Senator Craig: Guilty or Entrapped?

[Wags]

The poor devil known as Craig has RESIGNED so it is a MOOT issue.

The Republican Party threw this poor devil under the bus and then they ran over him several times to make sure he did not get up. That's how loyalty is defined when one finds another person down on their luck.

I for one do not know if he did it or did not do it but America is a land of second chances and this poor devil known as Craig was not given an opportunity to redeem himself in the eyes of the nation or his wife.

Poor Devil

[TromboneAl]

Quote:

The fact of the matter is that he pled guilty. All of your points are valid, misunderstanding, overzealous polic, weak evidence etc, but the time to make those assertions was at a trial (and with a lawyer). Once you plead guilty, its kind of late to complain about being treated unfairly or misunderstood.

I thought that way for a while. "Hey, he pled guilty, he has to take the consequences of that. But let's say you were in that situation, and you're not gay. It was all a misunderstanding.

Here are your choices. You have minutes to make your choice:

1. If you plead guilty, there's a chance that no one will ever know. The arresting officer says that it all be over, and nothing else will happen.

2. If you fight it, your career will be over, Jay Leno will make jokes about you, you'll be a public laughing stock, nothing in your life will ever be the same. Doesn't matter if you are totally innocent. Even if you win, which, with a good lawyer you undoubtedly will, it won't matter, the damage will have been done.

So, what's your choice?

[brewer12345]

I can't figure out the log cabin republicans. Its like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders.

[lazygood4nothinbum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wags The poor devil known as Craig has RESIGNED so it is a MOOT issue. The Republican Party threw this poor devil under the bus and then they ran over him several times to make sure he did not get up. That's how loyalty is defined when one finds another person down on their luck. I for one do not know if he did it or did not do it but America is a land of second chances and this poor devil known as Craig was not given an opportunity to redeem himself in the eyes of the nation or his wife. Poor Devil

indeed, judgment has been swift. and to actually stop to think about it, who is to really say that this guy was ever a hypocrite. even if you assume he is gay, voting against gay rights doesn't make him a hypocrite. there are plenty of gays who do not support gay rights and who despise the idea of gay pride. so even if you assume he is gay, it could just be that he is a self-loathing gay man who does not believe he is worthy of basic human rights. it could be that he believes gay sex belongs in the toilet. it could be that he was acting, for whatever this is worth, with complete integrity.

[TromboneAl]

It's worth noting that he probably did not intend to marry the undercover cop in the bathroom.

[lazygood4nothinbum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 I can't figure out the log cabin republicans. Its like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders.

reminiscent of douglas adams' restaurant at the end of the universe of the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy series where the talking cow tries to persuade arthur dent to eat him. forgive my, um, butchered paraphrasing but it went something like "perhaps i could interest you in my thigh this evening. i've just been laying around all day so it is particularly tender and would likely make for a good steak."

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazygood4nothinbum indeed, judgment has been swift. and to actually stop to think about it, who is to really say that this guy was ever a hypocrite. even if you assume he is gay, voting against gay rights doesn't make him a hypocrite. there are plenty of gays who do not support gay rights and who despise the idea of gay pride. so even if you assume he is gay, it could just be that he is a self-loathing gay man who does not believe he is worthy of basic human rights. it could be that he believes gay sex belongs in the toilet. it could be that he was acting, for whatever this is worth, with complete integrity.

