In its continuing coverage of Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), the Associated Press now reports:
A government watchdog group filed an ethics complaint against Idaho Sen. Larry Craig Tuesday after Craig said he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges stemming from complaints of lewd conduct in a men's room. . .
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a complaint with the Senate ethics committee seeking an investigation into whether Craig violated Senate rules by engaging in disorderly conduct.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) may qualify to be described as a government watchdog group. What the Associated Press should have told its readers is that CREW is an extraordinarily partisan watchdog group.
According to its Web site, CREW has initiated lawsuits or lodged complaints against Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL), Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA), and House minority leader John Boehner (R-OH).
Moreover, CREW has launched Federal Election Commission complaints against the campaign committees of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), and former speaker of the House Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL).
Oh, and then there's CREW's complaint against Rep. Duncan Hunter's (R-CA) leadership PAC. And, of course, CREW has sued the Bush administration.
Even the Associated Press should be able to recognize a pattern here. It owes it to readers to clarify that this watchdog group only watches one side.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Craig is a pervert
August 28, 2007 - 13:59 ET by GalvanicCREW may be a partisan watchdog group, but Craig left himself vulnerable to them.
It has nothing to do with Craig's homosexuality, but everything to do with seeking anonymous sex in men's room stalls. He and kindred soul McGreevey have no business being in public office.
Craig
August 28, 2007 - 14:08 ET by Mike BatesMaybe if the senator had announced he's "a gay American" and switched parties, CREW would have left him alone.
I agree that Craig has left himself, his party and his policy positions vulnerable to ridicule.
Maybe?
August 28, 2007 - 15:08 ET by acumenMaybe if the senator had announced he's "a gay American" and switched parties, CREW would have left him alone.
Maybe? I would bet the house Mike.
switching to D would be the
August 28, 2007 - 15:11 ET by TruthMongerswitching to D would be the key, yes...
value folks like me don't claim to be flawless, we just aspire to high ideals, we still fall from grace...
But this fact doesn't mean the left can't twist this situation to their advantage as usual
Did Sen. Craig say he's gay ? Or that he solicited?
August 28, 2007 - 17:11 ET by SportPoliticsLook, you guys are jumping to conclusions. Did you read what supposedly "happened", to cause this charge? It's a JOKE.
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/08/gop_senator_larry_craig_arrested_for_lewd_conduct.php
It's just amazing that all of a sudden "he is gay" according to everyone commenting, when you all - as far as I can tell, have no idea what happened.
I don't think he did anything wrong at all. Read what happened. You accidentally bump of a foot of a jackbooted thug trying to make you do it, and then wave, and "you're busted".
The CRIME here is mr piglet and his homophobe psycho police tactics.
"
I detect some rose-colored glasses...
August 28, 2007 - 17:29 ET by sarcasmoRead The Smoking Gun's take on the issue. Do you REALLY think this cop knew he was busting a Senator instead of a random-restroom-homo??
"In a press conference today, Craig claimed he "did nothing wrong at the Minneapolis airport," contradicting the plea agreement he signed earlier this month. That document, a copy of which can be found here, includes an acknowledgement that the court will not accept a plea from anyone who believes they are innocent."
Somehow, I think your take on this allegation might be a tiny bit different were this a Democrat instead of a Republican.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
The plea agreement is admission of guilt, plain and simple
August 28, 2007 - 18:47 ET by GalvanicThanks for the Smoking Gun link, sarcasmo.
Craig's entire explanation is so poor, it sounds like it was written for him by a junior high school student. His subsequent recanting of his guilty plea is nothing more than the desperate rant.
1. What adult would ever sign that plea agreement that he signed if he knew he was not guilty? The document makes it very clear that claims of innocense are not acceptible if the plea is accepted.
2. What US Senator doesn't have an attorney at his/her beck and call? What US Senator doesn't have at least one attorney friend whom he/she could rely on to keep matters discreet? What US Senator would sign anything without consulting an attorney?
Sorry. Craig's been exposed by his own reckless men's room cruising. In Massachusetts, he could probably run for governor, but I don't think it's going to play well with the citizens of Idaho.
Galvanic, Craig's guilty plea
August 28, 2007 - 19:10 ET by Mike BatesIt's gonna be rough for those of us - and I'm one of them - who considered Bill Clinton's paying $850,000 in the Paula Jones' lawsuit an admission of wrongdoing, to now justify Craig's guilty plea as anything other than an admission.
Since we're being-honest here...
August 28, 2007 - 19:21 ET by sarcasmoI generally take joy in the downfall of all politicians, but Sen. Craig had been one of the few reliably pro-gun ones left these days. I'm not as happy as I was with the Ted Stevens thing, even though the sex-aspect means better tasteless jokes to be cracked.
Still, I don't think this police officer could have possibly known the old guy he was arresting was a Senator. Larry Craig isn't exactly Ted Kennedy, and to me in an airport he'd look like just-another-business-traveller, even if someone told me "that's a US Senator."
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
sarc, Since we're being-honest here...
August 28, 2007 - 19:25 ET by Mike BatesSince we're being-honest here...
No one told me that was a requirement around here. Bummer.
Only sometimes...
August 28, 2007 - 19:28 ET by sarcasmoThis being politics. :) But I thought your comments were indeed honest, because like me you probably can think of a half-dozen different politicians you'd like to see facing this. And even if I have no mercy for the man, I'm kinda sorry for the family. Just not sorry-enough not to joke about it!
