Double Standards

Hugh Hewitt has a weird post up drawing attention to his own hypocrisy: "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." Radley Balko remarks "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."

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 -- he mostly seems to have been brought up on charges of "being gay in the Midwest." Either way, Hewitt seems to be drawing the distinction based on pure homophobia.

UPDATE: Megan McArdle notes:

if I were Craig's wife, I'd be far more worried about my husband trolling random bathrooms for anonymous men, than by his sleeping with prostitutes. Given the relative risks of male-to-male and female-to-male HIV transmission, I'd be crazy not to worry more. Should that matter to the public, if not the police?

That I suppose I can see that from the wife's perspective, but I still don't see any case that Craig needs to resign but Vitter doesn't. Scott Lemieux notes that the real source of Hewitt's double standard may be partisanship rather than homophobia since Louisiana has a Democratic governor.

Comments

Hewitt a hypocrite? My whole world is crashing down around me!

Posted by norbizness | August 28, 2007 11:36 AM

What Larry Craig did was immoral. What David Vitter did was what rich white men do when the pressures of pooping in the toilet become too much.

Posted by Gregorio | August 28, 2007 11:37 AM

Hugh Hewitt noticed that the Governor of Idaho is a Republican and the Governor of LA is a Democrat.

There are different consequences to the Governor appointing a replacement Senator to serve out the remainder of a term.

Posted by TruthToPower | August 28, 2007 11:37 AM

Not to mention that, since Craig accquired his family, kids and all, after his very first gay sex scandle way way back when he was a young member of the house, there's some reason to think that his wife might actually have some idea what's going on with him. This is less likely to be the case with Vitter, I guess, at least before his marriage.

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | August 28, 2007 11:39 AM

Vitter is in his forties, right? Maybe the crime is "old person sex." I smell a bipartisan opportunity.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 28, 2007 11:39 AM

This is my favorite part of Hewitt's post: "...this would make his judgment too flawed to be in the United States Senate in a time of war. He has to go. "

What does "time of war" have to do with anything? Apparently, one can somehow imperil the nation by soliciting gay sex during a time of war. This just shows that the Republicans are entrenched in old tropes. If you want to defend something stupid, make it sound like a war measure. Then everyone will rally around your position. You couple that kind of fear mongering with Hewitt's rank homophobia...and you have the Republican platform for the 2002 and 2004 election cycles. The train keeps rolling down the tracks...

Posted by Unreal Veal | August 28, 2007 11:39 AM

Hugh Hewitt has opinions of his own? No fucking way.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 28, 2007 11:44 AM

Matt you do realize they have anti-sodomy laws they use to prosecute johns out in the far mid-west of Virginia right? You get a bj across the Potamac and you are in violation of the law.

Posted by Rob | August 28, 2007 11:51 AM

This is typical wingnut stuff.

If the GOP keeps the seat with a fresh face who lacks the baggage of scandal, the offender is run out of wingnuttia on a rail from the Central Conservative Soviet to hopefully make it happen. They don't need Craig and they don't have to worry about losing the seat by giving him the Trotsky ASAP if possible.

If the GOP loses the seat to a Democratic fresh face thanks to a Democratic governor, the conservative offender is hailed by the Central Conservative Soviet as being "maliciously slimed" by "the Democrat Party hit squad in the leftist media" and embraced as vital at all costs. They need him. They need Vittner, at least until a Jindal can be put in the Governor's mansion.

If Jindal is the Governor of LA at the time of his scandal, Vittner is denounced with the intention of running him out.

"pseudonymous in nc:

Hugh Hewitt has opinions of his own? No fucking way.

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | August 28, 2007 11:44 AM

Posted on: August 28, 2007 11:44 "

LOL. Yeah. Hewitt being a total hypocrite based on political calculations is all about his critics not allowing him to have 'his opinions'.

Posted by TruthToPower | August 28, 2007 11:52 AM

Can you imagine how shitty being the cop on the toilet sex beat must be?

