http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RntWGPEjoo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnEu8zlhU1U

Hey, it looks like Larry Craig and Mark Foley are on the same page....
:-\\

Uhhhh...what I mean is, well let's just put it this way:

Senator Larry Craig from Idaho...who da ho?  He da ho!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_scratch.gif

OK, let's start again.  Take 3:

Conservative Republican senator Larry Craig (R-ID) is vociferously denying charges that he solicited oral sex from a man in a public toilet in the Minneapolis airport. 

Who outed him?  Not Air America.  Not the New York Times.  The Idaho Statesman outed him.  I have not seen posted on YouTube the clip on the news tonight of Craig's "I am not a crook" moment when he's saying, "I'm not gay I never have been...I'm not gay I never have been!"

Senator Craig hails from the reddest red state, Idaho, and has been an outspoken opponent of gay marriage. 

So anti-gay was Craig that the Romney campaign hired him in its need to fill the deficit in Romney's GOP credentials as the former governor of Massachusetts, the only state ever to legalize gay marriage.  The fact that Romney opposed it makes little different in the dirty world of politics; it happened during Romney's term.  Now the Romney campaign no longer desires Craig's services as its senate, erm, "liason."  Wonder why.

The usual right-wing retorts are a matter of routine nowadays: 
a. You liberals always go on about how you're tolerant of homosexuality.
b. Bill Clinton.
c. Barney Frank.
d. Chappaquiddick.

Whatever. 

Guess what though--
When Larry Craig says he's not gay, I don't think he's necessarily lying.
To be blunt, s*cking c**k in a public toilet doesn't mean you're gay. 
My liberal friends will say, "Well, if homosexuality was more accepted; if gay marriage was legal, Mark Foley wouldn't have to hit on underaged boys and Larry Craig wouldn't have to solicit encounters in the lavoratory."
Guess what though--
Getting jiggy with minors is not part of the gay lifestyle; it's part of the PERVO lifestyle!
Sex in public toilets is not part of the gay lifestyle; it's part of the PERVO lifestyle!
People who partake of these activities do not do so in lieu of a monogamous marriage with another adult of the same sex.  They do it because they're PERVOS!!!
So, liberals, libertarians, what have you, please don't use Craig's disgusting behavior as an argument for gay marriage.  It's a nonsequitur.
And, Mr. Craig, I don't care if you're gay, but your constituents do and so does your party.  Your party would have the heterosexual majority believe that being gay is equal to sex with strangers in public places.  The fact that the Republicans perpetually demonizes our gay brothers and sisters when they themselves prove time and again to be guilty of the dirty rumors they spread about others is why you are a cynic, a hypocrite, and at last, a joke!
::)

There is nothing to fear but.....Boy Scout Leaders, priests, and republicans whose policy seems to be no childs behind left.    >:(

Senator Larry Craig from Idaho...who da ho?  He da ho!

No idea who Larry Craig is, but that scans so well to "Mademoiselle d'Armantieres"

Senator Craig from Idaho, who da ho?
Senator Craig from Idaho, who da ho?
Senator Craig from Idaho,
Who da ho?
You da ho
Larry Craig from Idaho..wo..wo

Is it wrong that I laughed my ass off when I heard about this story?

No idea who Larry Craig is, but that scans so well to "Mademoiselle d'Armantieres"

Senator Craig from Idaho, who da ho?
Senator Craig from Idaho, who da ho?
Senator Craig from Idaho,
Who da ho?
You da ho
Larry Craig from Idaho..wo..wo




LMAO  ;D

Senator Craig peeped through the crack in the stall door.  You don't do that in a public loo unless:
a. You're crusing for a Manwich.
b. You're looking to get holy hell beaten out of you.
c. Both.

Anyway, reporters just got ahold of Craig's college papers.  It turns out he's a real pinko! 
He loves Stallin'
:-\\

Oh, tip toe through the toilets....

good time to break out, once again, one of my all-time favorites.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33540

warning: rather foul language. :o


Curses, beaten to the punch.  But yes, once again, life imitates The Onion.  Any journalist can tell you the news; it takes a comedian to tell you the truth.

