Another hypocritical right-wing jerk

Roll Call has the story that U.S. Sen. Larry Craig, a vicious right wing nut from Idaho, pleaded guilty to lewd sexual behavior in a Minnesota airport men’s room. He is, of course, yet another “family values” Republican who can talk the talk but can’t walk the walk.

Read the story. It’s almost painfully ridiculous.

Advertisements

75 Comments

Filed under Larry Craig, Roll Call

75 responses to “Another hypocritical right-wing jerk

  1. EJ

    Mr. Moderator do you approve of the language you used.

    Larry Craig may be a jerk (language has been modified), but do you make the same comments when your left wing wacko buddys. There sure sure are enough of them to go around.

  2. I don’t like hypocrites.

  3. EJ

    None of us do, but you didn’t answer either question.

    1- your use of language, which you supposedly object to – hypocritical of you?

    2- do you make the same comments of your left wing wacko buddies in similar behavioral situations?

  4. It will be interesting to get more facts in this case. Roll Call often reports these kinds of malicious stories against members on the Hill. In fact they seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to embarrass Congress and individual Congressmen on both sides of the aisle.

    I’d like to see some mainstream reporting on this story before drawing any conclusions. If a similiar inquiry were made about Chris Dodd, the first question anyone would ask is what party the accuser was from and agenda did he have? I hope we learn more.

    Although I’d say the most believable part of the story is Craig’s handing of his card to the police. All of them think they are untouchable Gods – From Hillary to McCain. They all forget they are in the service of the people, and not the other way around.

  5. turtle

    “Since I am a model of judicious restraint (if I do say so myself) I would not jump to any conclusions about Sen. Larry Craig until Fox News and Rush Limbaugh report the real facts, and anyway I blame godless liberals for everything that’s wrong with America.”

  6. A Craig hater

    Take a look at what Sen. Craig’s hometown paper is reporting today:
    http://www.idahostatesman.com/eyepiece/story/143801.html

  7. I don’t like hypocritical jerks on the left either. I’m a bipartisan loather of sanctimonious politicians.
    On the other hand, it’s usually the right wing nuts who preach family values while trolling in men’s rooms.

  8. And, no, I am not accusing all right wingers of putting on a false public front. Most of them, no doubt, are not frauds.

  9. TWC

    …but do you make the same comments when your left wing wacko buddys (sic). There sure sure (sic) are enough of them to go around….

    Hey EJ, could you give us an example of one of whdad’s “left wing wacko buddies” who hypocritically espouses free sex, drug use, and God-less communism, but is actually a monogamous, tea-totaling Baptist?

  10. When the left-winger troll the bathrooms, there’s an expectation from their own about of that kind of behavior – so no one says anything about it.

    A great example is how the left came out of the wall to defend Michael Jackson for what any normal person would deem inappropriate behavior with a young person or persons, in his case.

    The difference between left and right is the Republicans tend to sell out their members who commit vile indecent acts, Democrats embrace out-of-the-mainstream behavior.

    But I agree, if you’re going to get up on the Mount and preach, you’d best be a sparkling example.

  11. turtle

    “I’ll make stuff up about how the ‘left’ raced to Michael Jackson’s defense after he committed vile indecent acts against young persons. After all, that’s what my heroes in the mainstream media do.”

    “The difference between left and right is the Republicans have integrity, and Democrats are wanton pederast-huggers.”

    “Aw shucks! I do admit I’m on a roll today!”

  12. Gary Reger

    The Idaho Statesman‘s coverage of the Larry Craig incident (thanks, “Craig hater”) makes several things clear. First, accusations of homosexual behavior have dogged Craig since the 1960s, when he was a college student. Second, Craig has worried enough about these accusations to issue a virulent past denial in connection with the page scandal of a few years back. Third, it isn’t just Roll Call that is making the claims; the New York Times has reported the story, and most notably the Idaho Statesmanreports that it has had a file on these accusations for years. The police report of the most recent incident, available on the Idaho Statesman‘s webpage, makes hash of Craig’s “explanations,” and states most interestingly that “Craig’s criminal history was clear” — without further elaboration.

    Craig has been a rabid anti-gay presence on the political scene, promising to support in Idaho legislation that would ban not only gay marriage but civil unions. If Craig — who has been married since 1983 — is gay or bisexual, then he has been hiding his true character for political gain. Again and again, Republicans tell us how much “character” counts. (It was Bush’s only suppositious qualification for the presidency.) What would it say about Craig’s “character” if he has been concealing the truth about himself from his constituents, and promoting anti-gay legislation, for 40 years?

  13. I think Larry is just confused about his sexuality. We shouldn’t attack him for expressing his homosexuality in such a brave fashion. He needs a hug!

  14. Fred Garvin

    King:
    I missed the left leaping to the defense of Jacko. Could you illuminate that one for us?

  15. Fred:

    Media outlets shifted the attention away from Jacko’s sick behavior to focusing on the parent of the child, and all of wheeling and dealing alledgedly going on – arrangements, etc. Then they gave Liz Taylor and a whole host of defenders of Michael Jackson as much air time as they could consume to defend him. Then taking all responsibility off of Jacko for his sick behavior, they spent most of the time focused on extortion of Jacko – where they should have laid the blame at his feet for having inappropriate relationships with children. Two outlets had representatives from the man-boy love association on to talk about their perverse behavior. That went beyond equal time … that was rediculous. Then let’s not forget the aired special where Michael was pretty much given a microphone for an hour to talk about how “beautiful” these relationships are. It’s sick. Why did the media give Jacko all this airtime to state his case?

