Metaphor-mad NYT Defends Craig: Stupidity No Cause to Cast Him Out of Congress

NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[governsleastgovernsbest]

When the Larry Craig case broke, I noted the New York Times' unusual diffidence in reporting it. Senator, Arrested at Airport, Pleads Guilty was all the Times headline told us, giving no indication of Craig's name, party affiliation, or the crime for which he had not merely been "arrested" but pleaded guilty.

At the time I surmised that the Times' shyness could have been "the triumph of political correctness on matters gay over the paper's partisan impulse." That theory is borne out by the paper's editorial of today, Disowning Senator Craig.

The Times' bottom line on the matter:

Being stupid as a member of Congress is hardly a reason to be ridden on a rail from Washington . . . The rush to cast him out betrays the party’s intolerance, which is on display for the public in all of its ugliness.

Curious aside: whoever wrote the editorial had gone metaphor mad. Check these out:

• The Republican Party is in quite a rush to keelhaul Senator Larry Craig [Keelhaul? Shiver me timbers!]
• No similar leadership chorus for judgment has been heard about any number of other scandalous revelations on the party’s plate. [Note: it may be desirable to avoid "chorus" allusions under the circumstances.]
• hardly a reason to be ridden on a rail from Washington. [Echo of the Old West for the Senator from Idaho?]
• Underlying the hurry to disown the senator [disownment: occupational hazard for wayward sons]
• the party’s record in demonizing homosexuality [get behind me, Satan!]
• The rush to cast him out [another Satan reference in the same paragraph. Is the Times going biblical on us?]

[governsleastgovernsbest]

NY Times rises to Larry Craig’s defense. Ping to Today show list.

[goldstategop]

I already posted the New York Times editorial in question. The MSM sees nothing wrong with soliciting sex in public bathrooms. Now you know - every one does it! That being said, I still demand Larry Craig's resignation. I don't live in Idaho but I don't want to be represented by a pervert - no matter what the New York Times thinks.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Chuck54]

The NYT is hoping he can hang on and run for reelection in ‘08 so they can hammer the Republicans with this guy like they did with Foley.

They’re mad as hell this didn’t happen in Oct. ‘08 just prior to the elections.

As someone so aptly stated, “Vote Republican, we kick our weirdos out”.

[goldstategop]

I just love it when liberals thunder like Jerry Falwell. They normally refrain from passing moral judgment and are understanding of deviants. Gee, what's the outrage all about?

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Oldexpat]

They aren’t defending Craig..they are defending the rest of the perverts in Congress. Barney the Frank etc. There is no telling who is next if they let Craig go down the crapper.

[kinoxi]

The NYT’s would love for the guy to hang on. I’m sure they back him %110. It would save the MSM quite a bit of shoveling in the election run-up to have a few popular GOP perverts already in place.

[goldstategop]

In the first sentence, the New York Times mentioned Larry Craig's party affiliation, so no one would miss it. If he had been a Democrat, that would have been omitted per standard MSM practice.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[johnny7]

Stay tuned for the 'All Larry Craig Weekend'...

[HotTubDave]

Of course! much like I like a democrap like William Jefferson to hang around. they make great punching bags!

[Felis_irritable]

"the triumph of political correctness on matters gay over the paper's partisan impulse."

I wondered when this would start.

to be ridden on a rail

Possible poor choice of words...

[Hardastarboard]

Now you know - every one does it!

I saw that psycho left wing hystrionic Randi Rhoades on some MSNBC talking head show a couple of days ago saying something to the effect that we repress homosexuals, and that if we just let them out of the closet they wouldn't hide in the toilets.

Talk about bizzare rationalization. Doesn't she get that these guys LIKE finding anonymous sex in bathrooms?

[Nathan Zachary]

"the party’s record in demonizing homosexuality [get behind me, Satan!]"

Nobody has to "demonize" homosexuality, and all the sick, disgusting perversion that goes along with it, it began that way. Any normal person can see it violate natures intended design, and nature does and will continue to correct whatever is an abomination against it's design.

If anything, those choosing to indulge in this vulgar perversion (it is a choice, plain and simple)are attempting to normalize and sanitize it.

People desire to have a lot of money so they can buy all the things and live a life of ease without having to work save and plan, but for the most part they don't go robbing banks to satisfy those desires, then claim it's normal and they were born that way, therefore they should be allowed to rob banks, then infiltrate the school system and teach young children that it's ok to rob banks, and here's how to do it.

