I don’t have much sympathy of Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, the latest in the growing list of closeted politicians caught with their pants down, and here’s why:
The activist, Mike Rogers, who runs the Web site BlogActive.com, has complained about Craig’s opposition to gay rights. The conservative senator has supported an amendment to the Constitution banning same-sex marriage and voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in the 1990s. Craig, who served in the National Guard, has also spoken out against homosexuals serving in the military.
The self-hatred implicit in that is mind-boggling. Human sexuality could be called the world’s epicenter of hypocrisy. And the intolerance of this gay man in the Senate toward other gay people is mean and almost sadistic. He should resign, not for his behavior in the bathroom, but for his creepy political phoniness.
MORE: Craig also opposed civil unions. That would make him a bigot against himself. We should have a word for that. “His record includes a series of votes against gay rights and his support of a 2006 amendment to the Idaho Constitution that bars gay marriage and civil unions.”
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
31 Comments
1. Fausta:The sanctimonious hypocrisy of the guy landed him where he is. Good riddance.
Aug 28, 2007 - 5:36 am 2. Anthony (Los Angeles):Resignation is appropriate. Meither Republicans nor Democrats need swine like Craig in their parties.
Aug 28, 2007 - 6:52 am 3. LarryD:Best of the Web reader Andy Phillips wrote this in response to the Sen. David Vitter incident. But it applies here also.
“Hypocrisy does not mean saying one thing and doing the opposite. It means saying something that one does not believe. Let’s take the example of getting drunk. Let’s say that I believe that getting drunk is immoral. Does it make me a hypocrite if I get drunk? No, it makes me weak. I could believe that it is immoral but still not be able to resist the temptation to get drunk. It doesn’t make my belief any less true or my actions any worse.
Now let’s say that Larry Flynt doesn’t believe that getting drunk is immoral. What are his consequences of getting drunk? Your comment on his living up to his own low moral standards hits the nail on the head. Objectively, my getting drunk is no more or less immoral than Larry Flynt’s.
If Larry Flynt attacked me for getting drunk, that would be hypocrisy, because he doesn’t believe that getting drunk is immoral. It’s hypocrisy for him to say that it’s OK for him to get drunk but not OK for me to get drunk.
We saw the mainstream media’s reaction to Rush Limbaugh’s addiction to pain killers and Bill Bennett’s gambling problem. These men were not hypocrites. I guarantee you that neither of these men wished for their own problems, and, after having gone through what they did, they most likely feel even more strongly about them than they did before. Again, weakness, not hypocrisy. “
Aug 28, 2007 - 8:05 am 4. David Thomson:“Craig also opposed civil unions.”
This position is extreme. Many of us who oppose gay marriage have no problem whatsoever with civil unions. Larry Craig is also an idiot. I don’t appreciate having my intelligence insulted. Unless the arresting police office is a perjurer—-the Idaho senator is clearly guilty. There is one more thing that must be noted: thankfully this event did not occur before the 2008 elections! It is harsh reminder that Larry Flynt and his buddies will try to pop this sort of story just before voters enter the polling area. Will religious conservative sufficiently mature and not let it cause them to do something foolish and self-destructive?
Aug 28, 2007 - 8:18 am 5. tim maguire:Larry, you open an interesting (to me) discussion, though I disagree with Andy Phillips’ illustrations.
If I say something I don’t believe, that doesn’t make me a hypocrite, it makes me a liar. If I say getting drunk is immoral and then I get drunk, it doesn’t make me a hypoocrite or necessarily weak, it makes me immoral according to my own standards.
Standards is where we get to hypocrisy. As Andy goes on to say, “If Larry Flynt attacked me for getting drunk, that would be hypocrisy…[i]t’s hypocrisy for him to say that it’s OK for him to get drunk but not OK for me to get drunk.”
I’m a hypocrite if I hold different standards for myself than I do for others. Craig isn’t a hypocrite for opposing gay rights while being gay himself. He would be a hypocrite if he opposed gay marriage in Idaho, went to Massachusetts to get married, and then demanded Idaho recognize his marriage.
In this case, Craig is just a shameless opportunist (hardly newsworthy for a politician) with the twist that he belongs to the group he is exploiting to further his career.
This is salacious and (hopefully) embarrassing to the bigot wing of the Republican party, but not much more than that.