LG4NB,
I agree with this subtle point you've made. As it happens, James Taranto of the WSJ also agrees. Here's what he wrote on Tuesday:

"The liberal view of homosexuality is based on two claims: an empirical one and a moral one. The empirical claim is that sexual orientation is inborn, a trait over which one has no control. The moral claim is that homosexuality is no better or worse than heterosexuality; that a gay relationship, like a traditional marriage, can be an expression of true love and a source of deep fulfillment. Out of these claims flows the conclusion that opposition to gay rights is akin to racism: an unwarranted prejudice against people for a trait over which they have no control.
For the sake of argument, suppose this liberal view is true. What does it imply about the closeted homosexual who takes antigay positions? To our mind, the implication is that he is a deeply tragic figure, an abject victim of society's prejudices, which he has internalized and turned against himself. "Outing" him seems an act of gratuitous cruelty, not to mention hypocrisy if one also claims to believe in the right to privacy.
According to the Statesman, the blogger who "outed" Craig did so in order to "nail a hypocritical Republican foe of gay rights." But there is nothing hypocritical about someone who is homosexual, believes homosexuality is wrong, and keeps his homosexuality under wraps. To the contrary, he is acting consistent with his beliefs. If he has furtive encounters in men's rooms, that is an act of weakness, not hypocrisy."
OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today


As for the Log Cabin Republicans: I think most are "closet" Libertarians who vote Republican out of a sense of pragmatism. Once the small govt/fiscal conservatives within the Republican party wrest control from the social conservatives the Log Cabin Republicans will be far more comfortable in the tent.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem LG4NB, Once the small govt/fiscal conservatives within the Republican party wrest control from the social conservatives

And if a table sprouts wings, we can fly it to the moon.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl 1. If you plead guilty, there's a chance that no one will ever know. The arresting officer says that it all be over, and nothing else will happen. 2. If you fight it, your career will be over, Jay Leno will make jokes about you, you'll be a public laughing stock, nothing in your life will ever be the same. Doesn't matter if you are totally innocent. Even if you win, which, with a good lawyer you undoubtedly will, it won't matter, the damage will have been done.

I can't fail to appreciate the irony of how this alleged legislator-- with all his expertise in the law and the political process and public relations and the vicarious experience of his fellow felons senators grappling with their own legal jams-- completely imploded when confronted with a stranger's interpretation of that legislator's behavior.

Think of all the other political figures who've been standing in the glare of the police spotlights denying any involvement, let alone culpability. You would at least expect that Craig would have availed himself of an opportunity to study the Senate's Chappaquiddick handbook.

As for that "no one will ever know" part, what the @#$% did he think was going to happen when a senator's plea was recorded into the legal system?!?

Maybe he's guilty by his own coerced admission or by his intent or by his actions, as speculative as that may be, but he certainly seems to be guilty by reason of incompetence.

[lazygood4nothinbum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem LG4NB, I agree with this subtle point you've made. As it happens, James Taranto of the WSJ also agrees.

well, if it's in the wsj then i must be right.

but how dare you accuse me of subtlety. that does it. i'm taking all my marbles and going home.

[DRiP Guy]

Guilty.

I don't care about his gayness or lack thereof.

I don't care about his promiscuity or lack thereof.

I don't care what consenting adult people do in private.

I care only that he was a Senator who was cruising for sex and making lewd advances in a public place, against the law, and where youngsters might be.

As was proved by his actions then, his actions later, and his actions now, he's guilty, knows he is guilty, and tried to use his office to wrangle his way out of the uncomfortable position he put himself into (no pun intended).

Pretty straightforward, IMHO.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazygood4nothinbum but i think what erd50 is arguing has less to do with the senator and more to do with the policy.

Yes, I'm glad that you understood that. The other reply seemed to think my comments were directed at the Senator, they were not, they were directed solely at the policy. I may not have been clear though.

The policy seems to be a double-standard, a very low standard of 'proof' for gay solicitation, and a much tougher standard of 'proof' for heterosexual solicitation. Doesn't seem fair, does it?

So maybe I would not run the risk of getting arrested for accidently dropping my keys in a public restroom, but there was nothing in that transcript that made me feel it couldn't happen.

Maybe the posters with law enforcement experience could comment on this. I have personal experience with neither .

-ERD50

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 So maybe I would not run the risk of getting arrested for accidently dropping my keys in a public restroom, but there was nothing in that transcript that made me feel it couldn't happen.

