GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2007/08/27/idahos-craig-should-resign/trackback/

  1. Dang, I thought I’d be first. I’ll repeat. Craig should reign and should also look into some counseling.

    Comment by V the K — August 27, 2007 @ 8:51 pm - August 27, 2007

  2. Just plain PO’d at the stupidity.

    Comment by Shawmut — August 27, 2007 @ 9:01 pm - August 27, 2007

  3. Exactly how should have been “more on his guard”? knwn a better way to spot a pliceman before tapping his foot? Found a private place for his closeted, sef-loathing trysts. sorry, but this sounds more like a criminal who’s not sorry for the crime, but sorry he got caught.

    Comment by Kevin — August 27, 2007 @ 9:06 pm - August 27, 2007

  4. writing in haste, Kevin. Preparing for a meeting. Good catch. Have since revised it to more accurately express what I feel about this. Will add more lately on how those reports seem to have given him a second chance, a chance to improve his behavior, a chance he failed to take.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — August 27, 2007 @ 9:08 pm - August 27, 2007

  5. He should resign. Having sex in a public bathroon is not acceptable behavior by our elected officials.

    I find it interesting that we have this story coming out right in the context of the controversy in Fort Lauderdale, where homophobic DINO Mayor Naugle is trying to tie this type of behavior to the LGBT community. It seems to me that the people doing this stuff seems to be largely closeted and married.

    Comment by Tom in Houston — August 27, 2007 @ 9:14 pm - August 27, 2007

  6. The NRSC better get out its checkbook again… And they don’t have a lot of money to begin with, not with the number of seats they’re going to have to seriously defend fast moving into the double digits.

    New Hampshire, Maine, Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Virginia, Nebraska, Alaska, Texas, New Mexico, Kentucky, North Carolina, Idaho, Wyoming…

    The NRSC has a serious problem. Larry Craig hasn’t helped the cause any.

    Comment by Chase — August 27, 2007 @ 9:20 pm - August 27, 2007

  7. 4. blah, blah, blah. now we’re gonna get I’m not gay, I was framed, I’ve been cured, etc, etc, etc. everything but admitting this guy is really gay and he acts out this way because his repressed, conservative background wouldnt llow him to be out. puh-lease.

    Comment by Kevin — August 27, 2007 @ 9:24 pm - August 27, 2007

  8. He could always try The Onion defense.

    Comment by V the K — August 27, 2007 @ 10:03 pm - August 27, 2007

  9. “It seems to me that the people doing this stuff seems to be largely closeted and married.”

    Right on.

    I have said it before and will say it agian, its the bis and the closeted types who do the most damage to the gay community.

    Comment by gil — August 27, 2007 @ 10:21 pm - August 27, 2007

  10. I have no idea if Craig is gay or not, or if he was framed or not.

    If Craig did as the cop says, he should resign. But not every cop tells the truth. Has anyone here heard of the Duke Lacrosse case? An entire department lied for a year.

    Comment by Jensen — August 27, 2007 @ 10:22 pm - August 27, 2007

  11. Senator Craig should not run for re-election, but he should not resign. The problem is the Republican Party does not culturally like openly GLBT Republicans. Despite what orientation the senator has, but he should not resign just because he was arrested at a public restroom for public sex. Problem is the Republican Party promotes this self destructive behavior of being in the closet.

    Comment by Matt Munson — August 27, 2007 @ 10:37 pm - August 27, 2007

  12. . . . its [sic] the bis and the closeted types who do the most damage to the gay community.

    Oh, really? As an out bisexual man, I’m just curious; exactly how am I damaging the gay community?

    Funny, that. If I had said, ” its the queers and the pedophiles who do the most damage to the American society,” you would have rightly called me on it. Double standard, anyone?

    Scott

    Comment by Scott — August 27, 2007 @ 10:37 pm - August 27, 2007

  13. 535. Out of a country of 280 million can we find 535 who aren’t nutts, cheaters, thieves, crooks, or needing 7 different kinds of therapists? It is hard to not drop pols below used car salespeople, and maybe even “journalists”on a list of creepy horrible professions.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — August 27, 2007 @ 10:41 pm - August 27, 2007

  14. I don’t care if Craig is gay or not. the fact he used his position as a billy club to avoid punishment is what pisses me off. I condemn this behavior whether he is a Rep or dyed in the wool Dem.
    Also, I think it’s kinda weird the only thing that some people on this blog do is think of the political complications. Believe me when I say we in poli-sci blogland are the only ones giving a damn about this. If I mention Mark Foley to Joe Everyday, I’d get a blank stare. And as a Dem, the party in charge is not looking any better than Reps. Remember james mcgreevey and “the most ethical congress ever?”

    Comment by Rachel — August 27, 2007 @ 10:42 pm - August 27, 2007

  15. Hugh Hewitt is a hypocrite. He gave David Vitter a pass only because Vitter’s peccadillo was of a heterosexual nature.

    I don’t see how attending a prostitute indicates good judgement (married or not).

    To Hewitt, Craig’s behavior was repulsive (the “ick” factor). Gay sex == bad (in all circumstances); straight sex outside of marriage == forgivable as long as the adulturer continues to toe the “trad val” line.

    While I feel sympathy for Senator Craig, he should resign. Now.

    David Vitter should have resigned as well.

    Comment by Robert — August 27, 2007 @ 10:46 pm - August 27, 2007

  16. Granted that closet cases do it, I’ve had gay friends who told me that they – as out, proud gays – were more than entitled to “cruise” or tryst in public restrooms. (I told them I didn’t think so.) I’ve also heard of a mainly-out/gay group in NYC called Sex Panic, that loudly opposed Rudy Giuliani’s understandable efforts to clean up such cruise spots as restrooms and bushes.

    So I hardly think you can only blame the closet cases for gay public lewdness. I really don’t know what share of blame should be assigned to each group (closeted vs. out). I’m not trying to assign blame. I just don’t think anyone else in this thread knows either (with any accuracy). I think it’s both groups. Meaning that groups like Sex Panic – and those who would apologize for them – also very much damage the gay community, gil.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 27, 2007 @ 10:55 pm - August 27, 2007

  17. sorry – For clarity, I should have phrased it, “…. and those who would make excuses for them…”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 27, 2007 @ 11:01 pm - August 27, 2007

  18. He could always switch parties.

    Appointing your extra-marital same-sex lovers to Homeland security positions isn’t considered scandalous if you’re a (D).

    San Francisco’s mayor is a regular Bill Clinton hiding behind headline grabbing same-sex marriage scamming that did more harm then good.

    Craig(R) only pulled a ‘George Michael’ in the sense he wasn’t in the right party.

    If he was, given that Barney Franks(D)’ lover can run a same-sex prostitution ring out of their home, given that Gerry Studds(D) simply sneered, it wouldn’t even be news.

    Comment by DANEgerus — August 27, 2007 @ 11:10 pm - August 27, 2007

  19. Appointing your extra-marital same-sex lovers to Homeland security positions isn’t considered scandalous if you’re a (D).

    Excellent point, DANEgerous. Governor McGreevy’s behavior did not cause the slightest scandal, and he remains in office to this day.

    Comment by Townleybomb — August 27, 2007 @ 11:37 pm - August 27, 2007

  20. its the bis and the closeted types who do the most damage to the gay community.

    Right after the liberal left, of course.

    #14

    Don’t forget Gov. Jim I-can’t-be-corrupt-because-I’m-gay McGreevey

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 28, 2007 @ 12:10 am - August 28, 2007

  21. “The NRSC has a serious problem. Larry Craig hasn’t helped the cause any”

    He was wounded after he ignored his constituents on immigration, but now he is officially dead. It will allow a GOP candidate to get past the primary and be elected in the general election.

    Look, the people of Idaho might have been willing to tolerate him as a hypocritical closet gay, if he did their bidding. But he voted against the immigration bill which would have severely weakened him and made the election of a democrat a real possibility. Not anymore.

    Idaho is a solid red state, so now if they put a strong candidate on the general election ballot, it will be next to impossible for a Democrat to take his seat. However, if Craig had remained on the ballot, then he would have been a very weak candidate indeed.

    I’m glad to see that you have not condoned the behavior of a United States Representative picking up men in airport bathrooms. Had Larry Craig been caught and arrested in a street corner heterosexual prostitution sting, would so many (not on this site, but on others) be quick to insist that his actions were perfectly acceptable?

