We're quoted in The Economist!
I'm bumping this up (it was an addition to my earlier Craig post):
- A president is caught having sex with an intern in the Oval Office and lies to cover it up; he finishes his term (and may yet return as president-consort).
- A congressman sends salacious e-mails to former pages now of legal age; he resigns in disgrace.
- A senator engages in the illegal activity of hiring prostitutes-even (it's come to light) taking a call from his madam while on the floor of the United States Congess; he's finishing his term and no one is suggesting prosecution.
- A senator taps his toes in a men's room in a subtle signal only a fellow seeker would recognize and respond to; he's entrapped, charged with a crime and forced to resign in disgrace.
All together, guess which orientation is cut no slack? It's an unsettling pattern of homophobia-tinged double standards that those gays who cheered the fall of Foley and Craig might want to consider.
Also, on a lighter note, a joke making the rounds suggests that the best Larry Craig defense to pitch to conservatives would have been, "It's not like I wanted to marry the cop!"
Relatedly. From the New York Times:
With the corruption issue having weighed down some of their Congressional candidates in the disastrous 2006 elections, Senate Republicans saw Mr. Craig as inviting even heavier damage, especially on the heels of ethics cases involving two other Republican senators, David Vitter of Louisiana, who was the client of a dubious escort service, and Ted Stevens of Alaska, who faces a widening inquiry into whether he traded official favors.
Corruption, whores, or (closeted) gays-which senator must resign?
And unrelatedly, an interesting take sure to annoy ideologues on all sides of the issue, via H. Alexander Robinson, the openly gay head of the National Black Justice Coalition, who argues: "Society must come to terms with the fact that not everyone who has gay sex is necessarily gay. Although it may be a difficult concept for some to comprehend; gay sexual behavior does not equate to gay sexual orientation."
A sympathetic note. Former N.J. Governor James McGreevey writes, movingly, A Prayer for Larry Craig:
After all the whispering, fights, insults, reading of academic journals and lessons from the church, you simply say to yourself: This thing, being gay, can't be me. Everything and everyone told me it was wrong, evil, unnatural and shameful. You decide: I'll change it, I'll fight it, I'll control it, but, simply put, I'll never accept it. You then attempt to place "it" in a metaphorical closet, keep it separate from open daily life and indulge it only in dark, secret places.
Larry Craig became part of the problem (voting to keep homosexuality a second-class status), but he was also a victim.
37 Comments for “Craig-fest”
posted by jahn on
Foley and Craig also belong(ed) to the major political party that is basically committed to stripping gay people of their legal personhood.
We don’t know if things would be different had Foley or Craig been Democrats, but I don’t think you can point to the fact that the Republican Party destroys its outed members as proof of a wider societal homophobia.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It’s an unsettling pattern of homophobia-tinged double standards that those gays who cheered the fall of Foley and Craig might want to consider.
Well, as I outlined previously and on my own blog, let’s look at
other examples.
* Congressman is accused of lewd sexual behavior and assault against staffers and lobbyists; forced to resign in disgrace.
* Congressman has “consensual” affair with 17-year-old congressional page; resigns in disgrace.
Meanwhile:
* Congressman not only solicits, but appears to facilitate operation of prostitution ring out of his apartment; not only does not resign, but is given high-level chairmanship position
* Congressman has “consensual” affair with 17-year-old page; does not resign and continues to receive support, fundraising, and committee assignments.
The last two were gay (Barney Frank and Gerry Studds); the first two were straight (Bob Packwood and Dan Crane).
So which orientation is it that’s being “cut no slack”?
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
ND30: “Congressman not only solicits, but appears to facilitate operation of prostitution ring out of his apartment…”
Well ND30, since you seem to know something nobody else does, tell us more about Barney Frank’s “disgraceful” behavior. The way I heard it, Frank reported HIMSELF to the ethics committee and was found to have no involvement in any illegal activities. Certainly his constituents and the ethics committee didn’t have a problem with his behavior, why do you? I wouldn’t want to insinuate that you are being less-then-truthful with your posts here but that is certainly what it looks like…care to restate your case (try leaving out the bullshit this time)?
posted by ALice AN on
I have a huge problem with Larry Craig, and it has nothing to do with his alleged crime. In fact as you rightly pointed out, if this had happened to anyone else, I would be the first to show empathy and jump to his defense because even closet cases merit pity if nothing more.
My beef with the senator is that he actively worked to make life miserable for the gay community. Hypocrisy is appalling,but this is much worse, Hypocrisy would be claiming to be saintly while having wild cat nights. A lot of people are hypocrites in that sense; pledging to remain a virgin but having oral sex, etc, etc, etc. What Larry Craig did was worse than mere hypocrisy, he wasn’t your average married closet case John trying to get some c**k on the side in secret.
Asking me to have any sympathy for him is like asking me to show empathy for a closet case that is goaded into beating up the trick from the night before.
posted by rhywun on
It seems likely that older gentlemen like Craig don’t even see the hypocrisy. They don’t see getting a little cock on the side as “gay”, because to them all “gays” are wilting queens who wear frilly dresses and high heels. They sure don’t see themselves as “gay”.
posted by kittynboi on
“””Society must come to terms with the fact that not everyone who has gay sex is necessarily gay. Although it may be a difficult concept for some to comprehend; gay sexual behavior does not equate to gay sexual orientation.”””
Meaning what exactly? He needs to make an argument for this position, rather than just stating it. Experimentation or just seeing what its like is the only reasonable case where this could be true. Otherwise, being sexually attracted to people of the same gender makes you gay. Thats what being gay is, being sexually and romantically attracted to people of the same gender. No more, no less.
If he has some other information to shed new light on this equation, then he should come forth with it.
Being gay is what I said above, being attracted to people of the same gender. Everything else is just window dressing, and I would imagine that its the window dressing this guy is focusing on, not the actual substance of the issue.
posted by kittynboi on
More on the issue, from the link itself.
“”Since Sen. Craig clearly attempted to engage in gay sexual behavior but publicly denies a gay sexual identity does this mean that he is in sexual denial or perhaps deeply closeted? Not necessarily. Often men who engage in the underground culture of public restroom, rest stop, tea room sex do so as an act of sexual titillation, sexual release, and an immediate sexual gratification.
They are fueled by the sexual thrill of getting caught, doing something that is taboo and the potential danger of seeking out homoerotic encounters with men who otherwise would strictly identify as heterosexual. “”
In one sense this just makes it sound like a fetish, but theres always the argument that sex and arousal involving those of the same gender is still homosexual.
“”So in every sense and definition of the word, the sex that these men have is truly, utterly and exclusively recreational. It is void of emotional value, love, respect, intimacy or an expectation of a romantic relationship to come. For them having male-to-male sex is truly a sport, a hobby, a distraction and a pastime or rebellion against convention with no emotional attachment or desire for more.””
There are, however, many heterosexuals who engage in hetero sex only for recreation, with nothing deep about it. Does this mean that isn’t hetero sex? Would we call someone gay if they had this same “Recreational” sex with women? This seems to reduce sexual orientation to the issue of emotional intimacy rather than sexual attraction. There are, of course, many people who seem to have sex but NEVER have any sense of emotional intimacy with any partner. Would this make them completely asexual? Of course not. This is a peculair way to approach sexual orientation, to say the least.
“”To further understand how a straight man could engage in gay sex and still genuinely not identity as gay in terms of his sexual identity or sexual orientation, we must remember that it is physically possible for any person to have sex with either gender regardless of their individual level of emotional attachment.””
Possible, yes, but as I said in my previous post, its one thing to try it a few times and not like it, but when they keep doing it over and over, I think its safe to assume that, whatever they are, tehy’re not 100% hetero.
As far as self identification, a person can self identify as anything, but that doesn’t make it true nor does it means their self identification has any meaning.
“”A so called 100% gay man may still be capable of having sexual relations with a woman. So does this automatically make him straight or bisexual? Not necessarily. Just because he is capable of having sex with a woman doesn?t mean he wants to have a relationship with one, hence our clear understanding of sexual orientation must come into play.””
It continues to become more and more clear that this guy thinks sexual orientation is about emotional attraction and intimacy, not just arousal. It’s one way of looking at it, but I think its wrong, and it really amounts to nothing more than splitting hairs.
He finally comes out and says it with his next statement;
“”What we feel emotionally is what defines our sexual orientation not our sexual activity.””
Emotion plays in to it, yes, but as I said before, I think this is only relevant in terms of people trying sex with a gender once or a few more times and then realizing what they are.
“” However, in the past I have had sex with women specifically my former wife. For a time while we were together she was my exclusive sexual partner. I am still physically capable of being attracted to women. “”
This statement brings up some useful issues. While he is still “capable” of being attracted to women, he is gay because he’s not emotionally attracted to women, or however you want to put that. But there are many gays who were, like him, once married to the opposite gender, but were in the exact opposite of this situation. They deeply loved and cared about their spouse, and were by any meaningful definition, emotionally attracted to them, but not physically attracted. Where exactly would they fit in to this twisted world?
“”I potentially could have as much illicit heterosexual sex as I want with women but at the end of the day, I will always return back to the loving arms of another man. It?s just how I am wired. I romantically love and romantically desire to be with another man””
I have no problem buying that he’s really “wired” this way, but it doesn’t mean Craig is, not others who behave as he behaves.
“”Today for an individual to self-identity as gay, they seemingly must take on an image created by the media that is based upon societal stereotypes. For men, we must be either feminine or super gym macho bunnies. We must be either florists or hairdressers or super witty, smart, affluent and overly-successful. But all too often, the gay identity most exclusively seen and portrayed is that of white men and their lives (i.e. Will and Grace, Queer as Folk).””
Here we get to the issues that really concern him.
“”In fact members of the Black community have for years rejected the term ?gay? and instead have embraced the term same-gender-loving (SGL) for the exact same reasons. The term gay to them means white, privileged and without regards to people of color, their issues or their situations.””
This is, it seems, more about race, class and the identity related to those things than it is about Craig. This guy just seems to be using Craig to make some largel unrelated point.
“”Sen. Larry Craig rejects this identify, because simply this is not who he is. He is a conservative, married man who has very little in common with America?s gay identity. In fact he is perfectly valid in stating that he is not a gay man. “”
Nonsense. At this point its difficult, if not impossible, to know what Larry Craig really thinks, who he really is, and so forth. Maybe one day he’ll write a tell all book and we can find out, but jumping to a conclusion just to prove some other point is foolish. This author also makes the mistake of simply taking Craig at face value and doesn’t seem to be considering that other factors are influencing him, not the least of which is political.
But is this a mistake on the authors part, or just a cynical tactic to use a media event to advance his own agenda? It could be both, or more, or something else. But regardless, I consider his basic point incorrect.
The rest of the article veers further and further away from anything relevant and goes off on a tirade about media treatment of blacks compared ot whites, albeit in the context of sexual orientation.
posted by James on
I suspect the following argument will be raised if it is true that male sexuality is fluid (so to speak) and gay men are capable of having sex with women:
“If you are capable of having sex with women, then marriage is not off-limits to you, as you gay men have claimed. Speaking Spanish might be more natural to those from across the border, but we, as a society, don’t have to accomodate Spanish. We want an English-only society–if you are going to live here, you need to speak English. In the same way, we want a straight-only society–if you live here, you are only going to free to marry a woman. That might seem as unnatural and as unfair to you as a Spanish-speaking person having to learn English, but we have the right to set standards in our society, and if you don’t want to learn English or marry a woman, then go back to where you came from or find a country that will let you do what you want.
You say that your orientation is hard-wired–well, so is language. No one expects you unlearn Spanish–you just can’t use it in public. No one expects you to get rid of your feelings for men–you just can’t express them publicly.
Since you can have sex with women, and we as a society think this is more natural, then we are going to enforce laws which only endorse straight marriages.”
I can just hear James Dobson saying this now. Get ready.
posted by Jordan on
What constitutes “gay” then? Where is the line drawn? Do you have to self-identify as “gay” to be considered “gay”? Are we to consider Larry Craig’s denial of being “gay,” only to mean that he didn’t rule out the fact that he is homosexual, or bisexual?
posted by Brian Miller on
You know, in your zeal to push this silly meme of “Democrats have conspired to force Republican Senators to force Craig out of office,” you’re missing a much bigger and more important story in the American heartland.
Readjust, please.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And I did goof up relative to Dan Crane; Crane did not resign, but was defeated in the next election, despite issuing numerous apologies.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The way I heard it, Frank reported HIMSELF to the ethics committee and was found to have no involvement in any illegal activities. Certainly his constituents and the ethics committee didn’t have a problem with his behavior, why do you?
LOL…..and that is why they reprimanded him, right?
Which, when you consider that he paid this prostitute, he fixed this prostitute’s parking tickets when said prostitute inexplicably needed to drive all over Washington without Frank’s knowledge of why, and he, invoking his authority as a congressional member, wrote a duplicitous memo trying to get this prostitute off probation, illustrates quite nicely that the standards of evidence for the House Ethics Committee, especially in 1990 when investigating a member of the Democrat majority, needed some tightening.
And as far as the, “if people re-elected him, it’s OK” defense, do you really want to apply that generally?
posted by Jordan on
NDT, do you have any sources that corroborate your assertions about the memos, parking tickets, etc.? I can’t seem to find any solid evidence of any of that.
posted by James on
“You don’t need gay marriage if you can have sex with women.”
This, I fear, is the actual result of the Larry Craig, et. al. scandal. We want to think that, forced to admit their hypocrisy, conservatives will start to embrace gay marriage. But what they are seeing are the fact that lots of gay men are married, and if they CAN get married and have children, they SHOULD get married and have children. Conservatives will even say that having a life “on the down low” is better than gay marriage because the basic “man/woman” traditional marriage is at least superficially affirmed.
Conservatives don’t care about marriage as an emotional bond and mutual partnership–they see it as an institution which must be preserved. So, once they realize that gay men are capable of sex with women, they are going to say, “Well, then, do whatever you have to do in your public rest rooms, but if you want to get married, it has to be with a woman.”
posted by John on
“…he’s entrapped”
Not even by the remotest stretch of the imagination was Sen. Craig ‘entrapped’. He willingly initiated and escalated his intent to commit a crime at every stage of the encounter. Nothing to do with this disgusting situation rises to even the most basic level of entrapment.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
James wrote, “So, once they realize that gay men are capable of sex with women, they are going to say, ‘Well, then, do whatever you have to do in your public rest rooms, but if you want to get married, it has to be with a woman.'”
That is nothing new. Whatever line the conservatives take, it boils down to a denial of our legitimate existence as gay people. Unfortunately for them, we are not going away, we are increasingly well organized (especially at the statewide level), and the vast majority of us have no intention of getting into straight marriages. And fewer and fewer people are buying the anti-gay right’s gay denial.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
In 2002 I wrote an article titled “Adventures in the Race Trade” which included the following:
“The Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force recently released a survey of black gays called Black Pride Survey 2000 which reveals that only one percent of respondents identified as ‘queer.’ [Keith] Boykin, on the other hand, identifies as ‘same gender loving,’ which apparently is supposed to be a less White and Western term than ‘gay.’ But ‘same gender loving’ is such a ponderous phrase that people quickly shorten it to ‘SGL,’ whose meaning is known only to insiders, while others are left guessing …. Unhappily for Boykin, only eight percent of survey respondents identified as SGL. By contrast, 42 percent identified as gay, and 24 percent identified as lesbian. Apparently, efforts by some black leaders to portray ‘gay’ as a white cultural artifact and tool of hegemony are not finding much fertile soil.”
Alexander Robinson is using social constructionism to make points about racial disparities, and I think it is counterproductive and mostly off-base. “Gay” refers not merely to a white cultural thing but to a biological reality. I know some down-low black men, and they are not straight guys who just enjoy no-strings gay sex, they are closeted gay men. They have a hard time exploring or accepting or expressing their gay feelings because of homophobia in their communities.
Instead of addressing this, Alexander Robinson uses it as an opportunity to blame white people. It is sad that he and others persist after so many years in pretending that the “same-gender loving” phrase is widely embraced by black gay people when the available evidence does not support the claim.
Kittynboi’s fisking of Robinson’s piece is very good.
posted by MMMM on
kittynboi’s frisking of H. Alexander Robinson is incisive and definitive. To the author Stephen Miller, I would say that Robinson’s status as a SGL gay man has given him no special insight on the Craig issue. On the contrary, I see alot of naive authoritarianism that would preclude insight and preempt any inquiry, though it could make him very popular with the other non-gay-acting gay men he is trying to impress.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Jordan, here you go.
posted by kittynboi on
Thanks for the kind words everyone. Richard, I like that piece you wrote.
The issue of gays and race relations is one that needs to be addressed in a much more substantial way than it has been so far, but its such a minefield, its so damn thorny and headache inducing, that its easy to forgive someone for thinking its not worth the trouble.
One of the big problems is that people who hold Robinsons views aren’t challenged nearly enough and can easily control the debate on this issue, for the simple fact that too many white liberals are afraid of denouncing the Robinsons of the world, lest they be called racists. Even pointing THAT out could easily get me labeled as a racist, and my entire analysis of Robinsons article will thusly be dismissed out of hand for that “fact” alone.
The problem with Robinson is that he and those whol share his views view everything through this same pseudo-post colonial, post modern, ideological lens that sees everything in relation to the grand evil western white gay capitalist conspiracy, whether it applies or not. How gays are so easily a part of the status quo, or any sexual minorities for that matter are, yet every other group, subculture, and what have you, are not, is a genuine mystery.
So,, if you want to debate this issue,, have your white guilt credentials ready when you get to the door.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Kittynboi, I suspect that the reason I was not denounced after my “Adventures in the Race Trade” article was published in 2002 was that few people saw it. But I have written fairly extensively on the subject of racial politics in the gay community. It is thorny as you say, and requires a good deal of care, but we have to deal with these questions. As a member of an interracial family, I cannot avoide dealing with it. Over the years, many black gay people have privately praised my writing on the subject, but they didn’t do so publicly, apparently for fear of the possible blowback from their community. The relentless distrust from some quarters can be extremely frustrating, but when your own life is bound up in the matter you soldier on.
posted by kittynboi on
I would like to hear your thoughts as to where this stems from. What causes the patterns of thought that lead to views like the ones Robinson holds? What made blacks, even black gays, think gayness is some conspiracy of the status quo?
posted by asaki on
The Economist quotes Miller as wondering why so few were upset that the cops were stinging cruising gays. COME ON! This was in a public john. That is no place for sex. You want sex? Go to a gay bar, meet a nice guy, take him out, wine him and dine him. OK, maybe just meet him and do him. But in private, not in public. Straight guys who come to restrooms to pee and poop do not really relish other guys getting it on, any more than either gays or straights relish watching people shoot heroin there. Sex is private, period.
posted by MMMM on
asaki >>>
Thanks, most of us agree completely, but this topic has already been done to death, and it’s a mistake to say that most anonymous public homosexual sex takes place among gay men. Andrew Sullivan links to a study about thison his blog. Here’s the URL: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/09/men-sex-and-toi.html. The study explains that the public sex participants are usually married men who identify as straight, though that population undoubtedly includes closeted bisexuals and homosexuals.
Here’s a quote: “54 percent of the men were married and living with their wives. He found 38 percent considered themselves neither bisexual nor homosexual. The men wanted a sexual release that was quick and would not endanger their standing with their family or society. Just 14 percent of the men identified themselves as living-in-the-open homosexuals.”
Many of these men are straight or straight-ish with a fetish for male-on-male kink, risk, and/or exposure.
Those who think straight men don’t use sex to relate to other men, whether for intimacy, to intimidate, abuse, or otherwise achieve orgasm, just have not been paying attention to the status quo and natural history of this species.
posted by Jordan on
NDT, the article you quote backs up what you’re saying on the Frank issue. I think it’s still a little shady that the Globe is throwing out those accusations with no evidence (documents?) of their own, but I’ll go with it. That said, I can’t say I’m much surprised, or that I believe this isn’t the sort of thing that every politician does. As far as I’m aware, it’s a pretty regular occurrence for Governors, Reps, and Senators to “expedite” legal issues with a letter. I definitely think it’s a conflict of interest in this specific example, but again, doesn’t surprise me much.
That said, NDT: I think your characterization of the mistreatment of the two straight politicians versus the two gay ones is fabricated, at best.
Barney Frank was reprimanded by Congress for his actions, and there doesn’t appear to be any evidence that he “facilitated” a prostitution ring. Even the article you source says, and I quote, “When Frank discovered [Gobie’s actions], he fired Gobie and ended their relationship.” Also, from what I can tell, Frank’s only committee leadership position was on the House Committee on Financial Services, which he didn’t assume the chairperson post on until the 110th congress, beginning in 2007. That’s 17 years after the Gobie affair. So, to say that he “not only does not resign, but is given high-level chairmanship position” is misleading.
Moreover, as far as Crane is concerned, the article on the 1983 congressional page sex scandal on Wikipedia states Crane did not “resign in disgrace,” as you said, but instead: “In 1984, Rep. Crane won the GOP primary but lost the general election.” As such, Studds and Crane were treated exactly the same — it was the voters who decided which stayed, and which went.
Finally, as far as Packwood is concerned, there was clear evidence in the case that he was sexually abusive towards women. I don’t think that his actions compare in any way to your straw-man argument of Frank running a prostitution ring, which (again, according to your own sources) is not even true.
Apples and oranges.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If you’ll note above, Jordan, I did correct my statement about Dan Crane — which moves the question to why Democrat leaders and voters applaud and elect gay men having sex with seventeen-year-old congressional pages who are their subordinates, but scream “child molestor” when people instant-message former ones.
Meanwhile, as for Barney Frank, I will simply put up what the Boston Globe article states.
Back in 1985, Frank had engaged the services of a male escort named Stephen Gobie, who had advertised his “hot bottom” in a personal ad. Over the next two years, while Frank was trying to decide whether to come out, he and Gobie carried on a clandestine affair, during which time Frank hired Gobie as a driver despite knowing Gobie was on probation for drug possession and for possession of child pornography. Frank used his House privileges to fix Gobie’s parking tickets. He wrote a memo trying to clear Gobie from probation that was disingenuous at best and an outright deception at worst.
And, since Democrats are so anti-“hypocrisy” and insist that hypocrites should resign, you might explain why Barney Frank, who, as the Globe article points out, was all high-and-mighty-huffy about ethics during the Abscam scandal, didn’t do the same when he was caught.
posted by Brian Miller on
So to summarize ND-30s post:
“Democrats are scumbags so we’re allowed to be scumbags too! To say otherwise is hypocrisy!”
And y’all wonder why I’m a Libertarian? 🙂
posted by Jordan on
As far as Mark Foley goes, I can’t answer to those who are calling him a “child molester.” I certainly didn’t. A 17 year old is not a child in my book, and to be completely honest, I have to say that I think the page/Foley benefits went both ways. Fact of the matter is that ANY 17 year old using last, say, five years, nows how to block someone from their instant messenger client. That kid knew exactly what he was doing: stoking the fires of an older man’s libido to get what he wanted. There’s no doubt in my mind that Mark Foley’s target(s) could have easily stopped their communications with him without raising ire. But instead, they continued them in the hopes (I believe) of gaining favor and greasing the wheels of power, just like those they’re running errands for. Don’t get me wrong: I don’t think that anyone should have to put up with bad, coerced behavior from any side. But this kid was less than a year away from being eligible to serve in Iraq — he knew what he was doing.
All that aside, we’re not talking about hypocrisy. We’re talking about your assertion that it’s not the homos who aren’t “being cut any slack,” but the heterosexuals. Don’t change the subject.
posted by Jordan on
Erk… that should read “Fact of the matter is that ANY 17 year old using the internet in the last, say, five years, nows how to block someone from their instant messenger client.”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
All that aside, we’re not talking about hypocrisy. We’re talking about your assertion that it’s not the homos who aren’t “being cut any slack,” but the heterosexuals. Don’t change the subject.
So let’s see.
The straight Congressman who had sex with teenage Congressional pages was tossed; the gay one stayed.
That doesn’t work.
And as to Brian Miller:
“Democrats are scumbags so we’re allowed to be scumbags too! To say otherwise is hypocrisy!”
Well, unfortunately for that argument, the two “scumbags” in question — Frank and Studds — never resigned or were (yet) forced out by voters.
Packwood and Crane were tossed, as well as Foley and Craig; Vitter is wounded, and may not be able to even consider running for re-election, especially since there have been calls for his resignation.
What it boils down to, bluntly put, is that, regardless of sexual orientation, Republicans purge their offenders; Democrats promote theirs.
posted by Jordan on
Interesting though, isn’t it, that of the seven cases you mention, five were Republicans? Perhaps you shouldn’t be focusing on the fact that they “purge” them, so much as that they’re the doing the majority of the offending to begin with.
posted by ColoradoPatriot on
Jordan, don’t confuse ND30 with logic and reason, it will just make him spew more retarded vitriol at “gay leftists.” And, ND30, Studds is dead. There isn’t much hope for him resigning or getting voted out anytime soon. But keep harping on the issue of the improper behavior of corpses…I’m sure you’ll hit on a point sooner or later.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Perhaps you shouldn’t be focusing on the fact that they “purge” them, so much as that they’re the doing the majority of the offending to begin with.
Which is worse, Jordan; making mistakes that are then corrected, or making mistakes but never correcting them at all?
posted by Jordan on
What mistakes were never corrected? Frank and Studds were penalized for their actions per the rules of Congress.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Party spent all of 2006 screaming that anyone who committed ethics violations was irrevocably corrupt and unfit to serve in Congress. Indeed, they called people who instant-messaged former pages “child molestors”.
Isn’t it odd that they then supported such people?
posted by Jordan on
Supported what people? Studds is dead. Frank was penalized by Congress over 15 years ago. Are you suggesting that they revisit his reprimand?
posted by raj on
I’m actually amused at NDXXX’s continued bloviating.
What Barney Frank was reprimanded (not censured) for was using his House stationary to try to “fix” a few parking tickets. That is all. Nothing regarding Gobie, despite what NDXXX might want to suggest.
Teddy Kennedy and Gerry Studds presented themselves up for re-election, and won handily.
Dan Crane (of IL) presented himself up for re-election in 1983 (same time as Studds) and, although he won the Republican nomination, he lost the election. In 1980, Robert Bauman of MD was arrested for soliciting for prostitution (of a male) and lost re-election. Mark Foley didn’t even bother to present himself up for re-election–who knows, he might have won.
So now we have an anti-gay senator (Craig) from Idaho who wants to withdraw his guilty (!) plea, after announcing his intention to resign his seat (and maybe now withdrawing his announcement). Fine. Let them go to trial. There are a number of issues that I have listed elsewhere that might bear on the merits of the case.