Senator Craig

Remove all ads!

I'm rather surprised that there isn't a topic about this one, yet, so I thought I'd start one. Now, as a liberal, my reaction to this little debacle is *yawn*. I just don't care who cooks this guys sausage and I already knew that this guy was a hypocrite who holds the public to a standard that he doesn't feel required to meet. Frankly, I don't really care. Stuff like this just isn't news to me.

Anyway, what does bother me is that Craig went on a big, homophobic rant after he got called out for trying to pick up a guy in a bathroom stall.....especially since the etiquette Craig was using was the etiquette used to ask not to get a blowjob, but to give one....and, at least as I've perceived it, that the condemnation he's getting from other GOP members is centered more around the fact that he was trying to get his rocks off with another man than the fact he was trying to do it in a public restroom....or that he tried to use his station as a senator to weasel out of it (when asking the officer "what do you think about that?", Craig was showing the officer ID that identified him as a US senator). I think that a lot of folks (not just the GOP) are totally missing the mark on this one.

Does anyone else have thoughts about this?

 

Little new, nothing surprising... A hypocritical affair, but I don't think that's anything new. I'm starting to wonder if such scandals even matter in the US political arena anymore. I don't know about Democrats, but Republicans seem to be breezing along regardless of how many such things pop up.

 

Well, it would take a lot to de-rail a democrat. They stand for gay rights and are generally more open and forgiving when it comes to human failings. Democrats don't try to impeach people for having affairs....so it stands to reason that a democrat who is caught having one -even if it's with another man- will be able to recover from it without much difficulty.

 

I was proud of the other Republican senators in this case. They acknowledged what Craig did was wrong and didn't fit into their "value system" and forced him to quit the Senate. Of course he is trying to back out of his resignation (which shows a lot about his character in my opinion).

 

Obviously I find what he is accused of having done to be reprehensible on several levels. When he decided to resign rather than drag his party through the mud, I was impressed -- "here's a guy who is willing to take responsibility for his own actions" I said. THEN he tries to backtrack! THAT disgusts me more than any bathroom adventure. I hope that both sides of the political spectrum can unite and get rid of this two faced liar.

 

@ Snook,

I wonder, then, how you felt about all the Republican senators who didn't call for Senator David Vitter's resignation when he was busted for paying for a hooker. Does that fit into their "value system" where anonymous gay sex does not? Why no outrage and demands for his resignation from fellow Republicans? I think we can all agree that tapping your foot and paying for sex are on two different levels. It also wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that Vitter's state has a Democratic governer (and thus, could replace him with a Dem in the Senate vacancy) and Craig's has a Republican governer (keeping the seat safe in GOP hands if Craig is disposed of), would it?

Just asking.

 

What we're really talking about here is a double standard. I find such double standards despicable no matter what group is pulling the stunt.

That said, I haven't had as much time to read the papers as I used to, so someone here please enlighten me: Are the Democrats howling for blood?

I think they should be, and so should the Republicans. Being an elected official means that you should hold yourself to a higher standard of behaviour and not do anything that would cause the people you represent (as well as the party you represent) to lose respect for you. I understand people make mistakes, I've made huge ones myself, but I also believe that there should be consequences for those mistakes.

In this case, at least IMHO, Craig has done more damage to himself and those he represents with his flip / flop than with the original incident with some lavatory love.

 

Nope. They don't even care. And, unlike you, I think they shouldn't. Craig was punished by the law for what he did (or would have done...or may have done...), has drastically reduced his chances of ever getting re-elected, and has damaged his marriage. Seems like he's suffered enough consequences already. His crime doesn't affect his ability to perform his duties and being a hypocrite really isn't grounds for dismissal, so I see no good reason to kick the guy out.

Perhaps to you....but most Democrats, at least, don't believe you forfeit your humanity upon being elected to office. Anyone remember when Ted Kennedy got drunk and crashed into the reflecting pool, for example? He survived it. Probably because he was a democrat.

[ September 07, 2007, 22:29: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

What I find the most humorous is that the people that tend to yell the loudest against gay marriage, and shout to the heavan's in support of "family values" are the ones that are, in fact, gay. I mean, WTF? When Democrats have affairs, it's with members of the opposite sex typically. And if you are gay, why would you bother to join the Republican party - a group that will villify you for who you are?

 

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. It's true that the "crime" (a bit of a strong word for what he did I think) per se has no bearing on his abilities. However, he's in a position of power, one where he decides what is a crime and what isn't, and then, by all appearances, believes that he is above and beyond those same laws that he endorses and that everyone else has to follow. That is my problem with this whole affair. Aside from this one point I agree with Drew - it's a pretty boring case, and certainly not the first one of its kind (Vitter, Allen, Foley, etc etc etc). Keith Olbermann's Dragnet-style reconstruction of it is pretty funny though

 

If a simple misdemeanor is enough to boot someone from office, then we're gonna have to boot every congressman that gets a speeding ticket. Sorry, but I can't agree with this. Now, if it's determined in the ethics investigation that the guy tried to (ab)use his position to beat the rap, then he needs to be booted, but a misdemeanor shouldn't be sufficient to kick someone out of office.

[ September 08, 2007, 12:44: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

That's already been determined. I do believe that the "what do you think of that?" cocky attitude was nothing more than him thinking he could get out of it just because he was a senator. And if that's not enough, consider his amazing flip-flopping in the aftermath. "I plead guilty" followed by "I did not plead guilty" followed by "I will resign" followed by "I never said I was going to resign".... Yes, I know, every single politican will change his mind at one time or another, but this is ridiculous.

 

That's a gross oversimplification. Sure, there are people out there saying that innocent people never plea bargain down to lesser charges but, frankly, that's pure, grade-A bull****. Innocent people take plea deals all the time (since innocence in no way guarantees acquittal, a minor charge is generally preferable to a major one, and the attorney fees necessary to beat the rap are often more expensive than the fine) and, since he took a plea deal, the only thing to which Craig plead guilty was disorderly conduct...which is a simple misdemeanor. Craig didn't plead guilty or admit to soliciting sex in a public place, lewd conduct, or anything like it.* He admitted to disorderly conduct.

*This isn't to say that I don't think he's guilty as sin. It's merely an exhortation to intellectual honesty.

 

I don't think that a person should forfeit his humanity when he gets elected to office either. But I do think that those who lead should set an example -- especially on topics that they themselves express positions on. "Humanity" isn't an excuse for inappropriate behaviour -- it's a reason, sure, but it doesn't make it right.

And before anyone goes saying that I'm doing this because of a gay-bashing attitude, I want to be clear that had the Craig bathroom sex incident been with a woman I'd still think the same thing.

The question of gay Republicans makes me think of the concept of camouflage -- if you are gay and you don't want the world to know it, you join a group that is renowned for its stance AGAINST gays to create a buffering shield. Some Catholic priests probably fit this scenario. Other people may do it thinking that they will "cure" themselves by joining such a group. (Please note I put "cure" in quotes -- I know that's not scientifically proven, but it may be what some people believe. It's not what I myself believe, so please don't deluge me.)

 

That's not an unreasonable theory. Another possibility is that, like the Log Cabin Republicans , other aspects of the party's platform accurately represent many of your political views.

 

Amen to that. Just because politicians have a reputation for being sleazy, dishonest and hypocritical, it doesn't mean that they should be that way. Power comes with responsibility, and I believe that powerholders should give an example in conduct. For good or for bad, they are among the elite of society.

[ September 10, 2007, 20:55: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]