Posted on 08/29/2007 7:03:12 AM PDT by teddyballgame
Idaho Senator Larry Craig obviously did a very bad thing in a men's restroom at the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport in June. Whatever took place between Senator Craig and an undercover police officer was bad enough that Senator Craig tried to hide it from everyone around him, public and private. It was bad enough that he pled guilty, hoping it would stay buried forever. There are many things about this affair that have made him politically radioactive, and fatally so. The press statement he gave to the media earlier Tuesday afternoon did not help make his predicament any less dire. In fact, it made it worse.
Senator Craig said very strongly that he did not do anything wrong, that he is not gay, and that he is not ruling out running for re-election next November. Here's what else Senator Craig has not done.
He has not estimated highly enough that his 'I shoulda hired a lawyer instead of trying to solve this myself' excuse doesn't fly with the American people.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
HILARIOUS!! Everyone should see your clip!
Some have. Vitter in LA with the prostitution scandal will survive, and it has almost completely dropped off the radar screen.
"The difference is that we have standards."
As we should. Though the problem with standards is that we've almost reached the point of expecting our people to be without any sin, an almost impossible task (especially given the field that they are in). I don't want to look like I'm defending bad behavior, but only that sometimes people make serious mistakes. The question is whether they are of a nature that the person can be forgiven, or whether it reaches the level that the person places our party and our nation at risk. Simply put, they shouldn't lie and deny, as Craig did to an embarrassing degree yesterday. Craig is now a serious liability and needs to go.
"The key for me is that anyone hiding something can be pressured/blackmailed into voting for the wrong bill lest the secret be revealed."
Exactly. Who is to say that Craig's pro-shamnesty stance wasn't a result of political blackmail ? Ditto that of Graham in SC (whom is also suspected of having similar predilictions).
"If they cannot behave, they cannot be trusted. I won’t vote for them."
Especially when they lie to our faces.
Sure, Republicans/Conservatives are held to higher regard than the less moral Democrat/Liberal - but that high regard also needs embody a sense of fairness and justice to look at the entire account before a judgment is levied.
Thats about right. You dont see them eating one another at the simple suggestion of a Republican, yet we take the bait hook line and sinker.
Aye, aye. Well said.
No, I do see the big picture in that all this is an effort by democrats to drub yet another Republican out of office.
However, I do not like liberals dictating the rules of double standards for their people and our people; and have us accept it on it face. Its an old Saul Alinsky tactic of defining your enemies.
You left out Bill Clinton.
Perhaps, without the 17th amendment, this problem could have been contained to Idaho?
-PJ
What straight man talks like that? Who else said that about Clinton? “nasty naughty bad boy” I think he enjoyed saying those words:)
A nasty naughty bad thing.
No straight male on the planet would ever plead guilty to perverted sex if he was really innocent.
I guess I’m not understanding exactly what he did that was so bad. Everything I’ve read made it sound like he just tapped his foot in a way that can indicate his looking for sex, which sounds like something that could easily be mistaken. And I can understand pleading guilty if he’s not because he hoped to avoid a scandal and it almost worked. Otherwise fighting it in court is a guaranteed scandal. I honestly don’t understand this whole thing so if someone could explain it I would be grateful.
Why do we have undercover cops looking for foot tappers in the men’s room?
Sure, a wide variety of opinions and beliefs, but none of them are an excuse for bad behavior and malfeasance in office.
We treat these guys royally and pay them handsomely. If they can behave and appreciate the opportunity given to them, they don’t deserve reelection.
Remember, it is our congressional seat, not theirs. They have no inherent claim to it. They serve at our pleasure. Perhaps we need to show our displeasure more and royal treatment less.
It would seem that we agree for the most part.
I just won’t cut them any slack when it comes to their behavior. Picking up a prostitute or having sex with another man in a men’s room is not a ‘mistake’. It is a deliberate choice. At a minimum, it shows a horrible failure to use good judgment precisely when we are paying them for their good judgment.
Their particular elected position does not confer any special rights or immunities upon them. Who do they think they are — sports stars and Hollywood celebrities?
Stars and celebrities are only accountable at the box office and rarely pay a price. Pols are accountable at the ballot box and must be held to a high standard because they are not there to provide entertainment (although we do laugh at them quite a bit). They are charged with a serious business that impacts the lives of millions of people.
They should be above reproach and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Many have done so and didn’t find it to be an imposition. We need to raise the standard, not lower it.
Can you think of any that we ‘stoned’ that later proved to be innocent?
No, I don’t think that ‘the seriousness of the charge’ is sufficient to throw someone overboard, but neither do I believe that we should stonewall and circle the wagons to protect a reprobate just because the Dems make that charge.
The dems are just capitalizing on what the pubbie did. If they behave and avoid even the appearance of impropriety, then the dem play book can’t work.
Having said that, Messrs Clinton, Frank, Jefferson, McGreevey, et al never have admitted to having done anything wrong, instead, (sometimes rather successfully), have trashed their accusers.
And I can think of at least one large, disgusting, drunken U.S. Senator still lecturing to most of America 38 years after leaving a poor woman to die a watery death.
Why are Craig/Gingrich/Livingston/Packwood/Gonzalez/Foley/NIXON held to an entirely different standard than these low-life, scum-sucking Democrats?
Don't bother posting a response.
I already know the answer.
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.