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
No mercy, sarc
August 28, 2007 - 19:30 ET by Mike BatesAnd even if I have no mercy for the man, I'm kinda sorry for the family.
Agreed. This must be devastating for his wife, children, and children's children. Very sad.
No sarc
August 29, 2007 - 01:16 ET by SportPoliticsI don't really think that child cop could know a Senator when he works the airport where the same ones come through all the time.
The court document is stupid. Thousands of people make plea agreements, or sign off on a ticket or any other of a dozen scenarios just to pay the money and get the heck out of there.
AS I said, accoring to the police report itself, he "violated space" by placing his fingers where they could be seen, and is claimed to have "breached the stall space" of the pigboy with them.
I guess for freaks and their freaky underground "known tips" - it's a crime.
They basically charged him with " violation of someone else's "personal 3 foot zone" of space".
Whatever, I think the cops and his little bust crew are KOOKBALLS.
So, an airport where the same Senator travels all the time and the TSA and congressional work, and the detective sitting outside the restroom, and the POC there, and the call to dispatch that "they got one"...and the fact that after the Senator identified himself with his business card the punk cop states he "responded by asking for his ID" again ( since he already knew whom he had).
Pretty doubtful to me they didn't know. In fact if they don't know the senators that are travelling through their airports, I guess security is a joke.
Here's some roses for you sarc:
August 29, 2007 - 01:19 ET by SportPoliticsLC guilty plea from the legal ducuments - I did the following:
Engaged in conduct I knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm or resentment of others which conduct was physical versus verbal) in nature.
I guess it's a law now that people can't be made to "feel offended" - and when they are - or COULD be - gosh it's LEWD.
Glad you have 6 or 8 other people in government you want this to happen to. Glad those Libertarian justice principles are so strong.
ROSE COLORED libertarian: I like the government busting people for taking a **** in a public restroom.
Like it or not, and apparently you don't...
August 29, 2007 - 03:52 ET by sarcasmoWe have in this case what's called a guilty plea. That means "game over, you lose" for libertarians just like it does for anyone else. Politics has nothing to do with this, it's consistency. For example, I've never seen you act this "innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to the hysterical-issue for you of illegal drugs -- indeed, quite the opposite -- so your words seem a bit inconsistent philosophically.
Look, I simply don't believe the Senator's denial on TV, and you apparently DO believe him. More power to ya, I wish I shared your faith, at least from a 2nd Amendment POV if not a comedy-POV. I will say this, though...Apparently, it isn't the FIRST allegation regarding this particular Senator and a public mens-room -- by a long-shot (and I've smelled the one in Union Station personally, believe me when I tell you it's not a romantic scent!). This time, it just came from a cop who was working that beat, and even if the officer DID know that he's a senator (you apparently think so, I still don't) it's an ethical issue just-how Craig treated telling him about it.
Again, I ask our readers, if not you: "mightn't SP's reaction be a tiny bit different for a Democrat in the same factual situation of pretty-obvious guilt?" And do you really believe this airport police officer (who sounds experienced in these matters -- I sure as hell know I'm not tappin' my foot in any way the next time life forces me to take yet-another airport-dump!) would let political corruption influence his job in this case? (Irony-again, sounds like me with tax and spend drugwar corruption!) Hell, with my luck, I'd be tappin' my foot to that classic Willie Nelson tune: "Cowboys Are Frequently Secretly (Fond Of Each Other!)"! :)
Finally, I'm a pretty-big guy, and I also might occasionally take a pretty "wide stance" (this is one softball-reason why I can't wait for Comedy Central's take!) when using public facilities. My feet never leave my own stall, and they especially don't go anywhere near the man in the next stall's foot.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
What a joke you are sarc
August 29, 2007 - 13:33 ET by SportPoliticsWhat a shameful parody of libertarianism you have here.
Now you're crazy enough to view a tapping foot, a placed roller bag, and a shoe bump as a crime, and you're gung ho on making sure a "guilty" plea is the end of your minds reach.
THe prior accusations are 1982 - page liars admits he made it up, and 1967 - a college student claims a "pass wade made at him" ( not something the rebelling lib hippies of that era would do to a "fuddy duddy" is it ? ).
It doesn't have to do with belief, it has to do with your insane idea that what the police report CLAIMS happened should be agains the law, or that the person charged "did anything" wrong.
Of course I'm more than certain your FANTASY BRAIN is in full gear over the entire matter, and with the rest of your "he's guilty" creepos, the crime is something that never happened in that rest room, but happpened in some dark corner of debauchery somewhere none of you have yet to discover.
You're all a shame to freedom and to the USA, where your ideas of justice amount to your "imaginary" scenarios being the law enforcement equivalent of a STUPID charge carried on as the punishment you FEEL is deserved for something not discovered or proven in ANY court concerning the accused.
Now, you want to claim my ideas concerning drug useage are "just as crazy" as the loopy wackout so many have had over this LC issue.
Drug are illegal for a reason, including those prescribed, to others that haven't a doctors declaration of need.
Bumping a shoe or tapping a toe is NOT, except in this case, for the freakshow homophobic wack jobs on a hunt for their "guilty" no doubt mentality victims.
I've never seen so many people who display common sense in so many other areas get so dumb so quickly.
Good luck to you, maybe LC will appear weeping on TV soon, and you can claim there was some crime - from bumping a foot or tapping a toe in tile.
