BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct

Subject: BS: Senator Larry Craig
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 10:58 PM

Senator Craig is out of the closet!

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 11:12 PM

not out of the water-closet...

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig
From: Peace
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 12:08 AM

Lewd conduct. Like, what IS that?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig
From: Peace
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 12:26 AM

Just read a few sites. Forget I asked the question in the post above.

Read he'd had a few choice things to say about Clinton. Huh.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig
From: Wesley S
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 09:03 AM

So who cares? If he doesn't represent my district then it's none of my business.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 09:04 AM

It's reported that he hasn't decided whether or not to run again in 2008. If he does, I suspect the Democrats will win the seat.

Again, Hubris brings someone down.

Can't these people learn? (Well, no. They're as immune from "outing" as an 18-year-old is from his or her own death.)

Our other Senator is named Crapo. That's pronounced "CRAY-po", not how you think.

I'm getting tired of this "I admit it! I'm an alcoholic drug addict whose been embezzling taxpayers' money and following the rough trade at truck stops while selling guns I purchase illegally to big city gangs and selling child pornography and giving meth to school children. But I'm going into treatment, and I hope you'll forgive me like God and my wife have" stuff. It's a cop-out, and I for one am not going to kiss and make up until I'm shown, for years, that the reformation is real. Deeds, not words.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig
From: Sorcha
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 10:12 AM

What Rap said. Damned hypocrites.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig
From: pdq
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 10:20 AM

Hypocrisy is in the eye of the beholder.

Such a claim does give a partisan an excuse to destroy an enemy.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 11:08 AM

Remember Ted Haggard the evangelical preacher who was the conduit to and from the White House as well as male prostitutes?

He is now pleading for money donations so that he might be re educated.

Ted knows that no matter how hypocritical his life and influence has been, he need only ask and he shall recieve because he has given his life to Jesus Christ just like Michael Vick, Mike Tyson and Paris Hilton .

The sin of Senator Craig is hypocricy and being a liar. It is never really about sex.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 11:37 AM

Whoa - if he *did* represent your district, would his sex life be your business?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig
From: pdq
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 11:41 AM

Only if he is a Republican. Then he must be destroyed.

On the other hand, if he is a Democrat, he shall be raised to the status us 'hero' to many.

This is America. Some of our customs are bit hard to explain.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 11:50 AM

Theres the rub

Its not about sex.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig
From: SINSULL
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 12:02 PM

If Craig resigns, the governor will appoint himself senator (he can do that) and run for re-election in 2008.

Meantime, Craig says his action were "misconstrued" and he should never had pled guilty. So why exactly was he putting his hands and feet under the locked door of a stall in the Men's Room? And why the airport, for heaven's sake, unless he was begging to be caught?

I pity his wife and family. What a mess.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 12:45 PM

Craig DOES represent my State.

And he has always seemed like a good enough sort, especially his stand on immigration (which was contrary to the majority of Republicans in the Senate).

His career as an elected official is over. And yes, I feel sorry for his wife and family -- like Bill Clinton, he'll have to settle those matters inter familia.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 12:59 PM

I certainly have empathy for his family, they are always the victims in things such as these. Just ask Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.

As to the Senator, a pox on him. I wouldn't have near the animus towards these right wingers if they weren't so judgemental, and weren't constantly flouting the righteousness of their ways, only to be caught again and again. Congressional pages, male prostitutes, and this. The Dems have had their share of unsavoriness, but they don't parade themselves as the moral arbiters in the same way.

I am beginning to believe that we Americans deserve what we get sometimes. Our culture of instant gratification seems to have allowed hypocritical and shallow pol's with tons of money to feed just enough pap to get elected, and then when this happens we shake our heads. Yet when someone tells the truth, instead of what the polls say we want to hear, they can't get a forum. I think of Mitt Romney (not implying anything about his sexual proclivities here) who has changed his positions on key issues, but looks good, and folks line up in support. I think about Democrats, supposed allies of labor, who read polls to determine their stances and win elections, only to saddle us with trade agreements that destroy US jobs.

Craig is symptomatic of an illness in our system. He is not the first, or the worst. But left untreated, it will be fatal.

Ramble off,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig
From: San Francisco Bill
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 01:30 PM

I wonder what that poor cop did to get the short straw and get assigned to "Crapper Pervert Patrol"?

Attention networks! Which of you will be introducing "To Catch A Senator" in this Fall's lineup?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 01:46 PM

A new Reality TV show is in the offing! Oops, never mind...Geraldo Rivera is already on it. And...who's that over there? Why, it's Jerry Springer!

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 03:02 PM

On "Numbers USA" Craig is graded lower than any other member of the Idaho Congressional Deligation.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig
From: Peace
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 03:12 PM

"Such a claim does give a partisan an excuse to destroy an enemy."

Some enemies deserve to be destroyed, no offense.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig
From: John Hardly
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 03:47 PM

I've talked to a few people who are more to the right than the left. Their initial take on it is one of feeling unfair persecution -- that is, it's only a big story because it's a Republican.

First of all, I don't agree. I think it is a "big story" because it is a Senator. And it's a sensational story because it is sex -- and sex sells papers.

But there is an inherent truth that Republicans are going to have to come to terms with. There is a truth that Republicans are going to have to learn if they expect to ever break even in the "gotcha" game of he scandalled/she scandalled that is Washington politics...

...the only reason that scandal works to bring down a Republican is because Republicans, at least at this point, have to try to appeal to a voting block for whom personal moral behavior is both important AND includes sexual behaviors as well as other vices.

Democrats are not similarly saddled. If a Democrat is found at the center of a scandal -- particularly a sexual one, it doesn't matter to his voting base. He may have a moment of personal embarrassment, but he need not suffer politically.

That's one reason why so many who even LOVED the guy, are so pissed at Clinton. All he had to do was own up to an act that most of his constituency doesn't even see as wrong, and impeachment would never have happened. In fact, he would have chopped the political legs out from under his pursuers so fast they wouldn't have known what hit them -- their ONLY political victories being won in the arena of the public's knowing they were being deceived by Clinton.

Instead, Clinton gave his enemies a legal leg to stand on.

Republicans need to learn that a "dirty tricks" file on their political opponents is most likely going to backfire on them. And they all had better watch their backsides because, whether they think it's fair or not -- they WILL be brought down by behaviors that their opponents can flaut.

What's fair for the goose is not fair for the gander because the goose is a duck.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 03:51 PM

Very astute posting, John. You said it much better than I did.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 03:52 PM

I agree with you, John Hardly. Mainly.

But one reason that Craig is big news is because of the possibility of gaining a Democratic seat in the Senate. In other words it is not just gossip and gotcha.

The only excuse or reason I can think in Clinton's case is that perhaps he thought he could make his denial stick, and therefore not have to admit his guilt to his wife and daughter.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 04:12 PM

"What's fair for the goose is not fair for the gander because the goose is a duck."

                If it walks like a goose, and squawks like a goose,
it's a duck?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: pdq
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 04:20 PM

whack his peepee!

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Peace
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 04:22 PM

Wasn't he trying to get that done when he was charged?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 05:00 PM

That wasn't the charge he was looking for.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 05:25 PM

John is absolutely correct is his observation that the Repubs have tried to corral the family values issue to their own detremnet...

But it goes even further here in that the Repubs haven't just taken a value system of their base but gone well beyond that in taking these issues and throwing gasoline on them to infuriate their base...

Just like falg burning... Who cares??? Noone burns flags but they use this worn out issue over and over and over and whip up hatred in folks who really are clueless as to whether or not there are folks out there burning flags...

Now the Repubs have gone too far in creating thios inte4nse hatred of homosexual people... Yeah, okay, mainstream America ain't moving with them on this but folks like those who are whipped into a lather over non-existent flag burners now are less tolerant of homosexuality than they were before the Repubs made it a wedge issue...

Wedge issues may work in the short run but in the long run will almost invariably come 'round to bite you...

That is waht we are now seeing: the long run!!!

I wish that a guy like Senator Craig could just run on issues that effect us all and leave these emotional and deeply personal ones the heck alone... It sho nuff would make it easier for him to own up to his own sexuality... And that is sad...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 05:29 PM

well...*I* don't care what he does...or even care very much if he does it in public restrooms. *I* don't think it's any reason, by itself, to vote against him. But to the extent it shows a double-standard and hypocracy, it worries me.

The thing is, his behavior will cause a lot more criticism among the his conservative base than anything I'd fret about.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 07:46 PM

Yeah, Bill, exactly...

The Repubs have pinned their success on their conservative base... They have not only pandered to it but taken it a step further in formenting even greater hatred and less tolereance of folks with different values...

Now it seems that these tactics have boxed them into a corner...

I mean, lets get real... What if a Dem were to call a press conference and say "I'm gay"... Do you think that would bring on some furry from the right??? Okay, maybe a couple days worth but not what Tom Foley and this guy are gonna do to the Repubs...

The Repubs need to rethink their Southern Stategy that is aimed at getting Southern Baptists to the polls.. The country is a lot bigger than Southern Baptists... A lot bigger...

The Repubs tunnel vison has caught up to them...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: curmudgeon
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 08:04 PM

Craig needn't fret about what Democrats will do, but rather    his fellow Republicans
-- Tom

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Charley Noble
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 08:24 PM

It's Sen. Craig's abysmal lack of judgment that condemns his political career. He was indiscrete enough to look for sex in an airport restroom. He was arrogant enough to flash his ID card at the arresting officer in an attempt to intimidate him. He was mistaken when he thought he could "get through" this problem by pleading guilty to a lessor charge rather than contacting a lawyer and fighting the original charge. He probably is a hypocrite when it comes to his own sexual preferences compared with how he votes in the Senate on laws related to gay and lesbian rights.

He may actually believe he can redeem himself and win re-election. Again, I believe he is mistaken even though he is in a "safe" Republican district. The only way a Democratic challenger could win in his district would be if Craig runs again.

I don't think Idaho voters will believe that there was a "conspiracy" to nail him but evidently that is what Sen. Craig is hoping for.

Here's to his retirement!

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 08:33 PM

Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, male or female, straight or gay, it doesn't matter. Doin' it in an airport restroom is just fuckin' lowlife. There are hotels FULL of rooms near every major airport in the US. Why do you think they call those waits between flights "layovers"?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: SINSULL
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 09:07 PM

He had a lawyer who told him not to plead guilty. And he insists he is not gay and that he wasn't soliciting sex. Makes me wonder what the hell he was doing. I can't recall playing footsies through a locked bathroom door to see if it really was taken. Nor have I ever tapped on the floor and waved. Gross. Those floors are disgusting.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 09:13 PM

" Doin' it in an airport restroom is just fuckin' lowlife."

I was just getting ready to say the same thing.

You don't need "family values" to find this offensive. Ditto a fifty-year-old man being serviced by a teenage underling on her knees in their place of business.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 09:15 PM

Hey, maybe this guy could come to his defense.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 09:17 PM

John, if you are talking about who I think you are talking about, I don't think she was a teenager.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 09:22 PM

Very sad...

Sad for out nation 'cause it stiffens the beliefs of the homophobics and sad for Larry Craig who felt he couldn't represent his constituency because he is gay...

This hatred stuff has got to stop or it's gonna kill our country...

I fell so sorry for Larry Craig but more sorry for our country that is no longer a beacon of freedom, be it the freedom to say what you want or your sexuality...

This is all so very sad...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Peace
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 09:25 PM

She was 22 at the time of the alleged felayteo/fullaytio/falatio cock-sucking.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: astro
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 09:36 PM

Well, coming from Idaho, we note that our politicians seem to know how to conduct themselves stupidly...remember Rep. Hansen who set up a table outside the US embassy in Tehran during the hostage crisis...ran into Hansen in Salt Lake while flying back from Tucson for Christmas...been in the bar for several hours, due to problems with the plane. He showed me shredded CIA documents that were put back together by the militants. Stated that if the shah entered America, something bad would happen...marked as top secret, wondered if I should be seeing this...

Hansen made sense to me after drinking for hours...never made any sense when I was sober...

astro in LA

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 09:51 PM

What will kill him is the hypocrisy; I don't think most people in Idaho give a rat's ass if he's gay or straight or neither or both.

I had a meeting with the Mayor this morning; he returned from a meeting in Boise yesterday to find at least fifty calls awaiting him about this.

Apparently the Boise newspaper broke the story in Idaho. The "Statesman Journal" is not known for its radical, left-wing politics....

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 10:16 PM

San Fran Bill,
I had the same thought.
After 2 weeks on gay toilet patrol you can bet you would want to bust somebody, anybody for anything just to get out of that god damn stall.
"Yeah, he looked at me funny, he had limp wrists in the sink, he shook it one too many times, his elbow touched me, he asked if I was landing or taking off...





*********************************************************
*WE ALL KNOW WHY REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS ARE THE MOST GAY*
*********************************************************


Because closeted gays have to man up in every conceivable way to disguise their conflicted position. The best way for them to "man up" politically is to choose the blood and guts, do or die, war at any cost, macho, most patriotic Republican party.

Naturally gay women have no need to overdo the Republican manly ploy.

If Senator Craig fights this thing to the end he might end up using the same rationalization that Bill Clinton tried - "Oral sex isn't really sex."

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: EBarnacle
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 11:01 PM

Just his luck to run into an honest cop.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: pdq
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 06:42 AM

hippocracy: rule by hippotamus

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: pdq
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 06:50 AM

hippocracy: rule by hippopotamus

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 06:53 AM

"What will kill him is the hypocrisy; I don't think most people in Idaho give a rat's ass if he's gay or straight or neither or both."

Sure. It might be that they don't care if he's gay or straight or a rat's ass. But they MIGHT just think twice about a gay or straight guy who wants to represent them but doesn't show the good sense to not stick his dick through a knothole in a public bathroom stall.

Oh, I'm sorry. Is that what gays do? I wasn't aware that sticking your dick in the knothole of a public bathroom to be serviced by a stranger was "gay".

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 09:12 AM

I don't know, JH, but it could be splintery.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 09:15 AM

is "splintery" an adjective or an adverb?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: pdq
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 09:22 AM

When is a hole not a hole? When it's a knothole!

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 10:24 AM

"Oh, I'm sorry. Is that what gays do? I wasn't aware that sticking your dick in the knothole of a public bathroom to be serviced by a stranger was "gay"."


               I suspect it only works this way for "gay" Republicans. A large number of them spend so much time in church, they've been rendered incapable of rational thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 11:49 AM

Either or both; the reader decides.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Mickey191
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 12:49 PM

FROM GOOGLE:

Allegations that Craig is a homosexual have followed him for at least 25 years. In 1982, CBS News broke stories on the Congressional page sex scandal. In the first story, an unidentified page said he'd been propositioned by male members of Congress. Though the story didn't implicate then-Representative Craig, nor any member of Congress by name, Craig immediately issued angry denials of any involvement… the only member to do so.

Six months after the unfortunate page stories and Craig's response, he got engaged. Today he's married, has three grown children and nine grandkids.
Why has he appeared so horrified for so many years that someone might think he's attracted to men? Part of the answer lies in his constituency. He's been elected to five House terms and three Senate terms by loyal voters in the conservative state of Idaho. His public life and stance is the antithesis of gay. He has often voted against gay rights, and last year supported a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Idaho.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's the hypocracy and his voting record that should make him ashamed. His constituents may not care-as long as he continues to vote their way.

We know one thing--Mitt does not suffer fools lightly. Here's your hat, Larry--What's your hurry?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: jacqui.c
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 01:19 PM

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much"

And the Senator.

If he was so sure of his innocence why plead guilty at all? He must have known that, with his profile, this would come out at some point.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: pdq
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 02:20 PM

"I didn't know he was a gay blade until he stabbed me in the back."

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: curmudgeon
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 03:28 PM

Another   Republican speaks out.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 03:38 PM

Well, at least Coleman is disproving the general accusation -- that of Republican hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 04:13 PM

There is a sad side to this story although it on the surface appears funny. The Republican Authoritarian personality is bound to get caught at something like this. ( Some of you might remember Anita Bryant who spoke so publicly about the "sins" of homosexuality until it was revealed that her husband was gay. ) Instead of compassion for those who seek illicit sexual pleasure on the "Low Down", the authoritarians amoung us like to beat up on homosexuals. This is because they themselves have the urges that lead to social ostracism.

If acceptance of homosexuality as a biological fact instead of a moral issue were in this country, then all of this would just go away. As long as Authoritarian Republicans continue to rail against their own behavior by being little Nazi crusaders about it instead of showing compassion and understanding for the plight of those who have a problem dealing with their sexuality, then more Republicans will be coming out of the closet in droves.

