quote:Sen. Larry Craig was arrested on June 11th in a Minnesota airport washroom, allegedly for making a sexual advance to an undercover officer. When news of the arrest came out in the local newspaper, the Idaho Statesman, it was like a political bomb had exploded. Craig is a Republican in a state where homosexuality is tolerated, but many have deeply held religious and conservative views.
I, for one, feel really sorry for the people in these scandals. Assuming Craig is gay, it's sad that he seems to hate that part of himself so much that he's in a party that is actively against homosexuality. At least that's how it looks to me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't know. Maybe he just really likes anonymous bathroom sex.
Also, Craig was not just part of the Republican party, but a major proponent of anti-homosexual measures. Just like Haggard and Foley.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I feel sorry for us. This is our leadership?
I'm sick of the GOP touting the family values card. Someone needs to take it away from them and forbid them to use it to catch voters for the next 20 years.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, That's always been the GOP leadership.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Maybe it's a new platform. Family values include the occasional anonymous bathroom sex.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Well, he still hates gays, even if it is himself, so he's filling the primary qualification for how the GOP uses "family values".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Scott, That's always been the GOP leadership.
Well, not always. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:he still hates gays, even if it is himself, so he's filling the primary qualification for how the GOP uses "family values".
Someone more qualified (ie, one who self-identifies as being a Republican) will have to comment, but I don't think that this is a fair evaluation of the GOP position on homosexual individuals.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Aha! You've fallen into my trap.
The Republican party hasn't always been known as the Grand Old Party.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:he still hates gays, even if it is himself, so he's filling the primary qualification for how the GOP uses "family values".
Someone more qualified (ie, one who self-identifies as being a Republican) will have to comment, but I don't think that this is a fair evaluation of the GOP position on homosexual individuals.
I wait to be corrected by an actual republican, but I would imagine the GOP position is something along the lines of "we don't support the gay lifestyle".
It has always seemed to me that that is a way of implying that homosexuals are sexually promiscuous (sp?) and deviant while still being pc.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ha! I noticed your trap and planned my escape. The Republican Party has been the GOP since the 1870s. The religious right has only co-opted it more recently (like in my lifetime).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Curse you, boots! Curse you and your "knowledge" and "facts"!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sigh...I'm from Wisconsin. I was raised on stories about Republicans like Fightin' Bob LaFollette.
quote: "The purpose of this ridiculous campaign is to throw the country into a state of sheer terror, to change public opinion, to stifle criticism, and suppress discussion. People are being unlawfully arrested, thrown into jail, held incommunicado for days, only to be eventually discharged without ever having been taken into court, because they have committed no crime. But more than this, if every preparation for war can be made the excuse for destroying free speech and a free press and the right of the people to assemble together for peaceful discussion, then we may well despair of ever again finding ourselves for a long period in a state of peace. The destruction of rights now occurring will be pointed to then as precedents for a still further invasion of the rights of the citizen."
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sigh...I'm from Wisconsin. I was raised on stories about Republicans like Fightin' Bob LaFollette.
quote: "The purpose of this ridiculous campaign is to throw the country into a state of sheer terror, to change public opinion, to stifle criticism, and suppress discussion. People are being unlawfully arrested, thrown into jail, held incommunicado for days, only to be eventually discharged without ever having been taken into court, because they have committed no crime. But more than this, if every preparation for war can be made the excuse for destroying free speech and a free press and the right of the people to assemble together for peaceful discussion, then we may well despair of ever again finding ourselves for a long period in a state of peace. The destruction of rights now occurring will be pointed to then as precedents for a still further invasion of the rights of the citizen."
That sounds very libertarian. I like it!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Eh...not so much.
edit to add (for those of you not from Wisconsin):
LaFollette was a Progressive. He supported such newfangled ideas as minimum wage laws, government control of railroads and utilities, workman's compensation laws, progressive taxation, child labour laws. He fought against the Republican party becoming a "tool" for corporate interests.
He was endorsed and supported by socialists and labour unions.
Thus endeth your Wisconsin history lesson for the day.
[ August 29, 2007, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm saddened that he got caught soliciting anonymous sex in a bathroom and thinks that the important thing to defend is his sexual orientation.
The gender of the partner is not the crucial bit here, as far as I'm concerned. I'd be just as disgusted with someone soliciting anonymous heterosexual sex in a public space. Once you pile up infidelity to his spouse, harrassment of the person(s) he propositioned, sex in a public place, and the stupidity of risking STD by soliciting anonymous partners plus putting his wife at risk for the same without her knowledge, homo- or hetero- doesn't really make all that much difference, IMO.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:The destruction of rights now occurring will be pointed to then as precedents for a still further invasion of the rights of the citizen
Certainly looks libertarian to me. Not to say that someone of another political stripe couldn't or shouldn't say it. It just seems to me that, at least recently, only the libertarians have been saying things like that.
As in all things, I could be wrong, and I wait to be corrected. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
See my edit above.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: See my edit above.
Then I am corrected. He doesn't sound libertarian, but the statement of his you posted sounded along those lines.
And I'm always interested in my favorite cheese-making state.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Just goes to show that while the parties may change, the issues seem to repeat themselves.
I wish there were more Republicans like LaFollette these days. Heck, I wish there were more Democrats like LaFollette these days.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Javert, Are you talking about politicians or just people in general?
Because I'm hearing what you quoted from just about everyone these days except for hardcore Bush loyalists.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Maybe he was trying to campaign for reelection, one anonymous-gay-bathroom-sex-loving voter at a time.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Really Squicky? What I tend to hear from a lot of people is more of an emphasis on safety at the risk of taking away freedoms. But maybe I'm just sensitive to that.
----
Now here's a thought. Should we start a pool to guess which politician is next to be 'outed' in some way?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
'Cept he's from Idaho, and he was soliciting in Minnesota.
---
I always wonder if the wives of the definitely not gay politicians, who stand by their husbands 100%, go get STD tests anyway. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: 'Cept he's from Idaho, and he was soliciting in Minnesota.
Maybe he was practicing. Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
AFAIK Craig has not been proved guilty, and the evidence is not strong. He may be but he may not, and for us to assume he is is neither fair nor kind.
Maybe he can be proved guilty of hating gay people. Is there evidence?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Did you read the police report? It's available several places. I think the evidence that he was doing something unusual is pretty strong. I don't generally touch my foot to the foot of the person in the next stall, or run my hand repeatedly under the divider unless I've already asked if they can give me some toilet paper.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Qaz: AFAIK Craig has not been proved guilty, and the evidence is not strong. He may be but he may not, and for us to assume he is is neither fair nor kind.
Maybe he can be proved guilty of hating gay people. Is there evidence?
He pleaded guilty. I don't want to be naive or over simplistic, but if he plead (sp?) guilty, it seems to suggest he did something.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:AFAIK Craig has not been proved guilty, and the evidence is not strong. He may be but he may not, and for us to assume he is is neither fair nor kind.
He pled guilty. As such, the evidence isn't going to be delved into. (As an aside, he apparently was also investigated during the page sex scandal of the early 80s, thoguh no charges or other action was brought against him.)
I meant the "hating gay" thing largely in jest.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
I would not go with that principle. People plead guilty in order to avoid trial, which would be bad for his career.
I won't read the police report because it apparently has claims in it that I would rather not think about. I just would like to know if there was confirmation of the claims.
Proving he hates gay people should be relatively easy if he does, as much as campaigners give speeches. Edit: Squicky now says he was joking about that. But it's a pretty serious charge, morally; hate is a nasty thing.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
There's nothing explicit in the police report. As far as confirmation, it's his word against the police officer's. The report notes that after the officer showed his badge, Craig claimed that he just has a "wide stance" in the restroom and that he was reaching down to pick up a piece of paper on the floor. The police officer notes that there was no paper on the floor.
So he admits to touching the guy's foot, and to reaching around under the stall, but says those things don't mean what the police office thinks they mean. The excuse seems pretty weak.
How could you say the evidence was not strong when you hadn't (and won't) read it?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:AFAIK Craig has not been proved guilty, and the evidence is not strong.
Any one of the individual portions of his behavior could be construed as too weak, but when put together it looks like he was obviously cottaging.
It is most plausible that Craig had heard that that particular restroom was a tearoom hotspot -- which is exactly why cops had to go undercover to break it up -- and tried to solicit some glory-hole fun. Even more suspicious is his implausible explanations which involve illusory pieces of paper and -- if you accept his story at face value -- the extraordinary acrobatics he's got to engage upon just in order to use a toilet.
Then lest we forget he concealed the entire episode from his family and pled guilty.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:People plead guilty in order to avoid trial, which would be bad for his career.
How would a U.S. Senator bringing his resources to bear to crush a case where you, depsite not looking at it, assert that the evidence is not strong going to hurt his career?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
To those citing the guilty plea, it should be noted that it was to a crime with no sexual element at all. In other words, there is no admission from him about intent to engage in lewd behavior.
I don't think such an admission is necessary to form some very unflattering conclusions about Craig. But in the interest of accuracy, he did not plead guilty to "solicit[ing] some glory-hole fun."
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:AFAIK Craig has not been proved guilty, and the evidence is not strong.
Any one of the individual portions of his behavior could be construed as too weak, but when put together it looks like he was obviously cottaging.
It is most plausible that Craig had heard that that particular restroom was a tearoom hotspot -- which is exactly why cops had to go undercover to break it up -- and tried to solicit some glory-hole fun. Even more suspicious is his implausible explanations which involve illusory pieces of paper and -- if you accept his story at face value -- the extraordinary acrobatics he's got to engage upon just in order to use a toilet.
Then lest we forget he concealed the entire episode from his family and pled guilty.
