Whether the real intent is to trumpet their phony sanctimony of “sympathy and compassion,” or to advance their obviously partisan interests, liberal coverage of the Larry Craig debacle has been incessant. Ever since news broke of Craig’s guilty plea on a charge of soliciting homosexual sex in a Minneapolis Airport public restroom, Democrats have used every occasion to elevate it to the forefront of discussion.

 

Notably, through their veneers of empathy they invariably emphasize that the episode reflects something fundamentally amiss within the GOP alone.

 

Beyond the smokescreens, none of the current furor is really about sordid behavior or ideological hypocrisy. Democrats understand the crucial importance of “values voters” even better than do many Republicans. This is particularly the case among the so-called “moderates” who frequently disdain and disparage them.

 

If GOP does not give this constituency reason to show up on Election Day in 08, Democrats will toil incessantly to once again give them reason to stay home. It worked last year.

 

Of course the real nature of the Craig scandal, especially since it is not an isolated occurrence, indicates a problem in political circles that America must address if it is to restore confidence in the behavior and reliability of its political leaders.

 

Yet it is essential that the problem first be properly characterized, and then responded to in a manner that does not weigh partisan advantage towards either the right or the left, but expressly as a result of the actions taken and relative impact of those actions to the American people.

 

Otherwise, no real “house cleaning” can take place, and the system will continue in its current dysfunctional state, with untoward behavior being condemned or exonerated, based not on the manner of that behavior, but rather on the political leanings and connections of the perpetrators.

 

To begin with, Senator Craig’s malfeasance was abhorrent, but while it should be universally held as incompatible with the expected conduct of a United States Senator, it does not represent an individual act of “corruption” on Craig’s part. Nor does it bolster the case for Nancy Pelosi’s branding of a “culture of corruption” within the entire Republican conference on Capitol Hill.

 

In complete contrast to past behavior among Democrats, Republicans have consistently responded to the sad regularity of such revelations of malfeasance by purging their ranks, even occasionally to excess.

 

When Ronnie Earle, an out of control county prosecutor and Democrat hack from Travis County, Texas, finally indicted former Representative Tom Delay after a lengthy episode of grand jury shopping, Delay’s congressional colleagues immediately deposed him form his position as Majority Whip. Thus the Democrats gained leverage in determining the makeup of Republican leadership through nothing short of subversive means.

 

Yet before such conditions are accepted as proof of the Pelosi allegation, they should be considered in their proper context, which means against the backdrop of the Democrat climate instituted inside the Beltway especially during the Clinton years, but dominant once again in Congress since last November.

 

It is here that the profound difference between “scandal” and “corruption” can be underscored, as well as the latter’s elevation from a handful of unfortunate events to an institutionalized behavioral norm, a brazen “culture” of accepted, established, and protected abuses.

 

Unlike their feigned dismay over the Craig situation, Democrats have had little to say in criticism or condemnation of Hillary, former President Bill Clinton, Representative William Jefferson (D.-LA), Representative Barney Frank (D.-MA), Jack Murtha (D.-PA), Senator Harry Reid (D.-NV), Senator Diane Feinstein (D.-CA).

 

In contrast, these individuals and their crimes are lauded by the left, while any critics are savagely attacked, often on a personal basis. Among such people the unrestrained corruption does indeed represent a political “culture.”

 

The principal subject of any such discussion is, of course, Hillary Clinton. Her actions, along with those of her husband, transcend any standards of personal lapses and demonstrate the poisoning effects of illicit activity on the entire political system. Such is the inevitable result if perpetrators have no scruples limiting their efforts to advance themselves, and no legal restraints imposed to protect society from their ravages.

 

Of course Hillary understands the effects, at least in the short term, of responding with shameless audacity. This explains why she never displays guilt or remorse. No matter how blatant the transgression, she simply smirks a denial or offers her mocking “don’t recall” retort. To date, her adversaries possess insufficient fortitude to follow up. Those hoping for justice become demoralized, and her outrages continue unabated.

 

But unlike the Larry Craig and David Vitter situations, in which no harm came to any other than those who chose to participate in the sordid dalliances, the Clintons and their cronies deliberately warped and perverted the entire governing system to protect themselves and their interests, ultimately at the expense of innocent associates and eventually, all America.

 

Moreover, the contrasting manner in which the entire Democrat political machine rallies in support of its members whose sleaze comes to light, stands as prima facie evidence that those caught in illicit acts are not the only corrupted members. Rather, all who steadfastly support them, offering fraudulent or distracting arguments on their behalf, are no less collaborative with their abhorrent behavior.

 

So, despite the currently shrill media spin, the timing of the Craig episode will prove to be particularly injurious to the Hillary campaign. Nor will any attempted distraction by the left allow her to remain unscathed. Rather, the unseemly events actually focus attention on her.

 

In contrast to the “conventional wisdom,” she is not immune to the air of scandal which clings to her like a shadow. Her unparalleled disapproval ratings render inarguable proof that the public is not fooled. Ultimately, Hillary’s latest sordid political affair, which once again involves dirty money, likely from China, is most revolting because of its ring of familiarity to so many past scandals.

 

Real America knows that, in the event of her election to the Presidency, the nation can only expect more of the same.