sda2.jpg

August 31, 2007

How Do You Draw Hypocrisy?

Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist Ben Sargent was arrested in 1998 " and subsequently convicted of public lewdness stemming from an incident at an Austin adult bookstore near the University of Texas."


Posted by Kate at August 31, 2007 3:33 PM
Comments

It is still beyond me what Craig was arrested for. Staring at the stall doors eagerly while waiting for a free space to take a dump, tapping my foot trying to poo can get me arrested too, according to police?
Or should I not worry because I am not a congressman? More questions than answers.
Is there a law that says that tapping a foot is illegal?

Posted by: Aaron at August 31, 2007 4:04 PM

Wow, that's an ingenious way of trying to divert attention from the fact that another Republican pled guilty in another sex scandal. This, in no way, reminds me that another Republican pled guilty in another sex scandal.

Boy, those Republicans and those sex scandals. Wow.

Must be the MSM's fault.

Posted by: JohnnyRingo at August 31, 2007 4:04 PM

Geez, Aaron, get yourself up to date on the talking points. Craig is now being disowned by his own party for his men's room shenanigans. That's because the guy has PLED GUILTY! As usual, the Canadian right whingers are behind the news on this one:

Lawmakers urge Craig to quit in sex scandal
Reuters
WASHINGTON

Pressure for Sen. Larry Craig to resign mounted within his own party on Wednesday, two days after disclosures the Republican lawmaker pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in a men's toilet at an airport.

Republican presidential contender John McCain, an Arizona senator, told CNN the incident was "disgraceful" and added, "When you plead guilty to a crime, you shouldn't serve."

Other Republican lawmakers echoed McCain's call, while Senate Republican leaders asked Craig, 62, a third-term senator from Idaho, to step down temporarily from his major committee assignments. A White House spokesman said, "We are disappointed in the matter."

Craig pleaded guilty earlier this month to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct after his arrest in June in an undercover sting operation at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport where police were targeting lewd behavior in the men's toilet. News of the case became public on Monday.

Craig, a vocal opponent of gay rights, delivered a statement in Idaho on Tuesday that he was not a homosexual and insisting he had done nothing wrong.

"I am not gay, I never have been gay," declared Craig, his wife at his side.

Republican leaders on Tuesday asked the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate Craig's guilty plea. He recanted the guilty plea on Tuesday, saying he agreed to a misdemeanor charge without consulting a lawyer and in hopes of disposing of the case quickly.

Democrats have remained mostly silent about the case, but Craig received little support from his fellow Republicans.

'CONDUCT UNBECOMING A SENATOR'

Sen. Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican who is expected to face a tough re-election fight next year, said: "Senator Craig pleaded guilty to a crime involving conduct unbecoming a senator. He should resign."

In the U.S. House of Representatives, Republican Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan said of Craig, "I believe that he should step down as his conduct throughout this matter has been inappropriate for a U.S. senator."

Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, who used to be in an amateur singing quartet with Craig, told Fox News, "I'm not ready to call for that," when asked whether the senator should leave.

A Washington watchdog group welcomed the Republican leadership's decision to seek an ethics investigation against Craig but it questioned why they had not sought a similar probe of Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, also a Republican.

Vitter admitted a "serious sin" in July after he was linked to "D.C. Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey, who is accused of running a prostitution ring in Washington. She says it was a legal escort service.

"The only possible interpretation of the Republicans' differing reaction to the two cases is that Sen. Craig's case involves gay sex. Apparently soliciting for heterosexual sex does not offend the 'family values' platform in the way that soliciting for gay sex does," the Committee for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington said in a statement.

News of the incident prompted Craig to resign as Idaho chairman of Republican Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. Romney said it was "disgusting" that people in public office continued to disappoint.

Posted by: JohnnyRingo at August 31, 2007 4:10 PM

Is there enough space in the blogosphere to print a list of all the Republicans who have been caught with their, ahem, pants down?

Oh wait, there is:

http://exitstage-left.blogspot.com/2007/07/republican-sexual-deviants.html

Posted by: Dodos at August 31, 2007 4:26 PM

In the case you hadn't noticed, this post is not about Craig, nor have I defended him.

So, stay on topic and take any lengthy cut/pastes to your own blog.


Posted by: Kate at August 31, 2007 4:27 PM

Q: Since when would the liberal media care about deviant sex kinks in bureaucrats after supporting Clinton and the gay political agenda?

A: If the sexual deviat is a Conservative,,,then it's not allowed

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at August 31, 2007 4:30 PM

I am confused. Does Ben Sargent speak out on morale values? Does he oppose homosexuality, or any kind of pornography?

If he never attacked people for being gay, then how is he a hypocrite?

Clarification please.

Posted by: The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist at August 31, 2007 4:30 PM

I will add however this other observation: For the past several days I've been listening to talk radio hosts and guests who "can't believe a man in his position wouldn't know exactly where he was and what his actions meant" followed by "Holy crap! Sure glad I learned about this foot tapping code. Who knew?"

That may not rise to the level of hypocrisy, but there certainly is a disconnect in evidence.


Posted by: Kate at August 31, 2007 4:31 PM

No, you've said nothing about him at all on your blog - just like you say nothing about any Conservative/Republican who gets into trouble. But that's OK, the MSM is the biased one right?

Posted by: Dodos at August 31, 2007 4:31 PM


I'm not a news service. I'm a private citizen. Learn the difference.


Posted by: Kate at August 31, 2007 4:33 PM

For those who seem happy that this thing has happened to a Republicn I have two words for you:

BARNEY FRANK

Ring a bell? Of course not. Even though he was CONVICTED of running a male prositution ring outside of his D.C. apartment, the Liberal MSM gave him a free pass.

Posted by: Doug at August 31, 2007 4:34 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds

Posted by: anon at August 31, 2007 4:37 PM

I'm not a news service. I'm a private citizen. Learn the difference

Yes, you are a private citizen who continuously criticizes the media for their alleged bias and then turns around and engages in the same behaviour. That's what rings hollow about this site. If you were really as outraged by their behaviour why would you stoop to their level?

Posted by: Dodos at August 31, 2007 4:40 PM

A Pulitzer Prize Winning cartoonist convicted of "pleasuring himself" in an adult book store should in my view refrain from commenting on men's room footsie nudging Senators.
Kettle - pot, no?

Posted by: Joe Molnar at August 31, 2007 4:48 PM

If we wanted to read outrage about Craig, we had enough of that in the MSM. Kate fills the vacuum, that's why I keep coming back, not for stupid comments from the left.

Posted by: Aaron at August 31, 2007 5:00 PM

Dodos, I believe Kate is not so much outraged, as she is pointing out things to provoke thought and debate, nothing hollow about this site pilgrim....

Posted by: Bri C at August 31, 2007 5:02 PM

it's about hypocrisy not outrage.

The cartoonist is being hypocritical, that's all Kate is pointing out.

