GOP Plots to Gay-Bash Craig Out of Senate

posted by John Nichols on 10/03/2007 @ 11:37am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (77)

Subscribe Now

Idaho Senate Larry Craig is fast becoming the inconvenient truth of Capitol Hill. The senator who first said he would resign after pleading guilty to charges related to an alleged bathroom-sex solicitation and then said he was going to try and beat the rap and stay now seems to be intent upon remaining in the Senate indefinitely.

This creates a big political problem for Senate Republican leaders. Already facing the prospect of losing as many as a half dozen seats -- in Maine, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Virginia, Colorado and Alaska -- in a 2008 election cycle that is shaping up as their nightmare scenario, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his compatriots are terrified that Craig will extend his stay for months.

Craig's refusal to relinquish his grip on the Idaho seat creates trouble in that state, as it prevents Republican Governor Butch Otter from filling the vacancy with a Republican who would be set up to claim the seat in 2008. The longer the delay, the harder it is for Idaho Republicans -- a notoriously contentious lot -- to get their affairs in order and secure a seat that ought not be vulnerable.

But Idaho is not McConnell's biggest concern. He and his aides are more worried that the sordid stories associated with Craig, as well as his continued presence in the GOP caucus, will further erode enthusiasm among evangelical Christians and social conservatives for the party's candidates. The fear a scenario similar to the one that played out when Florida Congressman Mark Foley's page-boy scandal highlighted hypocrisy in the GOP ranks shortly before the 2006 election.

The threat faced by McConnell -- himself up for reelection in 2008 -- is real. And so to is the threat they are now preparing to direct at Craig. According to the Washington Post, McConnell is "threatening to notch up the public humiliation" in order to force the Idaho senator to quickly quit. What does that mean? Republican strategists quietly acknowledge that McConnell is talking about ginning up an open-to-the-media ethics committee inquiry with full public hearings designed to examine the many allegations regarding Craig's sexuality and sex life.

It's a sleazy scenario, especially in a Senate that has traditionally kept such matters cloaked. But if it is openness that McConnell wants, perhaps the Senate Democratic majority should give it to him. The Craig inquiry could come right after the public hearings regarding the sexuality and sex life of Senator David Vitter, the Louisiana Republican and McConnell confidante whose penchant for patronizing prostitutes -- an illegal act that some Republican stalwarts might even consider immoral -- has been much in the news of late.

If Larry Craig's bawdiness in bathrooms is worthy of an ethics investigation then, surely, an turn-the-TV-cameras-on inquiry regarding David Vitter's frequenting of a house in New Orleans will help to usher in Mitch McConnell's new era of openness.

Comments (77)

Is this a 'tap for tit', er, 'tit for tap'?

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/03/2007 @ 11:55am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/03/2007 @ 11:55am | ignore this person

amusing, yes.

both of these creeps are an asset. let's hope it'll take a good long time to give them their walking papers.

duck, we'll be hearing about Clinton soon, if Maasch is awake that is.

Posted by johannesrolf at 10/03/2007 @ 12:01pm
NEWS FLASH!

SENATE MINORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL* ARRESTED IN "GOATS FOR SEX" SCANDAL

details at 11:00

*apologies to mr. mcconnell -- i'm just trying to make a point

fz

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/03/2007 @ 12:07pm
Who cares...if Craig was a Democrat he would already be on the lecture circut and promoted inside the Dem party.

Posted by john maasch at 10/03/2007 @ 12:10pm
if Craig was a Democrat he would already be on the lecture circut and promoted inside the Dem party.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/03/2007 @ 12:10pm

if craig were a democrat, he could have openly said he was gay right from the start.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/03/2007 @ 12:17pm
JM:

True enough. Actually, this is fairly typical for Republicans. When someone is charged with an impropriety, they ask the offending person to step down. Turning it into some kind of anti-gay crusade is disgenuous. Democrats, on the other hand, tend to place their criminals on important committees.

I doubt The Nation is brave enough to tackle that disparity.

Posted by usc1 at 10/03/2007 @ 12:23pm
USC1-Maasch-You two live in a fantasy world.The GOP does not ask an offending party to step down.They all knew about him and have known about him for about twenty years just as they knew about the adultery committing hypocrite Republicans during the Clinton thing..They only ask those that get caught to step down and do so for political reasons and not because they have morals.

Posted by i'm nobody at 10/03/2007 @ 12:37pm
if Craig was a Democrat he would already be on the lecture circut and promoted inside the Dem party.