Posted by Ginger Yellow | August 28, 2007 11:53 AM

I think the evidence from the police report is pretty thin. But, Craig pleaded guilty. Assuming that he is in fact guilty, its obvious to me that his behavior is much worse than Vitter's. Soliciting (which is presumably followed by having) sex in a public restroom in the middle of the day is worse than doing it with a prostitute in private.

Anyone who doesn't get the difference apparently thinks that all that matters is a person's behavior in and of itself, not the effect of that behavior on other people who may be unfortunate enough to stumble across it (such as children, for instance).

Posted by Jim W | August 28, 2007 11:53 AM

I'm not sure how to read Hewitt (maybe he means, "I should have said this about Vitter"), but surely there is an argument that trolling for sex in public restrooms is an offensive activity that pollutes the public square (I mean, how distasteful it is that in certain places, such as Central Park, one would not send one's young son into the restroom without checking it first), whereas hiring a call girl is a private sin which does not disqualify one from public life.

Posted by y81 | August 28, 2007 11:55 AM

Hugh Grant? George Michael? It's not just the midwest.

Posted by P O'Neill | August 28, 2007 11:59 AM

One of the charges against Craig is what they charge peeping toms with. That would seem to be worse than any consensual act, financial or not.

Posted by MikeJ | August 28, 2007 12:05 PM

Well, public sex is illegal. But of course the right's response to this scandal is hypocritical. Because it's a gay thing, for one, and because there's not a Senate seat at stake in Idaho. I tend to agree with Matt that Vitter's was marginally the worse crime, but all this stuff is worth it if it manages to crush the right's claim to "moral values", and if it ain't already crushed, it's sure getting there.

Posted by Lev | August 28, 2007 12:08 PM

"being gay in the Midwest"

Yeah right - Minneapolis is such a homophobic place.

Wake up Iglesias.

Posted by eric | August 28, 2007 12:09 PM

I guess the meme de jour is that Craig did nothing illegal, just something vaguely distasteful. I wonder... have any of you had the experience of having someone soliciting sex peek through the crack of the bathroom stall you're in? It's a violative act. I'm very accepting of gay behavior, but on the one occasion it happened to me it made me feel uncomfortable. That is exactly what Craig did. Disorderly conduct is a mild way of describing what he did.

Posted by Wagster | August 28, 2007 12:12 PM

Hey, at least he didn't call it the "Midwaste" (although I'm sure that's what he was thinking).

Posted by Jim W | August 28, 2007 12:12 PM

surely there is an argument that trolling for sex in public restrooms is an offensive activity

Assuming that (1) the participants are adult, (2) the sex doesn't happen in public, i. e., the restroom, (3) everything that happens is consensual, and (4) no one is paying or asking to be paid for it, then it's a constitutionally protected activity, and not something anyone other than an obnoxious busybody would object to.

Posted by rea | August 28, 2007 12:13 PM

Hewitt stinks like Larry Craig's pooter after he finishes doing his business on a Minneapolis airport toilet seat.

Posted by Try These On for Size | August 28, 2007 12:15 PM

You're missing that Craig was the Senate co-liaison to Mitt Romney's campaign, and that Hewitt is perhaps the loudest conservative backer of Romney. He's protecting his own.

Posted by dday | August 28, 2007 12:16 PM

"I wonder... have any of you had the experience of having someone soliciting sex peek through the crack of the bathroom stall you're in?"

I think Wagster has it right. All the other stuff--fidgeting in front of the stall, waving hands, and foot tapping--can be explained away. But you can't repeatedly look at someone while they're using the toilet. If that's what he did, then that's where the crime was committed. It's the privacy violation. All the other stuff could be explained away as harmless, weird, or annoying.

Posted by Unreal Veal | August 28, 2007 12:18 PM

It's not just Hugh Hewitt. Which, given the GOP's elevation of homophobia to campaign strategy, shouldn't really come as a surprise.

Posted by Tom Hilton | August 28, 2007 12:30 PM

So, if you're a closeted homosexual, is it a rule that you have to become a GOP Politician now?

