Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Comment on: A Critique of Pure Unreason

Gay And Republican

55 Comments
Thursday, August, 30, 2007 10:32 AM BrianR writes:

Jeff

I agree with your premise. Being gay doesn't mean anything as far as being conservative. There are conservative gays.

However, if I understand what the issue is in Craig's case, it was trying to "get lucky" in a public restroom, and that's a different issue. I believe it was more than just tapping his foot, too.

His denials have the stench of Barney Franks's when he denied knowing about the gay whorehouse being run from his house.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, August, 30, 2007 10:41 AM Husker Jeff writes:

So he wanted "to get lucky"

I say again, he is a married man who has stayed married for many years. If he is gay, and he fails in his beliefs, this type of thing will happen. Our party seems to demand that our leaders be without sin.

Two questions:
1. If he is gay and the implications are true, what about that disqualifies him to be a Senator?
2. If a person sins in a major way such as becoming an alcoholic or a drug abuser, what do they need to do to become clean enough for the Republican party?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, August, 30, 2007 10:44 AM Husker Jeff writes:

Oh Animal Girl

How wrong you are. I have many many gay friends. What you say is true about gay women. I have 6 gay couples that are part of my social circle and they are for all intents married. Of my gay male friends, there is one couple but the other dozen or so guys are into casual anonymous sex.

It has something to do with gender roles and testosterone, but it is true.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, August, 30, 2007 10:53 AM Scatbug writes:

Who cares if he's gay?

As BrianR mentioned, this has nothing to do with Craig being gay. In fact, if I were gay, I'd be shouting that loud and clear. The man pled guilty to trolling for sex in a crowded public restroom. He was observed by a police officer peering through cracks in the stall door and demonstrating other signs of people who regularly engage in that kind of activity. Being gay is not illegal, nor does it any longer carry a universal social stigma. But stalking public toilets for ANY kind of sex is illegal and most definitely carries a heavy-duty, mucho grande stigma.

I do actually pity the man. He obviously is troubled mentally and needs to get hooked up with a good psychiatrist soon. I honestly hope he can overcome this problem.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, August, 30, 2007 11:06 AM philosophocon writes:

I agree that he was not charged with

being gay, but rather lewd conduct in public restrooms. However, given the rater subtle nature of the 'proposition', I really don't see why it should be illegal. Here's a couple of examples from things that happened to buddies of mine to help illustrate where I think the divide might be.

One guy was in the can at a public restroom, somebody knocked on the door and asked if he needed any help. He said no, the guy went away. Never even saw each other's faces. How is that substantially different or worse than my walking up to a pretty girl I don't know but would like to and hitting on her, and then accepting her rejection and walking away? This seems very much like what happened to Craig.

Another guy I knew was in a sauna, when the other guy in it dropped his towel, started whacking off and asked if he'd like to join in. This is a bit much, I would say.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, August, 30, 2007 11:17 AM Husker Jeff writes:

I agree Phil

These may be signals known to gays, but they are also things that straight people might do regardless. I disagree with the charge and think he was stupid not to fight it. If the cop could say that the suspect said "lets get it on then" or he came into the other stall, or there was sexual contact, then there was lewd contact. Tapping your foot and moving your foot or even looking in a stall if all of them are full is not lewd.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, August, 30, 2007 12:27 PM SLW writes:

The Senator

has been persecuted for many years and has been threatened with "outing."

I haven't seen the report but it could be that he panicked and thought that what he did looked bad (he could have been looking for toilet paper,) and tried to dispose of the matter quickly. BTW, why did it take several months for the matter to become public?

To answer your question, you can only be gay and get away with it if you are a Democrat. Other gay Republicans, beware. There is a group threatening to out all of them prior to '08.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, August, 30, 2007 12:43 PM Husker Jeff writes:

Sandra

I think you must be wrong for the good of our party. We are too quick to jetison good people (and bad) for issues unrelated to their job.

As I said, I have many gay friends and that neither makes me gay or sinful. And it does not stop me from being a conservative. And many of them agree with me on most issues. If it is the position of the party to get rid of all those who do not fit a narrow definition of our party, it will be small and inconsequential as we force the many who agree with our policies away.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, August, 30, 2007 1:23 PM Edamon50 writes:

Actually

He pled guilty to a disorderly conduct charge, not for propositioning the cops---which was a highly subective call IMO.

