Sen. Larry Craig (R-Id) arrested

[lI1|1!]

i think if you look closer at the idealogy there isn't any hypocrisy. it's all this guy's fault:

 

 

 

sen craig just couldn't resisit the temptation. it's really really the temptation that's the problem, not the inner desires. that's why republicans seek to reduce homosexual imagery. so we won't fall victim to it. do you want to be gay????

[dan_forester]

eh-oh!

[ClimbingPanther]

do you want to be gay????

 

Yeth pleathe!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

It just seems to me that the whole Christian right of the republican party has used the "we're the morally superior ones" platform in their campaign propaganda.

 

I see this happening in actuality far less than it is claimed by the left to happen. Especially in the last few years.

 

 

 

 

[No. 13 Baby]

An irresistible confluence of conservative temptation:

r2b9SKAb8G8

[dan_forester]

from the bizarro files of the Idaho Statesman

 

Another man said that in November 1994 Craig "cruised" him at the REI store in Boise. The man, who is gay, told the Statesman that Craig stared at him in a sexually inviting way and followed him around REI for a half-hour. Said Craig: "Once again, I'm not gay, and I don't cruise, and I don't hit on men. I have no idea how he drew that conclusion. A smile? Here is one thing I do out in public: I make eye contact, I smile at people, they recognize me, they say, "Oh, hi, Senator." Or, "Do I know you?"

 

"I've been in this business 27 years in the public eye here. I don't go around anywhere hitting on men, and by God, if I did, I wouldn't do it in Boise, Idaho! Jiminy!"

[Doug]

So how often is the left claiming it's happening? I'm not from the left, I'm from the middle and I don't embrace the idealogy the of the far left or far right as a whole. I just get a little perverse pleasure out of self righteous individuals who wrap themselves in idealogical flag of their party and turn out to be hypocrites. I also thought it was hilarious when Al Gore's energy bills were revealed, and I think Michael Moore is a fat asshole.

 

I see far fewer democrats taking the "if your not one of us, your one of them" attitude than the Neo-Conservatives republics.

Edited August 28, 2007 by Doug

[ericb]

eagerly awaiting his new book....

 

"If I did him"

[No. 13 Baby]

Senator Pervert will be making a public statement on all the usual networks in a few minutes... should be entertaining! 8D

[JayB]

Just to stir the pot a bit, isn't it possible to engage in a behavior and still believe that it's wrong, or destructive, or dangerous and shouldn't enjoy the sanction of the state? Take the case of an elected official who frequently gambles a significant portion of his net worth, but believes that legislation which eliminated restrictions on gambling would be contrary to the public interest? Is this position entirely untenable from an ethical perspective?

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

So how often is the left claiming it's happening? I'm not from the left, I'm from the middle and I don't embrace the idealogy the of the far left or far right as a whole. I just get a little perverse pleasure out of self righteous individuals who wrap themselves in idealogical flag of their party and turn out to be hypocrites. I also thought it was hilarious when Al Gore's energy bills were revealed, and I think Michael Moore is a fat asshole.

 

I see far fewer democrats taking the "if your not one of us, your one of them" attitude than the Neo-Conservatives republics.

 

I think it's human nature to notice the examples that stick out and disproportionately attribute them in broad-brush strokes to everyone in that perceived (ideological, ethnic, regional, racial, whatever) group.

 

I never heard of this Craig guy until yesterday. And I can't say whether he's one of those supposed "self-righteous" types on the specific matter at hand (homosexuality, "family values", whatever). However, I know other Republicans get attacked for this, who I know have never, or rarely been "self-righteous" in the matter they are accused of having transgressed. And whatever Craig has done hardly reflects on others who haven't stepped over some moral-hypocrisy line while speaking the "self-righteous" rhetoric you are annoyed by. And in any case, I don't revel in anyone's downfall.

 

Look at it this way, suppose the guy is guilty. So what? Firstly, he's looking for consensual sex. I thought sex didn't matter? And it's with adults, so no crime there? IN a public place - well you've never had sex in a public place? Or wouldn't? Have you ever run into someone in public having sex? Shit, I passed by a car on the I-5 a few weeks ago, looked left and saw a chick giving road-head to the driver in broad daylight. The HORROR! We must enforce this law!

 

Maybe it's the libertarian in me, but I think it's much ado about nothing, and a waste of resources to have cops running sex sting operations in public restrooms, and a waste of time and money and life energy attacking this guy. Shit, we've just spent a week or two crucifying Michael Vick for something legitimately wrong - but the disproportionality of the outrage and attention we focus on the issue of the day in a slow news cycle is what irks me.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Just to stir the pot a bit, isn't it possible to engage in a behavior and still believe that it's wrong, or destructive, or dangerous and shouldn't enjoy the sanction of the state? Take the case of an elected official who frequently gambles a significant portion of his net worth, but believes that legislation which eliminated restrictions on gambling would be contrary to the public interest? Is this position entirely untenable from an ethical perspective?

 

 

or to be tempted by a behavior you feel is wrong and fail to reject that temptation. as if anyone is perfect?

[lI1|1!]

Just to stir the pot a bit, isn't it possible to engage in a behavior and still believe that it's wrong, or destructive, or dangerous and shouldn't enjoy the sanction of the state? Take the case of an elected official who frequently gambles a significant portion of his net worth, but believes that legislation which eliminated restrictions on gambling would be contrary to the public interest? Is this position entirely untenable from an ethical perspective?

