home

Larry Craig: "I Am Not Gay"

So Craig says today in his press conference. Personally, I do not care. But I think Glenn Greenwald exposes the problem Republicans face on this matter - they hate gay persons.

The evidence seems pretty clear that Craig is in fact gay. And now Republicans have to deal with this reality, even in the face of Craig's denials.

< Tuesday Open Thread | Firefighters Endorse Dodd >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Allegations will multiply exponentially (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by magster on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:58:01 PM EST
    The press will confirm the Idaho Statesman story and dig up more.  Craig just invited more scrutiny, and it's going to happen.

    Paging Larry Flynt...

    And who would care (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:09:14 PM EST
    if he's gay, straight, a little bent, very twisted, right over the edge, loves his pets, or is just self satisfied?

    What is so scary to people anyway?

    It's nobody's business but his own, as long as he  hurts no one...

    you're right, edger, but (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by scribe on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:44:49 PM EST
    the point is this is a firebrand anti-gay-rights legislator who's spent many years working for that agenda.  

    To say he's a hypocrite is, well, to be a master of understatement.

    He's made condemnation of gays qua gays a centerpiece of his legislative career.  To turn around and say (what is the right way to think and be) "people should be allowed to be what they are, so long as no one gets hurt" after spending years condemning people for being what they are so long as no one gets hurt is a double standard of immense proportions.  

    To paraphrase someone else, over at TPM (I think):  the map of Larry Craig's psyche have an amazing number of fault lines, contours and so on.

    He's a mess.

    Parent

    Here's his Exhibit A of sanctimonious hypocrisy (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by scribe on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:23:55 PM EST
    With deep gratitude to the web wizards at TPM, and their encyclopedic knowledge of, well, muck.  

    Other than noting the Statesman article said he was trained in oratory by a great orator of the old school*, I am not going to make any bad jokes about Sen. Craig's choice of calling President Clinton a "Bad Boy, a Nasty Naughty Boy", during impeachment, viz.:

    MR. RUSSERT: Larry Craig, would you want the last word from the Senate be an acquittal of the president and no censure?

    SEN. CRAIG: Well, I don't know where the Senate's going to be on that issue of an up or down vote on impeachment, but I will tell you that the Senate certainly can bring about a censure reslution and it's a slap on the wrist. It's a, "Bad boy, Bill Clinton. You're a naughty boy." The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy, a naughty boy.
    I'm going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy.

    Jiminy!

    --
    *  From the Statesman article:

    McClure, whom Craig succeeded in the Senate, said Craig's formal manner of speaking has fueled rumors. Craig was taught by an old-school orator -- the late D.L. Carter of Weiser. The lessons served Craig well, as he won state championships, attended two national contests and filled his bedroom at the ranch with trophies.

    Said McClure: "He was of the old oratorical school where you went in and took each word and broke it into syllables and enunciated and all of that. And that's how that style came about, to project across a full hall."

    Craig also took piano lessons in high school and was in the high school choir.

    "Larry's speech patterns are very precise," said McClure. "They're not what you expect from a rancher from Midvale. His speech patterns say, `Hey, here's a guy who's a little different.' And he is, he's a little different. But that doesn't mean he's homosexual for heaven's sakes! You have to jump from prejudice to suspicion to I don't know what to give the rumors any credibility."

    Fair enough, that.

    Parent

    Unrepentent, dishonest, (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:31:24 PM EST
    hypocritical, manipulative, conscienceless liar.

    "rethug", IOW.

    That he deserves a good flogging for ...

    Parent

    hey! (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by scribe on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:59:17 PM EST
    I'm trying to keep this above-board - no naughty, nasty stuff, you.

    Otherwise, one would have to conclude you mnust have been watching that lefty-lib Sundance channel last night.

    Parent

    Mwah ha ha haaaaa... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 06:21:56 PM EST
    I haven't called for stoning him.

    Yet...

