Report: Sen. Larry Craig arrested in June on suspicion of “lewd conduct” in public restroom; Update: Big misunderstanding, says Craig; Update: Craig resigns from Romney campaign

posted at 5:31 pm on August 27, 2007 by Allahpundit

If you’re wondering which party he belongs to, let me put it this way: the media will be sure to specify it in its reporting on this story.

The page at Roll Call is down due to server overload but you can read the nuts and bolts at Political Wire. He was one of the senators named by the left’s McCornthyites during the Foley uproar as being in the closet. The details from Roll Call don’t explicitly corroborate that claim, but…

Special disastrous bonus factoid: He’s up for re-election next year!

Update: Free Republic has reprinted the Roll Call story. “At one point during the interview, Craig handed the plainclothes sergeant who arrested him a business card that identified him as a U.S. Senator and said, ‘What do you think about that?’ the report states.” I think he can probably start throwing away those cards now.

Commenter Scott McC quips, “He was livin’ in his own private Idaho.”

Update: You have to read the FR article to understand it, but here’s your quote of the day:

Craig stated “that he has a wide stance when going to the bathroom and that his foot may have touched mine,” the report states.

Update: One of our commenters reminds me that Craig voted yes on shamnesty cloture. Fare thee well, Larry.

Update: Uh huh:

Craig said in a statement issued by his office that he was not involved in any inappropriate conduct.

“At the time of this incident, I complained to the police that they were misconstruing my actions,” he said. “I should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this matter. In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously.”

Update: Run away! Run away! Also:

Btw, rumors of Craig’s homosexuality didn’t just pop up last year. Then-Rep. Larry Craig went on network news in 1982 to deny rumors involving cocaine and sex with male pages.

Update: Hugh Hewitt wants Craig to resign immediately but David Vitter to stay on. Huh?

Update: Idaho Governor Butch Otter, who’d appoint Craig’s replacement, says he’s been blindsided by the news. Needless to say, the quicker they can get him out and someone else in, the better the chances of holding the seat.

Update: That was fast.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

We are a society awash in filth (yes, very probably some of YOU adding comments in here — look at porn vids on sites like youporn.com — and then act like what Senator Craig did was a big deal. Let’s remember — though he acted in disappointingly poor taste — NO SEXUAL contact was made; NO INDECENT EXPOSURE took place; and NO LEWD WORDS were uttered. It is up to you whether you want him to resign, but his vote on amnesty troubles me far more than his “foot-tapping” episode in an airport men’s room. I think this kind of “police work” — like monitoring chat rooms — is less than admirable and almost always little more than entrapment of the lowest order. If that cop had not been in that restroom trolling, Senator Craig would not be in the news tonight. Great work, officer! We let internet pornographers make millions corrupting the minds of our kids and then go ballistic over something like this. And, please do not lecture me on the fact that he is a senator: Virtually the entire Democratic part of Congress is worse than a Fellini movie and nothing ever is done or said about it. I say equal rights when it comes to debauchery. Nonetheless, I admire the Tom Tancredos, the Duncan Hunters, and — YESSSS — the Ron Pauls of this world, who somehow manage to spend YEARS in Congress without ever nailing either a page or a ho — or hitting on a low-life restroom cop posing as a homosexual.

sanantonian on August 27, 2007 at 10:19 PM

I would be remiss if I did not add that Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Ron Paul are ALL born again Christians (oh, and Republicans!).

sanantonian on August 27, 2007 at 10:25 PM

Please tell me again why I’m wrong to say we ought to purge our party of gays?
RightWinged on August 27, 2007 at 8:27 PM

Because it makes you a bigot. I’m not going to attempt to change your mind. I know you sincerely believe it’s not natural and going back and forth wouldn’t do any good.
But to say you want to completely and totally ostracize a group of people makes you, by definition, a bigot and your post is the perfect example of why the Right is portrayed as intolerant.

As for anonymous bathroom sex by married men who risk spreading disease to their wives? Gutless and sick. So I guess we agree on something.

SouthernDem on August 27, 2007 at 10:34 PM

Shouldn’t be a disaster if the Republican find a decent replacement. This is Idaho, and you see how they titled in the 2004 election.

frankj on August 27, 2007 at 10:40 PM

Please tell me again why I’m wrong to say we ought to purge our party of gays?

Because we aren’t f*cking Nazis. We don’t hate gay people. Gay conservatives recognize how important this nation and the principles it represents is, and how the left will destroy that if we let them.

They deserve our respect, and not to be kicked around like that. Senator Craig isn’t bad because he’s gay, he’s bad because a dangerously filthy manslut. The idea that you wanna purge gays from the party is appalling, and I hope to God this is an extreme minority that wants this.

Bad Candy on August 27, 2007 at 10:41 PM

SouthernDem on August 27, 2007 at 10:34 PM

Agreed. Besides, how do we “purge our Party” exactly? Call out the Mike Rogers and the Brown shirts? Sheesh.

I think this kind of “police work” — like monitoring chat rooms — is less than admirable and almost always little more than entrapment of the lowest order. If that cop had not been in that restroom trolling, Senator Craig would not be in the news tonight.

Santorium,

Actually a lot of vile sexual predators and “internet pornographers” who prey on young children are caught on the internet, as are some terrorists.

What happened to Craig was not entrapment, but a case of his luck running out. In any case, you can’t have it both ways. Either he was coming on to the police officer or he wasn’t. If he wasn’t where was the “entrapment”?

Buy Danish on August 27, 2007 at 10:56 PM

From what I’ve seen of the research, homosexuality seems mainly inborn, probably from hormonal variations in the womb.

It certainly can’t be an easy life, but I don’t see why the rest of us should make such a big issue about it among adults. It’s a difference, like hair or skin color, that I believe we should try to ignore. Certainly there’s no reason to suggest all gays should be Democrats. Just because you’re gay, it doesn’t follow that you’re crazy too. (Not a belief about all Democrats–just a snide crack.)

Any type of promiscuous sex, however, is crazy behavior. With about 30 STDs, it’s like playing Russian roulette with 5 loaded chambers.

And preying on those much younger than you (such as the pages) is crazy behavior which is both repugnant and usually illegal. Finally, preying on those much younger than you by using drugs and alcohol is even worse.

