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 12)
31. 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
32. 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
33. 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
34. 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
35. 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
36. Clinton was found innocent at his Impeachement
And Barney Frank is Gay, not a crime - he hasn't been caught trying to solicit a prostitute
Chris Floyd at 2:03AM on Sep 2nd 2007
37. This is absurd. I’m on the religious right and I don’t really care. Now if there were a standard evenly applied to all members of congress and the actions of Craig were in violation of this standard I would say yes, he has to go. I will also admit that I would love there to be such a standard. But there isn’t, and in light of that, I don’t care.
The republicans are demonstrating the same stupidity that got them kicked out of office. It is like the television people who seem to think that everyone in the country wants to watch programs about people in New York. We don’t. But that gets shoved down our throats with blind insistence. And so the republicans with the same blind insistence assume that people on the religious right are zealots who would try and convict a man who cannot be demonstrated to have done anything at all wrong. I heard the recording, it was bogus. The incompetence demonstrated was on the part of the officer interviewing, not on Craig. I can see both sides. Perhaps he did it, and I suspect he did, or, perhaps the possibility of getting thrown to the dogs on a charge the weight of which lies not in the conviction but in the accusation panicked him and he acted foolishly.
The profound hypocrisy on the sides of both parties is dismaying. We aren’t being governed by level headed professionals, we are being governed by incompetents. None of them know a thing about this country. Like the TV producers who think that America is New York, they think that America is the insanity of Washington. Government in this country has become a sit-com about three blind men and an elephant.
Joel.
Joel at 2:34AM on Sep 3rd 2007
38. 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
39. 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
40. uuh, can you say neocon agenda? D'oh!
blob at 2:49AM on Sep 1st 2007
41. 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
42. 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
43. 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
44. 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
45. 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