libertines, and you wonder why there is a double standard?
IF YOU ARE GOING TO TALK THE TALK, YOU HAD BETTER WALK THE WALK.
That's the word on the streets. Maybe not on the streets of the gated community in which you live, Dinesh, but on the real streets in the real world of heartland America.
And soliciting sex in a public toilet? I mean, seriously, that's as low as it gets! (Well, I guess it could have been a Greyhound station instead of an airport, but still...)
emelpe at 10:16PM on Aug 31st 2007
30. why?maybe because barney has not pled GUILTY to going into a piss stained,fart encrusted cornacopia of feces and attempting to engage in sex..duh.
suoires at 10:54PM on Aug 31st 2007