[HotTubDave]

I think the more repressed people do seek out anonymous sex because they can’t do so publicly. I’ve know a few dudes who would never “stoop so low” as one of them said. They do it the old fashioned way - going to bars and trying to meet up.

[Racehorse]

. . . we repress homosexuals, and that if we just let them out of the closet they wouldn't hide in the toilets.

Mort Kondracke pushed the same rationalization last evening on The Grapevine. The panel was not receptive.

Then, there are those who say with much indignation that soliciting sex from a man by a man in a public toilet has nothing to do with homosexuality . . .

[ballplayer]

They are opening themselves to the response to this issue that the Republicans should be taking ,that Craig should resign ,he has forfeited his position of responsibility to lead his constituents because of his behavior ,as Conservatives we have values ,we ask that Craig deal with his problems and leave the Senate . We are not Democrats who have given up on all standards of decency as witnessed by the defense of Jerry Studds who had sex with an underage page and was given a standing ovation ,Barney Frank who had a homo ring working out of his basement and was fixing parking tickets for his lover who was out in the bathrooms of Washington ,William Jefferson money in his refigerator ,Diane feinstein channeling Billions in contracts to her husbands companies, Hillary Clinton billing records with her finger prints on them in the living Quarters of the White House that were under Supeona for 2 years ,Now she knew nothing of Money she received from a felon ,There is a difference between Republicans and democrats When you betray the public trust you forfeit your position,with Democrats you are feted and celebrated,and if you are a Conservative you are pilloried in the press for days from the so called tolerant and diversity minded and if you are a democrat you are ignored

[N. Theknow]

They aren’t defending Craig..they are defending the rest of the perverts in Congress. Barney the Frank etc. There is no telling who is next if they let Craig go down the crapper.

True, truer and truest.

Had the offense been untoward advances to a woman they would be screaming for his head.

However, when the publisher and majority of the editorial board of your paper are homosexuals it is time to take a common stand and not leave your friend's behind.

[BigLittle]

However, when the publisher and majority of the editorial board of your paper are homosexuals it is time to take a common stand and not leave your friend's behind.

LMAO

[headsonpikes]

it is time to take a common stand and not leave your friend's behind.

One really has to consider the context when one posts what could be construed as ambiguously referential, or something like that!

[IrishMike]

From the Senate’s early days, long before the current language existed, there were instances where the senators felt they knew improper conduct when they saw it. According to the Senate’s ethics manual:

_In 1797, Sen. William Blount of Tennessee was expelled for inciting Creek and Cherokee Native Americans against the government. He was not charged with a crime.

_In 1811, the Senate censured Sen. Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts for reading a confidential communication on the Senate floor, although there was no written rule prohibiting the conduct.

_In 1954, the Senate censured Sen. Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin for behavior “contrary to senatorial traditions,” after he refused to cooperate with committees investigating his anti-communist witch hunts.

The first case involving a finding of improper conduct using the current language involved the investigation of Sen. Thomas Dodd, D-Conn.

He was censured in 1967 for financial misconduct. His actions did not violate any specific law or Senate rule then in force, but the conduct was found to be “contrary to accepted morals ... and tends to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute.”

_In 1990, the Senate denounced Senator David Durenberger of Minnesota, in part based on his financial arrangements for a condominium he owned. His conduct was deemed to have “brought discredit upon the United States Senate” by a “pattern of improper conduct.”

There was no finding that any law or rule had been violated in the condominium arrangement. The ethics committee’s chairman, however, said the conduct violated the spirit of federal law, which generally prohibits a lawmaker from benefiting from a contract with the U.S. government.

_In 1991, in the Keating Five case involving interference with financial regulators, the committee concluded that Sen. Alan Cranston of California engaged in improper conduct by linking fund raising and official activities.

_And in 1995, the committee found Sen. Bob Packwood of Oregon brought discredit upon the Senate by repeatedly committing sexual misconduct through 18 unwanted and unwelcome sexual advances.

“The language is written in ways that cover both institutional misconduct and personal misconduct,” said Sarah Binder, a professor of political science at George Washington University and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank.

“For this particular case, it makes a lot of sense. Senators should have leeway on whether this rises to the level that someone should not be in the Senate.