On the humous side, however, this story is frought with terrible jokes.

. . .Big misunderstanding, says Craig. . . .

Boy, talk about bragging.

Commenter Scott McC quips, “He was livin’ in his own private Idaho.”

And his “big” mistake was saying to the arresting Dick: “This spuds for you.”

He was one of the senators named by the left’s McCornthyites during the Foley uproar as being in the closet.

He may have been “in the closet,” but he seems to have been out “in the water-closet.”

I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously.

A touching defense, but a loose/loose situation.

REPUBLICAN Senator . . .is CLOSE TO BUSH.

I think not. Otherwise, there’d be a different set of charges. See Ted Kennedy for example.

Oh, well, the whole thing could have been worse. Think of poor John Wayne Bobbitt. He was cut off in his prime.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on August 27, 2007 at 11:00 PM

Bad Candy on August 27, 2007 at 10:41 PM

Exactly. Some of these unhinged comments are beyond embarrassing to me as a conservative.

I personally oppose gay marriage and I am quite adamant about that opposition, but that doesn’t mean I want to persecute homosexuals, and their homosexuality certainly has nothing to do with their immigration or taxation policies, as “pistelo” screeched about.

Buy Danish on August 27, 2007 at 11:03 PM

Has anyone here, male or female, ever touched anyone else’s foot when seated in a public restroom? Has it ever been close? At all? And, as I think we’d all agree, there is an iron-clad rule against making eye contact through the crack of a stall door, let alone doing it twice. From the first solo, it’s intuitive: You look for feet. From a respectable angle. Wide stance? Wide stance? As Jim Hacker might ask, does he think we’re complete idiots?

quixote on August 27, 2007 at 11:10 PM

Because it makes you a bigot. I’m not going to attempt to change your mind. I know you sincerely believe it’s not natural and going back and forth wouldn’t do any good.
But to say you want to completely and totally ostracize a group of people makes you, by definition, a bigot and your post is the perfect example of why the Right is portrayed as intolerant.

As for anonymous bathroom sex by married men who risk spreading disease to their wives? Gutless and sick. So I guess we agree on something.

SouthernDem on August 27, 2007 at 10:34 PM

So lemme ask you something, would I be a bigot if I wanted to “completely and totally ostracize” pedophiles?

As for me sincerely believing it’s not natural, it’s not a “belief”, it’s pretty clear. You quoted me, and left out the most obvious point – the fact that men and women have different sexual reproductive parts that are specifically designed to work together is not a coincidence, and to accept homosexuality is to say one honestly believes it is a coincidence. Plain and simple. But again, you don’t want to argue that, so why don’t we just stick to my first quest… Am I a bigot if I “completely and totally ostracize” pedophiles?

RightWinged on August 27, 2007 at 11:24 PM

quixote on August 27, 2007 at 11:10 PM

No, I always follow The Rule, always pick the stall farthest away from others.

Bad Candy on August 27, 2007 at 11:27 PM

RightWinged on August 27, 2007 at 11:24 PM

Pedos and gays aren’t the same thing, FAIL.

Bad Candy on August 27, 2007 at 11:29 PM

Because we aren’t f*cking Nazis. We don’t hate gay people. Gay conservatives recognize how important this nation and the principles it represents is, and how the left will destroy that if we let them.

They deserve our respect, and not to be kicked around like that. Senator Craig isn’t bad because he’s gay, he’s bad because a dangerously filthy manslut. The idea that you wanna purge gays from the party is appalling, and I hope to God this is an extreme minority that wants this.

Bad Candy on August 27, 2007 at 10:41 PM

Well you can rest well Bad Candy, because as I noted, the majority has been gently lead to acceptance by the mainstreaming of “homosexuality” over the last couple decades. Sorry, that’s not how I roll. Now you may disagree, but you completely ignored part of my comment. In reference to “why” Craig is “bad”, I think “homosexuality” is perverted, so we shouldn’t be surprised when a pervert engages in perverted behavior.

Have any of you ever thought about this? Or do you all just know a “cool gay guy at work” or have a “gay uncle” so they’ve decided, against common sense, to accept it. “Homosexuality” by definition relates to sex. And again, sex is a specifically designed (or evolved, if you must) act for reproduction. It’s not just some random coincidence, and that some people choose to use their reproductive parts in an act of non-reproduction on someone who could never use the… provided material for reproducing!

No you people can paint me as some Fred Phelpsish idiot, simply because I can maintain an ounce of common sense, but I don’t go out and tell anyone what to do. I’m not beating down anyone’s door to tell them they’re sinners, etc. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to let people tell me that there’s something wrong with me, simply common sense, not emotion appeals to me and because most people have been mainstreamed in to acceptance. 50 years from now your grandkids may accept pedophiles, and look shamefully back your “old fashioned/non-progressive” beliefs.

RightWinged on August 27, 2007 at 11:33 PM

RightWinged on August 27, 2007 at 11:24 PM

Pedos and gays aren’t the same thing, FAIL.

Bad Candy on August 27, 2007 at 11:29 PM

Never said they were, which is why you neglected to quote me, because you were being dishonest. Now if you can’t be honest, don’t respond to me, I quote again, more specifically so you can understand:

But to say you want to completely and totally ostracize a group of people makes you, by definition, a bigot

SouthernDem on August 27, 2007 at 10:34 PM

So lemme ask you something, would I be a bigot if I wanted to “completely and totally ostracize” pedophiles?

RightWinged on August 27, 2007 at 11:24 PM

Get it now?

RightWinged on August 27, 2007 at 11:36 PM

At one level this incident has a similarity to the Micheal Vick case.

Sen. Larry Craig has been elected to office since 1981, 26 years he has held national office.

Now it’s going to be all gone but for the shame and for what? A lewd, stupid encounter in a public restroom?

Insane.

Speakup on August 27, 2007 at 11:38 PM

Get it now?

RightWinged on August 27, 2007 at 11:36 PM

So…you’re being a pedantic ‘tard? Okay, I stand corrected.

Bad Candy on August 27, 2007 at 11:46 PM

Buy Danish on August 27, 2007 at 9:21 PM

What part of Craig denied any kind of homosexual conduct almost a year ago and dishonesty don’t you get?

It doesn’t matter who brought it up. You may not like him but the fact is that Craig was saying one thing in his rhetoric and doing another in his private life.

