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 6 of 9)
76. 1. Just how many other "innocent people" were "harrassed and victimize[d]" by the cop in the men's room at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport?
2. Since it is you conservative Republicans who insist on criminalizing sexual acts between consenting adults, you've got to live with policemen who have "nothing better to do" than to stake out public toilets.
3. I'm sure that the ACLU would be more than happy to help Sen. Craig. All he has to do is ask. And why is it that you conservative Republicans constantly demonize the ACLU, but then whine for their help the moment you think your rights are being violated?
4. By the way, hitting up on a stranger in a PUBLIC RESTROOM is not a "private" act.
5. "Here is a chance to hoist conservatives on their own petard, etc." You bet! And we are going to keep doing it! So, conservative Republicans, keep your zippers zipped and you feet in your own toilet stall!
emelpe at 5:43PM on Sep 4th 2007
77. To #67 ProudAmerican. Of course you hate liberals. Small thinking white men always hate those that they secretly believe are smarter. Give it up proud. You are living in a liberal society. You take advantage of every liberal advance to our country and would cry if they were taken away from you. Just think of all of the things that you conservatives have opposed through the years. The G.I. Bill, federally insured student loans, social security, federally insured home mortgages, equal rights, civil rights, women's right's and I could go on and on for days. Lets just face it Mr. Proud. A lot of us and a lot of our families have fought for these liberal advances. Why even the founding of this country was one of the great liberal advances in world history. Are you sure that you are not just filed with hate. Don't you just hate blacks, gays and women who stand up for themselves. Isn't this where your hatred of liberals comes from.
Well Mr Proud. I am more proud of this country than you are. My grandfather was gassed in the trenches, my father landed at Omaha Beach and I . . . well it doesn't matter what I did.
But my point is that we love this country and we are not going to let people like you take it away from us.
Steve Seivers at 5:58PM on Sep 4th 2007
78. Oh I forgot to add. Dinesh. It appears that you are straining so hard to be a part of the ruling class that you have become thier lackey. You don't deserve to have this blog.
Steve Seivers at 6:02PM on Sep 4th 2007
79. The Republican hypocrisy lies in the fact that, for the most part, conservatives oppose gay rights, some even being blatantly homophobic under the guise of supporting "family values" and promoting intolerance, whereas the liberal party tends to be more supportive of Gay rights- How many Staunchly conservative gay people do you know? Not many. Larry Craig was strongly opposed to gay rights, and this is why his hypocrisy is being called to question, and why we don't hear much about "liberal hypocrisy" when it comes to this issue....hypocrisy implies saying one thing and doing another, Dinesh
Ingrid at 6:14PM on Sep 4th 2007
80. Dinesh;
In a free society such as ours, you have a right to express your own thoughts and, by your past record,
have not been shy at this. Everyone knows you by the person you are, by your pandering to all things Republican, and, as well, by the company you keep. How clever of you to exploit the Larry Craig scandal for your own purposes. You provide a chuckle for all intelligent, independent thinking persons. Your style of trickery works best with the rabble in the best tradition of the pre-Nazi era.
poor ben at 1:24AM on Sep 5th 2007
81. And someone says, what does this have to do with bill clinton, or barney frank? They got a "buy" ain't you proud.
bob at 6:42PM on Sep 4th 2007
82. It is truly sad to watch people like Dinesh trying to "spread the crap" onto others when the entire production involved only Republicans. Seems to be a modus operandi with them "It is the other guy's fault". Like others who cannot face reality we are presented with the "theoretical" "what if", then going on to construct an imiginary scenario of what others would do in such instances. Stanford fellowships must be based upon very low standards indeed. And here I have always been under the delusion that it was one of our leading institutions of higher learning. I know that we have been going downhill in the field of education but didn't think we had gone that low, that is, if Dinesh is an example of what modern "education" has produced.
