Video: Really, Senator Craig!?!
posted at 8:31 am on October 8, 2007 by Allahpundit
If nothing else good comes from his decision to serve out his term, and literally nothing else might, at least it extends the shelf life on bits like this. According to Bob Novak, an unknown number of Republican senators knew about his “weird, weird conduct” in public bathrooms and did nothing. What would he have them do, though? If they’d tried to shame him into resigning by outing him, the left would turned him into a gay martyr and used it as evidence of Republican intolerance. Instead they kept quiet, and now they’ve got Novak stupidly accusing them of “covering up” a la Foley, who was abusing his power by preying on young interns. They can’t win.
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
“I don’t even like going to the bathroom in an airport bathroom.”
I still don’t see how some quickie gay bathroom sex relates to a heterosexual long-term commitment, though.
Wouldn’t he only be hypocritical if he proposed to the cop instead?
wryteacher on October 8, 2007 at 8:35 AM
I liked “Maybe you’re only opposed to gay marraige because then there would be less single gay guys to have sex with in an airport bathroom.”
e-pirate on October 8, 2007 at 8:43 AM
“I don’t even like going to the bathroom in an airport bathroom.”
This was pretty much the only line that could resonate with the majority of Americans. The rest of it was lefty claptrap, trying to have it both ways — celebrate queers who have sex in airport bathrooms, while feigning disgust because he’s a Rethuglican.
When it’s a lisping Democrat with a gay whore in his townhouse — ok. When it’s a creepy married GOPer — not so much.
Jaibones on October 8, 2007 at 9:13 AM
If his fellow republicans knew about this, the least they could have done was have a couple of them approach him “outside of the bathroom” and tell him that he needed to cut the crap.
Bradky on October 8, 2007 at 9:21 AM
I don’t have a problem with Craig being gay. I do have a problem with his namby-pamby hypocrisy and over all douchebagginess. A person can be both gay and a Republican (or, gay and a conservative) and not be in favor of same sex marriage (there are a ton of reasons why, and none have to do with self-loathing). But, this 20 year long cat-and-mouse, wink wink nudge nudge crap with the media and all the other people in both his office and the senate as a whole is more embarassing to the party than simply being gay.
Mindcrime on October 8, 2007 at 9:27 AM
Gays should just admit they have no more right to live on God’s green earth than a weasel, and be done with it.
[/exasperated satire]
Ochlan on October 8, 2007 at 9:33 AM
My biggest problem with my Senator is he promised to resign on 30 Sept 07. He did not! Bad enough he is an ally of the open borders crowd now he stands up to be another lying crapweasel.
KC-135A on October 8, 2007 at 9:36 AM
Events like this seem to answer the question why such a small minority (if you can even classify homosexuality as a minority)can drive a large part of the political agenda. Without support of shadowy politicians homosexuals would have no agenda.
Rode Werk on October 8, 2007 at 9:39 AM
That was a good bit. I can’t imagine Idaho will re-elect him, but I don’t understand why he was elected in the first place.
ThackerAgency on October 8, 2007 at 9:39 AM
What is this? SNL? I’m glad I don’t watch it. That was REALLY stupid, which is saying a lot coming from me.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on October 8, 2007 at 9:41 AM
Because like Vitter from Louisiana he ran on family values, defense of marriage act, and the GOP is the moral authority forever and ever amen. While he was waving his hand under stalls, Vitter was picking up madames in the French Quarter.
Then the party faithful get mad because it seems the Dems are being “hypocritical”. Endless story, to be continued with the next “scandal” involving a GOP pol.
Bradky on October 8, 2007 at 9:51 AM
It was humorous if only because they really let him have it.
Sorry.
Yakko77 on October 8, 2007 at 9:59 AM
I kinda liked that, but it doesn’t really make any sense. Are they trying to say that without marriage couples can’t commit to each other?
What?
To be fair, the part about him being married is really awful. His wife doesn’t deserve that. Gay or not, it’s still cheating.
Esthier on October 8, 2007 at 10:05 AM
Yeah, that’s a fallacious line of attack, and I’m sure most people who throw it around know it, but it’s one that Craig left himself open to.