I'm intrigued at your fluency in gay restroom sex lingo. Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Slate has put together a video re-enactment based on the officer's report. It's a little creepy, but not graphic. http://www.slatev.com/ Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
One thing I'm not clear on. As part of the plea agreement, Senator Craig apparently signed a legal document stating that he would not say that he was innocent of what he was pleading to.
Now, the direct quote I've heard is that he has denied he did anything "inappropriate". Is that not enough to violate this agreement?
If he did come out and say something that directly violated it, like "I did nothing illegal." what would the reprecussions be?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
What's with the 70s funk music that's playing during that video?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
YEAH creepy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm intrigued at your fluency in gay restroom sex lingo.
As a sociology major I invested a lot of study into really bizarre and fascinating observations. Landmark things with surprising results. Stuff like the Stanford Prison experiment, the Robber's Cave experiments, the Milgram experiment, and the Tearoom Trade.
Also I've accidentally wandered into some cottaging incidents in bathroms and, well, took it as a cue to wander right on back out again. Sometimes, as was the case with that airport restroom, you get a lotta guys trading hotspots on the internet and the undercover cops have to step in because it gets disgusting.
But, anyway, what Craig was doing was basically a dead ringer for a cottaging 'proposition.'
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:What's with the 70s funk music that's playing during that video?
Maybe that's what's piped through the intercom at that airport restroom. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As part of the plea agreement, Senator Craig apparently signed a legal document stating that he would not say that he was innocent of what he was pleading to.
I don't see such a covenant in the plea agreement. The closest I see is "I now make no claim that I am innocent of the charge to which I am entering a plea of guilty," which creates no restriction on future statements. I haven't seen probation requirements, but based on my experience in Virginia (which is not directly applicable to Minnesota) it would be unusual to see such a requirement there.
quote:Now, the direct quote I've heard is that he has denied he did anything "inappropriate". Is that not enough to violate this agreement?
Assuming such a requirement existed, and assuming such a requirement were constitutional (it might not be), the denial of doing anything "inappropriate" would likely not be a breach, because restrictions on speech are going to be construed strictly to reduce the amount of restricted speech. There are many acts that many people do not consider "inappropriate" but acknowledge to be illegal, and restricting someone's ability to have and express such an opinion would go far beyond a requirement that a person not state they were innocent.
quote:If he did come out and say something that directly violated it, like "I did nothing illegal." what would the reprecussions be?
Assuming the restriction to exist, be constitutional, and to have been violated, then it might be possible to rescind the conviction and sentencing and try the Senator on the original charges.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ahh...I either missed the now or my source did.
Posted by Vamp96 (Member # 9030) on :
Are there actually "official" signals people use to solicit sex in restrooms? Too freaky!
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
From now on, I'm just going to hold until I get home.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
There was a letter to the editor in the local newspaper today talking about the "new gay culture" vs. the "old gay culture". The author felt that people who solicit anonymous sex in bathrooms might feel threatened by the more open gay culture -- more gays in stable relationships means fewer guys available for anonymous sex.
I doubt that's what went through Sen. Craig's head when he opposed gay rights, but it's an interesting thought. It kind of doesn't seem that the move toward openness has led to less anonymous bathroom sex, either, but maybe that sort of thing is just getting more press these days.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
lol idaho is full of winners
quote:The Idaho Values Association has called on Craig to resign: “No member of the Republican Party in the 1860s could represent his party and be a slaveholder at the same time. Nor can the Republican Party of today speak with authority and clarity to the moral issues that confront our society and at the same time send ambivalent messages about sexual behavior.” Did they just equate being gay with being a slave-holder? I think so.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
It could also be interpretted as equating adulterers with slaveowners, but yes.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Considering some of the Republican primary front-runners, adultery doesn't seem to be that huge a deal with many Republicans.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Ah, let's be careful to distinguish between "being openly gay" and "showing intent to engage in lewd or indecent public behavior."
---
Edited to add: I don't know which (or if either) of the two is meant by the writer in Samprimary's quotation, but I wanted to be explicitly clear about acknowledging the difference in this thread.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: It could also be interpretted as equating adulterers with slaveowners, but yes.
I wish, but no -- it's about being gay.
quote:IVA REGRETFULLY CALLS FOR SENATOR CRAIG’S RESIGNATION IF ACCUSATIONS ARE TRUE
By now virtually all of America is aware that Idaho’s Sen. Larry Craig pled guilty on August 8 in Minnesota to a charge that he engaged in lewd behavior in an airport restroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport. (The charge was technically reduced to disorderly conduct.)
There are disturbing questions raised by the police report (which you can read here) that the senator needs to address in full, so that Idahoans will have all the information they need to make an informed judgment about what happened and how it reflects on Sen. Craig’s fitness to continue in public office.
The report suggests that the senator was familiar with the protocol used by homosexuals to arrange anonymous sexual encounters, which, if true, indicates that this is not the first time the senator has practiced this behavior.
According to the Minnesota Monitor, the restroom where the senator was arrested is “well known among men who seek sex in public places.” Directions to this particular restroom are posted on a gay website bulletin board, and one visitor to the website said, “This is the best spot for anonymous action I’ve ever seen.”
The police officer had no motive to lie, particularly since he did not know who was in the adjacent stall at the time, whereas the senator, out of simple self-protection, had reason, when the events came to light, to shape them in a way that put his conduct in the best possible light.
It strains credulity to think that the senator can provide an explanation for his guilty plea if he did nothing more than accidentally brush someone’s foot with his shoe and pick up a piece of paper off the floor.
The Judeo-Christian tradition says that the standard for identifying the truth is that “by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact is confirmed.” The senator’s guilty plea, when added to the officer’s testimony, satisfies the biblical standard for confirming the essential truth of what happened, and unless the senator can provide a compelling and convincing explanation for his plea, we will need to regretfully accept that the fact of his behavior has been established. It seems unlikely that he can “unring the bell” his guilty plea has sounded.
If the senator did indeed engage in the behavior to which he pled guilty, then the appropriate thing for him to do is to resign from office. Character is an essential qualification for public service, and the essence of character is what you do when you do not think anyone is looking.
Additionally, the senator will need time to focus on his own rehabilitation and the needs of his family, and it will be virtually impossible for him to do that given the enormous demands placed on a senator’s time and energy.
Respect for the senator and courtesy for him and his family does suggest that he be given an opportunity to provide a satisfactory explanation for his conduct and his guilty plea, and answer tough and direct questions about the episode. If his answers prove unsatisfactory, the right thing for him to do will be to step down from public office.
Regardless of how this circumstance turns out, the families of Idaho will always owe Sen. Craig a debt of gratitude for his faithful advocacy for public policies that protected the sanctity of human life and the American family.
As the Executive Director of the Idaho Values Alliance, I received approximately five dozen emails and phone calls from homosexuals and gay sympathizers from all over the country yesterday afternoon and evening. The one thing they all shared in common was an unseemly glee over the senator’s apparent fall from grace.
Not one expressed compassion for the senator, or for the toll this incident must be taking on his family. To have such utter disregard for the anguish involved in this circumstance, from the very people who pride themselves on their compassion, is both revealing and disappointing. Perhaps they are not the paragons of tolerance they imagine themselves to be.
It is certainly time for people of faith to pray for Senator Craig and for his family, and my wife and I will be among those who lift him up before the God of grace and mercy.
One larger issue must be addressed. The Republican Party platform clearly rejects the agenda of homosexual activists. The Party, in the wake of the Mark Foley incident in particular, can no longer straddle the fence on the issue of homosexual behavior. Even setting Senator Craig’s situation aside, the Party should regard participation in the self-destructive homosexual lifestyle as incompatible with public service on behalf of the GOP.
No member of the Republican Party in the 1860s could represent his party and be a slaveholder at the same time. Nor can the Republican Party of today speak with authority and clarity to the moral issues that confront our society and at the same time send ambivalent messages about sexual behavior. It is time for the Republican Party to be the party that defends the American family in word, deed, and by personal example.
To note: It's a satellite group for the American Family Association.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Dag and Mr S: I had also seen a story on it (cnn.com) that made it sound like the plea included a future tense along the lines of "will not claim to be innocent" but looking for it now I can't find that part. It's possible they were corrected on the details and took out that part of the story.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Ah, let's be careful to distinguish between "being openly gay" and "showing intent to engage in lewd or indecent public behavior."
I agree that we should keep that defined. I have absolutely no problem with Craig being gay, if he is. I find it a bit sad and amusing that he happens to be politically against homosexuality, but if he is gay I'm fine with it.
I think soliciting anonymous sex in a public bathroom was an incredibly stupid thing to do, not to mention dangerous. And that is what we should be judging him on.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Not one expressed compassion for the senator, or for the toll this incident must be taking on his family. To have such utter disregard for the anguish involved in this circumstance, from the very people who pride themselves on their compassion, is both revealing and disappointing. Perhaps they are not the paragons of tolerance they imagine themselves to be."
Wow. While I agree that glee is the wrong attitude, it looks like the anguish homosexuals feel when they are marginalized and ostracized, an anguish reinforced by this very senator at every opportunity, is besides the point.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Or heck, the anguish that the worldview that they are pushing caused the Senator, which likely strongly contributed to his furtive self-destructive actions.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: How could you say the evidence was not strong when you hadn't (and won't) read it?
By "strong" I don't mean "not sufficiently graphic and awful," but "not corroborated."
