Not That Difficult

September 6, 2007
3:38 AM CST

Caught this argument from David Bernstein over at Volokh:

Why Should Larry Craig Resign?: OK, so he was caught soliciting sex in a public restroom. Not so good. But compare that with behavior by other Senators that is not leading to any resignations:

Bernstein then ends with this statement:

Compared to the every day malfeasance by Senators, accepted as business as usual, I’ll take a misdemeanor sex scandal any time.

Unfortunately, it’s a specious argument, because it implies that this is an “either/or” situation, which of course, it isn’t.

We should call for the resignation of perverts like Craig AND hound the other miscreants from office when they misbehave in Congress.

And yes, I know that Barney Frank will always get a free pass for, among others, running a prostitution ring from his Senate office, and when it comes to Ted Kennedy, he too has a free pass for life, both from the voters of Taxachusetts and from the Jackals Of The Press (JOTP), because both the above groups are riddled with socialist sympathizers and fellow-travelers. And shame doesn’t work on either group, because all they’re interested in is power—morality is only a weapon to be used against opponents. Shame only works on people with a conscience—and the amoral Left have none.

I am not interested in keeping Republican scoundrels in office simply because the Democrats are able to do that with theirs. At some point, we have to say “what’s right is right”—and keeping a pervert in office just because he votes the way we like, is wrong.

There are Republican politicians we can elect to office, politicians who are honorable and who will vote the way we like. All we have to do is identify them, and substitute them for the bad ones.

The Democrats can go to hell with their filthy criminals and amoral sleazeballs. We’re better than they are.

Comments

Bottom of Comments | Original Post

It’s his decided lack of judgement that bothers me.  You can’t be a restroom homotroll and expect to keep it a secret while holding an elected post.  He was very open to blackmail if he was desperate to stay in the closet and keep his family together. 

“No man has a right in America to treat any other man “tolerently” for tolerance is the assumption of superiority.  Our liberties are equal rights of every citizen” Wendell K. Willkie

I’m proud say that I serve on the good ship Intolerant Extremist.

Author ID: 67 | 9/6/2007 04:12 AM CST | #99708


I’m very tolerant of individual choice in sexual orientation; I’m very INTOLERANT of BS’ing the public about responsibility and trying to cover up your actions.
What you do inside your own four walls is not my business, Kim duToit’s business, Katie Couric’s business, or anyone ELSE’S business - except those people with whom you do it.
PERIOD.
UNLESS what you do there HARMS anyone OUTSIDE those walls - in which case, it becomes THEIR business as well.
Many people, here and elsewhere, will say this makes me a LibTard of one type or another. Kim knows better than that, so does Connie; so do those people on Kim’s blog whose opinion matters to me. The rest of the people here can believe what they wish; they will anyway.

As far as Mister Craig and his antics, he dropped the ball (you should pardon the pun, it was not intended) when he tried to cover up; IF he did nothing wrong, he should have stood up and said, “I did nothing wrong, there was no misconduct, lewd or otherwise, and if you think for one second there was, bring on your videotape and your testimony. Prove it. And when you fail to do so, prepare for the libel and defamation suit to follow!”
99 times out of 100, THAT is sufficient defense to shut up the political attackers; the 100th will keep on driving, and shoot themselves in the foot. In an actual criminal case, the DA will fold his cards unless he has what he considers an airtight case.
Larry Craig screwed the pooch - figuratively speaking. (pun intended here)

In other news, didja hear?

FRED ANNOUNCED!!! HE’S IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Author ID: 8889 | 9/6/2007 04:29 AM CST | #99711


Craig doesn’t belong in the Senate. That said, he’s an opportunity to attack liberals. Nobody is saying to keep him any longer than he’s useful to point out liberal hypocrisy! Attack attack attack! 
The name Barney Frank means nothing to most Americans. A large amount of the electorate wasn’t even born when Chappaquiddick went down. That thief Jefferson (not Thomas, see what I mean?) has almost disappeared and he’s still under indictment for bribery and remains in the House. Alcee Hastings was convicted for bribery! Byrd was a Grand Kleagle (or some such poobah ) in the Klan.

And we do nothing but apologize. Well, I’m not sorry about what that chickenshit Lott said!