And it is not Republicans who are making noise about him being gay, it is the liberals that are raising that as an issue. From what I can gather, the GOP is responding to his pleading guilty to a crime and trying to conceal it.

What really frosts me, though, is that John McVain has the nerve to demand a resignation here. This is the same John McVain that violated his oath of office when he co-authored a bill that violates the First Amendment, which goes against his oath the defend the Constitution of the US! When is he gonna step down?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, August, 30, 2007 2:23 PM ScarletPimpernel writes:

no preverts

in our party. thanks for playing.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, August, 30, 2007 6:16 PM animalgirl writes:

You may have noticed

That my comment is gone, Husker Jeff (this is animalgirl). For the second time, townhall summarily banned me with no explanation--I believe for being overly defensive of gay people. So watch what you say.

I have limitless email accounts, but this time I lost some essays I like, and I think I am done here. Nice knowing ya.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, August, 30, 2007 6:51 PM -Kilroy writes:

Setting aside the morality

of homosexual acts, I have a hard time buying that what Craig actually did constituted a criminal act. I am not saying things wouldn't have progressed that far. Sex in a public bathroom should be illegal so as to not expose kids to it. However, he wasn't propositioning for sex for money. Even if he was hitting on the undercover guy, unless he grabbed the guys crotch or otherwise sexually assaulted him all he did was proposition. How is that different from propositioning a woman for free sex (from a legal standpoint). Given that the officer could only see a foot and maybe a hand, how can he be sure Craig was doing anything "lewd".

I agree, Jeff, I think it's a stretch.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, August, 30, 2007 7:30 PM Flame writes:

What

I find interesting is that this just happened to crop up when a big Dem fund raiser is found to be wanted in CA for pleading guilty to grand theft and fleeing his jail sentence.

The list of those supported by Hsu is almost identical to the Congressional Democrats roll call. Same old tricks of "wagging the dog" and the MSM falls right in line.

Oh and BTW, it seems the liberals have no problem with "gay-bashing" when the purported "gay" does not fall in line with the liberal agenda. Just take a look at the mayor in FL who is trying to stop the same "public sex" in his city park bathrooms and the liberal stance there versus this case in MN.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, August, 30, 2007 8:11 PM mgraves writes:

delay

Sen. Craig pled guilty during the same week as the bridge collapse--so in MN it wasn't going to be a big deal.

Also, I heard one of the local news guys talking about the delay. He said that they have employees whose task is to review court reports for notable names. "Larry Craig" is not a notable name; if it had been "Ted Kennedy" and nothing was heard for three months (or one month after the guilty plea) that'd be a wee hinky, but Sen Craig is very much a low profile kind of guy.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, August, 30, 2007 8:45 PM mgraves writes:

log cabins and whatnot

It seems to be about pigeon holing people. Certain people are "required" to hold certain beliefs b/c of their identity. I.e. Justice Thomas is a race traitor, gay conservatives are self hating traitors, and poor conservatives are either ignorant or class traitors.

People's opinions, according to the script, are the result of biological or economic facts, rather than of free choice. It is economic and biological determinism. Marx would be so proud.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, August, 30, 2007 9:08 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

Here's the way I see it:

As others have mentioned, Craig's crime wasn't being "gay." From his escapade, those not in "the know" have learned there is an underground of people who engage in lewd acts by following a certain protocol. He did. Since he did, we can deduce that he must have done it before.

"..if his only sin is being gay.."

His only sin isn't "being gay," it's adultery. He is married with children; other people he is willing to sacrifice for a tryst in a public bathroom with a stranger. These trysts could be used as blackmail for votes. Also, could we then question any ulterior motive from Craig if the issue of "gay" marriage were to be presented? Doesn't sound too Conservative.

You have mentioned your numerous "gay" friends. It appears to me that you think the "gay" community is under attack, therefore your friends, so you feel the need to defend Craig for thier sake.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, August, 30, 2007 9:55 PM Edamon50 writes:

Jimmy Carter

We don't know that Sen. Craig is guilty of adultery, since there has never even been any such charge made against him. He is purported to have made a pass at an undercover cop, and for this he is supposed to be run out of the Senate?