Aug 28, 2007 - 9:16 am 6. Lem:I wander what demons could posses a man to live such a comfortable double life like that?
Is it possible that the psychosis known as Stockholm syndrome could manifest itself in less dramatic conditions than at the point of a gun?
We still have millionaire sports stars saying on interviews they would not play alongside a gay teammate. In a gay sponsored forum recently the tree leading democratic candidates said flat out no to gay marriage. A short decade ago our military defied a President with don’t ask don’t tell.
The senator’s hypocrisy is reprehensible and inexcusable, but it does not need a herculean effort to imagine.
BTW Larry and Timm seem to be nuancely saying that it depends on the definition of hypocrisy
Aug 28, 2007 - 9:27 am 7. Lem:Is it hypocritical of Rudi to say he is pro-choice but as president he would appoint “strict-constructionist” – code for pro-life judge?
If he truly believes in the merits of choice why would he appoint a pro-life judge?
Aug 28, 2007 - 9:54 am 8. David Thomson:“If he truly believes in the merits of choice why would he appoint a pro-life judge?”
Rudy would not be picking a per se “pro-life judge.” The well known jurist Lawrence Silberman is pro-choice on abortion—and still believes that Roe vs. Wade was a terrible decision. The same also holds true regarding the late Raoul Berger and numerous others. It is very fair to even describe it as intellectually bankrupt. Morever, abortion will not disappear when it is ultimately reversed. The matter will simply revert back to the states where the voters will voice their preferences at the ballot box.
Aug 28, 2007 - 10:41 am 9. Lem:Taranto’s WSJ makes a good point.
“… most lawmakers who oppose gay-rights measures are not homosexual. To single out those who are for special vituperation is itself a form of antigay prejudice. Liberals pride themselves on their compassion, but often are unwilling to extend it to those with whose politics they disagree.”
BTW it seems this officer in the men’s room was conducting his own NBC ‘To Catch a Predator’
I don’t have time to go into it, but there is something very wrong about that whole thing.
Aug 28, 2007 - 12:50 pm 10. Carl Spackler:What are you so upset about? Craig seems fairly consistent. He had a relationship, and I imagine a implied sexual contract with his wife. He trashed her. He knew the mores of Idaho, he blew them off. You would think that with all our problems he wouldn’t sacrifice the reputation of the U.S. Senate, such that it is. He trashed it. He took a nice one on the Republican Party.
So, Craig has always been a one way street artist, all about him, lying overtly and covertly, why shouldn’t he stiff gays? Why shouldn’t they get the Craig treatment too? Welcome to the club.
Aug 28, 2007 - 2:18 pm 11. Barry Dauphin:Sen. Craig isn’t gay, he just has a wide stance.
Aug 28, 2007 - 3:04 pm 12. freetotem:Lem wonders above “what demons could possess a man to live such a comfortable double life as that?” Why assume it is comfortable? I would assume the opposite, namely that he is tormented by inner conflict. Haven’t you ever known a closeted gay or transexual who was tormented by their urges and did things to try to make them go away, but had “lapses?” I have, and I would not describe them as either comfortable or having a double standard. I wonder instead what demons could possess a man to drive him to degrade himself by seeking thrills in public restrooms and exposing himself to public humiliation.
As others have pointed out, it is not “hypocrisy” to have moral standards and fail to live up to them. It is human. I’m neither defending nor attacking Craig’s policies regarding gays or gay rights. But would you call someone who advocates drunk driving laws who himself falls off the wagon and drives drunk a hypocrite? Or less than perfect? Or maybe a “victim” of his “disease?”
Aug 28, 2007 - 4:41 pm 13. Sally-O:I don’t agree in the least with Craig’s political positions on gay issues, but I don’t agree with–or even see the logic of–Roger’s argument.
One could be gay and against gay marriage or civil unions, just as one could be Ted Kennedy and against drunk driving or be John Edwards and against “two Americas” where some live in big houses and get expensive hair-cuts and others do not.
Aug 28, 2007 - 7:24 pm 14. Orson2:Roger calls Craig a bigot against himself for opposing gay marriage. Hut? Why can’t one be gay and oppose gay marriage? Maybe Craig is bi – hmmmm?
The real hypocrisy is on the MSMs part. I aught Chris Mathews comparing Craig to Bill Clinton, and finding (surprise) the former worse, much worse!
