Adam’s take on Larry “Wide Stance” Craig
Oh, man, could this be a better week for a liberal radio show host originally from Idaho?
To add to the fun, I surfed over to my anti-blogger’s pad, Adam Graham, since he is a prominent local blogger back in my birth city of Boise. (New Blenders: Adam is damn near my political opposite – Born Again™ Conservative
Pro-Life Anti-Female-Sexuality, Anti-Gay… but he does have good taste in pizza. He also stops by from time to time. He’s a decent fellow and very kind and not at all wingnutty or abrasive in conversation. He’s completely wrong on most issues, but that’s his right as an American.) I’d post this in his comments, but he’s had to shut down the comments due to the exploding wingnuttia in the GOP Christian Borg collective.
Enjoy Adam’s take after the break…
Senator Larry Craig’s guilty plea in June of this year to a charge of lewd conduct should lead to the end of his Senate career. The honorable thing for Larry Craig to do is to resign. … Senator Craig’s explanation that this was all a “misunderstanding” doesn’t wash. Nor does his explanation of his guilty plea as something he did to resolve the issue expeditiously jibe. No innocent man in his right mind would plead guilty to a loaded charge like “lewd conduct” much less a man with 27 years in Congress. If Senator Craig is lying, he has a serious problem, if he is telling the truth, then he lacks the basic good judgment to be in the United States Senator. Either way, it’s time for him to go.
See. I told you Adam has some sense. But I wonder if that same sense would apply to Craig if he were caught in a heterosexual scandal of lying and hypocrisy? A quick search of “Vitter” on Adam’s site turns up a complaint about how badly the media were treating the Vitters and a podcast asking “Should Vitter Resign?” Hmmm. Senator caught in gay restroom sex scandal = two page post demanding resignation with four updates. Senator caught in straight hooker scandal (with diapers!) = no demand of resignation in sight.
That Senator Craig should resign does not in anyway [sic] justify the investigations of his personal life by certain leftists. Nor are those who are joyously celebrating the downfall of another human being anything less than disreputable scoundrels whose blind hatred will in the end threaten the survival of our Republic.
Yes, of course. We should save our blind hatred for women who choose to terminate their pregnancies:
Here’s a fact-48% of abortions in America are repeat abortions. So nearly half of abortions aren’t even women making an “innocent mistake”. They’re people just callously doing it. It’s a “bummer” destroying the life of a child because you’re too lazy to take your pills and too selfish to get sterilized. If you don’t want children, ask the doctor to sterilize you, don’t sit there and keep killing child after child.
A high school volleyball player says she doesn’t want to give up her body for nine months. “I realize just from the first three months how it changes everything,” she says.
Oh, it might hurt your volleyball career. Poor you!
She regrets having to pay $750 for the abortion, but Amanda says she does not doubt her decision. “It’s not like it’s illegal. It’s not like I’m doing anything wrong,” she says.
Sorry, it wasn’t cheaper. I’m sure you could have bought some nice things for yourself with that money. A pity the abortionist wouldn’t let you in without paying. You could have lied and said you were destitute and couldn’t pay. This abortionist feels so proud of his work that he does some on the House sometimes. Heck, what’s lying if it saves Amanda $750 to buy herself some nice jeans?
Amanda, someday when you grow up, you’ll learn not everything that’s legal is right. Segregation was legal. Slavery was legal. So was the Holocaust.
Anyhoo… back to “Wide Stance”. Adam continues to update the story on how all us big bad liberals are in attack dog frenzy. He notes a quote from McJoan on DailyKos:
My gut says he’s going to resign; his being gay wasn’t a problem for the Idaho GOP just as long as they didn’t “really know” he was gay and didn’t have to think about it. Now that it’s been exposed, and it’s all over the local news according to my sources in Idaho (well, ok, according to mcmom), the pressure is mostly certainly going to be on him.
I find this odd that even the left is equating Craig’s conduct with merely “being gay.” So, according to the left, adultery and solicity [sic] lewd conduct in a public restroom is just part of what goes along with “being gay?”
