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 5 of 9)
61. DD you are pathetic! As a Liberal Democrat, I can say that we do indeed believe in abiding by the law. We seek to change laws laws restrict the sexual behavior of consenting adults in private, not in public places. Public intercourse is not a liberal value and your saying it is a lie.
Secondly, if Larry Craig, Republican, had been having sex with a woman in a women's restroom, you Republicans would love him just as you do Guiliani.
JWinn at 3:42PM on Sep 4th 2007
62.
Columns like this one have earned you the well deserved nickname of Duhnesh Delusia - and with good reason. From the Hoover Institute ? You bet.
Who else would you expect ?
max at 3:43PM on Sep 4th 2007
63. "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."
I wish someone would do that. Personally, I do not think that 'morality' is an absolute thing, and even the morality of the majority should not be forced on the minority.... though in many cases (pedosexuality, mental retardation, etc.) it is being forced on the minority.
The Founding Fathers made a mistake when they were writing the Constitution: they didn't make it absolutely clear that a person's sexual choices, with ANYONE as long as that other person is a willing participant (and that is judged by them saying yes or no to the question given to them, regardless of age), is for only that person to judge.
Not for society to judge, not for the religious to judge, not for anyone to judge except that person and their partner, regardless of the age of that partner.
Christopher at 4:11PM on Sep 4th 2007
64. #63 (Christopher)
I don't think we can blame this country's current obsession with all things sexual on the Founding Fathers. To say they should have dealt with homophobia in the Constitution is a bit of a strecth.
In so many ways we are much more rigid than the Founders of a couple of centuries ago.
Captain Negative at 5:22PM on Sep 4th 2007
65. Boring.
Tom at 4:38PM on Sep 4th 2007
66. Sure, Liberals aren't crying many tears over Craig's resignation(and I don't really CARE if he seeks consensual sex in public restrooms, as distastful as it may be I also think that it's a waste of time to have Policemen spend much time doing this sort of surveillance; in a sense, it IS entrapment) But it's Craig's fellow conservative REPUBLICANS who called for Craig to resign, as much if more so than any Liberals did...
roger at 4:48PM on Sep 4th 2007
67. First, you are trying to use the defense that all speeders use: "I was going the same speed everyone else was." Sorry, that doesn't work, the judge will just laugh as he finds you guilty.
Second, is Larry Craig's behavior in an airport bathroom the kind you would want from a US Senator? If the person next to him had been just one of those people who were using the stall "for its intended purpose" wouldn't Craig's toe touch and stall sliding be sexual harrassment at the least? And if the person had succumbed to Craig's "charms," wouldn't Craig have been wide open to blackmail? It is undeniably fun to mock this poor man, but at the end of the day, he pled guilty to a crime...and that plea has nothing to do with Democrats vs Republicans.
john1855 at 5:31PM on Sep 4th 2007
68. Dinesh- you think that if a person says he(she) is a christain or even says that he(she) is trying to be a christain you give them carte blance permission to commit any hypocratic offense known to mankind! You are so dammed biased against anybody that disagrees with the repuke hypocratic lifestyle or does not agree with your insane thoughts that you make me puke! Hell, it is the devil that makes repukes live hypocratic lives! By your logic, it would be liberals fault if a repuke committed murder!
ttille at 10:42PM on Sep 5th 2007
69. "..undermine the case for moral standards." ? You have a typo, it should read establish the case for moral standards and personal freedom.
I cannot but help but note that you did not metion Foley and the pages, or Bush Sr. and Eisenhower's mistresses while in the oval office.
Typical Republican hypocracy.
Your world is very small.
cdnbirch at 5:10PM on Sep 4th 2007
70. Who said Craig resigned? In his statement to the press he said it was his "intention" to resign. Don't be surprised if he is successful in his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, he will decide that he will fight the charges and regain his good name. Why wait 30 days? Is it to let the issue cool off a bit. veeery interesting.
Joe Edgington at 5:22PM on Sep 4th 2007
71. God I hate liberals. Just listen to all of you whiners. You talk around the point. This article is right on. You talk about everything from his punctuation to his being a foreigner. Liberals are just opportunistic and this happens to not move their agenda, so it is not important. Where is Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpless. Its only wrong if conservatives do it, right liberals. By the way the reason the conservatives went after him is because he pled guilty. Whether or not he is guilty or not we will never know, because he pleaded guilty thinking (or should I say not thinking)that it would go away, well a liberal media outlet got a hold of it and there goes another conservative. Be sure and put a notch in your lipstick cases liberals (guys and girls).
ProudAmerican at 5:21PM on Sep 4th 2007
72. Mr. D'Souza can play "Coulda, shoulda, woulda" till the cows come home. The simple facts are:
1. Larry Craig was arrested and plead guilty to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge.
2. The power structure within the Republican party pressured him to relinquish his senate seat.
3. He gave in and resigned.
Whether or not he was soliciting gay sex in a restroom is irrelevant. What is relevant is the Republican party's clear and present homophobia. What is also relevant is their willingness to sacrifice one of their own to maintain their "Holier than thou" reputation. What is even more relevant is the difference with which they treated David Vitter and Ted Stevens in regard to their recent "scandals." What is most relevant is their history of protecting people like Tom DeLay.
In the end, the thing that matters most to the Republicans are the implication of homosexuality, and ironically, that's not even a crime.
George at 5:30PM on Sep 4th 2007
73. This whole thing has stunk of set-up and entrapment from the beginning, I want to know this cops sexual preference,his political affiliations,how many busts walked away with a guilty plea and were never heard from? This senator was fair game for liberals and gays, I suspect they set this up entirely.There are no grounds for ANY legal action against this senator,yet his life and career are ruined.I hope he has a detective agency at work as I write this.When liberals determine american "rights", only liberals will have "rights".
bob at 5:31PM on Sep 4th 2007
74. If Larry Craig were a democrat...
HE WOULD STILL BE GAY
By the Way.. what does Larry Craig's actions have to do with Bill Clinton or Barney Frank or ANYONE ELSE?
dmode16340 at 5:43PM on Sep 4th 2007
75. To Jeff #41
Let me explain to you the Gonzales problem.
First, each time a president is elected the entire Fed. D. A.'s office retires and is replaced by the new presidents appointees.
Next, there is evidence that this administration fired thier own appointees for not indicting enough democrats or for indicting republicans.
If you think we should let either party use the federal judicial process for political purposes THEN WOULD YOU COMPLAIN IF A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT TOLD HIS FED DA'S TO INDICT ONLY REPUBLICANS?
Of course you would and so would I. You see it is essential that our courts and court officials uphold justice and not politics. You can see that the logical extension of this is to have mock courts just imprison anyone who disagrees with the administration.
Please don't bring up the Gonzales problem with the usual republican obsession about Clinton. He did what all presidents have done for centuries.
And please don't ignore what a threat to American justice the Gonzales firings are. It is blatent threat to the American system of justice.
Steve Seivers
Attorney
Steve Seivers at 10:17PM on Sep 4th 2007