There’s plenty of time to dump Craig! Who really gives a rat’s ass about him anyway. In fact I think his try at resurrection is good bait for the libs to start bitchin about homos in the Congress.

Its not about honor and doing the right thing, its about beating liberals/socialists and I can’t think of much more honorable and right!!!!!

Author ID: 9349 | 9/6/2007 06:16 AM CST | #99721


There are reasons for morals clauses, as Toad stated.

I don’t care if a man is gay and he is “out” about it.  I realize other folks would not feel the same, but I can’t help the biases of others.  I also don’t care of democrats want to elect idiots and criminals to office.  What other people accept/do does not change what people in MY party are allowed to do.

What matters in this case is not if he is bi or gay.  What matters is that he is a married man who has attempted (at least once) to engage in illicit sexual acts in a public place, who would be prone to blackmail if word of his T-room habits became known.

He was willing to agree to a lesser charge in an attempt to hide his habits.  What ELSE would he be willing to do to keep his sexual habits secret?

THAT is why there are morals clauses.  What makes you vulnerable as a private person doesn’t impact the country and make you prone to blackmail.  The fact that his attorney suggested that this offense was outside the bounds of the ethics committee is humorous at best.  It is exactly FOR moral indiscretions that there is an ethics committee because it is puts the country at the greatest risk.

He must go.

0 Author ID: 2 | 9/6/2007 06:30 AM CST | #99723


While it angers me greatly to see the disparity between the way Democrats and Republicans are treated in this regard, I believe Kim to be correct in this matter.  If Republicans are to keep any vestige of the moral high ground, they have to jettison Craig and should already have done so.  If nothing else, removing Craig exposes the moral vacuity of the Democratic party.  It automatically sidelines the Democrat’s most vitriolic members since they all seem to have skeletons in their closets.  It shows the American people that while the Republican party is flawed, it will not tolerate inappropriate behavior and demands its leaders adhere to a higher standard.  We know the Democrats aren’t going to hold themselves accountable to any standard so it makes our demand to hold ourselves to a higher standard all the more important.

Author ID: 424 | 9/6/2007 06:32 AM CST | #99725


One nit to pick, Jon :

“It automatically sidelines the Democrat’s most vitriolic members since they all seem to have skeletons in their closets.”

I doubt it. The Dems, or their proxies, will still go balls-to-the-walls to use this for political gain. The MSM will not call them on their double standards, and they know this. And they will probably have some success with the voting public buying into the whole ‘Repubs are sooo corrupt, but the Dems are less corrupt’ meme.

Despite this, I agree; Craig should go away. Repubs just have to take their lumps on this and move on.

Author ID: 8969 | 9/6/2007 07:12 AM CST | #99728


What bothered me the most was that Craig’s FIRST response was to whip out a Senate business card.  In my book, that act - in and of itself - warrants immediate expulsion.

There are too damned many Congressmen who think they’ve been created peers of the realm...and behave with an arrogance that defies description.

Author ID: 200 | 9/6/2007 07:20 AM CST | #99733


I couldn’t care less about his sex life.

One of the problems I see with being in politics today is that people expect you to act like Jesus Christ.

I want people in office, not Saints, not Clergy.

How many really good effective leaders now have no reason to get into Office because they have a less-than-pristine past and don’t have the connections to cover it up?

Or that they’re less-than-pristine now?

Author ID: 7654 | 9/6/2007 07:29 AM CST | #99734


As an Idahoan and at one time a big supporter of L. Craig I have to say I am ambivalent whether he stays or goes.

Not to retain the moral high ground either.  I have to take the maxim from Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged, “Do not let those who do not share your values, use your values against you” So I dont believe consevatives have to execute one of their own to satisfy the whims of the JOTP and other Socialists.