    ^^
    OO

    Parent

    watch this (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by scribe on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 06:52:03 PM EST
    No! (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 06:54:14 PM EST
    Well...... ok...

    Parent
    Not bad, actually. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 07:01:42 PM EST
    I'm from a different era, though.

    The Kinks - Lola

    Well I'm not the worlds most physical guy
    But when she squeezed me tight she nearly broke my spine
    Oh my lola lo-lo-lo-lo lola
    Well I'm not dumb but I can't understand
    Why she walked like a woman and talked like a man

    ...
    Well I'm not the worlds most masculine man
    But I know what I am and I'm glad I'm a man
    And so is lola...


    Parent
    Shocked! Shocked! (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 08:08:14 PM EST
    Deviants everywhere... oh my!P<>

    Parent
    Hah! ;-) (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 08:58:08 PM EST
    "When the going get weird, the weird turn pro."
    --HST

    Parent
    Well, you know me scribe... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:21:24 PM EST
    I have no problem tearing flesh and body parts off him (rhetorically and metaphorically speaking, of course) for his hypocrisy.

    But I could care less what his sexual orientation is, as long as he doesn't hurt anyone.

    But his hypocrisy in pushing for anti-gay-rights legislation does hurt people and for that he deserves to be attacked, I agree.

    Parent

    Maybe it's being a woman, (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by LaPopessa on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:04:40 PM EST
    but if he's gay & living a lie, he is hurting someone - his wife. Lying to ones constituents isn't unusual either, but isn't right.

    Parent
    If you don't care, (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:29:25 PM EST
    why are you commenting??

    Parent
    Saith edger: (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:33:56 PM EST
    But his hypocrisy in pushing for anti-gay-rights legislation does hurt people and for that he deserves to be attacked, I agree.


    Parent
    To rub your rethug nose in... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:34:52 PM EST
    But... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:42:55 PM EST
    No one expects you to get it, ppj.

    Parent
    Understandable responce (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 07:36:22 PM EST
    from Jim: Rethugs and their stooges seem to have difficulty comprehending how anyone could actually care about radical hypocrisy in elected officials behavior.

    Parent
    edger, squeaky, et al (1.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:10:14 AM EST
    I get it quite well.

    Political solutions require reasonable people working together. Energizing the other side's base by making hostile attacks is not the thing to do.

    The "Right" understands Craig's hypocritical position, just as the Demos understand their own. By attacking him you turn him into a victim. You would be far better off to just let him twist in the wind.

    As a social liberal who has repeatedly noted that I believe in gay and other minority rights I think it obvious that you are taking a problem that needs to be solved and turning it into a bigger problem by your actions and comments.

    Deconstructionist comments on Aug 28, 2007 at 04:31:55 PM EST in this thread were quite accurate. Elsewhere I noted the hypocrisy of people condemning warrantless wiretapping of suspected terrorists while calmly accepting the government's intrusion in what appears to be an attempt by an individual to solicit a consensual private sex act.

    hypocrisy
    a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

    You are the flip side of the coin that has the Far Right. Both of you do great harm to the Middle, and both of you are willingly used by politicans.

    Parent

    In other words (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:28:43 AM EST
    shut up and let us on the Far Right spin this the way we want; we're allowed to comment on this case, you aren't.

    Just some more friendly advice from someone who's always tried to be of help to those on the left side of the aisle.

    Parent

    Just some facts (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:50:34 AM EST
    from someone who is an Independent and would like to see problems solved rather than used as cheap gotchas by both sides.

    Parent
    Encore (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by glanton on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:14:43 PM EST
    "Republicans hate gay persons."

    Parent
    That's a large brush your spreading tar with. (1.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:58:39 PM EST
    Broad Brush? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 05:22:42 PM EST
    You must be kidding. The GOP platform today is notoriously anti gay.  See what the Log Cabin Republicans have to say about the party leadership.

    They pulled their support from Bush, and Dole returned a $1000. campaign contribution from them.