Dodo, Johnny Ringo et al . . . it's not that difficult to figure it out . . . for anyone who has completed grade 3.

Posted by: Fred at August 31, 2007 5:11 PM

I'm not a news service. I'm a private citizen. Learn the difference.

Posted by: Kate at August 31, 2007 4:33 PM"

hypocricy here too ......

Posted by: tsktsk at August 31, 2007 5:14 PM

Craig the individual is an admitted sexual deviant. He did plead guilty to a charge of lude behaviour.

He is not the entire Republican party, nor is any other individual conservative who may have been charged for some sort of creepy sexual thingy. I cannot think of many.

The Left still has the record of their president getting blown in the Oval office. Lest we forget.

Posted by: John at August 31, 2007 5:15 PM

The cartoonist is only being hypocritical if the cartoonist was pushing "Family values" or the like.

His whole thesis is that Craig was doing so, and himself being hypocritical. (I don't know if that's true, not giving a damn about Craig or his career, but that's the thesis presented.)

(Hypocrisy is, remember, actions and stated values (words) not matching. The cartoonist need not be someone who would be acceptable to a family values caucus in order to point out fairly that someone who's part of one is not acting appropriately.

I see no hypocrisy on his part, from the available evidence. Now, if he's spoken out against Freaky Consensual Sex or Soliciting In Public or the like, that's another matter... but not in evidence.)

Posted by: Sigivald at August 31, 2007 5:19 PM

OK Dodo, try to follow this.

The MSM claims to report the news without any bias.

Kate runs a blog.

Kate freely admits her conservative/libertarian bias.

She is not engaging in the same behavior because she does not hide her bias.

If the Toronto Star had a banner saying "we support the NDP" or CBC ran a discaimer saying "Proud supporters of the Liberal Party of Canada" there would be no problem.

The issue comes up when a news agency claims to be non-bias but doesn't act like it. This problem is worse when it is a publicly funded agency.

Now run off and become extinct.

Posted by: mrtisaduffer at August 31, 2007 5:25 PM

Wow, sure glad you pulled Bill Clinton into this...but isn't it a tad, er, hypocritical to point this out when two Republicans have recently been the focus of sex scandals. To say nothing of Congressman Foley's email shenanigans to his male assistant last year, etc.

Here's the hypocrisy, Kate: a bunch of conservatives desperate to ignore the sex scandals in their own party, shrug it off by pointing to Democrats, who they claim to be morally superior to. That's hypocrisy. And unbelievably stupid. Sure, Clinton messed around. Aren't you guys supposed to be better than that? Seems Republicans can't keep their pants on - especially around the fellas.

Weird, innit?

Posted by: JohnnyRingo at August 31, 2007 5:46 PM

Did anyone record the CBC Newsworld interview at 11:30 a.m.? Gosh, I wish had turned one my new dvd recorder for that interview. One of the most biased, loaded interviews I have ever seen. PLEASE someone find this interview for me. Again, it was on @ exactly 11:26 or 11:27 Pacific Time.

Posted by: Michael at August 31, 2007 5:47 PM

JohnnyRingo:

There is one slight difference here. That being the RNC has actually asked Craig to quit. And if he doesn't they're going to withdraw all financial support to him. To the best of my knowledge the DNC never asked Clinton to quite.

And the latest news is Craig is going to resign this weekend.

Posted by: Reid at August 31, 2007 5:54 PM

Kate,
You must sure be getting the commie Kool Aid drinkers all fired up about something. They're coming out of the woodwork. They're all so sensitive you know, we can't hurt their feelings and get away with it.

LOL! bunch of losers.

Posted by: Doug at August 31, 2007 6:01 PM

...yep Doug, the leftist airheads must be coming up for food or annual breeding time?

Posted by: tomax7 at August 31, 2007 6:12 PM

Bill Clinton's extra marital sexual encounter in the white house was not the first for a president nor will it likely be the last. His unforgivable sin was to lie to Congress, the American people and his family about it. Does anybody not remember his famous quote,"I did not have sexual relations with that wonam."? Clinton's politics may be questionable but his lack of integrity made him unfit for office.

Posted by: Brian Mallard at August 31, 2007 6:13 PM

Sorry Brian but I have to disagree. I think his worst sin was to drop bombs on a few countries and kill a few thousand people to try to deflect the press from the story.

Posted by: mrtisaduffer at August 31, 2007 6:19 PM

no doubt Craig is a hypocrite.

the Canadian MSM is making quite a deal of it when they celebrate Scott Brisons marriage and Svends gayness. and ignore Bill Graham and Lawrence Metherel his underage boyfriend.

Posted by: cal2 at August 31, 2007 6:28 PM

Ahhhh, once again if the moonbat trolls here cannot read properly. They will not admit to missing the point but will turn and try to dis Kate. And as usual, they get put in their place.

And for the record. I agree with Joe. Whether or not the commentary is written or visual, it is certainly a case of pot-kettle.

Posted by: Texas Canuck at August 31, 2007 6:28 PM

Dear friends from the left, could you please finally explain to me one thing: is it Okay to be gay or not? I have been getting different information all the time. When a leftard is gay it is Okay, but when a right winger is gay it is not. Do I understand it correctly now?
Not that I have a clue whether Craig is a gay or not.

Posted by: Aaron at August 31, 2007 6:32 PM

Who cares? This man is not Canadian and has no bearing on anything that happens in this country. Let's stop talking about him and get on to something more important

Posted by: Lois at August 31, 2007 6:40 PM

heres a canadian story

Why hasn't Bill Graham denied having relations with Lawrence Metherel?

Lawrence Metherel did an interview in a Canadian gay magazine a while back about having relations with Bill Graham while receiving support payments from him. That story has been circulating for several years now. The media is afraid to tell the general public about it, fearing legal action for talking about something so outrageous without any "evidence". At the same time, strangely, Bill Graham, to my knowledge, has yet to deny having sex with a 15-year old boy. How bizarre is that?

Check out this conversation on the not-so-conservative "Vive le Canada" site. Here's an attempt to defend Graham:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/feb/020219.html


MAGAZINES SAY CANADA'S FOREIGN MINISTER HAD SEXUAL AFFAIR WITH 15-YEAR-OLD MALE PROSTITUTE
Claim Canada's Foreign Minister Is An Admitted Bisexual

OTTAWA, February 19, 2002 (LSN.ca) - Canada's newly appointed Foreign Affairs Minister, Bill Graham, is a darling of the homosexual activist community having constantly supported pro-homosexuality initiatives including homosexual marriage. However, last year a Toronto-based homosexual magazine called Fab published an interview with Lawrence Metherel, a former male prostitute, who claimed to have had a sexual relationship with the Graham, dating back to 1980 when Metherel was 15.