    Yeah, I don’t think so. And then there are all of the other Hollywood bumblers that seemed to get endless hours of airtime on a number of outlets to defend him. And so much for tough questioning – “tell us what you think”, isn’t a tough question. But that’s all we got.

    Then the race card was amplified. And on and on it went.

    Hey turtle, if I put all of my comments in quotes, does that make my statements more accurate? Or is that just your new posting style?

  16. As for Craig… most of us are trying to understand what he actually did…. I reading that he tapped his feet on the floor in the bathroom? And stood outside of a stall. And the crime there is?

    Did he solicit sex? Touch someone in the bathroom? Peer over the stall? What did he do? Follow someone around? Pull down his pants in front of someone? Use foul language? EXACTLY what was the CRIME??

    So far, the only crime I see is that he admitted guilt to “something”, but I’m wondering what he was actually guilty of?

    If you don’t have anything of substance, than this sounds like a political witch hunt.

  17. Elmwoodian

    Read the Roll Call article. According to the article, the officer was actually called into the bathroom by a a “civilian complaint” of “sexual activity”. The officer (plain clothes) went into a stall. Craig stood in front of the officer’s stall for a full two minutes repeatedly peering through the crack before entering the stall next to him. According to the article, this officer had a lot of experience with the signs of people soliciting “lewd contact” in airports. If this all is true (and that’s a big “if”), it appears that Mr. Craig was discreetly using a loosely established “code” used by folks cruising for a bathroom liaison (a la George Michael).

    If the story is true, it makes me sad for Mr. Craig. That’s gotta be one confused fellah. Come out of the closet (or bathroom stall, if you will) already Senator. It’s a different world now.

    (As for Jacko: did/does anyone [other than Liz Taylor] seriously think he’s anything other than a creepy freak show??)

  18. Gary Reger

    The business about Michael Jackson is completely irrelevant. That was a Hollywood story, and of course the media loves Hollywood stories (and so does the public).

    People like me are incensed about Craig not so much for what he did in Minneapolis (not that folks should be having sex in public restrooms!) but because he has used virulent anti-gay rhetoric to promote his political career. Just like Mark Foley, this is another case of a “family-values” right-winger who asserts the right to monitor others’ sex lives while pursuing in secret the very practices he condemns.

    And let’s not be naive here. The cop who arrested Craig was an experienced detective. As the New York Times reports today, the signals Craig used are widely known code for soliciting bathroom sex. The history of accusations against Craig reach back to 1967. And the arbiters of our morality like Gary Bauer have no doubt about Craig’s guilt.

    Once, just once, I’d like one of these right-wing family values politicians caught with his pants down to “come out” and say, “Yes, it’s true, I do have homosexual feelings, and I am truly sorry for all the pain and suffering I have caused gay Americans by my hypocritical use of anti-gay politics to promote my own career.”

    But I’m not holding my breath.

  19. turtle

    (Wow, King, you watch a lot of TV!)

    I’m ambivalent about Craig’s arrest. He was set up, and the whole solicitation ritual sounds pretty discreet (except for peering through the crack of the stall–eww!) He should have been let off with a warning. And is Craig crazy, or what? He risks everything to cruise men in public restrooms?! Jiminy! It’s pitiful.

    On the the other hand, it’s fitting that he hoist from his own petard.

  20. turtle

    Meanwhile Gary posted, and I just have to say (yet again), “Exactly!”

  21. Gary Reger

    Larry Craig is now at step 1 of the politicians’ hypocrisy playbook: blame the media. The New York Times reports today that he was so upset that the Idaho Statesman has been pursuing allegations of sexual misconduct that he lost his powers of judgment in pleading guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct. If the usual chronology unfolds, this defense will collapse in a week or so. The big question is, which way does he go then?

    1. Does he follow the Mark Foley plan, blame abuse as a child, and go into intense therapy?

    2. Or does he follow the Ted Haggard/Michael Vick plan, and find peace and forgiveness in the healing love of Jesus?

    Shall we vote, and see which way it goes? (I bet on no. 2 if he plans to run for re-election.)

  22. TWC

    King, I know you’re desperately holding out hope that one of your right-wing heroes isn’t a pathetic bathroom cruising homosexual, but wake up and smell the toilet paper.

    No one on the Left was even remotely as hypocritical as Senator Craig in defending Michael Jackson’s actions. Unless of course you’re referring to the suggestion by many that Mr. Jackson is entitled to a constitutional right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty before a body of his peers.

    I know the Right has a hard time respecting the constitutional rights that my forbearers shed their blood to establish and defend, but Mr. Jackson–and today’s equally unappealing “foreign combatants”–are entitled to the same unalienable rights as Senator Craig. But Senator Craig has already exercised these rights by pleading guilty to his crime. So whatever presumption of innocence he was once entitled to is long gone.

    A better example of the Left’s hypocrisy that I thought you might raise are all the politicians that have finally jumped on the global warming bandwagon, but whose spouses still drive their black, gas-guzzling, monster SUVs. I hope you’ll agree it’s time the Left walked the walk, and not just talked the talk, on global warming.

    Gary, I’m voting for Plan 3: In an attempt to salvage his political career, he moves to Connecticut and becomes a “left wing wacko” politician championing the right to cruise bathrooms or prey on children for sex.

  23. Ryan

    WHDad – you’re dead right, give no ground to these right wing ostriches with their heads stuck in the sand. Need more examples? With a hat tip to for reals at CT Local politics:

    Ted Haggard, the family values man with the meth addiction that makes him call gay escorts when he’s high.

