Larry Craig Scandal Unleashes Media & Blogging Firestorm

Larry Craig, Republican senator from Idaho, was arrested for lewd behavior in the men’s bathroom of the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport on June 11th and later pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of disorderly conduct on August 8th.

The news of Craig's scandalous behavior has traveled through the internet and the blogosphere faster than a wild fire.

The senator announced plans to resign from the Senate at a news conference on September 1st, which would become effective on September 30. But just two days ago, September 4th, Senator Craig's spokesperson divulged that he may be reconsidering his decision to resign if his conviction is overturned.

Earlier today two of Craig's political advisers claimed he was not going to seek re-election to the Senate before his scandal broke out, and later the International Herald Tribune reported "the senator would try to complete his term only if his guilty plea for disorderly conduct in connection with a sex sting can be voided by Sept. 30 and if the Republican leadership agrees to restore Craig to the committee leadership posts from which he was recently ousted."

My confusion regarding this scandalous situation has been multiplied by ten . The hypocrisy of the senator (Craig voted yes on the constitutional ban of same-sex marriage) is outrageous and gives me no hope that the Republican party has any honest politicians left.

I'm not certain the Democrats are any more truthful, but even former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey had the decency to be open about his sexuality instead of pretending a pink elephant wasn't in the middle of the room.

Though McGreevey's admission only happened after he confessed he had an extramarital affair with a male employee, the truth has set him free. He has been applauded for his courage and for discovering "who he really is."

The lingering question is whether or not Craig would be treated differently were he a Democrat.

Congressman Barney Frank allegedly operated a male prostitution ring in his basement (the House Ethics Committee found no evidence that Frank had known about or been involved in the alleged illegal activity) and in 1989, Sam Donaldson barely mentioned the scandal, stating:

"Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank, an acknowledged homosexual, today confirmed that his Washington apartment had been used as a callboy headquarters by a male prostitute for a year and a half until late 1987. Responding to a story in today's Washington Times, Frank said he had hired the prostitute out of his own funds as a personal aide and fired him when he found out what was going on."

Barney Frank's scandal received nowhere near the amount of coverage Mark Foley's instant message scandal received last fall, and now Craig's "poor judgment" has been plastered on the front pages of numerous newspapers. New York Times blog, The Caucus has even provided a link to the audio recording of Craig's post restroom arrest.

I cannot, by any means say I feel bad for Craig. His flip-flop from guilt to innocence, resignation to non-resignation, only compounds the situation. It almost seems as if he's asking for more media coverage.

Craig alleges he did nothing wrong, yet still plead guilty to a lesser charge "hoping [the incident] would just go away." I can't remember the last time police arrested a politician for simply using a public restroom. Are we now going to debate what constitutes "using" a bathroom? What other excuse could the senator possibly have for his behavior?

Rob Schumacher says it best with his declaration of Craig as a complete idiot:

"I'm guilty.

Actually, I regret saying I was guilty.

I'm not guilty.

I'm resigning.

Well, I didn't exactly say I was resigning.

OK, I won't resign if they find me innocent."

Chicaboomer writes:

"He's resigning. Not resigning. Resigning. The girl can't make up her mind. A Larry Craig flack coyly says "the door is open slightly." Hey, bud, you can't have it both ways. Oh, yeah, you can! You've worn a path through that revolving door."

Matt Bruce writes:

"By the way, it bothers me that Larry Craig devoted so much time to explaining whether he's gay. (On the flip side it bothers me for similar reasons that Jim McGreevey devoted so much time to explaining whether he's gay. The sex of his lover didn't bear much relation to whether putting his lover on the state payroll was scandalously wrong.) One's sexual identity doesn't contribute much to the discussion of whether cruising for anonymous sex in a public restroom disturbs the peace."

The Enemy writes:

"Where to start? It seems pointless to comment on the Larry Craig flurry. The Republican closet is beginning to look more like a clown car every day, and as with any clown car, The Enemy can do little more than smile wanly and look away, it would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic."


Contributing Editor Dana J. Tuszke also blogs at The Dana Files.

Posted by Dana J. Tuszke at September 6, 2007 10:54 PM
Comment #232069
It seems pointless to comment on the Larry Craig flurry.

I agree.

Posted by: womanmarine at September 7, 2007 12:11 AM
Comment #232070


Had this been a Democrat, the media or bloggers would scarcely be discussing this at all.
Here’s my take.
The media has from the beginning kept this alive through the whole hypocrisy argument. Many discussing this say it is important, not because of the misdemeanor he committed, but because of the hypocrisy it represents in the Republican Party. I don’t buy this at all.
The media acknowledging one standard for the Democrats and another standard for the Republicans is the purest form of Press bias. Their argument that Republicans claim to have a higher standard, therefore, need to be held to a higher standard allows them to be biased in their reporting. This has been going on, in my opinion, since the 80’s.
If the media must hold Republicans to a higher standard because they claim one, then what is the flip side of that equation? Democrats get held to little if any standard because they do not claim any. This creates what some might call, an unintentional bias, though I have other opinions on that. I believe it is more of a political strategy carried out by left leaning persons in the Press that wish to give certain stories more airplay for political reasons.
I think you are exactly right with the example of Barney Frank, but there are numerous others on the Democratic side that have done some profoundly grievous acts and nothing has been said regarding their character, some of which I listed in the Craig / Vitter post on the Blue Side. Though Craig’s actions were certainly questionable, there are far more serious and downright outlandish acts that are completely overlooked on the other side of the aisle.
The Press should have one standard for all politicians if it does not want to be labeled biased. Two different Press standards for two different Parties just does not fly in a balanced and fair Press. And what standard shall we use, then, for Independents, somewhere in the middle?


Posted by: JD at September 7, 2007 12:22 AM
Comment #232072
Their argument that Republicans claim to have a higher standard, therefore, need to be held to a higher standard allows them to be biased in their reporting.

No, we only want them to hold themselves to the same standard they want to apply to everyone else. That’s all.

Posted by: womanmarine at September 7, 2007 12:26 AM
Comment #232079
Sam Donaldson barely mentioned the scandal

How do you “barely” mention something? Either it’s mentioned or not. And it was mentioned. In fact, it was mentioned on every network, not just ABC.

And to compare Barney Frank — who didn’t even know what his aid was doing — with Mark Foley’s gay pedophilia and Larry Craig’s arrest for soliciting gay sex in a public restroom is really, really reaching. The reason the Franks coverage didn’t reach the pitch that the Foley/Craig crimes did is because it didn’t warrant it.