"Methinks thou protesteth too much"...............I think the sad thing is that many Republicans don't get that. It's interesting that those affected are preachers and politicians.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Big Mick
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 04:23 PM

Frank, it is just another case of them denying what research is showing us. I have asked fundies how they explain the fact that God made some folks gay, and God doesn't make mistakes. Their response is that homosexuality is a choice. I then point out that all the research seems to indicate that homosexuality seems to be determined by the size of the hypothalmus, or something such as this, as best as a layman such as meself can understand. The response is that the research is wrong. But these types of fundies are the same ones that set up a museum that shows folks walking with dinosaurs, despite the fact that the fossil record clearly indicates something different.

I can't help but feel pity for Craig. He is in such denial about who and what he is.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Barry Finn
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 05:00 PM

I feel no pity for him. He's a senator & his life is public. I don't care what he does in private but what he does in public is my concern & tells me what he's about. When Bush opens his mouth to speak he's an embarassment to anyone who speaks the english langauge, well when a senator hangs his dick out in public to be serviced he's much more of an embrassment to the nation. It's not exceptable behavior for a teenager, though could be excused with a talk with an adult, but a senator, NOT! His judgement is flawed, his sense of what's acceptable is flawed, his ability to draw lines with society is flawed & this only shows what he's about. I don't care if he wants to service or get serviced by each passing dog he sees, he can take those dogs home & do what he does in private. If he doesn't have the control nor the brains to do that then he's not fit to be one of our nation's top leader, lawmaker or guiding light. He needs to step down & starting walking the dogs.

It is a shame for his family but what's his wife doing with such an idiot in the 1st place she should dump him too, in which case we'll all be better off without him.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 05:42 PM

There have been rumors about Craig starting with the Congressional interns scandal in (I think) 1982. He was never named; however, the rumors continued. I sincerely doubt that they reached the people of Idaho.

I don't think that he IS gay. I think that he's one of those males who will "make it" with both sexes but define themselves as "straight." This behavior was reported by Kinsey back in what? 1948 or so?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 07:30 PM

Well, well, well...

This evening's news was all about the Repubs tryin' to pressure Craig out of the Senate... Normal... When they get caught that's purdy much their M.O these days... No more Foley incidents... Just cut and run....

Too bad they can't apply the same logic to Iraq...

But the larger issue is that I fear this incident is going to bring about yet another round of gay bashing... We don't need any more hate stuff put on us... We haven't digested the last batch...

I wish the guy didn't feel he had to lie about it... It has to be terribly embarassing for him and purdy much ruined his life... If we had a more enlightened citizenery he wouldn't have to lie...

Like I said, this is a sad commentary on our country more than on this one man...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Barry Finn
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 08:18 PM

Bobert, don't blame a dumbed down citizenery for his stupid behavior, we are dumb enough & on the whole not much better than those we keep voting into office.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: DougR
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 08:29 PM

Yep, Big Mick, the Demos are above reproach.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: curmudgeon
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 08:38 PM

Doug -   Republicans without "holier than thou" attitudes could also rise above reproach.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: pdq
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 08:46 PM

A "holier than thou" attitude is almost entirely in the eye of the beholder.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 08:49 PM

Dougie,

The Repubs just missed a golden opportunity to come oiff a regular guys... They blew it...

And why???

Heck if I know??? There really aren't that many Jerry Falwell wingnuts out there, even in the South...

The Repubs are blowin' this one big time by pouncing on this poor feller...

In the words of Jesus: "Let you who has not sinned cast the first stone..."

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 08:50 PM

he doesn't smoke after sex, but he does light a match or two.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 08:52 PM

I'm reminded that some cat once said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Both political parties have their hypocrites, both have skeletons in their closets.

Too damned bad neither feels that it can be honest.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 09:00 PM

"Too damned bad neither feels that it can be honest."

You think seeking sex in a public bathroom from a complete stranger is a symptom of feeling as though he can't be honest? I sure don't.

And I'm not really sure anyone is ready for a senator that says, "I will bring home the $$ to build you bridges, I will keep your sons....er....daught....er....family safe, and I will solicit sex from strangers in public bathrooms in my off hours!".

If saying that sticking my dick in a public bathroom stall's knothole to be serviced by some stranger is beneath me, then, yes, I'm holier-than-thou. And I'd hope I wouldn't vote for someone who wasn't similarly holier-than-thou.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 09:04 PM

I quite agree, JH.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 09:08 PM

I guess I could have said it in a more friendly, more meaningful way...

To accept that Craig's behavior is the behavior of an inhibited gay person is a slap in the face to my gay friends.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 09:12 PM

Two of my gay friends dropped into say "Hi!" today. They objected to Craig's actions because they considered him to be a hypocrite. Tom said, "Why can't he just come out and admit it and get on with life? Once in a while doesn't make you gay anymore than being married means you're straight."

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: SINSULL
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 09:26 PM

I agree, JH. Soliciting sex from strangers in a public bathroom is not acceptable. He needs to go.


But it also explains one thing. If this is how you perceive gays behave then indeed you would call it perversion and outlaw it.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 09:39 PM

I think that seeking homosexual sex in a public bathroom is indicative of an intolerant society...

Seems there exhists some insider communication stuff that no one wants to be talk about... The tappin' of the foot...

I mean, here we are judging a man who because of the *limits* we put on personal freedom as to sexuality is kinds forced into a cruddy situation...

This isn't as much about Larry Craig as it is about our society...

We seem to feed on a crimnal code that puts way too much emphasis on heterosexual values and way too much on *victimless* crimes... Had this undercover cop not been an undercover cop who was out there probably engaging in some *trolling* on his own as part of his assignment but been a regular gay guy, who knew what ther foot tappin' meant, and engaged in sex with the Senator like exactly who would have been harmed???

No one!!!

I'm so sick of stings and victimless prosecutions...

This ain't waht freedom is about...

Hey, this guy wasn't stalkin' young men... He was doing something that as foriegn to striaght people as it can be, is part of (not the whole story) but part of being gay and not in a monogomous relationship...

Some of you folks need to guit the gay bashing... Some of you don't even know you are doing it and that is the sad part... You don't have to tie a gay kid behind a pickup truck and drag him thru a Texas town to fall into the "don't-get-it" category...

Lots of yoyu all just don't friggin' get it...

I'd suggest to any of you who think IO'm way off base to run off this thread, take it to anyone you know who is gay, and ask them what I'm desperately trying to tell you here...

And, for the record, the title of this thread is "gay bashing"...

Bobert (straight but with lots of gay freinds)

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 09:40 PM

The arrest documents and the plea are online via the Associated Press. One thing that is mentioned in the police report that I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere is that, according to the arresting officer, Craig peered at him for some time through the crack between the stall door and the stall wall before he went into the stall on the officer's left.

Craig also apparently tried to intimidate the arresting office with his public office.

You can find PDF copies of the documents in a box towards the bottom of this page; the box is labeled "Related Court Documents."

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 09:44 PM

No, Bobert. I'm not bashing gays. I have and have had too many gay friends for that. Even here in Pocatello, Idaho, one of the reddest states in the US, there's at least one openly gay gay bar. I haven't been there, not because it's gay, but because I don't go to bars anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 12:01 AM

Sen. Craig is either:

1) a hypocrite for coming out against homosexual marriage and other measures in their favor--while being one himself

or

2) a complete idiot for pleading guilty-- to anything--he actually is not guilty of.

In either case he should be bounced out.

Irony is: the Bushites will in fact bounce him out--but not for either of these reasons. They'll do it since they are now determined to try to avoid more scandal--and homosexuality itself is scandal, as far as they--and a lot of their firebreathing partisans--are concerned. When Rove was asked what he did wrong in the 2006 campaign, the answer was not removing all Republicans who had any taint of scandal--long before the election. Many Republicans are convinced that the perception of being a scandal-ridden party was the greatest single factor in their loss of Congress-- even more than the Iraq war.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 08:16 AM

Well, one thing fir sure is there are no shortgae of hypocrits in Washington so, yeah, Ron... The guy is a hypocrit..

But who was hurt???

The dems meanwhile refuse to use the tools that are at their disposal to end the Iraq war but the media ain't sayin' nuthin' about that...

Jus' MO...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 09:09 AM

To a large extent you are how you define yourself. If Craig thinks himself to be straight, even though he has gay sex in addition to straight sex (and he has children), he might be confused, he might be in denial, but in his own mind he's not gay.

In wartime, soldiers have been known to have homosexual encounters, and yet when the war is over they return to strict heterosexuality (see the aforementioned Kinsey report). Are they gay or straight?

(A similar example is someone "born into the wrong body." Chromosonally they might be female, but mentally they define themself as male and consider themself such. Even after surgery and hormonal therapy they would still, chromosonally, be female. But this is an area the courts will have to someday decide, and I'm glad it will be up to someone else.)

Craig is, I'm certain, straight in his own mind. Others, however, view him as a liability.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 09:44 AM

Secret hand and foot signals, code words and toilet police assigned to toilet stalls is the most eye opening new defintion of America in this whole story.

The Republican 'caucus' (wink wink nod nod) is going to have a 'hard time' 'stalling' any 'discipline' of Senator Craig. (secret foot wag)
Still many questions remain unanswered.
Who will he 'hand' the 'job' to? When he says he is not gay, which meaning is he actually referring to? Is anyone 'cock' sure if he is a threat to national security or is he merely a 'sucker' for pleading guilty? Do we need a best selling booklet on the secret code words like "is the circus in town?" and the semifore hand signals using toilet paper? Should Senator Craig be court ordered to only use the women's room from now on? ...

Perhaps everyone should just forgive and forget and have Rev. Ted Haggert, Tom Foley and Senator Craig lead the way in a daisy chain of forgiveness.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Charley Noble
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 01:08 PM

There are people who prefer to define themselves as "bisexual" and Sen. Craig might be one of them (and still be in denial).

It's still an illegal act to solicit sex in a public restroom. That's what bars are for, and hotel rooms for those who want privacy and other creature comforts. And to lie about it compounds the error in judgment.

Most Republicans in Congress just want him to resign and limit the damage with regard to the likely outcome of his re-election effort.

I feel no need to "forgive" Sen. Craig but he should apologize to his family, his constituents, and anyone else he has lied to. Whether he goes to Hell or not is not anything that I play a role in.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 01:24 PM

What he does in his sex life is his business. But he is an elected public figure and what he does in public is our business. All I want from the Republicans is to apply the same standard they did to Bill Clinton. Clinton was excoriated (?sp?) for lying about the act. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. One might want to excerpt some of the speeches from the debate on impeachment and send them to the Republican caucus.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Peace
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 03:53 PM

Billie woulda been in the women's room.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Charley Noble
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 03:55 PM

Mick-

One does wonder if he solicited one of the Congressional pages or interns. What a fine sauce that would make!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 04:05 PM

"What he does in his sex life is his business. But he is an elected public figure and what he does in public is our business. All I want from the Republicans is to apply the same standard they did to Bill Clinton. Clinton was excoriated (?sp?) for lying about the act. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. One might want to excerpt some of the speeches from the debate on impeachment and send them to the Republican caucus.

Mick "

Just so we're clear on this, though...

according to the participants on this thread, that is not an option. According to them, if Republicans condemn him in a manner similar to their condemnation of Clinton, they are holier than thou. And if they fail to condemn, they are hypocrites.

Just for the record though, it appears as though they will pass your standard, as more of them are condemning than excusing him.   Therefore, they are serving the same sauce to goose and gander.

That said, this was not a private act (as your first sentences would appear to imply). That was at least a large part of the problem. It was in an airport restroom. Very public. Like, for instance, in the White House offices.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Charley Noble
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 04:14 PM

By the way, why are we serving "sauce" to goose and gander? I thought the expression was "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."

You can lead a goose to water but you can't make her gander...

But will that cook that goose?

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 04:27 PM

"...if Republicans condemn him in a manner similar to their condemnation of Clinton, they are holier than thou..."

No.

If a Republican runs on the anti-gay "morals" platform, and then turns out to be doing in secret what he (they) are condeming in public, THAT makes him (them) hypocrite(s).

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 04:38 PM

NO political party likes embarrassment, or even the hint of embarrassment. Especially just before a BIG election year.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 04:43 PM

"No.

If a Republican runs on the anti-gay "morals" platform, and then turns out to be doing in secret what he (they) are condeming in public, THAT makes him (them) hypocrite(s)."

I would agree if what Craig was involved in was "gay". But as I said before, to call what Craig was engaged in "gay behavior" is a slap in the face to the gays that I know. Of course, I can't be sure. I don't follow them around. But I don't think that the gays I know are soliciting sex from strangers in public bathrooms. I think better of them than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 07:03 PM

If Larry Craig ends up resigning from the Senate, maybe George W. Bush will appoint him to become Attorney General to replace Alberto Gonzales.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 07:30 PM

I jus' wish we could get beyond folks sex lives...

Here we have some real serious matters that need tendin' to, and Craig or Clinton's sex lives have nuthin' to do with any of them...

BTW, there was an excellent article in the Style section of the Washington Post today written by Lynne Duke and DeNeen L. Brown entitled "Tapping Into The Secrets Of the Stall" about the kind of behavior that Senator Craig attempted to engage in and it's not all that uncommon... There are ever websites that tell folks where the cops aren't...

No matter... I've had just about enuff' of the story...

I thought it was waste of time with Clinton and haven't changed my opinion with Craig...

Like I said, it is a distraction... There a re real problems that need our attention...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 11:02 PM

You bet there are, Bobert. But the media a) has an attention span of nano- or even pico- seconds, b) the real problems require real solutions, which c) requires people to actually think and even...(gasp!) work.

But there's more money in sex scandals, at least from the media's point of view.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Mickey191
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 01:29 AM

Most of us care not about someones sexual preferences-- It is the hypocricy involved, the denial of his true nature,the implicit power play by showing a senatorial ID card, the stupidity signing a guilty plea.

Most of all the fact that his public persona is that gays should not have equal rights under the law. He endorses that with the power of his vote.

Now that we've heard him deny his inentions-we realize he's not too bright either. What fastidious looking man picks up a piece of toilet tissue from the floor of a public toilet? (with his palm up) He can't even cover his ass with a good story.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: jacqui.c
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 07:15 AM

IMO this basically comes down to a sex scandal. The question for me is - would there have been the same furore if Craig had been caught propositioning an undercover policewoman acting as a prostitute. This man was being unfaithful to his wife, however you look at it and then lied about the matter as well. As a Republican this puts him beyond the pale.

The Repubs have this 'family values' ticket and would like us to believe that they are the guardians of Christianity and family in this country. From where I'm sitting any party that makes that claim has got to be as squeaky clean as possible - 'do as I say, not as I do' really doesn't wash.

Much as some of their members might want to, they can't have it both ways. If they can't live up to the party line they have the option of leaving the party. Problem there is that they know that will divorce them from the power and the privilege that they need so badly.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 08:31 AM

Although not mentioned in the interrogation of Craig the written police report stated that Senator Craig DID NOT FLUSH !!!

Did he poop or not! We must get to the bottom of this

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 08:32 AM

Not to worry, Jacgui... After Iraq and Katrina the Repubs not longer have the high ground on "family values" or "Christianity"... I think the '06 elections showed that...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 09:28 AM

Yeah, Bobert...but the Dems haven't exactly been any different yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 12:53 PM

So very true, Rap...

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 05:43 PM

This would have all been much easier if the police officer had waited till they left the stalls and allowed Craig to pursue the issue...or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 06:05 PM

Having to weigh the credibility of a cop against the credibility of a politician. Not an easy task.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 06:06 PM

My experience with cops is, they're a lot more interested in making an arrest, if they can find any kind of reason, than in following a potential suspect to see if he/she will actually break the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: SINSULL
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 06:48 PM

Sorry, Bobert. Craig's behavior is not "homosexual". It is creepy and perverted. I have hundreds of gay friends and acquaintances and none of them solicit sex in a men's or ladies' room. This is not normal behavior.

I am not even concerned about the hypocrisy involved. Few politicians can expect to get reelected once they "come out of the closet". Vote the way you need to to satisfy your constituents. I don't expect a politician to vote his/her conscience. Cynical? No realistic. If they voted their consciences we wouldn't be in a war.

Soliciting sex in a public bathroom endangers anyone especially underage boys and girls who might be traumatized by the experience. Soliciting sex in a public bathroom contributes to the local sleeze factor and lowers property values. It is illegal. Had he solicited women in the Ladies', it would have been just as sleezy, perverted and illegal.

Craig has a problem. Hopefully he will dewal with it. For his sake, I hope his family stands by him.

Subject: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 07:01 PM

Perhaps Clinton's lying had more to do with the trumped-up Paula Jones lawsuit than anything else.   (And had Jones not sued him, Ken Starr would never have been interested in Monica or the blue dress, much less had any reason to find out about them.)


