September 04, 2007


Two witty observations about the Larry Craig fiasco:

Jack Kelly:

When a scandal involves a Republican, his or her party affiliation is mentioned in the lead. When it involves a Democrat, party affiliation typically is mentioned deep in the story, if at all.

But media bias is not the main reason why Republicans suffer more from scandals. Democratic voters expect Democrats to steal on their behalf. Lawmakers are judged on the basis of how many goodies from the federal treasury they can shower on their constituents.

Mark Steyn:

Instead, Sen. Craig copped a plea. Because of that, he should disappear from public life as swiftly as possible and embrace full time the anonymity he cherishes in his sexual encounters. Not, as the left urges, on grounds of "hypocrisy" because he's a "family values" politician who opposes "gay marriage" yet trawls for rough trade in men's rooms. A measure of hypocrisy is necessary to a functioning society. It's quite possible, on the one hand, to be opposed to the legalization of prostitution yet, on the other, to pull your hat down over your brow every other Tuesday and sneak off to the cat house on the other side of town. Your inability to live up to your own standards does not, in and of itself, nullify them. The left gives the impression that a Republican senator caught in a whorehouse ought immediately to say, "You're right. I should have supported earmarks for hookers in the 2005 appropriations bill." That's the reason why sex scandals take down Republicans but not Democrats: Sex-wise, the left's standards are that whatever's your bag is cool which is the equivalent of no standards.

Posted by Sarah at September 4, 2007 07:57 AM | TrackBack

I think party affiliation is at the top for both Democrats and Republicans. My issue is more with hypocrisy. If someone stands for family values and lobbies against gay marriage, then they shouldn't be asking for a blowjob in the men's room.

Posted by: Non-Essential Equipment at September 4, 2007 02:59 PM


Your right, he should have been lobbying for blowjobs in public restrooms. That way, no harm-no foul.

Did you read the post?

Posted by: tim at September 4, 2007 03:42 PM

NonE -- Yeah, if you didn't read the whole Mark Steyn article, I recommend it. It may not change your mind about "hypocracy", but yours is the exact argument Steyn tries to knock down. And the Kelly article points out that Dems do bad things too...but is it OK for them to do bad as long as they don't take a stance against bad stuff? Is it OK to solicit anonymous gay sex in an airport as long as you support gay marriage? I'm not sure those are 100% related.

Posted by: Sarah at September 4, 2007 04:09 PM

I'm not sure government officials should be dictating the standards of sexual behavior to begin with.

Posted by: Sabbrielle at September 4, 2007 04:38 PM


Even in PUBLIC restrooms?!? WTF!

Posted by: tim at September 5, 2007 08:33 AM

Tim, if he lobbied for blowjobs in public restrooms, he might have a better chance of winning the next election if he stays in the game. What man can turn down free blowjobs? =)

You're right -- I didn't get to Steyn. I read the Kelly clip and moved on. I've read far too many posts making this a Democrat vs. Republican thing when it really should just be a one failed leader thing.

I really feel that both Democrats and Republicans get it when they act badly. How long did the Clinton thing go on? As many Democrats have had their feet put to the flames.

I agree with Steyn to a certain extent. Life does have a certain amount of hypocrisy. But I, for one, would like to hold our political leaders to a higher standard. Sad and misguided, I know, but I feel that if someone takes on a leadership position they should be, if not above reproach, at least doing the best they can.

Maybe the gay marriage thing doesn't play (but it does make one thing). But this isn't only gay marriage. This is someone who is interested in legislating morality and is a reason why a cop has to sit in the public men's room to begin with. Frankly, if you are elected on a family values/morals platform, well, then perhaps you should think about walking the walk.

Posted by: Non-Essential Equipment at September 5, 2007 12:06 PM

I don't think that legislating morality has anything to do with cops sitting in public restrooms. I have to send my son in there (alone, sometimes!), and aside from the obvious ick and health reasons - that is not something that people should be exposed to. Period. There are hotels everywhere - hook up in the privacy of a room whatever your sexual orientation is.

I'm not defending Craig, by the way, and I'm glad to see him go. But the equation of restroom sex to morality platforms in elections is absolutely disengenuous.

The one thing I did learn from this was how such a hook up "goes down" from a friend of mine. All that talk about "toe tapping", and I thought I would have to teach my son to walk into a bathroom dragging feet on the floor to absolutely avoid the faintest sound that could possibly be misconstrued as a tap.

Turns out that there's some complex "Simon Says" action going on.

Learn something new every day...

Posted by: airforcewife at September 5, 2007 07:10 PM