As for Craig being a Democrat, a Democrat wouldn’t have felt stigmatized by his Party for his gay tendencies to the extent that he’d solicit gay sex in a public restroom. He’d do it in the privacy of his own home.

So yes, it would have been different if Craig were a Democrat because a Democrat wouldn’t need to have sneaky, self-loathing gay sex in a toilet stall.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 7, 2007 1:57 AM
Comment #232098

Here are some facts about Thompson’s record:

He has at times voted in support of affirmative action, at other times against it.

As a former trial lawyer like John Edwards, he has voted against efforts to impose federal caps on punitive damages and lawyers’ fees.

Thompson was a co-sponsor of the McCain-Feingold bill, loathed by most Republicans.

“Had he been in Washington, he said, he would have opposed the White House’s successful push to add a Medicare drug benefit.”

He voted against setting a 0.08 blood alcohol level as the national drunken-driving standard.

He voted against making it a federal crime to carry a gun in or a near a school.

These facts come from a NY Times article.

Not exactly a Republican in the mold of Ronald Reagan, which no doubt his supporters will attempt to liken him to.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 7, 2007 5:15 AM
Comment #232109

The Republicans have let their Theocon wing essentially dictate their attitudes towards homosexuality. The party has a history, in the last few decades, of bashing gays and fearmongering over what will happen to our society if we let them follow their natural inclinations.

The Democrats have made the acceptances of gays part of their culture.

So when one of their own, somebody who’s done his share of fearmongering himself, turns out not merely to be homosexual, but somebody who seeks that kind of sex in public places, they’ve already built up quite a bit of inherent conflict.

In my screenwriting class up at college, I was introduced to the square of oppositions. You have

1)the positive, which you could say is the protagonist and his allies;

2) you have the contrary, which is where there’s some issue in the way, but the opposition could be cleared up if some issue is addressed;

3) you have the contradictory, where there’s a real clash of competing values; and then, finally you have

4) The Negation of the Negation, which is essentially saying that you have an oppositional character who hides his or her nature under the guise of being a true believe in the cause.

The fourth category offers up some of the most profound conflicts, and shocking revelations. Those who know the movie The Usual Suspects will know what I mean.

Senator Craig’s lifestyle has put him in that fourth category, among the strongest of conflicts. Make the conflict strong, and you’ll make the consequences worse for when people react to it.

The Republicans haven’t grasped one important truth: they weren’t kicked out because they weren’t conservative enough. in all actuality, the American people were only open to so much of that. No, they were kicked out because they’ve made a conserted effort to portray themselves a certain way with their words, only then to have revelations about their actions surfacing to reveal the depths of their departure from that.

They talked of being budget cutters, only to expand it; about fiscal responsibility, only to run up record deficits; about defeating the terrorists, only to expand their ranks, their experience, and their vigor; about how only they could win the war, only to prove they could fail like nobody else. They promised to be ready for the next catastrophe, only to let America down with an incredible display of bureaucratic sloth and executive apathy.

In short, they set themselves on a path to not merely disappointing voters, nor committing the political suicide of outright opposing them, but in making big promises on the performance and policy front that their later actions completely undermine.

The cause? A focus on image management, on politics for politics sake, the prioritizing of political games playing over actually getting things done whose quality would reflect back on the party to its benefit.

Though Democrats are in the majority in the current, unpopular congress, the Republicans should take note that their numbers are lower than the Democrats, and that the low numbers owe themselves in no small part to their obstruction of the Democrats’ agenda, a move that might make short-term political sense, but which doesn’t yield much advantage to them, since they can’t get in front of the kind of change people want, and the Democrats stand to gain more seats.

Once the Democrats are free to push their agenda, it’s likely their popularity will rise as Congress passes legislation that appeals to voters who have lost patience with the Corporate, Religious, and Neocon segments of the party.

The only way Democrats can mess this up, and are messing this up is by not peforming as promised, not opposing Bush firmly enough, or forcing the Republicans to outwardly voice their hidden opposition to what the Average American wants.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 7, 2007 8:06 AM
Comment #232111

It’s pretty amusing watching the right try to come up with justifications or allowances for Craig’s behavior. It’s really pretty simple.

It’s not the Democrats fault. It doesn’t matter if Barney Frank (or anyone else) is gay.

Here we have Craig, an anti-gay, Republican senator who happens to like promiscuous, gay sex in public accommodations. He’s been choked by vines which grew from seeds which he (and your party) planted.

If he truly believed in “limited government” (as your party professes to) he wouldn’t care about whether other people are gay or not.

It is the truest form of comedy. The only question is, which one of your faggot representatives is next? Rohrbacher?

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at September 7, 2007 8:20 AM
Comment #232117

Once again republicans are trying to place the crux of their problems on the media. If the media did not bring these questionable behaviors to our attention they would go overlooked and be deemed acceptable. Out of sight out of mind. Right? As stated above, if you are going to preach a specific standard you better be willing to live by it. If not you are eventually going to be caught in the scopes and deemed a hypocrite. Your party would do well to accept accountability for your actions and try to insure that you run candidates who can live by your moral code. It is either that or loosen your standards and accept that gays have a place in society.

Posted by: RickIL at September 7, 2007 9:30 AM
Comment #232119

American Pundit, do you REALLY expect people, both Democrats and Republicans alike, to believe that BARNEY FRANK had NO IDEA what was happening in his own apartment?

Give me a break. Are you for real?

I’m not saying Craig is innocent. I think he’s pretty darn guilty. But so is Frank. So is Foley. So is Bill Clinton.

They all used poor judgment. It’s just seems that some walk away with a slap on the wrist and others are urged to resign. Why is that?

Please tell me the difference. A crook, is a crook, is a crook in my book. (Pardon the rhyming.)

Posted by: Dana J. Tuszke at September 7, 2007 9:38 AM
Comment #232122

It’s Republicans that are roasting him over a slow fire and asked him to quit. Since he can’t be treated any worse, I don’t think Republicans would treat a Democrat any better.

Posted by: Max at September 7, 2007 10:27 AM
Comment #232125

My confusion, in any regard, is how so many political “leaders” can be so certain of Larry Craigs sexual orientation or his “guilt” of some sexual misconduct YET so incredibily short sighted with respect to WMDs of Saddam Hussein, and the terrible threat he was to American security.

These same “public servants” gave credibility (directly or indirectly) and vote to “policies” and ideologies that caused almost 4,000 American deaths—and accomplished NOTHING MORE. With “facts,” ARTIFACTS actually, right in front of them they conspired to send nearly 4,000 Americans to their graves, so it is really NEWS than with merely a “he said he said” transcript they so decisively route out the sexual ills from the “STALLS of Congress.”