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I realize what you mean. I still don't understand how you can make that judgement when you won't read the evidence.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:The gender of the partner is not the crucial bit here, as far as I'm concerned. I'd be just as disgusted with someone soliciting anonymous heterosexual sex in a public space. Once you pile up infidelity to his spouse, harrassment of the person(s) he propositioned, sex in a public place, and the stupidity of risking STD by soliciting anonymous partners plus putting his wife at risk for the same without her knowledge, homo- or hetero- doesn't really make all that much difference, IMO.
I just wanted to add my agreement to what dkw said. I've been more than a bit annoyed that the coverage of this situation seems to leave this aspect of it out entirely.
edit - though the fact that he's a republican who has fought against gay rights, and the hypocrisy involved in his actions, is newsworthy as well.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:.Did they just equate being gay with being a slave-holder? I think so.
Insofar as both were supported by Democrats, maybe. The underlying principle is that some things are wrong no matter how many people vote for them. (EDIT: Always look after hitting ctrl v)
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Ha! And rivka thought no one would ever believe we were the same person.
I told you the never-being-in-pictures-together thing would work.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
whoops, sorry dkw! don't know where that came from. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Well, that was gay sex does seem to be the defining characteristic of this story for many people. Consider the different reactions Senator David Vitter's daliance with prostitutes received earlier this year.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
And I'll agree with the general feeling that the paranoia about homosexuality as opposed to extramarital or non-consenting heterosexuality is... what's the word for something stupid that distacts people from the actual problem?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The Bush administration?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Considering some of the Republican primary front-runners, adultery doesn't seem to be that huge a deal with many Republicans.
Who else other than Giuliani? I wasn't aware of any adultery from Romney. McCain I don't even consider a frontrunner anymore, maybe Gov. Huckabee.
Anyway, the gay part of this doesn't even need to be an issue (although it's been seized upon as the defining charateristic), but the question of how Republicans can claim to be the party of moral family values when their senators and reps keep getting caught in these sex scandals is certainly alarming, and what's alarming is how many voters seem willing to look the other way when it comes to that behavior. And this coming from the party that STILL on a routine basis roasts President Clinton, out of office for seven years now, about his infidelities.
It gets harder every month to discern just what the Republican party stands for anymore.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: what's the word for something stupid that distacts people from the actual problem?
I believe the phrase you're seeking is "red herring".
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
What I found upsetting is Senator Craig's response. He is all over the radio and TV saying the following:
"I am not Gay. I love my wife. I love my kids."
The assumptions there, that homosexuals can not love family is insulting. That bisexual men who have wives and kids do not love them misses the point. The lack of love is demonstrated not by who you cheat with, but in the act of cheating itself.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Strangely enough, the Fox News article never once mentions Craig's party affiliation. I wonder why that is?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
They forgot to accidentally label him as a Democrat like they did with Foley?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:What I found upsetting is Senator Craig's response. He is all over the radio and TV saying the following:
"I am not Gay. I love my wife. I love my kids."
I could be wrong, but I can see this comment coming out of more, "I'm not gay, I really do love my wife, she isn't just some token wife to make me appear hetero." Wives are often grouped with children, especially for rhetorical effect, as sort of an appeal to the idea of a family.
Hence, "I am not Gay. I love my wife. I love my kids."
But I agree with you, he SHOULD be saying, "I cheated on my wife, and for that I am ashamed. I am an embarassment to my children, and I have not represented the ideals my state holds important."
Instead of talking about what he did and did not do, he should be talking about what he is going to do now.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't know. Maybe he just really likes anonymous bathroom sex.
I have to confess I'm snickering a bit at the image of a campagin ad:
NARRATOR: Larry Craig. (shot of Craig standing in front of flag) He's not gay. He just really likes anonymous bathroom sex.
All other parts aside, who spends two minutes looking through a bathroom stall trying to figure out if it's occupied? I mean, wouldn't you knock or something?
I do feel sorry for his wife, though. I'm sure like most political wives she's gone through a lot in the name of supporting her husband's career; to have it end with this kind of stupidity has got to be a huge slap in the face.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'd just like to point out that when someone is acting really really homophobic or is staunchly against equal rights for gay people... and someone suggests that the person must be gay and can't handle it....
It's because of stories like this. The people who hate homosexuality the most and who do the most to stand in the way of gay rights are FREQUENTLY gay or bisexual themselves and hate themselves for it.
Just like this gentleman.
Just like Foley.
Just like Rev Haggarty.
Who's next?
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
EIJay, I assume you have read the evidence, and you therefore know if there was corroboration of the policeman's claims. Was there?
--
OK, I bit the bullet and read it. There is no corroboration. I just wanted to confirm that.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Except the guilty plea is corroboration, Qaz. Unless you believe Craig when he says he pled guilty "to make it go away", without seeing a lawyer.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Pleading guilty just to make it go away is senseless. If he really didn't do anything wrong, and the evidence was that thin, I'm sure he could have made it go away a lot better by fighting it. Otherwise what is he saying about crime and punishment?
There's just no way I can see anyone spinning this that will have it come out in anything other than a negative light.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
This completely dashes the hopes of millions hoping for a reunion of The Singing Senators.
Last we heard, Jeffords and Lott were speaking to each other again and it was pretty clear that Ashcroft was game for a gig.
So things were looking pretty hopeful.
Until now.
(I'm trying for "whimsical wit" today. Be kind. I don't do "whimsical" much.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The cop seems pretty damned sure that he knows what happened, very sure. And he sounds pretty pissed towards the end when he says Craig is lying to him.
Craig may not be gay, and he may not have propositioned an officer for bathroom sex, but he is pretty stupid for an elected official.
Exercise your right to remain silent! He didn't have jack or sh** on you, moron!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Craig may not be gay, and he may not have propositioned an officer for bathroom sex, but he is pretty stupid for an elected official.
Exercise your right to remain silent! He didn't have jack or sh** on you, moron!
I like how you say that as if elected officials are supposed to be of superior or even adequate intelligence. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I like this officer.
"I'm just disappointed in you, sir," the officer said. "I mean, people vote for you."
Craig complaining that officers shouldn't try to trick people into committing crimes is ridiculous. It sounds like when you catch somebody in a lie and they say, "Well its wrong that you are trying to make me look bad! Don't you have better things to do?"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That officer had to put up with a good half hour of an indignant old man posturing, pitching a fit, and getting slapped in the face with the irrelevancy of his stuffed-shirt sense of invulnerability.
What's he get out of it? Well, the satisfaction of bringing the guy down.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
This whole saga is ridiculous, and no way you can possibly spin it does it sound right. If he plead guilty and he wasn't really guilty, as he now claims with his "fight like hell" comments, that means he lied, and plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit so he could avoid embaressment and punishment. If he really did it, well then he's guilty. No matter which way you spin it he is in the wrong.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
What dkw said.
You know, what's weird for me is that I know several gay men, but only one of them is not in a long term relationship. Two of them have been together as long as my husband and I have been married, and the one fellow who is single has a very complicated and unstable long term relationship that he seems very unhappy about (i.e. he'd like to settle down).
Being gay does not equal being promiscuous. It seems to me that the nature of anonymous sex in bathrooms or wherever is essentially destructive no matter what the gender of people involved.
In this type of case it either represents an inability to keep his promises (to be faithful to his wife) or a failure to adequately assess his ability to keep those promises before making them.
Sadly, neither is very shocking as a shortcoming of someone in politics.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If he plead guilty and he wasn't really guilty, as he now claims with his "fight like hell" comments, that means he lied
I'd actually like to see a national conversation on the pressures placed on people to plead to crimes they didn't commit.
This incident isn't the right one to spawn such a conversation. It's too laden with politics for that.
I would like to see some discussion in a less loaded context of the fact that people do plead guilty to crimes they don't believe they committed on a regular basis, although still as a very small percentage of guilty pleas and examine the system to see if the frequency of such pleas can be lessened without harming other aspects of the system.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I'd just like to point out that when someone is acting really really homophobic or is staunchly against equal rights for gay people... and someone suggests that the person must be gay and can't handle it....
On that note, I wonder how many of the more openly evangelical politicians are self-hating atheists/agnostics? Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I'd just like to point out that when someone is acting really really homophobic or is staunchly against equal rights for gay people... and someone suggests that the person must be gay and can't handle it....
On that note, I wonder how many of the more openly evangelical politicians are self-hating atheists/agnostics?
Or if perhaps folks like Richard Dawkins are actually frauds who know of God's existance but have chosen to wage war on Him anyway? Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Or if perhaps folks like Richard Dawkins are actually frauds who know of God's existance but have chosen to wage war on Him anyway?
I think the old Lunatic, Liar, or Lord theory would work here too. If Dawkins knows God exists and wants to wage war with Him, he would either be crazy to want to fight an omnipotent creator who he does not have the strength to defeat, he could be lying about the whole thing, and doesn't want to fight at all, or perhaps he is a deity himself. Perhaps he has the strength after all!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that, often, when people are adamant about condemning other people's demons, it is because they are fighting their own demons without knowing it. People with inner doubts that they don't want to face can be pretty loud about how sure they are.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I think that, often, when people are adamant about condemning other people's demons, it is because they are fighting their own demons without knowing it. People with inner doubts that they don't want to face can be pretty loud about how sure they are.
Sure, but the people that actually are pretty sure can behave the same way. Think of all the terrible people that make you angry (con artists, child molesters, Carrot Top) - do you think any of those represent your own repressed desires?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I said "often". I didn't mean to imply that it was a reliable indicator.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
MC: Of course it would fail in the same way it failed for CS Lewis, in that there are many other choices. For example, perhaps God exists but he's actually an Ori (as in Stargate)
kmbboots: Alternatively, politicians are really just a representative sample of the population. Despite the fact that they need to appear religious or anti-gay to get elected, maybe they have exactly the same rates of atheism or homosexual tendencies as in the population at large.
