(Updated below - Update II - Update III - Update IV)

The reaction to the Larry Craig story provides one of the most vivid illustrations yet of how the right-wing movement works. Last October, just weeks before the midterm election, gay activist Mike Rogers reported that the married, GOP "family values" Senator repeatedly had sex with anonymous men in public bathrooms. His report was based on "extensive research," including interviews with several men whom Craig solicited for bathroom sex.

As Rogers argued at the time, the story was relevant -- just as the Vitter prostitute story was -- in light of Craig's frequent political exploitation of issues of sexual morality and his opposition to virtually every gay rights bill. Rogers' story, as a factual matter, seemed relatively credible, both because of his history of accurate outings and because there is no discernible reason why, if he were intent on fabricating, he would single out someone as obscure as Larry Craig, who was not even up for re-election.

Nonetheless, it is hard to overstate the intense fury that this pre-election report triggered from the Right -- not at Senator Craig for engaging in this behavior, but at Rogers for reporting it. A virtually unanimous chorus on the Right furiously insisted that nothing could be more irrelevant than whether the married family values Senator had sex with men in bathrooms (acts that are simultaneously criminal and adulterous). The same political movement that impeached Bill Clinton and which has made a living exploiting issues of private morality for political gain insisted that Rogers had reached a new and despicable low in politics even by reporting this.

This reaction was so widespread that only a fraction can be identified here for illustrative purposes. At Hugh Hewitt's blog, Dean Barnett pronounced: "The thuggishness continues . . . . [A] benumbed nation can only look on in horror at what has become of the Democratic Party." Barnett accused Rogers of being a liar ("Rogers will maintain the anonymity of these three men, presumably because they . . . . don't exist") and also claimed that he hasn't "heard from a single conservative who gives a hoot about Larry Craig's sexuality." According to Barnett (and many others), the Left only thought the story would matter because it mistakenly assumes that Christian conservatives actually dislike homosexuals:

I assume he's straight as do most readers, but the overwhelming sentiment we all share is indifference. . . .

But if those on the left actually knew more practicing Christians, they would know that the stuff about condemning the sin but loving the sinner isn't mere lip service. If the members of the left actually knew the people that they so casually and easily defame, they would also understand that infinite forgiveness is a hallmark of America's Christian community. . . .

If the left actually took the time to understand the dynamics of the community they so loathe, they would know that professional Outing Scumbag Mike Rogers will inspire the Republican base, not the opposite.

And at least at the time, Barnett was right. Among right-wing pundits -- weeks before the election -- there was nothing but support for Craig and outrage over the reporting of this story. The most hysterical outrage of all was from Glenn Reynolds, who went so far as repeatedly to predict -- literally -- that the country would be so repulsed by Rogers' reporting that it might actually swing the election in favor of the Republicans. More absurdly still, Reynolds cited a grand total of two reasons why he voted for GOP's Bob Corker over Harold Ford in the Tennessee Senate race, one of which was actually Rogers' report on Craig ("the sexual McCarthyism from the pro-outing crowd . . . . has convinced me that [Democrats] just don't deserve a victory with those tactics").

As usual, Bush-supporting bloggers like Ann Althouse and Patterico dutifully echoed Reynolds' line: "I truly believe this sort of tactic is going to create a backlash." Identically, Michelle Malkin's Hot Air actually convinced itself, as Reynolds did, that the Craig report was so despicable that it might save the GOP from defeat:

Three kids, nine grandkids. Supposedly spending his leisure time in the men's room at Union Station. . . . It's been said before but it bears repeating: the left always finds a way to shoot itself in the foot. Patterico expects a backlash. So do I. In fact, I haven't felt this motivated to vote in weeks. . . . .

If a U.S. Senator was going to have a tryst -- especially a gay tryst -- would he really do it in the men's room of one of the busiest places in D.C.?

But now, with the election safely over, a fundamentally different view -- one might say the exact opposite view -- has arisen among this same political faction (and, in some cases, though not all, even among the same individuals) over the Craig bathroom sex story, one which confirmed the truth of Rogers' October report. Michelle Malkin yesterday called Craig a "weasel," accused him of not caring about the "dignity of his office," and demanded that he resign. Various other right-wing blogs -- noting that a GOP governor will appoint his replacement -- also are calling for Craig to resign.

So revealingly, Barnett's blog colleague, Hugh Hewitt, demanded Craig's immediate resignation while openly acknowledging that he does not believe Sen. Vitter should resign. I wonder what the difference might be? It cannot possibly be that Craig's liaisons were with men rather than women, because the Right is completely indifferent to such considerations.

Various right-wing commentators are competing with one another to see who can express the most visceral disgust for Larry Craig's behavior (behavior which was so irrelevant just a few months ago that it was despicable even to report it). Mark Steyn echoes Hewitt's demand that Craig resign and then proceeds to spew adolescent mockery comparing Craig to George Michael. The Corner's David Freddoso registers his "obvious disgust" for Larry Craig and muses on "how rotten a job that plainclothes officer has."

