The libs are in full rapture today with the disclosure that another Republican was caught in a compromising position. Wasn't the mantra during the Clinton impeachment hearings that he was being impeached for "sex" (although he said it was not sex) and we should leave his private business to him?
Now that we have an Idaho senator who did...well, I'm not exactly sure what he did but make overtures to a cop that could've been construed as asking for sex in the gay world, I guess. Even a hooker can't be arrested unless she discusses money.
If Jim McGreevey admitted to having anonymous sex at truck stops throughout New Jersey and never faced arrest, how can this case lead to an arrest? Craig "lingered," played footsie and made some questionable hand gestures. That is not a crime and he never should have copped to one. Note that the TPM folks are in agreement.
That's not the point of this post, however. The point I wish to make is that it becomes all the rage to slam GOP politicians every time sex scandals are discovered and the crescendo is double if it's a gay scandal because of the so called "hypocrisy."
But libs and gays are the first to scream that you're born that way and I tend to believe that as well. If he's gay -- and all indications are that he is -- it's not hypocrisy to have his feelings on issues. Hypocrisy is John Edwards railing on about poverty and then have $16-million invested in a company he worked for that foreclosed on Katrina victims. Senator Craig not supporting the majority view of gay activists and liberals does not make him a hypocrite, it makes him a man with differing views. It's kind of like Michael Steele in the last election, he was accused of not taking "black positions" on issues. If he has a well-thought out position and he's a black man, it's a black position regardless of what the majority thinks. If Senator Craig is anti-gay marriage or whatever, that is his opinion and the fact that he is gay means nothing regardless of his thoughts.
Isn't the entire point of gay activism to get them the same rights in hiring, marriage, etc? Then why do liberals take such glee every time a GOP politician is outed as gay? Isn't ones sexuality supposed to be ones own business? Aren't people supposed to be judged on the content of ones character and not on the color of their skin or sexual orientation to paraphrase Dr. King? Hypocrisy is the actions those who support gay rights are taking as we speak.
Update: Craig says he's not gay and says he should have pleaded not guilty but wanted to make it "go away".
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 2)
1. Liberals BELIEVE and espouse that sex is nobody's business. So, they are not HYPOCRITES. Repugnants are hypocrites. That's the difference. Get it?
Rick at 10:12PM on Aug 28th 2007
2. What the hell are you talking about, idiot? If they BELIEVE it, why do they magnify every supposed scandal? They are hypocrites and prove it every friggin time.
Scott at 10:31PM on Aug 28th 2007
3. Scott,
As a conservative, I would refrain from using the words, friggin' or buggerin' for at least two weeks..
This is so funny, in fact, it's histerical..
Grand Ol' Mens Room Sodomites Party...HAAAAAAA !!!
Manfred at 10:41PM on Aug 28th 2007
4. He is being judged on the content of his character, at least by me. From what I hear, he's not just against gay marriage, but against employment non-discrimination and open integration of the military. He is a complete fool for his positions on the issues, regardless of whether he is gay or not. But if he is gay, I agree with Rick (comment 1) that the reason the gay community and "liberals" in general are not being hypocritical by making a big deal about this is that we believe that sex is no one's business but those having it, and if we had our way, the law would reflect that in all areas. In applying our standard, we are not concerned in the least with his being gay or trying to have sex; but applying the standard that he himself would have us apply-- that the law should reject gay people in every and any way possible, how can we not make a big deal about it? It's called bringing it upon yourself, and social conservatives seem to be really good at it.
John K. at 10:49PM on Aug 28th 2007
5. Scott: You can't call us hypocrites for applying the standard that social conservatives are forcing on us. Let us set the standard, and there will be no hypocrisy because we could care less what he doesn't tell us we are bad for doing it.
John at 10:51PM on Aug 28th 2007
6. *Let us set the standard and there will be no hypocrisy because we could care less what he does as long as he doesn't tell us we are bad for doing it.
John K. at 10:54PM on Aug 28th 2007
7.
Scott-
It should be noted that where liberals and conservatives tend to differ on issues such as sex scandals is the inherent hypocrisy when the GOP becomes embroiled in such scandals. When it hit the fan with Clinton, it came as no real surprise. We pretty much all knew this was a weakness for the guy. The same could be said for Gary Hart's "monkey business" in '88.
With conservatives, these scandals reflect actions at odds with their voting record and social policy positions. While you've focused on how those of us on the left are gloating over this scandal because of the political implications, you'd probably see that most of us are more disgusted than anything else because we're as American as you are, and we're sick of seeing another elected hypocrite refuse to live up to the standards he chooses to apply to all other citizens.
CB at 11:11PM on Aug 28th 2007
8. I think Ken Starr should analyze the residue on his american flag lapel button...for @#$%
Scott, you would defend any closet Faggot Repo Senator, even if he is dressed like Divine and buys you a harvey wallbanger...at the sky lounge...
Just Shut up!!!!!
Manfred at 11:22PM on Aug 28th 2007
9. It's not the sex, it's the hypocrisy! Man, some of you folks must see conservative politics as a religion, not just an ideology.
Of COURSE the Demos do it too. Howza bout Gore's 1400 dollar utility bills?
But COME ON, one of your boys was caught (again) trying to do the nasty with an undercover cop, and suddenly you're saying it was all misunderstood (He pled GUILTY, DUH!).
