Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/27/craig.arrest/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI CS/08/27/craig.arrest/index.html</a> From the link: A Republican senator pleaded guilty earlier this month to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge stemming from his arrest at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, according to state criminal records. Roll Call newspaper reported Monday that Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho was apprehended June 11 by a plainclothes police officer investigating complaints of lewd behavior in an airport men's room. Roll Call reports on the U.S. legislature. Craig denied any inappropriate conduct in a prepared statement, and said he now regrets his guilty plea. ----- As we all know, this is entirely ok because Bill Clinton did something bad too.
Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/washington/28craig.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08 /28/washington/28craig.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin</a> This article has a few more, uh, details of the incident. It turns out this isn't the first time Senator Craig has been accused of homosexual activity. I could care less what he does in private. But if you're going to belong to the political party that more and more defines themselves by policing American bedroom activities, then you're opening yourself up to a lot of criticism.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Guess what? He supports the DOM amendment. Never coulda seen that one comin', huh? I had thought about starting a thread on this guy, but I decided against it because, as outrageous as their hypocrisy is (each and every time too - it never gets old) ultimately these people are sad pathetic human beings. We could dredge up the stories about congressman foley, or we could rehash reverend ted's fondness for hustlers and speed, or jersey governor mcgreevy, but what's the point really - to reiterate the hypocrisy of the GOP? Their rampant sexual repression and denial? It's just kicking a dog when it's down. But let's distinguish between "gay people" and people doing toilet tricks in the airport. Beeeg difference. How did senator craig know that this particular men's room was "hot"? What was the senator from idaho doing in minneapolis anyway? And I'm even given to wonder about undercover cops sitting in the stalls ... waiting. The whole thing is too seamy - even for me.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Craig has also stepped down from his position with the Romney campaign. Here's a copy of the police report. <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/craig-arrest-doc/" target="_blank">http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c om/docs/craig-arrest-doc/</a> Craig's claim that his foot only touched the officer's because he says he has a "wide stance" when going to the bathroom has caused considerable mirth and bad puns already. His claim that he only passed his hand under the wall into the officer's stall to "pick up a piece of paper" has been directly contradicted by the officer. And here's a detailed report by the Idaho Statesman about previous incidents: <a href="http://www.idahostatesman.com/localnews/story/143801.html" target="_blank">http://www.idahostatesman.com/ localnews/story/143801.html</a> "In an interview on May 14, Craig told the Idaho Statesman he'd never engaged in sex with a man or solicited sex with a man. The Craig interview was the culmination of a Statesman investigation that began after a blogger accused Craig of homosexual sex in October. Over five months, the Statesman examined rumors about Craig dating to his college days and his 1982 pre-emptive denial that he had sex with underage congressional pages. The most serious finding by the Statesman was the report by a professional man with close ties to Republican officials. The 40-year-old man reported having oral sex with Craig at Washington's Union Station, probably in 2004. The Statesman also spoke with a man who said Craig made a sexual advance toward him at the University of Idaho in 1967 and a man who said Craig "cruised" him for sex in 1994 at the REI store in Boise. The Statesman also explored dozens of allegations that proved untrue, unclear or unverifiable." The hypocrisy of these guys is amazing. Predictably, he not only supported DOMA, he also supported a local Idaho constitutional amendment that banned not only gay marriage but also civil unions and even domestic partnerships. And he continues to deny even a whiff of gayness. It really is very, very sad.
Originally Posted By gadzuux He denies it because that would be, you know, sooo TERRIBLE. And yet - he's gay. What kind of self loathing lurks in this man's heart? How easily the lies come to him. And yet, he's voting on matters of national concern - representing "we the people". One of the many ironies in all of this is that I don't actually see where the "crime" is in all of this. It's creepy, sure - but he wasn't forcing anybody to do anything. It was an overture - a "pass". But he pleaded guilty anyway. Now he says he made a mistake in pleading guilty and should have had the counsel of a lawyer. Well duh - you're a three term senator and you make these terrible decisions about your own personal life. And yet you expect the public to trust your judgement in war, taxes, law and order. I don't think so. Time for senator craig to retire from public office and give his seat over to someone who understands integrity, honor and personal responsibility. But that's up to the good people of idaho, isn't it? Which is one of the few remaining strongholds of bush supporters. Maybe craig really does represent his constituency after all.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>One of the many ironies in all of this is that I don't actually see where the "crime" is in all of this. It's creepy, sure - but he wasn't forcing anybody to do anything. It was an overture - a "pass".<< That's exactly what infuriates me about Craig and these other Republican closet, bi-curious men (I'm not convinced Haggart, or Craig et al, are gay.) I have no problem if they want to do this sort of thing. They should probably be warned that there can be serious consequences for their family relationships, etc., but it's their business. But they want to make other people's business theirs. They want to tell other people what they can and can't do. They want to legislate their own warped version of so-called "morality" that is so screwed up they themselves can't even live by it. It is so incredibly pathetic and disgusting. When the Republican party decides to stop being the party of God and starts being the party of fiscal management, privacy, small government, etc., then maybe they'll get my vote again.