As for Senator Craig's voting ecord, from what I have read and heard he has been pretty strong in his pro-family stances. What bothers me about this whole scene is how quickly the GOP and conservatives in general have turned on Sen. Craig. We seem to be "eating our young" again, by falling right in line with the liberal drumbeat. We have people accusing the man of homosexuality and adultery with NO PROOF WHATSOEVER, just our feelings.

I don't know exactly what Craig did in that bathroom, and neither do you. You only know what the media reports and what the cop claims happened; I for one do not believe much of what the media reports, and I don't see the cops as paragons of honesty and virtue. So I'm not climbing up onto my high horse on this one, because there's just not enough evidence for me to form a concrete opinion.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, August, 30, 2007 10:17 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

Alright, Flagwaver..

..I'll relent some on the fact that all we know is from our beloved msm as you point out.

Since I haven't seen or heard from "gay" advocates denouncing this bathroom protocol soliticing sexual engagements, then I will believe it fact until otherwise.

If the protocol is indeed fact, I doubt the "writing is on the wall" describing how to do it. That is why I stated that we can deduce that this would not be his first time, therefore there must be at least one other. Noone is charging him with adultery with this particular case.

Personally, I don't use high horses, only soapboxes.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, August, 30, 2007 10:57 PM Husker Jeff writes:

Thanks everyone for commenting

Jimmy said "As others have mentioned, Craig's crime wasn't being "gay." From his escapade, those not in "the know" have learned there is an underground of people who engage in lewd acts by following a certain protocol. He did. Since he did, we can deduce that he must have done it before."
Ok, so it is your contention that if there is an underground who has signals that i, for one, have never heard of then if you make those signals you are part of that underground. So people who wear Red (Go Big Red) are Bloods and people who wear blue are crips. I say again, that the things he is accused of are unusual, but unless he made some more of an advance, it is not proof of squat.

"His only sin isn't "being gay," it's adultery."
Fine. So at what point does a moral sin disqualify someone for the rest of their life from public office? I stole as a youth. Am i now disqualified? What is the rule?

"You have mentioned your numerous "gay" friends. It appears to me that you think the "gay" community is under attack, therefore your friends, so you feel the need to defend Craig for thier sake."

Not hardly. I like them because of other things. I love the theatre and that tends to be a large gay community. I am simply saying that sins should be punished by G*d and not by me. That sinning comes with forgiveness and that in this case, at best there was odd behavior, not even rising to the level of sin. No where in the bible, or any of the teachings is it said that tapping your foot in a bathroom or moving your foot toward another person or even reaching below the wall is a sin.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, August, 30, 2007 11:01 PM Husker Jeff writes:

Flag

Exactly my point. I am not gay, but I admit that I probably have tapped my foot in the john with a tune running through my head. When cleaning myself, I know that my feet move outward. I have at times dropped things and picked them up. I also admit that I sometimes fidget. Though I cannot ever remember stroking the bottom of a bathroom stall wall, I have felt counters in kitchens, doors, and picture frames. So, even though I don't know it is code for being gay, I must be gay. Hmmmmm
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, August, 30, 2007 11:18 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

Since you addressed me:

you conspicuously omitted "He is married with children; other people he is willing to sacrifice for a tryst in a public bathroom with a stranger. Also, could we then question any ulterior motive from Craig if the issue of 'gay' marriage were to be presented? Doesn't sound too Conservative."


You stated: "I like them because of other things." I didn't state you "like" your friends because they are "gay." I stated it appears to me that you are defending Craig because of the "gay" accusations.

Nowhere in The Bible does it state that driving 56 mph in a 55mph zone is a sin either, but lawmakers have made it unlawful.


Husker, should we have prisons?


EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 31, 2007 5:18 AM Savage99 writes:

Character is what counts

Craig's record as a Senator, as stated by those more familiar with it than i am, is solidly conservative. Putting aside the possibility that the MSM and an over-zealous cop may have overblown innocent behavior, let's assume he actually is totally guilty of soliciting sex in a public restroom. This reflects on his character and intelligence. If he cheats on his wife, he is more, rather than less likel;y to cheat elsewhere. If he is not careful and discreet, he is foolish. These are not recommendations for public office and i can certainly see them as being sufficient to cast ones vote for someone else. If he were soliciting a prostitute, i would find it just as serious. Being gay is not his problem. Lack of smarts and character is. Dems seem to have no trouble overlooking all sorts of peccadillos providing the doer promotes the left agenda. My own perhaps naive belief is that i can find someone out there who is conservative, intelligent and of good character to vote for.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 31, 2007 5:24 AM Savage99 writes:

animalgirl

If you are truly gone, i will miss your posts and your positive vibes from the left. I have been bounced more than once, with no explanation, so i can't even correct my no no's. If they are banning people based only on offensive flags, the edit power is being turned over to vindictive persons of closed mind who react to bon mots with censorship.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 31, 2007 8:12 AM Scottie writes:

Jeff

Since you have yourself tapped your foot in the dunny and slid your feet wide to wipe, have you also pleaded guilty to a criminal charge stemming from this behavior? It seems to me an innocent man wouldn't plead guilty to anything under these circumstances. Would you?

Trolling for annonymous sexual encounters in men's rooms, which his plea seems to indicate notwithstanding the spin you wish to place on the matter, not only displays poor personal ethics and judgement, it's just sad.

Don't forget the Mark Foley scandal that many in the GOP believe contributed to their loss of the senate in the last election. Right or wrong, the party is going to nip this in the bud now to prevent it being an issue in the pending election season.

That's life. Politics ain't beanbag.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 31, 2007 9:15 AM Husker Jeff writes:

I would suggest

That you read the transcript of the cop and him at the arrest for true understanding.

Why did he plead no contest? Because as the cop said "Okay. So we'll start over, you're gonna get out of here. You're gonna have to pay a fine and that will be it. Okay. I don't call media, I don't do any of that type of crap."

Reading the transcript, he was pushed into a corner by the cop and tried to just make it go away. Bad judgment? Perhaps.

Jimmy, just to keep it clear. There was no tryst in the bathroom. Again, read the transcript. There is a lot less here than suggested. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3543062&page=1

Why do we have prisons? To punish lawbreakers. But this was not any type of a prison offense. If a senator gets a speeding ticket, should they get kicked out of the Senate? No, you are taking this because it is a "sex crime" even though no sex was involved.

My true problem with all of this is twofold. First, the "crime" that was committed is pretty petty to result in the loss of a career. Second, it really sounds like anything goes unless it involves gay sex.

As for "this would be the case if he was using prostitutes". What about Senator Vitter who showed up on the DC Madam's tapes? It was a 2 day wonder and no one called for his removal.

Sorry, does not wash.

Guys, we need to decide whether we want an effective party or one composed entirely of people without sin.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 31, 2007 11:08 AM BrianR writes:

Well, here's the thing-Pt 1

When those on the Left do this sort of thing, as I mentioned earlier a la Barney Franks, it's no big deal. The Left doesn't stand for anything, their mantra is "who am I to judge?", they idolize Clinton of the Velcro Fly, so what more can be said? We properly criticize them for doing this.

But those on the Right claim to stand for a standard of behavior, a moral code, ethics, and personal responsibility. Are we then going to turn around and do the same thing for which we criticize the Left? What does that make us? Does "hypocrites" sound about right?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 31, 2007 11:12 AM BrianR writes:

Part Deux

As to the claim that he pled to a lesser charge, and that's exculpatory, I disagree.

He's a very public figure, and obviously knew he was in a deep PR quagmire no matter what. People plea out to avoid trial and/or conviction to the greater charge.

If he was truly innocent, he'd have been shouting it from the rooftops, and making a major stink. William Jefferson, anyone? And he was guilty!

There's no way I would ever plea out on a charge of which I was truly innocent, no matter what. Hell, I fight traffic tickets that I know are righteous, let alone a greater offense!

So, sorry, I don't buy it.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 31, 2007 11:31 AM BrianR writes:

Last thought

Subscribing to a higher standard of behavior and responsibility, as the Right claims to do, also means you have to walk the walk.

Craig's gotta go.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 31, 2007 11:43 AM Husker Jeff writes:

I agree with much of what you said Brian

But the bottom line is that I am a sinner as are you. We each have our own sins and errors. At what point do those sins rise to the point where we throw our politicians to the wolves and ask them to resign?

Do I respect his choices? Not particularly. But I know my party and have read posts on this board that tell me if he was openly gay, he would not be elected as a Republican. Therefore a gay Republican must stay in the closet. This act is then seen as lying and making yourself a target for blackmail.