PROUD libertarians everywhere should hear how your crime enforcement expansions are part of your new life in supporting the overlords of control.
the wishful thinking of the
August 29, 2007 - 13:43 ET by TruthMongerthe wishful thinking of the left gets them in trouble every time...
these people are "walking conserative-scandal erections"
their always thinking with their "agenda" instead of their brains:)
This "lefty"
August 29, 2007 - 17:46 ET by sarcasmoAs we all know, want's a WAY more-austere government than many here, probably including you (see for example the tax & spend drugwar-failure thread on the forum). Spending less on stupid holy failures = smaller government, in my book. :)
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Goodness gracious.
August 29, 2007 - 17:44 ET by sarcasmoAll I'm saying is that I believe the cops. You're all ready to convict e-gold pre-any-trial when you're trying to berate me on other threads for doing stuff like exposing jury manipulation, care to try on a single standard for a change? :) Experience suggests Sen. Craig may be a liability to our party because, to be brutally frank, it looks like he might be about as queer as a $3 bill. The Republican party is more important than Larry's closet, to me, at least, this election...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Yes, we both believe the cops sarcasmo
August 29, 2007 - 19:21 ET by SportPoliticsYes, we both believe the cops sarcasmo, but that's still a problem.
I know for you it isn't, since you believe the cops said he tried to anally rape him right there.
LOL
" I believe the cops" saith the libertarian - declaring his gay guilty verdict...
roflmao
It makes me think you'd enjoy people like yourself after "the truth telling cops" arrested you for sprinkling extra oregano on your pizza in a public restaurant. You pled out guilty to a food service violation, but the nation destroyed you for being a dope smoke pizza buzz boy. ( not that you aren't, nor that you shouldn't be, nor that you should be busted for it, the point is it was oregano...but that of course wouldn't matter, and it certainly doesn't now in the Larry Craig case, because you wouldn't believe yourself, and neither would anyone else like you, of which there are an awful lot )
The Duke case rides again !
sarc, Stance by your man
August 29, 2007 - 17:31 ET by Mike BatesMaybe Sen. Craig, a former singing senator, should think about making a record, "Stance by Your Man." "Willie and the Hand Jive" could be on the flip side, if there's such a thing these days.
Here is another clue sarcasmo
August 29, 2007 - 16:21 ET by SportPoliticsas to the cop knowing whom he was busting...
" Sen. Larry Craig, who in May told the Idaho Statesman he had never engaged in homosexual acts, was arrested less than a month later by an undercover police officer who said Craig made a sexual advance toward him in an airport men's room."
Please feel free to wonder how the investigation led to a toe tapping foot bumping hand waving charge that all you declared was seconds away from the desired "anal penetration" you've determined is the crime.
LOL
Here's some more fodder for your brains, lotsa of little goodies, the lib masters declare their most secret yet most reliable accusation, and discard many more they couldn't "prove" or as they say "verify".
I'm sure this will help all of you confirm yourselves the glorious know it alls you believe yourselves to be. Got that gut cop instinct in full bloom I'm sure.
" In an interview on May 14, Craig told the Idaho Statesman he'd never engaged in sex with a man or solicited sex with a man. The Craig interview was the culmination of a Statesman investigation that began after a blogger accused Craig of homosexual sex in October. Over five months, the Statesman examined rumors ...
The most serious finding by the Statesman was the report by a professional man with close ties to Republican officials. The 40-year-old man reported having oral sex with Craig at Washington's Union Station, probably in 2004. The Statesman also spoke with a man who said Craig made a sexual advance toward him at the University of Idaho in 1967 and a man who said Craig "cruised" him for sex in 1994 at the REI store in Boise. The Statesman also explored dozens of allegations that proved untrue, unclear or unverifiable. .... "
There ya go, mounds of anonymous proof the paper has sworn to protect the identities of. Many names and videos, nothing left unopened. LOL
Pales in the light of all the evidence against Karl Rove, but hey he perp walked too.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/273/story/143801.html
Yes, I believe the Idaho Statesman OWNS you all.
as with Mobil Oil...
August 29, 2007 - 16:25 ET by sarcasmoIf they've paid me off, all I have is my usual plaintive question that always draws disappointing responses: "Where's My Check???" And don't get me wrong, I'm cheap! I'll take 'most anything! ;)
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Good time to joke sarc... a bit more news for you.
August 29, 2007 - 16:33 ET by SportPoliticsFrom the Idaho Statesman, who went on their hunt in May - same article :
"Former Democratic Rep. Larry LaRocco announced in April that he will run for the Senate. "
So, the democrat announces in April, by MAY the paper is on a gay accusation hunt against the republican, by JUNE there are specious charges filed, and by AUGUST all of you declare him guilty of being a queer hypocrit, and the paper talks about him retiring.
I'd say they don't have to pay you sarc. They just OWN you.
Waving your hand under a stall divider
August 28, 2007 - 19:13 ET by Mike BatesWaving your hand under a stall divider doesn't sound very innocent to me. Does it to you?
Sounds pretty odd.
August 28, 2007 - 19:15 ET by Free StinkerSounds pretty odd.
sounds very strange - still
August 29, 2007 - 13:44 ET by TruthMongersounds very strange - still - not illegal...
Men having sex with men used to sound strange...
Maybe someday we will accept hand wavers as people too
Mike, Read on down the
August 28, 2007 - 19:19 ET by BlondeMike,
Read on down the thread a way...it sounds perfectly innocuous to me (from my female POV).