Bradky on August 27, 2007 at 11:52 PM

So…you’re being a pedantic ‘tard? Okay, I stand corrected.

Bad Candy on August 27, 2007 at 11:46 PM

Ah, and there’s the name calling. Hey, I’m not going to pretend I wasn’t condescending in that last comment to you.. but I was justifiably so, after your incorrect “FAIL” comment. At any rate this has nothing to do with being pedantic or a ‘tard at all. SouthernDem was VERY clear, that he was spelling out the definition of a bigot, when he said:

But to say you want to completely and totally ostracize a group of people makes you, by definition, a bigot

SouthernDem on August 27, 2007 at 10:34 PM

It’s a simple question, he can answer it if he likes, though I assume he won’t… But just so he can’t miss it, I’ll ask again:

So lemme ask you something, would I be a bigot if I wanted to “completely and totally ostracize” pedophiles?

RightWinged on August 27, 2007 at 11:24 PM

RightWinged on August 27, 2007 at 11:55 PM

RightWinged,

Of course I’ve thought about it and, hey, I’ve got a fair number of gay friends as well who are outstanding people who just want to be who they are, not troll bathrooms or drool over little boys.
Here’s your slight problem with the pedophile angle. It’s illegal and it harms someone else, kind of like rape. We’re not talking about children or forced sex, we’re talking about consenting adults. Don’t throw silly examples out there to try to prove a point.

I’m not telling you something is wrong with you any more than I think there is something wrong with gay people. I’m just saying don’t be offended if your extremist view point (and really, it is) of ostracizing homosexuals entirely from the Republican party is not supported. You’ll never get rid of them.

SouthernDem on August 27, 2007 at 11:57 PM

though I assume he won’t

Now I’ll tell you you were wrong.

SouthernDem on August 27, 2007 at 11:59 PM

SouthernDem on August 27, 2007 at 11:57 PM

He has a lot of biases he enjoys embracing.

Your points are well stated. The party could get very small indeed if it sticks to absolutes on everything.

Bradky on August 28, 2007 at 12:02 AM

RightWinged on August 27, 2007 at 11:33 PM

Let’s break this down

I think “homosexuality” is perverted, so we shouldn’t be surprised when a pervert engages in perverted behavior.

Good, so now we’re gonna be the Morality Police and ban gays from our party? That’s not the conservatism I signed up for, and its not the conservatism most signed up for. Keep up with that sort of draconian Nanny State minded policing on people’s behavior, and see where it takes you, we’ll see if you’re so damn cavalier when Nanny takes over.

Beyond that, gay does not equal automatically perverted, and I’d wager most conservatives would agree with me.

And again, sex is a specifically designed (or evolved, if you must) act for reproduction.

I bet if you could poll accurate information, most couples/partners have probably had sex with no intention of reproducing, so are they wrong too?

50 years from now your grandkids may accept pedophiles, and look shamefully back your “old fashioned/non-progressive” beliefs.

So because we aren’t being obnoxious jerks to people who are faithful to the principles of conservatism because of one point of contention that you have, we’ll soon be supporting pedos? FAIL.

Bad Candy on August 28, 2007 at 12:02 AM

I’m not telling you something is wrong with you any more than I think there is something wrong with gay people. I’m just saying don’t be offended if your extremist view point (and really, it is) of ostracizing homosexuals entirely from the Republican party is not supported. You’ll never get rid of them.

SouthernDem on August 27, 2007 at 11:57 PM

First of all, I guess you could call my view point extremist… simply because most Americans are now without common sense (which explains things like 1/3 of the country being Truthers, etc.)

But you’re still ignoring the entire point… you tried to define what a bigot was, as a general rule, so I want a specific answer… here’s what we said:

But to say you want to completely and totally ostracize a group of people makes you, by definition, a bigot

SouthernDem on August 27, 2007 at 10:34 PM

So lemme ask you something, would I be a bigot if I wanted to “completely and totally ostracize” pedophiles?

RightWinged on August 27, 2007 at 11:24 PM

Now, can you just answer that? Am I a bigot for wanting to “comletely and totally ostracisze” a group of people, specifically pedophiles?

RightWinged on August 28, 2007 at 12:03 AM

I wouldn’t worry too much about his seat. It’s an Idaho seat. They’re as red a state as Utah, if not more.

Free Constitution on August 28, 2007 at 12:08 AM

RightWinged on August 28, 2007 at 12:03 AM

Hmm…if I…

But to say you want to completely and totally ostracize a group of people makes you, by definition, a bigot

SouthernDem on August 27, 2007 at 10:34 PM

If I do this…

So lemme ask you something, would I be a bigot if I wanted to “completely and totally ostracize” pedophiles Jews?

RightWinged on August 27, 2007 at 11:24 PM

?

It depends on the group it seems…so you are being a pedantic tard.

Bad Candy on August 28, 2007 at 12:08 AM

Craig stated “that he has a wide stance when going to the bathroom

Was that three-point stance of a four-point stance?

smellthecoffee on August 28, 2007 at 12:09 AM

I answered it above in that the equation is intellectually dishonest and unanswerable. I suspect that you’re trying to prove some point concerning personal choice and perversion while ignoring the whole unfortunate “consenting adults” and “harmful” sticking points. If homosexuality were illegal, then you would have something.

SouthernDem on August 28, 2007 at 12:12 AM

RightWinged, I’ve enjoyed a number of comments you have written in the past and I really don’t want to get in the middle of a quarrel–it’s too depressingly like a faculty meeting.

However, I think there is a big difference between condemning a group with no victims (adult, consenting homosexuals) and a group that victimizes (pedophiles). If we don’t make that sort of distinction we, otherwise, may end up having to condemn ourselves.

There is, for example, a radical fringe of gender feminists who claim all married men are rapists. This is because they insist heterosexual sex is exploitive and deny that it can be consensual. Now, if they gained power, you and I would then be labeled perverts.