What a sad commentary and mockery politics has made of our government and nation.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at September 7, 2007 10:37 AM
Comment #232140

Well said, Kim Sue.

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 7, 2007 12:29 PM
Comment #232142

It should be noted that those seeking gay sex in a restroom are not necessarily homosexual in particular,but thrillseekers. The “gayness” of humans is on a s continuem. Every one has homosexual tendancies to one degree or another. Some more,some less.An ironic interplay between social and quite natural instincts generaly has those that are so afraid and loathsome of their own proclivities that they are often rather homophobic. When this is applied to politics its a safe bet that those vehemently opposed to gay marriage etc. are actually victums of their own pronouned latent homosexuality. Gary Baur is one of the boys. This gives us on the left no end of entertainment from Reps that have made a career of attacking gays.
Of course the hypocracy is the question. How ever do the Cons manage to ignore their own world view. “Pro-life” while supporting war and capital punishment.Less intrusive government while trying to insert government control of the uteruses of every woman in the nation ,and supporting a regime bent or government expansion.Claimming to be fiscally conservative while supporting huge government spending etc. Problem with hypocracy is that sooner or later the chickens come home to roost.

Posted by: BillS at September 7, 2007 12:36 PM
Comment #232147
A crook, is a crook, is a crook

If that were true, then every jail sentence would be the same. There are all different kinds of crimes, from jaywalking when no one is around to gay pedophilia and soliciting gay sex in a public crapper. To pretend otherwise is just partisan delusion.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 7, 2007 12:51 PM
Comment #232150

A spokesman for Craig now says that the Senator had decided not to seek re-election before he was arrested.

Posted by: jlw at September 7, 2007 1:01 PM
Comment #232153

Dana: Pardon my last post. I saw that you had mentioned it when I reread your post and I had it wrong anyway.

Posted by: jlw at September 7, 2007 1:05 PM
Comment #232156

“…a crook is a crook..” How about ..”a crock is a crock…” instead?
Frank broke no laws and is out front about his orientation. Clinton was quilty of trying to cover up an embarassing pecidillo that was none of our business. More hypocracy? How about the TWO Rep speakers that had to resign because of their own affairs before that tawdry embaressing impeachment could proceed. Remember it is the Reps that are out to get Craig,only because his replacement will be a Rep.The “wide stance” party.

Posted by: BillS at September 7, 2007 1:32 PM
Comment #232174

BillS, your statement is quite naive. To say “everyone has homosexual tendencies” is over reaching a bit.

JLW, no worries. It’s difficult to keep track of this media frenzy.

American Pundit — I think you’re imposing your own delusions onto others. Frank was an accessory, whether he likes it or not. To say he can’t be blamed for what the male escort did while he was away is a cop out.

Posted by: Dana J. Tuszke at September 7, 2007 2:57 PM
Comment #232182

I never said Franks can’t be blamed. That was the police and the Senate ethics committee who said that.

And that’s where your comparison falls down. An aide’s use of Franks’ apartment for setting up gay liasons is nowhere near the legal quivalent of getting arrested for gay pedophilia or soliciting gay sex in a public toilet.

I think a more apples-to-apples comparison with Franks might be David Vitter. If you want to compare those two, fire away!

Posted by: American Pundit at September 7, 2007 3:42 PM
Comment #232185

Equally, if not more disturbing are the voters that would probably re-elect Craig like the voters in Louisiana that re-elected William Jefferson. And even if convicted of felonies (even when they plead guilty), they get to keep their cu$hy pensions; even get a pardon perhaps.

But the voters put them there and keep them there because they are more afraid of the OTHER party gaining seats that they fail to see the differences no longer matter when BOTH are so corrupt, and growing more corrupt every year.

Too many voters like to wallow in the partisan-warfare and argue which party is most corrupt, when both are so corrupt, it doesn’t matter.

Hopefully Congress’ dismal 18% approval rating (tied with the lowest ever) will translate into more voters that finally see through all of the:

  • time wasting, divisvie, distracting partisan-warfare,

  • manipulations,

  • lies,

  • broken promises,

  • corruption,

  • pandering,

  • waste,

  • $9 Trillion National Debt,

  • excessive money printing,

  • lives lost,

  • do-nothing Congress’ 9 raises in 10 years,

  • bribes,

  • Gerrymandering,

  • rampant pork-barrel,

  • broken borders,

  • refusing to enforce existing laws; despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other,

  • pitting Americans against each other; emphasizing a few differences rather than unity on the things we all agree on and solving any of those things,

  • ignoring energy vulnerabilities, despite D.O.E.’s $26 Billion annual budget,

  • PGBC $450 Billion in the hole,

  • Enrons, WorldCOMs, Tycos, Aldephias, ImClones, Aurthur Andersons, HealthSouth, Cendents, Grasso’s $140 million salary, other manifestations of unchecked greed, etc.,

  • constitutional violations,

  • Congress gave itself its 9th raise in 10 years will our troops go without body armor, medical care, and promised beneifts,

  • eminent domain abuse,

  • ignoring Article V of the Constiution,

  • plundering Social Security $12.8 Trillion in debt,

  • abused Presidential pardons placing politicians and felons above the law,

  • starting unnecessary wars based on flawed intelligence,

  • general fiscal and moral bankruptcy,
and finally decide to stop rewarding crooks with 90%-to-95% (since 1996) re-election rates.

If not, then the voters have the government they deserve, and the painful consequences that come with it.

Posted by: d.a.n at September 7, 2007 4:24 PM
Comment #232227

Naive? Overeaching? Hardly. Its psych. 101.The concept is also backed up by anthropology and zoology. Homosexuality to one degree or another is a constant among primates. The denial of this basic fact of humanity is what leads to things like gay bashing and creatures like Craig.

Posted by: Bills at September 7, 2007 9:13 PM
Comment #232242

What a sad lot here! With your words convicting a man of crimes which you can’t prove! The only thing you can prove is that he plead “guilty” to something other than that which you all assume. That he is Republican or Democrat is irrelevant, then, to this discussion. You, my friends, are the real pansies and I’ve caught you with your pants down.

Posted by: Don at September 7, 2007 10:36 PM
Comment #232253
You, my friends, are the real pansies and I’ve caught you with your pants down.

You’re either with the faggots, or you’re against them.

Posted by: Jeff Seltzer at September 8, 2007 12:25 AM
Comment #232266

“With your words convicting a man of crimes which you can’t prove!”

Are we to assume the published arrest report is a figment of our collective imagination?