Simply the funniest & best view on this has to have come from Spaff - read this, if you haven't already

You guys should just be ashamed of yourselves-picking on poor Sen. Craig. Don't you see that he is just a victim in all of this? He is totally innocent-that was proven when he pleaded guilty. It was his "wide-stance" that made him tap his feet and move them under the other stall-as well as moving his fingers there, too. Not to mention peeking in to the stall. He just wanted to see if someone else was in there-that's all. It really is a sorry state when a senator can't even get his jollies in a men's bathroom without being made fun of.




Cat

Two weeks ago, the kids and I went on a trip to visit friends in San Antonio, Texas.  On the way we stopped at a rest area just off the interstate.  What happened next made me very uneasy...

I was drinking coffee heavily so that I would stay awake and needed to relieve myself pretty badly.  I pulled into a rest area, locked the car doors, left the kids sleeping in the car, and went into the restroom.  When I entered I noticed it was unoccupied except for a pair of sneakers visible under the second stall.

As I unzipped at one of the urinals and began to relieve my burning bladder I heard a voice say "Hey, what's up?".  I looked around and there was no one else in the restroom.  After a moments hesitation, I answered "Not much".

A little time went by and he says, "What ya doing?".

I didn't feel very comfortable talking to someone in a stall but I didn't want to be rude and answered, "Uh...we are heading to San Antonio to visit friends."

"Want to come over?", he says. 

At this point I am really uncomfortable and I finish up and scoot over to the sink to wash up.  "No I don't think so.", I replied.  Wow, was this something else.  I had never even had someone next to me with a wide stance before and now I've got someone in the stall asking me over! 

As I reached for the paper towels to dry my hands I hear, "Hey man, can I call you back?  There's some asshole in the bathroom answering every thing I say."


an old joke but highly appropriate

^it'd be better if you actually walk into the stall. :P "sure thing, cowboy, i'll be there in a... oh."

an old joke but highly appropriate

:D

Struck me that "Larry Craig" scans rather well to "Penny Lane", too:

Larry Craig he was a homophobic senator
But in the washroom his behaviour was obscene
And now I'd rather not know where he's been
Because he's been seen
What a scene

:D

Struck me that "Larry Craig" scans rather well to "Penny Lane", too:

Larry Craig he was a homophobic senator
But in the washroom his behaviour was obscene
And now I'd rather not know where he's been
Because he's been seen
What a scene


you totally should send that into the amIright parody fragments section

:D

Struck me that "Larry Craig" scans rather well to "Penny Lane", too:

Larry Craig he was a homophobic senator
But in the washroom his behaviour was obscene
And now I'd rather not know where he's been
Because he's been seen
What a scene
for the chorus i'm thinking something like

"larry craig
he's in the stall
with ole' one eye..."

but maybe i'm showing why i'm not in this line of work. :P

"...there, with all the goo
from that one guy..."

you totally should send that into the amIright parody fragments section

I think the main reason I've not put anything into the parody fragments section is that there's always the chance of finishing the thing off and doing a "real" parody

I'll sleep on it.. if I've not, er, come up with anything to finish it off before submission time, I'll fire it off to the fragments.

Did I say "Bill Clinton" or did I say "Bill Clinton"?

The Right is not defending Craig, they are attacking the press for

Token rght-wing lesbian Tammy Bruce called Craig an "Amnesty, open borders kind of guy who clearly wants the borders patrolled as much as he wants toilet stalls patrolled." 

In other words, now Craig is a L-I-B-E-R-A-L. 

To verb a coinage, they're trying to "hot potato" Senator Craig out of the Conservative camp and into the camp of all the people they don't like, which is most of us. 

They're mad at the press for publishing unsubstantiated rumors about Craig going back to 1967.  Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  The Right gleefully paraded any and every claim against Bill Clinton as gospel truth! 

In fact, the Christian Right cobbled together lurid fiction about Mr. and Mrs. Clinton called collectively, "The Clinton Chronicles."  To wit:

"At Yale Bill Clinton staged an anti-war protest by sitting in a tree on campus for several days and people went out of their way to avoid the filth and stench emanating from Clinton's tree."

They just flat out made the stuff up, which they had a First Amendment right to do.  Under precedents such as New York Times vs. Sullivan (1964) it is extremely difficult to prosecute for defamation of a public figure.  Fine by me.  However, the Right has never disowned the Clinton Chronicles or condemned the work's authors for presenting fiction as fact, which is tantamount to lying and lying is a sin.
::)

They can dish it out, but they can't take it.
::)

I am not trying to make this a partisan issue.  The GOP is doing that.

