There is a difference between being a liar and a moral hypocrite. A liar may make mistakes preferring to act as if they never happened. A hypocrite on the other hand not only makes moral mistakes, but is usually one of the first to cast a stone against those who are guilty of the same failing.
I understand that none of us are perfect. Moral hypocrites don’t ever recognize this in themselves.

Thank you, David Kuo.
TOM

The thing America needs to be “confronted” on is the inequity, the injustice faced by gay Americans.
Mr. Craig is in part responsible for those inequities and injustices. His voting record ensured that gay americans will NOT receive jsut treatment before the laws governing employment equity, marriage, adoption, medical decision-making as next-of-kin, etc.
His constant anti-gay rhetoric is NOT “the substance of truth”; it is hate. Pure and simple and oft-unadulterated HATE, because it is the bearing of false witness against God’s gay and lesbian children.
Mr. Craig has not merely “fallen”; he proudly stands on his record of prejudice and now finds himself hoist on his own petard, so to speak.
If he had not worked to build such an unjust society, perhaps he could have found a better outlet for his, er, “passions”, perhaps even in a stable, loving, committed relationship.
He is both a liar and a hypocrite and deserves what he got, imo.

The problem with trying to distinguish between when and where people are hypocrites is possible but problematic. On the one hand, in electoral politics, the point of a democracy is each of us is free and duty bound to judge individuals not only by their policies but by the likelihood that those policies will be important to them. In that regard, there is some substance to the criticism of John Edwards when he says he’ll ask Americans to give up their SUVs. The likelihood of Americans doing what our Presidents ask of us is wonderfully small anyway. With the apparent hypocrisy of someone who is probably responsible for more carbon emissions in a year than I can avoid in a lifetime of green obsessive-compulsive disorder, I think it’s probably fair to say a President Edwards asking Americans to drive greener cars is an unlikely environmental strategy.
But, there seems to be a lot of schadenfreude in the response to catching politicians with their pants literally or figuratively down. That’s just mean and has nothing to do with whether climate change is an important issue or whether gay people ought to have the same rights as the rest of us under federal law.

Oh, and I’d add that, as a Corpulent-America, I enjoyed both Margaret’s example and Donny’s response.

Doug: any schadenfreude over larry craig’s troubles is not “just mean.” although it is fairly clear what he was seeking, i don’t think that it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. nevertheless, he has over his lifetime in politics condemed gay americans. the rights of gay americans is an important issue in our public discorse. this is an issue that craig has been out spoken about. it is a “hot” issue in our culture and times. therefore, it is relevant that he got caught with his pants down.

Paul, I understand what you’re saying and I’ve shed no tears for Craig but isn’t it more important to talk about whether the federal government has any reasonable interest in discriminating against gay people than to talk about whether Craig is a hypocrite? Honestly, I think when we get above conflict into a place of reason and judgement, the argument goes much better for the side of equality.
With most of our critical public issues, the bulk of light, heat and effort is a battle between groups of people who feel victimized by each other. In truth, under our Republic, the purpose of government is not to approve or disapprove of groups of people but to administer justice. The constitution specifically says that morality is not a federal concern. The function of the federal recognition of a marriage doesn’t convey approval but only how taxes, property and parenthood are adjudicated. If we could forget about Larries Craig and Kramer, I think the resolution is fairly simple and just the one I believe you’re advocating. Why should, with morality assigned to the states, the federal government interfere with any two people sharing property, paying taxes or taking responsibility for any children they have? It shouldn’t. Clearly and simply.

Doug: Point taken. Nevertheless, people like Craig and Ted Haggard don’t seem to want to talk about justice. Therefore, the schadenfreude

Doug,
“isn’t it more important to talk about whether the federal government has any reasonable interest in discriminating against gay people than to talk about whether Craig is a hypocrite?”
It WOULD be more important if Mr. Craig were not a Senator. The Senate bears a large part of the responsibility of “the federal government’s” “reasonable interest” in how it treats its GLBT citizens.
in fact, unless it’s a typo or I’ve misunderstood, I don’t think the government, federal OR state level has “any reasonable interest in discriminating against gay people”. Quite the opposite. If they are to uphold the Constitution (the one you have, not the one Bush wants to change it to), they should have a vested interest in ensuring that GLBT citizens do NOT suffer any discrimination.
As for “with morality assigned to the states”, I didn’t know it WAS. The better question is, why is the government – at ANY level – be concerned with “morality”??? Morality is so subjective. All citizens are supposed to have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or, as I waggishly say elsewhere, ‘the pursuit of a penis’).

David:
Now that I see how you interpreted it (reasonably, I have to admit), I don’t think I framed my OP properly.
I’m not saying people in public life aren’t allowed to have the same foibles that we all do. In fact, it makes them seem more human in a way. Bill Clinton struggling with his weight (and, as it turned out, having a heart condition) but still going to McDonald’s was a foible — not hypocrisy.
Now, having an adulterous affair in the Oval Office is much more than a foible, I admit. Though of course, Clinton never preached about the sacredness of marriage (nor, frankly, did his constituents expect it of him, for better or worse); his previous infidelities were well-chronicled. Setting a poor moral example, particularly for America’s kids? Probably. Hypocrisy? Not so sure.
But to have three key House Republicans organize an impeachment effort to remove him from office (Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, Henry Hyde) for hiding his adulterous affair WHO THEMSELVES HAD HIDDEN ADULTEROUS AFFAIRS … that, IMHO, would be an example of “public hypocrisy” as I define it.
At least Livingston fell on his sword and tried to atone. Henry Hyde, who had held himself out as a devout Catholic and America’s leading anti-abortion crusader, laughed off his affair as the proverbial “youthful indiscretion” (though he was in his late 30s or early 40s at the time, as I recall).
And I could go on for pages about Newt Gingrich, with his romantic and ethical trail of wreckage — including HIDING AN EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIR **WHILE ORGANIZING THE IMPEACHMENT.**

Paul, thanks and if I gave the impression I didn’t feel a little of that schadenfreude, I’m as much a hypocrite as Craig. I guess the main point I’m making is that, for those of use without a strong personal interest in the outcome, a choice between God-hating sodomite scolds and sanctimonious redneck bigots, not much is resolved in an ugly dog contest.
Recovering, according to the federalist papers, laws governing the normal affairs of individuals are reserved to the states and morality is generally thought to fall into that category. In the constitution, that perspective is made law in the 10th amendment which says that all powers not granted the federal government in the constitution are reserved to the states or to the people. So, in my mind, the federal government is prohibited from legislating or enforcing morality. Whether states and municipalities do is legally a matter for each state’s government and people to debate, discuss and decide.
As far as I’m concerned, though, feel free to pursue what you will and may what you find bring you joy.