The real crime here is that this moron thought his indiscretion would be swept under the rug because of “who he was”.

This is just another sad example of the fact that Americans elect the representation they deserve.

Posted by: Rocky at September 8, 2007 8:44 AM
Comment #232267

Don: The Republican Party has made homophobia one of it’s political planks, that makes it very relevant. Those on the right usually claim that homosesuality is a lifestyle until it is one of their own. Craig confessed to the lifestyle but denied the disease. This caused his fellow Republicans to lash out at him and demand that he end his career as a homophobic Republican politician. It would have been far better if Craig had admitted to the disease rather than the lifestyle. He could have gotten treatment. It was the homophobic Republicans that were caught with their pants down.

Posted by: jlw at September 8, 2007 8:55 AM
Comment #232276

Jeff Seltzer
Thanks for making my point.There is no other reason for a statement like”with or against….”someone elses private sexual behavior than homophobia,a failure to come to grips with ones own latient homosexuality.

Posted by: BillS at September 8, 2007 12:47 PM
Comment #232320

Rocky - “Are we to assume the published arrest report is a figment of our collective imagination?”

If you have read the whole report you see that what he was accused of doing he never admitted doing, nor was he ever convicted of what he was accused of doing. You, therefore, have nothing but an arrest report. You do not have a legal conviction.

A friend of mine was arrested once for the crime of hit and run driving. It was on his arrest report. Trouble was, he was not the person who committed the actual crime. That person was arrested later and convicted.

According to your logic, my friend was GUILTY because he was arrested. Your trouble is that you have forgotten that this is America where a person is held to be innocent until proven guilty; your arrest report does not convict you of anything.

I hope you’re just playing ignorant to try to make some obscure point. Homophobia is not a Republican issue. I’ve known several homophobes who vote Democrat. Furthermore, the stands the Republican party has taken on gay issues has not come from homophobia, but from reasoned thought. The Republican party is not opposed to gays, merely to the over-reaching gay agenda. It is sad that the Democrats refuse to stand up to the gays, put their collective foot down, and stop the outrageous demands (the gays demand more than their due as citizens and often get it).

Posted by: Don at September 8, 2007 10:47 PM
Comment #232328


Larry Craig was convicted of disturbing the peace. Rocky apparently believes this is a serious crime. I have warned him to turn down his stereo, next I’ll call the police and have him charged with the same crime.

He presumes to know Larry’s mind when he assumes Larry thought it would be “swept under the rug” without considering the consequences of not pleading out, which assured publication of this charge. It was a lose-lose situation for Larry, no matter what course he chose. The one he took, got him by the press for a month or so, until someone with an axe to grind, tipped Roll Call. Since likely only the clerks, police and D.A.were aware of this incident, I wonder which agency decided that they wanted to persecute this senator on a flimsy charge? Maybe the arresting cop, based on his disgust that he spoke of, during the arrest. I mean men hooking up in the restroom !!! C’mon!!! What could be more disgusting? Heteros hooking up in a restaurant, where we eat?

I guess since the Senator is a hypocritical closeted gay he deserves to be publicly humiliated. Thank God we have the Minnesota police seeing that carried out. I say paint a red H on his chest.

The Dems are best off saying nothing. They won’t stand for his civil rights. That sort of makes them hypcrites, too, though. I personally hope Larry fights this and wins. Irregardless, he won’t be reelected and won’t regain his committee posts.

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 9, 2007 12:39 AM
Comment #232332

A Summation,culpubly plagerized:

“Look,when sanctimonious moralizers are repeatably found to be secretly engaging in the activities they’ve built public careers denouncing and/or legislating against it becomes a fundemental metaphor for a party whose every action seems rooted in hypocracy and deciet,even you must see that.” Tom Tomorrow

On Clinton did it too,same source.

“Thats true. And if he’d been known for his virtuous opposition to others peoples fooling around that might even be relevant.
Anyway,its not exactly as if you Republicans ignored that little scandal.”

Posted by: BillS at September 9, 2007 1:15 AM
Comment #232339

What “special” rights do gays demand?I have not heard of any.

Do you mean protection on the job? What is wrong with that.What they do on their own time is no bodies business.

Do you mean hate crimes protection? Thats hardly a right. Its a deterance,a deterance against those that choose to commit a crime against another human being,selecting their victum based on hatred of a group. We have those laws for religion,and race. We should have them for gender(ie. rape and gay bashing).Should’nt assault be treated severly? Souldn’t exceptionaly anti-social assault be treated more severly?

Do you mean marriage?Pleaseese! If you have the right to get married why on earth should anyone else of age not have that right?At any rate that is not a “special” right. We all have it.

Posted by: BillS at September 9, 2007 1:43 AM
Comment #232346

“He presumes to know Larry’s mind when he assumes Larry thought it would be “swept under the rug” without considering the consequences of not pleading out, which assured publication of this charge.”

I presume nothing.

Arrest reports are public record.
If Craig wasn’t guilty of anything he shouldn’t have pled guilty to anything, and merely saying he isn’t gay in front of a news camera isn’t a defence.
A man of character needn’t feel intimidated by any consequences if he is right.

Oh, an BTW, heteros that “hook up” in a restaurant aren’t having sex in a booth in the dining room. Men that “hook up” for sex in a public restroom aren’t going to take it to a hotel. Sex in a public restroom is illegal, sex in public is illegal.


Gays aren’t asking for the right to have sex in public places, as I said above, that’s illegal for everyone. They are merely asking for the rights the rest of us enjoy.

Posted by: Rocky at September 9, 2007 6:27 AM
Comment #232366

The only reason this story is on the public mind is that there is one constant among Americans:

We don’t like/tolerate hypocrits!

It doesn’t matter that craig lied. It doesn’t matter that craig is Gay. It doesn’t matter about what he pleaded to.

…What matters, is that this republican is among those lending strength of numbers to those who purport to be about something other than he obviously is about. That a gay man should seek to move up the party by cow-towing to the most morrally reprehensible religious right-wingers is the problem. Hypocrisy is both American (in that it is so common among those calling themselves American) and also UNpatriotic in that Americans have so little tolerance for it.

Gay or not, his conduct was reprehensible. Regardless of gender, making unwanted sexual advances to a stranger in a public restroom is pretty horrible. It is hardly likely to have been a woman in an airport men’s room, but that is irrelevent.

Karl Rove is not only agnostic/atheist, but he had just left the death-bedside of his adoptive gay father (The one who gave him the last name of Rove) who divorced his mother after coming out of the closet, when he put into play his plan to get Bush re-elected by means of activating the evangelicals on the issue of gay marriage. Hypocrisy.