The story has gone unchallenged by Graham's constituency office, which admitted to LifeSite that it had heard of the story. As a result the issue has become a major embarrassment for Canada as it was picked up in the US publication Front Page Magazine, which repeated the allegations Feb 14 in a story entitled "Bill Graham: Canada's Latest Shame."

The mainstream press in Canada has touched on the issue in a secondhand fashion as the TorStar corporation's Eye weekly Toronto paper has come out in defense of Graham. Eye columnist Sky Gilbert wrote on Feb 14 that "the first thing you need to know is that Bill Graham is gay," and goes on to say that any interest in Graham's controversial past is evidence of homophobia.

While his bio on the website of the Department of Foreign Affairs says: "He and his wife Catherine have two children: Katherine Helen and Patrick William," Eye says, "Almost everyone in the gay community knows that Graham is gay." Moreover, Eye calls Metherel "an ex-boyfriend of Graham's" and Graham's "spurned lover."

Canadian delegations to the United Nations, under previous foreign affairs Ministers, have been one of the world leaders in pushing a mandated radical sexual agenda on the rest of the world, with total disregard for national cultural and religious traditions. Mr. Graham's appointment begs the question of just how much further the Liberal government is determined to advance this agenda.

Calls to the Press Secretary of Minister Graham were not returned by press tim

Posted by: cal2 at August 31, 2007 6:45 PM

I think what Kate is basically trying to illustrate from the article is that "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." I could be wrong.

Posted by: Dan at August 31, 2007 6:50 PM

Lois,

Don't be too naive. If you think for one minute that what goes on in the USA isn't as important or more important to us than what goes on in our little demented dominion, you are going to be very surprised and very confused at some point in your little Disneyland life.

Posted by: John West at August 31, 2007 7:17 PM

Where's the story with Bill Graham? How is that a story that anybody should pursue? The personal sex life of one of Canada's finest Foreign Affairs ministers in recent memory has no bearing. I've met him on several occasions, and while I disagreed with some of what the Liberals did on the international front, I found Graham to be a highly intelligent individual and principled on the job. As to his personal life, it's none of my business, because it played no role in his professional life (until Cheryl Gallant tried to raise it in the House by heckling about his "boyfriend." Of course, she wasn't able to repeat her comments outside the house, so she kept her smear to herself.)

Senator Craig was charged, and pled guilty, for soliciting sex in a public toilet. Marc Foley was disgraced for sending sexually suggestive emails to a male staffer. Senator Vitter admitted to his links with a prominent DC escort agency. Bill Clinton conducted an illicit affair while on the job, and lied about the nature of his affair.

Bit of a difference there.

Posted by: JohnnyRingo at August 31, 2007 7:33 PM

Yeah, Dan, you could be wrong and you are. Sargent isn't throwing stones from a glass house, nor is he a pot calling the kettle black.
The "left"is often accused on this site of lacking reader comprehension skills. What we have here is a demonstration of the usual suspects' utter lack of basic word comprehension.
Hypocrisy is practicing what you preach against, ala Sen. Larry Craig. (and no, Doug, Barney Frank wasn't convicted of running a prostitution ring. He did, however, receive a reprimand from the House Ethics Committee for hiring a male prostitute, while one member voted for the more serious punishment of censure....none other than....you guessed it....then House member, Larry Craig.)
No, hypocrisy is chairborne blogging Tories, beating the drums of war from, and only from, behind the security of their keyboards.
Hypocrisy is farmers and the politicians who shill for them, railing against big gov't. and the public sector, while cultivating an entitled to their entitlements mentality, with their hand in the public cookie jar from cradle to grave.
Hypocrisy would seem to be the exclusive domain of the right.

Posted by: manny at August 31, 2007 7:37 PM

so JohnnyRingo , having 15 year old paid boyfriends and being married isnt unusual to you?
actually I think that would be a heck of a compromising situation for a foreign affairs minister.

it didnt seem noteworthy to the MSM either but they seem to be all over Craig.

Posted by: cal2 at August 31, 2007 7:49 PM

Aaron: Dear friends from the left, could you please finally explain to me one thing: is it Okay to be gay or not? I have been getting different information all the time. When a leftard is gay it is Okay, but when a right winger is gay it is not. Do I understand it correctly now?

No, you don't. Being gay, whether you're left- or right-wing, is perfectly fine. Being privately gay, while publicly condemning homosexuality in the name of "family values," is far less so. In recent history, politicians who fall into the latter camp have been more often than not (though not exclusively) right-of-centre.

Posted by: A at August 31, 2007 7:50 PM

Here again, the conservative fascination with sex. Obsession with Bill Clinton, who cares if he got a blow job in the Oval Office. I couldn't care if Craig got his dick sucked by a nun in front of the Pope. The point is: conservatives are the ones judging the morality of others.

You are all right that those living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, but I think you are a bit confused as to which one of us is in the house.

Posted by: The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist at August 31, 2007 7:51 PM

looks like JohnnyRingo is a lieberal insider.several times.???? several times????


"Where's the story with Bill Graham? How is that a story that anybody should pursue? The personal sex life of one of Canada's finest Foreign Affairs ministers in recent memory has no bearing. I've met him on several occasions, and while I disagreed with some of what the Liberals did on the international front, I found Graham to be a highly intelligent individual and principled on the job. As to his personal life, it's none of my business, because it played no role in his professional life (until Cheryl Gallant tried to raise it in the House by heckling about his "boyfriend." Of course, she wasn't able to repeat her comments outside the house, so she kept her smear to herself.)"

Posted by: cal2 at August 31, 2007 7:55 PM

I don't presume to judge a man by rumors alone, unlike you. However, Craig and all the other Republicans who've been caught with there pants down - and admit to it - seem immune from your morality drive. What gives?

Posted by: JohnnyRingo at August 31, 2007 7:59 PM

Why Ben Sargent's cartoon isn't hypocritical: he's not mocking those who cross-dress, he's mocking those who do so privately while espousing "family values" publicly. To my knowledge, Mr. Sargent has never publicly claimed to be a defender of conservative morality and values, so the fact of his own sexual misadventures hardly makes him now a hypocrite.

Kate, your lame argument verges on "He who is without sin..." territory.

Posted by: A at August 31, 2007 8:05 PM

that would be "their pants "

morality drive -- I think Craig is a slime,Foley a slime and to even it out Clinton a slime too. and Bill Graham as well.


I hope you didnt shake Grahams hand.

Posted by: cal2 at August 31, 2007 8:05 PM

Manny
You make some valid points.

Posted by: Dan at August 31, 2007 8:17 PM

You can tell how soundly Kate has been spanking the lefties that they actually consider this a 'gotcha' moment.

Posted by: Robert in Calgary at August 31, 2007 8:41 PM

I find it impossible to respect married men who have affairs with underage male prostitutes. But that's me, i'm one of those cranky, conservative types.
I'm sure johnny ringo travels in more liberal circles where these affairs are common place, and that affects his attitude.