My problem with Craig is, that for at least 8 years he was one of the most senior and powerful Republicans in the country.  What did he do with that power?  Not too much.  I’m sure he brought some federal pork to our state, and he was an ardent Gun Control opponent but look to what is really eating away at our liberties.  We have an enormous largely unsupervised bureaucracy that is divided into an alphabet soup of agencies (think ATFE, BLM, USFS, IRS).  Craig did little or nothing (publicly at least) to try to curb or shrink these agencies.  Think where we as liberty loving, property owning, Americans expect to have the most problems.  The IRS or BLM will deprive me of my liberty or property far quicker than Al Qaeda will.  The Soviet Union Commies that I was so afraid of as a teenager are far less likely to confiscate my firearms than the ATFE is.  Hence my disgust with the low-tar, low-fat, version of socialism the Republican party allows.  Too much more to rant about.

Author ID: 7987 | 9/6/2007 07:39 AM CST | #99735


Repubs just have to take their lumps on this and move on.
Les Nessman on 09/06 at 12:12 PM | #99728

BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT! What would the Dems do if Craig was their guy? They’d start bitchin what homophobes we are, how intolerant of others, blah blah f’n blah!! We’d apologize and beg forgiveness.

This is why we lose, dammit! Barney Frank’s been playing ButtBingo for 17 years now and what? WHAT??? Nothing from us candyasses. (oops careful there, I’ll be getting some Congressional email)

I can see that fat drunk laughin his ass off right now, him and Clinton!

‘Bill, I almost feel guilty competing against those stupid bastards, will they ever learn? What do I have to do to get another f’n Chivas here Goddammit??’

‘Ted, its like giving Cape Cod trinkets to an intern. Speakin of which, its that time of year again Ted, whole new batch comin in baby, I can’t wait.’

Author ID: 9349 | 9/6/2007 07:53 AM CST | #99736


Shooter,

It’s got nothing to do with Craig’s sexual preference. It has everything to do with his choice of location. I’d expect that kind of immorality from Barney Frank, because he’s an appalling sleazeball—but I’d rather not see it in any Republican, thank you.

Nudity in the bedroom: fine. Nudity in a primary school playground: not so fine.

As Andy Capp once famously said: “I don’t expect perfection; just a little less imperfection.”

0 Author ID: 1 | 9/6/2007 08:00 AM CST | #99738


Because the issue isn’t if he is gay.  The issue is that he played peeping Tom in a public restroom and tried to play footsie with the guy in the stall next to him.

He is a MARRIED MAN.  If he wants to switch hit then he needs to get a divorce first.

Look, if he couldn’t find the decency to control himself to protect his grandchildren from hearing about what he’s done, what makes you think he wouldn’t sell a vote to cover it up?

It has nothing to do with being gay or the type of sex he was after.  If he tried to hire a prostitute I’d feel the same way.

I don’t know the back story or why there was an undercover cop in that restroom, but as soon as I heard that, my antenna went up.

If you are not familiar with “T-rooms” then you need to get familiar.  If an undercover cop was in that bathroom, it was a known T-room.  T-rooms are public places (generally bathrooms in parks or other public places) where men meet to engage in public sex.  They are listed in Gay Guides of cities/towns.  The fact that he was there and did what he did is pretty blatantly obvious that this wasn’t the first time.

This is not new behavior for this guy.

He certainly knew that getting caught at this would ruin his political career and destroy his family.  THAT is the choice he made.  WE didn’t make the choice.  HE DID.

0 Author ID: 2 | 9/6/2007 08:07 AM CST | #99740


Kim,

I agree about Craig’s preferences, who cares?. But he holds a public trust and a trust within his party. He betrayed it and his party and his family too! If he wanted to do anything, anything, steal, diddle interns, throw $20s at BadaBing Club lapdancers, just DON’T do it. If you want to be a senator, you can’t do that stuff. He’s got to go! I would ostracize Ted Kennedy & Barney Frank-like behavior from the party as well.

I had a lawyer friend of mine tell me how there’s no case, he didn’t DO anything, he would get off with a HS kid as his attorney. That’s not the issue! You know the joke about rules to picking a urinal in a men’s public toilet, right? So how could any straight guy let his foot stray into the next booth? C’mon!

As I think of it, he’s too stupid to be a Senator anyway.

My point is that we should use this to attack liberals somehow. Don’t we have any Schrum’s on our side, any Begalas, any Bob Beckel’s??
We just take our lumps, apologize and slink away. Pathetic! We should make a stink, get in the media. It may get some eyeballs to CNN and sell some papers. If the owners see their ratings and circulation blip up when they act like Fox or the NY Post, they might say hey, we need some right wing bias here if its going to make us some $$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Never know.