    Comment by Andrea — August 28, 2007 @ 12:19 am - August 28, 2007

  22. oops -Senator

    Comment by Andrea — August 28, 2007 @ 12:20 am - August 28, 2007

  23. Why should Craig quit?
    Did Kennedy quit after killing someone while drunk driving, leave the scene, lie about it, and get other to lie to?
    Did John Kerry quit even though he committed war crimes?(He still hasn’t released all his military records)
    This is the time for Craig to stand up and call out the democrats to show what G’d hypocrites they are.

    BTW: Robert Byrd is senile. Not fit to walk across the street. As any senator brought that up?

    Comment by Jackmack — August 28, 2007 @ 12:35 am - August 28, 2007

  24. I like how the commentators here constantly bring up references from a generation ago (Studds, Frank), as if it’s relevant to today.

    A lot has changed in 17-23 years. For instance, I no longer wear those pajamas with the plastic footies.

    Comment by Chase — August 28, 2007 @ 1:12 am - August 28, 2007

  25. loosing your career and your reputation over something like this seems terribly unfair to me.

    Comment by arturo fernandez — August 28, 2007 @ 1:42 am - August 28, 2007

  26. Despite what orientation the senator has, but he should not resign just because he was arrested at a public restroom for public sex.

    No. HE was not arrested for public sex. He was arrested for public toe-tapping and public finger wiggling. So far as I know, neither of those things is classifiable as public sex. I suppose, perhaps the policeman simply forgot to mention it, but he MAY have exposed himself to a public toilet fixture. It may have even been an under-aged toilet fixture. There’s gotta be a crime against that.

    Bah! Police state thuggery, pure and simple.

    Comment by Craig R. Harmon — August 28, 2007 @ 2:33 am - August 28, 2007

  27. I also think that Sen. Craig should resign. I do not care if Sen. Craig is straight, gay or a switch hitter, but trolling for sex in a toilet is just awful and repulsice behavior. For the record, I believe that if Sen. David Vitter was any kind of real man, he too would have resigned. But, in the case of Sen. Vitter, he came about as clean as we will get. Sen. Craig has a very abysmal defense. For the good of the Republican party and the United States, Sen. Larry Craig should resign and come clean about his sexual preferences. I think we may be shocked that he his a switch hitter and that would really be a new kettle of fish many will not see coming.

    Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — August 28, 2007 @ 2:33 am - August 28, 2007

  28. I”m just wondering why you think that Craig was willing to plead guilty to lewd behavior if all he did was tap someone’s toe?

    He’s a Senator. If he really only tapped the toe of the guy in the stall next to him and then plead guilty to lewd behavior – is he not guilty of being too stupid to be a Senator?

    Either he did more something more lewd than toe tapping, and the details have been withheld – or his is far too stupid to be a Senator. Take your pick.

    Comment by Andrea — August 28, 2007 @ 2:57 am - August 28, 2007

  29. The Man should resign because he is a fool, not because he is a pervert. Of course I realize that applying this standard bi-partisanly would empty out Washington; but am I the only one who remembers the government shut-down of 1995 with a teary-eyed fondness?

    EB

    Comment by Escutcheon Blot — August 28, 2007 @ 3:25 am - August 28, 2007

  30. 535. Out of a country of 280 million can we find 535 who aren’t nutts, cheaters, thieves, crooks, or needing 7 different kinds of therapists?

    Most of the members of congress arent any of those, but to answer your question, no, it doesnt matter if youve done nothing wrong (look at what Democrats have done to Gonzales, Rice, Rove, etc), theyll smear you no matter what. And who’s going to pursue that.

    Comment by Will (American Elephant) — August 28, 2007 @ 3:39 am - August 28, 2007

  31. Why should Craig quit?
    Did Kennedy quit after killing someone while drunk driving, leave the scene, lie about it, and get other to lie to?
    Did John Kerry quit even though he committed war crimes?(He still hasn’t released all his military records)
    This is the time for Craig to stand up and call out the democrats to show what G’d hypocrites they are.Because thats precisely the difference between Republicans and Democrats (well, that, and theyre all a bunch of little stalinists that want government to control everything) Corruption exists on both sides of the aisle, but its far more rampant on their side. We have integrity because when we discover wrong doing, we force it out of our party — when they discover it they circle the wagons, defend it, re-elect it and then promote it. We can look the voters in teh eye and say, yes so and so did wrong–and we forced him out. Democrats cant.

    William Jefferson caught red handed with $90,000 cash in his freezer-still in congress.
    Jim McDermott- found guilty in a court of law –still in congress
    Hillarys campaign found guilty of violating election laws, fined hundreds of thousands, illegal possession of FBI files, travelgate, rose hill filegate, stole the white house furniture on teh way out, – presumptive Democratic presidential nominee

    and we all know i could go on, and on, and on

    Course the American people will never know, because when Democrats are caught, like, say, stealing top secret documents in their undies and destroying them so the American people will never know their negligence and incompetence, we let them off with a slap on the wrist…that treasonous SOB Berger probably has his security clearance back by now.

    Anyhow, thats the difference, we have integrity they have NONE, thats why they get so apoplectic when we call them on it, because they havent thought it through like this, but deep down they know its all true.

    And if we dont keep our integrity by getting rid of corruption, we will become as corrupt as them.

    Comment by Will (American Elephant) — August 28, 2007 @ 3:59 am - August 28, 2007

  32. I like how the commentators here constantly bring up references from a generation ago (Studds, Frank), as if it’s relevant to today

    Of course its relevant! Frank isn;t from decades ago, hes still in congress right now! And he had a whore house running out of his basement, was abusing power to do favors for his friends, and you re-elected him and promoted him. Gerry studds actually was raping young boys, and he stood up, said there wasnt anything wrong with what he did, Democrats gave him a standing ovation, then you guys reelected the ACTIVE pedophile and promoted him. Its immensely relevant. You KEEP all your corrupt members, and the more corrupt they are, the farther they go in your party!

    Comment by Will (American Elephant) — August 28, 2007 @ 4:10 am - August 28, 2007

  33. Republican Senator Arrested For Lewd Conduct…

    Unbelievable:
    Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested in June at a Minnesota airport by a plai…
    ……

    Trackback by Liberty Pundit — August 28, 2007 @ 4:21 am - August 28, 2007

  34. GP,

    Did you also call for David Vitter’s resignation? Perhaps you did and I missed it. But Hugh Hewitt did not. Hewitt writes:

    I realize that I did not say this about Senator Vitter, but Craig’s behavior is so reckless and repulsive that an immediate exit is required.

    Why isn’t committing adultery with prostitutes at least as “reckless and repulsive” as anything Larry Craig did?

    If Sen. Vitter can stay, then Sen. Craig can stay. If not, why not?

    Comment by Paul — August 28, 2007 @ 4:25 am - August 28, 2007

  35. #33. Yeah. Why not? Reducing sex to a commodity isn’t worse than two consenting adults engaging in sex?

    Comment by sean — August 28, 2007 @ 4:36 am - August 28, 2007

  36. When Democrats stop holding out Jim McGreevey as a hero, then they can lecture Republicans about having a double-standard about Craig and Vitter.

    Comment by V the K — August 28, 2007 @ 5:19 am - August 28, 2007

  37. When it rains, it pours.

    Comment by fnln — August 28, 2007 @ 5:48 am - August 28, 2007

  38. 19: Uh…no, that slimebag McGreevy is no longer Governor…he used the whole thing as an excuse to resign to avoid the other troubles his administration had going for it.

    34: How many Democrats do you know who hold him up as hero? I sure as hell don’t and neither do my friends. Sleazy politicians are sleazy politicians, no matter what their party affiliation.

    23: Give me a break. What’s more heinous; what Kennedy did or the fact that her own family became complicit in the whole situaiton by accepting hush money over the situation? Both seem equally repellent to me.

    24: Because people here like to bring them up every chance they get to prove what pervs Democrats supposedly are.

    26: Uh, no, he was arrested for trying to engage in sex in a public restroom.

    30: No, Republicans don’t have more integrity….they are just better about lying/not discussing their crimes than democrats.

    Comment by Kevin — August 28, 2007 @ 6:03 am - August 28, 2007

  39. 30: No, Republicans don’t have more integrity….they are just better about lying/not discussing their crimes than democrats.

