[IronJack]

whose allegations can't be disproved

Is THAT the new standard of proof these days? That an allegation doesn't have to be PROVEN; it just can't be DISPROVEN????

Wow! That kinda sets our notion of equity on its head.

Not to mention, logically, it's impossible to prove a negative.

[weegee]

Is THAT the new standard of proof these days?

"My friend, you have seen this incident based on sworn testimony. Can you prove that it didn't happen?"

< /Criswell Predicts sequence from Plan 9 From Outer Space >

[tioga]

I caught that as well. What a bunch of hooey.....

[3AngelaD]

Did you mean standard of proof, or standard of poof?

[shrinkermd]

Yes, logically one cannot disprove a negative. If people believe he is a homosexual, there is no way he can prove otherwise.

Also, another example of where the righteous right hang their own for infractions of the moral code, but the opposition celebrates these infractions. Leaves our candidates open to personal destruction--especially over homosexuality, heterosexual affairs, divorce and so forth.

There is nothing to suggest in life or Scripture that conservatives are immune from sin--including sexual sin.

Homosexuals are doing their best to prove they are "normal." What this means to them and the average heterosexual person are different. Want to excite the homosexual community? Simply have a conservative of any stripe or kind imply they are not "normal."

So let the righeous ones rant. Senator Craig will complete his term and the righeous will only discharge their considerable load of hostility.

[ROTB]

>Not to mention, logically, it’s impossible to prove a negative.

I can certify there are no flying zebras in my office. ;)

[trisham]

What is stated in the article is that there are no videos, voice mails or written correspondence to prove the allegations. However, background checks on the men were done, and travel records indicate the liaisons were doable.

Is Craig a homosexual? I think he probably is, but without a confession or video tape I can understand why some would continue to hold out hope that he isn't.

[Bernard Marx]

Is THAT the new standard of proof these days? That an allegation doesn't have to be PROVEN; it just can't be DISPROVEN????

That's right on point, IJ. This whole matter has been about allegations with no proof. This contretemps has an important political component: Craig holds an important conservative slot and the libs have a lot to gain by smearing him.

If they can prove their accusations, fine. But this business of convicting a person in the press goes against every founding principle in this country. I've worked in Boise and have dealt with the Statesman. It was a wild-eyed liberal rag under its previous ownership (Gannett) and is just as liberal under McClatchey.

Many Californians and other liberal out-of-staters have migrated to Boise in the past 20 years. I think the local Demos, with their allies at the Statesman, are trying to change the political landscape in that traditionally conservative state. But the burden of proof is on the accusers.

[A_Former_Democrat]

That’s pretty pathetic regardless of what one thinks of Craig’s conduct and credibility.

This paper is out to get him. It’s one thing to seek a story and go behind the scenes to gather information, but to publish something like this and with the language you quoted shows a lack of ethics and integrity.

I almost feel sorry for Craig after this.