That’s not the kind of label I would want. And it’s not the kind of label I think we should toss about without very good reason.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on August 28, 2007 at 12:14 AM

Bad Candy, seriously STFU… your arguments are making you sound as stupid as the libs on here now, seriously. You’re bouncing from thing to thing, and you’re going to have me chasing you around, busting your mischaracterizations of what I said, just so you can avoid the very simple issue that was raised… Anyway, I can never help but bite:

Good, so now we’re gonna be the Morality Police and ban gays from our party? That’s not the conservatism I signed up for, and its not the conservatism most signed up for. Keep up with that sort of draconian Nanny State minded policing on people’s behavior, and see where it takes you, we’ll see if you’re so damn cavalier when Nanny takes over.

Beyond that, gay does not equal automatically perverted, and I’d wager most conservatives would agree with me.

Morality police? Where am I policing anyone’s behavior? I’m simply saying that we’ll continue to be embarassed as long as we allow perverts to represent us nationally because “perverts will be perverts”. You may not agree, that’s fine. I don’t care if “most conservatives” would agree with you or not. Most Americans buy in to man made global warming, that doesn’t make it true.

Has nothing to do with nanny state, but thanks again for mischaracterizing my comments. CAN YOU READ THIS!!!? I explained earlier, that the average citizen can do what they want, I’m not at their door telling them to convert. But don’t try to tell me that it’s natural for someone to get sexual gratification from someone who doesn’t have a corresponding sexual organ. Again, female and male aren’t “coincidences”, as much as you may like to think so.

I bet if you could poll accurate information, most couples/partners have probably had sex with no intention of reproducing, so are they wrong too?

Surprised it took so long for you to make that predictable argument I’ve seen a thousand times. That’s completely irrelevant. The point is, they are using parts designed to go together… psst – the butt wasn’t designed (or evolved, if you must) for this activity, and that’s an indication of whether we’re made to have SEX with the same SEX, or whether we’re made to have SEX with the opposite SEX.

So because we aren’t being obnoxious jerks to people who are faithful to the principles of conservatism because of one point of contention that you have, we’ll soon be supporting pedos? FAIL.

Bad Candy on August 28, 2007 at 12:02 AM

No genius, the point is that traditionalist Americans who are quickly dying off still hold the views of gays that we all currently do of pedophiles. It was unnatural, and to anyone with an ounce of common sense, there is not legitimizing it. It shouldn’t surprise you in the least, based on how the mainstreaming and acceptance of gays has gone, that one day we (exception me) accept pedophiles because “they’re born that way, and some kids happen to like adults too”. We’re already slowly accepting “trans-gendered” people (are you there yet?). UVM, just across the river from me, just installed 4 trans-gendered bathrooms at a cost of $10k, and they weren’t the first.

RightWinged on August 28, 2007 at 12:16 AM

However, I think there is a big difference between condemning a group with no victims (adult, consenting homosexuals) and a group that victimizes (pedophiles).

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on August 28, 2007 at 12:14 AM

Doc, I’ll give you one chance to admit that you’re basing your comments that I’m equating the two groups on other people’s comments, and not my own. If you’re a Doctor, surely you can comprehend what I said.

RightWinged on August 28, 2007 at 12:18 AM

It depends on the group it seems…so you are being a pedantic tard.

Bad Candy on August 28, 2007 at 12:08 AM

Seriously, you need to stop… you have no idea what you’re talking about anymore.

RightWinged on August 28, 2007 at 12:19 AM

as stupid as the libs on here now

Ah, twas inevitable.

SouthernDem on August 28, 2007 at 12:20 AM

I answered it above in that the equation is intellectually dishonest and unanswerable. I suspect that you’re trying to prove some point concerning personal choice and perversion while ignoring the whole unfortunate “consenting adults” and “harmful” sticking points. If homosexuality were illegal, then you would have something.

SouthernDem on August 28, 2007 at 12:12 AM

It’s not an “equation”, YOU defined a bigot. I’m simply asking if your definition holds true of the “group” being ostracized is pedophiles. Is one a bigot if they completely and totally ostracize this group or not? It’s not an equation, it’s a question based on your general definition.

RightWinged on August 28, 2007 at 12:21 AM

Ah, twas inevitable.

SouthernDem on August 28, 2007 at 12:20 AM

Oh ’twas, ’twas it? I suppose you missed where he repeatedly called me a “‘tard’”? Yeaaaaaaaaaah.

RightWinged on August 28, 2007 at 12:22 AM

RightWinged on August 28, 2007 at 12:21 AM

OK, I’ll spell it out to you then off to bed (it’s late on the East Coast) and your round and round is annoying:
No, because pedophilia is harmful and forced on another person, not to mention illegal.
You’re a bigot because you want to rid the GOP, nay, the world I suspect, of any homosexuals what so ever, and homosexuality, when consensual, is legal. Ta Da!
I didn’t define bigot, Webster did.

SouthernDem on August 28, 2007 at 12:28 AM

as one of those eeeeeeeeeevil gay republicans, i have to say that to have someone say i don’t belong in a political party just because of my sexuality is obnoxious to say the least.

are gay republicans worthless because of who they love?

do you have ANY idea how impossible it is to find someone to go on even one date with once they find out you’re not a democrat? ANY idea?

do you have any idea how many times ive been told to drive off a cliff and die, get AIDS and die, etc., from people who i thought liked me, just because im a conservative?

if ou had any idea how much dedication it takes to be both gay and republican (let alone CONSERVATIVE republican), you wouldnt want to purge us.

most of us (discounting the national LCRs) are more dedicated to this party than you can imagine.

its vintage duh on August 28, 2007 at 12:29 AM

RightWinged on August 28, 2007 at 12:22 AM

No I didn’t, but you didn’t call him a stupid liberal, you called the other folks, including myself I assumed, stupid liberals. Lord your slippery.

SouthernDem on August 28, 2007 at 12:30 AM

OK, I’ll spell it out to you then off to bed (it’s late on the East Coast) and your round and round is annoying:
No, because pedophilia is harmful and forced on another person, not to mention illegal.
You’re a bigot because you want to rid the GOP, nay, the world I suspect, of any homosexuals what so ever, and homosexuality, when consensual, is legal. Ta Da!
I didn’t define bigot, Webster did.

SouthernDem on August 28, 2007 at 12:28 AM

So again, you’re going to ignore the VERY simple question and accuse me of going in circles? It’s all right here, guy:

But to say you want to completely and totally ostracize a group of people makes you, by definition, a bigot

SouthernDem on August 27, 2007 at 10:34 PM

So lemme ask you something, would I be a bigot if I wanted to “completely and totally ostracize” pedophiles?