    Then surely you will call for Hillary Clinton to resign? Her campaign was found guilty in court of illegally hiding millions in contributions so that she could cheat in an election by launching a last minute ad blitz that the opponent had no way to prepare for or respond to, because it was illegally kept secret. (let alone for travelgate, and filegate, and chinagate, whitewater, losing her law firm records for over a year then finding them in her residence (also illegal), pardongate and stealing the white house furniture on the way out?)

    and you’ll call for Jim McDermott to resign who was found guilty in court for his part in a REAL illegal wiretapping scandal.

    and You’ll call for William Jefferson to resign because he was caught red handed with 80 or $90,000 in cash in his freezer

    and you’ll call for Dianne Feinstein to resign because she and her husband profitted millions from the govt contracts she steered to the companies her husband is on the board of

    and you’ll call for Jack Murtha to resign the #1 beneficiary of earmarks and a man the FBI calls an unindicted co conspirator for his role in the ABSCAM scandal where he was videotaped meeting to talk about taking a bribe, which he left the door open for

    and you’ll call for investigations into Harry Reids shady land deals involving his family and friends? and nancy pelosis illegal travel and shady tax exemptions for her campaign contributors? and the many Democrats who are currently under federal investigation?

    And you’ll call for Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank and all the other Democrats who committed crimes while IN office to resign?

    Of course not! you guys re-elected all these lying corrupt scum. And you will continue to re-elect them, even when theyre guilty of murder.

    We’ve gotten rid of everyone that we know of thats done anything corrupt.

    Like I said, you have ZERO integrity or credibility.Ours is completely in tact.

    Comment by Will (American Elephant) — August 28, 2007 @ 7:22 am - August 28, 2007

  40. BTW, I also thought Vitter should have resigned.

    Also, Bob Filner should resign for throwing a tantrum and abusing his authority at Dulles Airport, John Murtha should resign for slandering the Marines who later turned out to be not guilty, and Eliot Spitzer should resign for planting false information in the police files of his political opponents. But, of course, they will all get the “Get Out of Consequences Free” card that all Democrats are entitled to. (e.g. Ted and Patrick Kennedy).

    Comment by V the K — August 28, 2007 @ 7:23 am - August 28, 2007

  41. Sen. Larry Craig Hits on Male Cop in Restroom…

    Senator Larry Craig apparently likes to make creepy advances on strange men in airport bathrooms. Unfortunately for him, one of his random targets was a Minneapolis airport policeman.
    Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested in June at a Minnesota air…

    Trackback by Outside The Beltway | OTB — August 28, 2007 @ 8:55 am - August 28, 2007

  42. Scott, your experience reminds me of a friend who self identifiesas a bisexual lesbian (bisexual, but prefers women) gets more grief from the lesbians than the straights.

    As to the case at hand. He plead guilty, I think he should resign. I know that’s a hard concept for the people on the left to understand, but he should.

    Comment by The Livewire — August 28, 2007 @ 9:02 am - August 28, 2007

  43. Tapping your foot while taking a dump gets you arrested?

    Comment by Mr. Bingley — August 28, 2007 @ 9:16 am - August 28, 2007

  44. I admit, I am enjoying this a lot, but it is not good enough….I hope there are a couple more Republicans caught in lewd sexual conduct before the next election. If the Democrats are smart they should collect these episodes and release one every three months or so.

    Comment by galaxy101 — August 28, 2007 @ 9:20 am - August 28, 2007

  45. I’m late in the game here (I spent the weekend in Syracuse & voluntarily stayed away from the news).
    Here we go again. Of course Sen. Craig should resign. Dems hang on to their kiddie screwers & lollipop lovers, but Republicans have higher standards. Closeted gays are one of our worst enemies.

    Comment by Jimbo — August 28, 2007 @ 10:04 am - August 28, 2007

  46. [...] resignation time for Sen. [...]

    Pingback by Snarky Bastards » Blog Archive » Girlfriend, what yo problem??!! — August 28, 2007 @ 10:45 am - August 28, 2007

  47. Gil – ‘its the bis’

    Yeah, the largest problem facing gay men is men that have sex with men AND women. After all, those bi men could give gay men cooties.

    Nonetheless, I can’t really imagine having sex with anyone, male or female, in a public toilet.

    As for a lapse of judgment, well sure. But then again, peeing in public against a tree is a criminal offense in the U.S., thus confirming Frank Zappa’s observation that Americans try to make illegal those acts which humans perform on a regular basis. Or from some British movie concerning a brothel (oops, also illegal in the U.S.), an old British bomber pilot who proudly flew his missions in women’s underwear welcomes the press into the now famous place of business the journalist, ‘Greetings, sons and daughters of fornicators, one and all – let’s go up upstairs to have a look around.’

    Jimbo -
    ‘…but Republicans have higher standards. Closeted gays are one of our worst enemies.’ Well, after uncloseted gays, especially those who feel marriage is a civil right.

    Comment by yeah_yeah — August 28, 2007 @ 10:48 am - August 28, 2007

  48. On June 11th – Craig was arrested
    On June 28th – he severely damaged his chances of reelection by voting against his constituents on the immigration issue.

    To grasp the magnitude of political damage that Craig suffered over his immigration vote within the State of Idaho – imagine if Barbara Boxer voted to abruptly end ALL services to illegal immigrants in the State of Ca.

    Isn’t an arrest public knowledge? Regardless, is it possible that his arrest could have been kept a secret in the halls of Washington?

    I find it impossible to believe that members of both the Republican or Democratic party could not have been made aware of his arrest.

    Did they use this issue to blackmail Larry Craig’s vote on the immigration issue?

    Who knew, and when?

    In this day and age of instant communications – it will be impossible for ANY representative to hide personal failings. Whether it is what porn sites they surf, infidelity, drug use, whatever. It is no longer possible that they do not have to fear being instantly exposed.

    So what are we going to do about those who use this information to blackmail and extort votes that go against the wishes of their voters?

    This seems to me to be a far bigger issue than any of the concerns regarding who holds the greater moral superiority.

    Comment by Becky — August 28, 2007 @ 11:22 am - August 28, 2007

  49. Comments here are sharp. Craig’s definitely got some judgment problems. Whether he resigns or fights to keep his office, he and the GOP need to strategize about the most moral, most articulate way to do so.

    As for humor … it seems the Senator’s crime is that he was behaving like a lobbyist.

    Comment by Jeremayakovka — August 28, 2007 @ 11:30 am - August 28, 2007

  50. HE was not arrested for public sex. He was arrested for public toe-tapping and public finger wiggling. So far as I know, neither of those things is classifiable as public sex. I suppose, perhaps the policeman simply forgot to mention it, but he MAY have exposed himself to a public toilet fixture. It may have even been an under-aged toilet fixture. There’s gotta be a crime against that.

    Is it your position, then, that the policeman should have to wait until someone wraps their lips around him before they can be arrested? Should female cops working vice have to wait for penetration before busting a John?

    If a person draws a gun it is reasonable to assume their intention is to shoot. If a person is engaging in “public toe-tapping and public finger wiggling” in a manner consistent with signals that have traditionally been used to indicate a desire for illegal public sex, why is it not reasonable to assume that was his intent as well?

    As far as I’m concerned, from my perspective (straight, Republican-leaning) this has nothing to do with “gay”, but rather engaging in illegal activities and displaying poor judgement. I have no basis to judge if being suppressed or in the closet made this more likely or not (but it does sound like a reasonable theory), nor do I think it has any bearing on the matter at hand.

    Comment by submandave — August 28, 2007 @ 11:47 am - August 28, 2007

  51. I hope there are a couple more Republicans caught in lewd sexual conduct before the next election.

    I think wishing ill on people is a mark of low character. I don’t wish ill on political opponents or their families.

    Comment by V the K — August 28, 2007 @ 12:37 pm - August 28, 2007

  52. Speaking of sleaze, though How was a lower middle class family able to launder donate $45,000 to Hillary Clinton. It is indeed a mystery.

    Comment by V the K — August 28, 2007 @ 1:52 pm - August 28, 2007

  53. @32. Are there more details than this that you know of?
    Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with minors — in Studds’ case, a 1973 sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page who was of the age of legal consent. The relationship was consensual (which made it legal, in accordance with state law) but presented ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates. From wikipedia.
    Raping young boys is your charge? Want to back that up?
    And the ovation came from his constituents, not “the Democrats.” Christ, you know this Intertube thing allows fact-checking, right?

