On Larry Craig’s Accusers
December 3rd, 2007 at 02:26pm Matt Margolis
I quick Technorati search shows that many blogs, liberal and conservative, are talking about Senator Larry Craig, and the eight men claiming to have had homosexual encounters with him.
I find this interesting… the reactions and the willingness of left-leaning bloggers to accept the accusers claims as genuine without scrutiny or a hint of doubt. It’s interesting because a similar benefit of the doubt did not exist when it came Bill Clinton and the women who accused from rape to fondling to witness intimidation.
When Kathleen Willey was on Hannity & Colmes a few weeks ago, Alan Colmes, bursting with Clinton talking points, attacked Willey’s credibility at her accusations, which have been carefully documented in her new book, Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Would Colmes, or any Clinton Defender for that matter, give equal scrutiny to anyone accusing any Republican of something damaging? Of course not. Partisans on both sides of the aisle are more than willing to doubt those who attack their own, and accept wholeheartedly those who attack their political adversaries.
I can’t say any whether or not those men claiming to have had encounters with Larry Craig are telling the truth or not — and neither can those liberals who are anxious to take political advantage of the scandal. But, if they are going to be given the benefit of the doubt by the media, or the Democrats, then Bill Clinton’s accusers deserved (and still deserve) the same.
Entry Filed under: Corruption, Democrats, Republicans
35 Comments
1. Mark Noonan | December 3rd, 2007 at 2:36 pm
The standard of journalism in the linked story is exemplified by this quote from it:
I mean, are you kidding me? Well, I guess they aren’t - its the MSM of 2007, the very dregs of a degenerated journalism which, even in its best days, wasn’t all that great.
There is so much to upset in this report that its hard to pick out the worst bits:
1. Why report on the private sex life of Senator Craig at all, when he’s shortly to be out of office?
2. We’re taking the word of a confessed whore? Where was this brand of MSM journalism when Barney Frank’s whore was running prostitution out of Frank’s townhouse?
3. The confessed whore is trying to pump up sales of his book about being a whore, and the MSM editor still felt that his journalistic ethics would support having the man’s accusations included?
4. No one was murdered, no property was stolen, we’ve got the 2008 campaign coming in hard, the campaign in Iraq is still ongoing…and this is what the MSM spends its time on? The tawdry stories about a man’s sex life?
Geesh!
2. SteaM | December 3rd, 2007 at 2:53 pm
“we’ve got the 2008 campaign coming in hard, the campaign in Iraq is still ongoing…and this is what the MSM spends its time on? The tawdry stories about a man’s sex life?”
Yep, this is what the media tends to focus on. Maybe that’s why the “new media” of blogs has become to popular. The old media is turning into tabloid journalism. Of course, I should point out that FoxNews did it first and made it work so well.
3. Kahn | December 3rd, 2007 at 3:47 pm
So he’s homosexual? Who cares?
4. SteaM | December 3rd, 2007 at 3:55 pm
No one should care that he’s homosexual in my opinion. However the blatant hypocrisy of the republican party in terms of sexuality is why I care.
5. Bigfoot | December 3rd, 2007 at 3:59 pm
I find this interesting… the reactions and the willingness of left-leaning bloggers to accept the accusers claims as genuine without scrutiny or a hint of doubt. It’s interesting because a similar benefit of the doubt did not exist when it came Bill Clinton and the women who accused from rape to fondling to witness intimidation.
But just a few years earlier, many on the left had no trouble deciding that they believed Anita Hill - including Clinton himself.
6. Kahn | December 3rd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Like Democrat senators carrying guns into DC or killing windmill projects nationwide because of Cape Cod? That kind of hypocrisy?
No - the hypocrisy here is in Democrats attacking a man for his sexuality. When actually, many Republicans don’t care. Cheney, Gingrich, and others have gays in their families.
Bill Clinton put “don’t ask don’t tell” in place, not us.
And well, lets just wait and see who attacks him? What networks? What politicians? What posters here?
7. Ricorun | December 3rd, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Mark: Why report on the private sex life of Senator Craig at all, when he’s shortly to be out of office?
Are you sure about that? Craig claims he’s not guilty even after he pled guilty. He claimed he would step down if he couldn’t clear the charge, but he didn’t clear the charge and he didn’t step down. Given that, how are you so sure he won’t try to run again?
And of course the thing that got him in trouble in the first place was not so much whether he had homosexual tendencies, but whether he was (a) extraordinarily reckless in pursuit of those urges, and more importantly; (b) whether he was a hypocrite by talking the talk on promoting family values while not tapping the tap, so to speak.
8. Kahn | December 3rd, 2007 at 4:05 pm
stevo - did you just insinuate that Marks wife is a whore? What kind of person are you? Oh wait- an asshole and a hypocrite.
Ummm the largely Democrat black community doesn’t like homosexuals either. And well, I don’t read Jeremiahs posts much.