The Craig "scancal" though, is not about any political advantage to the Democrats -- at least not in the short run.    Politically, it would be better for the Dems if Craig remained in office, as this story would make him more vulnerable to defeat when he's up for re-election.   The Republicans, on the other hand, see this is a golden opportunity to replace Craig with another, no doubt more squeaky clean, conservative Republican, long before that new Senator will have to stand for reelection.    (They weren't so eager for Vitter to resign, because the governor in his state is a Democrat.)


Charley,
Paradoxically, Sen. Craig could have successfully avoided prosecution by "flashing his Senatorial badge" and saying he was a member of the US Senate in town on official business.    I've been told he would have been exempt from prosecution (at least on a minor matter like this) for that reason.
Of course, that would not have kept Drudge and other tabloid media from getting hold of the story.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 07:16 PM

>>Craig could have successfully avoided prosecution by "flashing his Senatorial badge" and saying he was a member of the US Senate in town on official business. <<

Well, then that's a second piece of circumstantial evidence that he may have had lust in in heart (in addition to the guilty plea).

If a guy winked and waved at me in a restroom, it would never cross my mind that he could get ARRESTED for that.

("Dude, you bumped my foot." "Sorry.")

Subject: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 07:16 PM

Mary (Sinsull), you're right. Craig's "sin" or "crime" is not that he's gay (if he is).*   What bothers me is that so many in the media are:
a) focusing on the "gay" aspect
b) treating the story as if sleazy men's room hookups with strangers is typical behavior among gays
c) going beyond that to the suggestion that maybe he's a pedophile too.

From what I've seen and read, the only thing Craig did that is or should be illegal was to engage in voyeurism (repeatedly staring through the door cracks into the officer's stall), and that's what he should have been charged with.   He's not even accused of having exposed himself or engaged in a sexual act in a public place.   

If it's illegal to "hit on" someone -- i.e., to say or signal that you want to have sex with them -- then heaven help those who go to singles bars and parties every night and do just that. (I've heard even folkies have been known to make suggestive gestures at each other.)
If tapping someone's foot and waving your hand to say, "Hey, sailor, I'm available" is against the law, that law needs to be changed.


Now, if Sen. Craig deliberately pled guilty to something he knew he didn't do, that may constitute perjury.

As for his being a hypocrite, that's plenty of reason for voters to reject him. But personally I'd rather he stay and face a re-election challenge than let the GOP cherry pick someone to replace him at this point.





-------------
*There are heterosexual guys who occasionally engage in sleazy or kinky homosexual behavior as a way of degrading someone else -- or just as a way of being "kinky" -- just as there have been thoroughly racist white guys who would "do" -- even rape -- black women for similar reasons.

Subject: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 07:27 PM

Big Mick: "One might want to excerpt some of the speeches from the debate on impeachment and send them to the Republican caucus."

Mick, you mean like Larry Craig saying about Bill Clinton "he's a bad boy, a naughty, naughty bad boy -- I'd even say a NASTY, naughty boy!!"?

§;-D

G

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 07:33 PM

jacqui, (" The question for me is - would there have been the same furore if Craig had been caught propositioning an undercover policewoman acting as a prostitute.")

More comparably, would there have been the same furor if Sen. Craig had signaled a female passenger on an airplane that he'd like to initiate her into the "mile high club" in the plane's john?   

(There was no allegation of solicitation of prostitution in Craig's case.)

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: heric
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 07:52 PM

If placing your foot too close to the imaginary line that divides stalls (straight down from the raised wall), is evidence of a thought crime, and we know that the cop had HIS foot close to the same imaginary line, is that not suggestive of entrapment?

If not looking away from the crack of the stall doors while you are waiting for a stall can get you an arrest record for a sex crime, then I may be with Metchosin (on another thread) that traveling in the US is not what it used to be.

If your life can be destroyed because a cop says you moved your left hand when you say you used your right hand, well. . .

(All of that ignores that he plead guilty, I know. But this is not simple.)

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 11:21 PM

It is all bullshit, and comes down to this - the Governor of Louisiana is a Democrat, therefore, the Republicans have not issued calls for Vitter to resign. The Governor of Idaho is a Republican, therefore, they can safely hide behind their evangelical-pandering "god-guns-gays" bullshit and safely demand his resignation. It's all politics. No honesty to be found.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 11:23 PM

P.S.

And I agree with several above that if Craig should be arrested, there are several thousand (million?) guys out there on this Friday night that should be arrested for soliciting sex from women in a public place.

It's not even about homophobia or adultery. It's all about the balance of the House and Senate.

Rant off.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Barry Finn
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 12:15 AM

If he sociliated sex or tried to & pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, that's just a crying shame. He got the same treatment that's offered anyone on the street that gets caught up in this justice system that benifits those that can afford to pay there way past it. He got caugt in it because he wanted it all to just go away. That's the way it works. A threat of a heavier sentence or penalty, a long drawn out court battle, the mounting costs & publicity, knowning a public defender will sell the defendant short, or advise a guily plea to lighten the punishment, which he did anyway. All these are what a wealthy defendant can afford to disreguard in there effort to go for broke but not the poor bloke who's weighting his future. He got treated like a poor common criminal, cry foul, see who gives a shit. He shouldn't have opened himself up to all this in the 1st place, the stupid bastard, he could've afforded to by past what the commoner can't afford. Fry 'em. It's a rotten system but it feels more like justice when one of the upper crust gets caught up in it's web. Besides, it's not like he wasout at a pick up joint, you sociliate sex, it's usually for money & the hookers call them "johns" & it's a crime. Had he tried to make a 'legit' pass at someone he might've gotten lucky, seems as if he was lucky long enough & it finally ran out. sniff!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 12:34 AM

Well said, guest TIA.

G

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 12:49 AM

And, Barry Finn,
You made some excellent points, which most people weighing in on this story seem to miss.

No, it's not really hard to understand why, when threatened with having to stand trial on a much more serious charge -- with all the publicity that would inevitably bring for a Senator --, Craig might plead guilty to misdemeanor "disturbing the peace."

(You're right. It's a rotten system, where who knows how many poor unknown folks end up doing some time and paying some fines for offenses they didn't commit, because they
can't afford good lawyers and (rightly) fear the consequences of fighting more serious charges and losing.)

But I disagree as to whether Craig's "crime" should have been one. Not all laws are just, and IMO making a lewd suggestion to a stranger should be, at most, a matter for the civil courts (e.g., if the 'victim' can prove "emotional duress" or the like). As long as fornication is not a crime, offering it or asking for it should not be, either. (What's unclear to me -- as an outsider to the "code" for gay male "cruising" -- is whether Craig's actions were clearly an invitation to engage in PUBLIC sexual conduct. If not, where's the crime?)

What makes Craig look like a sleazebag to me, and unfit for public office, is that a) he can't keep his story consistent, b) his "explanation" defies credulity, and c) even in denying his "guilt," he continues to denigrate homosexuals and to conflate what he is accused of doing with "being gay."

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 02:41 AM

>b) his "explanation" defies credulity<

Not to me. I have brought carry on luggage into the stall (I thought the TSA wanted me to.) I have looked through the crack to see if a stall was in use. I have put my foot close to the imaginary line. (I may even have tapped my foot!)

To think that a single cop could, only if he wanted to, destroy me (my family or career) for some combination of those things, because he thought I might be thinking about his cock, is something I find truly horrible.

I still don't get a lot of this. As I understand it, he never even saw this cop except through the crack in the door. What made him think the guy was a target? If the guy was a legitimate mark, what were they going to do in that crowded restroom when the barriers (stall walls) were only about a foot off the ground? (Leaving his carry-on near the door of the crowded stall was an exprerssly stated item of circumstantial evidence against him. I just don't get that.)

I can easily accept the conclusion that he was probably cruising. To think that the criminal justice system could be brought down in full force, for a sex crime, just because he might have been thinking salaciously is, to me, an awful thought.

And I agree with Bobert that it shows a society with its priorities way out of whack.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Alice
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 09:09 AM

News this morning says he will announce his resignation in Boise today.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 09:11 AM

heric,

You may have done these things that you list above, but I bet you have never put your hand under the wall of an occupied stall. You have nothing to fear.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: wysiwyg
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 10:26 AM

Late to the discussion, I may have missed this-- but:

A, who leaked the news of his disorderly conduct "convicition" and the "truth" underlying it?

B, hm, I don;t seem to be hearing about that side of it on the news, either.

[eyebrows zooming north] What a shock!

I offer BTW the prior thread "Your Career, Dead" for your review: here's another simple case of a really dumb career decision. Shouldna pled it out! Shouldda fought it tooth and nail with lawyer! Because: the cop in the televised "interview" would have been incredibly vulnerable on cross examination. I bet defense alwyers all over are drooling over his pissy, defensive tone on the tape.

It would have been a PR triumph for Craig instead of this sleazy story and the triumphant politicking around it.

I detest people's dancing on graves. They're like film Indians "counting coup," whooping and celebrating-- except that they haven't done anything brave.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Alice
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 12:31 PM

um.... counting coup is an act of bravery.
If you could ride close enough to touch your enemy and
got away alive, you counted coup.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 12:33 PM

But TIA - That's the one item of circumstantial evidence Craig denied and wouldn't back down on. A cop can tell four truths about trivial items, and then lie, or misinterpret, or simply be wrong about a fifth. Perhaps he sees it as an "embelishment" to distinguish from a lie so that his case against the perv perp doesn't sound as preposterous as it otherwise would.

Believe it or not, as disgusting as it sounds, I HAVE picked paper off the floor, either becuase I dropped it or because it looked clean enough for me to act as a good citizen.

A very similar incident happened to me last month. I sufered a smoking relax, and had a smoke behind (a men's restroom!!!) in a city park, when it had, in the tme since I'd quit, become illegal. I knew that, but forgot. I dropped my cigarette on the ground next to hundreds of others. Then I went to the car to get a water bottle for my kid. When the cop came up to me at the trunk, retrieving a bottle, I was glad to see him and gave him a friendly hello, wondering what he wanted assistance with. After mentioning the law I broke, I apologized, said I had forgotten the law, and offered my license for the ticket. For the next twenty minutes, without writing the ticket, he called me "disrespectful" what a coincidence for admitting to everything he said EXCEPT that I had seen him coming and was fleeing the scene of a cigarette smoking incident... It just went on and on - taunts, insults, and allegations that I was "disrespectful" as I continuously apologized for every item except being a fleeing misdeamenorite. He said that he didn't believe my apologies were sincere.

After twenty minutes he never wrote me a ticket. He just continued to berate and taunt me for being a liar. I was ready to take the pen and write it myself so my kid could get her water.

The entire time I was very careful, because I knew that he could write whatever he wanted to about my attitude, demeanor, statements, or conduct.

As to Craig, I agree with what WYSIWYG said immediately above and with you when you said: "It's all politics. No honesty to be found."

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 01:25 PM

Good lord it just occurred to me. I was loitering near a men's restroom in a city park and after I lured the cop, I bent over, buns up in his face. The case against me for wannabe pervert is a LOT stronger than the one against Craig.




Note to self: In airport restroom, hold all suitcases in lap when evacuating bowels. DON'T fidget!!

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: wysiwyg
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 02:05 PM

um.... counting coup is an act of bravery.
If you could ride close enough to touch your enemy and
got away alive, you counted coup.

Yes-- I meant that people are acting AS IF they are counting coup, who have not earned it and whose triumphant behavior is disgusting rather than brave.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 02:49 PM

Obviously, if Craig had not signed a 'guilty' form, and had instead taken it to court, he would have won, as not enough happened for the cop to 'prove' Craig was guilty of 'soliciting'.
   ...and for 2 months, Craig thought he had made the right choice, since taking it to court would have possibly brought up the same bad publicity and history that he sought to avoid.

The real import of all of this is that Craig does have a checkered past in this sort of thing, and all indications are that he was soliciting and might have attempted further 'activity' if he had not guessed wrong and picked on a cop.

It was a chance thing that someone saw the report and tipped off the paper, and now the whole story...including past allegations...is out.
There was simply no doubt what the Republican party would do once all this hit the media. Craig dug himself a hole for years, saying one thing and sometimes doing another...and he finally fell in it.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Big Mick
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 02:55 PM

It appears to me that the discussion is mixing two entirely different premises here, lumping them together.

First is that we have a publicly elected official, one who has taken positions that indicate his feelings are that he represents strong family values, one that made public statements of condemnation against others for similarly "immoral" actions, including recommending impeachment for those who told untruths. He then demonstrates the hypocrisy in his world, as well as the sad denial of his actions. He deserves every single bit of derision for his hypocrisy, and he deserves to lose his job based on what he purports to represent to his constituency, as opposed to what his personal actions demonstrate now, and in the past.

Second is the argument as to whether the laws are enforced evenly with regard to homosexual behaviour as opposed to heterosexual behaviour. I would have to say it is clear that they are not, although I must tell you that I have been approached in restrooms in airports, as well as rest areas, and I was furious about such no class moves. While it is certainly a compliment that someone would find me attractive, whether male or female, when I am in the restroom trying to take care of private, biological needs, I want to be left alone. And if there is a problem in an airport bathroom, where else would the police stage their activities. Has the thought occurred to anyone that there had to be a problem for the police to be there.

As to Constitutional (shut up, Spaw!!) matters of unreasonable search, and entrapment, etc, those certainly should be looked at.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: jacqui.c
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 03:47 PM

Well said Mick.

In my view this is all about the hypocrisy of an elected official - nothing else. Craig has manufactured a front of high morals and that front has been peeled off, showing the man behind. For that he has got what he deserves.

The difference between the incident and flirting in a bar is that, whilst both may lead to the sexual act the actual place in which that act takes place changes the tenor of the original action. In the Craig case it is clear that sex would have taken place in the stall of the mens room, which is not acceptable. Hitting on another person in a bar or wherever may result in both parties going somewhere private - the home of either or a hotel maybe - to consummate the act. It's rather precious to try and suggest that the two acts are anywhere near similar.

There was a lot of furore a few years back when George Michael got caught doing exactly the same thing in Los Angeles and when High Grant was caught dallying (for the use of a better word) with a prostitute in his car. In both cases it comes down to 'I don't care what you do - just don't do it in the street and frighten the horses'. Just don't spout morals whilst behaving like an alley cat.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 04:02 PM

It seems we are back to he is guilty because we want him to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 04:05 PM

"On several occasions, Mr. Heric raised his pinky finger in a manner which to me suggested male genitalia in an aroused state. There is no doubt in my mind that he had dirty thoughts in his head."

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: jacqui.c
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 04:11 PM

Heric - he pleaded guilty. This is a man who would no doubt have the resources to fight the charge, using a first class lawyer, if he was innocent.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 04:17 PM

He pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct, Not to a sex crime. He denied solicitations or any acts (hand gestures) circumstantially suggestive of solicitation. I would sure as hell plead guilty to smoking a cigarette if the guy started going off on me about loitering near a men's restroom.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 05:26 PM

heric, if he "did nothing wrong" then of what did the disorderly conduct consist?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 05:36 PM

heretic,
The part of Craig's explanation that defies credulity is where he said he was bending down to pick up "a piece of toilet paper" off the floor, not to mention that nothing in his statements explains why he (allegedly) kept peering into the officer's stall over a period of a couple minutes.   Once you've determined that someone's in the stall, no need to peek again till the door's been opened.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: heric
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 06:08 PM

Ebbie: The disorderly conduct may be considered to have consisted of:
1. Peeking in the crack
2. Moving his hands funny while waiting
3. Bringing his carry-on luggage into the stall
4. Bumping the cop's foot
5. Tapping his foot, and
6. Picking up paper.

I wouldn't convict him for disorderly conduct for that but I sure as hell wouldn't convict him of a sex crime either and if I were him I would be desperate to do anything to avoid a sex crime record. If I were him and making the bad decision to plead I would plead to disorderly conduct too.

Genie:

I agree with you on both points but for one major thing: One cop's word against one politician's word.

I do not believe for a second that either of you would be willing to sit on a jury and, beyond all reasonable doubt, convict him or anyone else you love or hate, on THOSE facts as "Lewd Behavior," much less "convict" him for illegal acts that he may or may not have wanted to do in his dirty little mind, but undisputedly did NOT do.

As I said, you can easily think to yourself that this guy wanted some action. I think that's a reasonable conclusion. But people's willingness people's willingness to ignore or be dismissive of constitutional due process rights for the pleasure of bringing down a "bad man" isn't clear thinking.

Subject: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 06:30 PM

[[ There was simply no doubt what the Republican party would do once all this hit the media. Craig dug himself a hole for years, saying one thing and sometimes doing another...and he finally fell in it. -
Bill D ]]

Yeah, there was no doubt - since the Governor of Idaho is a Republican and in that state the Gov. gets to appoint a Senatorial midterm replacement.