    Mike Flory the head of the FL young Republicans who plead guilty to repeatedly Raping a young college student.

    Florida Rep. Bob Allen who tried to pay an undercover cop 20 bucks for a BJ

    Glenn Murphy Jr. the Young Republican National Federation Chair who is being investigated for molesting a young male in his sleep.

    Cocaine dealing Thomas Ravenel former South Carolina Treasurer and chair of Rudy’s campaign

    Diaper wearing prostitute lovin Republican David Vitter.

    North Carolina Rep. David Almond who exposed himself in front of a female employee at his place of business yelling “Suck it, baby, suck it.” and resigned shortly after the allegations came to light.

    Jack Burkman, the GOP strategist, Dobson lobbyist and conservative talking head who used to be seen on the cable news shows a lot more often before his MySpace sleazery (where he propositioned girls to come to his hotel to sleep with him for money) was exposed, is also on the DC Madam’s phone list!

    And these people on this blog bring up Jacko? As if anybody gives a rat’s a** about that freak?

  24. EJ

    Ryan, so what’s your point. Idiot voters keep re-electing this scum to office.

    you want to concentrate on one side that’s fine.
    But, what is William Jefferson still doing in Congress after they found $100K in his freezer, Hillary appears to be taking illeagal campaign contributions. You have some dems in CT doing time for child molestation. A Democrat Hartford campaign worker gets a slap on the wrist for voter fraud and then goes to work on the Lieberman campaign.

    What difference does party affiliation make. Scum is Scum and get them all out.

  25. Ryan:

    As the only conservative on the board, I agree – find ’em guilty, put them in jail and throw away the key.

    But don’t be fooled, the left has twice as many sickos running around doing all kinds of things… so the real double standard lies with the reporting mechanisim, doesn’t it? Hmmm. All those upstanding people like Ted Kennedy (can someone say murder under the bridge?) Barney Frank, Rev. Jesse Jackson (loyal to his wife at every turn, right?) – hmmm? Now which one of you hypocrites called for Ted’s resignation? Which one of you hyprocrites screamed when the employee-employer covenant was broken in the White House a few years ago? Which member of the Woman’s Rights crowd stood up and came to Monica’s defense.

    You guys on the left are intentionally inconsistent. Like I said, the left doesn’t sell out the left. The right at least has the decency to turn out their own. If Craig is guilty of a perverse lifestyle, he should resign.

  26. Elmwoodian

    During all the Lewinsky business, I was always amused at the cacophony of divorced Republicans wagging their fingers. Family values, schmamly values. When the going got tough, these guys cut and run. From godlessgeeks.com:

    * Sen. Alfonse D’Amato of New York – divorced
    * Newt Gingrich – divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.
    * Rush Limbaugh – Rush and his current wife Marta have six marriages and four divorces between them.
    * Dick Armey – Former House Majority Leader – divorced
    * Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas – divorced
    * George Will – divorced
    * Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia – Barr, not yet 50 years old, has been married three times. Barr had the audacity to author and push the “Defense of Marriage Act.” The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is “Bob Barr, WHICH marriage are you defending?”

    And some more:

    * Sen. John McCain of Arizona – divorced
    * Gov. George Allen of Virginia – divorced
    * Ronald Reagan – divorced the mother of two of his children. Married Nancy Davis who bore him a daughter only 7 months after the marriage.
    * Bob Dole – divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through the long recovery from his war wounds.
    * Sen. John Warner of Virginia – divorced (once married to Liz Taylor)
    * Henry Kissinger – divorced
    * Gov. John Engler of Michigan – divorced
    * Former Gov. Pete Wilson of California – divorced
    * Sen. Lauch Faircloth – divorced
    * Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho – divorced
    * Rep. John Kasich of Ohio – divorced
    * Rep. Susan Molinari of New York (2000 Republican National Convention Keynote Speaker) – divorced

  27. Divorce is a crime? Wow. Can anyone be clever enough to find a site that lists Democrats that have been divorced? I’m sure they’ve never once mentioned family values or taken a moral stance on any issue.

    I guess the take is that since Democrats don’t believe in family values that they can never be hyprocrites… Oh Glory be! I might switch parties so I can go nuts and be exonnerated from all criticism because – family families just isn’t in the Democratic platform.

    Or wait… let’s go a step further…. let’s run a list up to the Pope of all the politicians and candidates that are pro-choice and see if we can get them all excommunicated from the Catholic Church! What fun!

    Or is abortion not a family value? Please spell this out for me all of you defenders of left wing politics.

    EJ:

    Good thoughts. I’d like to hear from Joe on this point. How is he doing with the GOP gang?

  28. Osemasterofdoom

    I’ll make everyone on this website a deal: I won’t act like Jim McGreevey is the embodiment of all things Democrat if you don’t act like Larry Craig is the embodiment of all things Republican. Face it, folks: there are pigs, fatcats and wackos on both sides of the aisle.

  29. Gary Reger

    King —

    The problem is this: the Larry Craigs of this world, who are all on the right, rail against homosexuality — it is a sin, etc. etc. People who believe in “family values” vote these men into office, in the belief that the Craigs share their moral views.

    Then it turns out the Craigs have been doing the very things they swore up and down they were against.

    I’m sorry, but if you can point out to me a divorced Democrat who ran his campaign on opposition to divorce, then we will have a parallel. That Democrats get divorced or have affairs is not news, and not relevant, unless they have used opposition to divorce or affairs to sway voters.