But HERE - you attacked. And, you compared living together with an actual paid escort, and actual by definition whore?
YOU did this. Not Jeremiah and not me. I’ll bet not one single liberal poster condemns you for it.
9. neologizer | December 3rd, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Why should the sex life of Larry Craig be interesting and Bill Clinton’s not?
Why should the sex life of Bill Clinton have been a national focus and Larry Craigs should not?
10. Chuckg | December 3rd, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Because lying under oath while defending yourself against a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by /another/ former employee is not the same thing as ‘being gay while a Senator’.
11. On Larry Craig’s Accuse&hellip | December 3rd, 2007 at 4:33 pm
[…] W W W . N E W L Y R I C . N E T placed an interesting blog post on On Larry Craigâ??s Accusers […]
12. SteaM | December 3rd, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Kahn,
ABCnews-
“Both men who talked to ABC News said they were frustrated with what they saw as the senator’s continuing “hypocrisy” about his sexuality. Craig has a history as a Republican legislator of opposing gay marriage and gay rights.”
There’s your hypocrisy.
Just like with Pastor Ted Haggart. The hypocrisy was one of the reasons his homosexual lover made such a big deal about the affair.
13. Ricorun | December 3rd, 2007 at 4:47 pm
stevocar: It’s funny that Mark condemns a person for being a whore…when he lived with his current wife before marriage.
Oh my. Even if there is any truth in what you say, there still isn’t any logic in it. How can you possibly equate the two? That’s like saying allowing gays to serve in the military has something to do with abortion.
14. neocon | December 3rd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
There’s really no hypocrisy in being gay and being opposed to gay marriage and gay rights.
He opposed their right to “marry” and their request for civil rights as it pertains to employment. He did not oppose the practice of homosexuality.
So where is the hypocrisy?
15. SteaM | December 3rd, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Because he refuses to say he is GAY!!!
My hunch is he is gay and can’t admit it while still supporting anti-gay rights legislation.
Gays should be able to get married if they want to. Although, I don’t see why anyone would want to these days.
16. neocon | December 3rd, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Again,
No hypocrisy in being gay and not publicly admitting it.
When he publicly states that he is not gay, then that would be lying. Not hypocritical.
17. SteaM | December 3rd, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Fine, you can have your anti-gay gay republicans. I’d rather hang out with Barney Frank.
18. Aaron | December 3rd, 2007 at 5:59 pm
wait a minute, Matt. A couple months ago, after the story of the bathroom advances on a cop, you all were writing that Craig should resign immediately, and were congratulating yourselves on being so even-handedly virtuous in demanding that a Republican resign. So why were you wanting him to resign? Because it seemed likely he was gay?
But now that he’s steadfastly denying that he’s gay, you’re changing your stance and attacking anyone who accuses him. Why the change? Because he’s adamantly saying he’s not gay?
Look, I believe in fairness, and I don’t think people should be hounded with innuendo. I also certainly think there is nothing wrong with a gay man serving in the Senate (or being president for that matter). There is the issue of hypocrisy, and of doing things in a public place… but what you do in private is your own business, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone.
But I’ll tell you thing: Larry Craig isn’t gay in the same way Bill Clinton did NOT have sex with that woman.
gay gay gay gay… really gay. Gaydar is off the scale. We’re talking Gay.
19. Kahn | December 3rd, 2007 at 6:10 pm
SteaM - You don’t see any hypocrisy is attacking a man for being gay? ABC News, great. A bastion of conservatives.
Aaron - I beleive that was because of the political firestorm. But whatever. The only people I see attacking him are liberals.
How can you be so stupid with such big heads?
20. Casper | December 3rd, 2007 at 6:11 pm
stevo,
“It’s funny that Mark condemns a person for being a whore…when he lived with his current wife before marriage.
Not sure what that makes him or her.”
It’s one thing to insult another poster, it’s another to go after family members.
I lived with my wife for 3 months before we married, a marriage that’s lasted 33 years. Would you consider her whore also?
21. InDaVa | December 3rd, 2007 at 6:27 pm
“I?ll bet not one single liberal poster condemns you for it.” -Kahn
I condemn him…
22. Ricorun | December 3rd, 2007 at 6:35 pm
neocon: When he publicly states that he is not gay, then that would be lying. Not hypocritical.
That’s true. But you couple that with championing family values, then you get into hypocrit territory. Mitt Romney certainly thought so — he dropped Craig from his campaign like a hot potato (so to speak).
But except for a number of unsubstantiated rumors (which I don’t care to address), the only irrefutable evidence we have of that possibility is that he pleaded guilty to a charge of lewd conduct in a public men’s room. Everything else is so much hearsay. But again, Craig pleaded guilty. But now he claims he’s not guilty, and only pleaded guilty for expedience. Well, expedient it may have been (or attempted to be anyway), but it’s still hypocritical.
Likewise, he promised to resign at the end of September if he couldn’t clear the charge. Well, he didn’t clear the charge and he didn’t step down. That is also hypocritical. After all, the definition of “hypocrit” is saying one thing and doing another.