In Craig’s case, Dale Carpenter – a law prof blogging at volokh cpnspiracy – finds no real crime. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_08_26-2007_09_01.shtml#1188338033
In the case of Clinton, they were multiple: being the Chief law enforcement officer of the US, lying to a federal judge, and attempting to benefit himself materially in a sexual harrassment lawsuit against himself – when questioned under a law he himself signed into effect.
I remember when the MSM used to defend MYOB – mind your own business. Except when it is properly the public’s business. Today, they are only too happy to enforce a double standard – eg, failing to report a Democrat Congressman acussed of real crime on an airliner, for instance, involving battery – and instead titilating us with Craig’s private life – just as Roger now appears intent on doing.
SHAME ON YOU!
Aug 28, 2007 - 11:46 pm 15. Keys:I wrote 554 words. This will do. I will set aside the questons of gay marriage and civil unions. This bachelor Iknows little of either.
I have served in the Army and was a young man, not rcently, but some things don’t change. Sen. Craig apparently knows something about military service, especially at the enlisted man level. Perhaps he knows something about gay men, especially gay young men.
Mr. Simon, who appears to be a fine man, likely knows little or nothing about military service. He may not grasp the difficulties that both gays and straights face when the two orientations are mixed in the ranks. Perhaps he doesn’t understand that young men, especially those fit to serve in the military, are at the peak of their physical attractiveness, And young gays hace as many hormones as their straight counterparts. But nobody’s perfect.
Aug 29, 2007 - 2:15 am 16. Keys:I wrote 554 words. This will do. I will set aside the questons of gay marriage and civil unions. This bachelor knows little of either.
I have served in the Army and was a young man, not rcently, but some things don’t change. Sen. Craig apparently knows something about military service, especially at the enlisted man level. Perhaps he knows something about gay men, especially gay young men.
Mr. Simon, who appears to be a fine man, likely knows little or nothing about military service. He may not grasp the difficulties that both gays and straights face when the two orientations are mixed in the ranks. Perhaps he doesn’t understand that young men, especially those fit to serve in the military, are at the peak of their physical attractiveness, And young gays hace as many hormones as their straight counterparts. But nobody’s perfect.
Aug 29, 2007 - 2:16 am 17. Lem:Freetotem
Aug 29, 2007 - 6:01 am 18. Lem:According to the tenth edition of the Architectural Graphic Standards, public bathroom stalls must be 36 inches (3 feet) wide at a minimum (with an option to add 4 inches for ease of cleaning)
Look up the book on Amazon and go to page 6.
The senator appears to be well over 6 feet tall.
His “wide stand” defense could have some merit.
Aug 29, 2007 - 6:49 am 19. Andy Freeman:> A short decade ago our military defied a President with don’t ask don’t tell.
Huh? “Don’t ask don’t tell” is a law passed by congress and signed by Pres. B Clinton. What defiance was involved?
Aug 29, 2007 - 8:58 am 20. MarkD:New Federal Law: Defense of Stall Act. All restroom stall walls are required to reach the floor. Doors are required to reach the floor, and must not be able to be peeked through.
Since the government is about solving everything.
I’m not from Idaho; I don’t really have a say in the matter, but I wouldn’t vote for anyone with such a lack of judgement and such poor self control. None of that kept “Credit Report” Schumer and “Billing Records” Clinton from becoming my Senators despite my wishes to the contrary.
Aug 29, 2007 - 9:02 am 21. mikem:“The self-hatred implicit in that is mind-boggling.”
So… white people who support anti-white discrimination are swines and pigs. And so on.
You are right. Nothing so much brings out the hypocrisy as issues of human sexuality do.
Aug 29, 2007 - 10:48 am 22. dclydew:I think it smacks of hypocrisy in the very least and may be hypocrisy depending on what all the man has said about homosexuality as a politician. If his stance on homosexuality was based more on his political progress and less on his personal morals… Saying something is wrong in order to get votes while engaging in the act privately, seems like hypocrisy to me.
It’s really funny though to watch people defend this guy (and the others like him) by defining hypocrisy so tightly. Oddly they seem like the same sort of people that would crucify anyone from the other party for such a gaffe (or even less). In the end, perhaps that is the hypocrisy that puts us most at risk.