And what would be wrong with that?

It's interesting, though, different parties with different opinions also having different reactions to a situation. Who'da thunk it? Something needs to be done.

Posted by BlueSpark at 10/03/2007 @ 12:56pm
Actually, this is fairly typical for Republicans. When someone is charged with an impropriety, they ask the offending person to step down.

OH YEAH - like they took IMMEDIATE action with Mark Foley.

You guys crack me up.

Do you actually type this crap while standing on your heads?

Posted by Dr Decibels at 10/03/2007 @ 1:15pm
sounds like it will be lots of fun...give them rope - watch then hang selves...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/03/2007 @ 1:40pm
Foley's shenanigans were common knowledge, for years.

Same for Larry Craig's.

These kinds of indiscretions remain hypocritical little inside jokes until there are seats at risk.

Posted by drhammer at 10/03/2007 @ 2:30pm
Foley's shenanigans were common knowledge, for years.

Same for Larry Craig's.

These kinds of indiscretions remain hypocritical little inside jokes until there are seats at risk.

Posted by DRHAMMER 10/03/2007

Sad, but true.....it's all politics, no principals, when seats are at stake....With both parties, you have to admit........

Posted by davebarlett at 10/03/2007 @ 2:42pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/03/2007 @ 12:07pm

FZ -- This gives a whole new meaning to Bush's reading of "My Pet Goat" to FL schoolchildren on 9/11. Maybe they could impeach him for child pornography....

Posted by w_m_bear at 10/03/2007 @ 3:26pm
Who cares...if Craig was a Democrat he would already be on the lecture circut and promoted inside the Dem party.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/03/2007 @ 12:10pm

OH, BULLSHIT...

If Craig were a Democrat, you can bet the Republicans would never let the Democrats hear the last of it. They would have smeared the Democratic party as "the party of perverts" with an attack-ad campaign the likes of which we've never seen....

Posted by w_m_bear at 10/03/2007 @ 3:29pm
IT'S THE HYPOCRISY, STUPID...

Look folks, in real terms, this whole outing of Craig's sexual propensities should be a total non-issue. The reason it's any issue at all is because THE REPUBLICANS THEMSELVES HAVE MADE IT ONE, with their whole hypocritical stance on "values issues," etc. If your party comes out strongly with an anti gay-rights platform, and you turn out to be a closet homosexual (and one with a rather sleazy modus operandi at that), then it is, at the very least, a kind of poetic justice that the media should nail you and your party to the wall about this, is it not?

And please tell me, exactly WHAT have the Democrats done to contribute to this scandal? I'll tell you. Outside of a few apt comments about hypocrisy and political pragmatism, nada -- absolutely nothing. I know it's a favorite tactic of conservatives to blame the Democrats anyway (hey, look, they VOTED for to authorize Bush to invade Iraq, etc., etc., etc....)

Or Clinton. Hey it's all CLINTON'S fault that Craig and the Republicans are in the mess they're in over this, right?...

Posted by w_m_bear at 10/03/2007 @ 3:38pm
Posted by W_M_BEAR 10/03/2007 @ 3:26pm

that would be very ba-a-a-a-a-a-d

i wish i had more time for that one. off to work.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/03/2007 @ 4:08pm
Yeah, if it weren't for dems, the repubs wouldn't look so bad...

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/03/2007 @ 4:10pm
"if craig were a democrat, he could have openly said he was gay right from the start.

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/03/2007 @ 12:17pm "

But Craig is not gay..but if he were, where are the ever understanding , lets all celebrate gayness Democrats, in defending Craig?

Posted by john maasch at 10/03/2007 @ 5:36pm
It's interesting, though, different parties with different opinions also having different reactions to a situation. Who'da thunk it? Something needs to be done.

Posted by BLUESPARK 10/03/2007 @ 12:56pm

Yeah, nothing.

It called freedom...freedom of thouht ...

Posted by john maasch at 10/03/2007 @ 5:38pm
Rio-The GOP has many gays that can counsel him.

Posted by i'm nobody at 10/03/2007 @ 5:39pm
OH, BULLSHIT...

If Craig were a Democrat, you can bet the Republicans would never let the Democrats hear the last of it. They would have smeared the Democratic party as "the party of perverts" with an attack-ad campaign the likes of which we've never seen....

Posted by W_M_BEAR 10/03/2007 @ 3:29pm

OH, BULLSHIT...

2 words..