 

 

or to be tempted by a behavior you feel is wrong and fail to reject that temptation. as if anyone is perfect?

 

thank you for getting around to my above point that some people construct their external environment to control their own behavior.

 

the problem is that they also then attempt to construct other people's external environment who may not be interested in this form of self control. many homosexuals would rather deal with their issues by being open and honest about it. things like settling down in a long term relationship and enjoying the legal rights of marriage rather than being sucked [heh] into a pattern of self destructive promiscuity.

 

i think this is a valid reason to criticize a large portion of the republican party platform (but no it doesn't justify a personal attack on anyone who happens to be a republican, unless of course they are making a personal attack on anyone who happens to not be a republican).

 

 

[Winter]

Just to stir the pot a bit, isn't it possible to engage in a behavior and still believe that it's wrong, or destructive, or dangerous and shouldn't enjoy the sanction of the state? Take the case of an elected official who frequently gambles a significant portion of his net worth, but believes that legislation which eliminated restrictions on gambling would be contrary to the public interest? Is this position entirely untenable from an ethical perspective?

 

 

how is being gay=gambling addiction?

[Mal_Con]

Whether or not he is gay is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he solicits sex from strangers in adjacent toilet stalls. That is a crime, being gay is not.

[JayB]

It isn't. The question was whether it's possible for someone to make a distinction between their personal choices and what they consider to be the correct public policy.

 

Another example might be a senator who smokes cigarettes but votes for higher taxes on cigarettes, for the elimination of subsidies for tobacco farmers, etc. because he's convinced that policies which reduce the number of smokers would be beneficial for the country.

 

In order to be a more accurate parallel, you'd have to have an openly gay legislator who declined to support pro-gay policy initiatives, or a legislator who routinely criticized smokers while taking drags in secret - but I think that there are cases in which someone can conclude that their personal conduct or preferences aren't an ideal model to base public policy upon or to promote via legislation and decline to do so.

 

For my part, I think that a certain degree of candor regarding one's own conduct crucial for anyone that wants to straddle this line without being a hypocrite.

[cj001f]

Criminalizing consensual activity versus condemning carcinogenes?

 

Are you your evil homonym? What's next "Chavez - man or demigod?"

[marylou]

It's funny to see you conservative types defending this creep.

[JayB]

Criminalizing consensual activity versus condemning carcinogenes?

 

Are you your evil homonym? What's next "Chavez - man or demigod?"

 

I'd actually be in favor of full legalization of all drugs, extending the legal benefits of marriage to any two consenting adults, etc - but this isn't about my policy preferences.

 

I've just been arguing that there may be people who may feel that their lifestyle choices may not be an ideal template upon which to base the construction of public policy. So long as they're candid about their own behavior, I don't think that charges of hypocrisy are warranted.

 

Different standards apply to different behaviors - especially those involving consensual behavior between two mentally competent adults, or behaviors which don't harm anyone else directly - but I think there are cases in which one can engage in behaviors and still conclude that they should be condemned, illegal, etc. I don't think that Patrick Kennedy, for example, is under any ethical obligation to argue that driving while gorked out on prescription meds should be decriminalized because he was caught doing so.

 

T

[cj001f]

eh?

 

If Craig didn't have a persistant pattern of denying his own conduct - see events stretching back decades, in addition to the found family - you might have a point. As it is he's just another hypocritical family values politician who associates the byproducts of lying to cover up their sexuality with their sexuality and uses that fundamentally flawed assumption to disenfranchise and demonize others.

[JayB]

If discussing some generalities which relate to Craig in some fashion were the same thing as defending Craig, then you'd have a point.

[Winter]

Criminalizing consensual activity versus condemning carcinogenes?

 

Are you your evil homonym? What's next "Chavez - man or demigod?"

 

I'd actually be in favor of full legalization of all drugs, extending the legal benefits of marriage to any two consenting adults, etc - but this isn't about my policy preferences.

 

I've just been arguing that there may be people who may feel that their lifestyle choices may not be an ideal template upon which to base the construction of public policy. So long as they're candid about their own behavior, I don't think that charges of hypocrisy are warranted.

 

Different standards apply to different behaviors - especially those involving consensual behavior between two mentally competent adults, or behaviors which don't harm anyone else directly - but I think there are cases in which one can engage in behaviors and still conclude that they should be condemned, illegal, etc. I don't think that Patrick Kennedy, for example, is under any ethical obligation to argue that driving while gorked out on prescription meds should be decriminalized because he was caught doing so.

 

T

 

craig hasn't exactly been candid about his behavior (unless you're in a bathroom with him) or admitted to anything (apart from his guilty plea) and apparently continues to lie about his own sexuality. if he comes clean, admits that he's gay, that he wanted to get laid in the men's bathroom, that he got laid in the DC airport bathroom, and that his own actions directly conflict with his policy position, then let's talk again. at that point, it will up to his constituency to determine whether he can effectively represent them in DC.

 

[JayB]

I agree.

 

I still think there are real and hypothetical cases involving other behaviors where someone could live one way and legislate another without necessarily being a hypocrite. In most cases they'd have to be candid about their conduct and careful with their rhetoric in order to avoid wearing the scarlet H around D.C.

 

Not the case with Craig, could be the case in other situations involving other persons.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

of course Craig is guilty until proven innocent

[Winter]

so you mean like mike vick getting elected to congress on an anti-dog fighting platform?