Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/04/craig.reconsider.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI CS/09/04/craig.reconsider.ap/index.html</a> I don't even know what to say on this one. Like SPP asked a few times, who's advising this guy? Himself, apparently.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 More power to him, I say. Why should the Dems always corner the market on blatant sexual misdeeds followed by in-your-face, "it's my business and none of yours" statements to the press and public? (-; Frankly, I think Craig may have a case against the arresting officer, who seemd a bit too impatient to me, and who really didn't wait for a verifiable, undeniable sexual proposal on Craig's part before hauling him in. I thought cases had to be a little more air tight than this to take someone in on a charge like this.
Originally Posted By gadzuux You're absolutely right - it would have been better if the officer had allowed craig to get a little further on - which I have no doubt craig would have done. But there's a bigger issue here - we have a US senator showing the bad judgement to get himself into this predicament in the first place, then compounding it with the guilty plea, and keeping it secret - until eventually he was exposed. Only then do we hear that he made a mistake in pleading guilty and now regrets it. NOW, we hear - only two days after his press conference and his stated "intent" to resign (a month from now) does he come back and say - well, I regret resigning and now I'd like a do-over. How foolish can this guy possibly be? And does he deserve a seat in the US senate after compounding an already ridiculous situation into something so sublimely stupid that his name will now go down in history as one of the biggest fools to ever sit in public office. But I say - go ahead - put him back in the senate, where he can be the "gift that keeps on giving" for the democrats. Remember - the GOP pushed him out for good reasons - their own, not his.
Originally Posted By ecdc Except for that whole, "pleading guilty" part. Hey, I say let him stay. I want the Republicans to crash and burn in '08. Like gadzuux said, the Republican leadership wants Craig gone yesterday. The longer he's in the news, the more time there is for everyone to compare him to Ted Haggart and Mark Foley. The more time there is for Conan O'Brien and David Letterman to be shooting fish in a barrel. The more time there is for talking head after talking head to point out what a hypocrite Craig is. Larry Craig ought to be on his hands and knees (um, definitely no pun intended!) thanking God "The Daily Show" was on hiatus when this all broke. I can just see Jon Stewart cutting to the live report from the bathroom stall.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "You're absolutely right - it would have been better if the officer had allowed craig to get a little further on - which I have no doubt craig would have done." I'm serious and do agree with you. I think if it had been more cut and dry, there would be a quicker end to this. "then compounding it with the guilty plea, and keeping it secret - until eventually he was exposed." Has nobody here ever agreed to something, avoided something, pretended not to hear something, or otherwise made an unwise judgment because of fear and the desire to just make something or someone go away? I really don't find his pleading guilty at all that foolish, or unbelievable, to be honest. If republicans could just learn to be more laid back like the dems and not so hung up on violating the law or appearing to be immoral or unethical, they would know how to deal with these sorts of situations and see them through with few, if any, negative marks against them.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Rush was on vacation last week too, and was saying how much he hated not being able to comment when the story was "hot". But that's okay, because craig keeps breathing oxygen into the whole sordid affair, thus allowing the media to keep it on the front burner - for over a week now. At this point there's essentially nobody that hasn't heard the seamy details. Nice goin', larry - you're a one-man rolling catastrophe for the GOP.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>If republicans could just learn to be more laid back like the dems and not so hung up on violating the law or appearing to be immoral or unethical, they would know how to deal with these sorts of situations and see them through with few, if any, negative marks against them.<< Sorry, I think I'll pass on this childish taunting and baiting.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Gee, I thought it was rather clever! Surely, you can't deny that dems seem to float through sex scandals unscathed and republicans don't? They must know something that republicans don't.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> If republicans could just learn to be more laid back like the dems and not so hung up on violating the law or appearing to be immoral or unethical, << Yeah - demagoguing. But that's just what republicans do - they have to if they're to secure the christian right. And to your other question - >> Has nobody here ever agreed to something ... << But this isn't just "something" - this is pleading guilty to soliciting sex in a public restroom. I don't think many people would voluntarily do that. Especially considering he'd been under investigation for months over similar charges. This isn't something that's just trumped up against the senator. And his sudden bid to return to the senate isn't about the best interests of the senate or the american people - it's about an attempt to salvage his own sorry reputation - and it won't work. My guess is he's having a hard time adjusting to this new reality, and wants to rehabilitate his image, but it's too late, the damage has been done. I think he should be placed on suicide watch.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^^^ while they may have been taunting, unfortunately we all know there are plenty of skeletons in the Dem closet in the morals/ ethics lawbreaking arena ( just as there are more GOP's) - and one needs look no further than Massachusetts for an example of how to survive a political/front page disaster. So to see alist here that only contains one parties names is less than genuine in my opinion too. We should all be outraged that we can have an elected official in office whose critical thinking is so poor - regardless of what party he is from - but of course everything has to be red and blue -- I hope one day this nonsense is over.