At the very least, I do not really see why politics as a career path would attract a disproportionate number of religious or homophobic candidates. Certainly not in the same way that science would tend to attract a disproportionate number of agnostics or atheists.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I don't think it is sure that science would attract a disporportionate number of agnostics or atheists. That's a myth. Certainly the vast majority of scientists' work has nothing to do with religious beliefs.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
You mean aside from chemistry, physics, biology, and medicine? Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
That's EXACTLY what I mean - what, exactly, about being a doctor would attract a disproportionate amount of atheists?
What is it about studying vaccines? Looking at genetic code? Synthesizing compounds? Conducting studies about the safety and efficacy of medicines?
Maybe, maybe, maybe theoretical physics, maybe - but that's it. The rest? Scientists work in labs and go home if they are tenured or work on articles to get published if they are not. What, exactly, about that life or study makes religious beliefs difficult?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: I don't think it is sure that science would attract a disporportionate number of agnostics or atheists. That's a myth. Certainly the vast majority of scientists' work has nothing to do with religious beliefs.
There have been a number of studies that indicate that atheists and agnostics are disproportionately represented within the sciences.
quote: The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism." Belief in the concept of human immortality, i.e. life after death declined from the 35.2% measured in 1914 to just 7.9%. 76.7% reject the "human immortality" tenet, compared with 25.4% in 1914, and 23.2% claimed "doubt or agnosticism" on the question, compared with 43.7% in Leuba's original measurement. Again, though, the highest rate of belief in a god was found among mathematicians (14.3%), while the lowest was found among those in the life sciences fields -- only 5.5%.
I don't think the rate is as high for medical doctors.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I don't think it is sure that science would attract a disporportionate number of agnostics or atheists. That's a myth. Certainly the vast majority of scientists' work has nothing to do with religious beliefs.
kat, do you have any data to back up the rather strong assertion that this is a myth? There have been many polls and studies showing that scientists profess atheism/agnosticism at a rate much higher than the general population.
For example, in a survey of the members of the National Academy of Sciences done in 1998, they found that a full 93% were either atheists or agnostics.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
How does it compare to the rest of the population?
Does that hold true for just scientists, or is it also true for PhDs in general? Even PhDs in economics or literature or history? Is it education level? Or economic level? Or did that not get studied?
517 invited, and only 250 responded. Hmm...I wonder if there was some self-selection in the pool that responded? It's a poor, poor study. Ironically, that study has all the scientific accuracy of a web poll on IMDB.
Surely your faith in the atheism of scientists has a better basis in logic than that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, Do you have any actual knowledge of the survey discussed? It seems to me that you are making an awful lot of definitive statements without having any actual knowledge as to the accuracy of these statements.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I'm ignoring you, Squicky, and so am not referring to anything in your posts.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: [QUOTE]Think of all the terrible people that make you angry (con artists, child molesters, Carrot Top) - do you think any of those represent your own repressed desires?
...I like Carrot Top. Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:How does it compare to the rest of the population?
It's almost an inverse of the numbers in the regular population.
quote:Does that hold true for just scientists, or is it also true for PhDs in general? Even PhDs in economics or literature or history? Is it education level? Or economic level? Or did that not get studied?
That study was just scientists. Other studies have shown a similar relationship between overall education level and disbelief.
quote:517 invited, and only 250 responded. Hmm...I wonder if there was some self-selection in the pool that responded? It's a poor, poor study. Ironically, that study has all the scientific accuracy of a web poll on IMDB.
Yes, selection bias can be an issue, but even if we assumed the other half of the respondents had unanimously gone the other direction, the rate of disbelief would still be much higher than we see in surveys of the population at large.
No, it's not a particularly rigorous study, but it's substantially more so than an anonymous internet poll. That was just an easy study for me to look up. There are others out there that cover the same general topics and have similar results. (I think there was one done earlier this year) I'll do some more digging if a have some time later today.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I'm ignoring you
And you're doing a bang up job of it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The proportion of agnostics/atheists in the general population is only 15%. link
An interesting link is from the Templeton Foundation, a pro Intelligent Design foundation who would have every reason to downplay the number of atheists and agnostics in science.
Their study which "found that over 60% of natural and social science professors are atheist or agnostic" says:
quote:...it appears that those from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately self-select into scientific professions. This may reflect the fact that there is tension between the religious tenets of some groups and the theories and methods of particular sciences and it contributes to the large number of non-religious scientists.
If people from both sides of the fence agree that there is self-segregation occurring, there's a pretty good chance it is. Whether scientific study *can create* atheism or agnosticism is a tougher call, but I think there is no debate that science does attract them disproportionately.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:Other studies have shown a similar relationship between overall education level and disbelief.
Exactly. Maybe, just maybe, it's due to factors that have more to do with who strives for and get graduate degrees and perhaps academia as a profession than it does with science itself.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Exactly. Maybe, just maybe, it's due to factors that have more to do with who strives for and get graduate degrees and perhaps academia as a profession than it does with science itself.
Could be. All I know is that the data for scientists being much more atheistic than the general population is pretty strong. I have not speculated on what the cause of that correlation might be.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Exactly. Maybe, just maybe, it's due to factors that have more to do with who strives for and get graduate degrees and perhaps academia as a profession than it does with science itself.
That doesn't actually speak against what was said, though, even leaving aside the fact that surveys of non-scientific academics often show significantly lower rate of atheism than scientists.
That other roles that share aspects of what the scientists do also attract atheists doesn't have much to say about whether science attracts atheists.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I can only speak for myself, but the more I learned about science, the less a lot of the things religion taught me held any water.
I love the irony that Jesus said, "You shall know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
True dat, Jesus. Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Same here. As my interest in religion waned my interest in science increased dramatically.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Things religion taught you, MightyCow, seem to be different than the things religion has taught me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Matt, You just reversed what MC said. He's saying he learned about science, which decreased his impression of religion. You said your impression of religion decreased, which led to an increase in your interest in science.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Things religion taught you, MightyCow, seem to be different than the things religion has taught me.
That'd be true of most people, though, wouldn't it boots?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I hope religion taught you some good stuff kmbboots.
I was taught a lot of mythology with no evidence and no more inherent truth than any other mythology which we consider nothing more than stories. I was taught that faith in authority figures in the face of contradictory evidence is a virtue. I was given countless different and often contradictory explanations of the same basic ideas, and expected to believe that some of these ideologies were of more value than others for no clear reason. I was introduced to completely illogical ideas and unreasonable conclusions.
Basically, there's a lot of stuff that doesn't make a lot of sense or hold up to serious scrutiny.
I was taught some useful things too, but none of them require religious faith to keep their utility.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Matt, You just reversed what MC said. He's saying he learned about science, which decreased his impression of religion. You said your impression of religion decreased, which led to an increase in your interest in science.
I didn't mean to imply causation one way or the other. Either could have been causal or both events may have been mutually reinforcing or merely coincidental.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
MrSquicky, I would imagine that there are degrees of "different", but certainly, everyone takes away something different. There does seem, though, to be a somewhat homogeneous idea of what religion teaches and I am interested in challenging that idea.
MightyCow, yeah, I didn't get that.
edit to add: and I'm sorry that was inflicted on you.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Has anyone been following the Craig story?
This whole saga is becoming more than just a headache for Republicans, it's a nightmare. Craig is now saying that he does NOT intend to resign, that he wants the ethics committee to throw out the case and will try to get his guilty plea overturned, which, given what you need to have that happen (either were coersed or didn't understand the situation, something he specifically said wasn't the case when he signed his plea) is nearly impossible, and that if he can have that happen he will stay in and run again.
Republicans are now privately AND publicly calling for him to step down and get out of the way. Democrats are saying a private misdemeanor that has nothing to do with his duties shouldn't mean he has to leave the Senate, but it's no surprise why they want him to stay there. First of all, at least half of Idaho's Republicans aren't going to vote for him when he's up for reelection in 2008, it'll hand the seat over to Democrats, something that might happen anyway. And if he stays for the next year, he'll be a Republican punching bag.
Robert Novak, of all Republican analysts is saying that the GOP stands to lose as many as 6 Senate seats in 08, giving Democrats a real majority, and maybe another dozen House seats, something I've been saying for months now.
But it isn't just Craig's mind changing that is the issue here. He left a voicemail on the wrong answering machine saying something along the lines of 'I'm going to give this press conference where I say I MIGHT resign, but leave open the option to not resign. We'll see what the reaction is and if it's good, then we'll fight this thing.'
He's also hired the best lawyers in DC for fightings an ethics battle on Capitol Hill.
Republican leaderships wants him gone. It's not just a behind closed doors matter anymore, they want him out. I think there's a bit of hypocrisy in how they are handling the situation though, this isn't how they handled the situation in that DC Madam case where a Republican (Vitter?) was accused and admitted to wrong doing in that case.
But come on, what the hell is Craig thinking? First he argues with the cop, then in what looks like an effort to just make the whole thing go away he pleads guilty, then months later when the guilty plea actually sees the light of day he says he didn't do it, but he's going to leave, but he'll fight like hell, then we hear that the whole thing was a PR stunt to gauge reaction and he's actually going to fight it. His story changes on a daily basis, and every time it changes he looks more underhanded and shady, to say nothing of the original sin that from the POV of the cop, it looks like he actually committed.
We've already had the argument on this thread I think over whether or not the GOP can even hope to hold onto their mantle as the "family values party." What about the argument over whether or not the party has any common fricken sense anymore?
