damaged people dot com

Retiring?

He should be in prison (oh wait, one of those "get out of jail free" pardons would have fixed that).

The funny thing is Rove is a much loved comedian Down Under.

LINK

Something awesome happened today, and I wanted to post it, but now it seems I can't recall what it was.

I love how Bush characterizes the legislative branch investigating Gonzales' activities as politically victimizing him. Only in the Bush mind is the search for legal transparency a political witch hunt.

At least it was a 'political' witch-hunt instead of smearing people about patriotism, their usual favorite tactic. Although that will probably be the reason for when -insert name here- resigns next.

Another one bites the dust...

Yes, I'm enjoying this. Craig came to our senior class in high school, and even in our high conservative state and an even higher conservative county, he was universally despised. 20 years later he's tappin' his foot under a men's bathroom stall at the airport.

Classy.

Well, if this guy weren't out cruising for bitter, ironic hypocrisy, I'd be very bothered by the underlying tone of homophobia attached to it. Back in my D.J.ing days, I worked a lot of gay bars and I was present for a couple of raids (Texas, I'm looking at you). I could never work out the illegality of it. Its consensual sex, often in a private setting - visually anyway. It was in a gay bar in the men's room - what did they think was happening in there? In one of the two, there wasn't even a ladies' room. Just cruising, and non-cruising bathrooms (and of course the staff bathroom I used).

If a guy taps his foot and slides his hand under a stall in an airport, its weird to a straight person, but if they're savvy enough to know what it means, at worst it reminds them that homosexual people are interested in sex. Not exactly a surprise. Say "no thanks" and finish your business. Soliciting sex verbally is vaguely understandable because kids should be protected, no question. But this is hardly worth the scandal that has come with. You can be damn sure I'm going to think twice the next time I need to borrow toilet paper from the next stall.

Hypocrisy? Yes. Sin? No.

And before someone shoots back with "Well, he WAS breaking the law," please, go find a dick to sit on. In Kansas, its still illegal to perform oral sex on someone of your own gender. Its inevitable society will recognize these laws as discriminatory and bigoted.

miftah wrote:Hypocrisy? Yes. Sin? No.

Exactly. For me, sin was never part of the equation. But a person that voted 100% against any gay rights issues to be looking for love in a stall... priceless. Also because the right tries to take such 'moral' high-ground on issues.

And then to blame the Boise newspaper for stressing him out and making him plead guilty... not even creative.

I don't think he is a hypocrite, at least when it comes to his office. I know it sounds outlandish, but he doesn't and shouldn't vote his heart, but rather what the people of Idaho want. Its funny that they are crucifying him now, after so many years of service to them, where they have obviously been happy.

I think we should look to the other senators and people of Idaho to find the hypocrisy...but that's just me.

Let me make my position clear...I don't care if he is gay, I don't care if he was looking for sex in the bathroom that day, it doesn't affect me in the slightest and I don't believe his sexuality or this "criminal act" has affected the way he voted for the last 20 something years. His long service to the state of Idaho speaks to the fact that he was doing what the people of the state he represents wanted.

Don't mistake this for my support of him, I think ALL politicians are worthless sacks of shit and shouldn't be allowed to "serve" this country.

That's a very good point R.D.

Ok, very good points. I hadn't accounted for the possibility of not voting his heart, I can't see how a person could be a homosexual and consistently vote against their best interests. To stay in office, and power, for sure... but how does a person reconcile the two feelings.

If he knew the political game well enough to vote for the people than his heart, then he should know trying to hide his arrest, weakly blame away pleading guilty, and not practice what he preaches will get him crucified.

I don't understand the comment about Idaho'ans be hypocritical. My viewpoints are the far minority of its citizen's, as my county voted 83% Bush in '04. I've never liked him, so I've been consistent.

moe flam wrote:consistently vote against their best interests. To stay in office, and power

I think that person would have to analyze what they want more, the power and position or to be right! I believe that most politicians would say the power and position, they really don't have any interest in being right. I don't believe that any of the politicians (at least that I am aware of) has the interest of the people of America at heart. They are all in the office for very selfish reasons. They will do and say anything to keep that position, including voting for something they very strongly disagree with, in return, they keep their jobs.

moe flam wrote:If he knew the political game well enough to vote for the people than his heart, then he should know trying to hide his arrest, weakly blame away pleading guilty, and not practice what he preaches will get him crucified.

I don't disagree. I believe that's why he plead guilty and tried to make it go away. I mean, lewd conduct for tapping your foot in a bathroom stall, touching another guys foot with yours, placing your rolling bag in front of the door, running your fingers along the bottom of the wall between stalls and peering into the stall? Lets get real. If he had chosen to fight it, it is my belief that the charges would have been very publicly dropped, never-the-less the damage is done, he's convicted by the public. The situation is much like paying a parking ticket given in error if I was a long way from home. I'm right, but the fight just isn't worth it. I can see him weighing the consequences of a challenge to the accusation going public and just quietly pleading guilty. If given the same choice, I'd probably do the same...

moe flam wrote:I don't understand the comment about Idaho'ans be hypocritical. My viewpoints are the far minority of its citizen's, as my county voted 83% Bush in '04. I've never liked him, so I've been consistent.

I believe them calling for his resignation after long years of service they have approved of for a minor thing like his sexuality is hypocrisy. I don't believe that his behavior or sexuality have changed in the 20+ years of service. So if the unknown behavior and unknown sexuality was OK and still allowed him to perform his duties in a way that the people of Idaho approved of, and now that they know he did these things WHILE performing his duties (satisfactorily) and they call for him to quit, that makes them hypocrites in my mind. Remember the only thing that changed was the KNOWLEDGE of the behavior and sexuality. Larry Craig has been aware of these things for a very, very long time...it didn't prevent him from performing the duties of his office. The people have agreed for 20+ years.

I wasn't speaking of you specifically, just the generic people of Idaho.

Well said, we're on the same page. Hope I didn't sound defensive, I'm taking the whole thing as serious as Keith Olbermann, he's of course more eloquent about it. And has props.

Yes, your last paragraph about hypocrisy makes perfect sense.

Yes, resignation is a bit extreme. The offense legally calls for nothing more than censure or at most egregious, impeachment. The response of the voters is another story for another day.