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 7 of 9)
91. The problem Craig has is that the Republican Party has set the standard. 100% family values, no exception. He can’t live up to it just like Foley couldn’t. The Democrats Never said being gay was wrong or something to be ashamed of. If he were a Democrat he would have just faced charges for what he did, not who he is. It’s not the crime the Republican are pissed about, it’s that fact that he may be gay, A no no for the party.
And dumb dumb is trying to make it out that the Democrats are up an arms about this, NO LUCK. They know his own party will eat him alive; they don’t have to say a word!!!
george at 9:40PM on Sep 4th 2007
92. There you go again, Dinesh. If Democrats don't say something outrageous enough to support your half-baked theories, you just make it up. When Republicans aren't acting like hypocrits (which is half of everyone's complaint about Larry Craig's conduct), what examples do you have of Democrats receiving less criticism? The three Democrats you use as examples disprove your own assertions: Bill Clinton was impeached, even if there weren't enough votes to remove him from office, and most Americans approved of that decision. You say that liberals "rushed to the defense" of Gerry Studds, which is baloney. He was censured by the House and stripped of his subcommittee chairmanship by Democrats. In the vote for Studds's censure, only three Members of Congress voted no; hardly a great liberal "rush." Maybe Studds should have resigned, but the Congressional page with whom he had his affair was above the age of consent, so it wasn't technically a crime. In any event, Republican Congressman Dan Crane committed the same offense and was censured at the same time. Crane also did not resign. Finally, there's Barney Frank. While it's true that he apparently used the services of a prostitute, no one except the press corps took much interest. That's pretty much the same reaction that everyone's having right now to Republican Congressman David Vitter's name being found in the D.C. Madam's date book. No one is making a very big deal about it, except for the hypocritical aspect of his conduct. The adage that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones is not exactly new, and both Vitter and Larry Craig are vulnerable because of all their holier-than-thou preaching about family values and the sanctity of marriage. In Larry Craig's case, there may be a few liberals who think sex in washrooms is nothing more than exploring one's sexual identity, but not many. No one has made that statement except you, Dinesh, in an attempt to malign liberals for opinions that almost none of them hold. Most liberals (and most conservatives, I suspect) are glad that Craig resigned from the House, partly because of his hypocrisy, and also because soliciting sex in a public washroom is revolting behavior that infringes on other people's right to be left alone and to live in a civil society.
Phooey2U at 9:52PM on Sep 4th 2007
93. Hypocrisy? Only on Craig's side. There haven't been any Democrats calling for his resignation, only God-squaders from the right. The code for these liaisons is well-known (consult the New York Times last week) and poor Craig is clearly something he wishes he weren't: a guy trying desperately to get his swerve on in a place where he might actually find it. D'Souza's in dreamland thinking his guy has been crucified by the left. It's McCain trying to look tough and Romney trying to look like a Christian who have put the knitting needle in Larry's back. Hard to figure: Vitter's just a good 'ole boy popping hookers, which to Bush fans is an act of heroism. Woe to the tortured, closeted Larry Craig, who at least had the decency to go behind closed doors. I hope he stays and rejects the call for his resignation. It'll just make the biggest Moron...er, ah, Mormon, in the race squirm for the next 14 months.
ben at 9:46PM on Sep 4th 2007
94. You can't really be this stupid, can you, Dinesh? Seriously?
This isn't a matter of Republican versus Democrat, or even conservative versus liberal. The real reason Craig is being pushed to step down while Frank, Studds, and others are not is because, unlike those previously mentioned, Craig built his political career on an anti-gay platform. So sure, when it comes to light that he's been soliciting gay sex in a men's public restroom, he becomes a laughingstock to liberals like me, but that doesn't really matter, because liberals like me don't vote for hatemongers like Craig.
What really matters is that Craig is undermining his own support. For years his gay-bashing rhetoric has appealed to a homophobic demographic. It is the votes of those homophobes that put him in office, and it is those votes that keep him there. When it comes to light that he engages in homosexual sex (whether or not he is actually gay), it shouldn't come as a surprise that the same demographic he has been courting so long now rejects him.
Brian at 10:22PM on Sep 4th 2007
95. Thats right Bill Clinton never plaed guilty as
I remember it, he said he never had sex with
her.
He only lied to Congress and the people of the
United States "while under oath". For a liberal
I guess you could still some how twist the
truth to make him a god but he is and always
will be a liar and thats according to the
liberal that used to push him. The fact is
this man said both Hillary and Bill are the
two biggest liars in Washington and the man
worked for him so he should know. You know
the one who now pushes O Bama!
William Ehlert at 11:07PM on Sep 4th 2007
96. If he had been a liberal like Bill clinton
his party would have made sure he never
said he was guilty and never would have
cared that he lied under oath either to
the Congress and people of the United
States.
He would still be a good old boy just
like Good old boy Bill.
William Ehlert at 11:18PM on Sep 4th 2007
97. If he was a dem--then he wouldn't of been force out of office. Let the voters make that choice.
Dancerpl2 at 11:16PM on Sep 4th 2007
98. If Dinesh D'Souza was capable of rational thought...Well, I figure if we were going to discuss hypothetical situations that would never occur, this would be as good a place to begin as any...
CB at 11:22PM on Sep 4th 2007
99. We desperately need someone to step
forward who can unite the people of
this great Nation.
Hillary and O Bama both have done
too much to push the Democrats and
Republicans apart. We need someone
who is for the people, of the people
and will make their choices for the
people of this nation and not their
Party as usual.