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Just out of curiousity, if you look at the demographics of atheists, how does that hold up against average population (for ex- are men and women represented evenly). Looking around at the scientists here, there are selection biases beyond religion such as gender, race, parent's education level. It might be interesting to compare scientist and atheist percentages.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Atheists are significantly over-represented among scientists as a percentage of the population.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Of course, it's hard to prove which is cause, and which effect.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Atheists are significantly over-represented among scientists as a percentage of the population.
Criminey I can't remember the study that concluded that in the US. The one where as scholastic degree attainment increased, faith in God decreased for all faiths. With Mormonism bucking the trend to a significant degree.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*grin* I imagine that it helps that BYU is still seen by many Mormons as practically a pilgrimage. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
"all faiths"?
I suspect degree attainment didn't change faith in God among Buddhists and Taoists Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
blah blah blah academia elite darwinist materialist coverup conspiracy blah blah
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
blah blah blah irrelevant reference to something not being discussed blah blah
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Has anyone been following the Craig story?
I don't see how you can possibly avoid seeing coverage on Craig. Everywhere I turn this is all I hear about which is disappointing because there is a lot more going on in the world than this small story.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
You could live in Canada The only place were I've encountered this story is here on Hatrack.
Edit to add: Technically, the Daily Show too, but I was more thinking in terms of serious outlets/media.
[ September 06, 2007, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I don't see how you can possibly avoid seeing coverage on Craig. Everywhere I turn this is all I hear about which is disappointing because there is a lot more going on in the world than this small story.
To be fair, this pales in comparison to the amount of attention given, say, the Clinton sex scandal.
To be fairer, a pretty substantial amount of the attention is being brought on by Republican politicians and Republican political groups.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Just now I caught the middle of an interesting NPR show on "The Ethics of Outing." They had the blogger who had outed Craig a year ago and the CEO of a damage-control consulting firm as guests. I'll probably try to find the podcast version on NPR's website after work to listen to the rest of it.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Has anyone been following the Craig story?
I don't see how you can possibly avoid seeing coverage on Craig. Everywhere I turn this is all I hear about which is disappointing because there is a lot more going on in the world than this small story.
First off, congratulations for not even saying the words "liberal media." I'm impressed, and I say that honestly.
Second, you can really blame the Republicans for that. They're keeping it in the news. If Craig had disclosed this when it first happened, it would have died over the summer, but instead he plead guilty in an attempt to cover it up, and then when it hit the news, as these things ALWAYS do, he created a media circus. He's retiring, he's not retiring, now he IS retiring again, he's guilty, he's not guilty, he wants his guilty plea thrown out.
And then you've got all the Republicans in the leadership, Arlen Spector is apparently saying he supports Craig, but then declined to comment on it, and Mitch McConnell and others are quoted as saying they want him to leave.
And you know, I mean you KNOW that if there was a scandal about Democrats then Republicans would RAIL against them. Why? Because they are the family values party, or at least they lay claim to it. And instead you see Democrats saying they don't think Craig should have to resign, depending on what the ethics committee says. It's a misdemeanor that has nothing to do with his duties as a senator. I think the Democrats are playing it perfectly too, and thank god they are backing off that hyperaggressive do nothing crap they were pulling before.
But seriously, shouldn't you be more mad at Craig and the Republicans for putting themselves in that situation rather than CNN for reporting about it?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: And you know, I mean you KNOW that if there was a scandal about Democrats then Republicans would RAIL against them.
There are plenty of scandals against Democrats that are being ignored by everyone. Like Hillary Clinton and her suspicious fundraising activities. I think Republicans are making a mistake by not bringing up what could be a serious crime. I feel like Republicans have been 'trained' to immediately attack and disown any other Republican who may or may not have done something wrong, no matter how small. Democrats are smarter by just ignoring whatever scandals they are involved in and keep going forward like nothing happened. William Jefferson is a great recent example of that. Had he been a Republican, this would have been headline news on all channels and he would have been run out of office by both parties. It's almost like by standing for something the Republicans have backed themselves into the corner. It's human nature, I guess, to attack anyone who stands for something as soon as you might see a chink in the armor.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You mean like when John Murtha, retired Vietnam vet who lost three limbs fighting for his country was run out of office by lying Republican funded hacks for being unpatriotic? Yeah, your group are a bunch of real stand up guys.
And when it happened, William Jefferson was a very big story, but he also didn't continually shoot himself in the foot. Besides, what about that recent DC madam scandal where the Republican involved admitted he was wrong, and the Republican leadership didn't utter a peep about kicking him out. I guess you only earn Republican ire if you have a GAY sex scandal. So good for you, Republicans are making a principled stand on gay bashing.
And again, the Hillary story has been in the news. But she also helped to defuse the situation by giving all the money in question away to a charity, whereas Craig never misses an opportunity to keep dropping chum in the waters, as if we're all naively unaware that the press corps is a group of hungry sharks. For Hillary, that might not make the legal issues go away, I'm SURE that that's being worked on behind the scenes, but are you suggesting that those big issues facing the country that we should be talking about include Hillary's campaign and not Republican sex scandals?
Your party isn't being singled out, the guy in question is just being uncommonly good at attracting attention.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: You mean like when John Murtha, retired Vietnam vet who lost three limbs fighting for his country was run out of office by lying Republican funded hacks for being unpatriotic? Yeah, your group are a bunch of real stand up guys.
Lyrhawn, this isn't Murtha. The person you're referring to is Max Cleland. And while Cleland was fighting in Vietnam, he lost his limbs due to a stupid accident involving a grenade mismanaged by another soldier.
Murtha is still in the House - and I believe he had some serious ethics issues (and may still have) prior to his status as a champion of the anti-war voice in Congress.
People are complicated. Our ex-governor was a corrupt, thieving scoundrel. He also did the right thing for the right reasons when he commuted all death sentences after 17 prisoners on death row had been found to be innocent or wrongly convicted.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It does get tricky trying to keep track of all the actual veterans that the Bush White House has labeled "unpatriotic".
sndrake, so you're in Illinois, too?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:sndrake, so you're in Illinois, too?
Gee, how'd you guess?
Yep - live and work in Chicagoland.
Specifically, I work out of an office that's a converted corner of a storeroom in Forest Park.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
BTW, back on the original topic, I surprised myself when I started to think through the issue of Craig being investigated by the Ethics Committee. I listened to his attorney arguing against that - with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council taking the other side.
I realized I believe Craig's attorney is right. This incident doesn't belong in the Ethics Committee and if it *does* then there are a lot of other Congressional members of both parties who should be investigated for their private behavior.
Is that really what we want? Or what ethics investigations are supposed to be about?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:blah blah blah irrelevant reference to something not being discussed blah blah
You are in geostationary orbit above the sarcasm. Your sensors can pick it up.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ah Cleland, damn. For some reason I've never been able to understand, I always get those two guys mixed up. Thanks for the correction sndrake.
But I think it's pretty damned callous to dismiss his war injuries because they were an accident. What difference does it really make? He still went, he still served, he was still injuried. Did he have to have a limb hacked off by the VC for it to count? And have those who've died in Iraq from friendly fire not really been serving or dying for America because they weren't hit by an RPG or IED?
Apologies if you weren't doing that, but it sounded like dismissal.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:blah blah blah irrelevant reference to something not being discussed blah blah
You are in geostationary orbit above the sarcasm. Your sensors can pick it up.
Yes, they can. Hence the response.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: You mean like when John Murtha, retired Vietnam vet who lost three limbs fighting for his country was run out of office by lying Republican funded hacks for being unpatriotic? Yeah, your group are a bunch of real stand up guys.
I think this entire statement is false yet it does show a lot of the bias I am talking about. sndrake already corrected you on this being Democrat Max Cleland. As for Murtha, he was heavily involved in ABSCAM scandal, he has earmarked hundreds of millions of dollars in pork spending for my state, and rushed to confirm US Marines as being cold blooded murderers when lately that is becoming less and less clear and it seems the Marines might not be as guilty as we were rushed to believe they were.
quote: And again, the Hillary story has been in the news. But she also helped to defuse the situation by giving all the money in question away to a charity
She gave $23,000 to a charity yet there is still at least $200,000 more in contributions to her and other Democratic candidates so she did not give back all the money in question. I haven't heard anything further about this scandal on network news.
quote: And again, the Hillary story has been in the news.
Compare how much Hillary's story has been in the news as opposed to Craig's story. There is a huge difference.
quote: but are you suggesting that those big issues facing the country that we should be talking about include Hillary's campaign and not Republican sex scandals?
I did not say that it shouldn't be covered but does foot touching in a bathroom (there was no sex) really warrant continous daily coverage? Hillary received maybe one story on a few networks, while we have Craig being covered every day for hours at a time. Craig was not caught having a homosexual affair and even if he was, isn't that his own personal life and we should stay out of it?
quote: Your party isn't being singled out, the guy in question is just being uncommonly good at attracting attention.
Is he? Or is it that all the news media is latched onto this story and for some reason will not let it go?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:But I think it's pretty damned callous to dismiss his war injuries because they were an accident. What difference does it really make? He still went, he still served, he was still injuried. Did he have to have a limb hacked off by the VC for it to count? And have those who've died in Iraq from friendly fire not really been serving or dying for America because they weren't hit by an RPG or IED?
Apologies if you weren't doing that, but it sounded like dismissal.
That's a lot to get out of what I wrote. First, as a voter, given the choice between Cleland and Chambliss, Cleland would be the obvious choice.
But I get tired of the tendency in both parties to gloss the simple facts. When Cleland was working the campaign trail with Kerry, they often did describe him in a way that implied his injuries were battle-related.
OTOH, I know there were some of the conservative attack dogs who took it in the other direction. At least one of them - Coulter, I think - suggested that Cleland's injuries were the result of carelessness and maybe intoxication.