I would be the first after his head if he took bribes or in other ways abused his office. But I was never even upset with Clinton for his inappropriate sex. I was upset about lying under oath. (also for being an *ssh*le, but that is a different post).

I ask all of you, what sins (committed and attoned for) are allowed by our leadership and which ones demand their ouster.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 31, 2007 11:44 AM Husker Jeff writes:

Oh and Clinton

I also think he is a rapist and that is an unforgivable sin.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 31, 2007 1:37 PM animalgirl writes:

Barney Frank

I just have to correct the constant misrepresentation of what happened with Barney Frank.

Barney Frank hired Steve Gobie as an assistant, who stayed at his D.C. townhouse. When Frank went back to Massachusetts, Gobie would take calls over the phone and arranging escorts for people.

When Frank found out, he fired Gobie, and went HIMSELF to the ethics committee to report what had happened and invited them to investigate.

The Ethics committee investigated for ten months, and found no evidence that Frank had any awareness of the prostitution. To quote their report:

"Based upon information obtained under subpoena and sworn testimony, the Committee concludes that the weight of the evidence indicates that Representative Frank did not have either prior or concomitant knowledge of prostitution activities involving third parties alleged to have taken place in his apartment. ... Representative Frank's landlords ... submitted sworn testimony contradicting Mr. Gobie's assertion. ... The Committee, therefore, further concludes that no further action is warranted."

They did find that he had: 1) used his White House privileges to dismiss some parking tickets Gobie got while driving Frank's car and 2)wrote a misleading memo to help Gobie clear up an old criminal charge. That led to a reprimand--almost no one was for censure.

Hate to intrude with facts, but there you go.



The House decided NOT to censure him.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 31, 2007 1:59 PM Husker Jeff writes:

Animal Girl

The point of Barney Frank is that if he were a Republican, he would have been out on his ear in a heartbeat. So the only people who can be in office while gay or while having done something wrong EVER IN THEIR LIFE are Dems.

Hell, even Bush got hit by drugs in his twenties and by the National Guard crap. There are no sinless, faultless people. The last one we had was crucified. So where do we find Republican candidates?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 31, 2007 2:38 PM animalgirl writes:

Really?

Was Vitter out on his ear for visiting prostitutes? Delay ran for and won re-election in the Republican primary after being indicted himself, as well as (more seriously) two of his aides were CONVICTED in the Abramoff scandal.

So let's compare: Frank has a personal assistant engaged in illegal activity, whom he catches, FIRES, and the reports, himself, to the Ethics committee. Delay has two of his aides convicted on corruption charges and is himself heavily implicated in a case against a major scoundrel, and wins re-election.

Sorry, but Republicans will defend their own, as long as it only involves corruption and not sex.

Though in the case of Rudy Giuliani, they seem to be able to overlook major sex scandals, as well.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 31, 2007 4:44 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

The reason I asked...

...if you think we should have prisons is because of this reply from you: "I am simply saying that sins should be punished by G*d and not by me."

By this "reasoning" we should not be able to punish anyone anytime. This kind of "reasoning" does not protect civilization. Have you ever heard of judges and juries (by the way, juries are a group of people who have to cast judgement on others' actions which may lead to punishment).

I never stated there was a tryst during this event. I simply pointed out there appears a pattern, therefore a tryst in the past.

Brian already addressed his admission of guilt quite well. Innocent people do no such thing.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 31, 2007 5:42 PM Husker Jeff writes:

OK Jimmy

Lets see.

"I am simply saying that sins should be punished by G*d and not by me."

By this "reasoning" we should not be able to punish anyone anytime...

Nope. I said sins, not crimes. If we are treating this as a crime, it is a minor misdemeanor of disorderly conduct. That is on par with a traffic ticket. He paid the fine. It is done. But what is being punished is the sin of having a "tryst" and that is not in evidence.

As for not admitting if you are not guilty, are you really that naieve? The courts are full of people who pled to something they did not do just so they would not suffer "greater" damages. Greater in their minds, of course. It is a normal plan for the DA's. If you think that someone is guilty but are not sure you can make it stick, offer a smaller charge. Then offer no jail time, etc. The Defendant decides whether to take the risk of a trial and the full punishment against the certain. In thousands of these cases, it later turns out the person was not guilty at all.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 31, 2007 5:53 PM Jimmy Carter writes:

Give me a break, Husker....