Now Tom DeLay is making the rounds cheerleading for the GOP.  It's an expansion of the Karl Rove strategy:  Don't attack your enemy's weakness, attack your enemy's strength.  Now it is: Don't attack your enemy with your strength, attack your enemy with your weakness!

BTW, FOX News IS defending Larry Craig.  They're saying foot-tapping is not a crime.  This is a frame-up!  At last at last at last, a cop FOX News won't defend.  Hannity:  I've talked to a lot of lawyers who say they could have gotten him off quickly!
Uhhhh....ok Sean!

Caption underneath:

"SEX IN PUBLIC RESTROOMS: IS THIS PROBLEM WIDESPREAD?"

Can you answer that?  Have you stopped beating your wife?
:D

"SEX IN PUBLIC RESTROOMS: IS THIS PROBLEM WIDESPREAD?"


"Not as wide as your stance, Senator!"

"Not as wide as your stance, Senator!"


Man, when all the networks were broadcasting that police transcript this evening, I felt sorry for Crag.  I mean, just on a basic human level.  That's gotta be humiliating beyond belief!  But, hey, who likes to talk a big game about "personal responsibility"?  Nobody held a gun to his head and made him do the commode Morse code!

I wonder how the cops assign that detail--to sit in the crapper all day fishing for perverts?

"OK, who wants to do airport restroom duty?"
"Me! Me!  I do! I do!"
"You did it three times last week and once off-duty on Saturday.  Give somebody else a shot, Simmons!"
:D

for the chorus i'm thinking something like

"larry craig
he's in the stall
with ole' one eye..."

but maybe i'm showing why i'm not in this line of work. :P


Thanks for the idea, but if you want to find out what I finally went with, have a look here :-)

I think the main reason I've not put anything into the parody fragments section is that there's always the chance of finishing the thing off and doing a "real" parody

I'll sleep on it.. if I've not, er, come up with anything to finish it off before submission time, I'll fire it off to the fragments.


since the redesign of the site software earlier this year, it's pretty easy to remove or edit anything on the site. (except for editing parodies and misheard lyrics).  So I'd say go for submitting it even if you do want to do a full parody later, we can always remove it from the fragments easily enough.

OK, will do (next time... I've already submitted a completed "Larry Craig")

Another gay "anti-gay" conservative Republican...how not surprising.

Another gay "anti-gay" conservative Republican...how not surprising.

The biggest shame is that it's even remotely relevant - personally, I don't really give a hoot if one of my representatives is gay or not; it does make it kind of sad that you can be pretty certain that if he were gay he'd never have been elected in the first place, hence the need to suppress it.

Then, of course, there comes the hypocrisy in feeling one has to bash...

The biggest shame is that it's even remotely relevant - personally, I don't really give a hoot if one of my representatives is gay or not; it does make it kind of sad that you can be pretty certain that if he were gay he'd never have been elected in the first place, hence the need to suppress it.

Then, of course, there comes the hypocrisy in feeling one has to bash...


I don't bash him for being gay.  I bash him for being a hypocrite.  Not even for being closeted.  Even that is fine.  I bash him for attacking gay people and supporting the rampant homophobic agenda in his position.  This is a guy who happily joined in the cries of how awful Clinton's sexual escapades, full well knowing that cruising for sex in men's bathrooms is probably much worse.

The Republicans constantly campaign on their "image".  Then cry bitterly when their "image" is revealed to be as fake as their campaign promises.

I don't bash him for being gay.  I bash him for being a hypocrite.  Not even for being closeted.  Even that is fine.  I bash him for attacking gay people and supporting the rampant homophobic agenda in his position.  This is a guy who happily joined in the cries of how awful Clinton's sexual escapades, full well knowing that cruising for sex in men's bathrooms is probably much worse.

The Republicans constantly campaign on their "image".  Then cry bitterly when their "image" is revealed to be as fake as their campaign promises.



Exactly. It boils down to "Do as I say and not as I do". I really could care less if he is gay, straight, bi-or even tri (he'll try anything). But like you said, it is the hypocrisy of it. Not to mention that it is just a bit creepy, too. It is one thing to go into a brothel or call one of those #s at the back of some sleazy magazine, but to solicit sex in a public bathroom is just too creepy. He would have been better off going to skid row to find some action.