    Comment by torrentprime — August 28, 2007 @ 2:02 pm - August 28, 2007

  54. 1. Craig engaged in red flag activity in the midst of an ongoing sting operation.

    2. The officer had no clue who he was when he said “you are under arrest, you have to go”.

    3. Once inside the interrogation room, Craig tried to flex his political muscles by identifying himself as a Senator, assuming his position would change the scenario.

    4. CRAIG PLED GUILTY!!!

    He is not some John Doe who doesn’t know his rights. He’s a US Senator for goodness sake! If his actions were so misunderstood, why the heck did he PLEAD GUILTY?

    He’s lucky they didn’t throw his butt in the slammer. They even tried to hold his plane for him! A REAL John Doe would’ve served that time and no attempts would’ve been made to hold a plane.

    No way is this an isolated incident. He’s done this before and gotten away with it. He knew good and doggone well what he was doing in that bathroom and he knew he was busted when he saw that police badge under the stall.

    To you enablers who would rather label the officer as a rogue cop JUST FOR DOING HIS JOB instead of calling a spade a spade: shame on you!

    To you apologists, pissed at resignation calls, who retaliate by rehashing years/decades of dirty deeds by democrats: check the stats of those calling for resignation. Of course I haven’t polled every person speaking out but the loudest resignation yellers are REPUBLICANS/CONSERVATIVES not democrats! Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, Gay Patriot … they ain’t democrats by no stretch of the imagination. The democrats are laughing about it, sitting back eating popcorn as the whole mess plays out in front of them.

    Bottom line: This dude got busted trying to get some booty or some head in a public restroom. That is illegal.

    AND HE PLED GUILTY!

    I don’t care who he is and I don’t care if he resigns. If he doesn’t, fine. Let the voters decide if they want to keep him around or not.

    But make no mistake. His status does not grant him immunity from the scorn he rightfully deserves … FROM ANYONE WITH A SHRED OF COMMON DECENCY! And he should get the same legal punishment that would be given to John Doe, public bathroom cruiser.

    Comment by IU1995 — August 28, 2007 @ 2:09 pm - August 28, 2007

  55. Simple, torrentprime.

    Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Party said that Mark Foley was raping and molesting children, even though the people involved were a) former pages that were b) over the age of consent and c) with whom he never had sex — and insisted that Republicans should have punished him, banned him from the House, and removed him from any and all committee appointments.

    Yet Pelosi fully supported Studds, who actually DID have sex with the people involved, and rewarded him with committee positions and fundraising support.

    And as far as Barney Frank goes, can you imagine what would happen if a Republican who openly admitted to soliciting, supporting, and running a prostitution ring out of his apartment, plus using his Congressional powers to facilitate it, was put in charge of the Banking and Finance Committee?

    Craig’s days are numbered at best. Frank and Studds not only got away with their behavior, they profited from it, just as did James McGreevey.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 28, 2007 @ 2:23 pm - August 28, 2007

  56. I don’t care if he resigns either. Vitter didn’t resign. Hell, they’ll probably give him a right-wing award like they did Sanchez. As IU1995 so aptly stated, we can sit back with the popcorn and watch the Republican Party implode (even more).

    Why don’t you homosexual Republicans try to get your party to accept that homosexuality exists and therefore natural and get your base to focus on something else. Indeed, your Republican base is completely obsessed with homosexuals and homosexual sex. I cannot figure it out and most of the rest of the western world cannot figure it out either. It just looks silly.

    Comment by fnln — August 28, 2007 @ 3:02 pm - August 28, 2007

  57. ND30: Nice try.
    I did not and do not defend (or like, or have ever voted for) Studds. But the claim (smear? libel?) @32 was that Studds was raping little boys. Do you agree with or defend that posting?

    Comment by torrentprime — August 28, 2007 @ 3:04 pm - August 28, 2007

  58. Overheard in a Public Restroom in Minnesota…

    Trackback by Jeremayakovka — August 28, 2007 @ 3:06 pm - August 28, 2007

  59. why don’t you “homosexual republicans”…

    If I had said why don’t you “homosexual democrats” you would have shrieked homophobe. But then, that’s really all the left is about anymore; shrieking racist, homophobe, nazi and apparently now, homosexual.

    Nice.

    Comment by Becky — August 28, 2007 @ 3:28 pm - August 28, 2007

  60. I did not and do not defend (or like, or have ever voted for) Studds.

    Then it seems odd that you’re wasting so much time arguing semantics in an attempt to minimize his behavior.

    First, as I pointed out, your own Democrat Party leadership has clearly stated that instant-messaging and emailing former pages who are over the age of consent is molesting and raping children. If that standard were universally applied — a big if — then one would think that actually having sex with them qualified MORE as rape than did simply lewd instant messages.

    If you are willing to say that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Party libeled and smeared Mark Foley by claiming he had raped and molested children, then you have a valid case. As of yet, you have not.

    Furthermore, I would examine your reasons for being so concerned about how Studds’s behavior is described, even when you claim to condemn it fully. Is that because the fact is so glaringly obvious that the Democrat Party not only supported, but re-elected and named to committee positions a person who committed acts worse than those they demanded Republicans resign over?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 28, 2007 @ 3:29 pm - August 28, 2007

  61. fyi: Gerry Studds was deceased before Nancy Pelosi’s became Speaker. Plus he had been out of office for awhile before that. So what are you trying to insinuate??

    Comment by james — August 28, 2007 @ 3:56 pm - August 28, 2007

  62. Gerry Studds passed away before Nancy Pelosi became Speaker. He had stepped down from Congress before that. “In death they were united” I don’t get what you are trying to prove by linking those two.

    Comment by james — August 28, 2007 @ 4:01 pm - August 28, 2007

  63. Let’s hope that the Republican Party uses this sordid opportunity to show what is and is not acceptable behavior. The standard of behavior for senators and congressmen/women should be higher than what is generally expected of other public servants and those in the private sector. The standard for a president should be even higher.

    That said…

    A friend and I once agreed to engage in sex in a public area. It was something of a dare, but without consequences (the dare, not the possibility of getting caught). I did not enjoy it. I kept having to look over my shoulder (as did he, but that’s another story). Re. the Craig citation, was it desperation? The thrill of public sex? Do we even know? Do we even care beyond the political ramifications?

    The issue of hypocrisy is difficult for some, but since Republicans will be hearing about this endlessly, is (or should) the standard of the party that pays much lip service to morality (be) higher than that of/for Democrats? Is this an opportunity to show intolerance for bad behavior (demanding his resignation) or an opportunity to show sympathy and forgiveness? Both? Is there a hierarchy of political transgressions that means a minor scandal such as this one is possibly acceptable (meaning the person could remain in office), but keeping a stash of ill-gotten money in one’s freezer unacceptable?

    Comment by HardHobbit — August 28, 2007 @ 4:12 pm - August 28, 2007

  64. “He’s a Senator. If he really only tapped the toe of the guy in the stall next to him and then plead guilty to lewd behavior – is he not guilty of being too stupid to be a Senator?”

    Andrea, According to the Constitution, One must be at least 30 years old and a citizen. Stupidity does not disqualify anyone from serving in the Senate. Stupid people deserve to be represented too!

    Comment by Lorenzo — August 28, 2007 @ 4:17 pm - August 28, 2007

  65. As others have said, one way the Republicans can and should separate themselves from Democrats, is by NOT tolerating the wrongdoers among them. The sooner Craig does the right thing and resigns, as Foley did immediately last fall, the smaller the political fallout from him will be – especially given that a Republican governor will appoint his replacement.

    But what I came to say: Taranto (Best of the Web) has a good column today, I recommend it. He has some interesting background info on Craig.

    Here is only one of several good points Taranto made – could be a propos of some of the commentary in this thread:

    …most lawmakers who oppose gay-rights measures are not homosexual. To single out those who are for special vituperation is itself a form of antigay prejudice.