BARNEY FRANK...proudly serving...what would happen if Craig had a whorehouse being run out of his Washington residence..think anyone would have believed him had HE said he didn't know...gay or straight?

Posted by john maasch at 10/03/2007 @ 5:40pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/03/2007 @ 12:10pm

Posted by USC1 10/03/2007 @ 12:23pm

More delusional rantings from our neo-cons.

john, did you catch this sentence:He and his aides are more worried that the sordid stories associated with Craig, as well as his continued presence in the GOP caucus, will further erode enthusiasm among evangelical Christians and social conservatives for the party's candidates

these are the evangelicals you said had no impact on the republican party.

the CNP types are indeed a fringe the Repub party wil never run to their positon to garner votes and push the entire Repub party to the right.Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/01/2007 @ 08:16am

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/03/2007 @ 5:40pm

Pretty much proves BEARS point, does it not? If Craig were a Democrat, you can bet the Republicans would never let the Democrats hear the last of itTo the best of my knowledge, Frank was never charged with anything. But that does not stop you from bringing it up every month or so.

BTW, did you share your views of gay sex with your alleged gay business partners yet?

As far as RIOKORESH goes, I guess you have forgotten how long Rep Foley chased pages, with the knowledge of the morality police.

Senator Ahdidhiminthejohn is charged with a MISDEMEANOR disorderly conduct, not charged with being gay, or engaging in open gay sex. It is the outlying story that is hurting the repubs, not what he actually did. His very own are turning on him, while he denies being gay. Why is that? Because they have known for a while that he has a seedy closet gay side.

Meanwhile I rode with one of my contractors today. She has been with the same woman for 26 years. Good thing she can't marry, it would reflect poorly on all the straight marriages out there, lessoning the commitments of all those nice hetero unions.

You neo's need to get a grip on your fears. they are making you turn on those that agree with your economic policies.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/03/2007 @ 6:30pm
Rio-The GOP has many gays that can counsel him.

Posted by I'M NOBODY 10/03/2007 @ 5:39pm

don't make RIO face reality, it makes his little tiny brain hurt. God hates faggots. He would NEVER allow one in His Party.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/03/2007 @ 6:33pm
But Craig is not gay..--- JM

Then why is he cruising public restrooms looking to get fucked up the ass by a stranger?

Posted by Dr Decibels at 10/03/2007 @ 6:35pm
Crabby-I know that I should let Rio live in his fantasy world,but I just can't help myself.

Posted by i'm nobody at 10/03/2007 @ 6:40pm
Let's see, who could counsel Senator Ahdidhiminthejohn:

Mary Cheney or her lover.

Jeff Guckert

http://online.logcabin.org/

The Reverend Ted Haggard

Glenn Murphy

Maurice Bonamigo

Maybe ya'll should pick up a copy of http://worldofwonder.net/productions/networks/trio/gay_republicans.wow before you spout of some more nonsense.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/03/2007 @ 6:42pm
RIOAHMIDINIJAED:

"We don't have homosexuals in the republican party"

Really, RIO, wouldn't you be more comfortable in Saudi Arabia or Iran? Maybe Burma would suit you, no funny business from it's citizens speaking to power.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/03/2007 @ 6:45pm
Where is the outrage from these same repubs over young Pharoah Cheney's two mommies?

deafening silence from all except Mullah Dobson.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/03/2007 @ 6:48pm
Posted by CRABWALK 10/03/2007 @ 6:48pm

They're afraid of getting shot in the face.....

Posted by Dr Decibels at 10/03/2007 @ 6:49pm
Posted by CRABWALK 10/03/2007 @ 6:30pm

Senator Ahdidhiminthejohn is charged with a MISDEMEANOR disorderly conduct, not charged with being gay, or engaging in open gay sex.

That's exactly right. People have known for years that Craig is gay. Just like they knew Foley had a penchant for young men. It was only when each of them acted improperly that the Republicans demanded their resignations. In contrast, the Democrats have men like Ted Kennedy and Alcee Hastings in important positions in Congress. It think that pretty clearly demonstrates that Republicans at least have minimal standards of behavior for people in their Party, whereas the Democrats do not seem to have any at all.

Posted by pontificus at 10/03/2007 @ 7:03pm
Oh, did I forget to mention Bill Clinton when I talked about improper behavior in high office?

Posted by pontificus at 10/03/2007 @ 7:04pm
And let's not even mention Hillary Clinton's $100,000 'cattle futures trading' bribe from Tyson Food. Let's just not talk about that at all.