Originally Posted By ecdc And look at how those awful Democrats are politicizing this and using it as a witch hunt: "Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, chairwoman of the Ethics Committee, declined to comment on whether an investigation would be conducted. Her office noted the committee's work is generally confidential.<" How dare she! Can you even fathom the Republicans foaming at the mouth if a Democratic senator had been caught doing this?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <When the Republican party decides to stop being the party of God and starts being the party of fiscal management, privacy, small government, etc., then maybe they'll get my vote again.> I doubt it. The Republican party has passed almost nothing that could be called an attempt to legislate morality, and have constantly shown themselves to be the party of fiscal management and small government when compared to Democrats, and yet you've done little but critize Republicans for every perceived fault, I don't think you're really interested in small government and fiscal management.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>have constantly shown themselves to be the party of fiscal management and small government when compared to Democrats<< Again, prior to this administration that might be true. It is not at all true now. Government has been expanded dramatically under President Bush, spending has gone crazy. Which of course was ecdc's point. He was saying that IF they return to those values, he would again be happy to vote GOP. As always, criticism of THIS administration and of the dwindling ranks of neocons that still support them shouldn't be confused with some deep-set hatred of all things Republican. That's something neocons seem unable to fathom for some reason.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The Republican party has passed almost nothing that could be called an attempt to legislate morality<< Not for lack of trying... >>In recent years, Craig's voting record has earned him top ratings from social conservative groups such as the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council. He has supported a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, telling his colleagues that it was "important for us to stand up now and protect traditional marriage, which is under attack by a few unelected judges and litigious activists." In 1996, Craig also voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal recognition to same-sex marriages and prevents states from being forced to recognize the marriages of gay and lesbian couples legally performed in other states. Craig has also opposed expanding the federal hate crimes law to cover offenses motivated by anti-gay bias and, in 1996, voted against a bill that would have outlawed employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, which failed by a single vote in the Senate.<<
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<The 40-year-old man reported having oral sex with Craig at Washington's Union Station, probably in 2004. >> Did we learn NOTHING from Bill Clinton? Oral stimulation is NOT sex. Craig is being railroaded. He did not have sex with anyone. Just oral stimulation. <<Can you even fathom the Republicans foaming at the mouth if a Democratic senator had been caught doing this?>> I can imagine almost anyone foaming at the mouth if they were doing that. ;-)
Originally Posted By jmoore1966 Reading that memo from the undercover officer about made me sick. Why anyone would want to have sex of any kind in a bathroom while others were -- as the officer put it -- making noises indicating they were using the restroom for its intended purposes -- is beyond me. It looks like Mr. Craig is indeed in the closet or curious, or whatever you want to call it, but I don't think that necessarily makes him a hypocrit. He didn't try to secretly marry a man. If he was a crusader against gays in other ways, I can see his hypocrisy. But aren't there openly gay people against gay marriage?
Originally Posted By friendofdd If anybody thinks there IS a party of fiscal restraint and small government in America, please raise your hands. Parties so small they are unable to influence policy because they are not elected in large enough numbers really don't count.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Craig is being railroaded." Is that the term for having oral sex in the restroom of a train station? I have been to Union Station it's really beautiful. I didn't get any oral sex there, though. But then I don't get it anywhere else, either.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <If he was a crusader against gays in other ways, I can see his hypocrisy.> As post #10 pointed out, he voted against the senate bill that would have prohibited discrimination against gay people in employment. It failed, so it's still quite legal to fire someone simply for being gay in something like 37 states. See the hypocrisy now? (Along with the irony)? <But aren't there openly gay people against gay marriage?> There are a handful of radicals who think marriage itself is a bad institution and shouldn't be practiced by anyone (there are some straights who think this also). And there are some who consider gay marriage politically impossible now and are pushing for civil unions instead, but that doesn't really make them "against" gay marriage. Of course, Craig was against marriage OR civil unions.
Originally Posted By jonvn I have talked to some gay people online who say they are not for gay marriage. They also claim to be republican too. I think their heads are a bit messed up, frankly.
Originally Posted By jmoore1966 Yeah, the irony is definitely there. I can see how hypocrisy can be an issue due to the employment issue.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Again, prior to this administration that might be true. It is not at all true now. Government has been expanded dramatically under President Bush, spending has gone crazy.> Government has expanded, and spending has increased, but the Democrat Party has pushed for more at every step, and not less. <He was saying that IF they return to those values, he would again be happy to vote GOP.> Yes, I read that. But I've also read all of his criticisms of the GOP, and noticed that he seldom if ever criticizes the Democrats. Thus my skeptism of his claim. You can't say you'd vote the GOP if the advocated smaller government and less spending, and then turn around and mouth Democrat talking points and maintain any credibility.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad The guy should step down. He brings ANOTHER black eye to the GOP, and (it seems some here don't realize) to ALL POLITICIANS. It only adds to the impression of many people that politicians are corrupt, hypocrites that are interesting in personal gain, and offer nothing but lies. Certainly, it reflects on the GOP to a greater degree, but it doesn't make Liberals shine in the public either. The guy is a fraud and should find a new career.
