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 3 of 11)
31. As usual, Dinesh makes incisive observations that the mainstream media won't touch. The Democratic party is a laundry list of forgiven and forgotten criminals and miscreants.
Also, it's unconscionable that nearly everyone is characterizing Craig as a “gay basher” because he opposes laws such as “hate crime” legislation. I oppose hate crime legislation as well, and I am certainly not anti-gay. Like many conservatives, I’m opposed to special treatment for ANY group. All should be equal under the law. Making that happen means enforcing the laws on the books and ensuring we maintain a fair judiciary. Flooding the legal code with millions of statutes does nothing to ensure “equality,” and does everything to build even more class/race/gender inequity.
Jack at 11:32PM on Aug 31st 2007
32. Barney Frank is not married to a woman. He is openly gay. He can advertise on sites for a male companion. The mating ritual are different, so he can advertise as a top, bottom or sideways. Straight men describe their preferences on sites as well. The styles of advertisement happen to be different bucause they ARE different. Frank has never paraded as a fine, upstanding christian straight man married to a woman, dedicated to so-called "family values", while railing against rights for gay people and calling for discrimination against them. And he did not plead guilty to a charge of solicitation for a gay hook-up/anonymous sex in a BATHROOM in an airport and then say that he made "mistake". He understood clearly what the issue was and pled guilty.
DUH!?! He didn't take a trip through the red-light district in Amsterdam peeping in the windows and try to pass it off as "research", either.
You are silly little man who preys on stupid people to buy into your bullshit. Fortunately for you, there are plenty to go around.
web jones at 12:10AM on Sep 1st 2007
33. Judging by the comments to the article, libbies can read, they just can't reason. Some things never change.
Mike Peery at 12:57AM on Sep 1st 2007
34. uuh, can you say neocon agenda? D'oh!
blob at 2:49AM on Sep 1st 2007
35. I'm from Boston. Though I can't say I remember all the details of Barney Frank situation, I believe he owned up to poor judgment in at least some of this
(as I recall, he did not know or at least claimed to not know of a brothel being run out of his home.)
Marti Linder comment :"...Barney Frank comparison is no different than saying every time a man kills his wife and gets convicted and sent to jail, it's unfair because OJ Simpson got away with murder!..." seems sort of true to me.
Truth is, it seems an embarrassing amount of the most radically anti-gay people I have heard about
in the last couple of years have been self-loathing men like Mark Foley or now Larry Craig and there has been a sort of poetic, almost Old Testament-style, justice to their fall since
they endorse such mean-spirited, hard-nosed policies. I feel terrible for Larry Craig's family, and in a way, for Larry himself...his behavior, esp. given the enormous stakes, speak of inner turmoil and damage, and, of the consequences of repression. There seem to be numerous Roy Cohn types (Arthur Finkelstein, etc.) in the GOP who are willing to turn a blind-eye to antigay rhetoric so long as they're not named by name (as if people writing it/ supporting it don't know their sexual orientation, so are therefore not legislating these rules with them in mind.)
The Craig situation is difficult. Romney (who has no love lost here in MA., believe me) threw him under the bus without even a thank you, and,
though I guess we're supposed to understand, being that it's politics and all...there had to have been a classier way of handling this.
I agree with all who posted that the GOP have positioned themselves as the guardians of morality (hohoho) so, it makes sense to me that their hollering is ear-shattering.
D'Souza's "question" seems like a lame attempt to bait what is a non-issue (Barney Frank's ancient
mishegas) and drag it into current events --for what purpose again??? Again, I think Barney Frank took some responsibility, which has not really been the case with Larry Craig.
Tom at 3:01AM on Sep 1st 2007
36. The difference is the media leans left and gives the Democrats much better press. The Democrats have a double standard. And just a FYI on Bill Clinton and Hillary, they were seperated and in the process of getting a divorce for all of Bill's screwing around when he decided to run for president, only then did Hillary forgive him, power hungery she has always been. But then there is always a short memory on the Clintons by the press too.
lindiane01 at 3:38AM on Sep 1st 2007
37. It's simple. Democraps and liberals preach immorality and don't care if they get caught. Republicans and Conservatives preach morality and do care if they get caught. They do the same things.
The Truth at 4:39AM on Sep 1st 2007
38. 1. I understand that you don't understand why Craig may resign and Barney Frank should have been. But that does not justify that Craig should be given a free pass. And the last time I checked, Bill Clinton was impeached, his time was almost done which is why he was allowed to stay.
If you have read the news lately his fellow republicans are the ones making the most noise about this and want him gone because it makes them look bad. The democrats are just sitting back laughing.
I will step on that f*ckers hand if he did that to me. Taking a Sh*t is personal and sacred to my very existence.
David McCool at 4:50PM on Aug 31st 2007
..check again, you're wrong. Clinton was not impeached.