  30. Gary Reger

    Since Barney Frank’s name has come up, it is worth remembering that when his scandal broke in 1989 — that a Frank had done highly unethical favors for a male prostitute who lived with him and had run a prostitution ring out of the congressman’s apartment — Frank did not blame the media, go into therapy, find Jesus and turn heterosexual, or any of the moves so fashionable today. Instead, he admitted it was true, took responsibility, was reprimanded by Congress, and suffered loss of his standing and respect. His constituents chose to re-elect him. Frank is now a respected, successful, and clean member of the House, still openly gay. He made a huge mistake, but unlike so many today he stood up like a grown-up, told the truth, and admitted responsibility. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if Frank’s behavior when caught was the model in Congress?

  31. JTS

    Gary at 2:44 – well said.

    As whdad started this whole thread on, it’s the hypocrisy, not just the conduct.

  32. Osemasterofdoom

    I hate to get into this tit-for-tat, but when Barney Frank is held up as virtuous, that’s where I have to draw the line. Anyone with an ounce of self-respect would have resigned when his behavior came to light. The fact that he was reelected after what he did proves only that the Democrats in his district could nominate a ham sandwich and he would get elected.

    If you are looking for virtue, look no further than former Louisiana Rep. Bob Livingston. There’s someone who put his money where his ethical mouth was, and did what was best for his country instead of what was best for him.

  33. EJ

    Are you guys having fun going shot for shot?

    None of these guys, on either side have any business being in office. But the voters keep making excuses and voting for them.

    It’s about time they were all thrown out

  34. EJ

    Are you guys having fun going shot for shot?

    None of these guys, on either side have any business being in office. But the voters keep making excuses and voting for them.

    It’s about time they were all thrown out

  35. Fred Garvin

    King:
    Which media outlets? The media is awfully big and diverse. They didn’t all do as you claim.

    The focus on the parents was relevant as they basically whored their children to Jackson.

    But I don’t recall anyone giving Jacko a pass. The guy’s career is in a shambles, he is the brunt of jokes on late night TV, and he was the focus of a very aggressive documentary about his behavior towards children. And there were the thousands of newspaper articles that dealt with the allegations against him, his efforts to settle and the possibility of criminal charges.

    I don’t think your recollection is correct.

  36. Gary Reger

    I feel a little guilty prolonging this discussion, but I guess no one has to read this unless they want. It’s a response to Osemasterofdoom.

    My point about Frank is that he took responsibility. He did not try to blame others or deflect attention. That’s the behavior of an adult. We can debate whether he should have resigned (at the time I was amazed he did not), but in comparison to so many politicians today (and other public figures) his behavior is admirable.

    As for Bob Livingston, I am glad you mentioned him because I had forgotten about him. He resigned in the face of truly private misbehavior that, in the real world, would have had no impact on his effectiveness as a legislator. (His misdeeds in that regard were nothing compared to Frank’s.) He was caught in the family values squeeze, and had the integrity to recognize that not to resign would have opened him, and the Republicans trying to impeach Bill Clinton, up to endless ridicule as bluestocking hypocrites. So he took one for the team. In my mind that’s not quite as noble as Frank’s actions, because it was calculated to bring political cover for his fellow Republicans, but still he gets big points for seeing the problem.

  37. Wow at lot over a few hours…..

    Osemasterofdoom: Welcome back to the debate… good to know I’m not alone to battle the beads and sandals crowd.

    EJ: You are right, but some things are worth battling about. There are actually bigger issues to fight over beyond the tax policies of the left, and the manner in which the school budget is mishandled.

    In the same light as mentioned by Gary, no one need read on if they aren’t inclined to continue down this thread…

    Gary: Newsflash: for those of us who are Christians, most of us abide by Biblical teaching – which plainly states that homosexuality is a sin. Religion and the United States are very much intertwined. Beginning with our Nation’s founding to the rationale for our laws and liberties – are founded in Judeo-Christian Religion. We’ve lost sight of this very fact since people over the last 40 years suddenly have decided to shun God and do their own thing. Frankly, its a mess. Love thy neighbor has little meaning next to Coveting thy wife, and stealing and all the other things that have fallen into the “grey” catagory.

    We’ve lost touch by making theft excusable based on income level, homosexual normal due to fear of phony discrimination and fear of lawsuits and judgements by f’d up judges, and cheating on your spouses fashionable in the way of sit coms like Desperate Housewives and all the other pathetic shows that poison our kids minds. I could go on and on and on. But if you are a Godless creature, there is no way I can reach you to make you understand.

    If you live somewhere in the middle, where its easiest to live – because you don’t want to get into confrontations with anyone, then you do the left a tremendous service. You allow them to erode society’s base fabric in the name of what’s popular. So when someone like Craig appears you get all excited because its allows you to cry “hyprocrite” and gush over someone’s mistake. If Craig is guilty – he needs help. Perhaps even step down. But I’d rather have a faulty Craig than a Barney Frank, who is the epitomy of immorality based on Christian teachings. The Democrats can seem to have sex with Page boys and their is nothing but centure when there should be jail time. Clinton has sex with a White House employee and everyone says “oh so what”. Talk about society’s tolerance going in the wrong direction… wow. You guys must really sleep fine at night with your sense of morality.

    People who rally against “family values” must have a lot of guilt. I find they probably went off the beaten path and some – realizing they’ve caused themselves and their family members so much pain have decided that they can never go back – so when they hear anyone – minister or politician preaching family values – they turn into a big ugly monster. They seek the “what ifs” and “loop-holes” to justify their own behavior. Yep that all that is. Any normal, decent person would root for traditional family values EVEN if they strayed from that path.