23. KCJ | December 3rd, 2007 at 6:52 pm
that’s funny stevo. If you’ve been censored I must be hallucinating because I see a few comments written by you here.
24. Casper | December 3rd, 2007 at 7:37 pm
“he dropped Craig from his campaign like a hot potato (so to speak).”
Well, he is from Idaho.
25. TiredofLibBullShit | December 3rd, 2007 at 8:15 pm
“It?s funny that Mark condemns a person for being a whore?when he lived with his current wife before marriage.
Not sure what that makes him or her.” - stevocar
Coward…..
26. AAR | December 3rd, 2007 at 9:30 pm
One would think Democrats would be rushing to defend and support Craig, perhaps convert him to a Democrat, instead of attacking him!
AAR
27. AAR | December 3rd, 2007 at 9:36 pm
TLBS,
Not sure what that makes him or her.
If I were Mark, that comment would make stevocar a “former” B4V poster!
AAR
28. ShanghaiRay | December 3rd, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Let’s say for arguments sake that Craig is in fact gay and he did have sex with those 8 people + numerous other experiences such as the one in which he was arrested. The problem is not at all that he might be gay. The problems are numerous and far worse than being gay (if you believe gay is wrong that is). Some problems I can think of are: he’s a big liar, he has inappropriate sex in inappropriate places which shows a character flaw and if he in fact said to thatb one guy “I can buy and sell your ass a thousand times over” then he is one of the biggest a-holes on earth.
On the other hand, if he is in fact innocent even though he plead guilty then he is probably one of the most unlucky sobs on the planet and just misunderstood.
Frankly, I’d bet you even money he is gay and in the closet and only got married for his polticial career.
As far as being a hypocrite is concerned I think that just doesn’t hold water. Is that supposed to mean that every gay person believes in gay marriage and opening gay men serving in the military. I don’t think so.
I’m a conservative christian and I surely don’t believe prayers in the school but I think having Christmas celebrations are.
America is supposed to be some openminded and tolerant place but as far as I can see most Americans on both sides, conservative and liberals are probably the most intolerant and illogical people on the planet.
Craigs sexual orientation is nobody’s business and what he does legally behind closed doors isn’t either. If its ok with his wife (if she knows or is sticking her head in the sand) then it should be nobody’s business whatsoever. However, the way he conducts himself in the public domain and in Congress is open for discussion and condemnation as required.
29. neologizer | December 3rd, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Oh CHUCKG-O
Correct if wrong….. Sen Craig plead Guilty
-original question remains unanswered
30. Kahn | December 3rd, 2007 at 11:34 pm
stevo-hypocrite - thanks for not just posting a link because that would have been so much harder (you idiot).
I think you’ll find there are large parts of the black community against homosexuality. But hey, if thats the only problem with my post - then whatever.
The only attackers here are “liberals”. Apparently your only TRUE value, the one you’re absolutely not willing to compromise on is hatred of Republicans.
Hatred is your only core value? Wow, what German party does THAT remind you of?
31. Mark Noonan | December 4th, 2007 at 1:11 am
Thanks all, for rising to my defense - I do appreciate it.
stevo has gone by varied names over the months going back to Blogs for Bush and she/he/they does seem to have it in for me, and that is now all going to be wrapped up in a criminal investigation by law enforcement. I ask, now, that any comments from stevo or from anyone who appears to be stevo to just be ignored - they’ll eventually be removed from the blog, and we’ll eventually have dealt completely with the person or persons who is making the comments and otherwise harrassing me.
32. Mark Noonan | December 4th, 2007 at 1:32 am
Ricorun,
Its clear that Senator Craig has some issues to deal with, but he isn’t running for re-election next year and the GOP has already announced that if he does, we’ll back someone else for the GOP nomination. He’s out - his sexual practices are now entirely irrelevant to politics…unless someone is just muckraking for the heck of it.
33. eric | December 4th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Mark,
I was reading this last night and I was really bothered by the comments by steveo. I am glad you are taking the appropriate precautions. I do not understand how someone makes the leap from a healthy debate about politics to making disgusting insinuations about someone’s family or private life.
34. coulterfan | December 4th, 2007 at 10:19 am
I have to say that I think this story represents the WORST IN JOURNALISM! I am NOT a Craig supporter and his guilty plea is enough to call into question his repeated assertion that “I’m not gay” PLUS shine a light on his hypocritical voting record. However, this smacks of a ‘hit piece’ and there is NO SUBSTANTIATED EVIDENCE THAT ANY OF THESE ACCOUNTS ARE TRUE!
Just because one side does it (to Clinton, Obama, and the Dems) DOES NOT make it right! America has FAR MORE IMPORTANT THINGS than to focus on unsubstaniated rumors and innuendo.
This is SLEAZE journalism at its WORST!
35. Kahn | December 4th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Wow.