Posted on 08/28/2007 10:25:27 AM PDT by .cnI redruM
this is a moral issue and his constituents should vote him out. he is pro-illegal anyway. get him out just for that!
I wonder how the left would react if Craig stood up and said, “Yeah, I’m a homo who picks up guys in bathrooms, so what?” How would they attack him then? How could they trash him when dozens of their own politicians do the same thing publicly?
“...the GOP could make a positive out of this if they openly demanded his resignation...”
Agreed. And at the same time we need to be ready to “Truth Boat” the leftist candidates at all levels. Link them to Whitewater, the knee-pad Arkansan, and every other Leftist boo-boo.
“Craig is the latest arrow in Larry Flynt’s quiver.”
You’re probably correct, though the rumors about Larry Craig have been circulating for years in DC.
Now, however, Larry Craig will definitely go down in the anals of history.
Craig, you dummy, you risked everything for a chance encounter to get off. Stupid is as stupid does. Resign, idiot!
It boils down to how America distinguishes between “ethics” and “morality”, even if the dictionary doesn’t distinguish between them very much.
Americans really like ethics, because they interpret it to mean that somebody follows the law. The written law. Man’s law, objective law with trial by a judge and jury. The common law that we are all expected to follow. The only people who get a pass on ethics are those we know are terribly corrupt, but like anyway, like John Gotti and Bill Clinton.
However morality is a lot harder, because America sees it as spiritual law, which varies tremendously, even between different churches in the same denomination. Therefore, when somebody claims to be “moral”, while you might hope you know what he means, you can’t be too sure. The morality of a liberal Episcopalian is very different from a Fundamentalist Evangelical, and Orthodox Jew, a Muslim, or a conservative Catholic. It is such a vague term that it is even used hypocritically by those who aren’t religious, to create the impression that they are spiritual. Like Bill Clinton, if not John Gotti.
This is why the typical American on the street is dubious about politicians who claim they are moral. It sounds like they are bragging about being evasive, while patronizing those who actually admire real morality. And the typical American is pretty on-the-mark in assuming this in many cases. Bragging about your morality is like bragging about your humbleness. If you are moral, you probably don’t even have to mention it.
And I don’t mean to downplay “patronizing”, either. For example, when Gonzalez became Attorney General, in a time of war, when the nation is at high risk from terrorism, and the resources of the office of the Attorney General and the FBI are stretched to the limit, he proclaims that two of his top priorities are to stop pornography and crack down on head shops.
It just made me wince. I think that all that really came of it was arresting head shop chain owner Tommy Chong (of Cheech and Chong) and putting him in jail for a few months.
This smacked of morality, and whose morality I haven’t even a guess, as just about any morality I know of would consider the War On Terror, thwarting mass murder at an enormous scale, etc., as rating a lot more important than dirty pictures. This is not to say that they like dirty pictures, just that they have their priorities in order.
So what about Senator Craig? I don’t know, but I would suspect that he proclaimed his morality frequently and with vigor, as do many other scandalous individuals, from embezzlers and perverts, to great big bible carrying Bill Clinton.
Who should have been tried for his ethical violations, not his moral violation, had Ken Starr really wanted to prosecute him, and not just give him a pass.
Carolyn
No, he needs to resign by Friday.
He is fully compromised. He has lost his core constituency. He will probably lose his family. He is now in his darkest moment, and his weakness can be blackmailed by any one of untold numbers of former tryst partners to effectively alter the legislative future of this country and the world.
20 million illegals costing untold trillions of dollars of tax payer dollars could have been legalized because Craig was under blackmail pressure.
The public as a whole, and the voters of Idaho in particular have no way of knowing who and how many nefarious characters have hooks in Craig’s back. They can no longer trust his character, and have no way to ever feel any level of comfort with the actions he takes in office.
That being said, he can hide away a few years and turn into a lobbyist like Torricelli and McGreevey, and find himself a career if he wants one at his age, and can find himself some inner peace and some sort of personal life resolution.
No person is capable of upholding the duties of the office under such circumstances. Barney Frank is at peace with himself, he is not going through inner conflicts, doesn’t have untold characters lurking to blackmail him, and his constituency knows up front of his sexual persuasion.
Craig on the other hand, is nearing into suicide watch territory right now.
Guess what? The dems could "target" ANYONE from now until hell freezes over and they won't find people having sex in public bathrooms who don't already have sex in public bathrooms.
Funny how that works, huh?
It boils down to this,
Can ANYONE who knows the man now honestly say they didn’t know his wife and her family were a beard?
People in the Democrat party in NJ and NY knew McGreevey was a perv for at least 6 years before he outed himself.
Rumors that Torricelli was caught in bed with the wife of one of his largest campaign contributors were circulating 4 years before he was forced out of office.
Craig has been a marionette for a small clique of powerful behind the scenes interests for years, even if you believe all Senators are marionettes to special interests, you have to admit that when the reason for their subservience to special interests might be because of this disturbing behavior, how can any one expect the people in Idaho to ever trust the man to represent the common interests of the voters of the state again?
I’ve never met a loud moralist that wasn’t a first class hypocrite.
Never once.
Leading by example remains the single best way to lead anyone, any time, any where. Those that feel the need to talk a good game, are usually hypocrites.
Just my experience coming out here.
They are Swift Vets and POW's for Truth and their purpose is clear. Copied from the site:
Swift Vets and POWs for Truth has been formed to counter the false "war crimes" charges John Kerry repeatedly made against Vietnam veterans who served in our units and elsewhere, and to accurately portray Kerry's brief tour in Vietnam as a junior grade Lieutenant.
..SNIP...
Though we come from different backgrounds and hold varying political opinions, we agree on one thing: John Kerry misrepresented his record and ours in Vietnam and therefore exhibits serious flaws in character and lacks the potential to lead.
There was no 'linking' campaign.
Swift Vets did nothing but call John F'n Kerry on his traitorous lies.
“and McGreevy is lauded for his exploits on I-95?
Well that’s different. I just havent figured out how.”
well that is easy you see McGreevey has a D next to his name while Craig has an R
hope that helps
Do you think that all people that go trolling for sex with other men in the bathroom makes them a pervert?
real easy question, huh?
or is it?
Just think about who and how the democrat candidates would answer that.
Just a thought.
Exactly. Bad judgement on a basic instinct and urge means bad judgement on more complex issues.
Can’t be trusted. Resign.
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.