SHOULD SEN. LARRY CRAIG RESIGN?

Brand X wrote:

I don't see how it would ease the tension in the Party about his original conduct.

It probably wouldn't. So what? Republican tensions are irrelevant to Debra's point and mine.

BrandX wrote:

He knew the protocols for soliciting gay sex in the mens room.

... said the policeman. Which you'd expect him to say if Craig's story was correct and the policeman did entrap him.

0 Replies

Quote:

Republican tensions are irrelevant to Debra's point and mine.

Understood, just saying.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Brand X wrote:
I don't see how it would ease the tension in the Party about his original conduct.

It probably wouldn't. So what? Republican tensions are irrelevant to Debra's point and mine.

BrandX wrote:
He knew the protocols for soliciting gay sex in the mens room.

... said the policeman. Which you'd expect him to say if Craig's story was correct and the policeman did entrap him.

It's immaterial if the policeman did entrap him (which there is no evidence of him doing).

As I've said before, we have a process, a well-established one, for challenging a policeman's actions, and the legitimacy of one's arrest; it's called a court of law. Craig chose not to do so, therefore, he IS guilty. In fact, he plead guilty, not just 'no contest.'

I don't understand where you and Deb are coming from on this one...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Especially since the stretch of the stretching legs, covering probably over a foot under a wall of a stall and the under the wall hand signal are not going to be all the officer details he may describe in court before a judge. Craig may be going beyond rationalization and denial to pouring gasoline over himself in public, lighting a match and declaring himself to be Buddhist. The officer stating he would not call the newspapers is moot -- journalist scour police reports for just this kind of story. That Craig was dumb enough to believe this would go away is enough reason for him to resign his post.

0 Replies

But, according to an article in the NYTimes today, now he's changed his mind and wants to rethink that resignation. Shocked

That's gotta be a first.

0 Replies

I knew that when I wrote the post but it's so totally absurd that I was at a lost of words to address it.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Rush had a right on summary opinion today. If Craig was a Democrat, Democrats would be bragging about him and defending him completely.

According to Democrats, what he did was probably to be complimented, but its the hypocrisy they attack. This allows Democrats to do anything they want, without holding themselves to any standards whatsoever. Agreed with Rush, this is exactly my assessment of it before I heard his.

Another point is that any Republican problem is characterized as a Republican Party problem, not an individual problem. Craig is just a typical Republican hypocrit, but William Jefferson is just having a few problems as an individual, but he is still a good Democrat, very socially moral (even if he is an outright criminal on a personal basis), so let him stay where he's at if he weathers the personal problems. Thats the spin put out by the Democrats. Very clever, and the main stream press reinforces the same spin.

I have to pinch myself to check and see if I am not dreaming about some of these events they are so bazaar and whacked out. Hillary could probably rob a bank in broad daylight and the press would say she just had a temporary lapse of judgement, so that makes her more human and more like us, and her poll numbers would go up. Thats actually similar to the spin placed on her husband, Bill.

I don't think your intrepretation matches the facts. Jefferson was rejected by his fellow Democrats and stripped of his house committees. Since the justice department hasn't bothered to convict him yet (??) and his home district re-elected him, I guess they're stuck with him. No one is out there praising his morals or asking him to say until "he works out his personal problems". There were a few out there saying "innocent until proven guilty", but that does not represent the entire party by a long stretch. Money in the freezer is pretty damning. Members of both parties protested his office search, but more on the grounds of congressional priviledge than any love of WJ. Maybe the question you should ask is why hasn't the Justice Department got around to having a trial.

If Craig was a Democrat, I think there would have been a lot more sympathy for his plight from fellow Dems. The Dems haven't been the ones throwing Craig under the bus. I saw some headline on a liberal blog suggesting that law enforcement has better things to do than chase men trying to mate. All that hate has come directly from his own party. If he had been caught in a bar asking to buy some lady a drink, no problem, but when he does the gay equivalent, his former buds lynch him.

0 Replies

It does really boil down to the smarmy nature of trying to pick up and actually perform an anonymous sex act in a public restroom. That's a far cry from using a pick-up line at the bar.

What, you think that the goal is to make a dinner date, or go check into a motel room, or, what?

No, I don't think the majority of conservative Republicans will let this go and he risks all sorts of repercussions which could be far worse than resigning.

He likely thinks his mistake was getting caught.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

What, you think that the goal is to make a dinner date, or go check into a motel room, or, what?

And that's what I think alot of people who say that this has been blown out of proportion aren't thinking about. Craig, with a willing partner, was going to get it on right there. Right there in the stall.

Okay. Here's my question. Since the briefcase or duffle bag is placed against the front of the door to block the view of whomever else might come into the bathroom, how does the new couple end up in the same stall? Does someone crawl under the divider? If so, how NASTY IS THAT?

0 Replies

There's really only one thing that has to make it under the divider.

0 Replies

Come on LW. Someone's gotta crawl on their belly under that divider. How else can they get together?

0 Replies

So, I'm in a ladies room today and there are women in the stalls on either side of me.
I could see their feet.
I said out loud that I can't help but think how difficult it would be for me to slide my foot under the partition - on either side - in order to touch their foot.

The woman on the left of me finished my sentence for me, and then the several other women in the bathroom all started to laugh.

I think the concensus was that Craig is a big fat liar.

0 Replies

engineer wrote:

Advocate wrote:
I had to feel sorry for the governor of Idaho who was forced to shake Craig's hand at a public news conference. Who would want to touch that guy.

You wouldn't shake his hand? Because of his politics or his looking for consensual liaisons in all the wrong places? His politics are pretty right wing, but that's true of millions of Americans and probably the governor.

You must know that I was joking, inferring that shaking hands with him may be hazardous to your health. However, I don't like the man for his positions, including his anti-gay actions. Thus, I would probably avoid shaking his hand. I once gave the cold shoulder to Pat Buchanan, who nodded to me.

0 Replies

If the case goes to trial, Craig would certain argue that the cop is not truthful in this matter. Outside the cop's statement, and Craig's earlier plea, there is no other evidence. All Craig has to do is raise a reasonable doubt.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

It does really boil down to... trying to pick up and actually perform an anonymous sex act in a public restroom. That's a far cry from using a pick-up line at the bar.

Yup. The homosexual aspect doesn't bother me. The sex in public bothers me. The hypocrisy bothers me.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Lightwizard wrote:
It does really boil down to... trying to pick up and actually perform an anonymous sex act in a public restroom. That's a far cry from using a pick-up line at the bar.

Yup. The homosexual aspect doesn't bother me. The sex in public bothers me. The hypocrisy bothers me.

Me too.

It's everything added together; the fact that he's a senator, that he's against gay rights, that it happened in a public bathroom, that he plead guilty, that he's married.....

My son said it's like "the perfect storm."

0 Replies

Someone on the thread convinced me he is not a hypocrite. He really hates gays. It is a case of self-loathing.

0 Replies

Isn't he one of those law-and-order types?

0 Replies

the really fascinating part about this is that there are so many who are ready to just go "well the cop is lying". "it's entrapment", etc.

similar to the stuff that went out about fitzgerald.

very strange.

0 Replies

Sure, the hypocrisy, the public bathroom (Ewww!), the disregard for his wife and family, ...

What about the fact that this guy is a LAWMAKER and he either broke the law, lied to the court and/or didn't understand how the courts work regarding guilty pleas after 24 years of writing laws.

That's a bit much to swallow.

0 Replies

SHOULD SEN. LARRY CRAIG RESIGN?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know