RightWinged on August 27, 2007 at 11:24 PM

You said “a group of people”… Not “a group of people who engages in sex acts that are consensual with other humans above the legally defined age of their state”.

As for what Websters says, here is what they actually say:

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

I don’t “treat members” in any way in the person-to-person sense, though I am tired of our party being embarrassed by men who engage in a false lifestyle, and I’d prefer they were gone. I’m not trying to purge the planet of gays, because as far as I’m concerned there aren’t really gays to be purged, because I don’t accept it as being a real thing in the first place. This is something your emotional side of this debate never gets… I don’t “hate” gays, I simply don’t believe they’re “real”, based on common sense.

But that’s beside the point, I’m not here to defend myself from your “bigot” comment, I simply want to know if I’d still be a bigot for the same stance on pedophiles? Webster agrees with you one one front, it’s “a group”

But to say you want to completely and totally ostracize a group of people makes you, by definition, a bigot

SouthernDem on August 27, 2007 at 10:34 PM

So lemme ask you something, would I be a bigot if I wanted to “completely and totally ostracize” pedophiles?

RightWinged on August 27, 2007 at 11:24 PM

If you can’t answer it, you can’t answer it. But stop dancing around, saying I’m equating them with gays and that the question is unanswerable, etc. etc. everything you can to distract. Just admit you can’t answer it, and stop the diversions.

RightWinged on August 28, 2007 at 12:38 AM

Is homosexuality worse than adultery? Aren’t they both tied to temptations of the flesh?

I have no idea how one’s sexuality is edified. But I do know that when I want it…I’m very sure about what I want. Is that any different for a homosexual?

I think Republicans run the risk of excluding ourselves out of utility. We need to define our core values, and stand by the people who uphold and legislate on behalf of those values.

The Race Card on August 28, 2007 at 12:40 AM

No I didn’t, but you didn’t call him a stupid liberal, you called the other folks, including myself I assumed, stupid liberals. Lord your slippery.

SouthernDem on August 28, 2007 at 12:30 AM

Nope, didn’t do that… I said:

as stupid as the libs on here now

I don’t know many libs actually on here, but I was talking specifically about folks like Bradky and Nonfactor if you must know. I don’t know if you’re a lib, though if I recall you aren’t… so if you aren’t, don’t worry, that had nothing to do with you. I was simply pointing out that Bad Candy was using the tactics of folks like Bradky and Nonfactor. Diversions, mischaracterizations, out of context quotes, etc.

RightWinged on August 28, 2007 at 12:42 AM

If you can’t answer it, you can’t answer it.

Let me try again. Your answer comes a couple lines down at the beginning of a sentence, starts with N and ends with O.

OK, I’ll spell it out to you then off to bed (it’s late on the East Coast) and your round and round is annoying:
No, because pedophilia is harmful and forced on another person, not to mention illegal.
You’re a bigot because you want to rid the GOP, nay, the world I suspect, of any homosexuals what so ever, and homosexuality, when consensual, is legal. Ta Da!

I hope this helps.

SouthernDem on August 28, 2007 at 12:42 AM

Is homosexuality worse than adultery? Aren’t they both tied to temptations of the flesh?

The Race Card on August 28, 2007 at 12:40 AM

Well, adultery is a societal or religious morality judgment issue… Homosexuality is a common sense judgment issue.

RightWinged on August 28, 2007 at 12:44 AM

okay, so this is your answer:

No, because pedophilia is harmful and forced on another person, not to mention illegal.

SouthernDem on August 28, 2007 at 12:42 AM

So I’m not a bigot for “totally and completely ostracizing” pedophiles? But why? After all:

But to say you want to completely and totally ostracize a group of people makes you, by definition, a bigot

SouthernDem on August 27, 2007 at 10:34 PM

and your pal Webster:

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Again, I’m not attempting to equate the behavior… I understand that a child is harmed when pedophilia physically manifests itself, and gay acts (generally) are between consenting adults. Again, despite the many times I’ve had words put in my mouth, I don’t think the two are the same. But your original definition of a “bigot” was correct, therefore if one ostracizes all pedophiles, they are also a bigot.

You may say “but in that case it’s justified”, but then aren’t we just talking about a matter of opinion (with admittedly some local law factored in). But if this were 50 years ago, I could be saying the same thing about gays. Many gay sex acts were (and I think in some places still are) illegal, and condemnation by a traditionalist society was the norm. 50 years ago, one of your relatives might have argued that “by definition, you are a bigot for ostracizing gays (because bigotry doesn’t make a moral judgment about the “group), but it’s justified bigotry”.

RightWinged on August 28, 2007 at 12:51 AM

RightWinged on August 28, 2007 at 12:42 AM

Diversionary tactics like Nonfactor and Bradky? No, you’re the one doing that, asking a question which people have answered repeatedly and you pretend it hasn’t been answered, or dismiss it out of hand.

Basically, you’re acting like the Bush Administration, Democrats and their Kleptocon/RINO collaborators asking for an alternative to their shamnesty bill, them getting mountains of better proposals, and then continuing to say ‘well no one has offered a better alternative.’ Same bullsh*t different day.

Bad Candy on August 28, 2007 at 12:54 AM

RightWinged on August 28, 2007 at 12:44 AM

I totally understand your reasoning. It (homosexuality) just doesn’t make sense.

The only problem I see with that none of our preferences can be really understood. Quite simply, there is nothing that a man could do to himself or me that would make me attracted to him.

Put another way, I can resist sexual temptations. But I cannot control what tempts me.

It seems to me that most people feel their sexuality is hardwired. However, I do believe that some people consciously choose to be the way they are. Hell, some people chose to drive the Le Car.

The Race Card on August 28, 2007 at 12:57 AM

Whatever, I’m bored with this, and RedEye’s on in an hour…

Bad Candy on August 28, 2007 at 1:01 AM

its vintage duh on August 28, 2007 at 12:29 AM

My sympathies. I kind of know what you feel. I’m a Republican college professor. Ouch! It ain’t easy being green.

What’s even worse is that liberal Democrats are so wrong on the data. But it doesn’t matter. They don’t need no stinkin’
data–just their invincible shields of arrogance.