Do we give Adam extra points for completely missing the context of McJoan’s comment? No, Adam, anonymous restroom sex isn’t the defining component of “being gay”, any more than soliciting hookers to put diapers on you defines “being straight”.
Craig’s gay rumors have been swirling around Idaho since I was in high school. Pam has posted on his 1982 pre-emptive denials in a gay sex scandal back then. Craig being caught in the Minneapolis restroom is just evidence of his homosexuality. McJoan was trying to say that Idaho didn’t care about Craig’s gayness as long as it was “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and as long as he was championing those types of anti-gay votes (DADT, DOMA, ENDA, etc.) in the Senate. It’s not Craig’s gay conduct, whether it’s being caught in the men’s room john or it’s coming out on the cover of The Advocate… to paraphrase an old Clinton campaign slogan, it’s the hypocrisy, stupid!
The argument that Senator Craig is a “hypocrite” is interesting, mainly due to the fact that Craig’s never been a hugely vocal opponent of homosexual rights. He voted that way, never talked about it much. Senator Craig was much more driven by agriculture.
Ah. So only if you talk anti-gay are you anti-gay. If you vote that way in the world’s most deliberative body in order to set the law of the land that discriminates against gays and denies them their civil rights, then you’re not a “vocal opponent of homosexual rights.” Hmmm. Sounds like Gonzalian Word Parsing to me — he didn’t vocally say “NAY” to gay rights, he just wrote it down silently in a vote.
“The argument, you can’t be a homosexual and oppose creat[ion of] hate crimes or you can’t be a homosexual and oppose gay marriage.” If you do, you’re a traitor to your group. Thus, the great problem with liberalism. They love you if you’re part of some designated group as long as you think like a member of that group ought. The moment you think as an inidividual [sic] you’re a traitor to whatever box you’ve been placed in.
Remember, this is a Born Again™ Christian writing this. We should love people who think as individuals and not only if they belong to the designated group and subscribe to its groupthink. So, I suppose a member of the “Christian” group who is gay and opposes the church groupthink that gay is an “abomination” would never be considered a “traitor” to that group, right?
This didn’t take long. Moments after the national media gets word that the Republican Senator from Idaho pleaded guilty to lewd conduct in a Minneapolis Airport restroom, one conservative blogger is already calling for him to resign. Doesn’t seem that loyalty that conservatives have for the Republican Party is very strong.
Apple Ann fires back:
What a dumb statement. It could only come from the party of no accountability. When the Dems are mired in scandal they are promoted and re-elected. Teddy Kennedy, his out of control son Patrick, Barney Frank (boyfriend running a prostitution ring out their townhouse), Wm Jefferson, John Murtha, on and on. Republicans hold their own accountable, usually calling for resignation. That’s what I call loyalty to the party. Try it sometime.
Um, sorry but:
Ted Kennedy never called for a constitutional amendment to allow drunk Senators to drive young women into a river and drown.
Barney Frank was openly gay, openly admitted his relationship with his then-boyfriend, but never knew the prostitution was taking place. Once he knew, he broke up with the man, accepted censure, and took responsibility. To this day, he has never advocated for a military policy that kicks out soldiers and ruins their careers for solicitation of prostitution.
William Jefferson, to the best of my knowledge, has never advocated for legislation to define banking as “One Wad-of-Cash, One Freezer”.
Again: it’s the hypocrisy, stupid.
All the liberals who say they aren’t happy about what happened to Craig, here’s what I’m talking about when I refer to celebratory liberals.
Of course we’re celebrating! It’s yet another example of the loudest anti-gay closeted homosexuals in the Republican Party who think their sexual exploits are their own business, but your sexual exploits are subject to their votes on legislation and amendments.
And it’s not as if we’re celebrating the demise of the career of a poor innocent victim here. Craig made his bed; we’re just happy to see him lying in it (and you can take “lying” either way.)