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "But this isn't just "something" - this is pleading guilty to soliciting sex in a public restroom" I thought that he pleaded guilty to -- or believed he was pleading guilty to -- some sort of nebulous charge like "disturbing the peace" or something. Was there actual language that inferred a violation of a sexual nature?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Surely, you can't deny that dems seem to float through sex scandals unscathed and republicans don't? They must know something that republicans don't.<< Yeah, don't pretend to be above the fray when you're secretly wallowing in it. Bill Clinton never tried to push through a law outlawing adultery. Larry Craig tried to demonize homosexuality every chance he got. Like I said in the other thread, right or wrong, it's only natural that Republicans take a thrashing whenever there's a sex scandal involving one of their own. They've set themselves up as the righteous party, as the party of god, as the party of family values, etc. It's hypocrisy, and they'll get no sympathy from most Americans.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>ac/dc maybe you can answer my question from before. Why is looking for a consentual adult sexual mate in a bathroom illegal and wrong but looking to meet a sexual friend at a park or at a Padres game is ok? Councilor can not articulate so I will ask you.<< Sorry, I can barely stand stream-of-consciousness when James Joyce or William Faulkner writes it, let alone on an Internet message board.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder This is just asinine. Craig is delusional. There are so many obvious things wrong with this latest bit it's not even funny. How can anyone with a measurable IQ think this is a good idea? If he was so hell-bent on clearing his name why did he wait several months before it became public? He's allegedly a smart person, so when he was read his rights and was told of the charges, why did he plead guilty? United States senators shouldn't be railroaded by some small time cop. unless of course, they're guilty. To me, the tape of the interview clearly showed someone who was caught doing something wrong and furiously backpedaling. Had I been doing the interview, I would have told him flat out he was lying and we both knew it. If he wanted to restore any shred of credibility in the eyes of the law he'd be honest about what happened. I would have told him I was going to recommend the harshest charge I could. I could give a rip who he was, no one lies to me without consequences. Insead he tap danced, hemmed and hawed, and couldn't come up with a cogent story. He's embarrassing the hell out of himself, not that it's sinking in. I hope he gets slammed, and then gets some much needed help.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I thought that he pleaded guilty to -- or believed he was pleading guilty to -- some sort of nebulous charge like "disturbing the peace" or something. Was there actual language that inferred a violation of a sexual nature?" He plead guilty to disorderly conduct- often used as a way to cop a plea in crimes like this. There are a few ways to define it, here being he was loitering in a public area with the intent to commit an unlawful act.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "Like I said in the other thread, right or wrong, it's only natural that Republicans take a thrashing whenever there's a sex scandal involving one of their own. They've set themselves up as the righteous party, as the party of god, as the party of family values, etc. It's hypocrisy, and they'll get no sympathy from most Americans." The problem with this statement is that it seems to reflect a lack of understanding of people who consider to be god-fearing. I am certainly no expert, but it seems to me that people who profess to be following the teachings of god are the first to call themselves sinners, and to admit that as humans they lapse from godly behavior all the time and this is why they need their god, to help them try to be better and to sin less. I was similarly bemused by all the recent press about Mother Teresa, especially all the reports by people who seemed to be just drooling over the prospect that she had a lapse of faith and thus was not really the pious candidate for sainthood that everyone thought she was. What the news media who jumped on this story didn't seem to understand is that one of the key attributes that qualify people for sainthood is the very fact that they have been tempted and have had doubts or even lost faith at some point in their lives, but continued to fight those doubts and seek god throughout their lives, as they applied what they saw as god's teachings. I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about the whole theme of hypocrisy and why people loathe hypocrits so much. I find it fascinating. But all it really says to me is that if you profess to have morals or are trying to lead a life in which you observe certain moral behavior, then slip up -- you are apparently guilty of a much more heinous crime than someone who does the same thing but lacked any sort of moral conviction to begin with. This whole issue of hypocrisy reminds me of similar issues surrounding hate crimes. If one man kills another for money, he is considered a thief and a murderer. If one man kills another because he loathes the other man's color or religion or country of origin, however, the murderer is considered the lowest of the low because he committed a hate crime. But the victim is equally dead in both cases, right? And in some respects, the murder committed over money almost seems more tragic (in the Greek sense of the word) than a hate crime, which actually might have been more anticipated, given the hatred between various groups of people. Another comparison with hypocrisy is found in the notion that someone who commits a crime and shows remorse, is less a criminal than someone who commits the same crime but won't apologize. Why this overriding concern in our society that criminals show remorse? Does it make the victim of their crime less of a victim? Sorry - I'm going off on a tangent here, but it seems that so often we are more incensed by symbolism over substance. A crime is a crime is a crime, whatever the incentive to commit the crime, whatever the previous moral beliefs preceding the crime and whatever the response of the criminal after committing the crime. At least in my humble opinion.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Exhalted elder falters and tumbles following urges deeper still no bottom yet