Why did I not realize this was your blog post? Sound of hand smacking head! Too funny.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde, That sound of hand smacking head!
August 28, 2007 - 19:23 ET by Mike BatesSound of hand smacking head!
Blonde, you coulda had a V8.
I did read further down the thread and didn't find the contentions there - or Craig's "defense" - very creditable. (from my old white man POV)
Mike, Check your e-mail
August 28, 2007 - 19:31 ET by BlondeMike,
Check your e-mail (the real one).
Then tell me if you're speaking to me in the morning.
LOL!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde, in the morning.
August 28, 2007 - 19:42 ET by Mike BatesThen tell me if you're speaking to me in the morning.
Blonde, my experience has always been that no one talks to me in the morning.
BTW, I just checked the email. Sorry, but I've gotta turn you into Reverend Robertson for that one. :)
Mike,
August 28, 2007 - 19:48 ET by BlondeI know....
Just couldn't resist....waiting for Bill to enter through that door, though.
Sorry....it was just toooooo funny!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Coverage
August 28, 2007 - 14:16 ET by JDWWho does not believe Bubba didn't define sexual misconduct?
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Sexual misconduct
August 28, 2007 - 14:18 ET by Mike BatesWho does not believe Bubba didn't define sexual misconduct?
I'm still having trouble with his definition of "is."
If...
August 28, 2007 - 14:30 ET by JDWIf he is guilty he owes it to the party to resign. The last thing we need is a war.
The libs will do just the opposite, make it known.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Why do Republicans always
August 28, 2007 - 14:47 ET by terrigWhy do Republicans always have to resign and not the Dems? It seems taking the "high road" gets us nowhere but ridiculed by those with no moral compass in the press and the donkey party. It's quite telling that they pile on. I think it's somewhat odd that Greevy or however he spells his name was allowed to carry on until he could fanagle a backwater way. He's hearalded as the enlightened homosexual who was just so put upon because he had to play straight. It's so stupid. Now he wants to be an Episcopalian Priest. Well, my grandmother in law says not in her Episcopal church.
I'm just sick and tired of the Republicans always resigning when the worst of the worst sit in office and look down their noses at the rest of us.
Policy
August 28, 2007 - 14:57 ET by JDWLibs do not incorporate issues, consider what they have done since taking office.
They hate Bush and in turn focus on removing his administration, disrupting his policies, creating government power...
Too many our our side are afraid to stand-up to the libs.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
this is not the high road
August 28, 2007 - 15:04 ET by TruthMongerits the idiot road I'm hearing here...
This is not cause for resignation whatsoever - he touched the other guys shoe in the next stall...this is completely ridiculous
And in terms of the alleged gay angle the MSM should be defending him if they're supposedly so tolerant right?
BF
August 28, 2007 - 15:07 ET by JDWBarney is still in office.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Yep - Barney the DEMOCRAT of
August 28, 2007 - 15:13 ET by TruthMongerYep - Barney the DEMOCRAT of course...
this will probably infuriate some folks
August 28, 2007 - 15:51 ET by sarcasmo(What's new, right?) Anyway, here goes...
First, for outraged conservatives: Yes, you've correctly-detected a double standard here, but I'd argue it's not just within the media but to an extent also in the US population at large. This is because of the "practice what you preach" ethic in American morality.
Discovering that Larry Craig (is? may-be?? I have no idea how to put this!) homosexual is, first of all, a bit of a surprise. Barney Frank wasn't a surprise, sexuality-wise (unless you count the business Barney somehow got-away with running with his boyfriend!) so Taxachusetts voters forgave him.
If it were somehow suddenly discovered that Barney Frank is secretly the owner of a low-wage sweatshop that shuns unions and fights increases in the minimum-wage, THAT would annoy the Taxachusetts voters, because Barney's not "SOLD" that way just as Larry Craig wasn't sold as gay, before today at least...Barney Frank is an "out" version of Waylon Smithers, and Taxachusetts voters like him that way. They don't want to suddenly-discover they've elected C. Montgomery Burns!
If Sen. Craig had secretly-owned the hypothetical anti-union sweatshop instead, it would be correspondingly less-damaging to him FOR THE SAME REASON. American voters like politicians who "practice what they preach." Idaho voters have just discovered they elected Waylon Smithers. To be brutally-frank, they'd really wanted Monty Burns, instead!
That's the difference, and in my admittedly cartoonish way, I hope I've somewhat-explained the double-standard on sexual orientation/behavior as a "practice what you preach" thing. Want to be a vehemently-anti-gay conservative? It helps not to be a homosexual at the same time.
I'm watching him deny it now. BS -- who knew The Onion would foresee his excuse (warning: crude language!). Seriously, I don't believe the politician. I believe the police officer who arrested him. That officer DID NOT know that he was arresting a Senator, and he wasn't secretly under the evil control of the Idaho Statesman.
All I can say at this point is that I can't wait for Stewart & Colbert. The idea that a US Senator is unsophistocated on these matters frankly strains credulity. This will be bad for our party, and it's likely to be especially-bad for 2nd Amendment rights, since Craig was pretty-good on that issue.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Who's looking?
August 28, 2007 - 15:57 ET by JDWInteresting how the libs anti-conservative war never goes noticed.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
not totally...