Robert I. Laitres at 6:55PM on Sep 4th 2007
83. The issue with Senator Craig is more ingrained with the fact that the governor of Oregon is a Republican who wil probably appoint another Repubiican as US Senator. Had the governor been a Democrat, Craig's fellow Republicans might have chosen a more tolerant approach.
Richard Harelik at 6:59PM on Sep 4th 2007
84. will ya'll just let the shit die if it don't affect his work let screw who ever he want man or woman now lets worrie about getting ours sons & daughter home
pichon_larry at 7:15PM on Sep 4th 2007
85. Conservatives should really stop trying to tell each other what liberals are thinking, feeling, saying, doing, etc. They're always wrong about it.
Please stop making things up and attributing them to the liberals.
If you want to know what a Democrat is thinking, just ask them. They're usually friendly and sensible, well except for the fringe dwellers they roll out for those fake debates on Fox news.
The Democrats, even the most liberal ones, aren't really worried about what the right wing talking heads say anymore. The Republican party is set for auto self destruct and people like the author of this blog are doing more to send people running from the GOP than any organized effort from the left could ever hope for.
griley75 at 7:22PM on Sep 4th 2007
86. Oh, come on. The issue here isn't the respective parties' positions. The issue is that the GOP is so scared our of its wits of what might happen to them in 2008 that ANYBODY is expendable, and the fact that he might have been innocent just doesn't matter to them. (Barney Frank is a Democrat, right? If Larry Craig was a Democrat, nobody would have tried to force him to resign.)
Bob1657 at 7:25PM on Sep 4th 2007
87. It seems that Stanford fellows are no longer required to take either Logic 101 nor Rhetoric 101, as Dinesh (and many of the knee-jerker right wingnuts on this blog) don't seem to understand either.
Logic 101: None of the Democrats take large sums of money from right wingnut Evangelical Christo-fascists who want to see homosexuality made a crime, and then go out and commit that same crime. If a Democrat passed laws to make driving an SUV a crime then drove an SUV, well, you'd have something. Craig is not a hypccrite because he's a Republican and he's not being attacked because he is a Republican or a conservative. He is being called a hypocrite because he takes large sums of $$ from right wingnut homophobic groups and tries to pass laws against them which he, himself, violates. End of story. You'd think Stanford would be more careful about who it taps as fellows, and require them to have a shred of logical thinking.
Rhetoric 101: "Straw man argument." Set up a "straw man"....a charicature of your opponent...then knock THAT down because it is easier to do than go against the real arguments of the opponent. This is the way that these right wingnuts behave constantly. Simply labelling something "Liberal" is all they think they need to do to label it as "bad." They do not consider the actual argument. In point of fact, the Dems said very little about Criag. It was members of his own party who turned on him. Just like with the situation with Rush Limbaugh, they kept mostly quiet. It would be nice if D'Sousa actually operated in fact for once instead of neo-con propaganda, which is all he seems capable of spouting. It would also be nice if he'd actually READ the news he blogs on rather than having his knee-jerk right wingnut reaction without reading past the headline.
John at 8:02PM on Sep 4th 2007
88. Dinesh,
Ever heard of the subjunctive case? Learn to use it before you carry water for this pathetic current administration.
D Lyons at 8:15PM on Sep 4th 2007
89. You must be joking. Have you already forgot the scandal on Clinton and how it went on for years. Quit being sour grapes because all the republicans are dropping like flies in this administration.
HELLO, wake up. I have never in all my years seen soooo much corruption!!!!
Taking America Back. See yah
carrie at 8:21PM on Sep 4th 2007
90. What more can be said? I agree with everyone who says your a dumbass with a lame argument, not based in reality, but on the imaginary caricature the wingnuts like yourself created.
I'm sick of people like you, and most everyone with at least 1/2 a brain are sick of people like you.
Really dude, do you expect anyone other than a complete dumbass to buy into you unimformed childish argument?
scott at 8:54PM on Sep 4th 2007