As political theater goes, the Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) story is hard to resist. A conservative Republican senator, who touts “family values” and champions anti-gay legislation, is caught (literally) with his pants down. It’s a scandal with sex, lies, and police reports. There’s an angle for hypocrisy, and another for the intersection of the Republican Party and homosexuality.
Plus, it’s August, and we can only speculate so much on who’ll replace Alberto Gonzales.
That said, Hugh Hewitt’s post yesterday raises an interesting discussion point.
Senator Craig Should Resign. Today.
I realize that I did not say this about Senator Vitter, but Craig’s behavior is so reckless and repulsive that an immediate exit is required.
In response to Craig’s fairly ridiculous version of events in that Minneapolis men’s room, Hewitt added, “I don’t believe him. Read the statement by the arresting officer. He must think the people of Idaho are idiots. But even if I did believe him, this would make his judgment too flawed to be in the United States Senate in a time of war. He has to go.”
Now, I don’t believe Craig, either. I’m hard pressed to imagine how anyone could. And sure, Craig’s conduct certainly raises questions about his judgment. But as hesitant as I am to defend a hypocritical right-wing Republican — or, for that matter, to get in the way of one far-right conservative attacking another — isn’t Hewitt’s criticism a little strong?
Or more to the point, why is it that Vitter’s conduct is unfortunate, while Craig’s is “reckless and repulsive” and in need of “immediate action”?
Radley Balko noted, in response to Hewitt, “Guess there’s some sort moral distinction between cheating on your wife via anonymous gay sex and cheating on your wife by paying for hetero sex with a prostitute.”
Yglesias added, “I can imagine distinguishing between these cases, but I would think that any difference would tend to cut in favor of Craig rather than against him, since paying prostitutes for sex is a real crime and it’s still unclear to me what it is Craig’s guilty of.”
That last point is particularly noteworthy. Given what we know, Craig apparently hoped to arrange sex with an undercover police officer in an adjoining stall. But David Kurtz has a good post today explaining that the criminal case against Craig is pretty weak.
Leering stares, foot tapping, a lingering presence. Are any of those, even taken together, what most reasonable people would call criminal?
Now, I think there was probably a bit more to Craig’s conduct — bringing his foot and hand under the stall partition was fairly obvious — but the broader point is sound. Craig apparently wanted to proposition the undercover cop, but very little actually happened.
In contrast, David Vitter was a frequent client of an alleged prostitution service. He would chat with the DC Madam on his cell phone while on the Senate floor casting votes. He was paying for sex after declaring that adultery alone disqualified someone from holding elected office.
If one compares Vitter and Craig, and decides that the latter is guilty of “repulsive” behavior that requires an “immediate exit” because this is a “time of war,” it sounds an awful lot like homophobia.