Posted by: whitney creelman at August 31, 2007 8:52 PM

"one of Canada's finest Foreign Affairs ministers in recent memory" - Are you for real? He of the 'soft diplomacy'. Being gay has litte to do with quality of a persons' professional endeavours. And while he may be one of the finest gay MP's in recent memory, he has certainly left a lot to be desired as a foreign affairs minister. Ask (or google) William Sampson, Zahra Kazemi et al. Unless you are talking about his 'hidden agenda' as opposed to real results.

Posted by: Mike at August 31, 2007 9:30 PM

I have to go with whitney on this one. Married men having sex with anyone, male or female, is wrong, just plain wrong. Throw in an underage male prostitute, or any male prostitute, then it is wrong and sick. You want to be gay, put on a bra and lead the next pride parade. F@#$ing hypocrites!

Posted by: kingstonlad at August 31, 2007 9:42 PM

Jeez, sex, politics and hypocrisy, how far back shall we go?

Better not start on the Kennedy clan, we'd be here all night.

Posted by: Liz J at August 31, 2007 10:01 PM

I think I see the problem here. You see, I don't think Kate understands the definition of hypocracy.

If Ben had stated that he opposes ownership of pornography, then yes, he would be hypocritical. As far as I know, he has not.

Craig is a 'family-values' Republican. Therefore, he is a hypocrite, along with the litany of other 'family-values' Christian fundamentalists who get blow-jobs from male prostitues while condemning homosexuality.

Posted by: The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist at August 31, 2007 10:02 PM

That should be: hypocrisy.

Guilty of not being able to spell hypocrisy: me.
Not knowing the meaning of hypocrisy: conservative republicans.

Posted by: The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist at August 31, 2007 10:04 PM

Are you really sure you want to pull William Sampson into this?

On November 6, 2003, this is what William Sampson told Stockwell Day, chair of the foreign affairs committee, during his appearance before them: "Your own party, the Alliance, happens to be the party that has an MP from my father's constituency. That individual provided not one ounce of support to my father or my family during this entire time."

Sampson was criticizing all the parties, including of course the government, for its role in handling his imprisonment. But I wouldn't be so quick to play the role of saint in that matter if I was a Conservative. Hardly any politician - Alliance or Liberal - came out of that sorry situation with much to brag about.

Posted by: JohnnyRingo at August 31, 2007 10:26 PM

Dear Johnny,

You are absolutely right. But since this thread is about hypocracy, should we draw that line at the minister of the government of the day and the nonsense spewed out by that hypocrite or at the level of support provided by a backbench MP in opposition?

Posted by: Mike at August 31, 2007 10:37 PM

What is the difference between a liberal and a Conservative? Is it that a Con faces up to an indiscretion, and a lib doesn’t? Fess up or lie, or make excuses, or find someone or something to lay the blame on, seems to be the lefty way. Blow Job Billy, my saint.

I see al gore is coming to Victoria, can't wait, I will be standing in line to see the types that would actually pay to hear him. I bet that 75% of the 'Males" have beards and the same percentage of "Females" have hairy armpits. I wonder if that percentage holds true of the number of Al's stupies that work for the Government? Bet it's close.


Posted by: Western Canadian at August 31, 2007 10:43 PM

Western Canadian, I'm afraid you're confused. The point isn't about facing up to indiscretion. The point is that being a homosexual, isn't an indiscretion. That is why Sargent is just a criminal, while Craig is a criminal and a hypocrite.

And how do you know about the beard and arm pit hair of the women and men? Have you met them, or is this what Rush told you on the radio?

Perhaps you should try interacting with human beings with different political persuasions. You'll find that their appearance and ideology, are seldom connected.

Posted by: The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist at August 31, 2007 10:49 PM

once , just once I'd like to see CBCpravda mention about Bill Graham the uberhomo. and not in glowing terms like they describe Scooter Brison or Svend ( the thief) Robinson.

CBCpravda should take out their hidden agenda or as Johnnyringo would say "there hidden agenda" as he and the other not so hidden liberals are exposed.

Posted by: cal2 at August 31, 2007 11:05 PM

"CBCpravda mention about Bill Graham the uberhomo"

Just for clarification, are you suggesting that the CBC should be exposing the sexuality of politicians that you disagree with? And why should the sexual orientation, or sexual habits of a politician matter, so long as that behaviour is legal, and between consenting adults? The only reason anyone cares about Craig, is that he opposes rights for gays, yet is gay himself. He is a hypocrite and should be exposed as such.

Do you not like gays yourself? Why refer to them as uberhomo? If you had a gay son, would you treat him that way?

Posted by: The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist at August 31, 2007 11:10 PM

A: Hypocrisy is not a crime last time I checked. Tapping a foot is not a crime last time I checked. Sliding a hand along the separation wall is not a crime and putting a suitcase in front of the toilet door is not a crime. Waiting for an empty stall, looking at the stall door, as well as looking at another male, even into the eyes, is not a crime. I don't believe a word of that cop, he has that kind of weaselly faces that make you check if my wallet is still in my pocket. And why there was a second cop waiting outside? Personally I believe that Craig was framed. None of us was there. Innocent people pleaded guilty before in great numbers because police lied to them and intimidated them. I rest my case.

Posted by: Aaron at August 31, 2007 11:18 PM

should have been 'that make me check'

Posted by: Aaron at August 31, 2007 11:19 PM

no , just suggesting that CBCpravda is all over Craig like a fat boy on a twinky. but the closer to home liberal types are off limits. they print glowing stories about Scott Brison and even Svend - and stealing the ring was just one of half a dozen criminals run ins Mr. Robinson had.

last I remember paying 15 year old prostitutes male or female was illegal . maybe someday Mr. Graham can clarify this all.

he can announce that he "not gay , and never was gay" and CBCpravda can report that.

and CBCpravda can put it between Rufus Wainwright and k d lang just for emphasis.

Posted by: cal2 at August 31, 2007 11:32 PM

I have to agree with SLM and JohnnyRingo on this one. Senator Craig is the worst sort of hypocrite. Obviously, stupidity knows no ideological boundaries.

Posted by: Belisarius at September 1, 2007 12:03 AM

For those who still don't quite get it: Hypocrisy in action.