William Ehlert at 11:26PM on Sep 4th 2007
100. Yikes. It's difficult to imagine lefties in the AOL news blogosphere throwing a bigger fit. And it's even more difficult to imagine exactly what kind of deviant behavior would result in one being condemmed as a pervert and drummed out of the Democrat party like Craig has been expelled from the Republican party. The fact is there is a double standard and everybody knows it, including the angry little mob that's taken Dinesh to task.
What exactly are Republicans supposed to do, defend Mr. Craig? Why should they? And why is it hypocritical for the Republican party to kick out anybody who doesn't live up to it's standards? How is it a morally superior position for the Democrats to have no standards at all and then condemn Republicans for having them when one in their ranks fails to live up to them?
And what standards do the Democrats have when it comes to, not just sex, but to any kind of misbehavior at all? I guess it's OK to sell out your country's nuclear secrets to China like the Bill Clinton did in 1996. Or to continue to take money from influence-pedaling Chinese nationals like Hillary and other Democrats did from Mr. Hsu. And it's OK to steal documents from the national archives, alter them and put them back like Sandy Berger shamelessly did.
And it's OK for Democrats to endlessly harangue and badger President Bush with all sorts of unfounded accusations of torture and domestic spying when all he's trying to do is to prevent their sorry rear ends from being blown to bits by the half-crazed Islamic radicals who are running around trying to acquire nuclear weapons, smuggle them into American cities and detonate them.
It's OK to pretend that our President is an evil tyrant and that he isn't doing - and in a way that barely inconvenience most Americans - what every American President has ever done in war time to protect the nation. It's time for Democrats to get a grip and rejoin the rest of America.
Dave at 11:59PM on Sep 4th 2007
101. Dinesh, it's "If Larry Craig were a Democrat. Just goes to show you that you right-wing republicans are so blinded by your own bigotry (look up the meaning while you're revisiting basic English grammar)that you cannot see things as they really are.
Just like the AM Radio Talk-Show propaganda artists, you manage to twist the issues to fit your own political agenda by blaming the democrats for all the evil committed by your fellow republicans. This right-wing propaganda that you and the AM Radio Talk Show crowd broadcast and publish everyday does more to divide us as a nation than anything any foreign enemy could possibly muster.
What you refuse to admit is that the democrats were silent regarding the Larry Craig debacle. It was his fellow republicans who ask that he resign. The silence from the democrats was too much for you propaganda zealots to stand. So you had to manufacture a "what if" scenario in order to create a basis for your anti-democrat bigoted propaganda.
In my view, your article and the comments of people who agree with you is not about Senator Craig and his indiscretions, its about political bigotry. It's the "them against us" mentality that you and other proganda artists preaches. The democrats were silent so you had to raise the question " So where is the liberal hyprocrisy?"
What Senator Craig did is not about republicans and democrats or liberals and conservatives. This is a personal matter committed by one man.
You, Dinesh D'Souza, want to make it a national political issue simply because you're embarrased by his actions because he's a member of the republican party. And all the recent sexual scandals have involved politicians from the republican party. So you want to drag the democrats into this mess inorder to deflect attention from the real issue....one republican senator's hyprocrisy, poor judgement and sexual indiscretions.
Bigotry is evil and dangerous regardless of whether it's based on race, gender or political affiliation. This is how the Nazis justified there actions. This is how Dixicrats justified racial segregation in America. And this is how Afrikaners justified aparthied in South Africa.
It's the same "them against us" propaganda that I hear everyday on talk-radio. The "liberals and "the democrats" are responsible for all the problems in America, Iraq and the rest of the world.
I think you need to get off your self-righteous soap box and think hard about what you put out there. We're all Americans my friend. An we have to live together regardless of political affiliation. Arrogance is no excuse for a lack of objectivity.
WillP at 12:17AM on Sep 5th 2007
102. smokescreens aside..th man has admitted that he was in a public toilet trying to express his homosexual tendencies with a complete stranger..if he "were"(was??) a democrat he would not be any more or any less of the toilet cruising meat gazing man on man freak that he is.
suoires at 1:52AM on Sep 5th 2007
103. So it's about hypocricy? Dems celebrate with Rose Garden Pep Rallies and enjoy reelections. Reps resign... That's the definition of consistency, according to the DNC.
BirdmanJones at 12:32AM on Sep 5th 2007
104. why are you so dishonest? you know that's not how democrats react. you're just making up some insane scenario to justify the psychotic republican homophobia. liberals were disgusted by clinton's antics... they didn't think it was germane to his performance, but nobody said he was merely exploring his sexuality. personally, the only "bad" thing craig did was admit guilt and, hello, i'm a mother, and i wouldn't want to bring my child into the bathroom if anyone was having sex in it. if craig was having sex in the bathroom, his biggest sin is denying rights to homosexuals, while being one himself. if the rumors are true, then anonymous sex is probably the result of his repression.
claudia at 12:57AM on Sep 5th 2007
105. What a waste of time reading this drivel, dinesh. What if you had a brain? What if you knew how to read? You'd know it's the calvinists in his own party who're bumrushing him out the door. I haven't heard a single Democrat rant and rave about it because only Republicans and fundys think being gay is the abomination some ancient Middle Eastern priest thought it was. If you're going to live by a book written by a bunch of ancient bigots who had the same issues our own bigots have, and if you're going to join a party that's death on 'deviate' sex practices, don't start lashing out at a party that could give a rat's ass when you get caught signaling how horny you are in a men's restroom. Not a lot of ladies in there so what he was up to is pretty apparent. And nobody put a gun to his head and made him plead guilty. Not exactly a lot of similarities with Barney Frank who's never made a secret of being gay.
Mike at 1:05AM on Sep 5th 2007