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

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 - 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 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 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 - 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 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 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 - 06:21 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 - 06:16 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: 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: 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: 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 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 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 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 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 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 - 01:02 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 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: 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 - 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: 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: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 10:42 AM

Craig has resigned.

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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:56 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: 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 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 - 08:43 AM

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

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 - 08:24 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: 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-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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 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 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: 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 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 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: 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 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: 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: 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: 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.