Posted on 08/30/2007 7:50:09 PM PDT by pacificus
I read the transcript of the Larry Graig interview with the Minnesota police.
I don't like what I'm hearing from other conservatives. The liberals see a cheap Senate seat and you want to give it to them because a guy moved two fingers under the stall wall in an airport bathroom.
If they had the guy on tape asking for sex, paying for sex, or photographed in the act, or any other physical proof, then I would say that looks very very bad and he should go.
But that is not the case.
This is very lame, and those of you who have never had a disagreement with a law enforecement officer should hope that a cop never accuses you of something. Because by your own action, your professional career, and or political career, should be forit, merely on the word of the officer with no physical proof or corroborating evidence.
Those of you who pass judgement, on Larry Craig, merely on the heresay and liberal spin that has been run in the press, should be ashamed.
Apparently I read a different description of who was peeking. The police officer watched a person through a crack near the door who was outside of the stall he occupied...not the other way around. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I still think he should leave. But I don’t think the Lord is through with any of us yet, Senator Craig included.
I don't think your interpretation is correct. I also don't think it's that important. There's obviously some smoke here for Sen. Craig.
Note to all Republican office holders, do not engage in smoking. It will surely become fire.
Oh, I had it all along. You, however, agree that this is the way the system SHOULD be and always WILL be. I disagree.
As I said above, purposes do not arise out of politics, politics is the means to achieve them. As to what my purposes are, there are 7 years of my posts, plus my homepage to peruse. It is rather late at night for me to go thrrough it all now.
The report said the police officer saw the persons blue eyes peeking through the door. He would peek through the door then fidget with his hands then peek through the door and fidget with his hands and he continued to repeat himself like this for a couple of minutes.
No comments on Craig, but this whole incident reminded me of something I had forgotten about, from a long time ago.
At age 16, I was in bathroom stall of a department store (doing what bathrooms are intended to be used for). I looked down near my feet, and some guys head (not his hands) was looking up at me from under the divider!
It totally freaked me out and I reacted by lifting my foot and bringing the heel down squarely on the guys nose. I felt his head bounce off the tile floor as I did this. I quickly hustled out of there. I looked back and could see him clearly sprawled out on the floor, with a big smear of blood on the floor. He was moaning as I left.
I was a bit naive at the time, but do recall my friend saying that bathroom was where gays hooked up, according to his mother, who worked at that particular store. I do not recall any "bathroom murders" being reported in the news, so feel comfortable that I didn't leave him permanently damaged.
I never mentioned this to anybody! To this day, I avoid bathroom stalls and will only use a bathroom with a single toilet and a lock on the door. Now I know why!
I heard all the sound clips respecting the issue. The man should resign.
The other thing that struck me is how differently the right handles this sort of thing compared to the left.
How long was it before the Florida college-paige issue resulted in resignation?
How long was it before the $100k in the freezer resulted in resignation?
There aee a lot of other things that have been on my mind, and I just have to tell you that this "takes the cake."
As far as becoming "marketable", well, the Lord knows all about that (including dead girls and live boys).
Too bad he didn't just drive his car over a bridge while intoxicated. He could've just left that person in his automobile submerged in water for hours and hours. Then he could've been elected Senator for life.
Oh, wait...
I only try to go by what both the original charge and the one admitting to the charge has said. I try not to read anything extra into the report.
Senator Craig pled guilty. How bout you spend your time discovering why he pled guilty?
I believe that my discussion of the system has been entirely descriptive, as opposed to prescriptive. My proposals for proper action have been based on my desired results based on my understanding of reality.
The police SGT did not see Craig pick up a piece of paper. That was Craig's claim/excuse, that he was trying to pick up a piece of paper. Now, you tell me, what piece of paper would that be? Who extends their hand to the floor of a public restroom to pick up a piece of paper? The policeman did not see this, did not say he saw this.
He saw Craig's hand swipe under the divider 3 times, front to back, not reaching to pick up anything.
There is just a cherry-picking going on here by the apologists, instead of a calm reading of the report, and then the interview.
We have photos of Craig wearing his ring on his left hand and also of wearing it on his right hand. It is not impossible that Craig displayed his left hand under the stall divider wall, either. So, I don't get too excited over the ring thing.
But, for those calling the cop a liar, it's their big thrill.
In other words, you're saying SGT Karsnia lied in his report. And, duh, of course perverts looking for public restroom sex would be complaining about the law cracking down. Duh.
Yep, and yep. I’ve written and read enough reports to know that most are not perfect mirrors of the truth.
I don’t believe the Senator’s version of events, either.
Both sides have dogs in the fight, and that is why we have trails and juries.
Just because a policeman wrote it down, doesn’t make it true.
Oh, puhleeeze. Self-induced stab wounds aren't "an attack."
Never mind the reasonable presumption Craig is an adulterer -- that's just the tip of the iceberg. The more we learn about the incident, the more we see he wasn't contrite in pleading guilty, he was trying to throw his Senatorial weight around. Now he says, "I should have contacted a lawyer" and he is not lying now, he was lying then. Attaboy, Larry. I knew we could trust you.
I'm going to tell you exactly what I wrote about Bill Clinton back when it was very possible that his perjury would cost him the Presidency: "If he's supposed to be the best man for the job, his first order of business is not to screw up. If that meant he would have to go without fellatio for eight years, that's a small price to pay..."
Let's face facts: liberals get away with more because they practice situational ethics. Conservatives in general don't tolerate that. So when a conservative doesn't practice as he preaches, fingers point in judgment from all directions. When a liberal does the same, they say, "Who am I to judge? Besides, he's MY guy."
Thus, for just one example, the liberals of Massachusetts gave us Ted Kennedy (drunken driving, leaving his accident victim to die). And Barney Frank (a male sexcort service run out of his D.C. mansion). And Gerry Studds (seducing a 17-year old Senate page). Think the Mass Asses would let Mitt Romney get away with stepping out on Ann? It would be political suicide -- not an attack, suicide.
Is it fair? Heck no. But it's the way the game is played. So if you can't discipline yourself to resist your carnal urges, either get out of the way in favor of someone who can, or become a Democrat.
I don't know the specific charges that Craig accepted against himself. Did he admit to running his hand along the wall between the two stalls, for example?
While I'm ignorant of the methods used for solicitation for sex, I would judge this to be strange behavior if I were in the next stall. While Craig finds himself in a very bad position, I see the whole mess as a "he said, he said" debate. Who can prove Craig's guilt? One other man?
Without solid proof, anyone can be accused of just about anything.
Years ago my husband went to a 7-11 convenience store. Two young girls from our street who were maybe around 12 or 13 happened to be their also, and he offered them a ride home. We knew these kids; we knew their parents, and our children knew them also. They thanked him but refused his offer. Maybe they just wanted to walk, but it's very possible they were taught not to accept rides from others. My husband is a straight arrow, a moral person. I told my husband that the girls were right. Kids simply can't take chances.
We have three of our own and six grandchildren and he loves them all. I know very well that he's not a pervert, but because we have to teach our kids to look out for themselves, these girls made the right decisioin, sad as it is, in a way.
Most people are good and decent...that's what I believe. How did we get to the place where a teacher has to be careful not to give a child a hug?
The evil people among us should be removed from society, permanently. Innocent people suffer because of them, in more ways than one.
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.