Is Senator Craig a Hypocrite or Merely Weak?

It's obvious that U.S. Senator Larry Craig's judgment is crooked.

When an elite public servant attempts an anonymous homosexual act in a public restroom, gives a police officer absurd excuses for his actions, pleads guilty to the charge, and then-- when the story breaks-- insists he was innocent all along, and thinks people will buy his story, it's just one more proof of the axiom that "pride cometh before the fall."

But is Craig a hypocrite? Or, is he merely weak?

Idaho resident and minister Douglas Wilson contends hypocrisy:

Sen. Craig has been a public opponent of the homosexual agenda for many years, as he should have been. But it is now apparent that he did so as a flaming hypocrite. Ideally, the senator should resign his office tomorrow morning in disgrace. Failing that, he should step aside before the next election, refusing to run for office again. Washington needs another hypocrite like West Virginia needs coal.

To me, hypocrisy means a person says one thing aloud, but in his heart, he truly believes the opposite. I'm not sure if anyone is capable of judging Craig's motives. For this reason, I lean toward the opinion of weakness, as expressed by James Taranto of the Opinion Journal:

There is nothing hypocritical about someone who is homosexual, believes homosexuality is wrong, and keeps his homosexuality under wraps. To the contrary, he is acting consistent with his beliefs. If he has furtive encounters in men's rooms, that is an act of weakness, not hypocrisy.

Whether Craig is a hypocrite or extremely weak, it's tragically evident that he presently doesn't have the moral strength or character to be a U.S. Senator and is in desperate need of Jesus.