...this a Senator of the United States of America, not some average Joe.

If he wasn't guilty, he would have threatened everyone involved with retaliation. I don't think Senators are scared of pathetic DAs.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 31, 2007 7:14 PM Husker Jeff writes:

Humans believe what they want

I don't know what went through the Senator's mind, but all we have to go on is what was said and done. He pled guilty to disorderly conduct....
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, August, 31, 2007 10:44 PM Scottie writes:

I'm curious Jeff

Does brandishing a business card identifying him as a US Senator, perhaps in order to intimidate the cop, amount to abuse of official power?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 01, 2007 1:37 AM BrianR writes:

Jeff

The point on which I disagree with you, and for me this whole topic hinges on, isn't whether or not Craig is gay or bi or whatever.

It's the fact that he was committing lewd acts in a public restroom.

It would be no different for me if he'd tried to pick up some woman in a ladies room.

THAT is the essence of the problem. Public restrooms are bad a bad enough environment, and they're also used by children. It's a predatory jungle in them sometimes.

And the bottom line: his actions were illegal to boot.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 01, 2007 1:41 AM BrianR writes:

Wrong, AG

As you can see, that's the whole crux of my disagreement with Jeff. Not only should Barney Frank have been axed, but Craig, too.

And while you're defending the Libs, how about their refusal to condemn William Jefferson, and thei unflagging support for Clinton of the Velcro Fly.

Please. Your arguments don't pass the smell test.

Real conservatives -- not necessarily the party shills -- are condemning Craig, as I just did.

As to Giuliani, no real conservatives support him anyway, sordid personal life or not (and frankly I've always called him the GOP's answer to Bill Clinton, a man I truly loathe).
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 01, 2007 1:54 AM BrianR writes:

An illustration

I've never subscribed to the "it's not up to me to judge" philosophy. That's for hippies and tree-huggers. I make judgements all the time, and taught my daughter to do the same. That's how we determine what's acceptable behavior and what's not.

I had a good bud of over 20 years, Chris, who was a lib, but I liked him. We had some spirited conversations, but he seemed like a good guy.

A couple of years ago, right after he'd come back from an annual visit to Brazil, he had a few friends over to his apartment for Thanksgiving. While there, he asked us if we wanted to see some home movies he'd shot in Brazil, and we all said sure.

Young, naked girls. Turns out Chris was going to Brazil because prostitution is legal there for girls as young as 15. This is a guy my age; late 50s.

I was disgusted, and told him our friendship was OVER!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 01, 2007 7:26 AM animalgirl writes:

Barney Frank

Should have been axed for what his ASSISTANT did WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE?? Sorry, but if we are going to go by that standard, I don't think anyone will be able to serve. Everyone has an assistant or employee or SOMEONE who does something untoward.

And honestly, not that I think prostition is great, but as crimes go, it's seedy but hardly at the top of the heap. Compare what Steve Gobie did to what Tom Delay's press secretary did. He helped set up a fraudulent, $23 MILLION wire transfer so that one of Delay's major donor's could essentially steal a fleet of cruise ships from Konstantine Boulis. Then Kidan took a hit out on Boulis, who was murdered in 2001. All of this came out a good year before Delay stepped down.

This was MURDER. And conservatives could have cared less. They barely reported it.

Kind of puts an escort service in perspective, doesn't it?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 01, 2007 7:28 AM animalgirl writes:

I should have been clear

The man who took out the hit, Kidan, was the donor, NOT the press secretary. There is no direct evidence that Scanlon knew about the hit, though he was heavily involved in the VERY crooked business activities that eventually ended in the hit.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 01, 2007 7:55 AM animalgirl writes:

Also

The Democrats HAVE widely condemned William Jefferson. They forced him to step down from all his committee posts, and have been pushing him to resign. Pelosi has many times condemned him. Conservatives just ignore it.

Democrats acted more quickly on Jefferson than Republicans did on Delay, Bob Ney, Randy 'Duke' Cunningham (facts of his corruption came out in early 2005, and Republicans did NOTHING until he himself resigned the day before pleading guilty).
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 01, 2007 11:31 AM BrianR writes:

AG

Oh, please. This was taking place in Barney Franks's house. Don't be disingenuous.

His houseguest, his house. Politicians aren't just Joe Sixpack; they should be held to a higher standard. After all, they make their living telling all of us how we have to live our lives, through the laws they pass.