Cat 

His behavior screams compulsion.  I'll bet Craig has been carrying like that for decades. 

The Republicans constantly campaign on their "image".  Then cry bitterly when their "image" is revealed to be as fake as their campaign promises.


Its not just Repubs.  The prosecution files are full of politicians of all proclivities and positions.  Here in Pennsylvania, the former Democratic Majority Leader has a Grand Jury after his butt for misappropriation of funds and use of public funds for personal campaign use.  We have another Repub state pol who is under indictment for obstuction of justice in a case against his son.  Democratic county coroner (and nonstop talk show guest) Cyril Wecht is also under indictment (84 counts) for various misappropriation of funds/asset/govt employees.  As are any number of Repub and Dem pols.  At the moment no Independents come to mind but I imagine they're out there too.  All of these politicians, of course, claim to represent "the little man" annd claim that they are the REAL victims.

As long as the wheels of politics move, there will always be plenty of grease.

By the way what will Craig's punishment be?  Will he get 30 days in the hole or something like that?

well, to say "they both do it" overlooks what seems to be the case, that the republicans do it a lot more. i mean, yes, the occasional dude pops up on the dem side with money in his fridge but what was enron's partisan affiliation, by and large? or jack abramoff's? where demo fraud and sexual malfeasance comes off looking improvised, when republicans do it they come off looking like an organized crime syndicate. i mean, they ain't playin', yanno?

and then there's the compound gall of them turning around, wiping off their chins and claiming to be the party of family values and fiscal responsibility. by rights the dems, who ideologically stand a lot more for personal sexual freedom, should probably be caught committing lewd acts more often than the repubs, but strangely, this seems not to be the case.

Hey, with Tom DeLay, all of a sudden the story isn't about Larry Craig, it's a bout Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy!
::)

well, to say "they both do it" overlooks what seems to be the case, that the republicans do it a lot more. i mean, yes, the occasional dude pops up on the dem side with money in his fridge but what was enron's partisan affiliation, by and large? or jack abramoff's? where demo fraud and sexual malfeasance comes off looking improvised, when republicans do it they come off looking like an organized crime syndicate. i mean, they ain't playin', yanno?

and then there's the compound gall of them turning around, wiping off their chins and claiming to be the party of family values and fiscal responsibility. by rights the dems, who ideologically stand a lot more for personal sexual freedom, should probably be caught committing lewd acts more often than the repubs, but strangely, this seems not to be the case.


the sad thing is that we even have to accept the Democrats as "less corrupt".  The Republicans basically drove Craig out of their party this week and forced him to resign, lest their re-election chances be diminished.  Yet you didn't see that behavior with the ones charged in the Jack Abramoff case until they were convicted and run out of appeals. Better to be corrupt than gay in the Republican party.  Pelosi at least tried to strip Jefferson of his committee appointments, but the rest of the rats in the party made her reverse that decision too.

There's also no independent or third party candidates that are even worth considering.  Libertarian? Ron Paul I guess, and he's a whacko, anti-public education hard right-winger.  Green party?  way too fringe to take seriously.

the sad thing is that we even have to accept the Democrats as "less corrupt".  The Republicans basically drove Craig out of their party this week and forced him to resign, lest their re-election chances be diminished.  Yet you didn't see that behavior with the ones charged in the Jack Abramoff case until they were convicted and run out of appeals. Better to be corrupt than gay in the Republican party.  Pelosi at least tried to strip Jefferson of his committee appointments, but the rest of the rats in the party made her reverse that decision too.
Exactly.

I'm still trying to get my head around the farce of sending Tom DeLay around to for control damage duty in the Larry Craig controversy. 

Republicans are now asking how Craig's impropriety affected his ability to represent the people of Idaho and accusing Democrats of making a media circus out of an incident that barely rose to a level of criminality.  In other words, what Craig did was wrong, but not all that bad when it comes to doing his job.  Democrats were making the same argument about Clinton ten years ago, and the Republicans were having none of it. 

And I can't stress enough--when you judge others, others will judge you by the same measures. 

Right-wing pundits also accused Democrats of making excuses for Jefferson's corruption when none had done so.

There's also no independent or third party candidates that are even worth considering.  Libertarian? Ron Paul I guess, and he's a whacko, anti-public education hard right-winger.  Green party?  way too fringe to take seriously.

