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 8 of 9)
106. Lets try it again It's not hypocritical for the Republican party to kick out anybody who doesn't live up to it's standards, It's hypocritical if they DON'T.
ALSO AGAIN DEMS ARE NOT SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT THIS, JUST YOU FINE FOLKS FROM THE GOP!!!!
"Hillary and O Bama both have done
too much to push the Democrats and
Republicans apart". Please... Tell me ONE republican that works to build one nation
george at 11:22AM on Sep 5th 2007
107. HEY DINESH,
IF CRAIG WAS A DEMOCRAT.....THEN THE REPUBLICANS SHOULD HAVE KICKED HIS BUTT OUT....WHAT DO YOU THINK ELSE SHOULD HAVE HAPPENEND.....COME ON MAN.....YOU WASTING YOUR TIME FOR THESE LIARS AND CROOKS TOO MUCH....YOU FROM A LARGEST DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY WASTING YOUR TIME FOR THESE KIND OF STUPID THINGS......THERE IS SO MANY ISSUES HAPPENING IN THIS COUNTRY....DO AND WRITE SOMETHING GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE MAN.....DID YOU TEACH THESE ADMINISTRATION TO DO ALL THESE CORRUPTION????
gt at 12:20PM on Sep 5th 2007
108. Now that Sen. Craig has begun the process of withdrawing his guilty pleas and going through the legal process required to clear his name. Is he now presumed innocent? And if pleading to a misdemeaner is cause for resignation from congress, I'm afraid there will have to be a lot of interim appointments made on both sides of the aisle. Every dui conviction would require scrutiny. The Kennedy family will be especially hard hit as there have been 3 in the past 2 years. Not to mention Chappaquidick. I'm all for it, let the chis fall where they may. As to the "rights" that republicans are accused of being against. What rights have been denied? There is no right in the constitution protecting a gay persons right to same sex marriage. It is simply a missuse of the term. Some cite the equal protection clause, but that doesn't apply. We, as a society have the right to define what constitutes marriage and under current law it is defined as being between one man and one woman. This is not a rights issue but one of definition. If the folks want to make same sex marriage, or polygamy or bestiality sanctioned and protected, they should go to the legislature of each state and have their definition of marriage changed. I'm not taking a position, but I look forward to the debate.
Joe Edgington at 3:33PM on Sep 5th 2007
109. Joe - So you have no problem with barring interracial or interfaith marriages if that is what society were to decide marriage should be?
MattR at 5:44PM on Sep 5th 2007
110. Oh yeah Dinesh it would be so different if he were a Dem. The world would also be a different place if "journalists" like yourself had told the truth over the last five years instead of spreading lies and misinformation to support the Bush admin, but that didn't happen and Craig wasn't a Dem, he's a Repub. Instead of speculating pointlessly about how things MAY have been why don't you and your US journalist co-conspirators try actually dealing with the truth for once. Or does that not get you enough money these days?
Paulbe at 10:29PM on Sep 5th 2007
111. Joe:
Are you saying that same sex marriage, polygamy and bestiality are the samething??
I'd LOVE to know what you think
george at 6:40PM on Sep 5th 2007
112. This is a joke right? As usual D'news D'storta doesn't even do any research and knows nothing about what he writes. Can't we deport you back to Bombay? Please.
Ariana Huffington and Matt Yglesias both have come out in defense of Larry Craig.
Also, I haven't seen one elected television or news print make any comments whatsoever about what should happen to Craig.
On the other hand the chorus of republicans that have asked for his resignation are endless.
Come on Abu do some research if you are going to write something and get me an orange slushi.
lee at 8:42PM on Sep 5th 2007
113. If Larry Craig was a Democrat, he would have been willing to embrace tolerance of other people's homosexuality, and therefore his own. If Larry Craig were a Democrat, he would probably be happily committed to another man instead of dragging his wife through hell and back.