One thing I do know, we’re going nowhere being nice guys.

Author ID: 9349 | 9/6/2007 08:31 AM CST | #99743


If you are not familiar with “T-rooms” then you need to get familiar.  If an undercover cop was in that bathroom, it was a known T-room.  T-rooms are public places (generally bathrooms in parks or other public places) where men meet to engage in public sex.  They are listed in Gay Guides of cities/towns.  The fact that he was there and did what he did is pretty blatantly obvious that this wasn’t the first time.

Agreed. And to follow up on TS’s point, if you listen to the audio of his interview with the cop (widely available on the ‘net) the first thing he says is “You solicited me!” That’s not exactly the first thing that would pop into the head of someone unfamiliar with the whole tea room thing.

And I agree with Kim’s comment above, it’s not the fact he’s gay, or has gay sex, it’s the fact he has gay sex in public bathrooms. And he is either so dumb that he would plead guilty to a criminal charge without consulting an attorney, or did consult one, and lied to everyone about that afterwards. Either way, no thanks. And I was one of the people who posted here defending Craig when he was supporting the illegal alien amnesty (because of his pro-gun votes).

Author ID: 9888 | 9/6/2007 08:45 AM CST | #99745


“I doubt it. The Dems, or their proxies, will still go balls-to-the-walls to use this for political gain.”

Their proxies will, of course, but I was referring to men like Kennedy, and Bill Clinton who cannot engage discussions of morality in an aggressive way due to their own problems.  Kennedy, recently, has been very vocal about his hatred of Bush or his policies.  Events like these, however, and Kennedy is no where to be found.  Even Hillary can’t get too shrill about this due to her defense of her husband’s activities.

Author ID: 424 | 9/6/2007 09:07 AM CST | #99749


The double standard can be aptly illustrated by imagining what would have happened if a Bush or Reagan had gotten blow jobs from an intern in the Oval Office. The MSM would have focused entirely on how the “girl” was exploited, how corporate execs are fired for that conduct, the immorality of it, ect., ect. Clinton got a free ride, and the MSM mocked the Republicans for being too puritanical! The Craig/Franks dichotomy is the same.  But it’s still right for the Republicans to clean house.

Author ID: 7827 | 9/6/2007 09:10 AM CST | #99750


The Craig/Franks dichotomy is the same.  But it’s still right for the Republicans to clean house.
tsj55 on 09/06 at 02:10 PM | #99750

Couldn’t agree more! But when we do clean house let’s make damn well sure that everybody knows about it! And let’s make damn sure that everybody knows that our opponents have not done so!

Just keep repeatin it, over and over! Like throwin poop on a wall, sooner or later some of it sticks.

Amen!

Author ID: 9349 | 9/6/2007 09:18 AM CST | #99751


I mean, really, what bothers me about this is, he wasn’t really arrested for trolling for gay sex; no sex took place, he never said (as far as I’ve read, please inform me if I’m wrong) anything, or performed any act that would constitute a breach of public decency. He tapped his foot, stared, waved his hand… I believe on my Little League team that was the sign for swing away (...and apparently still is haha). If he was soliciting sex, how is that a crime? Pretty much the entire thrust of the alcohol, luxury car, lingerie, and perfume industries are the solicitation of sex. So even if he’d cupped his junk and offered it to the officer, as long as there was no public indency, participation was mutually voluntary, and no cash changed hands, I fail to see any actual crime. Poor judgement, sure. Distasteful, absolutely. Stupid, without question. But not criminal. And the only reason why we’re talking about it is the state accused him of being a criminal.

And it kind of does hang on the fact that it’s gay sex; because if he’d tried to pick up a woman at a bar, 50 ft away, I sincerely doubt that there was an officer stationed on “anonymous airport hookup” patrol, cockblocking hetero business travelers. Craig’s biggest mistake was having a personal recreational choice that’s unpopular. This is what allowed the police to use resources, and the DA to threaten him. He wasn’t outed by some dude who didn’t want the salami; the whole soft shoe and jazz hands routine was designed to prevent hitting on a guy that didn’t want to be hit on. The officer, an official of the government, was intentionally giving signs that he was also a gay man looking for sex, then arrested Craig for responding. Wasn’t charged with indecency, pandering, or solicitation. How/why is it the state’s job to stop him from trying to hook up? And again, are they patroling singles bars and hotel lounges with the same zeal? Because otherwise it seems like they’re harassing a particular group of people.