Posted by pontificus at 10/03/2007 @ 7:05pm
Ponti-I see that you have Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

Posted by i'm nobody at 10/03/2007 @ 7:16pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 10/03/2007 @ 7:16pm

Ponti-I see that you have Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
That's a very illuminating comment, IM. I have often thought that the left's need to cook up imaginary crimes for Bush supposedly to have committed is to offset the very real crimes the Clintons are known to have committed. It's a compensation mechanism for the left's failure to come to grips with those very real offenses.

Posted by pontificus at 10/03/2007 @ 7:21pm

I wonder, though, how you rationalize the fact that Alcee Hastings, who was impeached for taking bribes when he was a judge, is now an important Democrat in Congress? How does that tie in to your Clinton Derangement Syndrome?

Posted by pontificus at 10/03/2007 @ 7:23pm

Suggested response for you, IM:

"Yeah, well Alcee Hastings may have been disgraced as a judge, but we on the left can easily imagine, and if we try really hard, even convince ourselves that Cheney just started the war to make his friends rich! So it all balances out!"

Posted by pontificus at 10/03/2007 @ 7:25pm

"True enough. Actually, this is fairly typical for Republicans. When someone is charged with an impropriety, they ask the offending person to step down. Turning it into some kind of anti-gay crusade is disgenuous. Democrats, on the other hand, tend to place their criminals on important committees."

Well played. When in doubt, moral equivalency always works.

Posted by hhemwm at 10/03/2007 @ 7:53pm

Clearly the GOP definely has never demonstrated itself capable of anti-gay propaganda.

Posted by hhemwm at 10/03/2007 @ 7:54pm

I wonder, though, how you rationalize the fact that Alcee Hastings, who was impeached for taking bribes when he was a judge, is now an important Democrat in Congress? How does that tie in to your Clinton Derangement Syndrome?

Posted by PONTIFICUS

The question really becomes A.) Why was he elected in the primary? B.) Why was he elected in the general election?

Posted by hhemwm at 10/03/2007 @ 7:56pm

Posted by HHEMWM 10/03/2007 @ 7:56pm

The question really becomes A.) Why was he elected in the primary? B.) Why was he elected in the general election?

The Democratic Party never had to accept him as a candidate, and never had to give him an important committee assignment once he was elected...and Hillary Clinton never had to make him Chairman of her campaign, now did they? Didn't know about all that, now did you?

Posted by pontificus at 10/03/2007 @ 8:01pm

I've never even heard a serious defense of Hillary Clinton's bribe. Now I have had a few people try to tell me that she really was that good at trading cattle futures, but I don't think they even believed it themselves.

Posted by pontificus at 10/03/2007 @ 8:02pm

Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/03/2007 @ 7:03pm

More delusion.

I know, I know. when your "side" does it, it's ok. when he dems do it, it's bad.

I get it.

Oh, yeah, lest I forget....

Bill/Hillary Clinton did something :

1: worse

2: the same

3: similar.

AKA, Pontificus Usual defense of republicans.

How goes the witch-hunt hunt?

Posted by crabwalk at 10/03/2007 @ 10:09pm

Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/03/2007 @ 8:02pm

that was fun last time ponti!

so, here we go.

your right about the clintons having usurped the democrats with their corrupt lust for power.

but perhaps it would be wise to see what's also lurking in the bushes.

you do have a huge debt and your currency is teetering on the edge, hardly what one would call the fiscal responsibility for which the republican party has so proudly been proud of.

are you familiar with the quadrilogy?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/03/2007 @ 10:39pm

But Craig is not gay..but if he were, where are the ever understanding , lets all celebrate gayness Democrats, in defending Craig?

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/03/2007 @ 5:36pm

alas, he's a republican and we all know that power trumps ethics in the sordid corridors of k-streetville.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/03/2007 @ 10:42pm

It think that pretty clearly demonstrates that Republicans at least have minimal standards of behavior for people in their Party, whereas the Democrats do not seem to have any at all.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/03/2007 @ 7:03pm

what, sweep them under the family values rug?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/03/2007 @ 10:43pm

Cheney just started the war to make his friends rich! So it all balances out!"

Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/03/2007 @ 7:25pm

actually, it may have been that energy group thingy that took place in 2001

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/03/2007 @ 10:44pm

Stick around! The DEMONCRAT party and its minions have declared a war on FREE SPEECH especially on conservative talk radio and will soon shut it down! Then maybe you will have reason to rejoice!

Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/03/2007 @ 10:40pm

too much money's bein' made.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/03/2007 @ 10:46pm

Crab,

"To the best of my knowledge, Frank was never charged with anything. But that does not stop you from bringing it up every month or so. "

I glad youy pointed this out...neither has BUSH, but you wouldn't know that here , would you?

Posted by john maasch at 10/03/2007 @ 11:02pm

Then why is he cruising public restrooms looking to get fucked up the ass by a stranger?

Posted by DR DECIBELS 10/03/2007 @ 6:35pm

I am not sure he was doing that...something doesn't really add up, and neither dose this deal with the senate wasting time going after Limbaugh, when the military loves him and doesn't seem to thrilled about the dems...

Posted by john maasch at 10/03/2007 @ 11:08pm

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/03/2007 @ 11:02pm

perhaps he "doesn't recall".

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/03/2007 @ 11:11pm

BARNEY FRANK...proudly serving...what would happen if Craig had a whorehouse being run out of his Washington residence..think anyone would have believed him had HE said he didn't know...gay or straight?

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/03/2007 @ 5:40pm

YES, AND THE REPUBLICANS, ESPECIALLY CONSERVATIVES HAVE NEVER STOPPED...

Going after Barney Frank. But this is the difference between the two parties in this regard. Frank is OPENLY gay, and has been for decades. He has been a consistent proponent of gay rights as well. NO. HYPOCRISY. THERE. Craig is a closet homosexual with a sleazy modus operandi who's in denial and has consistently voted against gay rights legislation. Tell me, Maasch, where is the choice there? Evidently, you prefer moral hypocrisy to truth-telling?

Posted by w_m_bear at 10/04/2007 @ 12:13am

But Craig is not gay..--- JM

Then why is he cruising public restrooms looking to get fucked up the ass by a stranger?

Posted by DR DECIBELS 10/03/2007 @ 6:35pm

ACTUALLY, CRAIG ***ISN'T*** GAY...

Or, at any rate, you can make a good case for Craig not being gay. "Gay" is a complete lifestyle and really to BE gay, I think, you need to "come out of the closet." Craig is still hiding so far back IN the closet you can't even see him for all the coats! Ergo, Craig remains a closet homosexual but not a true gay man.

Posted by w_m_bear at 10/04/2007 @ 12:18am

They're afraid of getting shot in the face.....

Posted by DR DECIBELS 10/03/2007 @ 6:49pm

OR OF GETTING SHIT IN THE FACE...

Cheney's more typical response....

Posted by w_m_bear at 10/04/2007 @ 12:21am

Good old Mitch is ratcheting up the pressure on Foot Tapping Larry because he is scared shitless that he is going to be outed soon...very soon, I might add. There is the whole sordid goings on in North Carolina with a Congressman, murder and mayhem...there's Lindsey Graham, who was working in the military, even though he might not pass don't ask don't tell... why, Larry is just the tip of the iceberg. Larry seems to be tone deaf to the problems he is causing for all the closet queens surrounding him on his side of the stall...I mean aisle.

Posted by MCE337 at 10/04/2007 @ 05:03am

God, I love this guy!

With guys like this in the spotlight and Rudy as the nominee - it's a dream scenario for the Democrats.

Posted by Kevan at 10/04/2007 @ 05:27am

Posted by RIO BRAVO 10/03/2007 @ 10:40pm

what planet is this?

Posted by crabwalk at 10/04/2007 @ 07:49am

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/03/2007 @ 11:02pm

chimpy has lost more court cases than any president I can remember. He has openly admitted breaking FISA. His justice dept kidnapped a canadian citizen and had him tortured. His generals ok'ed torture of Iraqis.

But, you are right, his own party stood by and let him do it, and now the spineless dems are standing by and not impeaching him.

but, hey. Laws are for little people, not non-conservative conservatives that are afraid of giving poor kids access to healthcare because someday, maybe, in the future, who knows, healthcare might, maybe have some guvt connection. Wouldn't wanna waste the peoples money on kids when we could be buying bombs and carving out a peaceful, liberal democratic Iraq at $1,000,000,000 a week.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/04/2007 @ 07:58am

I can tell RIOAHMADINIJAED is a REAL independent by his use of the term DemoNcrat. It shows an open mindedness that most indies don't exhibit.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/04/2007 @ 08:00am

The War In Iraq Costs

$457,034,473,987

Instead, we could have insured

273,673,337

children for one year.