Be careful. But keep looking. Somewhere out there, there’ll be someone for you. And believe me, being in a long-term relationship with someone who’s your best friend, as well as lover–as is my wife–, is like paradise on earth.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on August 28, 2007 at 1:02 AM

Well, this explains why Sen. Craig supported Romney. After all, Mitt had promised to be more pro-gay rights than Ted Kennedy in 94. Larry was just looking out for his own interests. /snark

blackrepublican on August 28, 2007 at 1:05 AM

hahaha. no worries. i found him. it’s cool.

its vintage duh on August 28, 2007 at 1:06 AM

I totally understand your reasoning. It (homosexuality) just doesn’t make sense.

The only problem I see with that none of our preferences can be really understood. Quite simply, there is nothing that a man could do to himself or me that would make me attracted to him.

Put another way, I can resist sexual temptations. But I cannot control what tempts me.

It seems to me that most people feel their sexuality is hardwired. However, I do believe that some people consciously choose to be the way they are. Hell, some people chose to drive the Le Car.

The Race Card on August 28, 2007 at 12:57 AM

Glad you got me, but I think you still might be missing something… I know some gay people “feel their sexuality is hardwired”, they may even honestly believe it, but IMO simple common sense should tell them that it simply doesn’t make sense

But more importantly, regarding what you said about preferences.. I don’t think it can be compared to other normal “preferences”, because the act of sex is very specifically set up in a way that shows us that man is here for woman, and woman for man. There’s no logic behind being attracted to the same sex, there’s no basis for it.

Whatever, I’m bored with this, and RedEye’s on in an hour…

Bad Candy on August 28, 2007 at 1:01 AM

… and from the sound of this thread, Gutfeld won’t be the only one with a hole in the back of his pants.

RightWinged on August 28, 2007 at 1:13 AM

Say Folks,

Check out the picture of Bush on “Rumor: Gonzales out, Chertoff in as AG?”
Look at that look he’s giving Chertoff. Maybe the police arrested the wrong guy?

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on August 28, 2007 at 1:20 AM

you know what’s the worse part, that last point about purging the GOP of gay will probably be posted on DailyKos or DU or one of those retarded sites as proof of hate

jeez

look its not that he’s gay its lewd behavior (yes that is lewd) and its in public place. Do it in your home, keep it private and fine.

Defector01 on August 28, 2007 at 1:22 AM

RightWinged on August 28, 2007 at 12:51 AM

Here’s my final thought, then really bed:
To me, Mormonism and Judaism, as you say with homosexuality, don’t make sense. I can’t understand why people in those religions believe what they do, I simply can’t come to terms with their beliefs.
However, I do believe in their right to practice their beliefs in any way they see fit with the exception of committing acts against another’s will, of course. I also believe I can have these people in my political party, not to mention accepting them for who they are, without compromising my morals, despite the fact what they believe in, in my view of common sense, is illogical.

So for you to say this

Well, adultery is a societal or religious morality judgment issue… Homosexuality is a common sense judgment issue.
RightWinged on August 28, 2007 at 12:44 AM

thus establishing you don’t even object to homosexuality on religious or moral grounds, simply because it doesn’t make sense in your mind, is totally confounding.

So basically, you’ve spent all this time circling around the definition of bigot but you haven’t justified your stand on ostracizing an entire group of people because what they believe doesn’t make sense to you.

I’ll stop calling you a bigot, but you’re still prejudiced.

SouthernDem on August 28, 2007 at 1:32 AM

I’m done with this thread too SouthernDem, but you’re still missing the point…

I wasn’t “circling around” the definition of “bigot”, I wanted to know whether ostricizing pedophiles qualified. You claim that it doesn’t, because there is a victims (by the way, we could get in to a whole argument about whether a pedophile harms anyone until an “act” has been committed, but that’s another whole angle).

I don’t care if you call me a bigot or not. I’m not asking you to stop. I’m simply pointing out that by your own definition, and that of Webster (which you pointed to), you can call just about anyone a bigot. To the side point about there needing to be an act for pedophilia to be harmful, you can’t say that those people aren’t born with the attractions they (claim to) have, if you insist that gays are born with theirs. Both groups can claim the attraction, and there’s no evidence to support either. So if you accept one, you must accept both. Further, someone can claim to be attracted to animals.

But this is all off the topic, I simply exposed the hole in dismissing someone as a “bigot”, and I repeat this:

You may say “but in that case it’s justified”, but then aren’t we just talking about a matter of opinion (with admittedly some local law factored in). But if this were 50 years ago, I could be saying the same thing about gays. Many gay sex acts were (and I think in some places still are) illegal, and condemnation by a traditionalist society was the norm. 50 years ago, one of your relatives might have argued that “by definition, you are a bigot for ostracizing gays (because bigotry doesn’t make a moral judgment about the “group), but it’s justified bigotry”.

RightWinged on August 28, 2007 at 12:51 AM

And back to a point I’ve repeatedly made. You may not agree, but it seems clear to me that homosexuality is a perversion, and “perverts will be perverts” so the best way to not be embarrassed by them over and over again is to not have them holding nationally elected office within our party. It’s not about just illogical beliefs, is about the actions they lead to. If someone is a Mormon and believes the silly tale they are required to, that doesn’t lead to an embarrassment. If Mitt Romney were president, his belief wouldn’t have him soliciting gay sex in a bathroom stall. But because IMO “homosexuality” is in and of itself a perversion, accepting these people to be our nationally elected leaders sets us up for scandal. Of course there are hetero scandals, I don’t deny that… but again, I believe that homosexuality at it’s core is a perversion, so we should stay far away. You don’t have to agree, I couldn’t care less if you do.

In closing, tossing around the word “bigot” evokes images of the KKK or other douches who just “hate” because something is different than what they’re used to. You can not agree with my points, but you can’t equate my opinions to those of hate groups. Do you tell every abortion advocate that they’re a murderer?

RightWinged on August 28, 2007 at 1:58 AM

After reading the details and seeing that he pled guilty…if I were his wife, he’d have come home to changed locks on the house.

What a filthy pig. How dare him. What has he brought home to her? I doubt this is his first encounter….

disgusting.

I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt when I first heard this story crack…but after seeing it was an undercover COP that he gave signals to AND he pled guilty….that feeling in me sorta subsided.