    But many of you are sad creatures. You are the kind of person who sees your neighbor drive up in a new car, gets extremely jealous, and privately pray it breaks down or gets damaged. You think of a thousand ways that your neighbor probably screwed someone over to get that new car – because hard work and merit don’t compute.

    Fred: My recollection is correct. MSNBC, CNN, and even Fox News was guilty of giving his proponents plenty of airtime.

  38. Fred Garvin

    King:

    What you said here:
    “Media outlets shifted the attention away from Jacko’s sick behavior to focusing on the parent of the child, and all of wheeling and dealing alledgedly going on – arrangements, etc.”

    Does not equal what you said here:

    “MSNBC, CNN, and even Fox News was guilty of giving his proponents plenty of airtime.”

    Giving air time and, as you call it, shifting attention are not the same thing.

    Perhaps you should trade your St. Francis lab coat and stethoscope for a TV producer’s coat and tie.

    All the best.

  39. Fred, I think you are lost. One does not cancel out the other. LOL.

    They shifted attention from Jackson’s lifestyle and behavior and went after the mother of the child. Then gave plenty of air time (to Jackson’s proponets) – how wonderful he was.

    In both cases, MSNBC et al strayed from the focus away from inappropriate behavior with children.

    Do you follow now?

    Fund me. I’ll have my own show. We’ll straighten out the lot of you!

  40. Joe Visconti

    Rosebud

  41. David Jones

    Why all the interest in the unethical, hypocritical behavior of a Senator from Idaho. One word, opportunism. It’s an opportunity for those who are anti Republican to make a bigger point, that Republicans are hypocrits. It gives them a reason to list every bit of Republican misconduct they can recall.

    Why would anyone bother to defend Mr. Craig or respond. Counter opportunism. It’s an opportunity to list all the instances of misconduct from Democrats that can be recalled.

    And of course if the parties had been reversed the same thing would have happened.

    There are numerous instances of unethical, illegal, or hypocritical behavior that can be found among our elected officials from both parties. Is this somehow a contest to see who can name the most offenders from the opposition party. Is that how you win?

    Larry Craig is not representative of Republicans, he’s representative of only himself. Are there other Republicans who have exhibited similar behavior? Absolutely, and plenty of Democrats also.

    Does anyone find it ironic that the way of chastising a Republican who likely viewed himself as morally superior to Democrats is to attempt to prove that it is in fact the Democrats are morally superior because they’re not hypocritical?

    My point is certainly not to defend Sen. Craig who I indeed believe to have behaved in an unethical, hypocritical, and perhaps illegal manner. But I’m attempting to point out the insanity of the game that is being played out right here on this blog. Is it really so difficult to accept that there are many members of the opposition party who are honorable decent public servants and a number of members of one’s own party who fall far short of our ethical expectations?

    Just some food for thought.

    And by the way, I’m a moderate Republican who is pro-gay rights.

  42. turtle

    Welcome back to the debate… good to know I’m not alone to battle the beads and sandals crowd. And so on.

    “I have assimilated all the rhetoric of the right-wing culture wars and that is all I know and ever need to know, for I am the King.”

    P.S. Could you cite the chapter and verse where Jesus declares that homosexuality is a sin? Thanks.

  43. turtle

    But many of you are sad creatures. You are the kind of person who sees your neighbor drive up in a new car, gets extremely jealous, and privately pray it breaks down or gets damaged. You think of a thousand ways that your neighbor probably screwed someone over to get that new car – because hard work and merit don’t compute.

    You owe everyone on this board an apology for this insult.

  44. Gary Reger

    As King says — wow, in a few hours….

    Turtle: The Greek Testament passages usually cited on homosexuality are Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (both by Paul), 1 Timothy 1, and Jude 1:7. Needless to say, there is tremendous dispute about what these passages actually mean.

    King: I am glad for your forthright statement about religion. No matter how much good a Barney Frank may do, he is still evil because he is gay. That’s evidently your view. So there’s no point in talking about it further.

    But when you say “Religion and the United States are very much intertwined. Beginning with our Nation’s founding to the rationale for our laws and liberties – are founded in Judeo-Christian Religion,” you’re mistaken. There has been a very vigorous campaign in recent years to argue that the United States was founded as a “Christian” or “Judeo-Christian” nation, but the historical evidence, including official public statements by the men who founded it, simply does not support this distortion.

    The genius of the United States is religious freedom. That’s what allows you to believe the Bible to be the word of God and me to believe it to be a text written thousands of years ago by men whose views I am free to accept or reject. You can’t use the power of the state to force me to think like you, and I can’t use the power of the state to force you to think like me.

    The backdrop to the foundation of the United States included the horrible religious wars that wracked Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. These were wars of Christians against Christians, Catholics against Protestants, and the blood spilled really does make Iraq even today look like a day at the beach.

    Now, on the matter of family values. It’s pretty offensive, don’t you think, to assert that only Christians who read the Bible like you have family values. You don’t know anything about me except what you read on the blog, yet you presume to know my heart. (Isn’t that an act of arrogance Jesus warned his followers against?) But here’s my real issue: If politician X gets elected by touting his support for family values, don’t we have the right to expect him to live those values as best he can in his own life, and to admit his failures? I don’t understand why that is such a threat. The bigger problem, though, is that talk about family values often seems to me not about family values but code for saying that politician X believes the US should be governed by the laws of Christianity as interpreted by fundamentalists. That, in my view, is a direct attack on religious freedom, and cynically self-serving, and should be resisted by all patriots.

