I can only assume that you think it was a bad thing that the Republican party did. . . that it wasn’t natural. Is that true?
The evil Senator, with his ever-suffering wife by his side, resigned today. Not because of his actions in Minnesota .. Oh no! ... It's just that all of his time is going to be taken up clearing his 'good' name so he won't be able to give Idaho the time it deserves. Yea.. right
I was going to email the bastard but that function has been turned off on his Senatorial website. I'm sure that's just a malfunction....
I don't know where you come up with that.
The only way that Craig could have kept his seat would have been to switch to the Democrat party They have no problem letting criminals remain in power. They in fact, reward them.
"OLE' CHILLY CHEDDAR" THEY CALL HIM NOW...
lol
I gotta agree with Ben Stein that Sen. Craig was railroaded on this....
God forbid if you tap your foot...
he did the cause of getting gays back into the Boys Scouts no big favor...
that was the engineer. They threatened to run another candidate against him in the primary year who would have the party funding behind him. No one railroaded him into his activities in the airport and no one railroaded him to plead guilty.
That aparty is filled with mens room cocksuckers.
theyre all wondering "what;s the fuss?
. . . and Republicans would then get to whine about how the Democrats "reward" criminals.
What he did was hardly criminal, and it wasn't Democrats calling for his ouster, they've just been amused about it.
The charge against him was hardly "criminal." It's the Republicans who are desperate to have a "higher moral standard" who couldn't afford to keep him in office.
He might have switched to being a Democrat, but he wouldn't have won another election in Idaho anyway, and it wasn't like the Democrats were going to give him any committee chairs.
I can only assume that you think it was a bad thing that the Republican party did. . . that it wasn’t natural. Is that true?
In keeping with the myopic marching orders of the authoritarian Conservative mindset the cannibalization of Craig was the ONLY "Republican" answer.
Whether Craig was culpable of any sort of a crime is moot. It was the climate of the alleged offense being GAY that dressed him for dinner.
Of course it's going to be awhile before an openly gay conservative gets elected to a national office (especially in a state as red as Idaho).
obvious hypocrite will be elected to national office.
What? The Republicans have been in the White House half of the last century? Too late!
Please! I know that there are gay conservatives but they are deluding themselves. Their Conservative brethren hate them for being gay. So their attempts to get into that club are about as ludicrous as a black guy trying to join the Klan.
And stop blaming the Dems for Sen. Craig. They have maintained a studious silence on this whole issue. You need to stop listening to Rush and try to mix in some diversity in what drivel you're listening to.
He pleaded guilty to a CRIMINAL misdemeanor charge. You (as well as many others) may not consider it “criminal” but it was still a CRIME.
My comment about switching to the Democrat party was of course to make a point. I clearly wasn’t being serious about his possible intentions. Nonetheless, before he resigned, I wished he had made some statement about switching.
About the Republican party being his motivation for resignation…It doesn’t surprise me at all that the Democrats are giving the Republicans a “hard time” over it (i.e. going out of their way to point out, as you did, that it was not them calling for the resignation). They always love to have it both ways on most everything. I honestly think most of them don’t even realize they do it. The Republicans are simply being true to their morals and values by forcing the resignation, yet they somehow get painted in a “bad light” over it. Of course if they failed to achieve his resignation the same “painters” would be howling about the Republican hypocrisy of it all.
-- Modified on 9/2/2007 1:30:48 AM
because of their morals and values. They booted him out for one reason: they were afraid of losing the seat if he ran for re-election next year. That goes a long way to show how afraid the Republicans are of next year's elections when they even consider a Senate seat in a dark red state like Idaho at risk. There is no moral issue in play here. It was simply a political calculation by the Republican party.
You're saying that no Republican (or at least none on the long list that spoke out against him) has morals, strong enough to stand up to his behavior.
He doesn’t even know what constitutes perjury, yet he has an opinion on the subject. See the below thread: Bye Bye Berto.
because they all have the Jesus (TM) brand fire, fuckup & moral bankruptcy insurance policy.