The context matters to some voters - not to me. But I think that some voters somehow respect someone for being wounded in battle more than being wounded in an accident. Doesn't make it right but it does make it a political reality.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:BTW, back on the original topic, I surprised myself when I started to think through the issue of Craig being investigated by the Ethics Committee. I listened to his attorney arguing against that - with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council taking the other side.
I realized I believe Craig's attorney is right. This incident doesn't belong in the Ethics Committee and if it *does* then there are a lot of other Congressional members of both parties who should be investigated for their private behavior.
I basically agree. What they wanted to call an investigation of seemed to me to be a private matter.
The Republican leadership claimed that is wasn't just private because he pled guilty to a crime. However, the crime he pled to was a pretty minor misdemeanor. I very much doubt that they would act at all the same if another Senator pled to or was convicted of a misdemeanor of similar gravity, unless of course he did it in pursuit of some hot gay sex.
---
edit:
Ultimately, in this case, I think that the actual wrong that he did shouldn't force him to immediately step down. It was a personal issue that is only being focused on because the Republicans very much want to distance themselves from the gay aspect of it. I think, given his stances, statements, and constituents, that it might be better for him to voluntarily step down, but I don't think the Republican leadership has a leg to stand on in demanding that he do so.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
BTW, a favorite blogger of mine has pointed out that one prominent group hasn't bailed on Craig:
I forget the examples, but Craig's lawyer did cite members of Congress who have been convicted of misdemeanors -- the kind not relating to the performance of their duties, like Craig's. None of them have been subjected to a Congressional ethics investigation.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Craig was not caught having a homosexual affair and even if he was, isn't that his own personal life and we should stay out of it?
C L I N T O N Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:Craig was not caught having a homosexual affair and even if he was, isn't that his own personal life and we should stay out of it?
C L I N T O N
Clinton was accused of lying about information during the discovery phase of a civil suit that accused him making inappropriate sexual advances with a state employee while he was governor. The judge who dismissed the case never ruled on the factual merits of her accusation - rather, she ruled that even if the alleged behavior by Clinton was true (behavior that would be roundly condemned by most people), there was no evidence that the plaintiff was damaged by the behavior. Because it was only a single incident, she could not demonstrate sexual harassment.
The information happened to be a personal affair with an intern - something definitely relevant to the discovery in that trial. While he was not convicted in the Senate for his statements about that affair, he was found in civil contempt, ordered to pay attorneys fees associated incurred because of his evasive and misleading answers, and was disbarred for 5 years. The statements that were evasive and misleading were about that personal affair.
So no, we shouldn't stay out of a personal affair that involves an attempt to avoid civil liability arising from alleged abuses of power while the politician was governor.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
If the abuse of power had been the primary focus of the majority of the smearing going on during the Clinton sex scandal, I'd say you have a point.
All I heard was "HE'S A LIAR AND A CHEATER IMPEACH."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: If the abuse of power had been the primary focus of the majority of the smearing going on during the Clinton sex scandal, I'd say you have a point.
All I heard was "HE'S A LIAR AND A CHEATER IMPEACH."
Although I don't agree with your characterization of the majority of the statements made criticizing Clinton during his sexual harassment impeding discovery scandal, even your assessment introduces a qualitative difference between the Clinton and Craig situations.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So it doesn't bother democrats that Clinton used his dominion over women in employment situations to get sex? Shouldn't that be as offensive to your liberal sensibilities as homosexuality is to your imagined rubric of a conservative? (It did me. I was a democrat in '92).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So because Clinton slept with an intern, you switched parties and supported Bush twice?
Man. There are some dead Iraqis who're probably very sorry that Clinton couldn't keep it in his pants.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Funny. I was a Republican in '92.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: So because Clinton slept with an intern, you switched parties and supported Bush twice?
Man. There are some dead Iraqis who're probably very sorry that Clinton couldn't keep it in his pants.
Oh right, as if everyone who supported Bush can reasonably be argued to have known that a vote for Bush = a war in Iraq.
If we followed your logic,
There are some dead Iraqi's who are probably very sorry that Bush Sr made that promise about no new taxes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Oh right, as if everyone who supported Bush can reasonably be argued to have known that a vote for Bush = a war in Iraq.
The second time around, I would argue that it was indisputable. The first election was simply unfortunate; the second time was pretty much a solid and obvious repudiation of American benevolence.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Oh right, as if everyone who supported Bush can reasonably be argued to have known that a vote for Bush = a war in Iraq.
The second time around, I would argue that it was indisputable. The first election was simply unfortunate; the second time was pretty much a solid and obvious repudiation of American benevolence.
Unless you were on the, "Well we are already there and the milk has spilled, it would be a bigger mistake to just pull out."
I call it the, "If you fired the barbed harpoon amiss, don't yank it out" defense.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Or the fantastical fairy-tale notion of "our problems will be solved by the minds that created and support them!"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Yeah, we're killing kids. But we can't stop now, because if we stop before we achieve our objectives, we killed all those kids for nothing."
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:So because Clinton slept with an intern, you switched parties and supported Bush twice?
This is the kind of "boys will be boys" winking at Clinton that totally mystifies me.
And yes, I did vote for Bush twice, and I support the war. Your point?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or as some of us like to call it, "a sense of proportion".
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: the second time was pretty much a solid and obvious repudiation of American benevolence.
In your opinion...
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Is it a sense of proportion that has caused some to compare this war to Vietnam pretty much from its inception?
P.S. My original point, before someone cried "Pirate!" was that sexual harassment should be as much of an affront to liberals as homosexuality is to conservatives.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: "Yeah, we're killing kids. But we can't stop now, because if we stop before we achieve our objectives, we killed all those kids [i]for nothing."
Actually, that reminds me of Madeleine Albright on CNN when she was asked if the sanctions were "worth it."
...that wasn't a deliberate allusion, was it?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, the sense of proportion to which I was refering was that between sexual harassment and hundreds of thousands of dead people.
But, you are right, it isn't fair to compare Iraq to Vietnam. We got off to a much faster start to piling up the bodies in Iraq than we did in Vietnam.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Comparing the sexual harrassment to Iraq and therefore winking at the sexual harassment because it doesn't involve dead bodies does an extreme disservice to...heck, centuries of exploitation of females and makes one complicit in abuses of power.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I thought we were comparing reasons for not voting for someone? Some people didn't vote for Clinton because of his sexual activites (some harassment, some not); others people didn't vote for Bush because he was responsible for a lot of people dying.
That doesn't make either thing right. It does make it legitimate to compare them.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
That's what I mean - they are alike in that both arise from abuses of power. Perpetuating the myth that it's okay for people in places of power to use that power to coerce sex from their employees is what happens if you mock not voting for Clinton because of his sexual activities.
I really think that if he were sleeping with, say, the daughters of his friends (or his daughter's friends) as opposed to his employees, there would have been a very different reaction. That people would probably be more shocked by the former rather than less underlines the importance of making a big deal about what he did do - they shouldn't be.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I really think that if he were sleeping with, say, the daughters of his friends (or his daughter's friends) as opposed to his employees, there would have been a very different reaction.
I don't.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:I thought we were comparing reasons for not voting for someone?
That's where Tom went. I was talking, foolishly, I'll grant, on the thread topic which was what offenses might have an ironic flavor given the party of the offender.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I guess what I am "mocking" (if it really is that) is the notion that Clinton's abuse of power was worse than Bush's.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: That's what I mean - they are alike in that both arise from abuses of power. Perpetuating the myth that it's okay for people in places of power to use that power to coerce sex from their employees is what happens if you mock not voting for Clinton because of his sexual activities.
Granting the rest of your statement, the requirement should be twofold: "not voting for Clinton because of his sexual activities and voting for Bush in spite of the deaths he has caused." Suggesting that sexual abuse of power is -- or should be -- a less important voting criterion than thousands upon thousands of deaths doesn't inherently trivialize sexual abuse of power as a voting criterion.
Presumably, though, people who actually fit my quoted description consider the deaths to be justified in some way (e.g. support the war).
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:Presumably, though, people who actually fit my quoted description consider the deaths to be justified in some way (e.g. support the war).
It's because of this that I don't equate the two. I think the war is just complex enough that an argument could be made that it was necessary or right-in-the-end to perpetuate it.
The same argument couldn't be made for Clinton's sexual harassments.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: "Yeah, we're killing kids. But we can't stop now, because if we stop before we achieve our objectives, we killed all those kids for nothing."
pooka, the democrats aren't making a particularly big deal about the possibility that Senator Craig might be gay*. It is the Republicans who seem to be climbing over each other to distance themselves from him.
* Except that it somewhat undermines his anti-gay political stance.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Does it? "Don't be gay or else you might end up a United States Republican senator soliciting in bathrooms like me!"
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually, most of the Dems who have spoken publicly have expressed sympathy for the stressful time Sen. Craig and his family are going through.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right. So where is the irony?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: "Yeah, we're killing kids. But we can't stop now, because if we stop before we achieve our objectives, we killed all those kids for nothing."
I didn't vote for Bush in 04, I'm just saying why I think you could have voted for him without being a baby killer.
Thing is as it stands I know the Republicans did not do the job I wanted them to do in the last 4 years, but I still have no confidence that the Democrats would have done better had they won.
So its basically reality vs my own judgment, either way I'm not happy.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
[ September 07, 2007, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm going to assume the President is just very bad at jokes, instead of a liar (with the excuse).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think someone should have given him a breathalyzer. I didn't think even he was that stupid. And frankly I still don't think he's that stupid, I think, like a great many of his mistakes, he's just not really thinking about what he's saying, it just comes out. Obviously the President knows the difference between Austria and Australia, and god willing, between APEC and OPEC. I do find it surprising that seven years into his presidency, he still can't muster the brain power to check himself before those things escape his lips.
