Walter Jenkins with Bill Moyers.
All the way with L-BJ!
Posted on 09/02/2007 10:05:19 AM PDT by theothercheek
You’ve heard of institutional memory? Well The New York Times has developed institutional Alzheimer’s.
Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus outlines the details of a story that is familiar to anyone who’s picked up a newspaper, watched the news on TV or listened to talk radio over the past few days:
[A]n important political figure, arrested for engaging in lewd conduct in a public men's room. Married, with children, he told no one. Instead he pleaded guilty without even hiring a lawyer, hoping the problem would quietly disappear.
When, as was inevitable, the press got hold of the story, his erstwhile supporters quickly distanced themselves - and commissioned a poll to assess the political damage. His career in politics was over.
But wait. She’s not writing about Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), but Lyndon B. Johnson’s right-hand man, Walter Jenkins, who was arrested in October 1964 for having sex in the men's room of the Washington YMCA.
Just as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney wasted no time throwing Craig under the wheels of the campaign bus, Marcus notes: "When the story broke just a few weeks before the 1964 election, Johnson scarcely hesitated before instructing Abe Fortas to secure the resignation of Jenkins, his longest-serving aide."
At the time, adds Marcus, "The New York Times editorialized that "there can be no place on the White House staff or in the upper echelons of government for a person of markedly deviant behavior."
But here’s what the opinionmeisters at The Times had to say about the Craig scandal:
The Republican Party is in quite a rush to keelhaul Senator Larry Craig for his run-in with the vice squad in an airport men’s room. Disclosure of the senator’s guilty plea to disorderly conduct set off a frenzy to demand an investigation by the Senate’s somnolent Ethics Committee and to strip Mr. Craig of his committee seniority. Some of the senator’s peers simply demanded that he resign. …
The rush to cast him out betrays the party’s intolerance, which is on display for the public in all of its ugliness. But it also betrays their political uneasiness as the next election approaches.
In its rush to vilify the GOP over Craig summarily being stripped of his Senate committee assignments and forced to resign The Times did not acknowledge it’s own "intolerance" and "political uneasiness as the next election approaches" back in 1964. Once again, the paper’s hypocrisy is on display for the public in all of its ugliness.
Let. It. Go.
"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
I think Craig fit well in the Senate.
Not sure what your comment refers to. This post is less about Larry Craig than it is about the hypocrisy of the MSM. Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Seeking sex, gay or straight, in a public restroom is just nasty though.
I am disgusted by the prurient details blasted around the media. Now a whole new class of "I am curious" yoots have an instruction manual on how to engage in extremely risky anonymous encounters in the crossroads of unsanitation — public men's rooms. It reminds me of the huge increase in oral sex among teenagers — and accompanying oral sexually-transmitted diseases — after the news publicity of the Clinton/Lewinsky affair.
The other day I watched the TV show "Cheaters", in which cheating boyfriends or girlfriends are busted by hidden cameras. One of the busted guys, apparently a low-income laborer, tried to convince his wife to forgive him because "the president did it and Hillary took him back." He was completely ignorant of her venal pursuit of power behind her decision, and the payoffs to them in book sales and speaking engagements.
Another generation without the resources to recover from drastic sexual mistakes will rationalize this disgusting behavior because it is done by the rich and/or powerful.
The political bias displayed by the drive by media is on display 24/7. Any moron who thinks the MSM is impartial is a candidate for rehab. Those of even minimal intellectual ability are insulted by the daily deluge of the media tripe. The problem with the left leaning electorate is the fact that many sufffer from denial and think party loyalty should trump what is best for the nation. We are facing troubling times now and in the future. Loyalty for the country these days for many means opposition to what is best, a sad commentary....
There is no way that today you could get the NYT to say that a man wanting to put his penis into another man is deviant. Now, opposing Gay marriage they’d call deviant. Not being willing to be PC on every issue, that’s deviant. Indeed, going to church to them is downright queer. But a couple of men wanting to have sex together is a wonderful affirmation of Liberalism that’s as normal to them as Clintons in the White House.
If they had written something like, “In the past, we were of the opinion that homosexuals did not belong in the government because [whatever their reason was back then] and even referred to them as “deviants” because [whatever their reason was back then] but we have reversed our position on both counts becasue [whatever their reason is] and urge Republicans to reconsider their position on homosexuals in public life,” I would have had more respect for them. But to attack Republicans for something of which they were also guilty - and for libs, guilt has no statute of limitations so The Times is being hoist on its own petard - is partuclarly galling.
Not sure what your comment refers to. This post is less about Larry Craig than it is about the hypocrisy of the MSM. Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
-
I just think this is like talking about Paris Hilton.
Except, at least she’s cute.
She’s flat chested, has size 11 feet, needs blonde hair extensions because her own mousy brown locks are thin and limp and has one eye that is clearly bigger than the other. But if that’s your idea of cute ...
Hey I’m not perfect either.
She’s certainly way cuter than me. :)
Guess you are right on that, but most of the limp wrist set in congress don’t do stupid things like that. He should have known what would happen when it went public.
Never mind her looks. At least if she were smart or talented she’d be captivating, like Henry Kissinger and Maria Callas. Sorry but in my book she doesn’t even rate a zero. C’mon, put your thinking cap on - you can do better than Paris Hilton! (And if you say Nicole Ritchie, then I am giving up on you.)