But Chimpy is fiscally responsible. Wouldn't be prudent to cover kids. If they want healthcare they can join the Army.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/04/2007 @ 08:05am

A couple of republicans, john Dean foremost, have drawn up articles of impeachment against Chimpy. I guess they hate America, John.

and BTW, Chimpy has at least one conviction for drunk driving.

I guess you are wrong again, John Maasch. ever get tired of being wrong? I never tire of pointing out when you are wrong. You would think I would, it happens so often.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/04/2007 @ 08:15am

On December 28, 2001, a memo to President Bush from his Office of Legal Counsel made two claims: the US court system had no jurisdiction regarding the detainees at Guantanamo, and the Geneva Conventions did not apply to them.

Acting on this advice, on February 7, 2002 President Bush suspended Common Article 3 of those conventions-which, among other things, prohibits torture. Two years later, thanks to CBS' 60 Minutes and the New Yorker magazine, the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib came to light. Connect those dots. These are the small ones.

Subsequent lawsuits addressing the detainee issue were considered and resolved by the Supreme Court. Rasul v. Bush found the US courts did have jurisdiction over the detainees. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld said detainees have a right to contest their detention: they are entitled to habeas corpus protections. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld tested the military tribunals President Bush created to bring the detainees to justice. The Supreme Court found the tribunals in violation of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, and their existence to be illegal, absent a basis in federal statute. The decision was handed down June 29, 2006.

...The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is retroactive. It shall ".take effect as of November 26, 1997, as if enacted.[on that date]." Nothing the Bush Administration has done can be called into question.

Why would the Bush people write these several requirements into a law? Only if they are guilty of committing war crimes and know they will face prosecution. Though ingeniously obscured, this is a de facto admission of guilt.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is mostly smokescreen. The law's primary purpose is to immunize the Bush Administration, which explains the Administration's frantic anxiety to have it passed. The thrust of the bill, relating to detainee trials, is hardly a matter of top priority: the detainees have been languishing for years. Elizabeth Holtzman saw through the smokescreen in a recent essay in the Chicago Sun-Times, "Bush Seeks Immunity for Violating War Crimes Act." Not many other commentators have noticed.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0930-22.htm

Posted by crabwalk at 10/04/2007 @ 08:19am

Lets ask a libertarian what he thinks of Chimpy's war crimes...

Rep Ron Paul...

Asked if the US was heading into a dictatorship, Paul responded,

"It's getting close to it, it's called usurpation of power and it's done in many ways with Congress just going along because they're sound asleep and this certainly is an attack on our Constitution and on our freedoms."

He HATES america!!!!!!!!!! And the troops!!!!!!! He must be a fascist commie Islamic terrorist sympathizer fringe lefty moonbat!!!!!!!!!!!

Jail Ron Paul now!!!!

Posted by crabwalk at 10/04/2007 @ 08:26am

If they want healthcare they can join the Army.

Posted by CRABWALK 10/04/2007 @ 08:05am

at walter reed?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/04/2007 @ 09:37am

Not many other commentators have noticed.

Posted by CRABWALK 10/04/2007 @ 08:19am

they've noticed. they just don't want to lose their jobs.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/04/2007 @ 09:39am

The Democratic Party never had to accept him as a candidate, and never had to give him an important committee assignment once he was elected...and Hillary Clinton never had to make him Chairman of her campaign, now did they? Didn't know about all that, now did you?

Posted by PONTIFICUS

You are missing the broader point: the Democratic Party accepted him as a candidate because he is who the people in his district wanted. It is the same for Senator Craig. If the people of Idaho want Craig out they can push for a recall election or vote him out when he runs again. The GOP is trying to muscle him out because he embarasses them.

You talk about the parties as though they are the ones responsible for deciding for the people who their representatives ought to be. That is not how the system works.

Besides, you ought to be looking at how the person conducts his affairs once in office. It is unclear that Craig's conduct has anything to do with his ability to perform as a U.S. Senator. He embarassed his party because they are trying to court votes from the Christian Right.

Comparing this to Barney Frank (which some are doing) is absurd and plain old moral equivalency. Frank was not operating a whore house (as Maasch has written) but was involved with someone who was running an escort service unbeknownst to him. There is a big difference. Senator Craig's personal sexual relations don't speak to his ability to function on the job unless you want to enter ito the hypocrisy factor as he was a virulet supporter of the anti-gay initiatives in the senate.

Posted by hhemwm at 10/04/2007 @ 09:47am

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/03/2007 @ 10:39pm

you do have a huge debt and your currency is teetering on the edge, hardly what one would call the fiscal responsibility for which the republican party has so proudly been proud of.

In time of war, running up a debt is a necessary evil. And over two-thirds of the budget is for social programs, spending which the Democrats cannot wait to vastly increase with socialized medicine. During the Cold War, our deficits were much higher and the gloom and predictions of the type that you are pushing all came to nothing in the 90's. So you can hardly blame our deficits on the GWOT, most of our spending is for government programs.

are you familiar with the quadrilogy?

Nope, and I'm almost afraid to ask.

Posted by pontificus at 10/04/2007 @ 09:50am

"I guess you are wrong again, John Maasch. ever get tired of being wrong? I never tire of pointing out when you are wrong. You would think I would, it happens so often.

Posted by CRABWALK 10/04/2007 @ 08:15am "

I was wrong? No way, therfore you are wrong, again!

Posted by john maasch at 10/04/2007 @ 09:54am

"Frank was not operating a whore house (as Maasch has written) but was involved with someone who was running an escort service unbeknownst to him. There is a big difference. "

"Theres a big difference"

There is? What would that be?

One you go into an apartment of the person and the other you go to the apartment of a "customer", after being sent there from an aprtment of the "sender"....who didn't know of course..

Posted by john maasch at 10/04/2007 @ 09:56am

Nope, and I'm almost afraid to ask.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/04/2007 @ 09:50am

"almost afraid" isn't the same as "am afraid". excellent

the quadrilogy is: bush - clinton - bush - clinton, 1989 - 2017

it's pointless to argue bush vs clinton because they're on the SAME TEAM.

check out these smiling faces:

http://rhein-zeitung.de/on/01/01/21/topnews/clinton-bush.jpg

http://www.new-enlightenment.com/clinton_bush.jpg

http://www.welfarestate.com/unite/bush-clinton/hillary-bush.jpg

http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/clinton_bush_june28-2005.jpg

http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/bush-clinton-dictators. jpg

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/808503.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9 FDB9CF1936808AB6AB7C5FBABC3D92BB23F3A7C09284831B75F48EF45

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/04/2007 @ 10:17am

Posted by HHEMWM 10/04/2007 @ 09:47am

You are missing the broader point: the Democratic Party accepted him as a candidate because he is who the people in his district wanted. It is the same for Senator Craig ☼. If the people of Idaho want Craig out they can push for a recall election or vote him out when he runs again. The GOP is trying to muscle him out because he embarasses them.

First off, the reason why the Republicans want Craig out is because they figure he won't be re-elected and they want a replacement who is in fact electable. I doubt his constituents knew (or cared, mostly) if he was gay before, but now that it has become public knowledge that he makes a habit of trolling public bathrooms for anonymous sex, they will in all likelihood not re-elect him, thus giving an opening to a Democrat who would not otherwise have a chance.

Actually, if you look at it more broadly, you can see that the respective Parties are just taking anyone who will win. It's just that Republican voters are willing to pass judgement on the behavior of people like Larry Craig, while the Democrats will vote pretty much for any cretin (Hastings, Kennedy, the Clintons, etc.), so long as they are politically correct and electable.

Besides, you ought to be looking at how the person conducts his affairs once in office.

I thought that's what the Republicans are doing.

It is unclear that Craig's conduct has anything to do with his ability to perform as a U.S. Senator.

In your opinion, perhaps. But you have already admitted that you have no standards of your own, other than that your candidate take the right political positions and be electable. Obviously the Republican voters as represented by the leadership feel differently because they actually have some sort of behavioral standards which they would like to apply to those they endorse and support.

He embarassed his party because they are trying to court votes from the Christian Right.

I'm not a member of the Christian right, and I don't think this sort of conduct is fitting for a U.S. Senator. I don't think only the Christian right finds it offensive that a U.S. Senator is trolling public bathrooms for anonymous sex. Perhaps you feel differently.

Comparing this to Barney Frank (which some are doing) is absurd and plain old moral equivalency. Frank was not operating a whore house (as Maasch has written) but was involved with someone who was running an escort service unbeknownst to him. There is a big difference. Senator Craig's personal sexual relations don't speak to his ability to function on the job unless you want to enter ito the hypocrisy factor as he was a virulet supporter of the anti-gay initiatives in the senate.