  45. eafinct

    “But many of you are sad creatures. You are the kind of person who sees your neighbor drive up in a new car, gets extremely jealous, and privately pray it breaks down or gets damaged. You think of a thousand ways that your neighbor probably screwed someone over to get that new car – because hard work and merit don’t compute.”

    For shame, King. Take the beam from your own eye. Who is imagining a thousand ways his neighbor might be doing wrong? You are proving Gary’s point about hypocrisy even more effectively than he did himself. Try loving your neighbor as yourself. That would be a whole lotta love going ’round.

  46. Good discussion here. I like Barney Frank – met him a few times – and no, not in that way. He was a real man when the accusations flew. He admitted what he did and faced the voters, who chose to send him back to Congress.
    Craig is a two-bit liar whose whole life is a fraud.
    And, rest assured, if he’s foolish enough to run again, the voters in Idaho won’t reelect him.
    I hope, of course, that he’s on the ballot.

  47. Fred Garvin

    King wrote:

    “Fund me. I’ll have my own show. We’ll straighten out the lot of you!”

    I gotta tell you. I would watch!

  48. EJ

    WHdad, neither of them should be in Congress.

  49. Eafinct: You are taking my comments out of context and you know it.

    I love the folks who take snipits out, repost in quotes, and then try to repaint the discussion by twisting the writers words.

    Gary you are out of your mind. When I have more time I will educate you fully on the point of Christian-Judeo founding of this great Nation. You can wish to accept this fact or deny it. But it begs the question – Gary are you some atheist? Let’s be honest now. And where the heck did I say only Christian’s like myself have family values? Gary you the King of Distortion. There are plenty of Rabbis that stand beside me when talking about the moral decline of our Nation.- and they even use the words “family values”.

    And I got new for you buddy, the backdrop the world is blood and wars. Look at Africa, Asia, on and on? Widen the lens a bit, buddy.

    And as for Iraq… we can get to that on some other post. Hey, wait…did you criticize Bush in your last post. Don’t fret, there’s still time.

    Turtle, most of your comments are cut, paste and slash. You owe the board some intellectual capital.

  50. Gary Reger

    King,

    I’d be more than happy to meet with you for a long discussion of all these issues.

    WHDad, if King wants to, you have my permission to give him privately my email address.

  51. turtle

    Turtle, most of your comments are cut, paste and slash. You owe the board some intellectual capital.

    hahaha–You may have a point there. However, coming from a guy who posts nothing but boilerplate from right-wing radio and TV I won’t let it ruin my day.

    By the way, every time you lose an argument (and you lose every time) you start crying about how you’re misunderstood and how unfair it all is. Then you promise to make a devastating counterargument when you “have the time”. Then the Spamcatcher eats your devastating argument! This ritual is invariably accompanied by a volley of cheap personal attacks. So you have no credibility with me, pal.

    Gary is a true gentleman to engage you so conscientiously, and you have the gall to accuse him of being “out of his mind” and the “King of Distortion”. You could at least be civil.

  52. Osemasterofdoom

    Anybody else find it interesting that the latest round of ethical lapses seems to turn the tradional range of scandals on its head? It used to be that you could count on members of the left to commit sins of the flesh and members of the right to commit sins of the purse. Now you’ve got Republicans like Craig and Foley acting like perverts and Democrats like Don Young and Ted Stevens acting like robber barons. Makes you long for the good old days.

  53. Stevens and Young are both Republicans.

  54. Looks like yet another argument to vote for the Democrats in 2008.

  55. Osemasterofdoom

    My bad. Don’t know why I had that reversed. Maybe wishful thinking. Looks like we Republicans have successfully “touched em all” on the subject of scandal.

    Gary: I have to side with the King on the subject of America being founded as a Christian nation, although I can’t say I agree with all of his stands. My recollection (and admittedly my memory’s credibility is low from my earlier gaffe) is that even colonies such as Pennsylvania and Maryland that were founded on religious tolerance presupposed a belief in God. I think you’re right that our founding fathers saw what a destructive mix politics and religion could be and worked to avoid that mix. But even an intellectual like Jefferson believed in a supreme being.

    I think the discussion between Gary and King raises an interesting point, namely is atheism a “religion” in an civic and objective sense? It has a doctrine (i.e. there is no God) followed by a large group of individuals, and they are organized. If you go down that road, one could make the argument that those who follow the atheist “path” are simply another sect that is trying to impose its “doctrine” on the nation. Not to get all existensial on everyone, but isn’t a belief in the absence of God constitute a belief, and therefore some sort of “faith?”

    And whdad, I am glad to hear that Barney Frank is a decent fellow, at least in an interpersonal sense. However, I still think that he should have resigned.

  56. turtle

    Turtle: The Greek Testament passages usually cited on homosexuality are Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (both by Paul), 1 Timothy 1, and Jude 1:7. Needless to say, there is tremendous dispute about what these passages actually mean.

    Thank you, Gary, I was familiar with the fun-loving St. Paul’s tirades but not the others. I asked because I can’t recall any remarks attributed to Jesus on the subject of homosexuality.

    But boy if there was one thing that made Jesus really mad it was: hypocrisy.

  57. And I’ll be up all night worried about that fact, Turtle. And I haven’t lost any arguments as far as I’m concerned. You are welcome to think differently, I do not care – like most on the Board you’ve already made up your mind on most things anyway. And you are entitled to have whatever opinion you wish. But don’t confuse “winning” with being outnumbered. I don’t suddenly expect you to support tax cuts, Christianity, or understand the War in Iraq. From my happy view, I’ve criticized left and right over time, but the topic of this post – and I’m sure whdad realizes it – was created to evoke debate and argument, and drum up excitement. I guess it worked.