Generally when you hear attacks on Clinton, they are for having sex, and lying about sex. The complaints by and large I have ever heard against him have nothing to do with his conduct as a governor. That's just personal experience, with Republicans I've met and what I've seen on network tv. It's the sort of thing Republicans use to try and paint Democrats as bad on family values and themselves as saints. And I wouldn't be surprised to see the Craig thing even come back to haunt Democrats.
Like Chris said, Democrats are being pretty nice about the whole thing. They are focusing on Iraq, with the major reports out and more coming, they aren't talking about Craig. Republicans and the media are the only ones talking about it, and Craig himself keeps the story going because he won't shut up. Democratic leadership has already said they don't think he should have to leave the senate, and this must be a difficult time for his family. I wouldn't be surprised to see Republicans try and use that as evidence that Democrats aren't tough enough on offenders against the American family, but they might shoot themselves in the foot if they try.
Personally, I'd like to see the story go away. I would say that I don't care anymore, except I never cared to begin with. Democrats are already moving on, the Republicans need to as well. We've got bigger issues and they need to be focused on that, and not Craig's bathroom behavior. I think what he does, or doesn't do, is between him, his family and the good people of Idaho, not the rest of us.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
*resists*
*resists*
*fails*
And whoever's in the next stall.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Generally when you hear attacks on Clinton, they are for having sex, and lying about sex. The complaints by and large I have ever heard against him have nothing to do with his conduct as a governor. That's just personal experience, with Republicans I've met and what I've seen on network tv.
Then you really haven't been watching much network tv. There were (and to a much lesser extent due to him being out of office for almost 7 years now, are) a lot of criticisms of his policies and the way he governed.
Look, I agree that Clinton was criticized for some things unfairly and that some people who criticized him then have posed contradictory arguments. But this myth that the Lewinski scandal is generally the only thing he's criticized for has been becoming more popular recently, and it's not true.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Article I Section 6 of the United States Constitution The Senators and Representatives...shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same
Minnesota Statutes 2006 609.72 DISORDERLY CONDUCT. Subdivision 1. Crime. Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor: (1) Engages in brawling or fighting; or (2) Disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or (3) Engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.
Even IF we accept the arresting officer's assertion that a "secret code" was being used, I still haven't read anything which indicates that Craig's conduct or language was offensive, obscene, abusive, or tending to reasonably arouse alarm, anger, or resentment.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This clause is practically obsolete. It applies only to arrests in civil suits, which were still common in this country at the time the Constitution was adopted. 376 It does not apply to service of process in either civil 377 or criminal cases. 378 Nor does it apply to arrest in any criminal case. The phrase ''treason, felony or breach of the peace'' is interpreted to withdraw all criminal offenses from the operation of the privilege. 379
In the case establishing the rule in the last sentence above, the Court accepted this argument as valid:
quote:the words 'breach of the peace' should not be narrowly construed, but should be held to embrace substantially all crimes, and therefore as in effect confining the parliamentary privilege exclusively to arrests in civil cases. And this is based not merely upon the ordinary acceptation of the meaning of the words, but upon the contention that the words 'treason, felony, and breach of the peace,' as applied to parliamentary privilege, were commonly used in England prior to the Revolution, and were there well understood as excluding from the parliamentary privilege all arrests and prosecutions for criminal offenses; in other words, as confining the privilege alone to arrests in civil cases, the deduction being that when the framers of the Constitution adopted the phrase in question they necessarily must be held to have intended that it should receive its well-understood and accepted meaning.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Generally when you hear attacks on Clinton, they are for having sex, and lying about sex. The complaints by and large I have ever heard against him have nothing to do with his conduct as a governor. That's just personal experience, with Republicans I've met and what I've seen on network tv.
Then you really haven't been watching much network tv. There were (and to a much lesser extent due to him being out of office for almost 7 years now, are) a lot of criticisms of his policies and the way he governed.
Look, I agree that Clinton was criticized for some things unfairly and that some people who criticized him then have posed contradictory arguments. But this myth that the Lewinski scandal is generally the only thing he's criticized for has been becoming more popular recently, and it's not true.
To be fair then, if the majority of those arguments came before seven years ago, I probably didn't hear them. When he was elected in 1992, I was eight, and wasn't watching a ton of CNN. When he left office is about when I started really paying attention to politics, when I was 16. So a lot of that probably happened when I wasn't looking. But today, right now, that's not what I hear.
But then I don't watch much Fox News, where you're probably more likely to hear that. I don't know where you've seen it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For what it is worth, I was both a grown up and a Republican and I didn't hear it either. I wasn't paying that much attention, though.
When I started paying attention, I started voting Democrat.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: "Yeah, we're killing kids. But we can't stop now, because if we stop before we achieve our objectives, we killed all those kids for nothing."
I see that Craig is in the news AGAIN, blaming his guilty plea on anything from a newspaper investigating him to the police officer suggesting it was the easy way out.
From everything I have read about Hillary, I don't see any damning evidence. The issue with Hsu is that he may have spread around a bunch of money and those donors gave to Hillary. Hillary gave the money she was sure was illegally given to a charity, but they are still checking to see whether the other claims have merit or not. How do you believe she should have handled the situation? And the claim in 2000 was thrown out because of her first amendment rights.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Sgt. Karsna ...pointed toward the exit, at which time the defendant (Larry Craig) exclaimed NO!!!!
It's official. Despite a withering judgment denying his attempt to withdraw his guilty plea, Sen Craig has announced he's not resigning. As noted in my second link, he violates 2 promises here:
quote: Craig's decision today goes counter to not one, but two previous promises: First, his announced intention to resign by Sept. 30; and second, his office's assertion that if his request to withdraw the plea were denied, he'd step down.
I tried to think of another case in which a high official promised to resign by a certain date and then didn't, but I'm stumped.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Oh...to be honest, if I were a Senator, I wouldn't resign. They'd have to throw me out kicking and screaming.
Why would he resign? Retain goodwill? He already knows who his friends are and who has abandoned him. Resigning won't change that.
He'll be gone next election regardless. I certainly hope. I can't imagine Idaho voting for him again.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Sen. Craig said in his most recent statement he'd retire at the end of his term in 2008, not seeking reelection.
That's all true, Javert, but in that case, why promise to resign? It looks like Craig was pressured into pleading guilty, and also pressured into promising to resign. Both decisions he soon regretted and later reneged on. How did this guy ever get elected as a decision-maker?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Squirm, GOP, squirm!
Poor old craig. He thought he was going to cop a feel, but instead he felt a cop.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It was stupid to ever make that promise to begin with. He's just giving more fuel to a fire that could have been out by August if he had just fessed up to begin with and defused the situation.
It's ALWAYS worse when it comes out via the a surprise press story.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The cover up is always worse. A botched cover up is disaster.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: How did this guy ever get elected as a decision-maker?
Well I hate to rag on the poor ol' republicans but it's sort of the personality that their power structure has most aptly involved and retained.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Oh please. You have an examples of that, and then counter examples to illustrate it is only the Republicans?
Any time someone begins a lame insult with "I hate to..." you know at least first part of that sentence is baloney.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Is there actually any news on this?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Oh please. You have an examples of that, and then counter examples to illustrate it is only the Republicans?
Uh, who is saying that it is solely a republican trait, dude?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
The implication is certainly there. What did you mean if it wasn't that?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'd say the mere fact a senator is such a wimp that he blames a police officer for bamboozling him into pleading guilty as ground enough to chase him out of office. Talk about being easily swayed. What other crazy legislation has Craig backed because zealous compatriot senators tricked him into backing it?
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk ^^ My new kitten had that to say about senator Craig.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I meant that Craig is sort of the personality that the GOP's power structure has most aptly involved and retained.
In other words, I said exactly what I said. And the part where I say or even imply that only republicans have this sort of problem is distinctly nowhere, so it's not like I have to go too far out of my way to defend myself from positions that I conveniently have not taken.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk ^^ My new kitten had that to say about senator Craig.
...
I am intrigued by your kitten's views on the matter and wish to sign up for its newsletter.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
You want to detail exactly how Craig's behavior is a result of the alleged power structure, or are you content with flinging insults without backing them up.
When you single out the Republicans, you are definitely excluding.
You have any backup for either of those assertions?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Is there actually any news on this?
The news in this case was that Craig, after promising to resign on the first of October, did not.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Well I hate to rag on the poor ol' republicans but it's sort of the personality that their power structure has most aptly involved and retained.
quote:Uh, who is saying that it is solely a republican trait, dude?
Dude.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You want to detail exactly how Craig's behavior is a result of the alleged power structure
Nope, because I also didn't say that craig's behavior is a 'result' of the alleged power structure.
quote:When you single out the Republicans, you are definitely excluding.
Man, you need to read more into my words and less into your sensitivities. I'm excluding him as a demonstration involving the GOP because he is a republican and he is in the republican party.
So, suddenly I'm excluding because I'm not using him as an example of how, say, Democrats act. Yup, because he's not an example of how Democrats act and he's not an example of the kind of people that the Democratic power structure attracts.
Because he's a republican.
Not an anything else. That's his party. You're criticizing me wonkily for calling a spade a spade, or in this case, a republican a republican.
Seriously, if you're going to take offense to my statements and call it 'flinging insults' pick reasons that make sense. I really would prefer we not go down the path of selective reading comprehension wherein I'm suddenly 'implying' lots of things I never did, because I'm not going to choose my words carefully for the benefit of those who are determined to misread them.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Seriously - you made a fairly serious sweeping generalization about Republicans.