Highrise on August 28, 2007 at 2:39 AM

oh and it is Predatory behaviour for a guy to do what he did to another person that he hasn’t even seen even in the next stall. He knew there was a chance that it wouldn’t have been welcomed…and he did it anyway.

Pig..yes pig.

His poor wife and grown up children…they are innocent and now know their about their dad’s habits.

If this happened in the woman’s bathroom? I’d kick her arse. seriously.

Highrise on August 28, 2007 at 2:41 AM

RightWinged on August 28, 2007 at 1:58 AM

Your entire “pedophiles” tangent (which I’m sure you thought oh so clever) was perhaps the definition of a “red herring.”

You’re using one of your most primal instincts and attempting to justify it. No wait, you’re not even attempting to justify it, someone called you on it and you used the textbook definition of a red herring. You don’t understand something (admittedly on your part) and thus you fear and hate it.

All the logical fallacies you use won’t change the fact that you’re bigoted towards gays and want to “purge” them from the Republican party. It’s pathetic.

Nonfactor on August 28, 2007 at 3:05 AM

RightWinged, supra:

And again, sex is a specifically designed (or evolved, if you must) act for reproduction.

And:

… it’s not just a coincidence that there are two different genders that have unique parts that are designed to fit together …

I think we all understand that heterosexual intercourse can be reproductive. But even heterosexuals don’t always, or even usually, have sex with a view to procreation. They usually have sex to express intimacy and affection, or to have fun. That’s why there’s a market for condoms, vasectomies and birth control pills.

If you object to the non-procreative nature of Larry Craig’s conduct — as opposed to its public nature — what do you say to all the men here who’ve had their wives or girlfriends work the pole? Is it your view that the mouths of women were “designed to fit” there?

paul006 on August 28, 2007 at 3:22 AM

Your entire “pedophiles” tangent (which I’m sure you thought oh so clever) was perhaps the definition of a “red herring.”

You’re using one of your most primal instincts and attempting to justify it. No wait, you’re not even attempting to justify it, someone called you on it and you used the textbook definition of a red herring. You don’t understand something (admittedly on your part) and thus you fear and hate it.

All the logical fallacies you use won’t change the fact that you’re bigoted towards gays and want to “purge” them from the Republican party. It’s pathetic.

Nonfactor on August 28, 2007 at 3:05 AM

You know what, f**k you Nonfactor. You’re as much of a liar as ever. The pedophile angle was never used to justify anything, and it wasn’t to equate anything. I spent enough time explaining in detail what I asked for SouthernDem to answer a simple question regarding what constitutes “a bigot”.

Seriously, do you ever get tired of being one of the biggest POSs on the planet? Your dishonesty is SOOOO out of control. I’m not even going to get in to this with you… you’re here just to troll anyway.

If you object to the non-procreative nature of Larry Craig’s conduct — as opposed to its public nature — what do you say to all the men here who’ve had their wives or girlfriends work the pole? Is it your view that the mouths of women were “designed to fit” there?

paul006 on August 28, 2007 at 3:22 AM

Again, as I explained to someone else who brought up that always predictable response… what is done on those fronts is a judgment call that can be made by the individual (which I guess you could say for people claiming to be gay as well), but the point is the whole “penis/vigina thang” ain’t a coincidence. These parts ARE for reproduction and they are BOTH necessary for it. There are no in betweens. Sex, is an absolute. Sex is male and female. That’s just how it is. I don’t care if you think God or evolution caused it, that’s how it is. Therefore sexual attraction, it only stands to reason is male->female and female->male.

Obviously, all other acts are not what the organs were designed for… and I can’t decide for anyone else whether doing different things you mention with the opposite sex is morally right or not… but the whole obviousness of male/female sex explained a minute ago, is enough of a guide that you should at least be doing sexual things with someone of the opposite sex. If not, who are you or anyone to tell someone he isn’t attracted to children, or animals, or sunglasses, or a pile of mud? Obviously you’d say these aren’t natural attractions, because men have a sexual attraction to women, the gender that has corresponding sexual parts.

RightWinged on August 28, 2007 at 6:04 AM

Anyway, this is getting old, going around in circles… having the exact same argument I’ve had here before…

I do have to ask though: Am I the only one left here? Am I really the only commenter at HotAir who has the balls to say they don’t accept “homosexuality”? Have you all really fallen for the mainstreaming of this, or are some of you out there just hiding because you know it’s not PC to speak out against gays. Again, I find it so funny that the “gay accepting conservatives” don’t recognize that 50 years from now, they could hold their “old school/traditional” views that pedophilia is wrong, while their grandchildren have grown up learning that it’s natural for some people, and that some kids like older men.

That’s exactly the scenario we’re looking at with gays now. Nothing has changed in the way of proving they’re truly gay, but we’ve “progressed” to where most people accept them now… not for any reason other than they’ve been mainstreamed in to the entertainment industry and kids are taught that they must accept them, earlier and earlier. As I mentioned earlier, UVM, just across the river from me here has just spent $10k installing gender-neutral bathrooms for trans-gendered people (and they weren’t the first school to do it). Hell, even 10 years ago most people would say “are you f**king kidding me!?”, but now it’s barely even news… because “trans-gendered” is being mainstreamed.

(this is where a bunch of nonthinkers come in and emotionally respond by accusing me of equating gays with pedophiles)

RightWinged on August 28, 2007 at 6:13 AM

With Rudiani’s stand on lifestyles of the alternatives and cross-dressers, shouldn’t the Amnesty Mayor pick up Senator Craig for his President-in-drag campaign before someone scoops him up?

saved on August 28, 2007 at 7:18 AM

He should have started a prostitution ring…that was his mistake

tomas on August 28, 2007 at 7:20 AM

“…it’s not just a coincidence that there are two different genders that have unique parts that are designed to fit together.”

It is amazing the amount of silly comments that suddenly popped in my head!

Ropera on August 28, 2007 at 8:31 AM

What part of Craig denied any kind of homosexual conduct almost a year ago and dishonesty don’t you get?
It doesn’t matter who brought it up. You may not like him but the fact is that Craig was saying one thing in his rhetoric and doing another in his private life.

