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."
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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 Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the "kijiji: Find what you're looking for locally" add I'm seeing is hilarious based on the content of the thread.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!"
posted
"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.
posted
Siljander isn't listed on the Congressional Bad Boys site yet, but hopefully (or is that unfortunately?) he will be soon.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