    Yes there are plenty of out republicans but the leadership hates them.

    Parent

    Log Cabin Repubs are Repubs (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 08:22:22 PM EST
    Sure Are (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:31:33 PM EST
    And they have distanced themselves from all the gay hating republican leadership you regularly shill for.  

    Parent
    That wasn't the claim. (1.00 / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 11:54:09 AM EST
    "Republicans hate gay persons."  was G;anton's claim.

    Please try and keep up.

    Parent

    It Is True (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 12:29:14 PM EST
    THat the Official Republican position is to hate gays. There may be some deviant republicans who stray from that stance but those are certainly a vast minority.

    Your technical point is not only meaningless but insignificant, save for the fact that once again you are shilling for the GOP rather than defending your alleged support for GLBT equal rights.

    Parent

    To Add (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by glanton on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 12:44:44 PM EST
    to Squeaky's clarification.

    There is something particularly noxious to me about these "deviant republicans who stray from that stance."  Noxious, that is, to hear one who has voted GOP lament that party's ongoing effort to demonize homosexuals and demolish their civil liberties.  

    I've never been a big fan of crocodile tears, you see.

    Also Jim, you will please note that "Republicans hate gay persons" is in Jeralyn's original post.  And it is well said, for all the reasons you have been given, and then some.

    Parent

    Oops (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by glanton on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 12:46:31 PM EST
    And of course, I have been reflexively ascribing BTD's words to Jerlayn.  BTD is the one to remind us "Republicans hate gay persons."  Well done, BTD.

    Parent
    Glanton (1.00 / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 02:29:59 PM EST
    Saying that "Republicans hate gay persons" is obviously incorrect, no matter who says them.

    That BTD said them is not surprising. Aggressive attacks to stir the base is very much his style.

    That you and squeaky accept them speaks to you.

    I would say that some Demos, some Repubs.... that is "some people" hate gays.

    That Repubublican's hold policy positions re gay marriages and gay rights that I am against, and that "some Repubs and some Demos and some people are also against those policies is obviously correct.

    I repeat. When you say things like "Repubs hate gays..." you are painting with too large a brush.

    Parent

    squeaky shows his colors (1.00 / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 02:09:48 PM EST
     
    It Is True (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 12:29:14 PM EST
    THat the Official Republican position is to hate gays.

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.



    Parent
    PPJ lies Again (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 02:16:03 PM EST
    You just can't help yourself. Whenever anyone points out your dishonesty you feel smeared. I have an idea, stop lying, you may feel better about yourself.

    Parent
    And about 15 months later 3/3/07 (1.00 / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 02:33:08 PM EST
    Squeaky demonstrated that he had no regreats.

    I have no problem with alleging that Rove's grandparents were Nazi's. Even if they were not, he uses Goebbels' propaganda techniques as a bible and may as well be a born and bred Nazi.

    Those are your words.

    Parent

    PPJ Smear King (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 02:55:42 PM EST
    Your out of context quote that you repeat is an intentional lie. It is a distortion that winds up drastically changing the meaning and intent on of a sentence I wrote in the context of our discussion about Rove.

    Your lie claims that I am emulating Rove's practice of smearing his political opponents by placing outright lies, half truths and distortions in the MSM thorugh his right wing media sources.
    Nothing could be farther fron the truth.

    In fact you are the one who emulates Rove's dirty tricks here by relentlessly changing the original meaning of my words by taking them out of context.

    It is obvious now that you are thoroughly dishonest and your lies are not just born out of stupidity.

    Parent

    Not if your evidence (none / 0) (#60)
    by glanton on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 07:51:29 PM EST
    is policy positions.  People who vote Republican facilitate Republican policies.  

    Parent
    Glanton (1.00 / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 12:02:22 PM EST
    Politics is the art of the possible. And acts that they do should always be measured against what you disagree with.