Posted by Jayhawk Max | August 28, 2007 12:34 PM

I think a few people here are unfamiliar with the concept of "cruising." Why do you think they meet in a bathroom? If they are just meeting up to go somewhere else, this probably wouldn't make the most sense. This is why they set up a sting in the first place.

This happened at George Washington University like 5 years ago or something. Students complained to UPD that people were having sex in the bathroom and they set up a sting. Apparently the bathrooms there were a popular place for cruising.

Posted by Mr. X | August 28, 2007 12:37 PM

Hey Larry: Call me! XOXO

Posted by Jeff Gannon | August 28, 2007 12:38 PM

I suppose if Craig had been caught giving head in that mens room he would've said that he tripped through the stall door and that his open mouth just happened to fall onto the penis of the man inside. Hey, it happens all the time!

This stuff is right up their with Haggard swearing that he bought meth but didn't use it, and that he and that guy were just giving each other massages.

Posted by tinisoli | August 28, 2007 12:41 PM

Wagster and Unreal Veal get it right.

There is an expectation of privacy in a bathroom (just like in your home) and it is a violation of law to be a peeping tom.

Here's the quote from the arrest report over on TPM:

"I could see Craig look through the crack in the door from his position. Craig would look down at his hands, 'fidget' with his fingers, and then look through the crack into my stall again. Craig would repeat this cycle for about two minutes. I was able to see Craig's blue eyes as he looked into my stall."

That would definitely creep me out and if it was my *kid* in the stall I would be absolutely outraged.

Posted by jehrler | August 28, 2007 12:44 PM

TruthToPower: as you guessed, my point was that Hewitt never expresses an opinion without getting White House sign-off. There's no point looking at the underlying thought, because you'll never find it. He's just a reliable stenographer for his paymasters, and they want Craig out now, to ward off a distracting primary fight among Idaho's many, many elected Republicans.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 28, 2007 12:44 PM

Idaho? No, Senator Craig D Ho. The real question is whether Larry's stance is as wide on immigration.

Posted by Jeff Gannon | August 28, 2007 12:52 PM

Here's the quote from the arrest report over on TPM:
"I could see Craig look through the crack in the door from his position. Craig would look down at his hands, 'fidget' with his fingers, and then look through the crack into my stall again. Craig would repeat this cycle for about two minutes. I was able to see Craig's blue eyes as he looked into my stall."

As I mentioned at Garance's site, Craig is extremely lucky that it was an undercover cop. Had he pulled those shenanigans with some ordinary, unsuspecting guy he might well have gotten the worst beating of his life.

Posted by Peter | August 28, 2007 12:56 PM

Well public sex is illegal.

So now we all have to have a membership in country clubs to have sex, as the proletariat sex is illegal!

Posted by gregor | August 28, 2007 1:01 PM

Matt you do realize they have anti-sodomy laws they use to prosecute johns out in the far mid-west of Virginia right? You get a bj across the Potamac and you are in violation of the law.

Rob: Wait! This sort of thing was ruled unconstitutional in the Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas (2003). Of course, you are right about Virginia not exactly being the San Francisco of the East Coast.

Posted by JDinBalt | August 28, 2007 1:04 PM

Consider that Matt and I were raised in the village, playing in Washington Square Park's playgrounds in the late eighties in Matt's case. I guess to us, maybe, it seems like not such a big deal that some guys go cruising occasionally. If someone looked in to my bathroom stall I would tell him to fuck off, no big deal. No need to set up police stings at least. The point about if it were a kid in the stall is good, but conflating a guy looking for consensual gay sex with a peeping tom looking at children on the toilet is unfair. If the sting were about catching child molesters that would be one thing. It's obvious purpose was to cut down on the cruisiness of the public restroom. I guess that kind of broken-windowsesque policing designed to make people feel more comfortable in public restrooms is ok, but it just feels a little silly to me. What the fuck do I care if people want to have sex in the bathroom?

Posted by Nicholas Yglesias | August 28, 2007 1:16 PM

Was the cop black and "pretty stocky?" If so, Craig may have been volunteering gay bathroom sex as a way to ward off trouble, since this is apparently something you do when you are white and straight and not a pervert and very afraid because there are black, stocky people present.

