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 7 of 12)
91. Could someone please explain and define to the American people exactly what it is that Sen. Craig pleaded guilty to? Does a disorderly conduct plea means that he was belligerent and unruly, drunk, threatening in a manner that someone feared for his/her life? If he did nothing wrong, why plead guilty to anything? And his defense, that he was confused and should have consulted a lawyer, as a senator, a lawmaker, are we to believe that in all the years he's been proposing and signing into law decisions that affect all Americans, that he did not know that the first thing he should have done was to seek legal counsel before pleading and ultimately paying a fine? Sen. Craig's actions after his arrest stink of guilt and coverup otherwise it would not have taken more than two months for him to come back and plead guilty and pay a fine. I guess the big difference between Cong. Franks and Sen. Craig is that Craig continues to deny that he's gay, which is no longer a crime in most states, and that he was caught and pleaded guilty to breaking the law.
Teta Gorgoni at 9:19AM on Sep 2nd 2007
92. Give me a break. There is no way for the voting public to know who is a closet pervert until they get busted. Both Democrats and Republicans are tainted with a percentage of immoral fruitcakes. Given enough time, their immorality floats them from the bottom of their deception to the top of the septic tank for the world to see. To say that it is ok for either party is crazy. Clinton was a pervert and a liar and Bush works real hard to make his oil friends rich. So, what's our answer? Let's put Clinton's wife in there. She showed us how a strong woman should deal with issues, she acted like nothing ever happened and she's still married to the idiot. It is not a Democrat Republican issue. We just need to put someone in there that will put our country first and not their own sick agenda. Unfortunatley, we can only hope that whoever we vote in will earn the confidence that the voters displayed and spend their efforts running the affairs of our country instead of having personal affairs on the tax payers wallet.
gary at 10:06PM on Sep 5th 2007
93. There is a huge disconnect between those of us who call ourselves Conservatives and those who consider themselves to be a Liberal. In particular, so called Liberals, actually think that they are more compassionate, responsible and caring than the rest of us. Liberals think that it is they who are responsible for all that is good in the world. Liberals believe that if they can eliminate or destroy everyone who disagrees with them then the world will be a better place.
That Liberal belief system in its own just proves that liberalism is a mental disorder. If you are capable, just think about it.
Dan Collura at 9:55AM on Sep 2nd 2007
94. The reason that Barney Frank is still in Congress and that Larry Craig, those I strongly oppose his politics, should be is simple: what they did is just not that terrible, that big of a deal that they should be tossed out. Ditto for Clinton. The Senate - and the public - decided that though what Clinton did was wrong, it did not meet the test of a crime justifying removing him from office. In the Craig case, the homophobic Republicans overreacted. Look, we have a President who has done far worse, led us into an unnecessary war, lied to us, authorized unwarranted wiretaps, abused his power etc. Those things are much more serious and he still has his job. Still, I guess those are not impeachable offenses, or the Congress just doesn't want to drag the country through that mire again. For the GOP, the gay angle is much easier to play upon.
Lee at 9:57AM on Sep 2nd 2007
95. I have to laugh at how much you actually dodge the subject at hand....and some of your posters. I guess you will always have Bill Clinton to kick around on the subject of personal behavior, but really, does that change the fact that yet another Republican has resigned?
When are you partisans going to figure out that politics actually has nothing to do with this, its about the individual and what his/her personal situation actually is? Republicans say they represent individual freedom, but why are you the guys ousting your own here? If you support Craig and don't want him to resign, then stand up and support your guy....but thats not what is happening. When they were going through the impeachment process of Bill Clinton, I supported him when not very expedient to do so. Your side seems to have a little trouble with that, except when politically expedient to do so, and Iraq. Give you great credit on that one, supporting war at any cost to the rest of us, you do get credit there.
Suzanne at 10:40AM on Sep 2nd 2007
96. Better question, why didn't David Vitter resign? The answer:his replacement would be picked by the Democratic Governer of Louisanna. Larry Craigs replacement will be chosin by a Repuplican Governer. The Republicans are now playing politics with morals as well as ethics. Oh, and Barney Frank's calling of a male escort for sex in a private setting is a far cry from Larry Craig looking to have sex in a public restroom. Leave it to Mr. D'souza to conviently forget about that.What a tool.
midiwiz at 11:34AM on Sep 2nd 2007
97. Would your position be different if craig had propositioned a young boy instead of an adult? As a parent of young children i am always scared of letting my kids go unattended in the restroom. What does it matter whether craig had to resign and barney frank didn't.
It just appears from your commentary that it was O.K for craig to do what he did. You really should be careful about what you write because you might be influencing others into thinking the same way!!
tejus at 11:47AM on Sep 2nd 2007
98. Simply put, Barney Frank's [STILL SITTING PRETTY] just because ... of a FERAL group of people who dominate every aspect of the USA and far beyond. Financial/Business/Politics and of course,the crown jewel of them all the powerful "MEDIA" And will STOP at NOTHING in DEFENDING/PROTECTING their respective interest/causes via [TONS] of cold hard CASH ... $$$$$!
PS: Don't erase my comment.
Moh at 12:07PM on Sep 2nd 2007
99. I would like to respond to Mr. D'Souza's comments about Senator Craig. The most upsetting thing about the Craig case is his hypocrisy! Sen. Craig has gone on record as being anti-gay, from their civil liberties, to same sex unions and marriage. His public stands on these issues, he felt, would safeguard his own secret homosexual inclinations without jeopardizing his private or professional life in any way. Until now. How can he go from accusing a major newspaper of attempting to ruin his Congressional career, to resigning from the Senate, IN JUST 5 DAYS? Please Sen. Craig, "come out, come out, wherever you are!" It's ok to be gay.