    Would you agree that you Congressman Kennedy was wrong to commit DUI, an act that certainly can be demonstrtaed to lead to death and grave injury to innocent victims?

    I hope you would not.

    Do you think that voting for him enabled his DUI??

    Do you think that voting for LBJ enabled his expansion of the war in Vietnam and yet his War on Poverty and Civil Rights record should be ignored??

    Like I said, you use a wide brush. A very wide brush.

    Parent

    A Bad example and a good one (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by glanton on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 12:25:22 PM EST
    Do you think that voting for him enabled his DUI??

    That's a bad example.  The answer to the question is NO.  Tragically, many are the people caught DUI every day, the overwhelming majority of whom are not Congressmen.  Whether or not he was voted for has no bearing on it.

    Do you think that voting for LBJ enabled his expansion of the war in Vietnam and yet his War on Poverty and Civil Rights record should be ignored??

    I commend you on this one, it's a good un.  Although, did either Kennedy or Johnson ever run for office on the platform of, we're gonna start and escalate this huge debacle in Vietnam?  

    But to your question, LBJ's escalation of Vietnam significantly tarnishes his other accomplishments.  Personally, I pretty much do ignore his domestic record.  In any case, he can be no hero, this man whose glib decisions led to the slaughter of so manh Americans.  

    Civil Rights could have ben fought for without the slaughters, I would hope.


    Parent

    Nope. If I understand your claim (1.00 / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 02:40:47 PM EST
    voting for Repubs enables their "bad" actions. Did voting for Kennedy enable his? Obviously not.

    etc for LBJ. Obviously not.

    And I did not connect the war with the civil rights struggle.

    Parent

    Jim (1.00 / 0) (#79)
    by glanton on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 02:57:45 PM EST
    There are personal actions and then there is policy.  Do you seriously propose to put drunk driving on a same plane with crafting legislation?

    And actually, people who voted for LBJ did enable his asinine escalation of the Vietnam War.  Because were he not President he wouldn't have been in a position to do it.  Give all the Civil Rights credit to him that you want, LBJ died with a helluva lot of innocent blood on his grubby hands.  If there is a hell, and if there is any kind of "no harm" element to escaping it, then LBJ is surely roasting even as we post.

    (Although I suppose you could argue there was, atthe time, enough idiot kool-aid domino theory contaminating the (already contaminated) halls of power that anyone in the White House would have glibly plunged all those Americans to their vain deaths.)

    But back to the regularly scheduled topic of this thread.  No matter how you parse it, the voters who keep putting the GOP in power, and thus doing real harm to gay people, can hardly expect to be taken seriously in asserting that they bear no ill will towards gay people.  

    And even if you strangely fail to see the truth of this, surely you're not so blind as to see that the GOP Leadership is in fact overtly hostile to gay people.

    I stand by BTD's observation, it needs to be said again and again and again!!!!!

    "Republicans hate gay persons."

    Parent

    A reason to comment (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by glanton on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:13:19 PM EST
    While not caring whether Craig is gay, straight, or even a Cincinatti Reds fan:

    Jeralyn puts it best.  These incidents shine light:

    the problem Republicans face on this matter - they hate gay persons.

    How distilled.  How true.

    Parent

    hypocrisy on top of hypocrisy (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by 1980Ford on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:10:26 PM EST
    Who supports the police with a blind eye? Who favors the police in appeals? Who thinks the solutions to all life's problems is more police power rather than those bleeding heart liberal programs? Again, the Right reaps what it sows.

    While on the subject, what appeals court would give a hoot about a defendant who knowingly and intelligently waives counsel and pleads guilty? That argument wouldn't survive the plain error test, another gift from the right.

    There is far more hypocrisy here that the sexual angle.

    (Posted here since more on point here.)


    Craig to reporters: 'Thanks for coming out ... ' (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Ellie on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:20:39 PM EST
    And it went downhill from there. Apparently, the stress from the enquiries of the Statesman "made" Craig invasively solicit men for sex in the next stall, plead guilty when arrested, and in a fit of indignation, not tell anyone that all of this occurred.