August 28, 2007 - 16:23 ET by sarcasmoWhen a mortgage company connected to John "2 Americas!" Edwards started foreclosing on New Orleans residents, the media rightly went after him despite their love for him. Again, it's all a "Practice What You Preach" kind of standard that's NOT going to be very helpful to Craig, if my prediction is correct.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
FP attacks
August 28, 2007 - 17:15 ET by JDWEdwards walked away from the NO fiasco with a sting. Once again, if it had been a conservative...
I am sick and tired of our side dancing to the lib toons. If Craig will stand up and fight, as far as I am concerned innocent until proven guilty. Maybe this is the time to show the rest of the red ducks who to follow.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
That's an amazing attitude sarc
August 29, 2007 - 01:01 ET by SportPoliticsI guess the only part of the government that is perfect is the coppers and the courtroom, to sarc the Libertarian.
I will enjoy watching you all eat yout hats on this.
You're all like idiot vultures when it comes to homo sex charges - especially with a pedophilic flavor, like litle pigboy gives it there.
Did you read the smoking gun ? I really doubt it, because if you read it and still think the senator is a "fag" or is "guilty" I guess calling you a LIbertarain has just ENDED for me.
11th and 11th -- and we'll see whose hat's on the menu...
August 29, 2007 - 15:46 ET by sarcasmoI'm the one who put the Smoking Gun link in, after all, and I stand by both it and the Onion-link (prescient, funnier, but quite profane!). I'm not like a vulture, I'm a normal guy, who has been in places like the Union Station mensroom, but just to pee. It's not a romantic place. Anyway, my homie BJ-Bob was nailed July 11th, and the Senator's similar day in a romantic mensroom was June 11th.
Since BJ Bob also is fighting it (this should be funny!) his case is now slightly different, plus he offered the $20, which greatly adds to the humor-factor in Florida's favor, as usual. What can I say? I don't care if you think I'm a libertarian anymore or not (I'm a Republican, weird as it sounds!) but in those 2 cases I simply believe the cops & doubt the politicians. We can wish it weren't true all we want, but it's lookin' true to me...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Barney is still in office.
August 28, 2007 - 19:19 ET by Mike BatesBarney is still in office.
Possibly because his constituents didn't hold it against him when he responded to a gay newspaper ad that said, "Hot bottom plus large endowment equals a good time."
My guess is the good people of Idaho might not be so "open-minded."
Barney's basement bonanza...
August 28, 2007 - 21:32 ET by JDWThe libs play book says 'circle the wagons', regardless of whatever wrongdoing occurred.
On the other side, we are simply squirrels being chased up and down trees across yards by libs who were either guilty of the same accusations or are making-up the current.
The more I consider our position, it is probably not worth the fight, but too many libs are sitting on shaky ground and deserve cause for concern.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Craig: I am not gay
August 28, 2007 - 16:02 ET by Mike BatesI'm just sick and tired of the Republicans always resigning. . .
Looks like Craig isn't going to be one of them. At least for now.
Fighter
August 28, 2007 - 16:06 ET by JDWAllow him to stand up to the other side and call them out.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Calling 'em out
August 28, 2007 - 16:15 ET by Mike BatesAllow him to stand up to the other side and call them out.
At this point, I don't think he can do that. The police report makes for some grim reading.
Sexual misconduct? Just read the log.
August 28, 2007 - 19:33 ET by Gary HallSexual misconduct? Just read the log.
Contacts between Clinton and Monica
Ah, what about Hot Tub Tom
August 28, 2007 - 15:06 ET by Chidi NwachukhuAh, what about Hot Tub Tom Delay?
what about Tom Delay?
August 28, 2007 - 15:32 ET by LionKingWhat about Tom Delay? How many times did the Democrat prosecutor have to convene a grand jury to get an indictment? The prosecutor should receive the same punishment as Nifong for abuse of power and misconduct.
It has everything to do with Craig's Homosexuality
August 28, 2007 - 14:38 ET by Lame CherryThe nonsense of the above post that bathroom sex is somehow perverted compared to sodomite sex being the issue is ridiculous.
This fantasy that all is "love" in homosexual land needs the bubble burst. Talk to homosexuals who aren't lying for propaganda purposes and you soon find out they are miserable, disconnected and acting out in perverse ways to end the misery.
The definition of perverted is not normal behavior. Perverts like Hugh Hefner to the gay lobby have expanded "normal" behavior to include perversion. For the record normal human sexual activity is male female in a monogomous life long marriage. This is not religious teaching, but pure nature law in how humans are made up by nature to continue their genus.
When human males are breeding like sheep with one ram impregnating the gene pool, it makes the gene pool weak in both mental and physical traits.......meaning Hugh Hefner's breed em all leaves disjointed children not capable of sustaining hardships and their combined 1000 children by one daddy makes them all vulnerable to the same disease which in the black death wipes out entire populations as a historical case study.
When you have rampant sexual contact, nature shows humans develop sexual diseases in an attempt to protect the species from degrading. If nature kills off the sexual perverts, then the human genus continues with those who are not subverting the best social traits to keep the species viable.
It doesn't matter how PC to how fake label homophobe the homosexual grouping tries to brand things, nature is the final judge and those laws define that same sex sex is wiped out by that greatest homophobe of all "mother nature".
All of this PC garbage is getting homosexuals killed by their own body parts. How obvious is it that a body waste system which is filled with virus and bacteria contamination that if you eat it causes Typhoid and Cholera that when you introduce sex into it that nature has a diseases waiting there for humans who do not know equate that eating it is just as bad as having sex with it.