    Taranto was on a tangent there about the whole “outing” thing, which Craig has been a target of in the past. I don’t believe he supports Craig.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 28, 2007 @ 4:47 pm - August 28, 2007

  66. Anyone who thinks that this is a problem of closeted homosexuals should ask why the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force issued a press release calling for an end to these sort of undercover vice operations:

    “There is sad irony that a United States senator from Idaho has been caught up in the same kind of thing that destroyed the lives of dozens of men in Boise in the 1950s, so tragically chronicled in “Boys of Boise.”

    “And by the way, why are Minneapolis tax dollars being used to have plainclothes police officers lurking idly in airport restroom stalls?”

    I know that there are gay men who don’t go looking for anonymous sex in public restrooms–maybe even a fair number. But when even the NGLTF is arguing that it is unfair to have police arresting people for this kind of behavior, you need to admit that this isn’t a quirk of a tiny minority of gay men. It’s a fundamental part of homosexuality for a lot of men.

    Comment by Clayton E. Cramer — August 28, 2007 @ 5:31 pm - August 28, 2007

  67. The problem is this, Mr. Cramer; far too many people have co-opted homosexuality as an excuse for their complete inability or unwillingness to restrain themselves sexually.

    And you are right; there are a fair number of gay men who don’t, and who are just as appalled as you are that people like Matt Foreman are using sexual orientation as an excuse for his inability to stop himself from having public sex.

    Now, the question I have for you is this; are you able to separate those of us who agree with you from our sexual orientation?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 28, 2007 @ 5:50 pm - August 28, 2007

  68. I am sure you had a point Becky, but I am not really sure what it is. Is this web site not for homosexual Republicans to mingle and lambast Democrats, homosexual and otherwise? Is your point that we cannot say homosexual Republicans? It appears the one that is shrieking, is in fact, you.

    Comment by fnln — August 28, 2007 @ 6:17 pm - August 28, 2007

  69. I apologise. Combined with your over the top statement that, “Indeed, your Republican base is completely obsessed with homosexuals and homosexual sex” , I misread your comment re: “you homosexuals” as if you were implying that all Republicans were homosexuals. I see now that you were addressing homosexual republicans. My bad.

    And, sorry to disappoint you, but most Republicans and conservatives really don’t care as much about homosexuals as they care about the increase of hedonism and the negative impact it has on society. They don’t like dealing with the female prostitutes (and johns) on the street corner any more than the like the male ones in the bathrooms. To think it’s all about what touches you personally, is a mistake.

    Comment by Becky — August 28, 2007 @ 6:40 pm - August 28, 2007

  70. I don’t understand the NGLTF’s position. People cruising restrooms and parks is creepy and certainly violates the rights of others. And NDT is correct – there are many men who use being gay to rationalize their misbehavior.

    But… we need to realize that some gay men (especially older?) just don’t know how to deal with their orientation. Many older men are of a generation where being gay was widely considered a loathsome defect.

    Dealing with this self-loathing must be a mighty trial and certainly serves to corrode one’s judgement over time. Some cruise for anonymous sex. Others spend decades living with crushing lonliness or in sham marriages – hoping against hope that one day they’ll “turn straight”.

    My hubby’s father had a co-worker who, years ago, was arrested by the vice squad (in a park). He was not a public figure – just your average Joe Lunchbucket. This was back in the days when most gays spared no effort to guard their “secret” from everyone.

    After bonding out of jail, the poor man went home and blew his brains out.

    The Sanator should suffer the consequences of his actions (and his hypocrisy). But we shouldn’t forget that he’s a human being – not a political football.

    Comment by Robert — August 28, 2007 @ 7:08 pm - August 28, 2007

  71. No, Republicans don’t have more integrity….they are just better about lying/not discussing their crimes than democrats.

    Comment by Kevin

    HORSE SH!T!!!

    Republicans tend to step down whereas the liberals cover up and pad their resumes.

    Reid, Pelosi, DiFi, Clinton, Jefferson, Kerry, Kennedy etc. are all still in office.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 28, 2007 @ 7:23 pm - August 28, 2007

  72. 43: When it’s preceeded by 2 minutes of staring through the crack in a stall and putting yoru hands on yoru crotch several times and you’re not “taking a dump” (or anything else that’s involves the evacuation of waste from the body”, then yeah, that will get you arrested.

    Comment by Kevin — August 28, 2007 @ 7:43 pm - August 28, 2007

  73. NEWS FLASH: THE GERRY STUDDS STORY HAPPENED A GENERATION AGO.
    To put it in context… In 1983 MTV did not yet exist, nobody had a cordless phone, much less a cell phone, the dominant format in the music industry was the vinyl record and Madonna was still just a religious figure.

    That was a loooooooooong time ago.

    Comment by Chase — August 28, 2007 @ 8:01 pm - August 28, 2007

  74. MTV began in 1981. I believe Video Killed the Radio Star was the initial broadcast.

    The album Madonna (Lucky Star, Borderline, etc.) was released in 1983.

    My family had a cordless in the mid-80s back when we had a Betamax. I’m sure there were many ahead of us.

    But this is all just semantics, isn’t it?

    Comment by HardHobbit — August 28, 2007 @ 8:54 pm - August 28, 2007

  75. #11: The position of the GOP regarding gays means nothing in this. Craig should resign IF the cop’s story is correct because his behavior was inapproriate and illegal. Were he a Democrat I’d say the exact same thing, only I admit I’d probably have more fun with it. At least the cop was cute in the photo but that’s not an excuse. Nope, the man should go and if he doesn’t do the honorable thing of resigning, he should be voted out. I certainly wouldn’t vote for him were I in Idaho. Of course, in the interest of full disclosure I might not vote for him for any reason if I lived in Idaho since I’m unhappy with the GOP. The Dems just have the disadvantage of ticking me off more (something they do consistently well at!).

    Comment by John — August 28, 2007 @ 8:57 pm - August 28, 2007

  76. Democrats want the Republican party to get to the point where they DON’T force the Foleys and the Craigs and Vitters to resign in disgrace. That way everyones standards will be uniformly low. No more pressure on their party to have any morals at all. It ‘ll be a free for all at that point. A true liberal utopia. No judging, no guilt. I think Craigs case is sad if true. I want public servants who are upstanding citizens. Not drunks, drug addicts, not trolling for sex in public when married, not paying for prostitutes, not stealing from us, not lying to us, not killing secretaries and walking off til the next day. There are 280 million people here. I believe there are still outstanding people who can be leaders who are good role models for kids. Simple. If you aren’t, go be a mechanic or bus driver not a leader in government of the most admired country in history.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — August 28, 2007 @ 9:26 pm - August 28, 2007

  77. Shouldn’t Vitter also resign? What Vitter did was worse – he was a regular customer of whore houses – but in his case, these were heterosexual encounters.

    Comment by Eva Young — August 28, 2007 @ 9:35 pm - August 28, 2007

  78. Ah I love the leftists claim that the Democrats offenses were “so long ago”. Thing is they are reoccuring. JFK steals WV primary gets the nomination, JFK steals Illinois and beats Nixon, Byrd promoted Grand Wizard of the KKK, Teddys drowning of Mary Jo, Studds raping minors, Frank allows a whorehouse, Kerry fudging military honors, Clinton abusing interns and employees, Jackson snaps at Hymie town, Sharpton gets a shopkeeper killed, Jefferson skims cash, Feinstein’s husband skimming millions, Reids family getting kickbacks for real estate deals. If some were a generation ago, I’d retort, it’s been going on for generations! hehe The next scandal….check out the house that has “donated” $250,000 to Hillary Rodman Clinton.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118826947048110677.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — August 28, 2007 @ 9:39 pm - August 28, 2007

  79. John Murtha should resign for slandering the Marines who later turned out to be not guilty

    good point!

    and yet another reason he should resign was his abusive of power in threatening republican members with retribution for voting against his pork.

    Theres so many more Democrats that should resign, none of whom have or will….

    Maria Cantwell hired her primary opponent for some outrageous salary just to get rid of the competition. Shes also widely believed to have gotten into office on vote fraud to begin with…

    oh and speaking of vote fraud. shouldnt the Democratic representatives whose sons slashed the tires of something like 40 republican vans and busses in the last election to prevent them from taking people to the polls resign as well?

    Comment by Will (American Elephant) — August 29, 2007 @ 1:15 am - August 29, 2007

  80. Why can’t we enjoy sex any more. Gays have no place to meet except in a public bathroom. One taps his toes and the other wiggles his fingers and they get arrested. Thrings are not better for streights deither. No whore houses to go to so they try to pick up something on the street or molest little girls.