In Florida, republican party operatives “faked” a riot on the offces where one of the vote re-counts was taking place in 2000. Then they argued that due to civil unrest, the election issue needed to be resolved faster by the U.S. Supreme Ct. Hypocrisy.

Bush continues to sell hope and the prospect of success in Iraq to the American people…success for who? —- the oil companies??? Hypocrisy AND infantile folly.

Bush, Gonzales, Cheney et al, took oaths of office to uphold the Constitution. Hypocrisy.

The list could stretch on for awhile if we continue. It is catching someone in such a poisonous hypocrisy as the one Larry Craig was caught in that keeps this story alive in the media, not politics.

It is bloggers like myself who will not let the republicans forget their hypocrisies. That’s politics.

Posted by: RGF at September 9, 2007 4:13 PM
Comment #232387

Bill S -
“What ‘special’ rights do gays demand?I have not heard of any.”

Funny! You then list three special rights that have been accorded to gays as a result of their agenda.

1) We already had protection on the job before this special legislation. Couldn’t be rejected for hire or fired for political, religious, or sexual preferences. But gays now have MORE rights than most Democrat union workers on the job.

2) Hate crime protection. Gays now have MORE protection than your mother or sister if they become victims of assault.

3) Marriage? a)Everyone of legal age already has the right to marry, don’t they? Even gays have the right to marry. I didn’t know it was against the law for gays to marry!! In fact, gays have gotten married for thousands of years.

b)But they have never been allowed to marry someone of the same gender. And if we change the meaning of marriage to include same-sex relationships we will have changed what marriage has generally meant for 4,000 years (I’m sure you can find a few exceptions if you try).

c)And why just gays? Why not multiple partner marriages and man-boy marriages (who’s to say there should be a legal minimum age, after all), and woman-horse marriages, and marriages between me, myself, and I????? Giving this special “right” to only gays is wrong!

So, you have “outed” yourself by saying you don’t know of any special rights that gays demand and then listing three.

Posted by: Don at September 9, 2007 10:48 PM
Comment #232392


“A man of character needn’t feel intimidated by any consequences if he is right.”

Nice sentiment, but rather unrealistic. I’ve explained why it was lose-lose for Craig.

Again, You assume that he was “hooking up” for public sex. Why? That isn’t in the charge or arrest records.

You’ve obviously never worked a late night shift at a restaurant. Sex in the booth, restroom, or a broom closet isn’t all that uncommon. Didn’t a stewardess recently get fired for a star **** on an Atlantic flight? Yep, them heteros always keep it zipped up. What a load and bias you have.

errata: I stated it was a disturbing the peace charge, it wasn’t. It was a disorderly conduct charge.

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 9, 2007 11:31 PM
Comment #232410


At the end of the day you only have who you are.

Now it seems that Craig is having second thoughts about a mere disorderly conduct charge and wants to clear his “good name”.

Do you actually have a point, or are you just here to be insulting?

Posted by: Rocky at September 10, 2007 4:19 AM
Comment #232420

My point is not to be insulting, unless you find reality insulting.

Larry’s defense is that he did nothing wrong. He has been persistent with that statement except for the reality based and politically expedient guilty plea he made to keep this on the down low.

Saying he’s not gay is most likely a true statement, in his mind, at least. He is well aware he has been smeared with a cheesy vice operation.

Is your point merely to dispense cliches, and insult my argument?

Gay bashing whether done by an imaginative vice squad, politically opportunistic DA, or a blogger who seems to rather enjoy the delima of a closeted gay public figure caught up in a bogus sting, is still nothing more than gay bashing.

In the end we are measured by the way we treat others in their times of trouble.

How’s that for idealistic and cliche?

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 10, 2007 12:15 PM
Comment #232447


This isn’t my first rodeo, and my intent isn’t to “gay bash”, as you have accused me.
My intent is to see the truth.
I could care less if Craig were gay, though it would be truly ironic after seeing his stand on gay issues, and his protests to the contrary.
My point is that anyone, be they gay or straight, liberal or conservative, that pleads guilty to any charge for the sake of expediency, as Mr. Craig did, deserves whatever happens.

You apparently haven’t been here long, as I have a documented history (nearly three years) on this blog supporting gay issues.
My experience with the police has been that they generally don’t just go trolling for busts, especially in a public restroom. They would prefer an arrest to stick.
The officer that “busted” Mr. Craig was probably in that restroom as a result of a prior complaint from someone that had been “cruised” by someone trying to hook up.
Something surely did happen in that restroom, and whether through ignorance, or not, Craig pled guilty. It is now a matter of public record, and he has only himself to blame.

Posted by: Rocky at September 10, 2007 4:01 PM
Comment #232477


OK, start the clock and open the gate. Yee Haw!!!

I never stated that your intent was to gay bash. Just that you effectively did.

If he has this case overturned, will you see that his Senate committee seats are returned to him and that he will be reelected? Since you seem to believe the judiciary and police are always faultless, in a faultless world, I presume that you would.

How about the other gay men caught up in this sting who don’t have the funds to fight this kind of charge?

The problem with your stance is that you ignore the facts of the case (at least as they have been aired in the media). The vagueness of your “something happened in that restroom” is what I am refering to as gay bashing. What happened was some sort of signaling…maybe. Nothing perverted, or lewd.

Why do you presume that driving while black or perverted while gay charges never occur? They do. There are widely known instances of each. You never experienced it because you are likely not among a target group.

I doubt the officer set up this sting alone. Cranks sometimes call and complain about gays, blacks or homeless. Cops respond in the standard way. Since profiling blacks results in problems since the sixties, they don’t do that much any more. It’s still politically acceptable to roust Homos and the Homeless. Nobody sues much. It’s still harassment.

As to my being new, well maybe. I’m a new identity if not a new person. I am familiar with many of your stances and am not attacking you personally, only your argument. Saying that Larry Craig deserves what he gets reminds me of the argument that women in revealing clothes deserve to be raped.

Maybe it’s hypocrite bashing, but since his hypocrisy surrounds gay issues, I’d have to say that it is also gay bashing. It’s your lack of sensitivity to a homosexual being exposed in a society that still thinks of gays as morally bankrupt, that bothers me. You dismiss that out of hand.

I don’t give anyone credit for longevity or political leaning. I attack what I see as sloppy thinking or knee jerk reaction. I enjoy learning from the ensuing argument.

This wasn’t a just bust, it was a “gotcha”. A just prosecutor would have dropped the charge. Why don’t you hold him to account?

