If Larry Craig was a Democrat, we'd be hearing a lot from liberals in the media about how he was bravely exploring his sexual identity. We would hear indignant objections to this policeman who, obviously having nothing better to do with his time, was doing surveillance in airport bathrooms in search of innocent people to harass and victimize. The ACLU would be right in there, asking about Craig's right to privacy and wondering why such ambiguous evidence (he placed his bag in front of the door, he tapped his foot) was enough to warrant arrest and prosecution. Even Craig's guilty plea would be employed in his favor: look, the man is at least being honest about what he did, and why should he be ashamed of being who he is? If Larry Craig was a Democrat, the system, not Craig, would be on trial.
Unfortunately for Larry Craig, he is a Republican and a conservative to boot. We've been hearing a lot about conservative hypocrisy in the past several days: turning on CNN, I saw anchor Soledad O' Brien, correspondent Candy Crowley and legal pundit Jeff Toobin all having a great time with the subject. None of them saw fit to comment on the Himalayan hypocrisy of the liberals, undoubtedly because they embodied it.
So where is the liberal hypocrisy? Consider: the cardinal values of today's liberalism are the right to personal freedom, the right of consenting adults to do what they want as long as they do not trespass on the rights of others, and the right to privacy. Larry Craig's conduct may have been unseemly, but he did not violate any of the liberal values. He wasn't assaulting the man in the other stall, he was approaching him to seek his consent. Whatever he was doing, he wasn't doing it in the Oval Office like Clinton but in a men's room stall. Notwithstanding the obscure "signaling" that was apparently going on, Craig didn't actually engage in any kind of sexual activity. No cigars were inserted into any private orifices. Craig's home, in contrast with Barney Frank's apartment, was not used as a full-service prostitution venue. Craig hasn't figured out, like Gerry Studds, that you don't have to forage in airport restrooms when there are pages to be turned over on Capitol Hill itself.
In all those cases--Barney Frank, Gerry Studds, Bill Clinton--liberals rushed to the defense of their guys and proceeded to attack their critics as the real threat to civil liberties and social freedom. (Bill Clinton's approval ratings on the left actually rose when his sexal misconduct came to public light.) Therefore in the Larry Craig case, liberal indignation stands exposed as largely opportunistic. Here is a chance to hoist the conservatives on their own petard, to hang another scandal on the necks of the GOP, and to undermine the case for moral standards in society under the pretext of upholding them.
Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 9)
31. Gosh, Dinesh, how can we be sure what would have happened "If Larry Craig was a Democrat"? I have an idea: Pick 100 airport restrooms. Send in 50 Democratic congressmen and 50 Republican congressmen, and have them proposition undercover cops. Then we can compare the results. Until we can do that, this line of argument is nonsense.
Bruce Peterson at 11:45AM on Sep 4th 2007
32. That should be "If Larry Craig WERE a Democrat". Subjunctive case, Dinesh. If your grammar is poor, your "logic" is worse...
Stop carrying water for corrupt Republicans by looking for Dems to diss! You sound like a sixth grader! Craig's actions should be judged on what happened in that restroom stall, NOT on whatever anyone else did! Grow a spine!
MJ at 11:02AM on Sep 4th 2007
33. It sure is funny to see you wiggle this way and that to try to blame someone else or change the focus from Craig's behavior. Its probably more like this DD. Repubs are sexually repressed and rail of the sin of sexual expression. Then they cry, "WHO ME" when caught doing what they preach against. Thier first response is to blame Clinton. Then they try to change the focus, as you have done to, "woe is me, you wouldn't treat me this way if I were a democrat". No, its more like this, you wouldn't be treated this way if you weren't a hypocrit. At any rate DD you have once again shown that you do not deserve a column on AOL.
Steve Seivers at 11:02AM on Sep 4th 2007
34. You really think this would have been ok if he was a dem? You must not know any Dems...lol.
No this from either side of the isle wouldn't have been reasoned out as "exploring" anything other than being a pervert. When I cant - as a mom- send my young son's to the restroom without worring about some pervert being in there, do you really think I'm concerned about if the perv is a dem or republican? I'm glad the cops busted him, because he's just another very public problem.
I'm thinking your article is either a joke or a sad attempt to inflame the public.
ghost cat at 11:07AM on Sep 4th 2007
35. DINESH is the WORST! For the 3rd and last time I'll read his blog. Each time his ideas missed the point so badly I had to wonder why he is ever posted.
The last 2 blogs on Craig are typical. The ado about Craig vs B Frank or the Democrats has zero to do with him being gay for most of us. It is the HYPOCRISY!
It is the GOP preaching 'Family Values' while so many of the preachers/anti gays
are sinning big time. I've never seen a Lib support a gay who was crucifying other gays.
Wizkin at 11:19AM on Sep 4th 2007
36. Mr. D'Souza, you can't be serious. You know why the Republicans repeatedly find themselves ousted when they get into situations like the one Larry Craig is in? Because they have no loyalty. There is no honor amoung thieves...and the GOPs are not immune to this concept. Why do you think that when a certain business runs into moral or legal trouble, politicians are so quick to give back the campaign contributions that business gave?
Politicians don't like trouble any more than we do. You unwittingly pointed out the heart of the reason why the Democrats seem to keep getting off for indiscretions but the GOPs constantly find themselves resigning for what you would term as "harmless behavior". The reason this keeps happening is because the Democrats look out for their own traditionally whether good or bad, while the Republicans DO NOT.