And Jonah Golberg -- who last October penned one of the most pious condemnations of Rogers, calling the Craig story "wicked" and insisting that such tactics will "haunt [liberals] in unexpected ways in years to come" (notwithstanding the glaringly contradictory fact that Goldberg's entire public existence was foisted on our country by his and his mom's sleazy joint feeding off of the Clinton sex scandal) today pops up to make sure that everyone knows that he is repulsed by Craig's behavior: "I don't know what Larry Craig's been doing in men's rooms. And it sure sounds like I don't wanna know either."

Some right-wing commentators are candid enough to admit why they find the Craig story -- which last October was the Height of Irrelevance -- to be so significant today. In October, "Sister Toldjah" called Rogers a "despicable individual." But here is what this same person said today (emphasis in original):

Third, how disappointing, the two things that are at play here: the fact that in all probability he's cheated on his wife -- or at least attempted to, and on top of that he, according to the police officer in question, solicited for sex in a men's restroom. The man not only has a wife, but kids and grandkids. What the hell was he thinking? Only of himself, apparently. . . .

It's the personal aspect of this that is bothersome -- the deception, the lies, the adultery, the criminal nature of what he was arrested for back in June (is that the tip of the iceberg on Craig's adulterous behavior?). He's married. He's broken his vows of marriage. He hasn't been practicing what he preaches. He's deceived his constituency. That's what's bothersome.

They certainly don't seem to think that Craig's behavior is so irrelevant any more, do they? As always, it is astonishing to observe how the same human brain can accommodate those two opposite thoughts only a few months apart without even realizing that it is doing so.

And she's not alone. Other right-wing commentators individually have now completely reversed their views on the Craig story as compared to two weeks before the election. Here, for instance, was Ed Morrissey, waxing indignant over the Craig report, back in October, 2006:

People wonder why we don't attract a wider range of qualified candidates for public office. Michael Rogers sets himself up as Exhibit #1. The personal and degrading attacks convince many people to skip the trouble, and the people who do dare to run for office usually wind up experiencing the ruination of their reputations in one form or other. It comes from all sides to some degree, but this ghastly mudslinging really marks a new low. . . .

I couldn't care less whether Craig is attracted to men or women; it's really none of my business, and none of Rogers' either. As long as he's not importuning minors, then it makes no difference to anyone except Craig and his family, and that's if the allegations have any basis in fact.

But here is Morrissey yesterday on the Craig story:

We think it means you're even more foolish than this incident would suggest. How long before Craig checks himself into rehab or finds Jesus? . . . . Hugh Hewitt calls for his resignation. At the least, he should confirm that he will not run again.

Here is RedState on Craig yesterday:

I have blogged repeatedly here at RedState that we must clean our own house lest the voters clean it for us. . . .And today we have Larry Craig (R-Idaho) soliciting sex in a men's bathroom in an airport. . . . I can only say he must resign.

But here is Red State in October 2006 (a different front page commentator), in the course of arguing that Craig should acknowledge if he is gay as a matter of honesty with the voters:

Mike Rogers, the scumbag who runs blogActive, has published a claim that Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) is homosexual. I won't go into the sordid details Mr Rogers presents; if you are really interested, you can visit Mr Rogers' site. Senator Craig has flatly denied Mr Rogers' allegations, calling them laughable.

Patterico has the details and (at the moment) 123 commenters who are rightly disturbed at Mr Rogers' abusive tactics. Sister Toldjah is rightly indignant, and Brian at Iowa Voice is hopping mad. . . .

Mr Rogers is a scumbag, no doubt about that; were he set on fire, I wouldn't urinate on him to put it out.

What accounts for this complete shift in right-wing commentary about the Craig story? How can it possibly be that Craig's bathroom adultery compels his resignation today, but -- weeks before the last election -- the same conduct was so irrelevant that the mere mention of it rendered Rogers the lowest "scumbag" in the nation? Other than the fact that the Craig report threatened GOP political interests in October but does not do so now, what conceivable difference exists that accounts for such a fundamentally different reaction among the Right?

All of this is to say nothing of the fact that political figures like David Vitter, Mark Foley, Rush Limbaugh, and Larry Craig who relentlessly exploit private sexual morality for political gain obviously subject their own private lives to similar scrutiny. Standing alone, this quote alone from Craig about Bill Clinton, found yesterday by Atrios, demonstrates how ludicrous were the shrill October protests from the Right about Rogers' reporting of the Craig bathroom story.

But there is actually a more pernicious element visible here. Back in October, scads of right-wing pundits pretended that Craig's bathroom behavior was irrelevant to them not because they actually believed that (as their commentary now demonstrates), but only because they were petrified that the revelation of his behavior in October would harm Republican electoral prospects. It is just conclusively clear that so many of them insisted to their readers something they obviously did not believe -- that nothing could be less relevant than whether Larry Craig commits adultery with anonymous men in bathrooms and the only grotesque immorality is from those who report such matters.