Had Craig been representing a state where a Democratic Governor would get to appoint his replacement - or maybe even a state that calls for a new election to replace a Senator midterm - , you can bet the Rep. party would've had a helluva lot more "doubt" re asking for his resignation.

==========

Oh, and I'm on board with you folks who object to someone being prosecutable merely on the basis of ambiguous (possibly totally innocuous) postures, gestures, etc. (I'm reminded of an episode of "L A Law" in which one of the attorneys was "busted" by a plain-clothes policewoman because he asked a waitress in a Japanese restaurant for several culinary items including a "hand roll."   It was not till the judge saw the full complaint that it was obvious to her that he was ordering sushi.)   

In Craig's case, if the officer is to be believed, it's the entire pattern of actions that points to his probably having been trying to solicit a "hookup."   Peer long and repeatedly into someone's stall. Let your foot wander into their stall and tap their foot. Block the view from the front of the door with your briefcase. Wave your hand under the stall divider. Etc.

I still say nothing he did should have been illegal except for the voyeurism, though.

Does signalling another guy in the john that you'd like to have sex with him necessarily mean you're asking to do it right then and there?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: kendall
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 07:09 PM

Now that he has resigned, will this go away?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 07:58 PM

I don't care if he is gay or not. Or if he has extramarital affairs as long as his wife knows and approves (not likely)...or if he is a hypocrite. There is a function that hypocrites serve...and that is keeping things from getting even worse. I do care about young boys especially being able to use bathrooms safely and without exposure to what is probably perfectly lovely in private but disgusting in public. And I am not suggesting that he is a pedophile..there is no indication he is..but they are out there. But women by and large don't have to put up with that nonsense in public bathrooms..the worst we have to face is overflowing Kotex containers...and neither should men, and neither should boys. Join an internet group to meet "friends".

And Clinton's problem to me was nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky, since she was more or less adult and obviously consenting. It is with women who acuse him of essentially being a predator and forcing his creepiness on them. Who to believe? mg

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 08:04 PM

I agree, Genie... That is the point I have unsuccessfullty been tryin' to argue but seems too many folks here are in lynch-mob gear and just don't want to hear the simple fact that there is way too much emphasis on "victimless crimes", which in themselves are a collasal waste of time...

This "tapping of the foot, and brief contact with the foot" didn't hurt one person on the planet... This cop prolly spends 6 hours a day in a toilet stall waitin' for something to occur that I now have learned is not all that uncommon...

What are they gonna do next??? Outlaw a guy askin' a girl what her "sign" is???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 08:12 PM

In the cop's defense, he was assigned to a restroom that had been reported as a problem area. I suspect that it is not a popular duty.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 08:26 PM

Bobert, you're right, are they gonna arrest Beatles cover bands for singing "Why Don't We Do It In The Road?" That's prob'ly illegal too (not to mention potentially suicidal).

Mary, I completely agree that it should be illegal to engage in "lewd" conduct in a public place, especially one where children may be present.   But it hasn't been proven to me that the "signals" Craig allegedly were sending amounted to inviting the officer to "get it on" right then and there, in the john.

All things considered, I can think of lots better ways the gov't could spend my tax dollars than paying cops to hang out in the latrine hoping to be propositioned by a sleazebag.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 08:52 PM

Now wait a minute, Genie...

"Sleazabag..."???

Ain't like I have any deep (ior shallow) unnerstandin' here about this culture of folks who are afflicted with "compulsions" but I think their behavior is more a medical/psychlogical situation than a "sleazebag" situation...

"Whatever they call themselves they are often driven by a craving, nuch like that which drives a drug addict siad Fred Berlin of the National Istitute for the Sudy, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trama at Johns Hopkins University...

"We use wors like 'pervert' (sleazebag) and we just demean and make hard judgements", Berlin said. "What I found out is that many of these people are hardworkinf and struggling hard to be in control. Anybody can have a compulsion. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a measure of their character. Their character is something different"...

(Washington Post, Aug. 30, 2007, "Tapping Into The Secrets Of the Stall" by Lynne Duke and DeNeen L. Brown)...

No, I believe this is well beyonf sleazw/non sleaze... Seems there are a lot of folks who seek sex (and get) from strangers... It is so popular that there are websites for thses folks...

Hey, I ain't into it but if it floats a number of folks boats and it ain't hurting anyone then, IMHO, have at it...

...'n keep the cops outta it... These are consenting adults, folks... The operative word here is "consenting"... Hey if some guy asks me to have sex with him he's gonna get a big ol' "NO" but should he be arrested fir it???

Give me a break...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: kendall
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 10:07 PM

Bobert, one incident does not make a problem. As a former law man I can tell you that we often get assignments that we thought silly, unnecessary or downright boring. You do as you are told or you get another job.
We have no way to know how many complaints the police got from regular citizens about that particular spot, and when they get complaints, they have to respond.

And, MG, I don't know exactly what you are referring to about Clinton, but I do know that Paula Jones waited until he was president to say something, and, I also know that she complained on TV about how he had fixed it so she couldn't get a decent job just because she turned him down, then, she drove away in a MERCEDES BENZ. I should be that poor!

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 11:08 PM

You really can't blame Larry Craig. If the whole thing would have happened 35 years ago, the guy in the other stall might have been J. Edgar Hoover in a dress.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 01:28 AM

Point well taken, Riginslinger. *g*

And, Bobert, methinks thou may'st be taking political correctness further than I would. Mental disorders such as OCD can lead an afflicted person to engage in all manner of offensive or disgusting behavior, sometimes including outright criminal activities such as theft, rape, etc.    To me, trolling for casual sexual hookups in bathrooms probably falls into the category of "sleazy" if any behavior does -- at least if it's engaged in by someone who uses his/her political office and power to condemn and restrict the rights of others who behave similarly.

Yeah, I'd call soliciting a quickie in a public place "sleazy."

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.   ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 11:11 AM

Okay, even if I were to admit to it being sleazy (which I don't), I still don't think it should constitute a criminal offense... Now if there is unwanted physical contact or threats, yes... But tappin' one's foot to see if the guy in the next stall wants to have sex me thinks pushes the boundaries of freedom...

If the tappin' of the foot was some kinda heterosexual sign of having interest would it too be against the law??? Even if it was fir a "quickie"...

And as fir "quickie's"... Are they "lewd"???

Bobert (very straight but with many gay friends...)

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 01:02 PM

It ain't a 'criminal' offense, Bobert...it's a Republican offense. He ain't goin' to jail, he's goin' back to Idaho.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: kendall
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 01:18 PM

Too bad we can't send ALL hypocrites to Idaho.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: heric
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 05:18 PM

>He ain't goin' to jail, he's goin' back to Idaho. <

This has been bothering me. If his conduct wouldn't justify a fifty dollar fine or whatever, does it justify destruction of career, reputation and family? As I said, I think it may be fair to take one's suspicions into the privacy of the voting booth, but to be pilloried and shamed forever by the word of a crapper cop. . . .

I'm also unclear about the hypocricy thing. I know nothing of this gentleman. If he has said things such as men who lay with men should burn in hell, or sodomy should be a crime, then all right that is reasonably clear. The impression I get, however, is that many vocal gay rights advocates would like to have a standard that any man who has ever touched another man's thingie is required to support each and every plank in the platforms of every self-named advocacy group, which isn't logical. The issues stand on their own merits as the laws apply to all members of the population.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 05:56 PM

I understand your comment, heric. But I think that this event, coupled with other similar ones, are signs of a new shift in political power.

Call me cynical, but I imagine that Craig is just the tip of a very huge iceberg that is the scandalous sexual and private behavior of more politicians, past and present, than you could fit into a large football stadium. There is, I believe, a connect between power and power sex.

But up until Clinton's Monica Lewinsky scandal there was always, I'm guessing, a sort of mutually assured destruction (not a gentleman's agreement), that each side would keep the other side's indescresions private -- using it only in the most dire of political circumstances when political arms needed twisting.

But after Clinton, two things happened -- one is that the left/Democrats finally had proof positive that they were bulletproof in matters of sexual scandal. Sure, they might have concluded the same from the Franks or the Studds scandals. But those were different. First, they were Senators and only reflected the tolerance of their own, small constituency's tolerance for sexual scandal. The second thing, however, involves what is the other main reason for the shift...

...the internet now makes the spiking of stories virtually impossible.   So now that every story is national (by virtue of the internet) and we now know that Democrats nationally will tolerate any sexual scandal. There is now no mutually assured destruction anymore.

Hell, the Democrats don't even mind scandal like William Jefferson, so it isn't limited to sexual scandal.

Republicans are going to have to figure out a new way to survive the scandals because the old balance of scandal power is gone.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 06:18 PM

Ye gods, John. How did you get that opinion of Democrats, specifically? Especially since the subject is not a Democrat.

I don't believe that anyone here would - oir should - malign Republicans in the same fashion - even though conservatives have lately had more than their fair share of sexual scandal. (And not just legislators- think, clergy). We are well aware that scandals

This is to say that I consider your blanket condemnation of Democrats, per se, and not of individual people in positions of power and prestige out of line. Not to mention stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 06:41 PM

Who here among you have gone to an airport
and entered the men's room?

Here by the grace of a crapper cop go you and I.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 06:46 PM

my cartoon

The 212th 2008 BSNBC presidential debates:

"A question for all the candidates; Who here has entered an airport men's room?"

They all hem and haw, except for Hillary who says "NEVER!".

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 06:52 PM

Not meant as maligning. It's just observable. The Democrats forever changed the national political landscape when they proved that they did not find Clinton's sexual behavior objectionable. Anyone knows that a Republican would not have been similarly bulletproof.

Heck, it's not maligning. Democrats wear their tolerance for sexual scandal like an enlightened badge. It's not "scandal". They consider themselves not so benighted and backwards as to be concerned about anyone's sexual behavior.

The last time Democrats were enraged about another's sexual behavior -- not as a nudging to the Republicans asking them "hey you said this kind of stuff mattered to you. Aren't you going to do something about YOUR guy?!" -- but as a "HEY! this is WRONG!" ...was when they thought Clarence Thomas was sexually intimidating an underling. Even that, of course, changed when it occurred to them that Lewinsky could have been consrued as less powerful than Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 06:54 PM

Considering there's nothing illegal about blokes screwing blokes, I can't see why he shouldn't have tried a surreptitious pick-up in a bar, and gone on to a hotel.

Toilets are built for more urgent physical needs. I would feel severely pissed-off if I had the runs and the stall wasn't available because some blokes were using it for getting better acquainted.

There's a time and a place for everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 07:22 PM

But John, it is the Republicans who called for Craig's ouster.

Like Clinton, it is not so much the original 'sin' but the denial that is dogging Craig at this point.

By the way, are public restrooms posted as to unacceptable behaviors? I've never seen any warnings in women's facilities.

Next question: Allegedly the restroom in question was flagged as a problem spot- how long was Craig in the neighborhood? *g*

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 08:30 PM

"But John, it is the Republicans who called for Craig's ouster."

Precisely.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: MaineDog
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 08:38 PM

If a senator has committed crimes, then he should be impeached and convicted as the Constitution requires. Running him out of town with an onslaught of internet bullshit is NOT constitutional, or desirable!   

It's just too easy :
Governor doesn't like senator;
"someone" spreads internet rumors;
Senator gives up too quickly;
Governor gets to appoint whomever he wants..

This doesn't sound like American democracy to me.
MD

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 08:40 PM

Hey, folks... This ain't about Repubs or Dems here...

It's about a country fallen victim to homophobia... I was at a cook out this afternoon and half the people there were gay... Yeah, there were some differing opinions but the one thing that seemed to upset all the gay people was Craig's "I'm not gay" proclamation as if gay was something wrong...

But beyond that, lets get real here... I was commmenting to a couple of elderly yet progressive women that the country has been dumbed down and in a tabloid menatlity mode... I used the 60's and 70's as an example of decades where the media went out of its way to bring us documentaries on just about everything under the sun... Yeah, we were informed...

Now the media is content to merely entertain us and part of what they consider entertainment is all this gossipy sex stuff and I reckon we (not me) have been collectively dumbed down to think that folks sex lives are important...

Sad commentary on the state of Tom Jefferson's vision of democracy...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 08:48 PM

Really, Bobert? So the gays at your cookout said they thought it was gay behavior to be serviced by a stanger in a public bathroom?

I still have trouble thinking of the gays that I know doing that. I'd think they'd be offended to think that people thought that was how gay people met each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Joe_F
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 09:05 PM

I can believe it either way: (1) the cop had a quota & was overeager, and Craig panicked & thought the guilty plea was the easiest way out; (2) Craig was engaging in compulsive risktaking, and his luck ran out. I doubt if I'll ever know which is right.

As to possibility (2), note that according to surveys, most men who solicit sex in public restrooms do not consider themselves gay, so Craig's statement that he is not gay was not necessarily dishonest, tho it is IMO clearly irrelevant and he should not have made it. Also note that it is perfectly possible that he is miserable about his cruising, disapproves of it, and wishes decoys were common enough that he would not be tempted. In that case, being in favor of legal persecution of gay sex does not make him a hypocrite, tho IMO it is neither sensible nor charitable.

Full disclosure: I enjoy anonymous sex (tho I have not pursued it in restrooms, for esthetic as well as prudential reasons) and indulged in it so recently as a week ago. There is a place for that in Boston that has no other use, and the police let it be.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 09:17 PM

Did I say that, John???

No, I didn't... What I said is that regardless of the differing opionions on Senator Craig's behavior, my gay friends were appalled at his "I'm not gay" statement... They all found it homophobic...

But since you brought it up, I think the responses to Senator Craig's actual behavior were accross the board among the gay folks at the cook out... That didn't surprise me... And none seemed to know anything about the "foot tapping"... One of my friends actaully said, "Hey, I wish I had know about that foot tapping" which brought a huge amount ot laughter...

B~

Subject: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 11:05 PM

Bobert, as I've said over and over in this thread, I see no reason why signalling someone that you want to have sex with them should be illegal. Normally, "shallow," "cheap," "sleazy," "tawdry," "desperate," etc. does not = "illegal."    Being a "peeping tom" is another matter. I don't understand why Craig was not charged with voyeurism -- unless Idaho has tried to make casual gay sex a crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Barry Finn
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 11:19 PM

But I'll pay you for it is illegal!
Not that anyone's mentioned that he was willing to pay (or be paid? which is also illegal) but none has said that he wasn't & usually, I believe that solicating sex is illegal & that's what police arrest people for. Now does anyone know the real down & dirty details, that seems so far to be kept private & no one's talking about it either, at least that I can find, foot tapping aside, if there's any documention of a money transaction, it's not coming out one way or the other.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-ID)-lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 11:24 PM

John Hardly,
I seriously doubt that the Dems would have ever spent over $70 million dollars investigating everything in a Republican President's past that might conceivably be construed as a scandal.   (The Republicans, before Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, wouldn't have, either)

Had a Republican President behaved with an over-21 intern the way Clinton did, he should not have been impeached any more than Clinton should have, and he almost certainly would not have been convicted and removed from office,   Lying about a personal, non-goverment-related matter is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind as grounds for impeachment.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 05:05 AM

"John Hardly,
I seriously doubt that the Dems would have ever spent over $70 million dollars investigating everything in a Republican President's past that might conceivably be construed as a scandal

Had a Republican President behaved with an over-21 intern the way Clinton did, he should not have been impeached any more than Clinton should have, and he almost certainly would not have been convicted and removed from office"

Of course they wouldn't spend $70 million dollars investigating. All they'd have to do is make the suggestion about the charges and the press would do the rest. The Republicans would then call for his resignation. Just like Craig.

That, again, is my point.

There is an effective power imbalance created by the Republican voting base's morals standard that the Democrats don't have to deal with. It used to be that fears of mutual blackmail kept that kind of power grab in check. Ever since Clinton though, the Democrats now fully understand that they are bulletproof from sexual scandal. Their base doesn't care. Republicans are having a hard time grasping why the mutual blackmail that used to assure them that they could stay in power too doesn't work for them anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:24 AM

You're right, John, that it comes down to what your political base will accept.   But the question is whether the Republican base tends to get upset---and think the rest of the country should also be outraged-- over what is actually trivial as far as governing the country. As I recall, a similar situation happened in--was it 1884? Cleveland had fathered a child out of wedlock. The Republican--Tilden?--was involved in financial corruption. One famous editorial came to the conclusion, that since Tilden was blameless in his family life, he should be given the opportunity to remain to adorn his home with his exemplary moral conduct--and not the White House. Voters agreed that Tilden's conduct rather than Cleveland's should be more significant in determining suitability for the presidency.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:27 AM

And of course it's another irony, as I think you noted, John, that the Democrats would have been far better off if Craig had stayed in office--much easier to run against him than his successor--whoever that is.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:43 AM

Not Tilden, Blaine. Tilden was 1876--different set of issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:44 AM

"...the Republican voting base's morals standard..." Am I right in getting the impression that "moral standards" are being understood as just meaning to do with sex?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:46 AM

And of course in 1884, "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion" didn't help.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:56 AM

"---and think the rest of the country should also be outraged"

That's the thing I find most amusing when I talk to my Republican friends. Many of them really have trouble seeing why scandal doesn't bother Democrats. They really can't see how a fifty-year-old president being serviced by an twenty-one-year-old underling in the Oval Office does not strike Democrats as outrageous.