Bradky on August 27, 2007 at 11:52 PM

Rogers did not assert that Craig was committing lewd public acts, he asserted that he was homosexual.

Should all homosexuals who hold public office should just out themselves right now? Or should they wait for the Mike Rogers and his team of witch hunters to do it? Maybe you’d like to volunteer to help with that effort! I bet you could get some help right here to help you out and make it a bi-partisan effort.

I’m not trying to purge the planet of gays, because as far as I’m concerned there aren’t really gays to be purged, because I don’t accept it as being a real thing in the first place…I don’t “hate” gays, I simply don’t believe they’re “real”, based on common sense.

RightWinged on August 28, 2007 at 12:38 AM

Fine! Homosexuals don’t exist, problem solved.

/sarc.

You may not agree, but it seems clear to me that homosexuality is a perversion, and “perverts will be perverts” so the best way to not be embarrassed by them over and over again is to not have them holding nationally elected office within our party

RightWinged on August 28, 2007 at 1:58 AM

Oh, so “perverts” exist, but homosexuals don’t! I get it!

I’m waiting for your plan as to how we keep “them” from holding public office, or force those who are in office out, (but don’t you dare call it a “purge”!).

I have all the time in the world to get your answer.

Buy Danish on August 28, 2007 at 8:39 AM

Here is Gay Patriot’s take on the Craig matter.

Given those reports (which now apparently have more substance than I once believed), this man should have been understood that people were aware of his unsavory behavior. That he continued (despite the reports) suggests a terrible lapse in judgment. Terrible.

Not only that, a grown man, particularly a man in public life, should know better than to do what he did. Public restrooms are not trysting spots.

Agreed.

Buy Danish on August 28, 2007 at 8:55 AM

Romans

God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

I can’t improve on this “informed” comment

apostle53 on August 28, 2007 at 9:44 AM

being gay isn’t all about sex. Gays can reproduce as well as straight people.

Gays aren’t all perverts. Straights can be perverts as well.

I like to consider being gay as an emotional trait. Maybe some people are born with the wrong body parts, or chemical imbalance? No I’m not gay, but I live in NYC :)

Further, all dems aint stupid, and all GOP aren’t perfect souls. Craig can’t be a true conservative because he’s gay?? The shallow views I read here sometimes are troubling!

flipflopper on August 28, 2007 at 9:53 AM

apostle53 on August 28, 2007 at 9:44 AM

Oh great. Now we have someone who says homosexuals deserve to die, and that those of us who disagree with that deserve to die also. A guest commentator from the Taliban, perhaps?

flipflopper on August 28, 2007 at 9:53 AM

Gays can reproduce as well as straight people.

Come on. Gays cannot reproduce as a couple – it is a biological impossibility. Either a homosexual male couple need a female “vessel” to act as as a surrogate, or a homosexual female couple need a male sperm donor.

And then I suppose they get to argue about whose uterus will carry the child and give birth to it, and whether or not that partner is more the mother than the other. All of this contributes in part to my opposition to gay marriage (and to surrogate parenting, even for heterosexuals).

That being said, comments about “purging” homosexuals are shocking and Nazi-esque.

Buy Danish on August 28, 2007 at 10:17 AM

Buy Danish on August 28, 2007 at 10:17 AM

That Someone is not me but the Apostle Paul’s inspired Commentary in the Book of Romans. As a Christian believer,my opinion was not requested, nor yours.

apostle53 on August 28, 2007 at 10:32 AM

apostle53 on August 28, 2007 at 10:32 AM

I got that, thanks.

29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

What about you? Have you never been disobedient or foolish or heartless or exhibited any number of human failings?

Is death the proper punishment?

Buy Danish on August 28, 2007 at 10:50 AM

Apostle 53,

One other thing – as a Christian, my energies will be devoted to concern over Larry Craig’s wife and children who must be suffering terribly right now.

Buy Danish on August 28, 2007 at 11:13 AM

Go with God, Mr. Craig and family. Good luck.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 3:07 PM

That being said, comments about “purging” homosexuals are shocking and Nazi-esque.

Buy Danish on August 28, 2007 at 10:17 AM

Thanks for weighing in Durbin.

RightWinged on August 28, 2007 at 3:27 PM

RightWinged,

Durbin?

I don’t know what that means with any certainty, but I do know that you haven’t explained how your purge plan works exactly.

Buy Danish on August 28, 2007 at 4:52 PM

Rogers did not assert that Craig was committing lewd public acts, he asserted that he was homosexual.Should all homosexuals who hold public office should just out themselves right now?
Buy Danish on August 28, 2007 at 8:39 AM

Craig denied it in 1982 and ran on the family values message for 25 years. Personally I don’t care if the guy is gay or not. But dishonesty is a different thing altogether. The republican base has set a very high bar and until they acknowledge and accept that (1) there are gays that have a conservative outlook in most other matters and (2) regardless of the christian religious beliefs that influence their position on gays, they should remember the admonition “judge not lest ye be judged”
you will continue to see the media gleefully publish these stories.

Bradky on August 28, 2007 at 6:09 PM

RightWinged,

Durbin?

I don’t know what that means with any certainty, but I do know that you haven’t explained how your purge plan works exactly.

Buy Danish on August 28, 2007 at 4:52 PM

I call you Durbin because you’re calling me a Nazi, which is as stupid as when Durbin called the Gitmo guards Nazis.

As for your demand for my “purge plan”, if you weren’t so lazy, you’d realize I’m simply talking about putting a stop to electing gay people to office, because (as I said you don’t have to agree) I believe “homosexuality” is a perversion, and you’re simply asking for pervert scandals by. It’s not a “plan” or anything I think anyone would support, I am just embarrassed that we, as the party of morals, accept perverts in and act shocked when this stuff keeps happening. Everyone shrugs their shoulders when the Dems get caught doing this kind of crap, because it’s expected.. but these sort of things hurt us, and it’s preventable. Not to say their aren’t other kinds of scandals, but IN MY OPINION the fact that someone is gay is warning flag for our side. All these politicians are corrupt and will get involved in sweetheart deals, etc… but what is more embarrassing and publicized? A land deal, or a gay sex scandal? And we can limit the odds by not electing gays. It’s as simple as that.

Now, let’s get back to calling me a Nazi.

RightWinged on August 28, 2007 at 9:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 2