The beauty of this policy is that it costs them nothing, and only they can get it. It allows them to admit they fucked up and claim it doesn't matter because Jesus forgives them. And of course they get to turn around and do the same thing forever, repeating the same fuckup indefinitely.
And of course Democrats are fucking wusses, who take this mental illness seriously instead of organizing a national lynch party.
I'm sure we're going to hear about a Jesus claims adjuster in Iraq for GWB here real soon.
I don't know how you came up with that interpretation because that's not what I said. My argument is that Craig was forced out by the Republican party based on their fear of losing his Senate seat in next year's election. I'm sure if the Democrats faced a similar situation they would do exactly the same thing.
First, considering the lifestyle expressed by my posting on this website, I can't take the crime itself so seriously. A crime? Yes, but a misdemeanor. It's necessary that public sex be proscribed, but I see the crime on the level of "fishing without a license" or "reckless and imprudent driving." If his public positions weren't at odds with his behavior, I would have little grounds to criticize him, though it would still be funny.
What was the point (innuendo) you were making about about the Democratic Party? To look at this, both parties would love to have it both ways. Hypocrisy is a word that could be twisted back and forth, and members of both parties love to do it. Members forgive their own contradictions and don't forgive the ones of the opposite side, due to the notion of moral failure.
Hypocrisy: the notion of expressing principles while secretly not following them yourself is a slippery a term in politics. The concept is important, but politically it has become debased and almost worthless. First of all, each party is a plurality, and there will be quite a difference of principles with members. Members are often wrongly presumed to share the entire political view of his respective party. However, our parties aren't Leninist, they aren't disciplined strictly to party dogma. Second, it doesn't take into account changes of opinions on principles: the Malcome X dilemma of changing his point of view about white people, but knowing that if he expresses it loudly, he immediately loses his leadership and influence. Republicans would say that there is a third problem, that it doesn't take into account moral failure, that higher values and expectations mean more failure. I have a problem with that one. That is, it's deceptive. Things you do deliberately and repeatedly and without time pressure are not "mistakes." They shouldn't be played up as such. Like social conservatives who have 30 reviews here and still espouse family values-- that's not a mistake and that's not a failure. The person did exactly what they wanted to do, it had the exact outcome that they wanted. A mistake is where you forget the condom and come down with AIDS.
And there we get in to moral deception and the realism of the moral theory espoused. It's easy to cite Republicans on these grounds. It's not a problem Democrats have. It is a terrible misnomer to cite moral deception or delusion as hypocrisy, but it's a common practice. So Republicans are called hypocrites either way. The reason is more like debasement of the political language.
Republicans are the most vocal about morality; they make a specific, flawed morality cornerstone of their platform. Therefore, the opposition is not going to leave them alone about it. It's important to the debate, but unfortunately, the terms are too debased to ever identify the crux of the issue.
-- Modified on 9/2/2007 12:55:12 PM
the lack of credibility in Craig's denial that he is (at least partly) gay. From everything I've read and from what I've learned over the years about human nature my personal opinion is that Craig absolutely was trying to make sexual contact in that airport bathroom and that this is the kind of sexual behavior he has engaged in from time to time in the past. (Rumors that he has engaged in that type of behavior have circulated for years and it is very similar to the bathroom cruising behavior former Gov. Greevey now brags that he used to do.)
Why does this matter? Because however you judge this type of behavior it's just not OK for a public figure in Craig's situation to deny the truth. (It wasnt OK when Clinton did it either, but he got away with it because he is the ultimate political survivor). If Craig wants to stay deep deep in the closet for the rest of his life that's his right however misguided. But he cant do that and expect to remain a Republican senator, and an anti-gay one at that.
But was it a "fitting end"? No. I wouldnt wish the end of Sen. Craig's career on anyone.
You either suck dick, or you do not suck dick.
and what if you are a suckee, but not suckor? Or what if you only push ass, or shop for purses?
Just asking.
I'm not a Republican, so I have no way of knowing about fairies.
How fitting. I wonder if they'll double airport security in the restrooms a year from now.