Aug 29, 2007 - 11:43 am 23. freetotem:I for one am not defending Craig at all. If it is true he made sexual advances (gay or otherwise, criminal or not) in a public bathroom, this is reckless and unbalanced on so many levels, I think the guy is unfit for the Senate and should be voted out. I AM a bit surprised that propositioning someone is considered a crime. I suppose the crime consists of soliciting to commit a lewd act (sex in a public place.) But without the act itself, this seems incredibly petty, as a criminal matter.
My point about “hypocrisy” is its now ubiquitously promiscuous use to denote any gap between someone’s principles and their behavior. This is not mere petty nitpicking, because it means if anyone’s behavior ever deviates from their principles, they are not entitled to have any principles without being called a hypocrite. This is simply sloppy thinking. Hypocrisy means I hold different rules for myself and others, that that I sometimes violate my own principles. By that definition, none of us is entitled to hold any principles, which is perhaps the goal of those who so loosely wield this term.
Aug 29, 2007 - 4:46 pm 24. freetotem:Sorry, but in my next to last sentence I meant “NOT that”…not “that that.”
Aug 29, 2007 - 4:48 pm 25. Orson2:Having caught the now released tape of Craig arrest, let me reiterate: SHAME ON YOU! Roger.
I find the best first-hand account of what happened to be credible support for his public account of a misunderstanding that happened at the MSP airport. The cop is inquisitional, confrontational, angry – while Craig is calm and perplexed.
By contrast, Clinton rationalized the abuse of power. Here, the shoe is plainly on the other foot – law enforcement was unduly, indeed brazenly, zealous!
The Pubbie establishment is now on a witchhunt for the career of a man who is innocent of any substantive wrong doing.
WHO WILL DEFEND THIS INNOCENT?
Aug 30, 2007 - 2:38 pm 26. Orson2:LET ME ADD: I have been propositioned and importuned by bi or gay men in men’s bathrooms and “Adult Bookstores” before – mostly in my youth (over a decade ago).
I can’t claim any special insight in to the Senator’s sexual identity. I just know that this Craig thing simply ain’t “cruising.” INNOCENT.
Aug 30, 2007 - 3:13 pm 27. markus:My two cents is that he should not resign or be forced out of his seat. Highly, highly doubtbul that he is “innocent” of the stupid charges, but based solely on the tape, it is a possibility, and I think that a good lawyer, even a mediocre one, could have gotten Craig off easy (no pun intended).
In general I think a person should only resign or be removed from office for corruption or other abuses of the office in which he or she serves.
Aug 30, 2007 - 9:13 pm 28. TomTom:The anti-Craigs are terrible demons. What did he do? something or other about a hand or foot extending beneath a stall wall, and the Roger Simons have determined this is conclusive evidence of a double (sexual) life, that this being (declared by the Rogers) so, he should resign from the Senate, blah, blah, blah, since he is patently (To them) untrustworthy. Wow ! The rest of the Beltway crowd is so trustworthy, honest, forthcoming, yeah.
Aug 30, 2007 - 10:30 pm 29. dclydew:The Roger Simons and the Libs need to 1) get a life, and 2)remember the Duke lacrosse affair, and stop Nifonging Sen. Craig. Meanwhile Rep. Jefferson (D-LA) walks free and essentially unsullied despite strong evidence of major felonies, but Roger S. wants to lynch Craig! Wow. I’m done with this blog for a while, and Pajamas too.
Seems to me that either a Senator should know enough not to sign off as guilty (and part of that sign off is that he would not claim innocence later) if he was innocent. If some cop claimed that I tried to proposition him, I would get a lawyer and I’m not a public servant, I don’t have a strong opinion on sexuality and I’ve done some pretty strange things by most people’s count. I still would not admit guilt to anything that I didn’t do.
Either the Senator in guilty, an idiot or is easily pressured into do things that he shouldn’t. Take your pick.
Aug 31, 2007 - 12:34 pm 30. mikem:The hunt for possibly gay behavior among us has suceeded. He’s resigning. No sex, no evidence, just a good honest cop with an expertise in the secret signals of gay cruising… and another secretly bisexual man is outed, disgraced and punished.
Bless you, Roger.
Aug 31, 2007 - 5:54 pm 31. Orson2:Former Denver prosecutor Craig Silverman
Sep 1, 2007 - 12:50 am