Did I stay on for 8 seconds?

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 10, 2007 6:49 PM
Comment #232528


You get an “A” for parsing, and it isn’t an argument, it’s a debate.

“How about the other gay men caught up in this sting who don’t have the funds to fight this kind of charge?”

What part of possibly illegal activity don’t you understand?

“What happened was some sort of signaling…maybe. Nothing perverted, or lewd.”

Yet a supposed “man of character” pled guilty to just make it go away.

“It’s your lack of sensitivity to a homosexual being exposed in a society that still thinks of gays as morally bankrupt, that bothers me. You dismiss that out of hand.”

That is utter bullshit.
We Americans only have the rights we are willing to stand up for. Gays in America are no different than anyone else. I believe that society has a problem with gays because society is hung up on the “sex” part.
If you, or anybody else in the same circumstances as Mr. Craig stood up and said enough is enough, I would applaud, and I would support you to the end, but you cannot just roll over and plead guilty to any charge for expediency’s sake and expect me to support your cause.
My lack of compassion for Mr. Craig is a result of his stupidity, not because he is gay, or even because he is a conservative caught up in a possibly hypocritical situation.
I didn’t ask for Mr. Craig to resign, his fellow “compassionate” conservatives did.
You don’t seem to get that.

“A just prosecutor would have dropped the charge.”

But in his hurry to just make the charge “just go away” Mr. Craig didn’t allow that to happen, did he?
Cases like this, or of “driving while black or gay” will not stop if people continue to just roll over and take it.

Posted by: Rocky at September 11, 2007 5:12 AM
Comment #232531

Alien, it was an equal application of the law, without regard for wealth, social, or political status. He wasn’t the first person busted under local statutes permitting these kind of busts. I want to see many more busts under equal application of the law. Perhaps, then, some of these laws proving so inconvenient for the privileged, might be revoked for the less well off as well.

Rocky, excellent retort. America needs a whole lot more people standing up for their rights, instead of rolling over on them. But, in this case, I will be appalled if his attorney is able to get the charges thrown out. He is a politician for intelligence sake, making him less deserving of a break from the law than a non-politician whose career doesn’t involve making the laws.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 11, 2007 5:44 AM
Comment #232537

David, Rocky

I agree that Rocky makes a fine point, that we only get the rights we stand up for.

That is exactly my point. Mr.Craig is now standing up, while Rocky continues to throw rocks, or is that stones?

I keep hearing about illegal activity. Yet not one of you respond to the clear lack of evidence of illegal activity. That is what is so outrageous to me about your positions.

The Indians stood up and were massacred. The Blacks stood up and became “strange fruit”. Now that a gay man stands up, you call him stupid. You ignore the real situation of shame and humiliation that surrounds this circus. I say shame on you. It may be BS to you that someone has a moment of weakness in a fight of his life, but I think it is easy to be a hero from behind a keyboard. Reality is sometimes more difficult.

I have no idea what your understanding of Mr. Craig’s ability to “allow” a prosecutor to drop a charge means. A prosecutor’s duty is to evaluate evidence provided in an arrest and choose whether or not to proceed. He is more than just a advocate for the police.

I made no argument for or against equal application of the law, except that heterosexuals are not generally the target of stings, except in prostitution. Cops may cruise through Lover’s Lanes, but I’ve never heard of Cops soliciting Hetero men or women to join them on Lover’s Lane.

As to whether a position is an argument or debate, my understanding of english is that a debater can make an argument.

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 11, 2007 9:29 AM
Comment #232556


I think perhaps you are missing the point(s).

I know, now, beyond a doubt, that you are a white anglo saxon protestant. You are also straight and you have some rather powerful…well, let’s call them biases, shall we? -in the interest of the rules of this blog site. How, you may ask, could I know this?

Suppose you are African-American -
You, your daughter etc. …would have equal rights as far as hate crime legislation is concerned. The same would be true if you or your daughter were ever assaulted because of religion or national origen, etc.
Therefore, it seems obvious that you are as mainstream as you could possibly be. So much so, I believe, that I don’t think you could be Catholic, either.

Your *messege* reeks of biggotry. It makes it clear that some out there think that protecting homosexuals by means of anti-hate crime legislation, amounts to giving extra protection. It does not. What it does is to REMOVE the protection for those who would act violently on their biggotry. It is a shame that so many out there don’t see it that way. We are ALL poorer for it.

Posted by: RGF at September 11, 2007 1:22 PM
Comment #232569


“Now that a gay man stands up, you call him stupid.”

For the 20th time,…..
I explained why I thought him stupid. You choose not to acknowledge it.
Craig chose what he felt was the easy way out. He didn’t stand up for his own rights. He felt expedience was the shortest route between two points, and he was humiliated anyway. That’s stupid.
I think it is far better to stand up for what is right, show the world if necessary that what you’re facing is wrong, than to run away from what isn’t right, take the easy way out and have to face the humiliation anyway.

I feel no pity for Mr. Craig, just I feel no pity for someone that doesn’t watch where they’re going.
Obviously Mr. Craig wasn’t paying attention to where he was going, and it bit him on the ass.

It has nothing to do with any possibly that Craig might or might not be a homosexual, it has everything to do with the fact that he possibly pled guilty to something he didn’t do.

And that, is stupid.

Posted by: Rocky at September 11, 2007 2:36 PM
Comment #232570


None of us know all the facts of this case. The only two people who know all the gorey details are Craig and his victim. However, based on just the amount that has been made public, it appears Craig is guilty of a sexual assault. Contact is not necessary for such an assualt, that would/could make it rape. But it is likely that by making an unwanted sexual advance to a stranger in a public restroom, Craig may have committed a criminal sexual assault. His crime may even be greater if there was contact with the victim.

Is that enough for you?

Posted by: RGF at September 11, 2007 2:37 PM
Comment #232571


OK, you think he’s stupid. He’s standing up now, does he get any credit for that?


What victim are you talking about? The only other party besides Craig was the arresting officer. The only thing Craig did was tap his foot, touch shoes possibly, and put his hand at the bottom of the divider. In what land is that sexual assault?

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 11, 2007 2:50 PM
Comment #232572


As I said before, if he stood up for what is right I would applaud.

Posted by: Rocky at September 11, 2007 2:54 PM
Comment #232577


What of the other person under the stall wall who was was the recipient of the unwanted sexual advances? You are making rather extreme light of this when, as I said, neither you nor I know all the facts.

It simply does not make sense that it is as simple as you say! Why, then did he plead guilty? Why were charges brought at all? No. There was a victim. For the victim’s sake, I hope we never find out their identity!