"they feign outrage over marginally offensive comments"
"As you can see, the following unscolded commenters on her blog suggest that her outrage and sensitivity is quite newly found. What do you think caused this awakening?:
"Watching Calvert talk to the media yesterday was to watch a man in severe damage control mode. He was stuttering, had no topic and mumbling about the fall."
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/004623.html#c102799

"The untruths roll off his(Paul Martin) tongue now without the stammering and stuttering that that was so evident two months ago. I guess if he tells lies often enough he starts to belive what he is saying hence the fluid speech."
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/003428.html#c50543

"PMPM would be on-air stuttering ceaselessly how the war-mongering M.E. bullies, the USA-backed Israelis had started the conflagration and were to be condemned."
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/004397.html#c94454

"Like you, I was looking forward to never having to see the frothing, mumbling, stuttering, droning, BORING wattling- worbbling old turkey of a pmpm"
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/003473.html#c53358

"I saw Obama on a newscast the other day. He was a stuttering inept way less than average speaker ."
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/005555.html#c138900

"Ah, Iberia has been reading Wells again. Pompous, self-righteous, stuttering fool."
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/005879.html#c151214

"PMPM announces he is the idiot that approved the script for the attack ad on the Canadian military.

a stuttering stupid apology."
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/003331.html#c46534

"The Liberals DID release, for all the stuttering ignorance they are displaying now."
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/003314.html#c45886

"Just saw Stephen Harper on Global, expressing a clear, concise message on violent crime. Meanwhile, Martin is standing at the edge of his bus,stuttering and uttering on 'reverse onus'as the solution innocent people dying on the streets."
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/003245.html#c43698

Posted by: manny at September 1, 2007 12:08 AM

I think what Kate is basically trying to illustrate from the article is that "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." I could be wrong.

Probably the principle she was trying to illustrate, to be sure.

And she would be doing her readers a favour, in fact, if she were to adhere to that principle herself in future posts.

Unfortunately, however, the recent past has seen Kate suggest the CCF/NDP were ideological supporters of "mass murder, forced labour and starvation of millions of human beings"--without offering any evidence to support the claim, I might add.

And all while she herself has forcefully supported the unjust use of violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and elsewhere--at a human cost that has yet to be fully tallied.

Here's hoping this cartoon-related post marks a change of direction.

Posted by: Stephen at September 1, 2007 12:11 AM

Hmm -- In case you missed it, here are some Maclean's pics from Graham's recent "Gay Pride bash". http://forums.macleans.ca/advansis/?mod=for&act=dis&eid=30&so=1&sb=1&ps=15

Sexual preferences aside, this very public display of marital disloyalty has to be quite devastating for Graham's wife (if they are still together). I think it is exceptionally self-centred for Graham to be so indiscrete about his infidelities. The piece does not note whether or not his wife, children were in attendance at the "party". What a boor.

Posted by: LindaL at September 1, 2007 12:11 AM

". they print glowing stories about Scott Brison and even Svend - and stealing the ring was just one of half a dozen criminals run ins Mr. Robinson had."

Once again, the confusion is that Scott Bison and Svend don't go around telling people that they should not be gay.

Svend is a convicted criminal, and is no longer serving in Parliament. What has Scott Brison done?

It sounds like you just don't like gays?

And why do you call CBC Pravda? Are you aware that you are insulting the many people who suffered under communism?

Posted by: The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist at September 1, 2007 12:19 AM

the recent past has seen Kate suggest the CCF/NDP were ideological supporters of "mass murder, forced labour and starvation of millions of human beings"

No, she said the CCF/NDP supported an ideology which had often resulted in those outcomes. It doesn't imply support of mass murder on the part of the NDP, but rather a lack of willingness to accept that socialism has repeatedly failed and produced tragic outcomes.

Posted by: Belisarius at September 1, 2007 12:22 AM

In a way you are right, Belisarius. The problem with having hypocrites in power is that in their enthusiasm to find new faces to sit upon, they expose the rest of us to the true dangers that exist in our world. Those that would distract us by saying one thing and doing another should be ostracized at the very least. And having a media that would report those that cannot restrain themselves or that truly have an alternate or a hidden agenda would benefit us all. Unfortunately, it seems that ‘progressive’ behaviour is the order of the day. In most of the dated media, Capital 'C' Conservatives are the enemy. And I am sure that those ideological boundaries present more of a problem than the discussions taking place here.

Posted by: Mike at September 1, 2007 12:27 AM

I agree, Mike. Most of the media has an ideological bias against conservatives.

Posted by: Belisarius at September 1, 2007 12:35 AM

It doesn't imply support of mass murder on the part of the NDP, but rather a lack of willingness to accept that socialism has repeatedly failed and produced tragic outcomes.

Nice try.

Did Kate provide any evidence for her false claims that the CCF/NDP supported an ideology that lead to the 'tragic outcomes' you mention?

Did you for yours?

The answer in both cases is 'No.'

Try again, though--I look forward to seeing the attempt.

Posted by: Stephen at September 1, 2007 12:38 AM

Here's the exact quote, Stephen:

The Regina Manifesto is an explicit statement endorsing an ideology that has resulted in the mass murder, forced labour and starvation of millions of human beings.

The ideology she is referring to is communism (i.e. socialism). The historical record is pretty clear on the tragic outcomes.

Posted by: Belisarius at September 1, 2007 12:44 AM

My apologies for taking this OT.

Posted by: Belisarius at September 1, 2007 12:46 AM

The historical record is pretty clear on the tragic outcomes.

Please provide some historical evidence that the CCF/NDP endorsed an ideology that resulted in "mass murder, forced labour and starvation of millions of human beings."

Please explain further how that (alleged) endorsement can be reconciled with the CCF/NDP's explicit rejection of violence in the Regina Manifesto.

Please show us where the CCF/NDP supported the ideology of 'communism' in the Regina Manifesto--'communism' being a term you equate with 'socialism'--can you explain why? On the basis of the Manifesto?

Finally--would you care to offer your sense of the 'tragic outcomes' of any other ideological efforts, including those of so-called capitalism, in Canada or elsewhere?

Posted by: Stephen at September 1, 2007 12:58 AM

My apologies, too, for taking this thread off topic: the focus should remain on hypocrisy.

Posted by: Stephen at September 1, 2007 1:01 AM

Thanks for the link to the photo of Graham in his pink shirt celebrating gay pride - whatever the heck that is. Is/was 15 yrs the legal age - and is that why the Liberals wanted to lower the age of consent? To avoid a scandal in the future? Hypocrisy, thy name is the Liberal "It's the Charter Stupid" group.
Also, when did Craig confess to a lewd act, a solicitation for sex, or whatever? I listened to the tape and it was hard to figure it out, with the policeman doing what police do best - badger and confuse. His mistake was not calling his lawyer.
If he's 'guilty' of being a homosexual, then it will be proven eventually because one of his alleged lovers will 'out' him, as did Graham's. But, I forgot - homosexuality is not a crime. The hypocrisy is among the strident group of self-centered pro-homosexual free-sex in public washrooms and lewd public behaviour in 'gay' pride parades who are daily forcing their agenda on the rest of society. They like to rant about hypocrisy within the family values group, while refusing to admit that their goal is to destroy the family structure. Hypocrisy is saying one thing while doing another - and denying it.
But, please tell me, honestly - the cartoonist really wasn't nude while performing an act of self-gratification in a public place? That's arrested 13-yr old behaviour if ever I've heard of it.

Posted by: gellen at September 1, 2007 1:05 AM

Sorry B., but you're not right on this one.