Posted by Jake H. | August 28, 2007 1:21 PM

Folks - remember, Craig pled guilty to disorderly conduct - stemming from when the cop tried to confront him and he acted like an ass - NOT lewd conduct.

Posted by Danj | August 28, 2007 1:25 PM

Was the cop black and "pretty stocky?" If so, Craig may have been volunteering gay bathroom sex as a way to ward off trouble, since this is apparently something you do when you are white and straight and not a pervert and very afraid because there are black, stocky people present.

This took place in Minneapolis, so that defense probably wasn't available to Craig. I guess that's why he pled guilty.

Posted by Gabriel | August 28, 2007 1:30 PM

Well, Nicholas, I think a lot of people would prefer that their experiences in airport bathrooms be free of encounters with peeping toms or men seeking sex, even if such behaviors were not illegal. Again, the issue here seems to be a combination of 1) invasive, weird behavior in a public place with 2) a politician who has been revealed as hypocrite and liar. There are obviously plenty of people who are equipped to deal with an encounter with a weirdo every now and then––what person doesn’t have some story of inappropriate attention from an elder during their youth?––but that doesn’t mean we should just roll our eyes at a guy like Craig and say “Oh, won’t you just go away you dirty old man? You’re such a PERV!” You should be able to go to the bathroom without being spied on or solicited.

Posted by tinisoli | August 28, 2007 1:33 PM

Apparently this particular restroom was a major cruising spot, and this was part of a general crackdown on activity there. The extra context makes it a little more clear on why they nabbed Craig and why he just pled guilty.

http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2309

Posted by crg | August 28, 2007 1:37 PM

Ok here's a summary of all the jokes I've come up with so far for your amusement:

Idaho? No, Senator Craig D’Ho!

Is Craig’s “stance” on the john as wide as his stance on immigration?

Must be pretty shitty to be the cop on the toilet sex beat!

Looks like Idaho’s now officially part of the Midwaste!

So is Senator Craig now supporting Ru Paul for Prez?

Is that an Idaho potato in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

How did Craig explain his reaching under the stall? He had dropped a proposition!

What with Craig’s support for a Federal Marriage Amendment, it’s about time that his homophobia blew up in his face!

Larry Craig on his anti-gay marriage stance: “Do as I say — don’t do as I doo-doo.”

At least there’s one good outcome for Craig from the breaking of this scandal: he finally gets to go down!

What was Craig really doing in the toilet stall? Having a “conference” with Mike Crap-o.

It’s too bad for Mitt Romney that Larry Craig endorsed him. Now Mitt has to shove Larry back in the closet!

Did you hear what happened to Larry Craig? Sure sucks to be him!

What is the Senator from Idaho’s favorite website? larrycraigslist.com!

Posted by Jeff Gannon | August 28, 2007 1:43 PM

If a place is a big cruising spot, why not just put a uniformed cop at the door? Should be a good deterrent, right?

Posted by Barbar | August 28, 2007 1:46 PM

Okay, I'm sorry butt (ha) I couldn't resist just one more per Matt's post on Brez:

Hey, I just heard Brzezinski just endorsed Obama! But z big, BIG news of the day is Larry Craig (hubba, hubba).

Posted by Jeff Gannon | August 28, 2007 1:50 PM

Yes, any big cruising spot should definitely have a uniformed hot cop at the door. Also possibly a uniformed fireman, construction worker and cowboy. Perfect deterrant.

Posted by Tom | August 28, 2007 2:10 PM

What is Larry Craig senator of?

His Own Private Idaho!

Posted by Mike | August 28, 2007 2:12 PM

Republicans are so kinky these days. Has it always been thus? This whole episode reminds me of the Kids in the Hall's movie Brain Candy, when the cops would enter the truck stop bathroom, and streams of men would come running out.

