It truly is more fun when it is a republican!Follow

What, you mean publicly?

So besides Craig, Haggard, Allen, and Foley, everyone else is a straight-shooter?

Ok, that question is a bit unfair, so I'll get to the point: it's not just a Republican Senator that was caught perhaps soliciting sex in a public bathroom, it was a prominent anti-gay and 'family values' Republican Senator that was caught perhaps soliciting sex in a public bathroom.

And just to prove that I'm not above making fun of people...



Edited, Aug 31st 2007 6:22pm by Jophiel

Not important.

Funny.

Hence the thread title

I think the crux, so to speak, of the matter is that most Democrats don't much care who their representatives sleep with. That doesn't play into my code of ethics, I know. It's just not my business.

So it isn't "oh dear LORD he was cruising for gay sex, how can they allow this to happen?" It's, "Figures, after all his campaigning against gay rights: either he's a tragic closet case and hates what he really is OR he knows he's gay and thinks this is the best way to pander to the masses and get elected." Either is sad and yet despicable.

It's not out gays who are in any danger of being co-opted to give up state secrets, you know. It's guys like this in the closet who would gladly play along to protect their (in their own eyes) filthy secret.

It's sad, to me, that the conservative party is so in thrall to the most extreme element of religious fanatics. Most of my extended family is quite conservative, socially and fiscally, and quite religious as well. Yet I can't imagine any of them caring about a politician's personal life as long as he's doing a decent job of representing their district.

Finding out that he's been hiding something, finding out that he's been cheating on his wife rather than coming out of the closet... those things would probably put them off.

The wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round....

You know Hattie? That's amazing!

The assumption behind a plea agreement is that the state feels it cannot succeed at obtaining a guilty verdict for the charge at hand, and the defendant does not wish to go through the trouble of a trial and is willing to accept the lesser charge in order to avoid that.

It's unfair to assume guilt of the charge he *didn't* plea to in this (or any case). Had the state insisted on charging him with solicitation, it's certain that he would have entered a plea of innocent, and equally certain that he'd have been found not guilty (there's just no solid evidence of that crime). Equating his guilty plea to "disorderly conduct" with "soliciting sex" and insisting that he be punished as though he'd plead or been found guilty of the latter charge is wrong IMO.

It's a misdemeanor. One that carries no specific ethical or sexual connotation. Whatever the officer thought happened is irrelevant to what the court actually charged Craig with and to which Craig plead guilty. Legally at least. Obviously, we can make great hay out of the speculation about what he was actually doing, but I think the guy should be allowed to present his side of the story and defend himself in the court of public opinion. Whether that saves his career or not is hard to say.


I guess what bothers me the most about something like this is the venom with which it's conducted. Yes. The knee-jerk reaction from the Right is to get the guy who's raising the ruckus out of office and move on with the work of government. However, it just seems as though in recent years this has become a tactic that the Left uses to attack Republicans in office (and some not in office!). I just believe that there's a point at which you have to stand up to those sorts of tactics. I'm annoyed that the Left feels that this is the best way for them to gain political power. I'm equally annoyed that Republicans seem to keep allowing it to work time after time.

I'd really like to see Republicans actually stand up to this sort of thing. Trace the money. Who paid Popkey to investigate Craig for 5 months? What triggered it? What hard evidence is there really? What really happened in that restroom? Was the officer wrong? Was this whole thing a setup? Who stands to gain? How many other such "investigations" are going on? Who's running them? Who's funding them? Again: Who stands to gain?


There's a whole lot of effort being spent by the Left to dig up dirt and discredit Republicans. Been going on for a long time. When people comment that "this has been a good year for Republican sex scandals", do they realize that these aren't just accidental discoveries? Do they realize that in many cases, the "evidence" is carefully gathered and manipulated in order to present a case to the public that appears damning and is designed to generate a high intensity furor? The whole point is to get this sort of "scandal" out there so fast and so strong that the public reaction is overwhelming and the calls for resignation come before cooler heads might prevail, thus ensuring that regardless of the actual facts of the situation, the targeted individuals careers is ruined in the process (which is the ultimate goal).

It's not about getting "the truth" out there. It's about carefully herding facts along and waiting until just the right time to present them when they'll do the most damage. There's a point at which even the most blind person should kinda get a sense that these things are being orchestrated. Why not reveal who's doing the orchestrating and put that before the public? I just think that Republicans need to stop going along with these sorts of tactics. It may seem like the more prudent course short term, but that's exactly what these liberal operatives are counting on.

Lets get this straight.

He was cruising for anonymous male c'ock in a airport rest room that had a reputation for being a cruise hang out. It is why the cop was there in plain clothes just hanging out in a stall. It is why the cop was clearly aware of the 'cruise code' or whatever it is called.

There is no equivocating it. He took a lesser charge because he hoped it would slide under the radar, the state accepted it because there wasn't enough evidence for propositioning and he didn't start waving his balls at strangers in plain view. The fact that it was a lesser charge doesn't diminish the fact that he quite clearly was looking to go down on some crotch and take a shot in the mouth.

Oh and a hearty "LOL" at someone reporting my image to the Alla image police

I reported it because what's a glory hole with out a **** sticking through it?

I wonder who did report it though, call the inquisition!