When a Democrat runs into trouble, his party does not bail on him. When a GOP runs into trouble, he has to look out for himself. Larry Craig's party turned on the man like a pit viper. Granted the Bush administration has been doing pretty well holding out for its members in office, but look at how many are leaving the White House.
So, Mr. D'Souza, I believe you are right, but for the wrong reasons. If Larry Craig WERE a Democrat, he would probably be in a better position right now...NOT because he was "exploring his sexuality" (that statement, by the way, is nominated for "dumbass blogging article quote of the year") but because the Democrats wouldn't turn their backs on the man the way the GOPs did...the way the Republicans frequently do when a member of their party is in trouble.
B at 11:31AM on Sep 4th 2007
37. Mr. D'Ouche,
I think you are a prime example of affirmative action run amock. There is no way you could have gotten into Stanford with those ideas. I am shocked that anyone would get on their knees for Republicans the way you do. Although, given recent Republican proclivities toward homosexuality, maybe that's why you're so "open" about this sick love you seem to have for the party? I really wish you would just go away or get a job with FOX News because that's seems to be the kind of writing they're looking for. Keep up the bad work...
matt at 11:57AM on Sep 4th 2007
38. If Larry was a Democrat he would have been out of the closet living with his boyfriend and would not need to sneek around in mens rooms. That behavior is for all you holier than thou married RepubliCons who will not come out of the closet.
Larry at 12:09PM on Sep 4th 2007
39. If you're going to try to spin something, please make it at least somewhat convincing, and draft it a bit more artfully. Like the author of this ineptly drafted little rant, I'm going to put on my Kreskin hat and make a few predictions, too, and here it is: If Senator Craig were a liberal, it would be far more likely that he would not be a self-loathing closet case. That said, I think we all know what the real issue is here, and of course, it is the hypocrisy. In his family value, bible thumping hypocrisy, Senator Craig is somewhat reminiscent of Roy Cohn, who was, in addition to being Joe McCarthy's brain, a gay Jewish man who persecuted Jews and homosexuals, with tragic results. If the senator had been forthright about his sexual orientation and was not in the habit of making moral judgments and rules for the rest of us that he himself does not adhere to, I'd support him, regardless of his politics.
linda manzi at 12:11PM on Sep 4th 2007
40. The Democrats don't set themselves up to be the arbiters of morality, but the Republicans do. When you expound "religious" views on the sanctity of the family, judge homosexuals as immoral, and claim to be holier than thou, then you should live by your beliefs. Sad that this is often not the case. A bit of open-mindedness on the part of the Right Wing members of society would make them, perhaps, a bit less vulnerable to scrutiny. And how about accepting ALL humans who are caring and loving rather than discriminating based on sexual preference or religious belief or not-belief? THAT would be the "Christian" thing to do!
El at 12:13PM on Sep 4th 2007
41. Yes, Mr. D'Souza... liberals WOULD be treating this differently if Sen. Craig was a pro-gay rights Democrat. But guess what? There's a damned good reason! His years of anti-gay politics made him a hypocritical target, so the difference in treatment is entirely justified. He can't suddenly cry "privacy" now...
missmelissakd at 12:18PM on Sep 4th 2007
42. Dinesh>>>> go screw yourself or in the words of one of your great neocon buffons "go fcuk yourself"
Jay at 12:39PM on Sep 4th 2007
43. Belgo you are the typical liberal who rather than confront an issue you will worry about grammar.
The fact is the democrats are as hypocritical as they come. Look at the stink they made when Gonzales fires a few attorneys, yet when Clinton was in office he fired the whole staff (80+) and one could write a book about the others, if any one reading this wants to do that, Ill buy a copy.
rumour has it the democrats want the flag changed from the stars and stripes to red with a yellow hammer and sickle.
jeff at 12:51PM on Sep 4th 2007
44. Larry Craig and Dinesh D'Souza have so much in common. Both are big losers. Both are closet gays. Why do you suppose Dinesh D'Souza seems to write derogatory often plagiarized articles about homosexuals just about every other article? Always putting down the gay man, just like Larry Craig did. Both had hang ups about gay men because they are both gay men in denial. Look, you foreign dipshit, number one you need to crack open a few English books. Your writing skills stink. Every time you write something I notice about 80% of your few readers always disagree with you. That does not make you controversial, it makes you a lameass. Number two you need to come out of the closet and get laid. No more of that bathroom and back alley sex, too dangerous. You need to be in your queen sized bed with those ankles held high. All those pent up frustrations are going to catch up to you just like they did for Mr. Craig. Gonna get you in trouble one of these days. Go look in the mirror and tell yourself the truth. You are a closeted HOMOSEXUAL. It is the jerk-wads who denounce homosexuality the loudest who have their own little private secrets that they live in terror of the world discovering. Since you are coming here from a third world country I guess it is natural for you to fear your feelings for other husky hairy men, they still chop heads off where you come from, right?. But now you live in a big city in the United States. Explore your true feelings, but please stay out of the public restrooms, that is just too gross. And please lighten up on the homos. You are what you eat, Dinsh. What a loser.
Steven Parker at 12:54PM on Sep 4th 2007
45. Is DD secretly starting to shill for the 'hated' left?
How else are we to make sense of this ridiculous post?
Is 'losing' the subjunctive 'were' something that he thinks a 'dummycrat' pundit worthy of?
pboyfloyd at 1:03PM on Sep 4th 2007