The Regina Manigesto is not an endorsement of Communism, and it explicitly rejects violence of any sort. It makes it's conviction to democracy explicitly clear.

I would add, that as some one with a bit of experience in the NDP, that their founders, the Lewis's, were fanatical anti-Communists. They spent much of the 30s and 40s purging communist elements from their ranks.

The Bolshevik ideology that is associated with Communism, calls for a dictatorship that will somehow magically cause the state to "whither awat" and create the workers utopia. The dictatorship being temporary of course, pending the mass-execution of the counter-revolutionaries, heretics, useless idiots, etc.

To be perfectly honest, the Commies didn't really have much of an ideology, per se. Lenin was primarily a strategist, first and foremost, and Bolshevism was tailored to create a regimented, militarized social movement. Lenin had studied the Paris Commune, and other failed working class movements, and reasoned that getting bogged down in trivialities like democracy hampered their ability to deal with reactionary forces in society that would attempt to crush any attempt to creating the workers state. As such, he reasoned that a transitory stage, a dictatorship of the proleteriat would be needed, to defend the working class from reactionary forces, before creating the beautiful, classless society that Russia became under Stalin (that is sarcasm).

In short, the ideology of Bolshevism has nothing in common with the Regina Manifesto, except some vague rhetoric about helping working class people, which Lenin and Stalin didn't believe anyways.

Posted by: The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist at September 1, 2007 1:12 AM

Oh yeah, Commies are hypocrites too!

Posted by: The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist at September 1, 2007 1:14 AM

"They like to rant about hypocrisy within the family values group, while refusing to admit that their goal is to destroy the family structure"

I'm a little concerned by this. I'm actually planning on getting married next year, and starting a family shortly aftwards. How will the gay rights movement prevent me from doing this?

Posted by: The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist at September 1, 2007 1:17 AM

This thread seems to be filled with more stupid comments, from both right and left, than usual.

To the left: there are plenty of examples of the MSM giving a pass, or even sympathy, to the mis-deeds of the Liberals/NDP/Democrats. Svend Robinson commits grand larceny, cries a few tears, and doesn't spend a minute in jail. (Let's see any of us try that, and see how well it works.) It was reported in the press, but I don't recall any MSM outlet calling for his resignation, or even expulsion from his caucus. I do remember some columns expressing sympathy for his plight. There are too many other examples to bother citing them (except I can't help but note that there are guys going to jail just for having pictures of 15 year old girls on their computers, and Graham has sex with a 15 year old boy, and gets a complete pass? What kind of judicial hypocrisy is that?!).

To the right: C'mon, guys and girls - the Republicans rode into town in 2000, saying they were going to restore decency and honor (perhaps that's why Americans spell it that way - there's no "u" in honor in America!). And there has been a steady parade of scandals - not just the sexual ones, but venality and corruption (Tom Delay, Rob Ney, Jack Abramoff - the list goes on and on). In fact, one Republican congressman, Jeff Flake of Arizona said in USA Today "We Republicans have abused [our] power badly over the past several years." That's a quotation from a Republican, ladies and gents.

And these are the scandals outside the White House. The Plame affair, the whispers that Cheney funneled business to Halliburton, the Gonzales firing of US attorneys; I think GW Bush personally is unsullied, but there's a lot of people on his team who aren't above using their positions to ruin their opponents or pad their pockets.

So, since the Republicans made such a big deal of being the honest party, I think the media have every right to call them on it. And they are. Just this week, on CNBC - which I would never call left wing media - had a discussion where the pundits from both the right and left agreed that the GOP had better not try the "party of honor" card in the 2008 elections.

So here's the bottom line: with the sole exception of the Lewinsky affair, I think the MSM will report the antics of the left wing, but will be quick to forgive and forget. And I think the GOP in the US and the Tories in Canada ran on certain non-economic planks, like honesty, accountability, and openess, and then failed to deliver. I mean, I know Harper got an accountability act passed, but it looks like dishwater, and he promised openess, but in practice, his PMO seems to be as controlling as any one run by Eddie Goldenberg.

I can't remember who said "I don't vote - it just encourages 'em", but I have some appreciation for the sentiment. Or, as the Who put it, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" (and, hi there, Valerie Putin!). Both sides, right and left, have a lot to be ashamed of, and a lot they should have to answer for, and for all of us to sit around crying "You're worse than us!" is to miss the important point: they're both lying to us, stealing our money, and shoving crap down our throats. And we finally have this new tool in the Net that gives grassroot organizations the ability to organize and publicize virtually free, and what do we use it for? Name calling and labelling.

I have half a mind to start the "No Crap Party", but I'm afraid I might get taken seriously, have to follow through, and then have to suffer a whole bunch of media colonscopies, which wouldn't be a pretty sight.

Posted by: KevinB at September 1, 2007 3:19 AM

I see the new liberal election strategy is to spread their oily tenticles to every right-leaning blog on the net and attempt to infuse said blogs with their failed socialist pathology.

Good work if you can get it I guess, but a real job pays better.

Posted by: missing link at September 1, 2007 3:33 AM

Self-loathing, you are too intelligent to misconstrue that.
Pay more attention to what 'they' say and what 'they' demand. And know that this has been years in the making. Also know, it isn't over.
And, congratulations on your future marriage, and may you be blessed with two sets of triplets.

Posted by: gellen at September 1, 2007 5:29 AM

I think the best way to clean up a lot of this stuff - and the smell of this stuff - is to have term limits on all elected people - or at least contiguous limits for a particular office.

This would automatically clean out a lot of crap - get rid of the lifers and their political machines - and keep things dynamic - the power going to the head syndrome wouldn't set in.

Chretien would have been gone, Svend would be gone, Polosi would be gone, everyone's buddy Kennedy would be gone - and so would their political machines which means more people would be able to fight an election.

Posted by: cconn at September 1, 2007 5:31 AM

"I think his worst sin was to drop bombs on a few countries and kill a few thousand people to try to deflect the press from the story."

Clinton's action against Serbia was The Right Thing To Do and well executed to boot. We can only wish that Iraq would go 10% as well.

KevinB "And we finally have this new tool in the Net that gives grassroot organizations the ability to organize and publicize virtually free, and what do we use it for? Name calling and labelling."

Well bloggers triggered the downfall of Alberto Gonzalez. It's not perfect but the medium is maturing into something mighty. Televison didn't develop the current all-consuming role it plays in politics overnight either.

It's just a matter of time before the net dominates politics and the party machines start taking a back seat.

Gellen "The hypocrisy is among the strident group of self-centered pro-homosexual free-sex in public washrooms and lewd public behaviour in 'gay' pride parades who are daily forcing their agenda on the rest of society"

Poor Craig he was forced into screwing men in public bathrooms by peer pressure.

Supressing your sexuality isn't a good thing. You're a lot safer leaving your child in the care of those gay pride freaks than you are a Catholic Priest.