If their defense, I think that it used to strike more Democrats as outrageous until the several years of holding out and spinning the story made the tide turn toward sympathy for Clinton.

I think that the tide is turning even further though. I don't think that the scandal up with which the Democrats will put (to torture the ending-in-a-preposition rule) is limited to sexual. The William Jefferson scandal is illustrating that it is now extending to any scandal.

I think that has more to do with my second point -- the internet. Back in the days of Rostenkowski and Wright, the right wing had a slight edge -- or at least more to gain -- by use of the fledgling internet. That is, up to that point, the power of the press wasn't really in what stories the press could and did run, but in the stories that they could spike.

Suddenly the internet popped up and several folks with right wing leanings -- like, for instance, Matt Drudge, beat the main stream media to so many stories, and with such accuracy, that a power shift occurred much like I've described the one that now favors the Democrats.

For a while -- mostly in the nineties -- the right wing got the upper hand with the internet and the ability to expose scandal. Things have balanced out again, and the left is at least as adept at using the internet as the right was.

I think that the main reason why the left fell behind in that use of the internet in the nineties was that there was no need for them to use it. The mainstream media was already, for the most part, telling them the side of stories that they were already interested in.

Like a good pendulum, the medium (the internet) that empowered Republicans a decade or more ago, is now a tremendous tool against them.


+

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:58 AM

..."All they'd (Democrats) have to do is make the suggestion about the charges and the press would do the rest. The Republicans would then call for his resignation. Just like Craig."


Democrats stayed the hell away from this thing 100%. Republicans did it all soup to nuts.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:59 AM

"...and the press would do the rest."

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 10:15 AM

Clinton "getting serviced by a 21 year old intern" was indeed "outrageous" and even lieing about it under oath, "outrageous" but...

...hardly an impeachable offense...

As for the presses' involvement??? Hey, we have become a tabloid mentality nation... It comes with the decline of critical thinking...

Gotta keep the Epsilons happy, you know, which means NASCAR, Budweizer, country music and gossip...

News divisions in corporate media have taken a big hit to their budgets so if you think we're seein' sleaze-media now just hold on to your horses... It really doesn't take hard journalism to get the gossip and vourarisitic stuff out there for public consumption...

But I do somewhat agree with John in that the Repub base has a different set of marals than perhaps the Dem base but the Repubs have been cultivating these folks for decades with their pounding away at the Dems on "family values" (whatever the hack that means) and now it's coming back to haunt them...

I will give the Dems credit here for not politisizing the Craig situation because one of the things that pollsters have said is that the American people are fed up with politics... Had this been a year ago and the Senator been a Dem I think Karl Rove would have played it much differently...

My hats off to the Dems here...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 10:34 AM

John, as you know, the question is whether Clinton's being serviced by a young female intern should be considered significant in governing the country. I believe you are the one who pointed out that if he had not lied about it, it would have been much less of a problem--and certainly not an impeachable offense.

It seems clear to me that the despicable propaganda campaign the Bush regime engaged in to get support for Bush's planned Iraq war--and the 2004 election propaganda campaign--are far more significant than any crime Clinton is alleged to have committed. Any intentional campaign based on hate and fear--especially to garner support for an unnecessary war--for which the evidence is unclear enough that a reasonable person would not be convinced-- should be enough to disqualify a person from the presidency.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 10:42 AM

Craig has resigned.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 12:27 PM

Frankly, when it comes to scandal, the sexual kind bothers me FAR less than the scandals of power, intrigue and manipulation.

"Suddenly the internet popped up and several folks with right wing leanings -- like, for instance, Matt Drudge, beat the main stream media to so many stories, and with such accuracy, that a power shift occurred much like I've described the one that now favors the Democrats." John Hardly

I don't follow - Why does the Drudge phenomenom favor the Democrats?

One other thought pops up that startles me: John Hardly says, "If (In) their defense, I think that it used to strike more Democrats as outrageous until the several years of holding out and spinning the story made the tide turn toward sympathy for Clinton.

What? That isn't the way it works, imo. Any perception of "Holding out and spinning" outrages people even more. In my opinion, it worked the other way in Clinton's case: The "several years" of very expensive pursuit and harassment with nothing to show for it in the end is what decent people were - and are- outraged about.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 12:46 PM

"John, as you know, the question is whether Clinton's being serviced by a young female intern should be considered significant in governing the country. I believe you are the one who pointed out that if he had not lied about it, it would have been much less of a problem--and certainly not an impeachable offense.

It seems clear to me that the despicable propaganda campaign the Bush regime engaged in to get support for Bush's planned Iraq war--and the 2004 election propaganda campaign--are far more significant than any crime Clinton is alleged to have committed. Any intentional campaign based on hate and fear--especially to garner support for an unnecessary war--for which the evidence is unclear enough that a reasonable person would not be convinced-- should be enough to disqualify a person from the presidency. "

I can't argue with the first paragraph. I'm sure that many leaders have been guilty of the same or worse and we've gone merrily along -- led by a flawed leader who was good at management and lousy at morals. :^)

The second paragraph, I'd also agree in theory. I just don't conclude the same things from the events leading up to the war as you seem to. I thought they were foolhardy, but not criminal. Time may prove me wrong. I think we'll find out eventually.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: kendall
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 12:54 PM

Clinton should have taken her into a closet like former President, (Republican)Harding did.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 01:01 PM

"Frankly, when it comes to scandal, the sexual kind bothers me FAR less than the scandals of power, intrigue and manipulation."

They all bother me.


"I don't follow - Why does the Drudge phenomenom favor the Democrats?

You're right. You don't follow. Probably I didn't explain well enough. I should learn to be more succinct. Maybe you could have read it differently had you thought a possibility that my thinking might be rational. Who knows?

The Drudge phenomenon favored the Republicans in much the same way that the new "scandalproof" realization is favoring the Democrats. They are similar in that they changed the balance of power and they are similar in that they sort of "snuck up on" the scene and became huge political factors.

Up until the internet, the mainstream media could decide which stories to run with. Stories like Rostenkowski weren't sexy enough, but Drudge et al knew that they were real and mattered. When Drudge uncovered stories like that and others, the mainstream media pretty much had to follow suit or look silly (more to the point, they would lose the power they maintained by appearing "objective").

One other thought pops up that startles me: John Hardly says, "If (In) their defense, I think that it used to strike more Democrats as outrageous until the several years of holding out and spinning the story made the tide turn toward sympathy for Clinton.

What? That isn't the way it works, imo. Any perception of "Holding out and spinning" outrages people even more. In my opinion, it worked the other way in Clinton's case: The "several years" of very expensive pursuit and harassment with nothing to show for it in the end is what decent people were - and are- outraged about.

In the week that followed the initial story about Clinton and an unnamed intern, there were a few Democrats -- like Michigan's David Bonior -- who made statements like "If these stories are true, then the president should resign".

It took a while to reign in the sense of outrage at the possibility (as voiced by the Boniors of the party), and sow the seeds of doubt about the story long enough to get the Democrats to be more in line with one, common story -- the way they were going to deal with it.

Eventually they got away with the Clinton spin -- make the prosecutor the villain. That's how we see the story yet today. The victors, as ever, get to write history.

Time and spin made the Boniors of the party inconsequential.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 01:02 PM

"Clinton should have taken her into a closet like former President, (Republican)Harding did."

Or just maybe neither one of them should have abused thier power in such a vile manner.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 01:32 PM

The rule of thumb in British politics has always been that Tory politicians are most as risk when sex scandals come to light, and Labour politicians are most as risk when it's a money scandal is involved.

My impression is that that it's more or less the same in the USA.

I'm still puzzled by the evident assumption by some posters that sex is the only area where issues of morals and morality arise.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 01:37 PM

"I'm still puzzled by the evident assumption by some posters that sex is the only area where issues of morals and morality arise."

hmmm. Could it be because the entire thread's discussion was brought on by a sex scandal?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 01:47 PM

"Or just maybe neither one of them should have abused thier power in such a vile manner."


                   There wasn't anything vile about what Clinton did.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 05:18 PM

I have a question, which I think is valid:

If a man or woman in power is unfaithful to his or her spouse, how can I assume that that person will be faithful to his or her oath of office?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 05:35 PM

You can't. But on the other hand you can't assume that if someone is is faithful to his wife they'll be faithful to anything else. Life's not like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 05:44 PM

John--"foolhardy but not criminal". Actually we'd prefer to not be governed by either fools or criminals. But it's pretty plain to me that Bush did not make his case for the Iraq war, that he only got his way through despicable psychological manipulation--and that this is much worse than anything Clinton ever did.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 05:56 PM

Well, I know that a lot of people agree with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 06:16 PM

"You can't. But on the other hand you can't assume that if someone is is faithful to his wife they'll be faithful to anything else. Life's not like that"

LOL!!!

um...

...but lying about one thing >>>>>>>>>might<<<<<<<<< just be an indication of dishonesty elsewhere...

...and yet, you conclude that because one cannot CONCLUDE anything from faithfulness, then it follows that one cannot, therefore, conclude anything from unfaithfulness.

You must have been one hell of a kid to catch with his hand in the cookie jar!! You have taken rationalization to a new level. LOL!!

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 06:16 PM

John Hardly,

To the extent that the Democrats are immune from sex "scandals" - if they are - it's because they, as a party, do not tout themselves as "the party of family values" (even though they are more supportive of families on most issues than the Repubs are). They don't run on trying to rid the nation of the scourge of homosexuality. They basically view sexual behavior between consenting adults as a private matter and not the law's business.

It's the Republican party, many of the leaders of which are known adulterers and/or engage in sequential marriage (ofteninvolving trading in the older wife for a new, flashier model) and/or avail themselves of the services of prostitutes, that leaves itself open to such "scandals" by virtue of that holier-than-thou stance on sexual matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 06:21 PM

Ron Davies,
FWIW, Tilden actually won the popular vote over Cleveland, if I recall correctly. (I was just a little kid at the time.) *g*
I think the election was thrown into the House Of Representatives or something like that. It was a very close and contested election, in some ways not unlike Bush v. Gore in 2000, and some say that Tilden was the rightful winner.

At any rate, the public as a whole was pretty evenly divided between the two candidates.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 06:26 PM

Oops! - I seem to be confusing two elections too. What I said about Tilden winning the popular election and losing the Presidency is true, but it was a different election year.

It's true that, while Cleveland's opponents ran with the "Ma, Ma, where's my pa? Gone to the White House - ha ha ha!" jingle, the public didn't seem to care about his sexual peccadilloes enough to keep him from office. (I've been told that when his Press spokesman was asked if the rumors about his paternity were true, he replied, "Gentlemen, when we entered this horse race, we never said we were running a gelding.")

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 06:34 PM

[[Rapaire:
If a man or woman in power is unfaithful to his or her spouse, how can I assume that that person will be faithful to his or her oath of office?]]

Actually, Rapaire, psychologists have done quite a bit of research on honesty, lying, etc., and the usual finding is that people's ethics and honesty (or lack thereof) is not consistent across all situations and issues.   There are, indeed, many people who will lie in and about sexual matters but not in business -- and vice-versa.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 06:36 PM

If all the politicians who have, one way and another, told lies in their private life were removed from public life it might be a good idea - but I don't think there'd be all many left. And I think finding replacements who could meet that test would be pretty difficult.

Better perhaps to concentrate on spotting the ones who have told lies in their public life.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 07:09 PM

John, you want rationalizations? Man, I was trained by the Francisans...they give whole new meanings to the word "jesuitical."

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 07:30 PM

Franciscans? Well meaning amateurs. I was Jesuit taught and those lads could knock the socks of the Franciscans any day.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 07:55 PM

Actually, and this might sound wierd, but I think that an unfaithful person might be the better leader...

(Huh, Bobert???)

Okay, unfaithful people (in general) have to be creative in order to get away with their unfaithfullness... Hey, I want a creative leader 'cause when the chips are down he or she is more apt to think outta the box...

Yeah, in a tough situation I'd rather have a Richrad Nixon, even if he was a crook, than Gerald Ford, who I'm sure was a very faithfull man...

Now I ain't talkin' morals hetre. per sea, but leaders...

But what the Hell do I know... The only president I have liked in my lifetime was Jimmy Carter... Who, I'm sure, was and is faithfull as the day is long...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:20 PM

Franciscans are good at rationalizations? :^)

So Bush was brought into the discussion when Clinton's sexual scandal was brought up. That's confusing. You mean:

1. Clinton wasn't wrong. And Bush was brought up by accident
2. Clinton wasn't wrong because Bush was worse.

Does that mean Clinton was wrong between 1995 and 2002, but not afterward when Bush absolved him by being worse?

Did Clinton have Lewinsky service him on her knees in the White House because he knew that Bush was going to start a war?

Did your moms all let you do shit because the neighbor kids did worse? :^)

HEY!...

You suppose that (being's as that what Clinton did wasn't vile) in the back of Hillary's mind, one reason she can't wait to get into the White House is that she can't wait to fulfill every little girl's dream...

...and get down on her knees and give a blowjob to a young intern?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:38 PM

Okay, John, settle down...

All kiddin' aside, you are using subterfuge here...

Clinton got a blow job and he lied about it = impeachement...

Bush started a war based on lies which has killed upwards of a million people and *no* impeachment???

You can play all the word games but this is the story...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: curmudgeon
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:40 PM

"You suppose that (being's as that what Clinton did wasn't vile) in the back of Hillary's mind, one reason she can't wait to get into the White House is that she can't wait to fulfill every little girl's dream...

...and get down on her knees and give a blowjob to a young intern?"

John -- What entitles you to cast the first, or any stone?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 09:15 PM

"John -- What entitles you to cast the first, or any stone? "

Um. Maybe the fact that I'm not casting a stone? I don't know. Is this a trick question?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 10:30 PM

Man, John, you are not the person I thought you were. But we're even.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 10:54 PM

WTF? We still have people comparing Clinton's impeachment and the associated investigations to Bush's shenangigans? Here is the only statistic you need to know. The Republican congress authorized $80 million dollars to investigate the blowjob, and only $5 million to investigate the 9-11 attacks. Please, please, please do not believe TIA - go look it up. Then explain to me how the blow job warranted such exhaustive investigation, while 9-11 (perhaps the most significant event on American soil since the Revolution?) got 1/16 the attention (at least in $$$, that is). You Republican defenders have got your heads stuck up there so deep you can't see straight.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 05:18 AM

Clinton was not brought into this discussion as a defense of Bush. It was the other way around.

Ebbie, I'm having a really hard time understanding what you must be reading into my posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 07:50 AM

Well, one thing is fir sure and that is there is no Bush screw up that the Bush apologists won't somehow shift the story around to Bill Clinton...

Now, I didn't much like Clinton either and didn't vote for him and wouldn't vote for his clone/wife but, geeeze Louise... Whatever happened to all that "persoanl responsibility" that you Bushites used to talk about???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 08:32 AM

Bobert and TIA,

There is, as far as I can tell, no Bush apologist in this thread.

Bush was brought into this thread by Clinton apologists, looking to make Clinton appear better in contrast. You may well believe that Clinton looks better in contrast to Bush. Personally, as a president, I think Clinton looks better than Bush.

But there is nowhere in this thread where Bush is compared to Clinton in order to make Bush look good. And there is nowhere in this thread where anyone is defending Bush. Hence, there are no Bush apologists on this thread.

Again, Bush was brought up as a comparison here by Clinton apologists, not the other way around.

Clinton was brought up on this thread as a comparison to how Democrats view sexual scandal as compared to how Republicans view the sexual scandal of the subject of this thread -- Larry Craig.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:48 AM

The big defference between Clinton and Craig is that Clinton did not run for office on the anti-blowjob platform.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:58 AM

So, you do understand that there isn't any Bush apologist on this thread then?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-ID)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 03:13 PM

What happened between Bill Clinton and Monica did not occur in a public place and was not against the law.

And Clinton's "shenanigans" with Monica did not amount to saying "F*ck the Bill Of Rights."

Bush and the Republicans aren't rushing to Larry Craig's defense because they have nothing to lose, and a good deal to gain, by his resignation and replacement by a "less controversial" Republican.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Alba
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:49 PM

Seems Senator Craig is now reconsidering his resignation.
So looks like this discussion will be going on for a while longer....
Link to News article: what to do, what to do!