I think a person's morals definitely impact his ability to do the job. I have never felt that Frank's behavior was sufficient for removal. Republicans vote for people who live up to a certain moral standard, whereas Democratic voters seem to vote for just about anybody so long as he/she spouts the right political line In that, you are clearly represented by your Party, as I am by mine. Good luck with your choice.

Posted by pontificus at 10/04/2007 @ 10:33am

To sum up for me, I think Mr. Nichols is confused. He's representing that Craig is being drummed out by the Reps for being gay. But I think the Reps knew, or at least strongly suspected that he was gay long before this. Craig is being drummed out for behavior inconsistent with the values of his constituents, which will surely be reflected in the next election. Now the Dems would love to run against Craig in the next election, and obviously the Reps want him out ASAP because they know he cannot win again. Nichols is either being manipulative if he thinks he can convince people that this is about gay-bashing, or perhaps not too bright if he really believes that.

Posted by pontificus at 10/04/2007 @ 10:44am

I was wrong? No way, therfore you are wrong, again!

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/04/2007 @ 09:54am |

Posted by crabwalk at 10/04/2007 @ 4:41pm

Crab,

"To the best of my knowledge, Frank was never charged with anything. But that does not stop you from bringing it up every month or so. "

I glad youy pointed this out...neither has BUSH, but you wouldn't know that here , would you?

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/03/2007 @ 11:02pm |

I was wrong? No way, therfore you are wrong, again!

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/04/2007 @ 09:54am |

November 2, 2000 Web posted at: 11:00 p.m. EST (0400 GMT) CNN.COM

From staff and wire reports

WEST ALLIS, Wisconsin -- Texas Gov. George W. Bush acknowledged Thursday that in 1976 he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol near his parents' home in Kennebunkport, Maine.

Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush admits that he was arrested in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol near his parents' home in Kennebunkport, Maine

Bush, who was 30 at the time, pleaded guilty, paid a $150 fine and his driving privileges were temporarily suspended in Maine.

Yes, you are wrong. Bush has been "charged" with crimes. Overseas he has been charged with war crimes.

tired yet?

Posted by crabwalk at 10/04/2007 @ 4:47pm

Republicans vote for people who live up to a certain moral standard, whereas Democratic voters seem to vote for just about anybody so long as he/she spouts the right political line _PONTIFICUS

You live in a dream world.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/04/2007 @ 10:44am

that's what primaries are for.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/04/2007 @ 4:54pm
Posted by CRABWALK 10/04/2007 @ 4:54pm

You accuse ME of living in a dream world when I say that Democratic voters don't care about morals?

Remember 'character doesn't matter' from the Clinton era, the slogan used by Dems to basically say it didn't matter what kind of man Clinton was personally, it didn't make a difference to his fitness as President?

What about the Democrats who re-elected a crackhead mayor 3 or 4 times?

Alcee Hastings, impeached judge, elected by Democrats primarily to Congress? Appointed to powerful committes by same? Hired by Clinton as campaign chairman?

The not-yet-prosecuted-for-vehicular-homicide Ted Kennedy, relected to the Senate by Massachusetts Democrats how many times?

I've made my case.

Posted by pontificus at 10/04/2007 @ 7:12pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/04/2007 @ 7:12pm

You've made nothing other than a list. In order to make a case you would have to show that republicans are inherently different people than dems. It aint so. People are people. Look at you, you support convicted felons all the time by supporting this administration. I do believe you still defend Scooter.

Delusional.

Posted by crabwalk at 10/05/2007 @ 10:28am
Pontificus,

I like how you immediately jumped to conclusions about what my standards are for selecting people for public office. That was quite assumption. Also, I appreciate this little generalization; "Republicans vote for people who live up to a certain moral standard, whereas Democratic voters seem to vote for just about anybody so long as he/she spouts the right political line In that, you are clearly represented by your Party, as I am by mine. Good luck with your choice."

You have got to be kidding me. Maybe you ought to look at why there are primary challenges sprouting up in Democratic and Republic districts to attack incumbents who voters feel lack principles. A few immediately come to mind: Pelosi is being challenged. Representative Albery Wynn was challenged in his district last September. Both Democrats. Why challenged? Because people wanted (and want) principled alternatives.

So have fun treating politics as a team sport. When you do that you will never see anything but GOP=good Democrats=Bad.

Maybe it is easier to live that way.

Posted by hhemwm at 10/05/2007 @ 4:37pm