[Saundra Duffy]

Sheeesh. Not one FReeper doesn't fall for the newspaper spin hook line and stinker. Unbelievable. You guys are gullible beyond words. I thought you knew the media would lie, cheat, steal, deceive and try to destroy any conservative Republican. I hope to God none of you ever falls prey to the "thought police" because you are ripe for the pickin'.

[babaloo999]

See #8.

Your congressman could very well be telling the truth, only he knows for certain. Most people here don't seem to buy it, though. That includes me.

Conservatives seem to held to a higher standard. Libs are expected to say and do stupid things, so no one is surprised when they oblige.

Meanwhile, Steve could have been one of the greatest Assemblyman ever

and in an alternate universe, Bill Clinton would just be professor of law at UA, with a never ending stream of doe-eyed coeds to play with. Apologies to whoever said that first.

[ER_in_OC,CA]

If the newspaper is lying, or "spinning" as you suggest about the 1998 incident, perhaps you could give us the truth?

Simply calling what the Bee writes "spin" and declaring them to have bad motives doesn't replace evidence or sound argument. If there are contrary facts about the 1998 issue, I'd like you to share them with us rather than calling people on this thread "gullible."

[Ancesthntr]

Sheeesh. Not one FReeper doesn't fall for the newspaper spin hook line and stinker. Unbelievable. You guys are gullible beyond words. I thought you knew the media would lie, cheat, steal, deceive and try to destroy any conservative Republican. I hope to God none of you ever falls prey to the "thought police" because you are ripe for the pickin'.

You missed my point, big time. Let's look at what happened: Samuelian WAS caught soliciting in 1998. Now, he's caught hanging around a street that HE KNOWS is a hangout for prostitutes. I will say that this proves nothing about whether he solicited (and the fact that the charges were dropped shows that the Fresno cops know that nothing proveable occurred). On this point, I agree with you, but it ends there.

OK, so he's innocent - this time. However, this really calls his judgment into question. I don't know about you, but if I had been convicted of soliciting a few years ago, I'd steer as far away as I could from the locations where I knew prostitutes hang out, just to be certain that I couldn't be accused of the same crime again. I'd do this for the sake of my marriage - which ought to be far more important to anyone than their political career. Given his history, the fact that he was on that street raises questions about what he was doing, even if he was (as it appears) innocent of any crime on this particular occasion. Face it, he's shown himself to be pretty stupid. Maybe the Kali Republicans want him gone because they view him as a liability. Maybe he short-circuits their ability to claim the moral high ground. Maybe they are worried that he'll be their version of X-42 (albeit on a much lower level).

Yes, facts are facts. But appearances are also very important, particularly for a politician, and most especially for a politician who has been involved in a nearly identical scandal in the fairly recent past. His failure to understand that doesn't speak too highly of him, regardless of his stand on the issues. His poor judgment has the effect of smearing all of those who share similar views - despite the fact that he did nothing (that can be proven) this time and despite the fact that his ideological compatriots are themselves innocent.

Try to look at the forest, and not just a few trees.