Neither the Libertarians nor the Greens are prepared to undertake the arduous task of running a country. 

I do respect Ron Paul for sticking t his principles, but I don't agree with his principles, for the exaltation of individual freedom would disappear the day his administration took charge.

I respect Ron Paul because he sticks to his principles, not because I agree with them.  Ron Paul and his libertarian cronies envision a role for government strictly of surveillance and punishment.  Reaganism on steroids. 

The Republicans basically drove Craig out of their party this week and forced him to resign, lest their re-election chances be diminished.  Yet you didn't see that behavior with the ones charged in the Jack Abramoff case until they were convicted and run out of appeals.


Big difference between Abramoff and Craig, if I recall the Abamoff situation correctly, is that in the Craig case, we have a Senator who PLED GUILTY to the crime in question.  He pled guilty.  That means in the eyes of the law he was convicted, found guilty, he did it.

In the case of Abramoff, as was the case with dems Ron Brown, Mel Reynolds, Paul Patton, Jim Mcgreevey, as well as a host of Repub miscreats, their friends stepped up to defend them under the old "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy.  But once they were convicted (or otherwise stepped forward and confessed their misdeeds and "went into rehab") pols of their respective parties gave them the benefit of the doubt.

Then we have the recent case of Operation Tennessee Waltz, where 6 Dems and 2 Repubs were convicted of various forms of corruption in a truly bipartisan effort to screw over the Tennessee Taxpayer.  These came as a mix of jury trials ad guilty pleas.  While this was going on their various party cronies stepped up to defend them as innocent until proven guilty.

With Craig there was no doubt.  He pled guilty and the police transcripts pretty much spell out what the deal was in the commode.  So yes, the repubs (as well as the Dems) said "off with his 'nads".

Big difference between Abramoff and Craig, if I recall the Abamoff situation correctly, is that in the Craig case, we have a Senator who PLED GUILTY to the crime in question.  He pled guilty.  That means in the eyes of the law he was convicted, found guilty, he did it.

In the case of Abramoff, as was the case with dems Ron Brown, Mel Reynolds, Paul Patton, Jim Mcgreevey, as well as a host of Repub miscreats, their friends stepped up to defend them under the old "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy.  But once they were convicted (or otherwise stepped forward and confessed their misdeeds and "went into rehab") pols of their respective parties gave them the benefit of the doubt.

Then we have the recent case of Operation Tennessee Waltz, where 6 Dems and 2 Repubs were convicted of various forms of corruption in a truly bipartisan effort to screw over the Tennessee Taxpayer.  These came as a mix of jury trials ad guilty pleas.  While this was going on their various party cronies stepped up to defend them as innocent until proven guilty.

With Craig there was no doubt.  He pled guilty and the police transcripts pretty much spell out what the deal was in the commode.  So yes, the repubs (as well as the Dems) said "off with his 'nads".

Some commentators speculate Craig pled guilty in hopes of expediting the process and tucking the whole ordeal neatly away.  Damage control. It was worth a shot, but nothing ever just goes away, as they say.

anybody hear craig's quote on meet the press about how clinton was a "naughty, dirty, nasty man"? wow, it was red hot. :o

Big difference between Abramoff and Craig, if I recall the Abamoff situation correctly, is that in the Craig case, we have a Senator who PLED GUILTY to the crime in question.  He pled guilty.  That means in the eyes of the law he was convicted, found guilty, he did it.

In the case of Abramoff, as was the case with dems Ron Brown, Mel Reynolds, Paul Patton, Jim Mcgreevey, as well as a host of Repub miscreats, their friends stepped up to defend them under the old "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy.  But once they were convicted (or otherwise stepped forward and confessed their misdeeds and "went into rehab") pols of their respective parties gave them the benefit of the doubt.

Then we have the recent case of Operation Tennessee Waltz, where 6 Dems and 2 Repubs were convicted of various forms of corruption in a truly bipartisan effort to screw over the Tennessee Taxpayer.  These came as a mix of jury trials ad guilty pleas.  While this was going on their various party cronies stepped up to defend them as innocent until proven guilty.

With Craig there was no doubt.  He pled guilty and the police transcripts pretty much spell out what the deal was in the commode.  So yes, the repubs (as well as the Dems) said "off with his 'nads".


you're right, there is a big difference.  Craig plead guilty to something that had nothing to do with his job, and didn't impact the decisions he made.  The others were convicted of crimes that directly impacted their ability to write and pass laws. Sex still trumps corruption.  Whether he plead guilty or not, it wouldn't have mattered. 