I’m all for holding him accountable for the moral lapse of lying to his wife (assuming he did in fact lie to her, as opposed to them having an arrangement), or via the wife, implicitly lying to his constituents. As a person that believe homosexuality is a choice, morally wrong, and a personal failure of self control, I can understand why you’d want to control that sort of thing in your facility. However, as a person, with unpopular recreational choices or opinions I’m apalled that everyone’s just accepting that the state even had a right to arrest the guy. So I’m completely torn…

Author ID: 9923 | 9/6/2007 09:30 AM CST | #99754


He’s a US Senator! He participates in making the law for the greatest nation on Earth! Is he so damned stupid that he don’t just STFU and get an attorney, any attorney could have got him off.

As is said above, he didn’t DO anything. No $$$ changed hands. No indecent exposure, no threats, no harassment.

An attorney might even make a case that the cop was getting tired of sitting in the crapper for whatever time and just wanted to get out of there and needed an arrest so he just Nifonged him.

That’s the legal perspective, but face it, he’s gay and he was being a bad boy. Its that simple.

Author ID: 9349 | 9/6/2007 09:49 AM CST | #99759


I’m all for holding him accountable for the moral lapse of lying to his wife (assuming he did in fact lie to her, as opposed to them having an arrangement)

And that’s another aspect of it.  What if she’s a lesbian? What if she has boyfriends? What if it’s simply a cold sterile power marriage?

We have no idea what their marriage is like and it’s none of our business.

People are grossed out about gay men having sex in public places and are using the law to stop it. It’s like propositioning a hooker (Well, in the US). Illegal and if you’re someone famous, everyone is going to know. Don’t be stupid about it and it won’t be a problem.

Hello Mr. Stupid.

Author ID: 7654 | 9/6/2007 10:51 AM CST | #99763


I’m all for holding him accountable for the moral lapse of lying to his wife
ErikZ

UH OH, you mean you can be held accountable for that??

I never lied to my wife about gay sex but on occasion I’ve had more than the two 2 beers I owned up to.
I’m in a heap a trouble now.

Author ID: 9349 | 9/6/2007 11:16 AM CST | #99766


ErikZ,

Including in your official biography paragraphs about how long you’ve been married, the number of children you have, and your grandchildren, does intend to convey a “family values” candidate.

If he has an open marriage then he should have disclosed that, and should have disclosed that to avoid deceit.

The only way to avoid a conflict of interest or deceit is to DISCLOSE.  He never has which means he was vulnerable to blackmail, as the police found out when he tried to sweep this under the rug by accepting a plea to a lesser charge.

And who said that having an “open marriage” of a gay man married to a lesbian was OK, so they can travel in polite company under the cover of respectability marriage provides?

That might be OK in your book, but I do think it is my business when a candidate who is representing me and representing himself as something he isn’t, wants our trust.

What he did was illegal.  Playing Peeping Tom in a public restroom is a crime.

Sometimes I can’t believe we have to have these conversations.  It is not OK to lead a double life, whether with your wife’s permission or not.  He’s married and that has meaning, despite what the progressives and all the other Charlatans have tried to convince us.  Marriage doesn’t mean what anyone wants to think it means.  It means fidelity.  It conveys respectability.  Doing otherwise is a sham and a LIE.

0 Author ID: 2 | 9/6/2007 12:46 PM CST | #99777


Oh boy am I going to get something started here- - after discussing this with a law enforcement officer with 20+ years, the thing about the “arrest” is really comical - - NOTHING happened - - it seems as if there is a case for really having a field day in court with this case if he would have been so dispossed. I seem to believe we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty---okay now laugh your tails off-----

Author ID: 10209 | 9/6/2007 12:58 PM CST | #99781


The Democrats can go to hell with their filthy criminals and amoral sleazeballs. We’re better than they are.