    And I don’t listen to right wing radio or TV either. I don’t have time. In fact, Turtle, there is a lot you don’t know about me… assume away, its what you’re best at.

    The fact that Whdad did catch my spamcatcher once on the global warming response is true. Your exaggeration (typical) is that its a ritual. Wow. I give you credit…. you do try to be clever.

    Barney Frank a decent fellow? Aside from a number of scandals here and there, perhaps. I don’t know him personally, and I doubt many on this Board do either. I know where he stands, and what his political agenda is. That’s how he’s defined. Since his sexual preference is a part of that agenda, and he engages in public debates and speeches about what would normally be a private affair – then its fair game.

    And I never said he was evil – I tend to reserve that title for someone like Hitler or maybe even Stalin. But the Bible defines sin. This behavior is a sin. But be careful not to draw any connection between hating someone for committing a sin. I’m sure there are those of you, like Turtle and Gary, who would like to pigeon-hole me into such a claim (if you’ve made up your own minds already).

    Yeah, there are bomb throwers on each side of the aisle folks. Guess what, to win a primary you need the base. The base is made up of activists, which is why its very rare that moderates get elected. Frank is the same as Craig, but the scandal is different. Get off of the high horse fellas…. the Democrats are certainly no better than the Republicans, its just that the Republicans are easier targets.

  58. And the fact that the Republicans are the ones trying to hold up the morality torch puts them in a tough position. They are more apt to be found hypocritical. So what’s the alternative? No one tries to hold up the morality torch? Some of the liberals would just love a free for all. No standards, no laws, no morality. Sounds like a wonderful place to live.

  59. turtle

    But don’t confuse “winning” with being outnumbered.

    I associate winning with making persuasive arguments, which you don’t.

    I don’t suddenly expect you to support tax cuts, Christianity, or understand the War in Iraq.

    You know nothing about my views on Christianity. And please enlighten me with your singular understanding of the War in Iraq.

    And I don’t listen to right wing radio or TV either.

    Well, you must be getting all that RNC agitprop from somewhere. I’ve heard it a million times before.

    The fact that Whdad did catch my spamcatcher once on the global warming response is true. Your exaggeration (typical) is that its a ritual.

    Your whining about being misrepresented and your evasiveness when confronted with arguments that challenge your assertions are characteristic. The evidence is there for anyone to see.

    To get back to the subject, what do you make of the fact that, according to the New Testament, hypocrisy infuriated Jesus but that he apparently had nothing to say about homosexuality?

  60. Gary Reger

    Can’t resist a reply or two —

    On the question of the United States as a Christian nation:

    On June 10, 1797, the US Senate ratified a treaty negotiated with the Bey of Tripoli under George Washington and John Adams. Adams forwarded the text to the Senate urging ratification. Clause 11 of that Treaty reads:

    “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

    Such was the understanding of the “religious” basis of the United States government, issued by men who had been personally involved in the foundation of the nation.

    On atheism and government: I agree, Osemasterofdoom, that the government shouldn’t be in the business of promoting atheism any more than it should be promoting Southern Baptism. The government should be secular and neutral. Belief (or non-belief) is up to the conscience of the individual, and neither position should be favored by the state. (Thus the “no religious test” clause of the Constitution.)

    King: I am sorry if I inferred from your postings views that you do not hold. I try to be careful in what I write, but I make mistakes. The offer to meet still stands.

    Turtle: Thanks for your very kind words. I believe you are right that Jesus has nothing at all himself to say about homosexuality.

  61. turtle

    “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

    –George Washington and John Adams

    “I’m driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, ‘George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.’ And I did, and then God would tell me, ‘George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,’ and I did.”
    –George W. Bush

  62. TWC

    “Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus, going on before…”

    How sad indeed, Turtle, that this country has slipped so far away from yet another if its core principles. Poor Thomas Jefferson must be rolling over in his grave.

  63. Turtle, you are right my arguments are plain for anyone to see. I stand by them. Sorry they are too deep for you to comprehend.

    You’ve gone from quotes to italics… copy, paste, slash… yadda yadda. The evidence is clear for anyone to see. .

    Gary, its possible.

    Sorry, but can’t imagine any of the founding fathers joining the Democratic Party. You’d have to wonder in its current state if Pre-1930s Democrats would be Democrats. Yep. I can just see Barney Frank, Jesse Jackson, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi having tea with Washington, Franklin, Adams, Hamilton (oh that one would be funny), or Jefferson. So much in common. You’ve got to be kidding.

    But I’m sure you dream this. Turtle, stop taking Washington’s quotes out of context. Washington was a religious man, and a Christian. To try and paint him any other way, is to mislead the Board.

  64. turtle

    Hey King, what do you make of the fact that, according to the New Testament, Jesus reviled hypocrites but that he apparently had nothing to say about homosexuality?

    But I’ve had enough. Good night.

  65. Turtle, Jesus didn’t address a lot of things. We have the record we have. Thank God that what we do have wasn’t recorded on this blog. I’m sure you would have had a field day cutting bits and pieces out and putting them in quotes or italics to reshape the argument. :).

    I don’t think he said that OT/Torah should be discounted either. I will research this aspect and get back to you. It is an interesting question.

    It’s clear that Jesus disapproved of the manner in which God was being worshiped, and how people behaved in and outside of the Temple, thus the references to hypocrites.

  66. Gary Reger

    I love a good theological discussion!

    Did Jesus not say he had come to abolish the Law, meaning the whole Hebrew Testament?