Obama had such an easy Senate run, from Wikipedia:
"His opponent in the general election was expected to be Republican primary winner Jack Ryan. However, Ryan withdrew from the race in June 2004, following public disclosure of child custody divorce records containing sexual allegations by Ryan's ex-wife, actress Jeri Ryan. [Star Trek's 7 of 9 (or 2 by 4 as I liked to call her. She said her ex-husband liked to go to sex clubs! And would try to force her to tag along!] In August 2004, with less than three months to go before election day, Alan Keyes accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan.[47] A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination.[48] Through three televised debates, Obama and Keyes expressed opposing views on stem cell research, abortion, gun control, school vouchers, and tax cuts.[49] In the November 2004 general election, Obama received 70% of the vote to Keyes's 27%."

Oi, the Midwest!

Posted by Peter K. | August 28, 2007 2:13 PM

It's not hypocrisy if he's a homophobe.

Posted by Njorl | August 28, 2007 2:20 PM

If I were Craig's wife, I'd be far more worried about my husband trolling random bathrooms for anonymous men, than by his sleeping with prostitutes. Given the relative risks of male-to-male and female-to-male HIV transmission, I'd be crazy not to worry more. Should that matter to the public, if not the police?

Count on McMegan to come up with ingenious diversionary hackery. Perhaps as an economist she can tell us exactly how much more worried the wife should be. 3 times? 5 times? 100 times would be too much.

If she's smart, she'll come up with a decimal: "3.77 times more worried" sounds about right to me.

What's the good thing about that lady, anyway? Why is she not a pariah?

Posted by John Emerson | August 28, 2007 2:48 PM

Well, as usual Megan doesn't really know what she's talking about. Male/Male HIV transmission during anal sex is higher, sure, but usually what's going on in bathrooms is oral sex, which is almost certainly no riskier than male/female intercourse and indeed probably far less.

Posted by Glenn | August 28, 2007 2:50 PM

What's the good thing about that lady, anyway? Why is she not a pariah?

I guess she must be an outstanding dinner guest.

Otherwise, I don't get it.

Posted by Gabriel | August 28, 2007 2:50 PM

John Emerson-
I think it is important to note that Megan McArdle is NOT an economist. She does not hold any kind of degree in economics, nor, as far as I know, has she ever published serious research in the field of economics.

Posted by Rickm | August 28, 2007 3:06 PM

Somebody tell Megan McArdle that sex with prostitutes (along with sex with people who contracted HIV from prostitutes) is probably the main form of transmission of HIV in the world right now.

Posted by Dilan Esper | August 28, 2007 3:19 PM

What Dilan said. I'd pretty much ignored her stuff until the move, but Jesus if she isn't even more obtuse than Jonah Goldberg

Posted by Ginger Yellow | August 28, 2007 3:25 PM

"I think it is important to note that Megan McArdle is NOT an economist. She does not hold any kind of degree in economics, nor, as far as I know, has she ever published serious research in the field of economics."

Well, if you think it's important, note it all you want, but really, it's not important. The people who write for the Wall Street Journal don't have economics degrees, usually. Matt Yglesias doesn't have any degrees in foreign policy. Being able to write about something clearly doesn't require academic expertise in the subject -- in fact, such expertise is often an impediment. If Megan is a bad economics writer, it's because she's a bad economics writer, not because she lacks the credentials.

Posted by too many steves | August 28, 2007 3:31 PM

I don't get this "but what did he do wrong?" bit. Is soliciting sex in a public bathroom illegal or not? Not "hey, let's go have sex somewhere private," but "hey, here's my hand underneath the stall. Let's have sex in the bathroom." My understanding is that it is illegal to try to have sex (of some sort) in a public bathroom, gay or not.

Since I am assuming this cop has arrested plenty of men doing this sort of thing in bathrooms before, he knew what Craig was after.

In any case, I don't think he was arrested for "being gay in the Midwest."

Posted by jim | August 28, 2007 3:35 PM

too many steves, Rickm was just correcting John Emerson's description of McArdle as "an economist," not criticizing her writing.

Dilan and Ginger, the main form of transmission of HIV in the world is also in Africa, if you want to get technical about it. I would think most US prostitutes would practice safe sex.