This whole episode reminds me so much of Gedde Watanabe (Kuni) from U.H.F.


STUPID! You're so STU-PIIIIIIIIIIID!




Cat

anybody hear craig's quote on meet the press about how clinton was a "naughty, dirty, nasty man"? wow, it was red hot. :o

I'll bet he was sporting wood when he was saying so.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/evil6.gif

anybody hear craig's quote on meet the press about how clinton was a "naughty, dirty, nasty man"? wow, it was red hot. :o

Must have been jealousy, as he fancies Clinton something rotten ;)

Sex still trumps corruption.  Whether he plead guilty or not, it wouldn't have mattered. 


I won't disagree with you on that.  Other than Senator Arlen "One Bullet" Specter, nonbody was supporting Craig.

Who wants to work with a guy who cruises the public loos to get illicit nooky?  Eeww.  Eeeeewwwww.  EEEEWWWWWWWWWW.  And as a Senator his credibility was shredded.  He friggin' pled guilty then afterward tried to say "I didn't do it". If he had pled no guilty, I woulda given him benefit of the doubt until the trial.

I can hear his defense testimony.  "Your Honor, they got this thing all wrong.  The Muzak was playing this rockin' version of Baby Got Back... it was a real toe tapper, that's all."

Who wants to work with a guy who cruises the public loos to get illicit nooky?  Eeww.  Eeeeewwwww.  EEEEWWWWWWWWWW. 
You probably do and you just don't know it.  Now, you think about that every time you shake hands to close the deal!
:o

From the nes acconts this morning, it seems that Craig might not resign anyway.

He left a voice mail for his lawyer but at the wrong number talking about how One-Bullet-Spectre will back him and he;s gonna fight the charges to which he pled guilty.  ::)  CBS News was playing the audio this am.

From the nes acconts this morning, it seems that Craig might not resign anyway.

He left a voice mail for his lawyer but at the wrong number talking about how One-Bullet-Spectre will back him and he;s gonna fight the charges to which he pled guilty.  ::)  CBS News was playing the audio this am.



This guy just seems to do one stupid thing after another.



Cat

I hope he doesn't resign.  That'll shut the right-wing commentators up from saying, "Republicans resign when they get caught...."
Besides, I want him to run again if nothing else for his opponent's campaign posters!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/pottytrain3.gif

I hope he doesn't resign.  That'll shut the right-wing commentators up from saying, "Republicans resign when they get caught...."
Besides, I want him to run again if nothing else for his opponent's campaign posters!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/pottytrain3.gif
do they say that? cuz rove and rumsfeld and gonzales and cheney took FOREVER to resign.

oh, wait. cheney hasn't resigned yet, has he. musta been a dream i had.

do they say that? cuz rove and rumsfeld and gonzales and cheney took FOREVER to resign.

oh, wait. cheney hasn't resigned yet, has he. musta been a dream i had.


I want to see how his constituents and the GOP react if he reneges.  It'll say something about their true priorities.

From the news acconts this morning, it seems that Craig might not resign anyway.


What a flip-flopper.

What a flip-flopper.


I think the party might lean on him to resign.  They can't force Craig to resign that I know of, but they can certainly make him persona non grata.  He'll have to hit the golf links with O.J. Simpson!
::)

I think the party might lean on him to resign.  They can't force Craig to resign that I know of, but they can certainly make him persona non grata.  He'll have to hit the golf links with O.J. Simpson!
::)


I think the GOP (with the exception of "One Bullet" Specter) has already told Craig to grab his meat and beat it, so to speak.

You know, regardless of how hypocritical it would supposedly make a person, I think matters such as these should be kept to an individual's personal business.  I also don't think Craig should resign.  So, allegedly he solicited sex in a public bathroom.  How does this detract from his ability as a legislator?

It's just more petty "Gotcha!" games.  He's humiliated enough without a bunch of opportunists poking fun at a gay man.

You know, regardless of how hypocritical it would supposedly make a person, I think matters such as these should be kept to an individual's personal business.  I also don't think Craig should resign.  So, allegedly he solicited sex in a public bathroom.  How does this detract from his ability as a legislator?