I have researched, written and pleaded this case for years that homosexuals need Christian counselling in loving them and not this hateful enabling the liberals continue which is telling them to go jump off buildings and die if that is their thrill.
Larry Craig just destroyed his reputation and life over a sex act of all things. He desperately needs help like others. If you notice though the gay bashing is coming from the left once again from gays and those superior blue state humans.
Here am I not pleased with this Senator for his utter failure, but these liberals going on gay hunts are not helping this issue any more than Arnold declaring marriage is over in California. Sexual unions do not last as sex fetishes always wear out due to the body is a chemical reaction process. The only unions which endure are the spiritual type as they generate not in the body.
Mr. Craig needs help because he is perverted, not because of bathroom sex but because natural law and selection states his homosexual acts will kill him in one way or another.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Boy another FOOL
August 28, 2007 - 17:17 ET by SportPoliticsWow, talK about GUILTY before you ALL get yer head out of the TOILET you created in your own head.
How about YOU READ WHAT HAPPENED - BEFORE CLAIMING HE'S HUMPING REAR ENDS IN A PUBLIC BATHROOM OR GETING A MALE LEWINSKY?
GAWD WHAT MORONS! PLAYED BY THE LYING LEFT SO EASILY ! PLAYED - THEY OWN YOU !
SP...you might want to
August 28, 2007 - 19:34 ET by JerSP...you might want to check out Michelle Malkin [subbing for O'Reilly]. She basically has kicked him to the curb. Seems there is a history concerning Craig going back to 1982. (Guess the liberal media wasn't paying attention.)
Jer
Yeah I watched it, makes Craig even more innocent.
August 28, 2007 - 22:50 ET by SportPoliticsDid ya pay attention ? The newspaper that has been after him, and the demolibidiot standing there, had all the goods, right ?
The 1982 accusation was thrown out when the page recanted and said they lied. I read two others were caught having done it. So there you have another false accusation, with the liar admitting he lied. I quite underatnd once some 17 year old says it happened, the VAST MAJORITY of conservatives and republicans here will believe them no matter what, especially on a charge like homo-anal-sex.
Then the idiot - went to some reported collegiate in 1967 that said he felt " that he made a pass at him ". Yes, 1967, I wonder what that was like back then...
Of course, Larry Craig denied it.
So, we have a college age attack in the libbies hippydom years.
So we have 3 stories against the "religious right senator" - the "hypocrit".
All made up. #1 I felt he made a pass at me (1967 lib ) #2 He pumped me, I swear ! (1982 - oh page admits he lied and made it all up ) #3 He tapped his foot and I saw his fingers flick past. He's a cruiser, even though we never said a word to eachother.
Look, I don't believe a word of any of the charges. It didn't apear to me Malkin tossed him down the road, it apears she put the lib reporter on.
SportPolitics: If you're
August 28, 2007 - 23:46 ET by JerSportPolitics: If you're still not convinced about Malkin's opinion, check this link:
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/28/the-larry-craig-mess/
On the bright side for Repubs...Idaho has GOP governor
Jer
That's convincing Jer
August 29, 2007 - 17:01 ET by SportPoliticsYes, I see she is all a-rage with non-apology apology and creep.
Then she update cites a 1982 accusation, but fails to note the page claimed it was all a lie.
This topic and especially the pedo flavor of it turns many conservatives and republicans into raging moonbats.
SportPolitics and YOU FOOLS!
August 28, 2007 - 19:46 ET by Mike BatesYOU FOOLS!
You may wish to consider taking a refresher on How to Win Friends and Influence People.
Not that I'm personally offended, since I know you're not addressing me.
No I won't reconsider.
August 28, 2007 - 22:53 ET by SportPoliticsI'm not here to win friends. I'm here to call it as I see it, even if you don't like it.
I've seen the rush to judgement here before.
No rush to judgment.
August 29, 2007 - 11:59 ET by GalvanicThere's no rush to judgment, SP. The Senator signed a plea agreement that admits guilt. The document specifically says they he acknowledges that he knows he's guilty and that he cannot later claim innocense (which he is now doing).
Based on his confession and the plea agreement, Craig is guilty, and admitted so two months ago. There is no rush to judgment.
Sometimes you gotta go with the facts, SP. You can "call it as I see it," but Craig already made the call for you.
So now Galvanic writes the FOS law
August 29, 2007 - 15:07 ET by SportPoliticsI'm really surprised you're that ignorant. The document says nothnig AT ALL about what a person can claim or say in the future in a public address.
You've drank the koolaid of the left again, sucked it down whole, and now you're the master of free speech for the rest of his life, with your fantasy read of the court document, and your lifetime interpretation of control of his speech.
What a fool you are.
" and that he cannot later claim innocence"...
And where would that fantasy "later claim" be oh masterous mind mumbler? Ya think that might be in the court ?
I guess not, for YOU, that means his public speech is under your nazi watch forever. LOL
You're an amazing idiot. Please, show me the text again, with the two little red arrows... come on, you can do it gay basher. You've got the brains to prove your point.
I'd say it's time to charge him again, for speaking out in public in direct opposition of your declaration of his lack of right to do so. LOL
WOW.
Good job nazi man. We all believe ya, and have fun with ALL those inmates who have said they didn't do it, you've got a lot of charges to level.
\ROFLMAO
WHAT PLANET DO YOU LIVE ON ?