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 11:46 PM

Wow. But decisive he ain't.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 11:49 PM

Well, you see it's like this: I did nothing wrong but I pleaded guilty at the police station and agreed that I did but that was when I thought that would take care of the problem but now it appears that it didn't so I agreed to resign from the Senate but you know, if I resign, I'll never make that easy a living again and besides I did nothing wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 07:14 AM

Bully for Craig. Let's see who in his party backs him...or at least waits for the outcome before speaking again. Again, their quickness to condemn is either homophobia, or blatant '08 electioneering. Curiouser and curiouser....

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Alba
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 07:41 AM

This has got to be a hard one to fight legally.
Craig was arrested in June and didn't plead Guilty to the charge till August.
He had plenty time to think his plea over.
Kind of knocks the wind out of Fred Thompson's campaign announcement which is due to come this week. (if it had any wind in the first place :>)

Ah what a tangled web we weave

Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 09:09 AM

IF Craig runs a again he has zero chance of re-election, assuming that the Idaho Republicans even nominate him. Folks I've talked to don't seem to care about his sexual conduct, but the argument goes like this:

1. He pled guilty, thinking it would get everything over with and never be found out.

2. This demonstrates really bad judgement.

3. I don't want someone with bad judgement representing me or Idaho.

These folks are Republicans or independents, by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 09:16 AM

Complaining about "bad judgement"? In a country that elected Bush and Co to high office? That's chutzpah.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 10:15 AM

Maybe he'll become a spokesman for the Log Cabin Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 02:19 PM

My guess is that he'd be a catcher, not a pitcher, on their softball team not that there's anything wrong with that.

But he doesn't seem a grab-the-world-by-the-balls kind of guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 03:55 PM

He's got to get some somewhere!

Subject: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 05:45 PM

[["Complaining about "bad judgement"? In a country that elected Bush and Co to high office? That's chutzpah."
McGrath Of Harlow]]

Excellent point, McGrath.

(Of course, the country clearly did not elect Bush in 2000 (when all the votes were counted) and very probably did not in 2004, either. But, unfortunately, nearly half the voters did have the bad judgment to vote for him and Cheney.)


As for Craig staying in the Senate, why shouldn't he?   Bush and Cheney have broken much more important laws and the Republicans are not calling for them to resign.   If he stays and makes it through the Republican primary next year, we'll see whether Idahoans hate gays (and/or bathroom cruisers) more than they hate Democrats.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 05:58 PM

"As for Craig staying in the Senate, why shouldn't he?"

Quite possibly, no reason. Trouble is, he pled guilty to a charge. It appears that the charge was a misdemeanor (minor offense) and he very well might ride this thing out.

"Bush and Cheney have broken much more important laws and the Republicans are not calling for them to resign.

Well, that where the difference between having pled guilty to a charge, and being charged with something and being found guilty comes into play. Political enemies of Bush and Cheney are convinced of their having broken laws but this is still a country where one has to be charged and prosecuted and found guilty in a court before disciplinary actions can be taken. I'm sure that if Bush and Cheney can be found guilty of something, there will be consequences for them.   

"If he stays and makes it through the Republican primary next year, we'll see whether Idahoans hate gays (and/or bathroom cruisers) more than they hate Democrats.

Do you "hate" your political opponents? I'm just curious because I don't. I don't vote for someone because I hate his opponent. I don't vote against someone because I hate him. Hate doesn't really ever enter the political picture for me. I guess I had assumed the same of Democrats -- the ability to disagree without hating.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Barry Finn
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 06:47 PM

I hate war & I hate the actions of those that got us there & that keep us there. Do I hate the politcian, sometimes not just their actions. When they repeat the actions that I hate & those actions cost the lives of others then yes I do tend to begin to hate the piece of shit.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 09:53 PM

I try to hate the sinner and love the sinner.

Although it's really hard sometimes....

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Charley Noble
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 10:34 PM

Hell, the Senate ain't sufficient for someone like Craig. Why doesn't he run for President! Anyone who would vote for him at this point would need to have his head examined (or extracted from his or her nether region) but that hasn't stopped our voters in the recent past from voting in some dozies.

I wonder when his wife is scheduling their divorce, or is she as good at self-deception and he is.

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-ID)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 11:56 PM

JohnH, I think I heard on radio today about a former US member of Congress who was convicted of drunk driving and not asked to resign.   While not as good a springboard for 5th-grade humor or a source of borderline tabloid TV 'news' stories, I'd say driving while intoxicated is a more serious offense than using coded signals to hit on another adult in a restroom.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-ID)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 12:02 AM

Oh, and no one's suggesting Bush and Cheney should be removed from office without or before a trial.   An impeachment itself is merely an indictment, to be followed by a trial. Impeachment HEARINGS in the House are preliminary to that indictment, but the Republican controlled Congress would not even allow hearings into what many -- and not just Democrats -- saw as possibly treasonous acts, such as outing a CIA agent and the entire brassplate organization she worked in. (Just to name one.)

One person pleads guilty to a misdemeanor and others are suspected of felonies and/or treason.   Whose continuing position in the government is more problematic?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 07:01 AM

"One person pleads guilty to a misdemeanor and others are suspected of felonies and/or treason.   Whose continuing position in the government is more problematic? "

Well, if I understand your question, that requires several answers.

1. I'm not sure I can see a case where a misdemeanor should be a problem, so I can't see where one who pleads guilty to one couldn't remain in office without a problem. I can think of several misdemeanors, however, that may lead to serious problems with one getting re-elected.

2. If one is suspected of a felony, or of treason, he, of course, WILL remain in office until such time as due process runs its course. If he is found innocent of the charges, then, of course, his remaining in office is of even less consequence than is the fellow guilty of the misdemeanor. If he is found guilty, he will, of course, face a much greater consequence than would the fellow who pled guilty to a misdemeanor.

3. The two are unrelated. One person's felony does not absolve the guilt of another's crime or misdemeanor.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Alba
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 11:31 AM

Ok here we go.
Today a spokesman for Craig says he is definetly resigning...
Who knows what tomorrow may bring.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: SINSULL
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 02:02 PM

First you say you will and then you won't
Then you say do and then you don't
You're undecided now so what are you going to do?

Now it's a music thread.

He chose against the advice of his lawyers to plead guilty. He chose against the advice of "friends" to announce his resignation. He has created his own monsters.

And he has yet to explain what exactly he was doing in the Men's Room that led to his arrest. Claims that he was illegally caught in an unconstitutional sting operation? Does that mean he should not have been arrested not because he wasn't breaking the law but the sting was questionable?

Go away! Just go away!

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 02:10 PM

LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: heric
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 03:09 PM

*The Senate Ethics committee late Wednesday rejected Sen. Larry Craig's [lawyers'] request to drop ethics charges against him*

I thought he wanted to clear his name. What a maroon.

First you want to be probed and then you don't.

I tried to defend him and I still think the "sting" was preposterous but now even I hope he fades to bolivian.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)-lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 03:14 PM

The main fault I find with Sen. Craig in this context is that he's giving gays a bad name.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: SINSULL
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 03:55 PM

bolivian????
LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 03:56 PM

Don't they have gay bathroom-cruising politicians in Bolivia?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 04:14 PM

Genie...*grin*


Joun Hardly said several days ago...
"The Democrats forever changed the national political landscape when they proved that they did not find Clinton's sexual behavior objectionable."

I am late getting back in this thread, but I can't let that go unanswered...

That is pure BS! Of course they found it objectionable! (Most of them, anyway...and I never heard one say he DID apporve)...but, as others have said, they found it more 'foolish' than anything. It certainly didn't warrant $80 million and months of attention....except by Republicans who, as a group, ARE more concerned with folks' sexual morés...as they are proving by their stern actions toward Craig.

It is all pretty simple...Craig is not Barney Frank, and he is from a conservative state and in a conservative party who find his overall behavior in the matter a blot on the party and a BIG distraction. He has NO chance of re-election, and would be shunned by his Republican colleagues if he did not resign. (I believe that no Senator has been FORCED out in about 100 years!...and they don't want to have to.)

IF Craig had denied all the charges from the beginning, and not flashed his Senate ID card at the officer, and played totally innocent, he 'might' have avoided all this....but all those things, plus his earlier videos calling Clinton a "nasty, naughty boy" were just over the top...he is a target for every comedian on the planet now.

It's funny...he be a better help to the Democrats if he DID refuse to resign!

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 04:24 PM

Butch Otter, Governor of Idaho, is actively searching for a replacement for Craig. He's met with Craig and is doing this "just in case." Which means that come October Idaho will have a replacement Senator.

One possibility is Jim Ritsch, who was Lt. Governor under Kempthorne and Acting Governor between the time Kempthorne was made Sec. of the Interior and Otter was elected. He's not a bad man, really.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)-lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 04:35 PM

Well said, Bill D.

Re the argument that the Dems did not find Clinton's behavior "obectionable," that brings up an all-too-common specious argument in political discourse:

"We should not legalize (decriminalize) prostitution (or marijuana, or whatever) because that sends the message that it's OK. Letting something be legal amounts to endorsing it."

Horsefeathers!

Each of us could probably rattle off a whole slew of behaviors that most people find offensive, maybe even immoral, but which society has not seen fit (at least in the last few decades) to turn into misdemeanors, much less felonies. They include most varieties of sexual promiscuity (if not money is formally exchanged), adultery, gluttony, sloth, lying (including tabloid 'news' media smearing celebrities with distorted or fabricated stories), obnoxious drunkenness at private parties, bad parenting (if no physical or sexual abuse is involved), etc.   I daresay there's far, far from a one-to-one correspondence between what's "illegal" in most communities and what's generally viewed as "undesirable" or "offensive" behavior.

Our representatives in government, including the Republican party and many of our churches, should thank their stars that we don't make promiscuity, adultery, wastefulness, boorishness, and (private) drunkenness criminally prosecutable.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 04:45 PM

"...and I never heard one say he DID apporve")

up thread:

From: Riginslinger - PM
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 01:47 PM

There wasn't anything vile about what Clinton did.

"It certainly didn't warrant $80 million and months of attention...

And as you know, it didn't get it either. It came at the tail end (so to speak) of a very long and drawn out investigation into several scandals, some of which ended up in jail time for a few. I don't know how much of the $70Mil (TIA) or $80Mil (you) was specific to the Paula Jones case. Do you?


"It is all pretty simple...Craig is not Barney Frank, and he is from a conservative state and in a conservative party who find his overall behavior in the matter a blot on the party and a BIG distraction. He has NO chance of re-election, and would be shunned by his Republican colleagues if he did not resign. (I believe that no Senator has been FORCED out in about 100 years!...and they don't want to have to.)"

^ From this point on you must no longer be addressing me, as I made the same points.

"It's funny...he be a better help to the Democrats if he DID refuse to resign!"

That ship has sailed. The Democrats are already "helped". Either and any way.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: heric
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 05:28 PM

(fade to bolivian was BillD's joke from another thread but the original source is Mike Tyson.)

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 05:47 PM

awww..c'mon, John....saying "it wasn't vile" is NOT voicing approval!

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 06:02 PM

I only used that one because it was the closest. It was handy. You really don't think I could mine the archives of mudcat and find scores of comments to the effect that...

The only reason Republicans are angry is because they aren't "getting any".

There's nothing wrong with what he did -- she was a consenting adult.

There's nothing wrong with what he did -- I think it pretty much just goes with the territory (all the other presidents did it too).

No. I really don't think that a majority of Democrats think that what he did was wrong. I'd be willing to poll the mudcat though. Tell you what...

Poll the mudcat and if without qualification (but Republicans have done worse; it wasn't worth $80 Million to find out) an overwhelming majority can bring themselves to say that what he did was wrong (the sex part -- not JUST the perjury) I will publicly change my mind.

I'm betting that if you even tried such a poll, you wouldn't get three posts in without a qualifier or a reference to the perjury only (and that was, of course, forced upon the man).

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)-lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 06:31 PM

John, if you're going to generalize to "the majority of" Democrats, or any group, you need a much better research design than scanning the posts on some internet website or polling its members.

I don't recall if there was scientific polling done during the "Monica Gate" to determine what percent of Dems, Repubs, etc., found Clinton's behavior unacceptable, but I do clearly remember many Democrats pubicly decrying his actions, even if they didn't consider those actions to represent the kind of "high crimes and misdemeanors" that would warrant impeachment.

Our elected officials in Washington have been officially reprimanded many times in the past for one sort of misbehavior or another without impeachment proceedings being initiated or their being asked to resign.

I really think the reason the Republicans are intent on Craig leaving office is that his tacky behavior involved trolling for gay sex -- promiscuity and homosexuality combined -- as opposed to his having committed adultery with a woman or being known as a "skirt chaser." The only reason Bob Packwood was pressured to resign from the Senate was that his pattern of conduct involved sexual harrassment, maybe even sexual assault; he wasn't just a skirt chaser, he was grabbing and fondling women without their consent. If he had merely been "sleeping around," he'd probably still be in the Senate. (And, given Gordon Smith's voting record, I wish he still were - but I digress.)

I actually think that, even if there had been no criminal charge, if the media had proof that Larry Craig was trolling for gay sex in public restrooms, the Republican party would pressure him to resign. At the very least, he'd be defeated in the next Idaho primary.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 06:39 PM

"I actually think that, even if there had been no criminal charge, if the media had proof that Larry Craig was trolling for gay sex in public restrooms, the Republican party would pressure him to resign. At the very least, he'd be defeated in the next Idaho primary."

Man, I would sure hope so.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 06:49 PM

You are changing the rules and stacking the deck, John....

the original point was about whether it was or was not 'vile' and whether agreeing or disagreeing was 'approval' or not...now you want to base the whole thing on whether you get your opponents to say "he was 'wrong'" with no qualifications.

Durn, John...you could be designing polls for CNN! They put up those kind of loaded questions every day! "Do you think illegal immigrants should be dipped in taco sauce and shipped back to Mexico in bean-dip containers...yes or no?"

The whole point of some polls is to phrase the question so that you can't answer it without sounding like you agree. That's how the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" joke got started!

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 06:56 PM

Not meaning it that way. I'm just contending that Clinton's behavior didn't really bother that many Democrats. Certainly not a majority of them. How else would you word it than to ask if someone thought he was wrong?

And all I was driving at RE: the "qualifiers" is that most of the qualifiers I have heard over the years really just amount to another way of saying "he didn't do anything wrong with the sex -- only the lying -- and that, he was forced to do".

I've heard those rationalizations over and over in several permutations. So I don't think it's asking too much to ask "Do you think the sex act that Clinton did with Monica -- in the context in which he did it -- was wrong?"

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Peace
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 06:59 PM

She was just another coc#sucker doing what she wanted to do. He was the coc#suckee. In a motel or hotel or somewhere that wasn't the White House--a house that belongs to all the citizens of the USA--it was at the very least an act of classlessness.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 06:59 PM

"'Do you think the sex act that Clinton did with Monica -- in the context in which he did it -- was wrong?'"


                      Only to the extent that it might have comprimised national security--the way some right-wing-religious nut cases on the radio seem to frame it.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 06:59 PM

I've read recently that what a Democratic mover and shaker like Soros should do now is volunteer to pay all Craig's legal bills in any attempt to keep his seat. Sounds right to me.
Not that Democrats would want to keep his situation on the front page. Perish the thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 07:03 PM

Ok...I thought it was 'wrong'....now what do you know if that's ALL I say? You don't know whether I thought it was criminal behavior, morally reprehensible, inappropriate for the White House, against common sense....or just very bad judgment.

That is exactly why you can't ask yes or no questions on many issues...and why criminal defense attorneys practice so hard GETTING folks to say what they want the JURY to hear instead of what the witness meant to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 07:08 PM

I will say this: I find it wrong when a man, who has taken a vow or oath of marriage or office or to tell the truth in court or for any other reason, breaks that vow or oath.

I will assume that Clinton's marriage vows included, at least in spirit, that he would "cleave only" unto his wife, and she to him. For him to have a fling with another woman would be and was adultery. For him to have had a fling with another man would be adultery.

I find George Bush's attempts to use war powers during an undeclared war to be a violation of his oath of office. In fact, I find all of the "wars" in which the US has been engaged since WW2 to be violations of the Constitution no matter which party was in power.

If an elected official cannot be true in such small things as marriage vows or their oath of office, why should I trust them at all? "If they do such things in the green wood, what will happen in the dry?"

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 07:11 PM

so now you take 75 votes that "Clinton was wrong" and say "well, all 75 of you thought "Craig was wrong", and yet Criag is being driven out of office, while Clinton wasn't".......and you can't see why the cases are different?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 07:17 PM

You're right. I can't argue for yes or no questions on polls. I can discuss, but I can't argue for yes or no questions on polls. You're right. I've been polled. They NEVER ask the right question.