I'd like to see you back that up. Anything - examples, an explanation of the power structure, psychobabble. Any reasoning behind that at all?
Or are you saying that Republicans attract this kind of man and your proof is that Craig is a Republican? That's it?
You can make up something less fallacious than that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Katie, I submit that it wouldn't be more constructive for Samp to start listing the ways in which he believes Craig's behavior is typical of Republican politicians. It might be easier to just acknowledge that Samp feels that way and move on.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I'd actually love to hear it. Clearly he feels that soliciting for gay sex in an airport bathroom and then reneging every which way to Sunday about his future actions is a behavior native to and expected of him because of Craig's Republicanness.
The logic behind this is apparently:
Craig did all these lame things. Craig is a Republican. Therefore, either: 1) Craig did these lame things because he is a Republican, or 2) Craig is a Republican because he is the kind of person who does these lame things.
Maybe there's a third option? I'd love to hear it.
Mostly, though, the second step in that logic chain is what is annoying me. You could replace it with anything:
Craig is from Idaho. Craig is a Methodist. Craig is white. Craig has five letters in his last name.
Everything else in his logic chain would still be true.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Seriously - you made a fairly serious sweeping generalization about Republicans. I'd like to see you back that up. Anything - examples, an explanation of the power structure, psychobabble. Any reasoning behind that at all?
Maybe you've noticed that the Republican party has been in trouble recently for exactly the sort of problem I've described. We're talking about the GOP -- the same bunch that was recently headed by line bosses like Tom DeLay, ministered by constant lobby and graft, and embarrassed near constantly by the fallout of its abuse of the spoils system (Duke Cunningham stands out as perhaps the most embarrassing example of recent years -- a nearly illiterate thug put in charge of what??)
Folks like Craig who leave double lives and spit out double meanings, who are good at capitalizing on Morals and Values and flying into representation off of wedge issues and bluster. Frankly, as long as he wasn't causing scandals, Craig was exactly the kind of guy that the GOP needed most and loved to support so assuredly during its DeLay years: An electable issue-blustering patsy who would devotedly hold to the standard playbook that withheld the truth of their motivations, practices, and intentions. Guys who may or may not in the future be proved to have been worthless all along. Guys like this, who would drop their previous promises and gussy on with further reversals and accusations, are exactly the kind of people that the GOP's power structure appealed towards and actively retains.
And if it's inherently 'insulting' to point out why the GOP is in such hot water, that they're going to eat more crow in 2008 because they've largely convinced the public of their crookedness, if it's inherently 'insulting' to point out that yes, Virginia, Craig was one of those good ol' boys, that he's still a well-hitched tick that now they only wish they could divest themselves of, then by God, curse my slanderous mouth. Maybe it's more useful to be insulted by the Republicans, especially because the worst of them (craig, et al) and their headmasters betray the faith of those who elect them based on an image that is later shattered.
When even conservative luminaries like William F. Buckley are pointing out these 'insults' then a conservative person should know that it's time to drop guard and stop being so very shocked by the notion that an American political party managed to attract and hold totally worthless, dishonest, waffling crooks, just because I happened to point out that of all the political parties we have, it happened to involve and represent theirs. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Is there actually any news on this?
The news in this case was that Craig, after promising to resign on the first of October, did not.
Okay, I guess he was planning on everyone forgetting. That is annoying, and it's probably something the Republican Leadership is fostering. But I don't think it's unique to Republicans. It's the nature of the 2 party system.
P.S. If it were just his family and his official constituency, Craig would have resigned but because of committe seniority and all that garbage, he has to stay. I don't think the Republicans had to worry too hard about losing a seat in Idaho.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Clearly he feels that soliciting for gay sex in an airport bathroom and then reneging every which way to Sunday about his future actions is a behavior native to and expected of him because of Craig's Republicanness.
Not like I really need to say it, but this is not a particular logic chain that I've used at all. Amazing that such implication turns into 'clearly' what I feel.
But for what it's worth, you're wrong and you still aren't reading what I write fairly. Don't make it a running joke.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Why does Craig's behavior in this case REPRESENT Republicans? Beyond that he is a Republican? Why does it represent Republicans more than the Republicans who are calling on him to resign do?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm wary of getting in the middle here and trying to translate, but I think what Samp's saying is that Craig's behavior is something that the Republicans, by pandering to various demographics with candidates who were simultaneously ruthless and loudly moralistic, insinuated -- even unwittingly invited -- into their party leadership.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yes, .. even though I hadn't really elaborated upon that at all yet, that's a good way to put it. That was pretty well assumed from what I had said. The same personality that would blithely announce his 'victimhood' while backtracking over his previous resignation promises is exactly the sort of person who would thrive in the Republican power structure.
And, consequently, that's why they're a big problem for the GOP right now. The personalities that they attracted in such quantity are now helping cement the long hard fallout since they apparently have this niggling tendency to embroil themselves in scandals and betrayals of their constituency.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The same personality that would blithely announce his 'victimhood' while backtracking over his previous resignation promises is exactly the sort of person who would thrive in the Republican power structure.
And now, to translate for Katie, I can only suppose that she would ask you to substantiate this claim. What is unique about the Republican power structure that produces this situation, in your opinion?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Craig was a product of the DeLay era. He arrived in 1991 and operated during the hammer years. He was the typical obedient tool, with a 96% rating from the ACU for his greatly consistent voting record. Easily whipped. He was part of a club whose operating policies and spoils system we have ample demonstration of. We know, essentially, how the GOP's power brokers rolled. And we know that Craig's technique and personality was essentially emblematic of the structure that was by and for people like him. Sensenbrenner. Bill Thomas. People who would unlawfully gavel sessions to a close because they didn't feel like honoring conference protocol or previous promises to involve others. Empty schedules and appropriations favors. The club largely did whatever it felt like doing for themselves. One of the effects of this was profound -- runaway spending, for instance, subverted touted 'fiscal responsibility.' Say one thing to get elected. Do another. Serve yourselves. To hell with the other guy.
Craig served himself well while he was in the GOP. The GOP essentially abandons him the second he's a liability. So what? He'll continue to serve himself. It's hardly surprising that someone from out of that structure would not dare to care about silly little things like his own explicitly worded resignation promises. He just doesn't feel like being the fall guy, and he'll stick around even if it comes at great harm to the very party that people largely elected him to assist. Say one thing. Do another. Serve yourself. To hell with even your own party, if they ain't gonna back you up no more.
How they ran the show was indicative of what kind of people they were. Or how they came to be there in the first place. Apparently their system attracted more than their fair share of problem people.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote: OLYMPIA, Washington: A Republican state legislator resigned Wednesday amid revelations that he had sex with a man he met at a pornographic video store while in Spokane on a party retreat.
The move comes days after state Rep. Richard Curtis insisted to his local newspaper that he was not gay and that sex was not involved in what he said was an extortion attempt by a man last week.
But in police reports, Curtis alleges he was being extorted by a man he had sex with in a Spokane hotel room. The other man contends Curtis reneged on a promise to pay $1,000 (€692) for sex.
Man, this is starting to get silly. I'm starting to think that a gay man might have better odds finding a partner within the Republican party than the general population Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
While it is amusing, all of these scandals are just starting to get sad.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
This case is sad yet amusing in a gruesome way. It involves, well, I can't detail it. NSFW!
edit: "amusing in a gruesome way"--it looks so cold-blooded when I see it written, but I weakly stand by it. Shocking that a preacher would be such a degenerate might sum it up better.
[ November 06, 2007, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
OPB news overview of recent Republican gay sex scandals. (Focusing on Spokane mayor Jim West, Larry Craig and Richard Curtis, the article notes that all three have been against gay rights).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
To remain in character I'm going to say, again, 'ha ha, this never gets old!'
But I'm going to say it through gritted teeth, then go home and drink myself to sleep.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The ad, at the bottom of the page today--"Support Matt Blunt for Govenor", the Republican Govenor of MO. Gave me the giggles, though there has never been any sexual scandals that he has been involved with.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think the "kijiji: Find what you're looking for locally" add I'm seeing is hilarious based on the content of the thread.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm seeing "Hillary for 2008?"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Is this thread for non-sex Republican scandals too? Or for that matter, ones that are apparently a matter of history just now brought to light?
quote:Siljander takes an especial interest in conflict resolution, particularly in Islamic countries, and in recent years has tried to publicize the common ground between Christianity and Islam, particularly in the Koran's portrayal of Jesus. This is a turnaround from a previous position where he objected to the Koran being read at a prayer breakfast. He is widely traveled, having visited at least four continents, and is also one of the few American politicians to have visited Libya in recent years.
On the bolded part: Yeah, and I guess now we know why.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
That doesn't really have the same ring of irony, considering there is not a political party where he could have gone to really be himself.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah there is, it's just not in America.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
And...?
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I agree with pooka that there's not the same level of irony in this one. But I do think there's some irony if you look at all the people who claim Republicans are tougher on terrorism or even the more extreme views like Ann Coulter claiming things like "liberals always side with the terrorists!"
--Enigmatic
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"The former Republican congressman...was charged with...lying about lobbying senators on behalf of an Islamic charity that authorities said was secretly sending funds to terrorists. ...indictment...accuses the Islamic American Relief Agency of paying Siljander...[with] money...from the U.S. Agency for International Development."
Rather amazing that they have the gall to indict Siljander while giving tacit approval of Dubya funding terrorists through USAID.
[ January 16, 2008, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Siljander isn't listed on the Congressional Bad Boys site yet, but hopefully (or is that unfortunately?) he will be soon.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)