    Many many years ago I lived in a town where sex was enjoyed. We were still a Territory. The Feds came in to clean up the town. I was one of the unfortunate ones to get arrested when I left my girl’s shack. They took me down to the jail – slammed the iron gate to make a big clang to impress me. IT DID!

    Comment by John W — August 29, 2007 @ 1:54 am - August 29, 2007

  81. Then they went down to Seward to “clean up that town”. The Mayor had the police but them in jail for “distruping the peace”. The mayor told them that they could leave if the promised not to come back. They promised.

    The locals went back to enjoying their freedom but I can’t say everything was perfect. One of my co-worksers went down to help them celebrate. He came back with the crabs!

    Comment by John W — August 29, 2007 @ 1:59 am - August 29, 2007

  82. @ #74

    OK, I thought MTV launched in 84 and I knew Madonna’s debut was released in 83. However, she didn’t become a household name until “Like A Virgin”.

    But my point is the same. 24 years is nearly my entire lifetime. It’s a generation. The Gerry Studds affair is in no way relevant to the present. It was a completely different era.

    Comment by Chase — August 29, 2007 @ 2:04 am - August 29, 2007

  83. Cause from what i’ve read… Once upon a time America had 2 anti-gay political parties. Back in the 60′s, 70′s and 80′s, the Democrats were just as bad as the Republicans.

    But in the past 15-20 years, the Democratic Party has been transformed.

    Give it another 15-20 years and I imagine the Republican Party will do the same. Then gays will actually have a choice on the ballot when they go to vote.

    Times do change.

    Comment by Chase — August 29, 2007 @ 2:14 am - August 29, 2007

  84. Shouldn’t Vitter also resign? What Vitter did was worse – he was a regular customer of whore houses – but in his case, these were heterosexual encounters.

    I would have no real problem if he did.

    Also, though, I think the point should be made that there’s a significant difference between sex in a house of ill repute or private sex with a prostitute versus soliciting/having sex in the bathroom of a public airport.

    Of course, that’s also arguing the relative differences of dirt versus mud.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 29, 2007 @ 2:23 am - August 29, 2007

  85. Then gays will actually have a choice on the ballot when they go to vote.

    They already do. They have a quasi-socialist party that treats them like children and fosters dependency and victimhood, and a somewhat less socialist party that expects them to act like adults and look after themselves. It’s the same choice any American has.

    Comment by V the K — August 29, 2007 @ 5:21 am - August 29, 2007

  86. Back in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, the Democrats were just as bad as the Republicans.

    And now they’re so bad that their voters don’t believe it.

    Remember, Democrats have given us 3 huge pieces of anti-gay legislation. The Republicans, 0.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 29, 2007 @ 5:50 am - August 29, 2007

  87. Oh my, more bad news for the Party. And once again, all the work of the MSM and the leftwing slime balls, like some that we have here. They’re all just trying to make us all look like hypcrites. What on earth have we done to deserve this kind of hatred and revulsion???? And we don’t act a lot better here. Look at North Dallas Thirty up above claiming Pelosi and Studds work together. Even when some other commenter called him out on that lie, he ignored it and just went on to something else. North Dallas Thirty, you ought to be ashamed of such a silly attempt to sling mud back at them. I’ve read you and you’re better than this, but were not in that case. Silly, silly boy.

    Comment by Samantha — August 29, 2007 @ 6:32 am - August 29, 2007

  88. This “dual” duel is even more complicated. 1) Where does America stand now on accepting gay sex in private or public? 2) Where does America stand now on accepting extra-marital affairs that may be hetero or gay? 3) If gay marriage is seriously on the plate, then where is gay courtship? 4) Are all “leaders” supposed to publicly choose their sexual preference and not waiver?

    As a life long Republican, I realize that I am part of a party that has and promotes a strong moral code. As of this writing, overt homosexual trysting in public is not a part of the norm in 99% of the country. Therefore, when a Republican gets hit with the charge or the fact, it is both hypocrisy and a firing offense. Larry Craig is into this mess up to his ears and is damaged goods. He should resign for the good of the Republican party.

    On the other hand, I am not too certain how far liberals can take their open view of all things possible in the name of diversity. I am amused by those above who bawl that Studds was a million years ago. No, he was just yesterday in terms of how far the liberals have twisted the norm. He is a recent benchmark on the slope of their moral slide.

    What if Craig is telling the truth? He has left such a miserable record of how he cleans up after himself in charges of sexual misconduct, that he remains a liability to the Republican party.

    I get a tad weary with references to bad actors among the Democrats who have drowned people, carried the firey cross, had trysts with interns, etc. The fact is that a majority of liberals just do not care. They know that to have power they must embrace all manner of people who believe all manners of things. And, when pressured, they will defend their actions with gusto. Which is why I could never count myself among them. I have too much self respect.

    Comment by Heliotrope — August 29, 2007 @ 9:15 am - August 29, 2007

  89. I feel bad for Craig’s family. (They seem to have been forgotten in the gleeful rush to scandal.) He’s hurt his family. For that alone, he should resign. It would certainly show more character than any one hundred liberals.

    Next, I can’t help but wonder WTF was going on in his head. If you were a closet-case Republican senator, and these rumors had been dogging you for years, why take the risk of a sleazy tryst in a public place? It’s not like there’s any shortage of venues for anonymous gay sex. Better still, if you’ve made a solemn commitment to a wife and family, why not just uphold that commitment and abstain from gay sex entirely? I mean, he’s what, 68? How horny can you be at that age?

    What is it with senators and congressman that they think they can engage in such reckless behavior? Is it hubris? Stupidity? Both are on abundant display on both sides of the aisle. I also think every politician has a streak of the sociopath inside of him (or her). What other kind of person would want power over other people’s lives?

    Comment by V the K — August 29, 2007 @ 9:32 am - August 29, 2007

  90. Side note for “Samantha” – Do give it up, dearie. Your sockpuppet “we” act, does not work. Especially not when you are the one slinging the mud, as you forget the persona you’ve established and thus violate its own rules, LOL :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 29, 2007 @ 10:19 am - August 29, 2007

  91. Speaking of hypocrites, isn’t it hypocritical for a guy with a 28,000 square foot house, who uses private jets, to tell Americans we should give up our SUVs?.

    Comment by V the K — August 29, 2007 @ 10:52 am - August 29, 2007

  92. Look at North Dallas Thirty up above claiming Pelosi and Studds work together. Even when some other commenter called him out on that lie, he ignored it and just went on to something else.

    “Called out” is a very interesting way of describing it.

    What James tried to do was to state that Nancy Pelosi did not become Speaker until after Studds retired, which is factually correct.

    However, Pelosi was first elected to the House a full ten years prior to Studds’ retirement, and had worked her way up through the ranks primarily based on her ability to fundraise and generate support for other candidates like Studds, and her influence helped put and keep him in committee positions.

    The problem is that what it makes clear is that Democrats fully support behavior like Studds’s, and that the Democrat base fully endorses and supports behavior like Studds’s — versus people like Foley, who were unceremoniously kicked out on their behinds and haven’t a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected again.

    What is it with senators and congressman that they think they can engage in such reckless behavior? Is it hubris? Stupidity?

    Hubris.

    In politics, you have people hanging on your every word, giving you money and goodies for what amounts to little or nothing of value, and feeding you nothing but positives.

    It’s the same thing as with celebrities, and it should surprise no one that we see the same sort of behavior from the two.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 29, 2007 @ 12:27 pm - August 29, 2007

  93. Hmm. I see someone forgot to pay the sarcasm bill.

    So I get to choose between a party that preaches and lays itself vulnerable (so to speak) to its most hypocritical ‘members’ and a party that doesn’t preach in order to avoid such vulnerability, thus with a cynical permission and without consequences. Would that I could forego the preaching but demand and expect the consequences.

    Republicans must first recognize that the claim to the moral mantle comes at a tremendous political cost, both from the disgust of those who elect them for wearing it when one has sinned (even if the hypocrisy is not from his/her own proclamations but from a simple guilt by association) and from those who are disgusted that a brand of politics uses morality to get elected by those just mentioned and/or disgusted that such morality (particularly personal, individual, religious morality) has a place in public policy. (And here I should make clear I understand that all laws have moral roots. But that isn’t what I’m discussing.)