Suddenly the Moral Majoritarians become permissive and understanding about people's private sex lives, or better yet, just say "LOOK AT THEM! LOOK AT Clinton! LOOK AT Barney Frank! Don't look at us!"
Nice try at shameless diversionary tactics, but when you done the deed, you're supposed to pay the price right? A nation of laws, not men, etc.?
So Please, Give it a BREAK! Have a laugh now and then. If you truly believe that one party or the other is "Moral" because they feed you this pablum and nonsense, then you have your head deeply buried in wet sand. No offense, but it's true.
Patrick
Student and teacher of politics for 30 years or so.
pat young at 4:02AM on Aug 29th 2007
10. -NY times, August 29, 2007
In what was widely seen another "blow" to their flaccid public image, Republican Party strategists gathered today at a press conference at Motel 6 to formally announce their party's merger with NAMBLA, (North American Man-Boy Love Association) the controversial group that advocates sexual affection between underage boys and over the hill men.
With the recent arrest of Rep Senator Larry Craig (Idaho) for trying to get some love action with an undercover cop in the restroom at the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport, party stalwarts were left with no other option but to come clean, and spit out what has already become obvious to the nation: the Republican Party has become the #1 spot in the nation for repressed homosexual longings.
"Why fight it?" was the attitude of many legislators.
"Actually, not a single one of us joined the party for anything else," admitted defrocked Atty General Alberto Gonzales. "All this talk about God, going to church, being a Moral Majoritarian, it was all just a ploy to get our mitts on some hot young Sunday School carne assada and do the chalupa chupa. Heck, you can't even get an invitation to the funraisers anymore unless you bring some meth and a hot young boy with you. I quit!"
(Editor's note: This missive is NOT about the pros and cons of being gay, it's about putting other people down a la Jimmy Swaggart, when you're actually knockin' da boots with hookers and their daughters in cheap motel rooms, chokin' yur chicken in a hankie, then getting back in time for the show)
However all was not smooth on the other side of this political intercourse. Outraged NAMBLA members threatened to resign en masse if the merger is finalized.
Spokesperson Rod Constant stated, "Hey, puttin' the wood to a liquored up 8 year old is one thing, but joining the Republican Party?? We got some STANDARDS here."
pat young at 4:05AM on Aug 29th 2007
11.
Now do you think the Republicans will deep 6 their holier than thou preaching, and stop shoving their rigid, bigoted so called morality down our throats?
Or do we need another 10 or 15 of these little incidents before Repubs catch on.
cdnbirch at 4:30AM on Aug 29th 2007
12. -NY times, August 29, 2007
In what was widely seen another "blow" to their flaccid public image, Republican Party strategists gathered today at a press conference at Motel 6 to formally announce their party's merger with NAMBLA, (North American Man-Boy Love Association) the controversial group that advocates sexual affection between underage boys and over the hill men.
With the recent arrest of Rep Senator Larry Craig (Idaho) for trying to get some love action with an undercover cop in the restroom at the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport, party stalwarts were left with no other option but to come clean, and spit out what has already become obvious to the nation: the Republican Party has become the #1 spot in the nation for repressed homosexual longings.
"Why fight it?" was the attitude of many legislators.
"Actually, not a single one of us joined the party for anything else," admitted defrocked Atty General Alberto Gonzales. "All this talk about God, going to church, being a Moral Majoritarian, it was all just a ploy to get our mitts on some hot young Sunday School carne assada and do the chalupa chupa. Heck, you can't even get an invitation to the funraisers anymore unless you bring some meth and a hot young boy with you. I quit!"
(Editor's note: This missive is NOT about the pros and cons of being gay, it's about putting other people down a la Jimmy Swaggart, when you're actually knockin' da boots with hookers and their daughters in cheap motel rooms, chokin' yur chicken in a hankie, then getting back in time for the show)
However all was not smooth on the other side of this political intercourse. Outraged NAMBLA members threatened to resign en masse if the merger is finalized.
Spokesperson Rod Constant stated, "Hey, puttin' the wood to a liquored up 8 year old is one thing, but joining the Republican Party?? We got some STANDARDS here."
pat young at 4:31AM on Aug 29th 2007
13. I guess I hit a sore spot with y'all. No one, of course, has answered the question of "what did he do the was illegal"?
Typical libs, "shut up", lame jokes and no substance.
That's about par for the course. Manny, you actually elevated your discourse today, you must be feeling good or something. Did you find a quarter on the sidewalk?
Scott at 6:09AM on Aug 29th 2007
14. Scott,
I'm afraid people are being rude to you because your thesis is so profoundly stupid.
Since you won't look it up yourself, Craig was arrested for lewd (public) conduct and plead guilty to disorderly conduct, both of which are against the law.
Liberals are for protection of privacy, not sex in public bathrooms.
Have any Liberals even spoken openly on this topic. Republicans are calling for his resignaton.
I hope this helps.
JZ
Jeff at 6:39AM on Aug 29th 2007
15. Actually I could care less if someone has Sex in the restroom or not as long as it is discrete.
It seems like lawmakers cared and made it against the law. Senators should know the law and don't make themselves vulnerable by doing something which could jeopardize them. I am sure it is incredible embarrassing for the Senator already. Sure he had no business talking against gay rights but I take every word of a politician with a grain of salt anyway. However his action don't speak for the action of every republican nor will I remember his name tomorrow. Hey I didn't even know his name four days ago.
Sandra at 7:56AM on Aug 29th 2007