So, I'm back to the drawing board when it comes to trying to make my point. And I guess it's one that I can't make.

It's my sense of things (that Democrats overwhelmingly didn't find the sex-in-the-oval-office wrong) from "conversations" on this and several other forums. You're right. That's not conclusive.

And it was my sense (that Democrats overwhelmingly didn't find the sex-in-the-oval-office wrong) during the investigation and ensuing impeachment, as Clinton's ratings soared through the roof. But I can't prove that either.

I've just heard over and over the same rationalizations. Why, look upthread where I wasted three posts just trying to point out that there was nobody bringing up Bush in this conversation in order to make Clinton look bad (<---yeah, like THAT would be good strategy)....yet, there were Bobert and TIA, determinied not to be disuaded from their habit of the "Clinton was okay because Bush is worse" defense (heck, I even had to endure a scolding from Ebbie because I didn't let that one go).

That leaves us just agreeing to disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Peace
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 07:21 PM

I think Clinton was wrong. Period.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 07:26 PM

<>I"...and you can't see why the cases are different?"

If that's addressed to me, the only comparison I was making (between Clinton and Craig) was one of the functional use of scandal as a political tool: That because of disparate views on sexual morality between the parties, it is not possible for a Republican to GOTCHA! a Democrat out of office. But it is not just possible, but probable that a Republican will be removed for the same sexual indiscretion. And all I was speculating was that that realization occurred to the Democrats upon seeing Clinton survive his.

That was all. All the other characterizations and comparisons were foisted upon me, and/or not offered up by me.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 07:26 PM

"...and you can't see why the cases are different?"

If that's addressed to me, the only comparison I was making (between Clinton and Craig) was one of the functional use of scandal as a political tool: That because of disparate views on sexual morality between the parties, it is not possible for a Republican to GOTCHA! a Democrat out of office. But it is not just possible, but probable that a Republican will be removed for the same sexual indiscretion. And all I was speculating was that that realization occurred to the Democrats upon seeing Clinton survive his.

That was all. All the other characterizations and comparisons were foisted upon me, and/or not offered up by me.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 07:31 PM

GREENWOOD
Peter Yarrow- ©1973 Pepamar Music ASCAP

I've seen a thousand people kneel in silence
And I've seen them face the rifles with their songs
I always thought that we could end the killing
But now I live in fear that I was wrong

The killer and the cynic waltz together
Their eyes are turned into their skulls
They do not feel the bullets in the bodies
They do not hear the dolphins or the gulls

If we do these things in the greenwood,
what will happen in the dry?

If we don't stop there'll come a time when women
With barren wombs will bitterly rejoice
With breasts that dry and never fill with promise
Gladly they'll not suckle one more life

Is this then the whimper and the ending?
The impotence of people raised on fear,
A fear that blinds the sense of common oneness
Common love and life or death are here

If we do these things in the greenwood,
what will happen in the dry?

Will no one light the candle in the darkness
Will no one be my guide, not let me fall
I've lost the sense that tells me where the path is
I feel the chill of winter in my soul

There's no way I can say the words more plainly
There's no one left to point at anymore
It's you and me and we must make the choice now
And not destroy the life we're living for

If we do these things in the greenwood,
what will happen in the dry?
If we do these things in the greenwood,
what will happen in the dry?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 07:33 PM

Rapaire..if indeed Clinton's marriage vows did say that, it was likely his wife that he was promising, and thus his wife that he is answerable to...and I gather that she made her opinion clear about the matter.
I don't assume that hoping to slide by a stupid mistake by 'bending the truth' "I did not have **sexual relations** with that woman..." is a sure sign of bad character. It 'may' be, but I'll weigh it in context.

I know that several presidents had various affairs and had likely made similar 'vows'....I just think that the details of the incidents are important when considering how we judge to whole man, and in what context...

(silly example to make a point: If Clinton had been accused picking his nose and wiping it on the desk in his office..'defacing government property', and had 'denied' it, he could have accused of perjury under certain conditions with DNA tests and witnesses....but....) (I said it was a silly example)

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 07:39 PM

To the man-in-the-street,
Who, I'm sorry to say,
Is a keen observer of life,
The word 'Intellectual' suggests straight away
A man who's untrue to his wife.
                            --W. H. Auden

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 07:41 PM

Just to clarify..if a Democratic senator did what Craig did, I'd think he would probably resign also...and that most other Democratic senators would likely 'help' him make that decision. The aura of the whole thing was pretty bad, and Craig's 'seeming' hypocrisy was the crowning touch. I personally don't CARE what he does, or with whom...and I have no opinion about whether he should resign....I even think he should fight the case against him, as it is weak, as it stands....but his fellow Republicans feel differently.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 07:49 PM

What man is going to stand up before the television cameras, his wife at his side, and say, "Hell, YES!! I got me a bj from that foxy little intern!"??

The question about Clinton's sexual adventures, of Harding's, of anyone's, should be a matter between husband and wife. But when it comes out in the press -- a press which seems to be bouncing up and down like they are gonna wet their collective pants for a nice, juicy scandal -- then it is no longer the private matter it should be.

When Larry Craig pleads guilty, it becomes a public matter -- it is in public documents, after all.

And then the breaking of those vows and oaths become public matters, whether I like it or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: John Hardly
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 07:55 PM

"Just to clarify..if a Democratic senator did what Craig did, I'd think he would probably resign also...and that most other Democratic senators would likely 'help' him make that decision."

You may think that, but history does not bear it out.

Republicans who have left in sexual scandal:

Foley
Craig
Livingston
Bauman

Democrats who have left in sexual scandal:

__________________
__________________
__________________

Democrats who have survived sexual scandal:

Clinton
Studds
Franks

Republicans who have survived sexual scandal:

________
________
________

It's not playing out the way you claim it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 08:11 PM

Former Sen. Brock Adams, late Washington Democrat. Forced to stop campaigning after numerous accusations of drugging, assault and rape, the first surfacing in 1988.

Former Rep. Fred Richmond, New York Democrat arrested in 1978 for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old. He remained in Congress and won re-election—before eventually resigning in 1982 after pleading guilty to tax evasion and drug possession.

Former Rep. Wayne Hays. The late Ohio Democrat hired an unqualified secretary reportedly for sexual acts. Although he resigned from Congress, the Democratic House leadership stalled in removing him from the Administration Committee in 1976.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 08:39 PM

All Clinton would have had to do, as I think you, John, said, is to say "Yes, I succumbed to temptation. I broke that marriage vow. And I promise you (speaking to voters) and especially you, Hillary, that I am heartily ashamed and will never do it again. The only way I can appeal to you is as a repentant sinner. That is what I am and I do ask for your mercy."

And say it before any questions were put to him on oath. So no chance for a perjury accusation.

He'd already been re-elected. Can't run again anyway.

And we would have seen if the "religious Right" 's well-known compassion for the repentant sinner extended to Democratic presidents.   I wonder which side of that question we should bet on.



Now we can devise a mea culpa suitable for pardon for starting an unnecessary war---in which many thousands are killed-- by choice, and through a despicable propaganda campaign. That may be a bit more difficult.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: SINSULL
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 08:51 PM

But, Ron, he didn't have sex with that woman!

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 09:38 PM

Uh, perhaps that was not the best answer on his part. Might not have been his finest hour.

Also, in the US it appears that for this confession gambit to work you have to be:

1) already in office
and
2) confessing a heterosexual sin--if it's homosexual, that tends to strain the quality of mercy of the Christian Right




So, how is everybody coming on the mea culpa for the Iraq war?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 09:43 PM

For those of us who don't think the concept of marriage has a lot going for it in the first place, what Clinton did doesn't seem to be worth all the attention it got.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 09:49 PM

But more voters do think marriage does have a lot going for it. Probably by a considerable margin--not that they'll be honest with pollsters on this, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 09:58 PM

Ron - I suspect they're dishonest with polsters the other way. They'll happily tell the polster on the sidewalk that they're faithfully married, while the girl sitting next to pollee in the car is the tart from the office.

                And what does it matter what most voters think? Doesn't truth and honesty count for anything?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 10:22 PM

If you're going to use me as a paragon of...something...you ought to know what I think of Clinton (and said publicly at the time).

I've got no problem with a President who has extramarital sex in the oval office if he is leading the country to do "good" in the world.

Now comes the part you are not expecting...

I have a major problem with a man having sex with someone over whom he has power in a nonsexual situation. The fact that Monica consented does not matter to me. He was the POTUS, she was an intern far below him in the power structure. There is at least the potential for coercion there. It was wrong and inappropriate. that makes him (sexually) a less than honorable man, but has no bearing on how he performed as POTUS.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 10:35 PM

Rig--

That's what I said--people will tell pollsters they think marriage is a wonderful institution, and that they're happily married. But it ain't necessarily so. They may however also see much value in marriage even if theirs did not work out.

But as far as their voting, I suspect that outside the "Christian Right", it's not the deciding factor.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 07:07 AM

Slight thread drift, but it's drifting anyway:

I'd have thought that the decision of Hillary Clinton not to get divorced because of Bill's bad behaviour, and to stick with the marriage vows ("for better or worse, till death us do part") would give her brownie points among upholders of traditional morality.

Somehow it doesn't seem to work that way - there seems to be a tendency to pick and choose which bits of traditional morality to uphold.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 07:42 AM

Kevin-


Some think that decision on her part was a cynical political one--as is the ongoing campaign partnership between her and Bill. I suppose you could say "Damned if you do...."

Her campaign bumper sticker says "In it to win it". The question is whether she believes in anything but winning--having been burned severely in her last attempt to change US policy..   Her agonized attempts to play both sides--on so many issues-- tend to support this concern. Above all she should have forthrightly admitted she was wrong to vote for Bush's authorization for the Iraq war--as Edwards has done. Her attitude seems to be--I don't make mistakes--and we've had enough of that from the Chickenhawk in Chief.

And her claim to have more foreign policy experience--than Obama for instance-- rings hollow. She was First Lady--not a foreign policy position.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 07:45 AM

Traditional, nothing. "Morality" is used today as a catch-phrase for "how I think you should act."

And I wasn't talking about morality. I was speaking about ethics and about keeping the promises you make, which is part of what I would call "honor," something that has fallen into disrepute.

If I promise to give you ten dollars, I should keep my word. If I promise to "love, honor, and obey" I should keep my word (which is why when we got married we wrote our own 'vows'). When Robert Service wrote, in "The Cremation of Sam Magee," "...a promise made is a debt unpaid..." it was about honor and keeping promises. And it is as true now as it was then.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 11:34 AM

...it's true that promises and honor need to be remembered and revered more than they seem to be by many.

Still, I get the impression that many marriages ceremonies are just 'by the book' and read from the minister's text. Having been married before, my first one was. This time..(27 years ago)..we planned and tailored the text to reflect us and said exactly what we felt.

It may be too much for 'some' people to promise and swear that they will never give in to temptation, but at the marriage ceremony they may not be thinking about that, and they are sure not likely to insert a disclaimer saying they'll 'probably' be faithful.

I have no idea what was said at the Clinton's marriage...but I'd guess they have ummmmm...'discussed'... the rules a few times since.

I'd bet that Senator Craig had a pretty classic, conservative text, and IF he has had desires that seemed in conflict, it has probably caused him a lot of anguish and confusion as he tried to reconcile it.
   I do know that as this story has developed, I have seen a couple of psychologists explain that many men who 'sometimes' seek brief encounters with other men rationalize it with the "I am NOT gay!" line, and don't feel it should count against them. Obviously, if they hold high office, they need a lot of care & discretion, as others expect pretty narrow standards of behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Greg B
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 01:53 PM

Maybe they could change 'I do' to 'I'll give it a shot.'

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 02:45 PM

"It's my sense of things (that Democrats overwhelmingly didn't find the sex-in-the-oval-office wrong) from "conversations" on this and several other forums." John Hardly

I am not a registered Democrat but I'll go on record as saying that I was appalled at the chutzpah of a US president being so risk taking, so juvenile, so focused on me! me! me! as to indulge himself in that way in the Oval Office.

That said, however, given his desire to commit adultery where was he supposed to go? He couldn't take a woman up to his and his wife's quarters, he couldn't even meet her at a motel. When it comes down to it he philandered in his own home.

I understand that President Kennedy often had 'playmates' in the White House, mostly when the First Lady was on a trip.

Does anyone know if Mrs. Clinton traveled much in those days? *g*

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 06:44 PM

I don't use the word "traditional" as a put down, Rapaire. Well, I couldn't or I wouldn't value traditional music so highly.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 08:37 PM

"That said, however, given his desire to commit adultery where was he supposed to go?" Isn't it the traditional way, for rich bastards like that, for them to set up a love nest somewhere, or pass the loot across to the lady for her to arrange the purchase or tenancy? I'm sure that's how President Sarkozy in France would do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 10:09 PM

[[Rapaire said:
I will say this: I find it wrong when a man, who has taken a vow or oath of marriage or office or to tell the truth in court or for any other reason, breaks that vow or oath.]]

OK.   How about people who promise "to have and to hold, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health till death do us part" and then get divorced because "we've grown apart" (or whatever) and then promise the same thing to someone else?

Pretty substantial percentage of the adult population eventually falls into that category, yet such people are fully embraced as upstanding, socially desirable members of the population, even within the churches, on school boards, in public office, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 10:17 PM

[[If an elected official cannot be true in such small things as marriage vows or their oath of office, why should I trust them at all? "If they do such things in the green wood, what will happen in the dry? -
Rapaire]]

First, why assume that it's easier to remain sexually faithful to a spouse than to uphold the Constitution, avoid perjury and other criminal behavior, and be honest about your political values and agenda?   It could be argued that in today's western world, with its permissive attitudes about sex and the many temptations both men and women are exposed to in their daily lives, being true to one's marriage vows may be among the hardest standards to live up to.

But as I've said earlier, the research on people's codes of honor and their honesty/dishonesty, etc., does not back up your assumption that marital fidelity/infidelity in any way predicts how honest/dishonest one will be in business, sports, or even other everyday interpersonal relationships.   (And maybe that's partly because of the strong biological urges that affect things like marital fidelity more than they affect, say, the tendency to cheat on your income tax.)

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 10:44 PM

Another way of putting it, Rapaire, is that Yarrow's "Greenwood" song is basically saying,
"He who would lie, cheat, and steal when the stakes are low is even more likely to do so when the stakes are high."   It's a matter of degree of need or temptation, not a question of whether values and codes transfer from one area of conduct to another.   There are thieves and murderers who would never "rat on" one of their own; that would violate their own code, whereas stealing and killing are violating someone else's.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 10:49 PM

Ya know, a lot of scandals would be prevented if they'd put saltpeter in the food at the Capitol cafeterias.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)-lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 11:05 PM

John Hardly,
I don't think Clinton fully "survived" the "Monicagate" or other "sexual scandals." First, his legacy will always be tarnished by having "impeached" and the various allegations cited in historical records, probably in many ways overshadowing his accomplishments (e.g., turning a deficit economy into a huge surplus). The Democratic party also took a big hit because of the brouhaha over Clinton's private sex life. Al Gore would almost certainly have won in a landslide in 2000 had it not been for the impeachment, the Starr Report, etc.


As for "Republicans who have left in sexual scandal:
Foley
Craig
Livingston
Bauman,"

let's not forget that
a) Rudy Guiliani, Newt Gingrich, and others have been guilty of adultery, sequential marriage, etc., and remained quite viable in the Republican party. Strom Thurmond even got by with having fathered a child by a black woman even while being actively racist in his public life.    The Republicans never seemed interested in delving into that.

b) Those 3 Republicans had more involved than just "sex" or "adultery" or "being gay." Foley's misdeeds were homosexual (a big no-no to his own party) and involved pages or other Congressional employees (so sexual harrassment and/or abuse of a minor may have been issues). (Had there been reason to believe Clinton initiated the affair with Monica, he probably would have been charged with workplace sexual harrassment too, but she pretty clearly planned it herself.) Plus, Livingston pretty much had to resign over his revealed affair because he had been going after Clinton with such a vengeance (holier-than-thou). Had he not attacked Clinton for his adultery, Livingston's own would probably never have been an issue.