Posted by: RGF at September 11, 2007 3:21 PM
Comment #232582

Alright, alright,

There was an aspect of this case I was not clear on. Apparently, Craig was charged as a result of having solicited sex from an undercover cop. That clarifies things.

All that means, though, is that it is the hyppocrisy itself which is real problem with Craig…unless one guesses that this might not be the first time Craig has engaged in this kind of conduct!

Is it possible, perhaps? Did Craig just get a wild hair and suddenly decide to proposition another man, a stranger, in a public airport restroom for this one and only time in his life?

Considering how much vehement anti-gay hatred there is out there, I can’t help but wonder what part the officer might have played as well. Is Craig’s only crime that he is Gay and lonely? Perhaps he was trapped by his lonliness and by some less-than-ideal strategies of a particular officer.

We’ll never know the whole story, no matter what story finally gets made public!

Posted by: RGF at September 11, 2007 4:15 PM
Comment #232596


Craig is now saying and actually said throughout his interview with the arresting officer that he did not solicit. He pled guilty, in hopes of keeping the reduced charge of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, quiet because— irregardless of his innocence or guilt, politically it would be all over if the groundless charge of solicitation was fought in public. That fear has been born out by actual events.

The DA, inspite of what appears to be a complete lack of evidence other than a curious interpretation by the officer of foot and hand movements, proceeded with the charges and failed to do his duty of dropping baseless charges.

As far as we know, that is the whole story. Whether Craig is Homosexual, or even if he was soliciting sex, there is no reasonable legal evidence of that, is not the issue. The issue is whether Craig was rousted in a Gay Bathroom sex sting that was stupidly and even perhaps maliciously executed. In my opinion, of course.

While I doubt Sen Craig was targeted as a politician, Homosexual men were targeted. It would be akin to having an undercover officer solicit a young girl to lover’s lane for sex and then arresting her. Funny, but I’ve never heard of a sting like that.

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 11, 2007 7:50 PM
Comment #232609


“irregardless of his innocence or guilt, politically it would be all over if the groundless charge of solicitation was fought in public. That fear has been born out by actual events.”

That’s just wrong.
If Craig wasn’t guilty and shown the guts to fight the charge from the beginning no matter what happened I could have respected the guy.

You want a “idealistic and cliche”?
Like the Native Americans you mentioned above, you can live your life and stand up for what you believe in and die once, or you can live your life in fear, and die a thousand deaths.

You, and Craig, apparently choose to live in fear.

If this man had enough character to run for, and achieve, public office, he certainly didn’t show it by pleading guilty, even to disorderly conduct, if he truly wasn’t.

Posted by: Rocky at September 11, 2007 9:41 PM
Comment #232610


I’m sure you would have respected the guy. That doesn’t change the political reality of the situation.(unless you control a large voting block in Idaho that you haven’t revealed)

I’m not sure why you said I choose to live in fear, except maybe that you don’t like my position.

I will say this, If an evil desperado forced me into a shoot out and I had the opportunity to shoot him in the back, I would. Perhaps I’ll never make it as a western hero in the movies, but I wouldn’t be dead. If that makes me a coward in your eyes, so be it.

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 11, 2007 9:53 PM
Comment #232639

I’ll have to agree that Craig’s behavior appears odd.

He is acting like he has a guilty conscience.

Perhaps that is the only news-worthy aspect of this whole story. This should be a forgotten back-pager, except that Craig’s own actions have made this whole thing take center stage.

Posted by: RGF at September 12, 2007 12:09 PM
Comment #232644


“I will say this, If an evil desperado forced me into a shoot out and I had the opportunity to shoot him in the back, I would. Perhaps I’ll never make it as a western hero in the movies, but I wouldn’t be dead. If that makes me a coward in your eyes, so be it.”

It’s not about being a hero, or even a coward.

Craig, through his actions, both during his arrest and since, has made himself a victim, and you have bought into it.
Craig is a victim of his own actions. He is not a victim of the cop that arrested him, or even of the “overzealous” DA that you felt should have given him a pass.
Craig himself, put himself, into this mess by pleading guilty to the charge. He was not forced at gunpoint to plead guilty. His career didn’t end with his arrest, it ended when he didn’t stand up for himself and pled guilty instead. Craig was more worried about what people might think than he was about doing what was right. If you do the right thing, the rest will take care of itself.
Craig has to take responsibility for his own actions, just as he would expect each of us to do so for ourselves.

Posted by: Rocky at September 12, 2007 2:28 PM
Comment #232663


His career didn’t end with his arrest, it ended when he didn’t stand up for himself and pled guilty instead. Craig was more worried about what people might think than he was about doing what was right.

This is the part of your argument I disagree with, most. His career was over, in his largely conservative district, if is arrest, no matter his explanation. I happen to believe he was soliciting sex, as do I think most Americans, and as would most voters in his district. The Republican reaction was a foregone conclusion and Craig was

Craig is not a victim. He is a hypocrite. I am not really weeping for Craig.

While the cop probably has the situation correct, He did a piss poor job of making a bust, based on what we’ve heard in the media.

I think these kind of stings are sexual orientation biased and should be treated like racial profiling.

That all said, the prosecutor failed, the cop failed and Sen. Craig failed. His conviction should be overturned, but because the justice system is biased to not correct itself, it’s unlikely it will be.

What bothers me about most of the posts is they go on a tear of calling Craig a pervert. Those comments are speculative at best and homophobic in nature, even if the person spouting them doesn’t think they are. It’s a bias I don’t like.

Thanks for the discussion, I learn when met with a strong intellect like yours.

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 12, 2007 8:22 PM
Comment #232666

err: ……and Craig was well aware of the politics of the situation. His “Beard” of supporting anti-gay agenda was part of his winning strategy.

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 12, 2007 8:28 PM
Comment #232668

Boy. We about burned this thread down to the ground. You guys really need some new writers. I have asked my Rep friends. So far no takers.
Jack where are you? There is much more afoot than the sleazy chenanigigans of yet another Rep hypocrit.Come Back,Arch Nemises.

Posted by: BillS at September 12, 2007 8:47 PM
Comment #232674

“I know, now, beyond a doubt, that you are a white anglo saxon protestant.”

I know, now, beyond a doubt, that you are a black homosexual Buddhist. So what?

I thought the law was supposed to be colorblind and sexblind and religionblind. If the law is made to give preference to one type of victim over another type of victim, the law is no longer able to provide equal “protection” to the victims, nor will it be able to provide equal “punishment” to the perpetrators. Our country was founded on the principle that all people are created equal. That principle has even more merit today than it did at the founding of our country (because women and blacks [as examples] have more equality with “white males” than at any time in our history and, in my opinion, should be equal [That’s how I treat them]). It is time for the law to protect each victim equally and treat each perpetrator equally.