Posted by tps12 | August 28, 2007 4:02 PM

What's behind the right's different response to David Vitter's call girls and Larry Craig's boy trouble? In a nutshell, the boys.

As the old expression goes, you are what you eat. And that imagery, apparently, is behind the growing conservative chorus calling for the resignation of disgraced Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig.

For the details, see:
"Behind the Right's Double Standard on Craig and Vitter."

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000736.htm

Posted by AngryOne | August 28, 2007 4:05 PM

I would think most US prostitutes would practice safe sex.

This survey of NYC streetwalking prostitutes found in 2001 that they used condoms about 15-17% of the time, for both fellatio and intercourse.

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102252533.html

Things may be different with your more "upscale" prostitutes like Vitter frequented, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Posted by Glenn | August 28, 2007 4:33 PM

In addition to the obvious homophobia at play in the fields of the Right, I sense a certain wink-wink-nudge-nudge acceptance of the whoring (the hetero kind, that is), multiple marriages, and rampant infidelity among the Gingrich and Giuliani ilk. As long as they’re talking about broads and vaginas, it’s simply a matter of strong men with big swinging dicks and an insatiable appetite for women. And it’s the sort of behavior that these guys will chalk up to human nature or "boys will be boys" even while they’re arguing that evolution or genetic determinism is a bunch of Darwinistic hooey. When Vitter got caught, it’s like everyone quietly smirked with knowing approval and chuckled at the idea of his wife going “Bobbitt” on her husband. But once we’re talking men, boys, bathroom stalls, etc., that’s when we hear all about immorality, indecency, perversion, and, of course, the “choice” that is homosexuality. A Senator with a hooker and some diapers? Not so great, but not that bad. A Senator looking for sex in a mens room? Yuck. Get him out of my sight!

Posted by tinisoli | August 28, 2007 4:46 PM

"if I were Craig's wife,"

I don't think Craig has a "wife".

She used to be on his staff and married him in a hurry after the gay rumors started in the 80s. So from the looks of it the marriage is a business arrangement. She knows he is gay.

Posted by DonB | August 28, 2007 5:02 PM

DonB: "I don't think Craig has a 'wife'. She used to be on his staff..."

Isn't there a better way to phrase that? If only to avoid the obvious double entendres?

Speaking of which, "Jeff Gannon", above, missed the best Craig joke so far:

It's just another Republican stall tactic.

Posted by JGabriel | August 28, 2007 6:59 PM

Look, I realize the "we must protect the kids" mantra is used in place of good, well-reasoned arguments too much of the time. But I have two boys, 7-9. They think it is NOT ok to come into the ladies room with me and I agree. So they have to go into the men's room by themselves.

I answer their questions about sex, I teach them about private places on their bodies and I'm extremely tolerant. But I don't believe that a men's bathroom in a public facility like the airport is an OK place to have sex. Your right to freedom of expression ends when it intrudes on my privacy rights. A bit like smoking...

So does this make me a mid-west prude?

Posted by JoyousMN | August 28, 2007 7:12 PM

This survey of NYC streetwalking prostitutes found in 2001 that they used condoms about 15-17% of the time, for both fellatio and intercourse.

That's right, and the legal status of prostitution means that lots of people patronize streetwalkers because they are widely available. Remember, also, that many American incall prostitutes are imported by the sex trafficking industry to work in brothels, massage parlors, and the like. And many come from countries where HIV is rampant among sex workers.

The bottom line is McArdle made a very facile assumption.

Posted by Dilan Esper | August 28, 2007 7:15 PM

"charges of 'being gay in the Midwest.' "

Have you ever been to Minneapolis? Could you find it on a map? Maybe a political map, where it glistens bright blue?

Posted by aleks | August 28, 2007 11:12 PM

Best Craig joke so far:

I wanted to vote the straight Republican ticket, but there weren't enough straight Republicans.

Posted by just sayin | August 29, 2007 11:20 AM

A congressman or senator should reflect their constituency. FOr a number of years Larry Craig hasn't, so for that reason he ought to resign or be voted out in '08.

Posted by Beneficial | August 29, 2007 11:24 AM