One moment I'll get the text and we can continue this discussion, it's gonna be a BLAST.
Galvanic, the living in his own fantasy poster.
August 29, 2007 - 15:21 ET by SportPoliticsOk time for the "documents" words, to prove that as you say: " he cannot later claim innocence".
litle red liberal arrow for mind numbed idiots --->
4. I understand the court will not accept a plea of guilty from anyone who claims to be innocent.
another idiots arrow from smoking gun ------->
5. I now make no claim that I am innocent of the charge to which I am entering a plea of guilty.
______________________________________
Ok, Galvanic, tell me where it says that in the future, said plantiff will never claim he was railroaded or a made a mistake ?
Come on big boy, you can pull it off. Put on that tinfoil hat and let me have it....
Galvanic, the living in his own fantasy poster.
August 29, 2007 - 15:36 ET by SportPoliticsOk time for the "documents" words, to prove that as you say: " he cannot later claim innocence".
litle red liberal arrow for mind numbed idiots --->
4. I understand the court will not accept a plea of guilty from anyone who claims to be innocent.
another idiots arrow from smoking gun ------->
5. I now make no claim that I am innocent of the charge to which I am entering a plea of guilty.
______________________________________
Ok, Galvanic, tell me where it says that in the future, said plantiff will never claim he was railroaded or a made a mistake ?
Come on big boy, you can pull it off. Put on that tinfoil hat and let me have it....
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig8.html
#4 is obviously for the courts protection, so that someone can't later claim they were lied to by their lawyer or the court, and thought they were claiming to be innocent and entering a NOT GUILTY plea. It delineates that the court won't accept such a condition in the proceedings.
#5 confirms that the defendant UNDERSTANDS they are now therefore declaring they plead guilty, and the document attests that the court is AWARE of that.
There is NOTHING in the document that says you can "read the mind" of the defendant and find out what "they really think or believe". They are NOT declaring to you or the court "what they believe". They are declaring for the matter in the court, that they have chosen to plead GUILTY. The document says the court won't accept a guilty plea from someone who " CLAIMS " to be innocent. It's says NOTHING about what the person believes privately about the matter. A CLAIM in court is a legal matter, and one cannot claim both guilt and innocence for the same charge in a court of law.
Once again, master of self deception, please tell me where the document says his public speech on the matter is curtailed and silenced for the rest of his life ?
You feel like his change of heart of mind, or his acknowledgement of a mistake should be AGAINST THE LAW ?
Or are you merely intensly upset that he can publicly say what he said, because there's no way in hell you're gonna believe him ?
You want him silenced that badly Galvanic ?
LOL - THE FOLLY OF FOOLS
It is scary for you that the court system of the USA may be such a hassle that many people for various reasons just say to hell with it and pay the money the court wants and move on with their lives ( as this Sen. had hoped to do ) ?
Are you certain that someone who pleads guilty believes they are, or in your wise totalitarian rules of mind control, if they personaly believe they are innocent, but are unwilling to fight in court for that, you somehow have a method of forcing them to declare themselves INNOCENT in their courtroom claim ?
What is it that has infected your mind ? Ask yourself that.
No rush to judgement says Galvanic
August 29, 2007 - 16:10 ET by SportPoliticsGalvanic " It has nothing to do with Craig's homosexuality..."
LOL
No rush to judgement. ROFLMAO
hahahahhahaha
Another LIAR.
I'm sure you "KNEW" his guilty plea was for cruising for gay sex in a public restroom, right there big boy ?
Winning friends and influencing people
August 29, 2007 - 13:37 ET by Mike BatesI'm not here to win friends.
Thanks. I figured that part out with the "YOU FOOLS!"
Yeah, I figured that part out with
August 29, 2007 - 14:36 ET by SportPoliticsthe fools who piled on just like the msm wanted them to.
The people who are here to watchdog just settled right down and lapped up that lib koolaid, just like their lib masters wanted them to.
Tough ain't it, when it's so clear, and now your whine is the offensive manner in which I pointed out the massive error, except that of course you weren't offended, you claimed, even though that is a lie, for sure.
Too bad crybaby. Keep crying about me, while the whole lot of you sucked those msm lies down like water.
I love the "wide stance"
August 29, 2007 - 15:39 ET by balboaI love the "wide stance" part. "Wide stance"? How wide are we talking here that your foot goes under the partition? Is he taking a leak or fielding ground balls?
taking a leak or fielding ground balls.
August 29, 2007 - 15:46 ET by MightyMouthTaking a dump bal, a dump. Unless of course he is gay, in which case you may be correct.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
OK, so the "wide stance"
August 29, 2007 - 15:51 ET by balboaOK, so the "wide stance" statment is even more ridiculous. Did he remove one leg completely from his pants to attain this stance?
Maybe he just wipes from
August 29, 2007 - 16:32 ET by MightyMouthMaybe he just wipes from the front. Did ya ever think of that?
Wait a minute! How do you do a "wide stance" with your pants around your ankles? Something smells fishy here!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
That's what I'm sayin'.
August 29, 2007 - 16:44 ET by balboaThat's what I'm sayin'. Wide stance, and I still don't get this whole "Oh I'll just plead guilty" bit.
Not many drop em to the floor
August 29, 2007 - 19:11 ET by SportPoliticsin a public restroom. Of course maybe a lot here do, they love that piss smell all over their trousers, it's almost as good the thrill of cruising.