    Sen Craig's statement's up at his Senator's web site.

    The Smoking Gun has documents relating to the arrest.

    His harumphing fellow moral valumentarians are either calling for his head or demanding head: it's so hard to tell with this bunch.

    My Take Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:44:33 PM EST
    Thank you for coming out.....Talk about displaced wishful thinking.  What a twist case. Guess that is life on the plantation.

     INOK[tbg]IYAR.

    Parent

    Gay Old Pedophiles (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:25:29 PM EST
    GOP head start program leadership.

    Parent
    NPR featured an academic "expert," who (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:50:24 PM EST
    opined men who are looking for liasons via men's bathrooms are older and not internet savvy. They grew up in the era where any physical contact between homosexual was itself a crime. Many arrests in public bathrooms throughout the 60s and 70s.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:22:23 PM EST
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 06:37:47 PM EST
    This is delusional.

    Heh! (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 06:47:01 PM EST
    This is jarobster.

    Parent
    Salivating like Pavlov's dogs... (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by lespool on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:43:43 AM EST
    I don't think Republicans or Christians hate gays because of moral reasons in spite of the rhetoric they spew. Their obsessive prurient thoughts about homosexuals can only mean one thing. They're gay and it's high time they face their sexuality --- like "a man" coming out of the closet. If they don't have the integrity to acknowledge their own sexuality fer crying out loud, then they haven't any integrity at all and can't be trusted --- ever.

    Gays don't seem to be getting (none / 0) (#6)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:31:55 PM EST
     a lot of love here today either. I've read comments blaming gays for domestic repression, torture, starting wars, dirty politcs, etc.

      Evidently, it's considered OK to make such sweeping generalizations about a class of people if you target only closeted gays who advocate policies you oppose.

      Seems to me that such attempts to define people by, and explain non-sexual actions as controlled by,  sexuality is barely distinguishable from what righ-wing hatchet men do.
     

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:38:15 PM EST
    You apparently haven't read (none / 0) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:41:52 PM EST
    the other Craig threads...

    Parent
    Apparently not (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:43:25 PM EST
    You miss the magic word: REPRESSION (none / 0) (#20)
    by Dadler on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:33:16 PM EST
    It ain't the sexuality that causes the bad stuff, it's the repression of it.  This leads to a vile self-loathing, which is projected onto others -- who must bear the brunt of this hypocrisy in power.

    Parent
    gotta say, as you've demonstrated before (none / 0) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:45:48 PM EST
    with that CO preacher guy and the football player at your HS, I think you've got this guy pegged.

    It is an interesting thing though, repressed desires. Surely there are many repressed desires we all have? From the simple desire to perhaps take something that doesn't belong to us, to desire to drink that last glass of wine too many, to desire to kick the ass of that guy who took our parking spot and then laughed at us, to wanting anonymous gay head in a bathroom, etc.

    Do we get vile self-loathing from all repressed desires? Or just the sexual ones?

    Parent

    Ordinary Sexual Desire (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:53:24 PM EST
    Is very different than the examples you mention. All the things you mention are either immoral, illegal, or about excess. If sexual orientation were any of those things your hunch would be correct.

    Parent
    Yowza. (1.00 / 0) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:58:11 PM EST
    Dadler?

    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:59:17 PM EST
    Squeaky (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:56:37 PM EST
    the simple desire

    Thought Jimmy Carter was the last Demo to be concerned about lust in his heart.

    Parent

    The same old song (none / 0) (#12)
    by LaPopessa on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:03:34 PM EST
    Conservative guy votes against gay rights or speaks out against gay rights while hitting on men. Is it self-delusion? Self-destructiveness? For goodness sakes guys, it's 2007. If you're gay, BE GAY! Ever hear of Log Cabin Republicans? It's permissible to be gay and Republican (stupid, IMHO, but permissible). But using people (as a woman I do always feel for the wives in these cases - always trotted out for the first "it wasn't me" press conference) is not right.