ad254 at 8:55PM on Sep 5th 2007
114. If Sen. Craig were a Democrat, how would the our politics be different? First, Sen. Craig's harsh criticism of former President Clinton would have rang true inside the Democratic institutions that defended the indefensible. Democrats would have found the "cajohenes" to demand that Clinton step down for the good of the party. Instead of doing what's best for America and the Party, a group of renegades took control by using their "Background Checks" to twist arms and blackmail the leaders like Kennedy and anyone else with something to hide. Sen. Craig would have been a hero. Second, if Craig were a Democrat, he wouldn't have been thrown under the bus for playing footsie in a men's room. Before you can demand justice, there must be an injustice. Larry Craig didn't leave a huge DNA stain on that cops foot or on a cheap blue dress. Sen. Craig ashamed, but not guilty. He did not have sex with that cop! Clinton had no shame and therefore Democrats defended the indefensible and lost the right to lead by lacking all integrity. Finally, if Sen. Craig were a Democrat it wouldn't matter if he were gay or just gay curious. We believe in equal rights, not extra rights. We don't tolerate child molestation or do porn with pages. We don't ask and we don't tell. We don't start wars of convenience just because we can. In short, Sen. Craig would be a hero and he still can be. Demand the truth and it could set us all free. Background checks by two political families could be considered blackmail, but not in politics. We just let them take turns ripping off the masses instead of demanding equality and justice for all. Sen. Craig is not guilty, but he could be gay. As Seinfeld would say, "Not that there's anything wrong with it." No crime means Craig could stay if he were a Democrat.
Cecil Jones at 11:14AM on Sep 6th 2007
115. Gunga-Dim is out making a fool of himself again. He needs to get out of his GOP fox-hole.
It isn't Larry Craig's party affiliation that matters; its the hypocrisy and the culture of self-hatred that his party promotes. Its the fact that he's a homo hatin' homo who's anti-gay voting record would make Jesse Helms envious. Larry Craig made political hay by voting against protection for gays in the workplace (in contrast to many of his fellow GOP-ers), even as he engaged in fellating strangers in lavatories. Were he an anti-gay conservative Democrat who'd done the same, people with any sense of decency would have lambasted him nevertheless.
dcjdjay at 2:00PM on Sep 6th 2007
116. Mark Foley, Ted Haggard , William Bennet, Larry Craig all hypocrites who should read the old saying about those who live in glass houses and rocks
David Hayes at 2:09PM on Sep 6th 2007
117. As a matter of fact I am in an interracial marriage and when I was first wed there were still 17 states that didn't recognize our union. The difference is we still met the definition which is what I'm talking about so it was an issue of discrimmination by the governernment based on an illegal premise and was therefore an issue of civil rights. I bring up the issues of polygamy and bestiality because I have heard others say that if the movement to make same sex mariage a "right" then it would open the door to others to advocate for their "rights". This was first brought to my attention by a law professor who specializes in constitutional law and was offered as a thought piece. I offer it here as just that.
Joe Edgington at 5:23PM on Sep 6th 2007
118. In 1822 the United States government passed the Edmunds Law outlawing polygamy and sexual acts with animals are illegal under animal abuse laws or, less commonly, laws dealing with crimes against nature. We as people (I think) will never be ok with these or sex with children. Same Sex marriage is with 2 people that can consent to it.
george at 10:34PM on Sep 6th 2007
119. Geoorge #118 - You said it correctly. Just as "we as perople will never be ok with..." Do you think we as people will be ok redefining marriage? When in the history of civilization has same sex marriage been legitimized? Ancient Greece? No, in fact the issue was addressed by several philosophers and playwrights but it never became a part of the social institutions. Is America going to set a precedent that goes against traditions that are pervasive throughout history. No red herrings or straw men please.
Joe Edgington at 8:51AM on Sep 7th 2007
120. I do think at some point some form of equal marriage will be given to gay people, just not the word. Other Countries have same sex marriage, right to them. Marriage from the beginning of time has evolved and will continue to evolve. At one point families promised their kids to people for marriage. At one point you would not have been able to marry your wife. Marriage between religious backgrounds was looked down on. Marriage is in reality a contract between 2 people. There is a religious side to marriage as well. I feel the two needs to be separated. I do not believe that churches should EVER be mandated to agree or perform gay marriages. But I have a hard time understanding why the government, who is not allowed to discriminate, can say no to certain contracts of marriage. We as people I think are changing. My mother and father's values are not always mine. My kids today feel different then I do. So I think as time goes on we as a nation will change while keeping time tested traditions
george at 11:08AM on Sep 7th 2007