William Chase at 12:34PM on Sep 2nd 2007
100. the point is, republicans, regardless of their personal views, orientations and convictions, must tow the party line.They have set themselves up for disappointments of this kind. If you are a republican, you are a republican first and foremost. I feel sorry for republicans in public service, how hypocritical some of them must feel. You can not be republican and gay. You can not be republican and cheat on your spouse. And god forbid you are a republican who is faced with family planning/abortion issues. If the republicans had not made a federal issue out of the private lives of us non-believers maybe the private lives of republicans would not ruin their public lives. As a practicing homosexual and democrat I find it sad that the tapping of one's foot or the showing of one's hand in a public restroom is enough reason to arrest someone. And as a human being I am saddened that republicans think they know what is best for the rest of us and have let the religious right of their party dictate and legislate our private lives.
deb sullivan at 12:18PM on Sep 2nd 2007
101. Craig is not Barney Frank. Barney admits his homo sex preferences and does not pretend to be what he is not by trying to pass laws in congress Against his own kind. He admits what he is by pleading guilty and the proof of the pudding is in the
EATING.
TYPICAL. WHAT OTHER GAYS ARE IN THE r PARTY?
CRAIG STARTED OUT HIS SPEECH THIS WEEK BY SAYING"THANKS YOU FOR COMING OUT"
Too bad he didn't.
Jack F. Doyle at 1:05PM on Sep 2nd 2007
102. Craig is not Barney Frank. Barney admits his homo sex preferences and does not pretend to be what he is not by trying to pass laws in congress Against his own kind. He admits what he is by pleading guilty and the proof of the pudding is in the
EATING.
TYPICAL. WHAT OTHER GAYS ARE IN THE r PARTY?
CRAIG STARTED OUT HIS SPEECH THIS WEEK BY SAYING"THANKS YOU FOR COMING OUT"
Too bad he didn't.
Jack F. Doyle at 12:19PM on Sep 2nd 2007
103. Craig is not Barney Frank. Barney admits his homo sex preferences and does not pretend to be what he is not by trying to pass laws in congress Against his own kind. He admits what he is by pleading guilty and the proof of the pudding is in the
EATING.
TYPICAL. WHAT OTHER GAYS ARE IN THE r PARTY?
CRAIG STARTED OUT HIS SPEECH THIS WEEK BY SAYING"THANKS YOU FOR COMING OUT"
Too bad he didn't.
Jack F. Doyle at 12:55PM on Sep 2nd 2007
104. Barney Frank was a single, openly gay man. Big difference. And, he was reprimanded by the House, which of course you failed to mention. You also left out the fact that when Frank learned of Gobie's illegal activities, he asked Gobie to leave his home, and informed the House Ethics Committee about it. The Ethics Committee cleared Frank of any wrong doing after an investigation.
Larry Craig is married, and a hypocrite, whose lies, hubris and homophobic votes on gay issues are now coming back to bite him on the ass as his Republican colleagues treat him the same way he treated homosexuals with the votes he cast as a congressman.
Craig's rapid downfall has nothing to do with a double standard of how Democrats are punished vs. Republicans. No left wing media conspiracy brought him down, his own party did. They dropped him like a hot potato and threw him into the rubbish pile with Foley, Allen and the rest of the Republican scandals, horrified as they watch their own people expose the flagrant hypocrisy of the "family values" party.
Karma is awesome.
But I like the way you continue to skew facts to serve your own homophobic writings, Dinesh. Maybe Karma will pay a visit to you someday, too?
Kenneth Hill at 1:00PM on Sep 2nd 2007
105. Lightning Rod...
I've heard many republicans over the years compair America to the Roman Empire. Superficially I can understand why people connect 'decadent' behavior to 'decadent' behavior. I think you should reconsider to definition of decadence. In America, do we have public orgies? I live in Vegas and I've never seen one. Kissing and even fondling, sure, but never two hundred folks all going at it like they used to. Do we kill performers on stage? In rome, plays with 'executions' would often involve the death of the performer, who was usually a criminal or performer. Speaking of public executions, I have yet to see a few dozen people dying slowly as their internal organs collapse while being crusified. And where are all the massive christian burnings? Heck, I'd drive to california to see that... Okay, fine.... muslim burnings then. Or gay burnings. Or whatever. Point is, where are they? Those romans really loved to execute people.
Come to think of it, where are all the slaves? In Rome, you could buy them for a pitiance. Now days they have to sneek across the border. If we're going to be as decadent as the romans, we're going to need slaves. And mistresses! I wonder if they're still a mistress if you're both women... hmm. Still, in most roman aristocracy it was common... nay, expected! to have mistresses.
When people like you point at moral decline, what you're really showing is your ignorance. Rome didn't fall. It crumbled, to forces outside as well as inside. Corruption, a failing slave economy, reliance on barbarian mercenaries, over extension, and a vulnerable dictatorship all drug it apart. In fact, when it finally disintegrated, christians were the nominal faith. Where do you suppose catholism came from? So all that morality didn't do beans to affect the outcome of the empire.
So will tolerating gays and lesbians destroy America? No. No more than tolerating irish, blacks, asians, and mexicans has. No more than tolerating jews, muslims, hindi, and buddhists have. No more than allowing women equal opportunety has. You look at one tiny part and think that it portends doom and destruction. I see where the romans were and where we are and know that, even if we are no longer a world superpower or even an economic superpower, that we are still a great civilization. No matter how individuals attempt to marginalize other people, America still accepts the other. Embraces them regardless of their race, creed, or sexuality. America uses them and their many views and values to build a dynamic society that fights both stagnation and hubris.
So it's ironic, but while I abhor Craig's hypocracy, his willingness to explore a sexuality that was abhorrent to his political and religious creed is a sign of America's strength and resilience.
Somber at 1:08PM on Sep 2nd 2007