    He's NOT gay (none / 0) (#17)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:26:52 PM EST
    He's bi. He does women too.

    Parent
    What do you call someone who lies with everyone? (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Ellie on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:34:18 PM EST
    A Republican.

    (Thanks ... try the veal.)

    Parent

    That was a third grade level (1.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Pancho on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 12:03:58 PM EST
    joke. Why would someone rate that a "5"?

    Parent
    Over your head, I guess.... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Edger on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 01:15:18 PM EST
    Picture a gaggle of 3rd grade girls (none / 0) (#74)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 02:31:01 PM EST
    on the playground at school. There, now do you understand?

    Not a slam on 3rd grade girls, btw, just an observation...

    Parent

    I find it (none / 0) (#77)
    by Pancho on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 02:44:54 PM EST
    to be bizarre that these people come out with juvenile comments that barely make sense, and then congratulate each other over how clever they are.

    My three year old has better material:

    "Inch me and Pinch me were riding in a boat....."

    Parent

    Wait'll your 3 year old is in third grade. (none / 0) (#81)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 02:59:06 PM EST
    (My son just started 3rd grade) Watch the the 3rd grade girls at recess or lunch.

    The similarities between their dynamics and those of many (most?) of the "raters" on this site are striking...

    Parent

    Republicans hate gay persons (none / 0) (#82)
    by glanton on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 03:09:24 PM EST
    That was funny n/t (none / 0) (#28)
    by dutchfox on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:56:32 PM EST
    He may be gay, but he is not guilty (none / 0) (#32)
    by truth2pwr on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 06:03:55 PM EST
    Accepting the police officer's description of Senator Craig's actions as true, Craig is not guilty of any crime. Placing your luggage by the door, tapping you feet on the floor, kicking the police officer's foot, and thrice moving your palm in the direction of the door is by no stretch of the imagination a criminal act.  Any statute that permits such acts to be considered criminal ought to be declared unconstitutional as void for vagueness. The police officer shot his wad (ahem, showed his badge) to quickly resulting in a premature arrest.  Criag is right, he should have sought the advice of an experienced criminal defense attorney before entering the plea.  The constitution also applies to hypocritical homophobic homosexuals.

    According to NPR today, he went back (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 06:07:45 PM EST
    to Minnesota to try and get the arrest report and sd. it was on the advice of his lawyer. To me, it seems he was trying to keep the whole situation as quiet as possible and figured pleading guilty would accomplish that, if anything would.

    Parent
    Couple things, according to Wiki, (none / 0) (#34)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 06:11:49 PM EST
    all three of his children are adopted (they are from his wife's first marriage) and he supports some things many here support as well. He supports a guest worker program and:
    In April 2005, Craig attempted to amend an Iraq War supplemental bill with an AgJOBS amendment that would have granted legal status to between 500,000 and one million illegal immigrants in farm work.


    Supports some things many here support (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 06:28:35 PM EST
    So did Ted Bundy.

    Hell, I guess he deserved a pass too, just like you're giving Larry Craig?

    Parent

    Mwah ha ha haaaaa... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 06:33:35 PM EST
    If you think you have a case to make (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 06:30:34 PM EST
    Make it, and back up your BS.

    It's your case to wander around trying to make. Make it. Or go home.

    My gosh what do you suppose would (none / 0) (#47)
    by JSN on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 08:46:45 PM EST
    happen if hypocrisy were a crime?

    then we wouldn't need any jails (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jen M on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 04:09:37 AM EST
    just put bars around the country

    Parent
    You mean a fence? (none / 0) (#56)
    by 1980Ford on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    So that explains that.

    Parent
    Republicans hate gay persons (none / 0) (#80)
    by glanton on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 02:58:16 PM EST