Further, if he's such a foolish idiot that he doesn't have any idea of or control over what's happening under his own roof, he's an idiot who doesn't have any business in DC telling other people how to do anything.

As to everyone having assistants, you're right. So what? That's called taking responsibility for your employees. Remember Truman's "The buck stops here" sign?

I guess your sign would say "What buck?", right?

In the military, the unit commander is responsible for any actions taken by the troops under his command. I guess you don't buy that, either, right?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 01, 2007 11:34 AM BrianR writes:

Jeff

I had one other thought last night after I hit the sack (of course).

OJ Simpson was found "not guilty" of any crime in a court of law.

So, from what you've written, you have no problems with OJ? Everything there's just hunky dory? You'd hang with him?



EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 01, 2007 12:47 PM SquiddyPopPerkyJean writes:

Log Cabin Republicans

Is it just me, or do we never hear much from the Log Cabin (i.e. gay) Republicans?

http://online.logcabin.org/about/

Apparently they think he should resign, too.

I usually admire Tammy Bruce -- another gay conservative. 'Cuz really, as long as they vote for limited govt, defense of our borders, and allow everyone to freely practice their own religion or moral beliefs, I don't care what they do in private.

I was a bit surprised that Senator Craig was charged just for the subtle things he did (whether or not intentionally) rather than obvious solicitation or action. Makes me think we've got to be so careful to not even give an appearance of wrong-doing.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, September, 01, 2007 4:36 PM BrianR writes:

Squiddy

Don't kid yourself. They treated him with kid gloves; he's a SENATOR, after all.

Anybody else would have been charged with solicitation, no doubt.

This guy, they took him in and had to charge him with something, so they made it the lightest thing possible. I'm kinda surprised it wasn't just a littering charge.

I'll bet that as soon as they took him in, the watch commander was soiling his shorts. All they wanted to do was get rid of him, as painlessly as possible.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 04, 2007 8:48 AM philosophocon writes:

I don't remember much of Plato's

Republic, but there is a concept that he put forth there that I've always found attractive. Namely that the level of public trust a person holds is a factor in criminal punishment. Thus, for example, a crime committed by your average Joe that sees him get 6 months would get a police officer a year, a judge two, etc. Kind of the opposite of what seems to happen.

I wonder if there's not an element of this idea in BrianR's and others posts here. Without getting into the argument of exactly what Craig did and if he did it, let's assume he was guilty of soliciting sex in a public washroom and that this is an illegal activity. As a high-level official the potential consequences of Craig's behaviour (loss of public trust, opening up to blackmail, etc.) are considerably graver than if any of us did the same (unless of course some of you have secret lives I don't nknow about).

I therefore don't really have a problem with someone like Craig being 'punished' disproportionately with someone else. I do, however, agree with Jeff that the jury is not necessarily in yet, and that those who are bringing us this story bear us (conservatives and/or Republicans) no goodwill. And I also agree with Flag that it is contemptible how the Republican party seems more than happy to serve up the heads of its own to these same individual almost on request.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 04, 2007 10:33 AM BrianR writes:

Philosoph: The jury's not in?

He entered a plea agreement, and pled guilty to reduced charges.

That's about as "in" as it gets.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, September, 04, 2007 8:14 PM Scottie writes:

One bad turn

deserves another. Stop by the Heartland for the new post.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, September, 05, 2007 11:01 AM BrianR writes:

Okay, I finally

weighed in on the topic with an essay at my place. Didn't want to but Craig's weaselling around about resigning forced me.

Take a look.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 06, 2007 6:03 PM Savage99 writes:

Scottie

You are correct -- politics ain't beanbag. Just as Dems have to maintain certain facades, so do Reps. Being gay is no disqualifier, trolling for gay sex is. The possibility of entrapment, or overzealous cop is there, but vanishingly small. He took a stupid chance, and is paying the price. The price may be unfair, but he knew it before he took the risk. A Dem who crosed a picket line would take the same sort of risk.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, September, 13, 2007 1:57 PM BrianR writes:

Okay, Jeff!


A brand-spanking new essay up at the Island.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, September, 21, 2007 11:46 AM The Crawfish writes:

WILL YOU PEOPLE

stop comparing us occaisionally drunken sailors to Congresscritters! That's highly offensive to us!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive