US Senator - Framed?

[Lemonaide]

[RkfdFencer]

You know, I check for the presence of adequate TP before committing to the stall selection.

Why on earth would you want to interact with someone in a public restroom?

[sionnach]

Originally Posted by Lemonaide

Lesson learned for older men going to the John:
1. Don't ask for T.P.
2. Don't fish around for T.P.
3. If you're a Government Official go to the Bathroom with another person.
4. Also, each U.S. Senator should have secret service with them.

5. Don't plead guilty to the crime?

He's clearly guilty and tried to brush it under the rug quickly, didn't exactly work out.

[keith]

What I want to know is whether or not the police officer involved requested latrine duty.


I just find the whole thing hilarious.

[lefty_monster]

I must ask: WTF? Anyone want to explain this story to me?

And why do people care if he's gay or not? How does that affect his ability to govern?

[feinte]

Originally Posted by Lemonaide

What they want to do is embarrass an individual based on the fact that he goes to the bathroom -

It seems to me many many of us could be put in that 'position' .

But what would be their 'motive'?

(I enjoy your creative use of quote marks...they impart a certain spontaneity to the narrative).

[erik_blank]

Originally Posted by lefty_monster

I must ask: WTF? Anyone want to explain this story to me?

And why do people care if he's gay or not? How does that affect his ability to govern?

Lefty:
It's not the fact the he is or is not gay, it isi the fact that most if not al Republican senators are by default homo-phobic. I do not know for sure (you should be able to lok it up yourself) but the rumor is that this senator was one of the aformentioned homo-phobes and a vociferous one at that The fact the he was caught soliciting in a mens bathroom is a sign of what many (including myself) believe to be another example of the Republican leadership hypocracy.

From my view, these people have nearly perfected the use of fear, hate and ignorance to keep themselves in power. Much more so than any other current political organization in the USA. While they do not hold a candle to other more polemic groups in the early 20th centrury, they are doing a good job of supressing gays, imagrants and the 'incredibly dangerous and bleeding heart liberals' that would reach out and destroy our great nation, all through the promulagation of fear and the cultivation of ignorance.

I do not have the full facts about this particular incident I was not there. I do not know if this senator was set up (I don't believe it... Mpls police have better things to do whiththeir lives...) or if he was a predator of olde feeble men in their shorts.... I don't care about this. I do care that he plead guilty to the charges. I do care that this senator is reputed to be a gay basher (no, I am straight...) who would probably be out front of the lynch mob with the torches burning down my friends houses on the mere suspicion that they might be laotian lesbian immagrant liberal muslims.... OK, I don't REALLY think this group might be out there, but if they were, they would be an immediate threat to our moral fiber!

So with this thread drift, The senator is being held to ridicule because he is quite posibly a hypocryte of the greatest sort.

Keep your guard up!

[noodle]

Originally Posted by lefty_monster

I must ask: WTF? Anyone want to explain this story to me?

And why do people care if he's gay or not? How does that affect his ability to govern?

summary: he was arrested and accused of public lewdity or something like that, and tried to make it go away by pleading guilty to a much lesser crime instead of fighting it.

people are up in arms because:
1) a senator shouldn't be getting convicted of a crime while in office. if he's not guilty, he should be fighting it.
2) he didn't consult anyone, including his family, who didn't find out until it was news, or an attorney.
3) people are having trouble squaring #1, #2, and the fact that it was a homosexual encounter with his "pro family" (read: anti-gay) platform.

[Inquartata]

Hmm. I don't know much about the man, but I just checked his website and found nothing resembling an "anti-gay platform". Or a "pro-family" one, for that matter.

He did vote for the DOMA, but I'm not sure that's the same thing...

Or are we just assuming that all Republicans are Bible-thumping family-values gay-bashers by default?

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Hmm. I don't know much about the man, but I just checked his website and found nothing resembling an "anti-gay platform". Or a "pro-family" one, for that matter.

He did vote for the DOMA, but I'm not sure that's the same thing...

Or are we just assuming that all Republicans are Bible-thumping family-values gay-bashers by default?

The man supports the amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage, he voted against a bill that would have banned job descrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and another expanding the defintion of hate crimes to include gay bashing.

All whilst cruising for gay sex...come on! This isn't even the first time, in 1982 he was forced to deny being part of a House page sex scandal. Several others have come forward to allege they have had gay sex with the man.

He also scored a 0 in the human rights campaign 'scorecard' in the last three congresses. The HRC is the largest LGBT equal rights group in the US.

In the 109th congress- all 43 of senators who scored 0 in the human rights campaign were republicans. Of the 204 Congressmen to get a 0, 198 were republicans.

http://www.hrc.org/documents/HRCscorecard2006.pdf

Not gay bashers...but I suspect a majority of Republicans are antigay, both voters and leaders. I wouldn't say, however, that they were much more 'bible thumping' than the democratic congressmen, or voters, in the bible belt.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

The man supports the amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage, he voted against a bill that would have banned job descrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and another expanding the defintion of hate crimes to include gay bashing.

What is your source? I didn't find any of that in his mission statements or policy objectives on his website...

Moreover, the FMA reads "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

So it covers not only same-sex unions but civil unions between heterosexuals and polygamous unions.

But yeah, it's just to "ban gay marriage". Those cunning Republicans!

This isn't even the first time, in 1982 he was forced to deny being part of a House page sex scandal. Several others have come forward to allege they have had gay sex with the man.

And enough unproven accusations add up to proof?

I guess Bill Clinton DID have Vince Foster killed, then!

He also scored a 0 in the human rights campaign 'scorecard' in the last three congresses. The HRC is the largest LGBT equal rights group in the US.

I'll just bet he did. I wonder whether it could have anything to do with...

In the 109th congress- all 43 of senators who scored 0 in the human rights campaign were republicans. Of the 204 Congressmen to get a 0, 198 were republicans.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Hmm. I don't know much about the man, but I just checked his website and found nothing resembling an "anti-gay platform". Or a "pro-family" one, for that matter.

He did vote for the DOMA, but I'm not sure that's the same thing...

Or are we just assuming that all Republicans are Bible-thumping family-values gay-bashers by default?

no, i'm summarizing the articles i've read about this.
apparently he's given the same rhetorical sound bytes about family values as the average platformer in his party.

[Inquartata]

OK. Which ones?

I'm perfectly willing to believe hypocrisy and tergiversation of any politician, I just get uneasy at convictions-by-press...

[pigeonmeister]

[quote=Inquartata;603494]What is your source? I didn't find any of that in his mission statements or policy objectives on his website...

Well.... he voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
He voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
He voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
He voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

So it covers not only same-sex unions but civil unions between heterosexuals and polygamous unions.

But yeah, it's just to "ban gay marriage". Those cunning Republicans!

The amendment that Craig voted for...

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

But I'm sure it was the polygamists they were really gunning for.

And enough unproven accusations add up to proof?

No, but once- maybe a joke, twice- perhaps a smeer, three times- I'm pretty much sold. Rogers spoke with several people, none of whom knew each other, all from different parts of the US and all said the same (one even said he had sex several times in bathrooms) But of course this is not irrefutable proof.

I'll just bet he did. I wonder whether it could have anything to do with...

Indeed- I wonder how many more are in the closet...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

Well.... he voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
He voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
He voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
He voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

Those are sources?!?

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

But I'm sure it was the polygamists they were really gunning for.

And civil unions between unmarried heterosexuals. Yes, I noticed how you conveniently omitted them...

No, but once- maybe a joke, twice- perhaps a smeer, three times- I'm pretty much sold. Rogers spoke with several people, none of whom knew each other, all from different parts of the US and all said the same (one even said he had sex several times in bathrooms) But of course this is not irrefutable proof.

It's not even enough to keep a legal case from being summarily thrown out.

Fan of the saying that a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth, are you?

( And no, I am not saying this particular allegation is a lie, only that establishing a standard of "a third unproven accusation convinces" is perilously close to accepting that saying as a standard. )

Indeed- I wonder how many more are in the closet...

That wasn't the point. The point was that any organization ALL of whose main enemies are Republicans---or Democrats---is working off a bias that goes deeper than a voting record checklist. ( The checklist in fact is almost certainly written to guarantee the results wanted. )

[pigeonmeister]

[quote=Inquartata;603546]Those are sources?!?