    Also, there are a whole lot of texts that circulated in Antiquity as gospels, letters, acts, etc. that many early Christian groups regarded as canonical but were later removed by various Church decisions, mostly in the fourth century. Some of these give very different accounts of Jesus’ teachings.

  67. Elmwoodian

    Sorry, but can’t imagine any of the founding fathers joining the Democratic Party. You’d have to wonder in its current state if Pre-1930s Democrats would be Democrats. Yep. I can just see Barney Frank, Jesse Jackson, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi having tea with Washington, Franklin, Adams, Hamilton (oh that one would be funny), or Jefferson. So much in common. You’ve got to be kidding.

    Following that same point then, I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t be fighting for the right to carry glocks and lugers either. Mores evolve, we all know that. Back in the days of the founding fathers slavery was lawful. Come on King, I expect better than that outta ya.

    Moreover, let’s not put the founding fathers on too high a moral pedestal. They were visionaries politically, but they had their peccadillos. Franklin, for instance, was a notorious womanizer. The man had syphilis–and he didn’t get it from the drinking water!

  68. They’d probably support carrying glocks and lugars. This was a big issue with them.

    Not all of them supported slavery, and its true that Jefferson and Washington had mixed feelings on the subject.

    Yep, Franklin was a ladies man. I bet he looked different then as he’s usually depicted…. an old grey haired balding guy with a kane. I think he spent too many years in France.

  69. Tried to post to this last night, maybe there’s a posting limit per day…. LOL…

    I’d bet the Forefathers would certainly come out in support of the right to bear such arms since they were quite distrusting of governments in general – so I’d say not as a “glock fanatic” but more as a counter-balance to government having all the glocks and lugars. They were quite fearful of government means to control and bully citizens by force, and since we have a great volume of their correspondence, we know that they went as far as to suggest that from time to time the government would require rebellion since it would move away from its intention. (And I’m not advocating rebellion by the way, G-men you can relax).

    I think the forefathers would honestly be agahst at what national government has become – particularly with regard to its size and encroachment into the lives of citizens. But I also think they would be proud of the United States’ standing in the world (not all bad like many liberals like to claim).

    As for slavery, good topic. We absolutely know that Washington, Jefferson and others struggled with the topic. They were not courageous enough to put an end to such a horrific and immoral practice. I think that they probably thought it would have been too bold a change, too quickly. I’d say that worst aspect of American history has got to be that we took too long to abolish slavery.

    Had the Civil War not come along, it might have taken much longer. And the Civil War was only a convenient excuse to tackle the issue which many still preferred to keep in place for “economic reasons”.

    On Franklin. Probably the most down to Earth of the bunch. Yep, he was handy with the ladies – good for him. As for contracting that disease – well, perhaps that’s what you get for spending so many years working in France!!

  70. Gary Reger

    King is quite right about slavery. The founders don’t look very good on that, even judged by their own standards.

    I’m not so sure though that Washington would be proud of the US’s standing today. He warned, in his good-bye speech, in no uncertain terms, against “foreign entanglements.” That’s advice we have definitely not followed.

  71. I disagree on the last point. We aren’t perfect (far from it), but we are a beacon of light in terms of liberty, freedom, and opportunity. While there’s been erosion on all three fronts, there are few places where conditions are better for the average citizen.

    As for foreign entanglements, we’ve never been colonial like our European friends. We do have influence everywhere, but that is not just sought by us, but by other Nation-States that have asked for our help. Even if we are brutes, we tend to pick on brutes who hold dictatorial clout in their region, and threaten to make the world unstable.

    The world is smaller than it was in Washington’s time, and the weapons more devastating. Think about it (and I don’t mean that phrase coursely stated), armies can kill hundreds, perhaps thousands through technology without losing a soldier. Washington might have only though about such weapons as a wild fantasy, but I bet transported to this era, as a military strategist, he would have wanted to see N. Korea and Iran disarmed from making such attacks.

  72. Elmwoodian

    Washington might have only though about such weapons as a wild fantasy, but I bet transported to this era, as a military strategist, he would have wanted to see N. Korea and Iran disarmed from making such attacks.

    I’ll agree with the second half of this point in that if we were dead set on preemptively attacking a country, at least it should have been Iran or North Korea, which posed at least marginally credible threats. Iraq never made any sense and still doesn’t. When I think about the lives, time and resources expended (wasted) in Iraq while North Korea and Iran have been allowed to bloviate on and on about their Anti-American claptrap and secure their place in the nuclear club, it just makes me shudder.

  73. Gary Reger

    This sort of speculation — “What would George Washington have done?” — is fun, but of course idle. Still, I can’t resist.

    1. The question isn’t whether “we are a beacon of light in terms of liberty, freedom, and opportunity.” Washington’s warning was against entangling foreign alliances. The US could be an example of liberty without ever getting involved in foreign disputes.

    2. The notion that we have never been colonial is not true. The US engaged in colonial wars to: (1) take Texas from Mexico; (2) take Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Nevada from Mexico; (3) take the Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico from Spain. We colonized Hawaii in direct opposition to the local government, which wanted to be an independent country. We accepted colonial mandates after WWI over many Pacific islands (and still hold several, like Guam). Our record in Central America, particularly Honduras, is pretty disgraceful, from William Walker through the United Fruit company. The war in Vietnam began of course as an anti-colonial struggle against the French; when they lost, we took their place. The conceit that the US has only come to the aid of other countries at their request is simply romanticism.

    3. I have absolutely no idea what policy Washington would have supported with respect to Iran and North Korea. I will say though that if one plays this game, one might also ask what he’d think of the US owning 50,000 nuclear weapons itself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s