I’m glad Craig’s gone. At least I know there is one party holding up some standards and we’re getting rid of dead weight. Unfortunately for Democrats frothing at the mouth, I think this story is won’t affect the election because the Foley scandal helped throw the election last time.
:)
Until shown otherwise, I’m presuming Paris Hilton is at least as smart as Senator Craig.
I happen to believe that gays are born that way. Having said that, there is a difference between sexuality and lifestyle. I have known gay couples who have been together for decades, faithful to each other; homebodies who lived their lives quietly without scandal. Then there is the gay lifestyle of cruising bars and restrooms for anonymous or public sex, often with as many parners in one night as the ecstacy or viagra will allow. In my opinion, this is the deviant behavior. It is compulsive. It is not normal. Anonymous sex, public sex, sex with 500 or 1000 partners a year is deviant - whether you’re gay or straight. Only if you’re gay and someone says your behavior is deviant, ooooh you are a gay basher.
Sorry, but I find Craig’s behavior - more than his sexual orientation - deviant and disgusting. I mean, gee, just think of the germs in a public bathroom and that’s where he wanted to have sex? Yuck, eeeww, puke.
He managed to stay out of jail.
I don't think it's any coincidence that there are numerous gay activists in the nation's media.
This is a wonderful opportunity for them to "groom" new converts, especially young ones, which is exactly why they're dumping this swill into our living rooms in the guise of "news".
Cute is as cute does.
Most gays are molested as children into the life style.
According to one compelling theory I have read, all embryos start out female - until a gene on the Y chromosome switches on and bathes the cells in testosterone. From that moment on, the embryo’s development becomes male. If the gene switches on even a day late, the brain becomes hardwired to homosexuality.
I know this theory does not explain lesbians (some percentage of whom choose to be with other women), but I do think it’s a plausible explanation of homosexuality.
And it is possible that a homosexual boy gives off telltale signs recognizable to another homosexual, so when he is seduced by an adult male it’s child sexual abuse, to be sure, but not “grooming” since the boy is already gay even if he is too young to clearly understand why he is “different” from other boys.
Having said all that, I reiterate that there is a difference between lifestyle and sexual orientation. And no matter what gays say certain behaviors many of them engage in are deviant, abnormal and immoral. If that’s gay-bashing I’ll live with it. I am required by law not to discriminate against anyone, but that doesn’t mean I have to stand up on my hind legs an applaud everything everyone does. There are limits to my tolerance.
Your believing it doesn't make it a statistical majority of gays; my understanding of gays based on having worked in the arts side-by-side with hundreds of gay men and women (and having done my graduate thesis in the legal and social aspects of sexual relationships) is that the great majority of the ones I observed had either been raped or severely traumatized in childhood. I also knew several long-term gay couples, in once case together nearly 40 years, but in virtually every case, dalliances outside the relationship were tolerated or accepted. This was in the pre- through early-AIDS days. Most of the gay men I knew are long dead as a result of their promiscuity. Responsible research bears out that faithful, exclusive sexual relationships between gay men are in the distinct minority of such relationships.
The concept of "hardwiring" in the brain is under in-depth review in the areas of traumatic brain injury, stroke and other not-so-political types of brain function. Researchers are finding surprising levels of "rewiring", or ability to grow new brain pathways, that were previously thought impossible. They are also finding enlarged areas of the brain linked to repeated behaviors, such as greater numbers of cells in the musical ability area of a violinist, et cetera. The brain is much more capable of change than the gay lobby wants scientists to say.
Regardless of how one becomes gay (whether he is born that way or coerced) my main point stands - many homosexuals follow a lifestyle that involves illicit drugs and misuse of pharmaceutical drugs, staggering levels of promiscuity and a compusion to have sex in public.
I find all of this immoral and depraved. Taking drugs is wrong, having sex with a different person (or a dozen people) every night is wrong. Having sex in public is wrong. I think everyone on this thread can agree on this much?
The influence of testosterone on brain cells is very powerful, and I do not think it can be overcome easily. Having said that, I also have been following research on brain plasticity and agree that scientists have a very poor understanding of brain function and repair. For this reason, I cannot pooh-pooh the idea that homosexuals can learn to repress their urges and learn to model heterosexual behavior - even to fall in love with a woman - if it is important enough to them to make the effort required. However, they remain homosexual - just not practicing.
Don’t read this article by Dennis Prager if direct language offends you; but, this is what I believe:
Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0003.html
bump
What you wrote here is an interesting idea, but isn’t it contrary to Scripture, which teaches that people choose to sin? Why? because it is not the will of God that any should perish
As a hetero, there is nothing here I do not agree with. And homosexuals would also benefit if they could embrace monogomous, committed partnerships (as a small minority do) for all the same reasons (except, of course, procreation). This article describes sexual practices that are still prevalent in the over-the-top homosexual lifestyle. As they have led to AIDS, for instance, you would think that homosexuals would be decrying promiscuity, public sex and anonymous sex louder than the religious right. This is a suicidal way to live.
All the preachers who got caught doing what Craig can recite scripture far better than I. This is why religion is not the answer to the problem of sexual practices that are rampant in the gay community that would properly be considered immoral if heterosexuals engaged in them. Again, I believe the condition of homosexuality is not a choice, but the lifestyle is. I guess it’s a love the sinner, hate the sin thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.