I'm really not sure what we are arguing here....I'm saying that if the man is gay, and I am increasingly persuaded that he is, then he is enormously hypocritical in casting these votes. If he is not gay- then I also take issue with his voting record, but at least he is not a hypocrite. What are you arguing?

As to family values then that is, indeed, a platform he has stood on. Obviously endorcing Romney's stance in this respect...praising his "very strong family values and adding "that's something I grew up with and believe in."

And civil unions between unmarried heterosexuals. Yes, I noticed how you conveniently omitted them...

That is not just my omittance- it is what 99% of the reporting of this amendment focusses on. It is what the public understand the main thrust of the amendment to mean, it is thus what the social conservative politicians are reacting to as a vote winner. In this context the omittance in illuminating. Quite clearly this is an action, like the others I listed, aimed primarily at stopping gay couples from getting married or preventing their equal protection under the law. The fact that social conservatives dissaprove of civil unions by hetrosexuals is of secondary importance to the national debate.

It's not even enough to keep a legal case from being summarily thrown out.

I have no doubt that you are right. I am aware of the precedent my observation could establish- But, nevertheless, not all opinions can be reached according to the standards of a court of law. I believe the man is gay.

That wasn't the point. The point was that any organization ALL of whose main enemies are Republicans---or Democrats---is working off a bias that goes deeper than a voting record checklist. ( The checklist in fact is almost certainly written to guarantee the results wanted. )

I think that the HRC chooses legislation for their checklist that they feel most represent an attitude of inequality towards their community. Clearly this is a subjective process, but equally clearly gay people feel Republicans are almost universally hostile to legislation they perceive to be in the interests of their freedom, dignity and public perception. The checklist established is concern sexual descrimination....what similar legislation has been omitted in order to guarantee the required results? The Republican Party is clearly not a party that courts, appeals to, or represents, in a meaningful way, the 10's of millions of gay people living in America.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Hmm. I don't know much about the man, but I just checked his website and found nothing resembling an "anti-gay platform". Or a "pro-family" one, for that matter.

goal number 3
http://craig.senate.gov/mission.cfm

[oso97]

The good and honorable senator from the State of Idaho has a long and storied history with gay rights. Specifically, he was one of the prime moving forces for the adoption of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.

Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2173102/nav/tap1/

I suspect his anti-gay rhetoric derives from the same source as the most of the homophobic rhetoric preached - his own latent homosexual impulses and actions that he is unable to deal with in a healthy, positive manner.

[jeff]

I enjoyed the (presumably unconscious) humor of Craig saying "Thank you for coming out today" to the audience during his "I am not gay!" public statement.

Sources regarding voting record:

From http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS...f=mpstoryemail
"He has supported a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. He also has voted to deny federal recognition of same-sex marriages and against including gays in anti-discrimination laws." I'll add that he voted to impeach Clinton, and stated that people who violated the sanctity of their vows should not be in public office.

Also in the above cite Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky saying why they're sic'ing the otherwise asleep Ethics committee on him, and Romney dissing him. McCain and other Republican senators have also called for Craig's head (no, not the way you're thinking, "on a platter").

DOMA vote here: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyv...5&can_id=53288

Vote against a bill that extends the federal protections provided under the Civil Rights Act to sexual orientation.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyv...6&can_id=53288

Vote against a bill expands hate crime definitions and enhances the federal government's ability to investigate and prosecute hate crimes.
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_cat...an_id=S0241103

[Have At You]

pigeon, what an amazingly presumptuous thing to say, to call him a hypocrite if he is gay and votes against certain gay-rights platforms. it would be hypocrisy if he believed in the policies but voted against them for craven political reasons. but if he genuinely disagrees with them, there is no hypocrisy. he may well believe homosexuality is immoral. if so, it would be his acting on homosexual urges that is hypocritical, not his voting. and even there it would be more akin to a moral failing than hypocrisy. giving in to desires one believes to be wrong is not really hypocrisy. it would really only be hypocrisy if he wanted to treat homosexuals one way, but exclude himself from such treatment despite his own homosexuality.

all you're saying is you think all homosexuals should share the same political beliefs, merely because of their orientation. what an offensive attitude!