The Truth at 4:39AM on Sep 1st 2007
39. That poor guy just wanted to evacuate all systems before the flight, he just got caught in the wrong bathroom. Donkey or Elephant doesn't matter they all take orders from the little guy with the funny helmet, cause he's the real boss.
steve Pardee at 7:19AM on Sep 1st 2007
40. D'Souza's blog report repeats a raggedly worn old script dragged out time and time again by conservative apologists whenever one of their own is caught with his pants down-so to speak. One would expect more from a Hoover Fellow. I thought they were supposed to be on the cutting edge of new thinking. Maybe I need to lower my expectations of the Hoover Institute.The offense itself was a simple misdemeaner. The only thing newsworthy about it is the hypocrisy the offense exposes. Hypocrisy should always be exposed, don't you think Mr. D'Souza? Or is it only Democratic hypocrisy that deserves our moral outrage? Conservative pundits have been getting away with old swill for far too long. Then again, who reads this crap. I slipped into this mudhole because I thought there might be something worth reading. It's time they at least stepped up with a well reasoned argument to perhaps actually enlighten the debate. I expected more from a Hoover Fellow.
Edward Dick at 8:22AM on Sep 1st 2007
41. The Senator sat on the throne, the cop was to his right and the Senator used his LEFT hand to make contacft with the Cop? I mean why would he get into an awkward position while using his LEFT hand to reach over to the RIGHT stall? Cop said he saw a wedding band.
I am beginning to think that this whole story as told by the cop is BULL@@@@!
basbleu at 9:10AM on Sep 1st 2007
42. The difference, to me anyway, is that THESE politicians....Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley...(Florida Republican Senator that headed up the caucus for the fight against internet predators then got busted for BEING an internet predator) David Vitter...(Louisiana Republican Senator who used "the sanctity of marriage" and "family values" as his platform for re-election, then went on to make the headlines when he was connected with the D.C. Madam....coincedentally, Vitter has NOT resigned) and now Republican Senator Craig, all speak out publicly AGAINST gay rights, and FOR "family values". (Let's not forget the "honorable Reverend" Ted Haggard, although he wasn't a politician, he WAS instrumental in shoring up the evangelical vote in 2004, participating in weekly meetings with George Bush, preaching from his pulpit that homosexuality was a sin. This married father of five went on to have an affair with a Colorado "massage-therapist" who also supplied the fine Reverend's crystal meth.) The entire Republican party used Christianity and religion as a platform in the 2004 elections. That's what bothers me the most. When you announce to the world that you belong to "God's party", when you insist on mixing politics and religion, this is what happens.
Penelope at 9:12AM on Sep 1st 2007
43. The claim that Frank had knowledge of what his then paramour was doing out of that apartment is highly questionable. Frank, a single gay male who never pretended anything approaching Larry Craigs hypocracy.
Now a 1982 case is being revisited, in which a then teen page claimed to have had 'S-E-X' with Craig, the lawyer is opening up that boil on the arse of the now much reviled Craig.
Yes D'Souza, seems the Dems are great Christians, very moral in that they do not, like their Republican oh so conservative, moralistic, braces on the brain rivals throw their fellow under the bus, totaly disavowing any and all past friendships.
Much as I hate to say it, Craig served his party extremely well. His voting record would seem to support his far right leanings which are fully in line with the most conservative of them. That poor guy is now reviled by those demonstrating no compassion for what may be a compulssion. Poor Craig and his family, confilicted, demoralizedd and repulsed.
Meanwhile on the Dem side, oh so Frank is -G-a-y, BFD! And the sun shines, the birdies sing and all is well with the world---tra la, tra la- tra la!!!!
Steve at 9:18AM on Sep 1st 2007
44. Comparing Barney Frank to Craig is like comparing an objective journalist with you. Barney Frank is a confessed homosexual while Craig is a wolf in sheeps clothing. He persecutes homosexuals legislatively,even marries, all to get elected, while secretly living a life contrary to what comes out of his mouth. He has been caught before. You in the same way talk about truth while spewing out right wing propaganda for your own gain. The right is always looking for the Rush Limbaughs and the Ann Coulters to lie and invent their verbal garbage for the ignorant and the callous. Seig heil Mr D'Souza !
Rick at 9:26AM on Sep 1st 2007
45. The big difference is, that no matter what the odd behavior, Democrats circle the wagons to protect their perverts, we Republicans do everything we can to oust our perverts. There is no hypocrisy, every time a Republican does something morally wrong, it ends his career, and if it were a couple hundred years ago, Craig would have been physically driven out of washington by an angry mob. By contrast, Dems either try to cover up or justify their party's weirdos. This is why the Democrats have become tainted and are dying from within. If you had cancer, would you just say, "Cancer is a part of natue, and entitled to destroy my body", or would you seek medical treatment to have it removed, so you could be healthy? Duh!
Dave at 10:01AM on Sep 1st 2007