Agreed. But there’s more of them than there is of us. In a democracy, that gives them the bigger voting block, and they win.


There are Republican politicians we can elect to office, politicians who are honorable and who will vote the way we like. All we have to do is identify them, and substitute them for the bad ones.

ABSOLUTELY! But we have to find them, and vote them in. How much damage will be done before we do that? I really hate to have to look the other way. If we can get the dirty stuff hosed out of the OTHER side of the latrine, the whole place will smell much better. How do we get the filth hosed out? Ideas?

Author ID: 6430 | 9/6/2007 01:53 PM CST | #99786


bcoff

Yeah, it was a piss poor reason for arrest.

It’s like randomly grabbing someone going into an apartment building of a known drug dealer and saying “Hey punk, I know you were going in there to buy meth! Yer under arrest for trying to buy meth! But...if you plead guilty to jaywalking you can pay yer fine and go.” The random punk, who actually WAS there to buy meth, sez “(gulp) O.K. officer! I plead quilty to jaywalking.”

Craig folded because he knew he was up to no good and got nabbed while trying to initiate his dirty deed.  What a putz.

That said, I’m glad I have some info on ‘T-rooms’ because I have to fly into that very same goddam airport again in a couple weeks.  I don’t know if I should just piss in the wastecans in the main airport to avoid going into the restrooms or wear tap dancing shoes into the mensroom just for laughs.

Author ID: 8969 | 9/6/2007 02:07 PM CST | #99787


How do we get the filth hosed out? Ideas?
cmblake6 on 09/06 at 06:53 PM | #99786

-------------------------------------------------------

I hate to say this but you get a guy like Craig for example. You simply ‘make him an offer he can’t refuse’! I don’t mean you threaten to kill him.
There are still plenty of powerful Republicans around, right? So if he doesn’t do the right thing, he can lead a pretty lonely and not very financially rewarding rest of his life. No country club, no lobbying job, real estate taxes go up, broker drops his insurance and his accounts. No more perks at the bank. Building inspector drops by his house. Pays full price on his cars. The cop who nabs him in another toilet gets a reward. Don’t even have to whisper IRS. It goes on and on. Its all legal too. Sort of like ‘shunning’, the Pa Dutch do that, right? . Its just a little harder on the ‘shun’, thats all.

I don’t know if I should just piss in the wastecans in the main airport to avoid going into the restrooms or wear tap dancing shoes into the mensroom just for laughs.
Les Nessman on 09/06 at 07:07 PM | #99787
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whatever you do, don’t wear a tutu to the toilet, you’ll get busted for sure and end up on youtube, guaranteed!

Author ID: 9349 | 9/6/2007 03:05 PM CST | #99789


Has everyone lost their memory?  When Bill got B-jobs while talking to our allies, wasn’t the line “who cares about his personal life?”????

Author ID: 7641 | 9/6/2007 04:21 PM CST | #99796


Craig is an idiot and cannot be gone soon enough, but I agree with JUNYO, no crime was committed.

“The Supreme Court has roundly rejected the notion of ‘prior restraint’."-Walter Sobchack (Big Lebowski)

Hey, we all have failings at some point in our lives. I am not asking for perfect people just HONEST ones who can keep their word. That is one reason that I find it difficult to vote for people who have been divorced, especially more than once. When they take an oath “To support and defend the Constitution”, how is that any different than an oath taken of “‘Till death do us part”? Folks who cannot keep one oath make any subsequent oath questionable.

Now before everyone who has ex’s flames me, I know sometimes marriage just doesnt work out and it takes two to make it work, its a generalization not a rule. My daughter’s name is Reagan, because Ronald would be a bad name for a girl, even though he was divorced prior to Nancy.

Author ID: 9703 | 9/6/2007 06:44 PM CST | #99802


A day late but hopefully these are apropo;

Town Hall

Image

Author ID: 9349 | 9/7/2007 05:00 AM CST | #99827


Would Craig have to resign if he were a Democrat who drove Monica Lewinsky off a bridge in a car bought with Communist Chinese campaign funds?

Author ID: 7885 | 9/7/2007 12:53 PM CST | #99905