The same thought crossed my mind. But then I thought to myself, "Self, have you ever 'accidentally' touched another man's foot with your own in a public restroom?"

"Self, have you ever run your hand along the underside of the divider between the stalls?"

"Self, have you ever spent time wandering around an aorport men's room looking through the crack in the stall dividers to see who was in obviously already occupied crappers?"

I'm not real worried about being accidentally picked up for cruising, having thought about it.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 The same thought crossed my mind. But then I thought to myself, "Self, have you ever 'accidentally' touched another man's foot with your own in a public restroom?"

LOL! - yeah, I guess the whole thing got me a bit paranoid.

I'd probably say in a loud voice ' Woops, 'scuse me, gotta get my keys and drive over to my girlfriend's place!'.

-ERD50

[maddythebeagle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 I can't figure out the log cabin republicans. Its like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders.

[Brat]

Those who run 'family values' up a flag pole should expect to be exposed if they violate those values, whatever their sexual orientation.

[WanderALot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 The same thought crossed my mind. But then I thought to myself, "Self, have you ever 'accidentally' touched another man's foot with your own in a public restroom?"

That's the part that I can't get past. I think most guys go to bathroom, do their business and get out. There's no small talk, no eye contact and definitely no foot touching.

I can't believe Criag tried to pull his the "I had a wide stance" bit. I guess he thinks we are stupid enough to believe that.

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazygood4nothinbum i have no idea if the guy is gay or not. but if he is then he sure did waste his best years. frankly, i coudn't give a rat's ass about some senator. it doesn't matter to me what he did. this is like watching the space shuttle from the ground with a naked eye instead of from your television set. in real life, you never see the shuttle, only the fire and the plume. sometimes the reaction says more than the action itself.

Completely off subject.... but when I was there and saw a launch... I saw the shuttle.... not that long, but you could see it clearly when it first started to go up.... one of the things that you should do if you are down there when a launch is going to happen... it only takes a few minutes before you can go on your way...

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl I thought that way for a while. "Hey, he pled guilty, he has to take the consequences of that. But let's say you were in that situation, and you're not gay. It was all a misunderstanding. Here are your choices. You have minutes to make your choice: 1. If you plead guilty, there's a chance that no one will ever know. The arresting officer says that it all be over, and nothing else will happen. 2. If you fight it, your career will be over, Jay Leno will make jokes about you, you'll be a public laughing stock, nothing in your life will ever be the same. Doesn't matter if you are totally innocent. Even if you win, which, with a good lawyer you undoubtedly will, it won't matter, the damage will have been done. So, what's your choice?

I disagree with you assumptions....

1. Pleads guilty... any good paper has a beat reporter that looks though ALL cases to see what is happening... you can not hide a plea from a Senator (or that reporter would be fired....) AND, I am sure that there were others in the court who called the paper anyhow... it will come out no matter what..

2. Sure... if he fought it and he really did nothing wrong, I bet that he would not have to resign at all.... it might be a bit harder to get re-elected, but he might have such a big margin in a small state that it would not have hurt him politically....


IMO he chose the only way that would insure him of getting 'thrown under the bus'... pleading guilty... man that is something you can not undo..

Also, from what I had heard... the plea agreement said he could not say outside the court that he did not do what he was pleading guilty on... so, what else does he face for doing that??

[farmerEd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem LG4NB, Once the small govt/fiscal conservatives within the Republican party

If there are actually any "small govt/fiscal conservatives" in the Republican party, it must be a very small group of people - they would probably collectively fit into a bathroom stall all at the same time (and probably have).

We have already witnessed what the Republican party does when they control the presidency, the house and the senate...the ramped up spending and the national debt faster than democrats could ever have dreamed.

I have no doubt they will try to run as "small government fiscal conservatives once again"...I wonder if the American public is actually dumb enough to fall for it (again)?