• Front page
• Receive this content on your RSS reader

This Speakout has not been edited.

By Robert E. Forman

Let’s really look at Idaho’s Senator Larry Craig’s alleged “crime,” compare it to President Clinton’s, and look at how each party responded to alleged “sexual immoralities” within their own party.

But before we do that, I would like to note that I only saw a few people who seem to be bothered by a police tactic that I thought had disappeared long ago: Placing male police officers in male public bathrooms to specifically target, arrest, prosecute, and jail homosexuals.

But besides that, what Senator Craig is alleged to have done, if the allegations are true, would be virtually the equivalent of Monica giving “innocent” non-verbal signals to President Clinton. That’s it. The allegation is that Senator Craig made “signals” that the police officer “assumed” were “standard” homosexual inquiries of a sexual nature — the reason the officer was in the restroom: To arrest those dastardly and immoral homosexuals.

Signals. A few signals. Unlike a standard prostitution sting, there was absolutely no offer of money in exchange for sex. Unlike President Clinton, there was no actual sexual activity. No stained blue dress. No proof of adultery. No proof that Senator Craig sought sex with someone the same age as one of his children. Nothing. Just a few “signals” that one police office “knew” to be “standard” signals that homosexuals use all the time in public restrooms because...apparently homosexuals can’t use “signals” out in public. They have to sit on a toilet and “signal” to some stranger in the next stall instead wasting their time sitting on a barstool flirting with one another.

And at this point in time, I can believe Senator Craig when he says that the only thing he did wrong was to plead guilty to a reduced charge “to get it over with.” People do that with traffic/parking tickets all the time. If someone has a good driving record and gets the first ticket they ever got in years, sometimes they think it is the simplest and easiest thing to do is to just pay it — especially if they get a notice from the court offering a quick and easy plea bargain if they just send a check in the enclosed envelope.

But now let us take up the issue as to how each party responded to the alleged sexual immoralities of their own.

Senator Craig was gone in a week. President Clinton is still the Democrat’s Golden Boy.

Compare Gingrich, Hagwell and Baker with Kennedy, Kennedy and the Congressman who had $90,000 in his freezer. Compare “gone,” “fired,” and “fired” with “not,” “not, “ and “not.” The contrast could not be not be more plain.

The Republican Party and Evangelical Christian organizations don’t want immoral hypocrites in their midst; immoral hypocrites are fired or told to resign. But the Democrats are so morally corrupt from the get-go, that if Senator Craig had been a Democrat, the focus would hardly been about what he was alleged to have done; the focus would have been on a police department using 1960s tactics to target gays in 2007, and the “vast right-wing conspiracy” to try to bring down a Democrat for simply “flirting” in public.

In other words, Democrats are so morally corrupt that if Senator Craig was a Democrat, even if the allegations of what he did were true, he would fit right in with all the other morally corrupt Golden Boys in their party.

Robert E. Forman is a resident of Lakewood.

READER COMMENTS

addition
Senator Vitter ADMITS to having extramarital sex with a prostitute, yet he is not getting thrown out of the senate?

The republican smoke in the mirror is Senators being morally corrupt? When throughout history senators have had that affliction. The true measure is holding political power. What about Senator Vitter? He ADMITS to having sex with a prostitute, yet he is not getting thrown out of the senate. His behavior is worse than Craig, Clinton, Kennidy or any other Democrat. Yet nothing is mentioned about him? Is it a homosexual issue? Not really, the republicans are homophobic to begin with. That’s a given. The underlying truth is, Craig is from a state with a republican governor. So a republican will be selected to replace him. Whereas in Vitters case, that state has a Democratic governor, who would replace that republican senator with a Democrat. In the corrupt republican mind, it is to create a scenario that Craig is being replaced because of his being “morally corrupt”. When in fact it is maintaining republicans in the senate. Then creating a “moral” issue where there is none. Throw out Vitter if indeed it is a “moral issue”.
Vitter is still there.

and don't forget about Barney Frank and the all-male Dance prostitution ring in his apt or Jerry studs who lived with his underage male page.

Don't forget, the pervs in the republican party get asked to leave, the ones in the dem party get asked to lead.

I teach my kids that one person's sin does not excuse another person's sin. How is it that you never learned this lesson?

Craig's misbehavior - he plead guilty, for crying out loud!!! stands alone.

Guiliani's misbehavior stands alone.
Clinton's misbehavior stands alone.

Being accused of soliciting in a bathroom (ick) is a far cry from a traffic ticket. If he wasn't guilty, he should not have agreed to a plea. ( Where is his integrity?)

As much as you might hate it, the Democrats had nothing to do with his misconduct. ( Actually, I don't think politics had ANYTHING to do with it)

If he were not a US Senator, would any judge anywhere allow his to retract his plea? Now there's a scandal!

POST A COMMENT

• GUEST COLUMN: Organizing state workers/'Disastrous' scheme
• GUEST COLUMN: Organizing state workers/Partnership best for all
• $2.57 a day buys food, perspective/'Food Stamp Challenge' a catalyst for personal change
• Museum no boon to Civic Center Park
• Six years after 9/11
• David Iglesias: Long on ego but short on ability
• The cost of enforcement
• Helping flawed fathers measure up