Posted by: Jose at September 1, 2007 7:15 AM

Yo, Stephen. If some nutjob is lobbing rockets into my backyard, I would not consider it unjust to blow that asshole to smithereens. Unjust use of force my ass. And when that idiot is using children as human shields, do not blame me for the death of the child, blame the hesboretard.

Posted by: kingstonlad at September 1, 2007 7:24 AM

Jose. I would not leave my kids with a priest or a bonesmoker. There ya go.

Posted by: kingstonlad at September 1, 2007 7:28 AM

So Aaron is willing to embrace an interview given by a male prostitute in a fringe magazine to be accepted as face value (fair enough, I suppose) but is willing to cast doubt on an undercover police officer's report. The depths to which the right will go to protect its own perverts is astounding. You could have had a job on Clinton's staff.

I guess Aaron thinks it's equally permissible and above-board for men to stand outside playgrounds, carry digital cameras, wear sunglasses, etc.

Posted by: JohnnyRingo at September 1, 2007 8:26 AM

KevinB, I just got to your comments: very nicely said. I don't agree with everything you've written, but I fully agree with your take on the general state of the left/right debate.

Posted by: JohnnyRingo at September 1, 2007 8:34 AM

I am confused.

No doubt you are.

Does Ben Sargent speak out on morale values?

To state the obvious for the benefit of the confused, pointing out alleged hypocrisy in others is a moral judgement.

That is why Sargent is just a criminal, while Craig is a criminal and a hypocrite.

Did Sargent draw a cartoon of himself engaging in "pleasuring" himself in a public place while making fun of another allegedly attempting to do the same thing?

Oh right, Sargent doesn't specifically say he is a law abiding citizen. Although one can assume that if Sargent thinks hypocrisy is a moral failing, he also would agree that pleasuring oneself in a public place is illegal and also a moral failing.

That this has to be pointed out to you also illustrates your lack of moral discernment and precludes you from commenting on any supposed moral failings of others.

Posted by: ol hoss at September 1, 2007 9:13 AM

sooooo.... mr family values wants to ejaculate in the backside of some teenager and the right wing bloggers spin spin spin.....

some things never change eh?

Posted by: tsktsk at September 1, 2007 9:22 AM

Here is the thing:

The right stands for moral behaviour, traditional American values, freedom and prosperity for all people. A small minority of the right do not live up to those principals. When they are found out, the right asks them to leave.

The left stands for a utopian dream land where all people are "equal" in terms of outcome, not opportunity. It stands for nothing more.

Members of the left are free to run prostitution rings, have sex with underage pages, murder women by driving them into rivers, feed alcohol to underage sex partners in city hall while the wife sits at home, defiantly tell the public that thier affairs with married co-workers is their own business, get blow jobs from interns while acutally discussing putting our troops in harms way..... I could go on and on.

The reason some leftist politicians can be the true pigs they are and get away with it is that its members don't care about personal behaviour so long as its leaders have the right political positons.

Posted by: fourtunato at September 1, 2007 9:45 AM

"I guess Aaron thinks it's equally permissible and above-board for men to stand outside playgrounds, carry digital cameras, wear sunglasses, etc."

I do that all the time. It is not against the law.
Do you want my name and address to send cops?

Posted by: Aaron at September 1, 2007 9:56 AM

"Pay more attention to what 'they' say and what 'they' demand. "

Again, can you provide some specifics.

Posted by: The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist at September 1, 2007 10:21 AM

OK Aaron, do you really, truly believe that the police officer who arrested Craig (and God, who in their right mind would want the job trolling restrooms to find people hoping to engage in a little public sex) misinterpreted the guy's actions? Is that really what you think?

Are you that much of an apologist for ideology? If it was a Democratic Senator - if it was Barney Frank, for instance - would you be so hellbent to explain away his behaviour (which I'm not necessarily condemning, but which did attract the attention of a police officer, and for which he did plead guilty for)?

Posted by: JohnnyRingo at September 1, 2007 11:03 AM

Barney Frank. interesting example. here is essentially a lobby list.

U.S. Congressman Barney Frank

Summary of Travel Funded by Non-Governmental Sources

(As reported in Rep. Frank’s annual Financial Disclosure Statements for 2001 – 2006, with supplementary information for 2007)

Category Number of Trips

Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, 38
Transgender Organizations

Advocacy and Community Groups 19

Colleges and Universities 16

Democratic Political Organizations 12

Financial Services Groups 9

Media Appearances 6

Non-Federal Democratic Candidates 3*

International Economic Forums 2

Posted by: cal2 at September 1, 2007 11:23 AM

Once again, do you really want to play this game of "my side is so much ethically better than yours"? Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of being swayed by private interests who foot the bill on travel. This is a rather revealing list, wouldn't you say?

House: Top Recipients of Privately Sponsored Travel, 1997

Rank Member Total Cost No. of Trips
1 Bill Archer (R-Texas) $126,967 105
2 Bob Smith (R-Ore.) $123,866 107
3 Tom DeLay (R-Texas) $102,959 35
4 Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) $92,223 37
5 Bud Shuster (R-Pa.) $84,542 70
6 Dick Armey (R-Texas) $80,041 58
7 Thomas J. Bliley Jr. (R-Va.) $77,149 100
8 Michael G. Oxley (R-Ohio) $63,731 33
9 Rick Boucher (D-Va.) $45,174 20
10 Gene Green (D-Texas) $42,271 20
Senate: Top Recipients of Privately Sponsored Travel, 1997

Rank Senator Total Cost No. of Trips
1 William V Roth Jr (R-Del.) $90,014 36
2 Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska) $81,540 41
3 James M. Jeffords (R-Vt.) $53,728 37
4 Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho) $42,935 40
5 Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) $42,749 25
6 Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.) $42,144 14
7 Slade Gorton (R-Wash.) $40,456 24
8 Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md.) $39,554 23
9 Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) 38,633 21
10 Max Baucus (D-Mont.) $38,374 17

Someone earlier mentioned that "The right stands for moral behaviour, traditional American values, freedom and prosperity for all people." Are supporters of the right really this blind to the practices their own leaders engage in?

Posted by: JohnnyRingo at September 1, 2007 12:16 PM

KevinB, good comments overall. I will, however, take exception to one thing. You mentioned the accountability act not being in keeping with Tory promises and comments during elecion. You left out something - the opposition rewrote the act in committee and Senate, so they are the ones who watered it down, not the government in a minority parliament.

Posted by: Shamrock at September 1, 2007 12:18 PM

Travel in 1997, surely you can google something with a later date than that.


note that in sex scandals republicans lead by a wide margin. are they morally inferior or just outted more?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scandals_of_the_United_States#Sex_scandals


Posted by: cal2 at September 1, 2007 1:39 PM

re: my own comments on Harper's centralization of power:

John Ivison in today's National Post has an excellent and even-handed examination on Harper's concentration of power within the PMO. He traces the increasing centralization of power from King in WWII to Pearson to Trudeau to Chretien to Harper. He provides arguments that are both pro and con with the process. It's an excellent piece of journalism; I wish there was more.

