Posted on 09/01/2007 10:18:20 PM PDT by smoothsailing
The bottom line is that he’s gone. All of this talk about the decades of rumors and witnesses being wrong makes us look like Democrats.
“If he had a D after his name...Levin wouldnt have wasted his time writing a column.”
If he had a D after his name he would be promoted to a leadership post. Probably some committee on stopping AIDS from spreading.
You nailed it, Bonaparte. I can’t beleive Levin is so far off the mark in this case. Hannity is burying his head in the sand as well. I thought these guys went out of their way to be independent conservative voices. Instead, we have Republican water carriers.
The culture of corruption is the Democrat Party. If the Democrat Party is not investigated as an ongoing criminal enterprise under the RICO Statute, the law should be repealed. The Democrat Party has done more harm to this Nation and the World than all criminal activity added together.
If he had a D after his name he would still be a Senator and any critics would be bigots. The officer would be accused of soliciting a Senator and reprimanded.
I agree with your assesment more than mine. I do believe that once they reach Washington D.C. that the biggest difference between Republican and Democtat politicians is in the speling.
Each time I go to town, I see the extent that both parties have sold us out regarding the immigration issue. The entire Nation including them will eventually pay for this. I call it treachery. But that is only my opinion.
I’m betting that Craig is wishing he were a demonRat about now...
Thank you, Mark Levin, for an intelligent, reasoned article on the situation.
I’m impressed. After reading most of the freeper comments on this, your post is like a breath of fresh air.
So far, you and I are on the same page.
That's exactly right. I cannot say I am disappointed in the left because that is the way I expect them to act. I am no longer disappointed in the Republicans but it is getting harder and harder to consider myself one.
I will try to answer this gentlemen’s questions from the presumption of innocence perspective:
Question 1: “Mr. Levin, why would a 62-year-old man who needed to go to the bathroom walk all the way over to another terminal to do this when there were bathrooms right there in his flight terminal? Out of all the many bathrooms at that Minneapolis airport, why would he select this distant men’s room that just happened to be the only one homosexuals used for casual public sex?”
Having spent some time in airports, I have found myself killing time in all sorts of spots. Did the guy have to get on a shuttle bus? Or was he wandering around, looking for a better restaurant, who knows?
Question 2: “Having arrived at that terminal, presumably with a full bladder and/or lower intestine, why would he stand there waiting 13 minutes for a particular stall in that bathroom?”
Who knows? This certainly is no crime, and without the accusation, would be meaningless. How did the officer see the person through that little slit in his stall?
Question 3: “Mr. Levin, do you consider it normal behavior for a man in a public toilet stall to keep placing his foot and hand under the divider into an adjacent occupied stall?”
I certainly avoid that, but it isn't inconceivable in narrow stalls that while turning around with luggage he could have caused an illegal out of stall foot slip.
Heck, I even once dropped a piece of toilet paper and it fell into the next stall's boundary. What is stall etiquette when that happens?
Question 4: "Mr. Levin, how is it possible for a sitting man to have his pant waist at mid-thigh and abduct his leg that far without tearing his pants?”
Give me a diagram. Man, maybe we should put a camera in there to be able to validate this next time. How could the officer be so aware of this gentlemen’s pants anyway? Aren’t those stall dividers pretty low? This one is kind of creepy.
Question 5: “Why would a powerful and well-to-do man who is arrested for something he didn’t do waive his right to legal counsel, confess, pay a fine and submit to conditions of probation?”
Hmm. This is the one that really proves how ridiculous this argument is. If you note, he did not confess to anything lewd, thus isn’t guilty of all the officer suspected. Why can’t you see that? He’s guilty of disorderly conduct, because he pleaded guilty to it. He was being accused by a police officer of something with potentially great political ramifications, something that he recognized could never be disproved. While his attempts to make it go away were not successful in hindsight, do you not see he was screwed from the minute he was accused?
Question 6: “And why would such a man not tell his wife about all this injustice to which he was subjected?”
Unknowable. Perhaps he was embarrassed? Thought he had made it go away until now?
Question 7: “Mr. Levin, would you trust a man who admitted guilt before a judge but subsequently denied his guilt on camera?”
He is denying the implications of the officer’s apparent accusations, and sorry he tried to make it go away the way he did. The lynch mob assumes that guilty of a lesser charge proves guilt of the original accusation. How is this justice or fair?
It appears that all that we need is an accusation and we can presume guilt without any proof. This is the way of America now, to decide guilt or innocence from the comfort of our arm chair.
Well said. It’s beyond sad that so many are willing to close their eyes to the truth simply because Craig is a Republican.
This is going to come back and bite the GOP in the butt--running a Senator out of town for allegedly playing footsie with a toilet cop. No words exchanged...no physical contact...no real facts. This is absurd. If Anything, Craig should be punsihed for not calling a lawyer as soon as he was arrested.
Notice the lack of outcry from the Dems? They had no leg to stand on. We didn't have any charges of hypocrisy to fight. Just our own impulsive gutlessness. Eventually the Craig affair is going to be evidence of our homophobia...maybe Lindsey Graham will lead the charge and call us "bigots" again. There's a lot of rumors about HIS sexual preferences, you know. And he's got a war chest of $4M and no credible opposition in the primaries.
I don't buy that the defeats we suffered in 06 were due to a "culture of corruption"--I think some of them were deliberately and mendaciously engineered by Rove to give Bush a "congress he could work with" and shove amnesty down the throats of an unwilling American citizenry.
Just like Mark pointed out, that's exactly right. This wasn't about rumors from last year or ten years ago, this was about what took place then and it doesn't look to me that any law was broken but the holier-than-thou have declared him guilty, of something.
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.