    For some, the cost is worth it. I disagree. It appears we virtually all agree as to consequences, but which of us hasn’t stumbled? (Some will twist my words and conclude that my dislike for the GOP’s religious overtones is anti-religious. Not so, but I’ve found it’s useless to try to explain.) While some of us are busy being shocked and indignant, let’s remember that while we may like to associate our personal ideals with our politics, our politicians don’t check their humanity at the door. For the record, I forgive Senator Craig. And I wish him well as he is retired from political life.

    Comment by HardHobbit — August 29, 2007 @ 2:12 pm - August 29, 2007

  94. “They have a quasi-socialist party that treats them like children and fosters dependency and victimhood, and a somewhat less socialist party that expects them to act like adults and look after themselves. It’s the same choice any American has.”

    heh! That’s the best in-a-nutshell assessment ever. The Dem Party is like one big Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome.

    Comment by Becky — August 29, 2007 @ 2:21 pm - August 29, 2007

  95. #93 – HardHobbit, you might almost appear to suggest that “humanity” is about weaknesses such as adulterous restroom hookups. If so, I disagree.

    What’s distinctive and good about humankind, as compared to other animals, is reason. To be truly human, is to choose to exercise one’s distinctively human capacities – such as reason – so as to act better than an animal.

    But for my part, I also forgive Craig – insofar as my forgiveness could matter here (which is not much). For that matter, I also forgive Hitler and Son of Sam – and still expect them to take the consequences of their choices.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 29, 2007 @ 2:58 pm - August 29, 2007

  96. you might almost appear to suggest that “humanity” is about weaknesses such as adulterous restroom hookups. If so, I disagree.

    What’s distinctive and good about humankind, as compared to other animals, is reason. To be truly human, is to choose to exercise one’s distinctively human capacities – such as reason – so as to act better than an animal.

    Thanks for saying that, ILC. I was going to make the same point, then I thought, why bother. ;-)

    But, yeah, “humanity” is what we use when we overcome our base nature, not when we give into it.

    Comment by V the K — August 29, 2007 @ 3:05 pm - August 29, 2007

  97. [Craig] has left such a miserable record of how he cleans up after himself in charges of sexual misconduct, that he remains a liability to the Republican party.

    Ugh, that was a mental picture I could have lived without.

    Comment by submandave — August 29, 2007 @ 3:49 pm - August 29, 2007

  98. To err is human. Some find this in Shakespeare, others in Genesis, others in politics. Some never do.

    Comment by HardHobbit — August 29, 2007 @ 3:51 pm - August 29, 2007

  99. HardHobbit – Given the context, I should logically (and I will) take that as an affirmation that in your belief system, “humanity” is indeed about weaknesses such as adulterous public-restroom hookups – rather than about exercising one’s distinctively human gifts and potential.

    In other words: that the concept “humanity” for you is about sinking down, not rising up. Please count me among those for whom the concept “humanity” is, and always will be, about rising up.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 29, 2007 @ 4:16 pm - August 29, 2007

  100. More bad logic from Calarato.

    The recognition that one can rise above sin (or error or to make a mistake, whatever), to reject it, to refuse to engage in it, would require a recognition in the potential to sin. The choice demands as much from our human nature. Were humans perfect, we would cease to be human, except that our concept of ‘humanity’ would be vastly different. We would not recognize sin (or error or mistakes) as such because we would not be capable of committing them.

    To recognize human weakness and to recognize human capacity to ‘rise above it’ are not mutually exclusive, but Calarato has assumed (wrongly) that stating humanity’s capacity for error means a view of humanity that is malevolent or dysfunctional. One cannot rise above anything that doesn’t exist.

    Comment by HardHobbit — August 29, 2007 @ 5:07 pm - August 29, 2007

  101. More straw man and other crap from HardHobbit.

    “Sin” isn’t a category I’m introducing here… you are. (And others may prefer to also… but, I haven’t.) Everything you’ve said is at least somewhat “off”, just due to your bad starting point. Although I could switch over to that language, if you wish.

    I have in NO way said that humans are perfect. Indeed, quite the contrary. The issue I addressed is simply this: our respective understandings of the meaning of such terms – and such states – such as ‘humanity’ or ‘being human’.

    Your view emphasizes making errors – such that Craig should be viewed as someone who is ‘only human’, as in your preferred quote, “To err is human”. It is a common view, I admit.

    My view emphasizes rising above errors – such that Craig should be viewed as someone who, in fact, denied his own humanity by not choosing to exercise it nearly enough. And Craig could restore his humanity to himself – that is to say, partly restore his honor – if he did the right thing, right now. (Which is to admit his error more forthrightly; then resign from office.)

    HardHobbit, as we see here, you like to set up false dilemmas – then accuse others (falsely, or should I say ignorantly?) of having done so. In debating with someone whom you imagine to be me – but whom I am not – who had tried to claim humans are perfect and thereby set up a false dilemma, you are merely debating yourself. Do have fun with yourself ;-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 29, 2007 @ 6:27 pm - August 29, 2007

  102. (also, my view emphasizes using rational thought and moral principles to avoid making errors to begin with, if at all possible – as was certainly possible to Craig in this instance. But my view / comments in no way denied error as a possibility, a silly charge.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 29, 2007 @ 6:40 pm - August 29, 2007

  103. #82

    Chase,

    (Just to get the minutiae out of the way, Madonna’s popularity here in the Seattle area was cemented with Borderline, although my memory is hazy because this was a bit before I became aware of much popular music. [I was too young for the clubs.] You’re right, of course, that Like a Virgin was her first worldwide smash.)

    While I agree that this and the Gerry Studds affair happened quite awhile ago, that doesn’t mean it isn’t relevant and is a possibly dangerous idea to apply to either history or to the present. Although you’re still young and the early ’80s is nearly your lifetime, there are some things we should never forget. History is doomed to repeat itself if we do so.

    As for the Democratic Party and whether the waves of applause he received from his fellow Democrats still reverberate, do you remember how Democrats defended even the behavior of Bill Clinton, saying his personal conduct while a public official is none of anyone’s business but his?

    I find that liberals don’t believe in consequences for bad behavior/decisions or perhaps liberalism is a means to mitigate same. I don’t like the GOP’s religiousness, but neither do I like the Democratic Party’s cynical and deliberate ambivalence, holding on to each seat of power regardless of any other consideration.

    Comment by HardHobbit — August 29, 2007 @ 6:46 pm - August 29, 2007

  104. Would someone please explain what they mean by “hedonism” when they use this term? Does it mean prostitutes offering themselves on streetcorners or just really odd hairdos — or the use of orange in men’s clothing?

    And are we really arresting people for tapping their toes and waving a finger at a stranger? If that were the case, then most of the straight men I know are in trouble — as a (by attraction-status) straight woman, I’ve had to put up with this sort of behavior in broad daylight, much less in a restroom, all my life.

    And what about the guy who rubs his crotch against my shoulder on the bus during the rush-hour? Or the drunk guy in the bar who claims I woudn’t reject him if I could get a look at his johnson (which he then proceeds to try to whip out with his drink-confused fingers — and gets thrown out of the bar as a result).

    As for whether or not a bi person causes this kind of trouble on a regular basis, I can say that my bi-polyamourous friends are often better parents than any sort of couple; at least they always have somebody to stay home with the kids.

    Comment by Donna Barr — August 29, 2007 @ 7:48 pm - August 29, 2007

  105. Calarato does more back-pedalling than the Flying Nun.

    Notice how he spends part of his comment criticizing my use of the word ‘sin’ when I have included ‘error’ and ‘mistake’, as if I am only considering a view of humanity from the standpoint of a deity — and as if ‘sin’ could only mean as much. Grasping, he is.

    Having tried to saddle me with a viewpoint I did not express (setting up a false dilemma in order to criticize something — anything — I write), he cannot comprehend that his self-righteous ‘opposite view’ (as he would like to think) depends entirely upon the existence of a choice, but one that requires the basis of imperfection. I hate to be the one to break it to him, but even Ayn Rand made mistakes. (I can just see the votive candles being doused with his tears.)

    And so he proceeds to compare himself to an animal, self-satisfied that he chooses to ‘rise above’ animalism. Apparently it has not dawned on him to compare himself to something higher than himself — something that might even resemble perfection, unattainable as humanity (even his) might make the goal. Telling, no?