And as for Democrats like Barney Frank and Bill Clinton not having been pressured to resign, maybe that's partly because of the overkill on the part of the opposing party and the media? And, as we've said, partly because Dems don't tend to make a BFD out of what consenting adults do in private?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)-lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 11:14 PM

Ron Davies, when Clinton made his (in)famous "I did not have sexual relations with that woman ... " spiel, Paula Jones's lawyers were trying to use any and every bit of evidence of "sexual impropriety" against him in her lawsuit.   Consensual sex with an adult should not have been relevant, but since Monica was a White House intern, they probably would have spun the affair with her as an example of sexual harrassment.   I think that's a stretch, but I can see how, with the Jones case still unresolved, Clinton would deny having had "sexual relations" (specifically and weirdly defined by the Jones case judge) with Lewinsky -- no doubt assuming there'd be no way to disprove his statement about what had occurred in private.   And had it not been for good ol' Linda Tripp, how would anyone have known?

Heck, who knows HOW many of our fearless leaders have committed indiscretions that we'll never know about because they happened behind closed doors?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: GUEST,Nobody
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 11:18 PM

The aggressive militarism of the federal Republican party suggests it is just continuing a long history of homosexuality among warrior societies. This from a fascinating site:

Famous events in Nazi history are also linked to homosexuality; events such as the burning of the German Reichstag in 1932, the 1938 pogrom called Kristallnacht, and the 1944 attempt on Hitler's life. Even the enduring image of Nazi book-burning, familiar to us from newsreels of the 1930s, was directly related to the homosexuality of Nazi leaders. The first such incident occurred four days after Hitler's Brownshirts broke into Magnus Hirschfeld's Institute for Sexual Research in Berlin on May 6, 1933. On May 10 the Nazis burned thousands of books and files taken in that raid. The Institute had extensive records on the sexual perversions of numerous Nazi leaders, many of whom had been under treatment there prior to the beginning of the Nazi regime. Treatment at the Sex Research Institute was required by the German courts for persons convicted of sex crimes. Ludwig L. Lenz, who worked at the Institute at the time of the raid but managed to escape with his life, later wrote of the incident.

http://www.abidingtruth.com/pfrc/books/pinkswastika/html/the_pinkswastika_4th_edition_-_final.htm

The American Furher class of leader typically comes out of Yale University now (Bush, Kerry, 9 of 17 CIA directors). These men are recruited into the Skull & Bones society and photographed in compromising homosexual initiattion rites. If they ever stray from the course laid out for them, they can be "outed." They toe the line.

Some estimates put the number of homosexual congressional Republicans at 50%. These people are easily controlled because of their "secret." A lot has been written about George W. Bush's affair with the former mayor of Memphis, Tennessee. The website is fascinating reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 11:18 PM

Ringinglinger, if a man cheats on his wife with a woman from the office, why is SHE a "tart?"

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 11:25 PM

[[McGrath -
I'd have thought that the decision of Hillary Clinton not to get divorced because of Bill's bad behaviour, and to stick with the marriage vows ("for better or worse, till death us do part") would give her brownie points among upholders of traditional morality.

Somehow it doesn't seem to work that way - there seems to be a tendency to pick and choose which bits of traditional morality to uphold.]]

You've noticed?

Oh, and as for the President of France, the French couldn't care less if their elected leaders have affairs. Wasn't it Mitterand whose wife and mistress both openly attended his funeral?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 11:27 PM

Genie--

I still think it was a mistake for Clinton not to admit the affair with Monica----probably taking the tack I described--before anything was required under oath. He was impeached for perjury--and it could have been avoided.




But again, how is everybody coming on Bush's mea culpa for the Iraq war?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 11:31 PM

Sounds to me like he's still spinning the Iraq invasion as a logical, necessary reaction to the Al Quaeda attacks of 9-11-07.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 09:45 AM

Well, it's certainly true that making up an plausible excuse for an unnecessary war, which Bush entered into by choice, and by means of a despicable and misleading propaganda campaign, and which has resulted in the deaths of many thousands of people, will be a difficult undertaking.

And it does seem rather clear that it is a more serious issue than anything Clinton did--and even more serious than what Craig did, amazing as that might sound.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 12:00 PM

Ya know, all this political sex scandal stuff could be eliminated if we'd just start requiring that all male public officials undergo castration before taking office.

Or if that's a little too extreme, saltpeter in the soup de jour at the Capitol cafeteria would be a good start.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 12:50 PM

well now...there's a fine idea. And YOU will be in charge of being sure all the males eat the soup. Except that very few members of Congress actually eat at the cefeteria...and....


oh, wait...gee....I'm getting the idea you weren't really being serious!


Doesn't anyone realize that we will NEVER eliminate the problem of having different attitudes about sex & morals & behavior among our elected representatives? All we can hope for is that most of them manage to keep their activities out of their public life.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Peace
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 12:54 PM

Keeping it out of the Oval Office would be a great start.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)-lewd conduc
From: Genie
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 01:28 PM

Actually, Bee-dubya-ell, neither castration nor saltpeter is all that effective in curbing sexual behavior in post-pubescent males (human or other mammals).

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Peace
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 01:33 PM

Well, if it's done pre-puberty, you'll know them by their voices . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 02:01 PM

We don't have many prepubescent men in Congress.

Just some who act like it too often.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Peace
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 02:15 PM

Y'all ain't got the corner on THAT market. Check out the House of Commons sometime.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 05:00 PM

Isn't "the oval office" now a current anatomical euphemism?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 05:07 PM

that's "oval orfice"...code name "Monica"

and to agree with Ebbie from yesterday...I, too, was appalled at Clinton being so foolish as to engage in such stuff in the 'office'...it showed a sad side of an otherwise clever man. Unfortunately, that will be remembered far better than his astute analysis of foreign policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Peace
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 05:13 PM

Not quite.

"Classified papers show Clinton was aware of 'final solution' to eliminate Tutsis

Rory Carroll in Johannesburg
Wednesday March 31, 2004
The Guardian


President Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, according to classified documents made available for the first time."

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 11:43 PM

On the other hand, what could he do?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 04:15 AM

Wow! From just plain creep to severe thread creep?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 11:08 AM

Genie - You're right. Where was Larry Craig while the thing in Rwanda was going on?

                        Maybe in a toilet stall in the airport in Minniapplous?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 08:40 AM

And now he's trying to get his guilty plea overturned.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Peace
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 09:52 AM

I don't think it's good to whitewash Craig. Neither is it good to whitewash Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)-lewd conduct
From: Genie
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 11:33 AM

I don't think there's much danger of Clinton being whitewashed.   In a number of respects, he probably should/would have been remembered as one our best presidents (say, in the top 10 or 12), but due to the Republican Congress's incessant, relentless "investigations" and the partisan-motivated impeachment, probably every positive accomplishment of his administration will forever be upstaged by mentions of Monica and the impeachment.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Wesley S
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 01:00 PM

Two thing {as I see it}

Talking about what Clinton did many years ago is typical bait and switch. And it's counterproductive. It's over.

Senator Larry Craigs behavior is none of our business unless we voted for him. Talking about it is also counterproductive. And - who really cares?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 01:53 PM

Anything that embarrasses a United States Senator is news, whether you voted for him or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:44 PM

I suspect that you have used an airport men's room, but I have no idea whether you are a wide stance man or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:47 PM

Clinton? Bloody fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:47 PM

On one point you can be certain. I'm not a US Senator.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 08:19 PM

Ol' Larry, according to the local newspaper, filed papers today withdrawing his guilty plea.

I was in the men's room at the retirement community where my mother-in-law lives and some guy in the next stall kept tapping my foot with his cane. When I asked what he wanted he said, "Got any Viagra over there?"

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 11:41 PM

Ring, ring, ring, ring...

             "Hello, Herb's delicatessen..."

             "Hi, say, do you have Prince Albert in the can?"

             "Yeah, he's in there with Larry Craig."

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Sep 07 - 08:44 AM

"Yes, Mom. I broke the vase."

"Well, son, you're grounded. But since you were honest it's only for a week."

"Thanks. I'm glad to get that over with."

Later....

"Mom, they want me off the Little League team because I broke the vase.    Now I admit I didn't do it, and I've hired the same lawyer who's defending Michael Vick to prove it."

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 02:41 PM

Larry Craig's quest to decimate the salmon in Idaho hit another snag today when the judge refused to allow him to change his plea on lewd conduct charges.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 03:44 PM

Well, Idaho will have a new Senator. Idaho was going to have one anyway, since Craig's dead to the voters -- not for being gay, but for being stupid.

Subject: Senator Pete Domenici R.MX- lewd criminal conduct
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 04:02 PM

Pete is resigning. He was caught pressuring US attorneys in support of a Rove election fixing campaign and could face criminal charges.

BUT he claims he is resigning due to a rare nervous system degenerative disease that causes bouts of poor decisions, rude conduct and bizarre behavior.

After 4 terms I thought he could have fallen on a sword less painful than a brain disorder. You know, something like wanting to spend more time with his dog etc.

At the start of Reagan's second term I said on TV that it was clear to me that Reagan had a neurological condition.

Will a doctor ever come forward to verify Pete's condition? Probably not.

happy trails in the heat Pete.
Try not to be so scary Larry.
I hope you find no solice Gonzales.
Far may you rome Rove
Go fuck yourself Cheney

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Alba
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 04:38 PM

From the New York Times:

" Updated: 4 p.m.Senator Larry Craig has just issued a statement saying that he will stay in the Senate through his term, reversing his earlier willingness to resign in the wake of an airport-restroom scandal."
Here's his statement:
"I am extremely disappointed with the ruling issued today. I am innocent of the charges against me. I continue to work with my legal team to explore my additional legal options.
"I will continue to serve Idaho in the United States Senate, and there are several reasons for that. As I continued to work for Idaho over the past three weeks here in the Senate, I have seen that it is possible for me to work here effectively.
"Over the course of my three terms in the Senate and five terms in the House, I have accumulated seniority and important committee assignments that are valuable to Idaho, not the least of which are my seats on the Appropriations Committee, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Veterans' Affairs Committee. A replacement would be highly unlikely to obtain these posts.
"In addition, I will continue my effort to clear my name in the Senate Ethics Committee - something that is not possible if I am not serving in the Senate.
"When my term has expired, I will retire and not seek reelection. I hope this provides the certainty Idaho needs and deserves."

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 06:51 PM

I was under the impression he'd already been removed or resigned from those committees. I know that his NOT being on the committee that deals with salmon and their spawning has been popular in Idaho....

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: heric
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 07:33 PM

He was a prime mover and shaker behind that bill to enhance timber cuts by calling it Fire Protection. He actually bragged about that during the restroom scandal, as if it were a highlight.

Restroom scandal. What an exit.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 07:57 PM

"At the start of Reagan's second term I said on TV that it was clear to me that Reagan had a neurological condition."


            After that fund raiser in Japan he started to embarrass people, so they just turned off his teleprompter and he went blank. I think he was an empty vacuum tube the whole 8 years he spent in Washington.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 09:03 PM

I would like to buy the stall at the Minneapolis Airport which he occupied. I'd donate it to the Idaho Historical Society.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 06:54 AM

Rap - That's a great idea. I wonder if they'd sell it. I suspect it would mean a lot to the people of Idaho.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Greg B
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 11:14 AM

To the verse of "Johnson Boys":

Senator Craig he went to the men room
Dropped his pants and took a seat
Who would have guessed the trouble he'd find there?
Didn't know where to put his feet!

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 08:15 AM

Actually, he's proven himself to be pretty durable through this whole thing. I think he ought to chang his name to "Rocky."

                  Rocky Craig - It's got kind of a rign to it, don't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 08:52 AM

Or I could simply donate it to the Democratic Party in Idaho, just to stir things up a bit. They could put it up in their Capitol caucus room...or give it to the Republicans in a big public show...or sell it to raise campaign funds...or....

(I'm pretty independent politically. I just like to keep the pot stirred up.)

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Stringsinger
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 06:41 PM

This GOP tune is a real toe-tapper.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: heric
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 07:48 PM

He could have gone out as the King of Comedy if he'd just put chocolate on his hand and asked to borrow some paper.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 02:15 PM

He's appealed the ruling, so the issue will definately be in play during the 2008 presidential race.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Oct 07 - 03:28 PM

Interesting that he has been inducted into the Idaho Hall of Fame. Is he your best claim to fame, Rapaire? :)

(In actuality, the induction was in the pipeline before Craig's enthusiasm for public restrooms became known.)

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Oct 07 - 09:15 AM

In the local paper's on-line "poll" the question was "Should Larry Craig resign?"

Last I saw the response was 317 yes, 44 no.

Richard Stallings, a city councilman, a nice guy, and the head of the Democratic Party in Idaho, wrote in Sunday's paper that he's tired of Craig making Idaho a national joke and that the Republicans aren't doing themselves any favors by continuing to support him -- and Stallings is correct. (Democrats in Idaho would be labeled "really conservative" anywhere else in the country.)

Most Idahoans think he should just get over it and go quietly into the night.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Oct 07 - 07:33 PM

"Most Idahoans think he should just get over it and go quietly into the night."


             He won't, of course. There's health care coverage to worry about, and his pension... All of the things that Republicans don't think ordinary folks should have.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Oct 07 - 02:46 AM

The interview he did on the Today Show this morning was shown on NBC tonight. I watched part of it from time to time. Liked his wife. Couldn't figure out whether to believe him but wasn't quite interested enough to think about it at any length.

As someone remarked above, the truth of it doesn't really matter. I agree that if my child were to walk in on something going on in a public place I'd have blood in my eye. Maybe they should have post signs so those not so inclined could stay away.

By the way, what is a 'bath house'? The phrase didn't come up in this context, of course, but I have sometimes wondered. I know that Barry Manilow has sung in them for a long time as has Bette Midler- but just what is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Oct 07 - 02:03 PM

Video tapes I've seen of bath houses in San Francisco looked pretty much like the bath houses in the movies about ancient Rome. The difference was, most of the SF players were gay.

             They might have been in Rome as well, but they weren't in the movies.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Midchuck
Date: 17 Oct 07 - 02:12 PM

Video tapes I've seen of bath houses in San Francisco looked pretty much like the bath houses in the movies about ancient Rome. The difference was, most of the SF players were gay.

They might have been in Rome as well, but they weren't in the movies.

If you go by HBO's "Rome," just about everybody was more or less bi, so it didn't much matter.

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Oct 07 - 10:15 PM

"If you go by HBO's "Rome," just about everybody was more or less bi, so it didn't much matter."

             Of course, Ahmedinajad tells us that there is no such behavior in Iraq, so it wouldn't pay to film it there.

             Or maybe the Republicans will want to give Craig an ambassidorship to Iran. Maybe that would get rid of him.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 01:51 PM

Larry Craig staying in the Neeews....


Larry Craig attempts to shake hands with Dick Cheney who audibly exclaimed Ewww.



Larry Craig arrested by TSA for showing his wedding reing palm up to a male TSA security guard who was inspecting his shoes.

He plead guilty.



Larry Craig arrested at petting farm for tapping his foot next to a cow in its stall.

He pleads guilty AGAIN.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 02:49 PM

Did you know that almost all politicians in Idaho are now walking around with their legs crossed?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 03:56 PM

So, let me see if I've got this right: if I go to Idaho, and see somebody walking around with their legs crossed, it will tell me that that person is a politician, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 04:10 PM

They're either a politician avoiding the "wide stance" made famous by Larry Craig or have an urgent need.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:39 AM

I wonder how he's treated by his collegues in the Senate?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 08:18 AM

There's been a new development. From the [St. Paul] Pioneer Press:

Man arrested in airport sex sting goes to trial, is acquitted

A jury Friday acquitted a Minneapolis man arrested in the same airport bathroom sex-sting operation that snared U.S. Sen. Larry Craig.

Vince Tuzon, 39, of Minneapolis, claimed he couldn't be guilty of interfering with the undercover officer's privacy because the officer is the one who invited the invasion with foot-tapping. That is an argument Craig has raised in trying to withdraw his guilty plea.

In Tuzon's case, a Hennepin County jury agreed. (more)

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 10:23 AM

Craig's problem is that he pled guilty, then tried to back up and have a "do over." AND he's financed his appeal with $213,000 from his "re-election campaign chest" (for which he's been duly smacked on the hand by the Senate Ethics Committee.

Believe me (and I live here) -- Craig has no more political future in Idaho than Jane Fonda would have.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 01:29 PM

I wonder if there's any way that other guy's case will help Craig?

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 02:58 PM

Craig pled guilty. The other guy went for a jury trial.

Two different things.

And the people out feel that if Craig wasn't guilty he should have said so and let it go to trial -- not try for an ex post facto change.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 04:49 PM

Well, it will be interesting to see if he tries to use it, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduct
From: heric
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 05:59 PM

A few months ago I heard a transcript being read on the radio of some guy's account of his night at Craig's house. Unbelievable. Apparently there were five or so others who came forward to tell their tales. Must be on the web somewhere but I've had enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho)- lewd conduc
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 10:39 AM

So have the people of Idaho.

"We cheered when Larry was quitting,
Our faith in the system restored.
And we cussed when he said he was staying
We wanted him out the door...."