Today, with the election safely over, that exact same behavior makes Craig a scumbag who should resign. Who would ever listen to anyone who engages in such patently duplicitous advocacy? Shouldn't all the people who were depicting Mike Rogers as Satan's spawn for reporting something so clearly irrelevant as Senator Craig's bathroom sex be condemning with equal vigor their comrades who, today, cite that same bathroom sex as a ground for mocking Craig and even demanding that he resign from the Senate? How can it possibly be that Mike Rogers was despicable slime for reporting on Craig's bathroom behavior without its being true that Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt and Mark Steyn are all despicable slime for demanding that he resign based on the same behavior?

UPDATE: A couple of commenters have mounted a predictable though clearly baseless defense -- namely, that the difference between October and now is that back then it was merely rumor but it is now confirmed. Simply read the posts I linked to. The outrage at Rogers was not based -- certainly not principally -- on the premise that his report was unconfirmed. The crux of the condemnation, often the exclusive argument, was that Rogers' report about Craig was completely irrelevant even if it were true, because it was only about Craig's private sexual behavior, which should be immune from public consideration.

UPDATE II: TPM has the video of Larry Craig, the co-chair of the Mitt Romney campaign, explaining why he supports Romney's candidacy (the video is now removed from Romney's site). Craig says:

Knowing Governor Mitt Romney is knowing someone who, first and foremost, has very strong family values. That is something I grew up with and believe in.

How can any rational person argue that a political movement which constantly exploits claims about private behavior like this for political gain ought to be immunized from scrutiny as to whether their conduct is consistent with what they claim? If having "strong family values" is -- as Craig claims -- the reason "first and foremost" to support someone's candidacy for President, then, by definition, whether one has "strong family values" is a politically relevant consideration for such a person. Craig's own pronounced political standards render it relevant whether a married political official with children is having anonymous sex in bathrooms. That is just logically true.

UPDATE III: Last year, in excoriating Mike Rogers for reporting about Craig's bathroom sex, Dean Barnett said:

I'm sorry if this topic causes embarrassment to Larry Craig and his family, but I assume by now they've figured out that politics in 2006 is a thoroughly rotten business. . . .

THE FIRST LEFT WING PATHOLOGY "OUTED" by the Craig story is the relentless meanness that characterizes modern day liberalism. . . .BUT MOST DAMNING OF THE LEFT is the casual assumption of group-think that this exercise demonstrates. The logic is that if you're gay, you must therefore support gay marriage. What's more, you must support everything that someone like Glenn Greenwald supports. To do otherwise evidences self-hatred and a betrayal of the cause.

But today, Barnett -- based on reports of the exact same behavior from Craig -- demanded that Craig resign from the Senate and said this:

AS TO THE SERIOUS QUESTION OF whether or not Senator Craig should resign, that one's a no-brainer for someone like me who thought David Vitter should have stepped down. To lead millions of people, one needs at least a modicum of moral stature. Both politicians forfeited that stature when they engaged in their off-campus hijinks . . . .

Vitter falls into the same category. You can't preen as a moralist and then seek out the services of a prostitute. If Vitter (or Craig or Clinton) had positioned themselves as libertarian libertines, then their private diddlings would have been none of our concern. But all three made a habit of saluting good old All-American family values. How a ranking public office-holder can be so thoroughly revealed as a hypocrite and still cling to his position is beyond me.

I would honestly pay money to watch someone try to reconcile those two positions. Last October, Barnett depicted Rogers as an "odious presence" for violating Craig's privacy based on purely private behavior that was none of anyone's business. Today, the same Barnett demands that Craig resign from the Senate, and invokes exactly the rationale which Rogers and other "outers" use to justify these disclosures ("How a ranking public office-holder can be so thoroughly revealed as a hypocrite and still cling to his position is beyond me").

Finally, and rather hilariously, Barnett defends Hewitt's demand that Craig resign but Vitter need not as follows: "Where one draws the line on such matters is arbitrary, so I don't think anyone's being hypocritical if they say Vitter can stay and Craig must go."

Apparently, what matters is to have moral standards, even if they are completely incoherent, arbitrary and applied solely to suit one's personal biases and political interests [Vitter's resignation would be for heterosexual encounters and would lead to appointment of a Democratic replacement (hence Hewitt opposes it), while Craig's resignation would be for gay sex and would lead to a GOP replacement (hence Hewitt favors it)]. It might be totally "arbitrary," says Barnett, but at least it is a moral standard.

UPDATE IV: C&L has the video of Larry Craig's bizarre press conference this afternoon. Craig denies having done anything inappropriate either on that day or at any other time, and insists that he is not gay. The only mistake he made, he says, was pleading guilty even though he did nothing wrong -- something he blames on The Idaho Statesman for investigating these matters. The first words out of his mouth were this: "Thank you all very much for coming out today." He refused to answer any questions.