It's just more petty "Gotcha!" games.  He's humiliated enough without a bunch of opportunists poking fun at a gay man.


You know, Lovechild, I agree with you about 90%.  I was scathing towards Craig because he's yet another prig on a moralist high horse caught being deviously horny.  If you can say " So, allegedly he solicited sex in a public bathroom" you would not be welcome among Craig's conservative constituents. 

Craig also disgusted me with his howling to the press, "I'm not gay, I'm not gay, I'm not gay, I'm not gay!" 
A. Craig did not plead guilty to being "gay."  He pled guilty to lewd behavior in public. 
B. A same-sex liason in a public commode does not mean you're gay. 

And now Craig wants to retract his guilty plea. 

I wish the country could just say, "Senator, please behave yourself.  Now, let's get back to the people's business." 
However, that's the opposite of what Craig's ilk did with Bill Clinton.  They made his dalliances the definition of his entire second term.

In sum, it's a big deal because the right-wing decided politician's sex lives should be a big deal, and what do you know?  Conservative politicians get just as down and dirty as anybody else--and often more so!  Instead of accepting the opposite, they circle the wagons and hollar about stuff Democrats did 10, 15, 20+ years ago.
::)

You know, Lovechild, I agree with you about 90%.  I was scathing towards Craig because he's yet another prig on a moralist high horse caught being deviously horny.  If you can say " So, allegedly he solicited sex in a public bathroom" you would not be welcome among Craig's conservative constituents. 

Craig also disgusted me with his howling to the press, "I'm not gay, I'm not gay, I'm not gay, I'm not gay!" 
A. Craig did not plead guilty to being "gay."  He pled guilty to lewd behavior in public. 
B. A same-sex liason in a public commode does not mean you're gay. 


I also took notice of his panicking "I'm not gay" pleads, which I thought was more or less irrelevant and insecure in light of the fact that this was about inappropriate public sex.  I think the GOP ditched Craig when they realized he was gay, but claimed it was because he had broken the law.  Now, perhaps I haven't read up on this as much as I should have, but what did he do?  Tap his foot?  Bump his foot into another man's foot?  Okay, yes, he probably was soliciting sex, but I don't think that it's breaking the law just to use some of the signals.  What it comes down to with the Republicans is, "Get that filthy homo outta here!" and once again, with the Democrats it comes down to, "...GOTCHA!"


I wish the country could just say, "Senator, please behave yourself.  Now, let's get back to the people's business." 
However, that's the opposite of what Craig's ilk did with Bill Clinton.  They made his dalliances the definition of his entire second term.

In sum, it's a big deal because the right-wing decided politician's sex lives should be a big deal, and what do you know?  Conservative politicians get just as down and dirty as anybody else--and often more so!  Instead of accepting the opposite, they circle the wagons and hollar about stuff Democrats did 10, 15, 20+ years ago.
::)


Of course that's the opposite of what Republicans did with Bill Clinton.  Do you think Democrats wouldn't have a field day if President Bush got caught in some sex scandal?  Both parties are smug and self-righteous, but the difference is that Republicans despise "immorality" while the Democrats target "hypocrisy".  It is coincidence that Clinton's indiscretion occurred some odd years before Craig's solicitation, and if it happened in the opposite order, you can just imagine a Republican apologist saying, "I wish the country could get along with its own business and stop talking about the Lewinsky affair, but that's not what Clinton and his ilk did with Craig way back when."  Let's stop drudging up these things and let's start with a clean slate.  I say, it's not the public's business who our elected leaders are in bed with, unless you're talking more along the lines of the Bush administration being in bed with Exxon, which would be fair game.

I also took notice of his panicking "I'm not gay" pleads, which I thought was more or less irrelevant and insecure in light of the fact that this was about inappropriate public sex.
As opposed to "appropriate" public sex?
;)
  I think the GOP ditched Craig when they realized he was gay, but claimed it was because he had broken the law.  Now, perhaps I haven't read up on this as much as I should have, but what did he do?  Tap his foot?  Bump his foot into another man's foot?  Okay, yes, he probably was soliciting sex, but I don't think that it's breaking the law just to use some of the signals.  What it comes down to with the Republicans is, "Get that filthy homo outta here!" and once again, with the Democrats it comes down to, "...GOTCHA!"
And the Republicans make it so easy for themselves to be "gotten"! 
Being gay has nothing to do with making the rich richer and transferring public resources into private hands, which is the core of the GOP.  However, homophobia is a biggie for the bigots and zealots who sponsor the GOP with their votes. 