DaveS on October 8, 2007 at 10:09 AM
I just want to say thanks for NOT posting the lame Chevy Chase bit.
KelliD on October 8, 2007 at 10:12 AM
That was funnier than I would have expected; I just think they (and the left generally) go off the rails when they find something inherently wrong with a homosexual who opposed gay marriage rights.
Many liberals don’t seem capable of understanding that sometimes principles come before selfishness (or what the Left would perceive as self-interest).
Kensington on October 8, 2007 at 11:54 AM
It seems that gays would have to do without a principled lifetime commitment to one another for some to indulge their own selfish notions of marriage.
I don’t believe that your concept of other people’s marriage supercedes their right to live their lives as fully as you do yours.
If you can be divorced, old, unhealthy, drug-addled and/or Britney Spears and get married without permission, I don’t understand the value of discriminating against homosexuals.
dedalus on October 8, 2007 at 12:12 PM
I like the “Sarcastic Clapping Family” much better when they showed it years ago.
REALLY!
SouthernGent on October 8, 2007 at 12:18 PM
While you could generally file this under: Rat’s ass, Things I don’t give one about, something struck me as odd.
They briefly mention Barney Frank, but the next bit of patter has “true story”, “really true” etc. Is the viewer intended to not put any stock in the Frank reference because it didn’t have “really true” intros?
Or was Lorne on the sideline waving Seth off? It did really interrupt the rhythm. Other than that, not a bad bit.
Uncle Pinky on October 8, 2007 at 12:20 PM
I’ll explain it, but you have to not get your hopes up about the humor. The idea is that the more gays marry, the fewer are still single and therefore available to Sen Widestance for bathroom encounters. Therefore, ha ha, he’d naturally oppose gay marriage to keep the supply of handwave-recipients high.
Splunge on October 8, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Oh. Never mind. I see. You got the joke, but question the premise. Fair enough.
Actually, one of the more interesting objections to gay marriage is the appearance of a tendency for gays to want to alter marriage in the direction of “open marriage,” citing this as “reasonable accommodation” to their differences from the heterosexual culture. Also see the speech of one G. Michael, on emerging from the woods. “This is my culture!”
Quite similar to the way that the inclusion of women in the workplace (which I’m rabidly in favor of, just so you know) happened: Step 1: Just let us in, we can be just like you. Step 2: Take down that calendar and stop talking like that, you’re creating a “hostile work environment.”
Splunge on October 8, 2007 at 12:38 PM
I’m not familiar with the specifics of what they are asking for, but I do know heterosexual couples who alter the terms of the marriage with a prenuptial. Also, having an open marriage is something that many heterosexual men claim to have, at least when they are traveling and meet a young woman.
dedalus on October 8, 2007 at 12:47 PM
Craig deserves all the scorn he is getting here and elsewhere.
If he is truly guilty, then he is the worst type of hypocrite, if not, then he is still guilty of outright stupidity for pleading to it.
Both accounts should preclude him from public office.
awake on October 8, 2007 at 1:23 PM
They’ll be objecting to glass ceilings and mirrored floors next…
Ochlan on October 8, 2007 at 1:35 PM
You know, this wouldn’t be fodder if it was a Democrat.
We have democrats committing acts of treason – visiting terrorist nations – negotiating with our enemy’s – badmouthing the US – yet bathroom sex deserves a scarlet letter of resignation.
Really! Gimme a break.
Kini on October 8, 2007 at 1:38 PM
I thought the SNL bit was “REALLY” over the top. Though it was nostalgic to see a much older Chevy Chase on Weekend Update. All we need now is Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtain doing their point-counterpoint skit (“Jane, you ignorant slut!”), and maybe SNL will approach the quality it used to have.
georgej on October 8, 2007 at 3:20 PM
The wide stance line at the end was funny.
T J Green on October 8, 2007 at 3:45 PM
SNL long ago jumped the shark. Too much political theatre! Really!
synycalwon on October 8, 2007 at 5:01 PM
That show is still on the air?
Really!?!?
Black Adam on October 9, 2007 at 1:41 AM