If I beat your mother to a bloody pulp (because she is your mother) and I beat a Jewish whore [who happens to be the same age and lives on the same street] to a bloody pulp (because she is a Jewish whore), for which crime should I be punished more severely?

They should be treated equally under the law. Each victim should be treated as a person of value, no matter who they are, what religion they profess, what color their skin, or where they park their sex organs. I know that’s not what you believe and I know that’s not how the law has been applied in the past, but that’s how it should be. We are all poorer when equality is not what is found in the law and in the courts.

Actually, I’m surprised that the Watchblog Editor didn’t reprimand you for attacking me as a person instead of dealing with my ideas. I’ve been reprimanded for much less (in particular, when David Remer used his upbringing and personal experiences AS PART of his argument).

Posted by: Don at September 12, 2007 10:07 PM
Comment #232697


I appreciate your kind words, and I have enjoyed the debate.

I think that Americans in particular, and perhaps humans in general seem to enjoy seeing a man of power fall on his face.
I don’t know what Craig was doing in that restroom, but if he indeed was looking for sex, a man of his standing should be able to think of a more suitable place to do so.
As for his career, we should be able to see him as human and after his arrest, if he truly wasn’t guilty, his constituents should be able to accept that as the truth and move on.
The main criticism of Americans I have heard in my travels outside the US, is our tendency to be colloquial in our thinking. As Americans, we need to be bigger than that.

BTW, you mentioned working in restaurants. In the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s I spent 16 years in food service. I thought it was going to be my career, and I worked both the front, and the back of the house.
Thankfully, I came to my senses, and found a career more suited to my talents.

Posted by: Rocky at September 13, 2007 5:03 AM
Comment #232707

When I use the word “colloquial”, I mean that most Americans tend to think regionally and seldom really see the big picture.

Posted by: Rocky at September 13, 2007 8:50 AM
Comment #232727


It was your comment I was responding to. The only relevence of my correctly guessing some aspects of who you are comes from your comment and what it revealed about you. You revealed it by the lack of empathy and the biases in your comment. The watchblog editor correctly saw that while you are still missing the point.

Your comment is wrong and you are so deeply rooted in the biases inherent in your comment that I cannot do or say anything to help you to see it. Any more discussion between us is a waste of time.

Posted by: RGF at September 13, 2007 1:45 PM
Comment #232755

“The watchblog editor correctly saw that while you are still missing the point.”

The Watchblog Editor wasn’t watching and obviously still isn’t.

“You revealed it by the lack of empathy and the biases in your comment.”

No lack of empathy here. Everyone has biases and there is no shame in having them. You believe my comments to be wrong only because of your own lack of empathy and biases, perhaps.

You obviously do not believe the law and the courts should be colorblind. You do not believe that all people should be treated equally under the law. And you truly do not mind that your mother wouldn’t get as much justice as the neighborhood whore.

We’re not talking about my biases here, but yours. What a terrible world in which you wish to live.

Posted by: Don at September 13, 2007 6:04 PM
Comment #232813

…because I understand the value and the need for hate crime legislation?

keep talking, you are making my point for me.

Posted by: RGF at September 14, 2007 12:08 PM
Comment #232830


It is apparent that you have never actually read any hate crime laws that have been enacted. If you had, you would not make the assumption that they only protect a few. They protect us all from hate crime based on race, religion, national origen etc. If someone were to assault you, or someone close to you, for being a w.a.s.p. evangelical, they would be subject to the same law against such hate crimes.

You don’t see that. Many of the so-called conservatives I have encountered have similar reactions to things for similar reasons. They see what they imagine to be some sort of insight that results from their having dug only as shallow as they did into the issue and they imagine themselves to have some sort of grand insight as a result. Not so.

Interestingly enough, I see the same thing among the religous arguments such folks make. If you adhere to the notion that the Bible should be read literally, then you have just limited yourself to the notion that it is only about as deep as the thickness of the paper it is written on. Protestant evangelicals are about as far from the intentios and teachings of Jesus as you can get. It blows my mind to hear some of the nonesense coming from the supposedly ‘religious’ leaders in this country.

You have allowed yourself to build quite a head of steam on an issue that, as least as far your posts indicate, you don’t understand and have not fully considered.

Posted by: RGF at September 14, 2007 2:16 PM
Comment #233128

“If you had, you would not make the assumption that they only protect a few.”

That is my assumption because it is true. Hate crimes ARE used to protect a few. (Does it really matter who those “few” are??) What the legislation states vs. how it is used is often very different.

(And here’s a treat for you…a case where a black woman was kidnapped, raped and beaten for several days by 4 whites because she was black and they hated blacks… the 4 whites will not be charged with any hate crimes. Reason: The prison-term for hate crimes are limited to 10 years. Therefore, part of the defense may be to ask that the jury consider their crimes to be hate crimes, thus limiting their prison sentences.)

What bothers me about the hate-crimes legislation is that justice is made un-equal as a result.

“You obviously do not believe the law and the courts should be colorblind. You do not believe that all people should be treated equally under the law. And you truly do not mind that your mother wouldn’t get as much justice as the neighborhood whore.”

I did notice that you continue to ignore these statements. As a result I can only conclude that these are your beliefs.

Posted by: Don at September 16, 2007 11:51 PM
Comment #233173


“What the legislation states vs. how it is used is often very different.”

Yup. that is true. You would do well, however, to educate yourself on what various instances of hate crime legislation actually state.

“What bothers me about the hate-crimes legislation is that justice is made un-equal as a result.”

Nope. You’re wrong.

Don, you are bothered because you want to be bothered. It appears to have more to do with how you see those you mis-understandingly see as “protected.”
…which is why I was able to make the correct guess about some aspects of who you are.

Posted by: RGF at September 17, 2007 12:15 PM
Comment #233175

…oh and Don…

“You obviously do not believe the law and the courts should be colorblind. You do not believe that all people should be treated equally under the law. And you truly do not mind that your mother wouldn’t get as much justice as the neighborhood whore.”

This statement is offensive and ignorant. That is why I did not respond to it. It is a very human phoenomenon that those who make rediculous accusations very often are actualy guilty of the things they accuse others of. Since you are so far, failing to see the eggragious biases in your previous statements, This appears to be the case here as well.

Posted by: RGF at September 17, 2007 12:23 PM
Post a comment