I guess the Idaho Statesman has some issues, though. In the Malkin interview on O'Reilly Jer suggested I watch, their reporter said they were not going to publish anything about Larry Craig, until he made the plea.
Now that's interesting for at least one reason. All of a sudden they seem to claim to have "proof" or at the very least "verified" stories.
" In an interview on May 14, Craig told the Idaho Statesman he'd never engaged in sex with a man or solicited sex with a man. The Craig interview was the culmination of a Statesman investigation that began after a blogger accused Craig of homosexual sex in October.
During its investigation, the Statesman interviewed 300 people, visited the ranch where Craig grew up, and made two trips to Washington, D.C. "
http://www.idahostatesman.com/273/story/143801.html
So why does a paper go through all that trouble since last October, then declare they had no evidence to publish, but after a plea agreement on misconduct decide they can cook the goose and are certain most everyone will pile on, so they decide to publish ?
I know why, I wonder whom else does.
The GOP is getting totally played, and democrats are thrilled. Just remember that.
"
Last fall, Craig's neighbors at a Washington marina expressed disbelief at Rogers' attempt to out him. Ed Johnson is an openly gay man, former local elected official and has been an acquaintance and neighbor of Craig's off and on for 15 years. He is president of the Gangplank Slipholders Association, a neighbor to the smaller Capital Yacht Club, where Craig lives.
A Democrat, Johnson works for the American Humanists Association, which he describes as "the godless, liberal, left-wing atheists."
"If I thought there was truth to the rumor, I'd be first in line to out him," said Johnson, who agrees hypocritical public officials should be exposed.
"But after 15 years in a close-knit community where everybody knows everybody's business, to be that clandestine and never have anything said — it's just hard to imagine. I mean, if somebody has a fight and breaks up with their boyfriend or girlfriend, you know it the next day."
Clearly...
August 29, 2007 - 15:56 ET by sarcasmoHe's showin' the wide-stance Senatorial-sized love for Colbert/Stewart/Leno/Letterman/Conan/Stern/etc. IMO it's damn good, but it still doesn't beat "the black dude in the mensroom really scared me, so I went back inside & offered him $20 to let me $%^# him." Florida reigns in weirdness again, I'm afraid.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Maybe I'm alone on this,
August 28, 2007 - 17:52 ET by KhyrisMaybe I'm alone on this, but I don't really give a rat's butt what consenting adults do, even in the bathroom... just keep the door shut. I disagree that what he did should have been "criminal." No nudity was even seen, and if there's one place we can forgive partial nudity had it occurred, it's in the bathroom. Why is this "behavior" any different and more illegal than propositioning a woman at a bar? Did he offer money as in soliciting a prostitute? Not according to the police report. So what crime was committed? He touched some guy's shoe with his shoe and put his hand along the wall. He wasn't even peeping. Had this happened in a bar, touching a woman's shoe and then running his hand down the bar's rail, would this be an issue? Of course not, but the MSM runs with it because he might be gay, so they can play "gotcha."
I'm not defending him, just trying to clarify what exactly constitutes "criminal" in this instance....
Maybe he's gay, maybe he's not.... but he seems to have been able to divorce personal preference from voting in congress along side the interests of the country. Kudos for that. I wish more would vote with their brain instead of their bleeding heart.
The sad part is how conditioned GOP'ers are when accused of anything. Libby is doing time because he denied his involvement in a crime he didn't commit. Could it at all be likely that Craig would just plead guilty to just get-it-over with? What's more embarassing? Making a plea deal? Or being dragged through the mud for 6 months while the media does its own slanted "investigation" and make up who-knows-what as a bonus, and then doing REAL time for a crime you may not have committed in the first place?
Nice points Khyris,
August 29, 2007 - 14:41 ET by SportPoliticsbut you've got to understand the crew here knows he's a butt humping fag no matter what you say, or he says. That's the bottom line to these people. The power of the accusation has overwhelmed them, and they're on a mission from God. It's jihad time, and the republican in the crosshairs hasn't a chance in hell.
Larry Craig speaks
August 29, 2007 - 20:54 ET by SportPoliticshttp://media.idahostatesman.com/smedia/2007/08/28/13/respondtosource_1-2.source.prod_affiliate.36.mp3
Why he hasn't sued the lairs above.
The man who accused him turned democrat then decided he would accuse, this is the one with "close republican ties " said the Idaho Statesman. Close republican ties, except he bolted the party for the demcorats....excellent characterization .. rofl
"...the man who says he is certain he had a brief sexual encounter with Craig at Union Station, which is two blocks from Craig's office. The man said the sex occurred in two restrooms on a weekday afternoon. He estimated the encounter lasted three or four minutes.
The man's motive was twofold. A lifelong Republican, he recently had re-registered as a Democrat because he's angry with what he sees as the GOP's gay-bashing. Second, he was tired of Rogers picking on congressional staffers and offered him the chance to "out" a senator."
Yes, another glistening witness, still wet with democrat desires.
http://media.idahostatesman.com/smedia/2007/08/28/12/craigsource_1-2.source.prod_affiliate.36.mp3
Yeah, sorry, but I don't buy the msm demo spin machines lies, even though so many here have.
Here the reporter is humiliated, again:
http://media.idahostatesman.com/smedia/2007/08/28/13/marriageofconvenience_1-2.source.prod_affiliate.36.mp3
all 6 audios here > http://www.idahostatesman.com/273/story/143801.html