Of course, Andrew Coyne has an amusing piece on the vacuity of Canadian politics on the same page, so I got something I rarely receive: intelligence and entertainment in political reporting.

Recommended for reading over this extended weekend.

Happy Labour Day to all!

Posted by: KevinB at September 1, 2007 1:55 PM

Seeing all the Leftoids banging their sippy cup on their highchair shouting HYPOCRISY, reminded me of one of my favorite Ann Coulter quotes:

"The reason any conservative's failing is always major news is that it allows liberals to engage in their very favorite taunt: Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy is the only sin that really inflames them. Inasmuch as liberals have no morals, they can sit back and criticize other people for failing to meet the standards that liberals simply renounce.

It's an intriguing strategy. By openly admitting to being philanderers, draft dodgers, liars, weasels and cowards, liberals avoid ever being hypocrites."

Posted by: Toontown Kid at September 1, 2007 5:44 PM

From an article published by the LewRockwell website, by Roger Roots:

"In a way, we should all be appreciative of Senator Larry Craig’s post-conviction claim of innocence. At long last we have a member of the United States Senate who has acknowledged the phenomenon of the false guilty plea, if not the pervasiveness of wrongful conviction itself. Or better yet, by insisting he did 'nothing wrong' despite violating a statute, Craig may have finally expressed doubt in the laws that lawmakers have rained down on us. Viewed in their worst light, the allegations made against Craig hardly seem to rise to the level of criminal conduct. Yet Craig’s guilty plea to disorderly conduct charges will prevent him from formally appealing the conviction and will likely haunt him for the rest of his life.

"Senator Craig’s proclamations of innocence are ironic given his membership in one of the earth’s most punitive deliberative bodies...."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/roots1.html


I don't know if this qualifies as rising above both sides in the struggle. Its theme is that ex-Sen. Craig was done in by a petard that was, in part, of his own creation. And no, Dr. Roots is not referring to any family-values crusade (at least, not specifically.)

Another teaser from it: "Hundreds of thousands of false guilty pleas are registered annually in the United States."

Posted by: Daniel M. Ryan at September 1, 2007 5:53 PM

Well it's true, politicians by and large are a smarmy lot, irrespective of party.

Still, I don't think American scandals are quite as colorful as British ones. Across the pond they seem to have their fair share of male MPs who dress up in silk stockings and ladies' garter belts.

We had one that was pretty colorful a few years back.

Congressman Condit was the head of the Democratic Blue Dog coalition. He was investigated after an intern from his office disappeared. (The remains of Chandra Levy's body were found much later.)

Congressman Condit, after treating his district to an emormous amount of flag waving, apple pie, and small-town morality, was discovered to have a quirk of his own.

He had a fondness for gay Caribbean bikers (now that's specificity) -- how can I put this delicately? He enjoyed being involved sexually with a girl while the gay Caribbean biker tended to his needs from the other side, as it were.

It developed that he had some of these people living in his Washington house with him.

As Democrats generally do, he lawyered up and tried to fight the scandal, but to no avail. Republicans gerneally resign pretty quickly as has Senator Craig.

We also have a long history of Congressmen doing jail time. I don't have a list, but right now Democratic Congressman Trafficante went to jail for his misdeeds. Actually, there has been quite a list of politicans who have done time.

One waits in vain for some similar action in respect to mob connections in the Chretien and Martin administration, alas; this does not seem to be forthcoming.

Posted by: Greg in Dallas at September 1, 2007 6:19 PM

Just came back from our walk around downtown Victoria, a very interesting walk considering my post way up top. On Government Street there were, I counted them, 34 idiots with signs protesting everything under the sun. Of the 34, 9 were men and ALL had beards, it was a bit chilly to count women with hairy armpits and I think my estimate of Government workers among them was probably way off, just to scruffy and smelly. The women outnumbered the men almost 4 to 1, I wonder what that says?

Posted by: Western Canadian at September 1, 2007 7:50 PM

I find it hilarious that the trollocracy here can't get the hypocrisy of a convicted perv drawing political cartoons critical of ... pervs.


I guess that's the thing about pervs. They're perverted.

Posted by: The Phantom at September 1, 2007 9:14 PM

Western Canadian.

you have just witnessed the Birkenstock sect and the "men with squirrels in their beards" group.

they are all on the public dole.


we have some of them posting here today, they eat granola and yogurt in the morning , the men fluff their beards and the wymin ( I think thats how they spell it) backcomb the hair on their legs and they head down to the mocha shop to get primed to protest the system that feeds them.

Posted by: cal2 at September 1, 2007 9:39 PM

Doug: Barney Frank was not convicted of running a male prostitution ring out of his apartment. His "friend" Steve Gobie claimed that he (Gobie) ran such a service out of Frank's apartment with his (Frank's) knowledge. The House Ethics Comittee cleared Frank of this charge but successfully recommended his censure for his relationship with Gobie and fixing of Gobie's parking tickets. The very liberal Boston Globe called for Frank to resign, but he rebuffed the calls and was re-elected. It was a pretty sleazy affair, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Ethics Committee report was a whitewash and Frank was in fact guilty, but simply as a point of fact, Frank was never convicted.

Posted by: James Kabala at September 1, 2007 9:58 PM

The left still love their,"I didn't have sex with that woman"hypocrite,so the comments from the trollocracy is hardly surprising.

Posted by: h.ryan. at September 2, 2007 2:36 PM

"Supressing your sexuality isn't a good thing."
Pardon? What does that have to do with 'flaunting' your own particular version of it?
Here I go again with my 'theys': "They" can't procreate, so "they" recruit by public display.
"They" can't produce their own children, so "they" want someone else's. "They" want to remake God's concept of family.
But, the enemy of the family is the snake in the grass - read Genesis. "We wrestle not against flesh and blood...."

(BTW, those who rose up to take exception to "They" - it is an abbreviation for "the gays", which is such an inappropriate description of their lifestyle, that I never use it. As it is their perogative to use it to describe themselves, then it is mine not to use it. You do offer me the legal right of free speech, I hope.)


Posted by: gellen at September 3, 2007 4:37 PM

"By openly admitting to being philanderers, draft dodgers, liars, weasels and cowards, liberals avoid ever being hypocrites"

Indeed. By not being morally self-righteous, I give myself permission to attack anyone else. It is quite clever, don't you think? It gives me the right to sit in a bar, having gay sex, drinking a martini while denouncing the war in Afghanistan.

Out of curiousity, I have a question for right-wingers here? Do you actually believe that leftists are all gay sissy's, who hate their culture and want western civilization destroyed? Or is that just rhetorical fluff you use when you have nothing else to argue?

Posted by: The Self-Loathing Multiculturalist at September 3, 2007 9:49 PM
Site
Meter