Of course that's the opposite of what Republicans did with Bill Clinton.  Do you think Democrats wouldn't have a field day if President Bush got caught in some sex scandal?
I can't exactly see the Dems saying, "Well, our Bill Clinton fooled around, so let's not make a big deal because Bush did the same."  A bunch of Republicans got caught with their pants down while they were going after Clinton in the '90s, but the liberals' caterwauling about it didn't stop the Starr Chamber for a second.  Limbaugh & co. had the right-wing media propaganda machine roaring full-blast by then.  They could sell the horsesh*t that Gingrich was more moral than Clinton because Gingrich resigned when he got caught...got caught handing his wife divorce papers on her deathbed with his mistress in tow!
:D
But you notice something about Republicans, they stick together...they better!  Old school Republicans from the Northeast, such as Chaffee and Snow, shifted uncomfortably in their shoes, cleared their throats, and waited for the hub-bub to die down.  Meanwhile, the Dems had Joe Lieberman, the senator from ConnectIsreal, issuing droning philippics against Clinton from the senate floor, the preachy sombiatch!

  Both parties are smug and self-righteous, but the difference is that Republicans despise "immorality" while the Democrats target "hypocrisy". 
Self-righteous is a must.  In politics humility doesn't pay, just ask Jimmy Carter.  Republicans despise sexual immorality among their opponents.  Evidentally, what is most immoral in the eyes of the GOP is giving a hungry man a bowl of soup on the public's dime!
::)
Again, the Dems target hypocrisy among their opponents.  Hillary Clinton alone has enough hypocrisy to fill the Pacific Ocean, and there are plenty of lefties happy to point it out, but those who do don't get to join in any reindeer games, just ask Ralph Nader!

It is coincidence that Clinton's indiscretion occurred some odd years before Craig's solicitation, and if it happened in the opposite order, you can just imagine a Republican apologist saying, "I wish the country could get along with its own business and stop talking about the Lewinsky affair, but that's not what Clinton and his ilk did with Craig way back when."  Let's stop drudging up these things and let's start with a clean slate.  I say, it's not the public's business who our elected leaders are in bed with, unless you're talking more along the lines of the Bush administration being in bed with Exxon, which would be fair game.

Karma +1 for that last point!
:)

I also took notice of his panicking "I'm not gay" pleads, which I thought was more or less irrelevant and insecure in light of the fact that this was about inappropriate public sex.


Look at it from Craig's point of view.

He's seen his fellow Senators break the law all the time without shame.  But to admit that he was gay would have caused his little fundie brain to implode.  To a fundie, admitting he liked the p33n was by far the bigger crime.

Look at it from Craig's point of view.

He's seen his fellow Senators break the law all the time without shame.  But to admit that he was gay would have caused his little fundie brain to implode.  To a fundie, admitting he liked the p33n was by far the bigger crime.


If I was Larry's lawyer I would have told him not to even mention the G-word. 

What did everybody think when Nixon said "I am not a crook!"

Right.

Craig doth protest too much!
::)

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20070914/ldb070915.gif


In case you can't read it:

http://news.yahoo.com/comics/doonesbury;_ylt=Akdkcp4Q6CLZQbyy88_jbUExvTYC




Cat

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20070914/ldb070915.gif


In case you can't read it:

http://news.yahoo.com/comics/doonesbury;_ylt=Akdkcp4Q6CLZQbyy88_jbUExvTYC




Cat

But....they would do that!

The toilet where all this happened has now become a tourist visiting sight.

The toilet where all this happened has now become a tourist visiting sight.



Daily tours. Well, it appears that Craig is now out of job, he could now get the job of being tour guide for the public men's room.  :D ;D ;D ;D



Cat

I'm sure the champagne corks are flying at the Minneapolis chamber of commerce!
:P

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20070914/ldb070915.gif


In case you can't read it:

http://news.yahoo.com/comics/doonesbury;_ylt=Akdkcp4Q6CLZQbyy88_jbUExvTYC




Cat
now i've been reading doonesburys for like twenty minutes. those really are brilliant, wow. :o mr. trudeau hasn't lost it, fer shurr.