    All humans are imperfect — that is simply part of being human; in this context, the use of ‘imperfect’ means having sinned, able to sin, will sin. Recognizing this does not mean a human has to sin in any given situation. The problem with Calarato is that he cannot sense the difference between the macro view of humanity and the micro view (or perhaps he chooses not to see or perhaps he feigns he doesn’t see for the sake of being argumentative). Perhaps I should have been much more clear that in using the term ‘humanity’, I meant man or a man’s life, but I would think the word ‘humanity’ would make that rather obvious.

    Larry Craig could have made many better choices. One can even say he should have. The demand for the consequences he might (and likely will) suffer is based upon this. But the very existence of any consequences that society constructs (resignation, censure, jail, fines, a spanking, etc.) is predicated on the existence of sin (or error or mistakes or boo-boos or f*** ups or whatever kind of language suits you). Without it, Calarato’s concept of ‘rising’ would not exist.

    Comment by HardHobbit — August 29, 2007 @ 8:26 pm - August 29, 2007

  106. Just to sum up my thoughts at #95, 99, 101, 102:

    A view of human nature that emphasizes error and weakness as “human” need not exclude reason and virtue as possibilities… Yet it TENDS to, as its weight of emphasis remains on error and weakness, and on aspects of human nature that are shared by animals, or less-than-distinctively human, incidentally making it a category error. – -
    Whereas a view of human nature that emphasizes reason and virtue as “human”, i.e., as wonderfully and uniquely available to human beings, has decidedly not excluded error and weakness as possibilities, precisely since it advocates reason and virtue as means of addressing them…
    Unless you’re HardHobbit and dislike hearing it, in which case, “straw man” games and other misunderstandings are called for.

    —————————–

    As for HardHobbit’s new flailing at #104: Entirely self-referential or in his head, as I indicated earlier; not worth any more pixels from me.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 29, 2007 @ 8:39 pm - August 29, 2007

  107. Final P.S. HardHobbit, I do enjoy the flailing, a little. Your going to that zone is, as I have noticed / suggested before, functionally your equivalent of conceding the point. Bye now.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 29, 2007 @ 8:51 pm - August 29, 2007

  108. Ah, more back-pedalling.

    1. “A view of human nature that emphasizes error and weakness as “human”…”

    Here, he makes the false claim that my recognition of the imperfect nature of humans necessarily emphasizes error and weakness. Simple recognition doesn’t emphasize anything beyond the recognition itself, just as recognizing a dark cloud in the sky doesn’t mean it’s raining.

    2. “…need not exclude reason and virtue as possibilities… Yet it TENDS to…”

    Here, he admits a big weakness by making an assumption about what everyone else (one might even say humanity) might think when faced with the recognition of #1 above. He’s not discussing what is, but what he thinks may be or what he thinks is a general tendency. (This kind of thinking has caused humanity much destruction.) Projection, perhaps? Again, the realization that humans commit errors does not mean that we have to in any given situation (the macro vs. micro again) — it simply means that error (whether actual or potential) is part of life.

    3. “As for HardHobbit’s new flailing at #104: Entirely self-referential or in his head, as I indicated earlier; not worth any more pixels from me.”

    Translation: I’m in over my head.

    Comment by HardHobbit — August 29, 2007 @ 9:20 pm - August 29, 2007

  109. After rereading my comments #80 and 81, I see I made many mistakes in typing. I am not a good typist. When I was in high school we had one typewriter and none in elementry so I had to learn typing the hard way.

    What I wanted to get across, and I am afraid that I did it very poorly. It appears that the Democrats are getting more of a charge out of Sen. Craig being caught in a bathroom than they do from sexual intercourse itsself. What I am trying to say is that in the last 75 years enjoying sex is not half as thrilling to most people now than the sex scandal itself. I think the Senator was born years to late.

    Comment by John W — August 29, 2007 @ 10:40 pm - August 29, 2007

  110. LoveCap, since you apparently have nothing better to do than play The Sentinel to a little low-traffic blog, let me lay out my point for you so you can peer at it through the endless hours you spend here, and perhaps come away with what you missed. It’s this: we on the right cannot go nuts (the way people are doing here over Craig) every time one of our own gets exposed for hypocrisy — if for no other reason, because it’s happening unfortunately virtually every month. We shouldn’t be defending potty pickups, hookering, park pickups, and the like from the pretend-pious that we’ve let dominate our party. We should just ignore the subject and talk about something else — e.g., the wonderful way the Iraq War is turning out after all, and all because of the President’s great surge idea. This dipping down into the mud because the liberals come here to crow about these things only serves them, not us. And North Dallas Thirty, you in particular are better than that. You told a bald-faced lie up above and when you were called out for it, tried to tie Pelosi’s tenure in Congress with Studds in an even weaker way. You keep this up and nobody’s going to believe a thing you’re saying, and you have in the past shown that you have a lot of good things to say. That was just so stupid of you, and you can’t summon the courage to admit it.

    Comment by Samantha — August 30, 2007 @ 10:35 am - August 30, 2007

  111. “Samantha”, there you go again with your “we on the right” act, when practically your every sentence either transmits another silly Left talking point, or flings mud of your own. You’re much too artless, dearie.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 30, 2007 @ 10:57 am - August 30, 2007

  112. John W, you’re doing just fine. One advantage of commenting here is that it provides good typing practice, so fire away!

    I agree with you. The media saturation we’re witnessing is partly voyeurism. It also has to do with a failed Republican giving indirect permission to Democrats to affirm their own failings.

    I can’t imagine why some men find public bathrooms appealing places for sexual activity. I just don’t get it. I don’t even find them appealing places for the purposes for which they are built.

    Comment by HardHobbit — August 30, 2007 @ 12:59 pm - August 30, 2007

  113. Now the Democrats have the gay conservatives fighting among themselves. Isn’t that exactly what they wanted??

    The Senator was only being human. Why can’t we have legal whorehouses (yes, men whorehouses) where all men can go to releave the tension? Just wondering…

    Comment by John W — August 30, 2007 @ 1:09 pm - August 30, 2007

  114. Now the Democrats have the gay conservatives fighting among themselves. Isn’t that exactly what they wanted??

    We do that with or without Democrat interference. :) But that is honestly one of the better values of conservatism among gays; the fact that we can and do disagree, and that we all end up stronger and more well-rounded for the experience.

    And now to Samantha:

    We shouldn’t be defending potty pickups, hookering, park pickups, and the like from the pretend-pious that we’ve let dominate our party.

    “We” are defending nothing of the sort. In fact, it’s the opposite; “we” are AGREEING with those people who you insultingly call “pretend-pious” and how they feel about “potty pickups, hookering, park pickups, and the like”.

    Simple reason why: those things are wrong. And it needs to be made clear that those things are wrong. Just because I may not agree with someone’s views on one subject doesn’t mean that I can’t agree with them on something else, and this is a slam-dunk.

    And this is not about fighting the liberals. This is about the difference between right and wrong.

    The most powerful and obvious difference between us and liberals is that liberals demand that someone resign for having sex with a prostitute, but when it comes to someone who not only had sex with a prostitute, but ran a prostitution ring out of his own apartment and used his Congressional powers to facilitate it, they make them head of the Banking and Finance Committee.

    We seriously debate whether they should be in Congress at all, and we sure as hell don’t give them plum committee chairmanships.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 30, 2007 @ 2:30 pm - August 30, 2007

  115. Maybe I was the one that was born to soon because I don’t understand what is going on today. We had a president who had a mistress the many years that he was in office and no one even suggested that he resign. We are told now that his wife was a lisbon. Maybe she was and maybe she wan’t. I met her as she drove the country roads with her “friend”. At that time there was no need for a bodyguard to run along in front and in the back of her car.

    If (and that is a big if) Bush offered to nominate me for thr Attorney General, I would refuse and I am sure there are many very capable persons that would refuse also. Everything about my life would be spread in the news even going back as far as being caught in a whorehouse. I was happyly married for 47 years but I am sure the times that I went to the steam bath with my friend would be told in detail embarrassing my family.

    I know people that nothing that they did was wrong. Trouble is they didn’t do anything right either.

    Comment by John W — August 30, 2007 @ 9:37 pm - August 30, 2007

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.241 Powered by Wordpress