Ann Coulter
An good article from Ann Coulter describing in more depth the hypocrisy of the left on calling Senator Craig a hypocrite.
One of the more poignant quotes is Chris Matthews referring to Senator Craig as a "sexual deviant". Apparently being gay is a deviant sexual practice, but only if you're registered as a republican.
I'm still amazed that pleading guilty a misdemeanor - one step above a traffic ticket - is enough to be condemned for the rest of your life from ever showing your face in public again. The guy obviously has issues, but it is so amazing to watch republicans and democrats pile on to make the guy's life as horrible as possible.
If he were a democrat, we would be asked to leave his private life out of the public eye like we were asked to do with Clinton or some other such nonsense about showing tolerance. Sorry, Charlie, you in the wrong party to have anyone show you any respect or tolerance or to stay out of your private life. After all, you pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor!
Showing posts with label Senator Craig. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senator Craig. Show all posts
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Senator Craig - part II
Pat Buchanan
If I haven't mentioned it before, I always make sure to read Pat Buchanan's articles with an almost religious devotion - not because I agree with him that often, but because I think he has a first class analytical mind. My disagreements with his opinions are usually what should be done rather than his analysis of what is going on, which is usually, in my opinion, very accurate.
Here he has written an article that pretty much echoes what I wrote a few days ago about Senator Craig. Pointing out that the Senator has some apparent personal issues, that the leftist media is drooling all over themselves reveling in his so-called "hypocrisy", and that he is being thrown under the bus by the GOP and especially Mitt Romney.
The set answer for the GOP regarding homosexuality should be "love the sinner, hate the sin." At least that is what I thought they should be saying since I have always thought that religious conservatives derive their opposition to homosexuality from the two passages in the Old and New Testament dealing with the issue. Why they miss this obvious point leads me to two conclusions:
1) They only mention God and Bible when it suits them for general banalities and platitudes for political speeches
2) They really do have some other opposition to homosexuality that somehow trumps the religious rational.
I can understand the second point because I used to suffer from it to some degree. I was never an outright homophobe, but I'm sure I've felt the same way from time to time at being revolted at the general concept.
The first point one, of course, is just confirmation in my mind that the biggest bible-thumping politicians are usually the least familiar with the text and the least inclined to use their religious faith for guidance.
The separation of Church and State means that the State should not propound a specific religion or practices specific to that religion on the rest of us through the mechanism of the State. It doesn't mean that the individual political leader is not permitted to use their particular faith to guide their decisions. I have always suspected though that the politicians who claim piety and faith in God don't really have much of either.
So when I see someone claiming to be a man of faith like Mitt Romney throwing a fellow sinner under the bus, that convinces me that his faith is a matter of convenience and showmanship. He would show a lot more character by telling us that he had taken the time to speak with his friend and fellow Christian Senator Craig and that they have mutually decided that Senator Craig should step down from his campaign. Instead, he called the Senator's behavior "disgusting" and dropped him like a bad habit.
I would gladly have the entire Congress be homosexual and have them drop the crooks who pocket our money like Senator Stevens and Congressman Cunningham. Their behavior is the truly disgusting behavior, but no one seems to care.
If I haven't mentioned it before, I always make sure to read Pat Buchanan's articles with an almost religious devotion - not because I agree with him that often, but because I think he has a first class analytical mind. My disagreements with his opinions are usually what should be done rather than his analysis of what is going on, which is usually, in my opinion, very accurate.
Here he has written an article that pretty much echoes what I wrote a few days ago about Senator Craig. Pointing out that the Senator has some apparent personal issues, that the leftist media is drooling all over themselves reveling in his so-called "hypocrisy", and that he is being thrown under the bus by the GOP and especially Mitt Romney.
The set answer for the GOP regarding homosexuality should be "love the sinner, hate the sin." At least that is what I thought they should be saying since I have always thought that religious conservatives derive their opposition to homosexuality from the two passages in the Old and New Testament dealing with the issue. Why they miss this obvious point leads me to two conclusions:
1) They only mention God and Bible when it suits them for general banalities and platitudes for political speeches
2) They really do have some other opposition to homosexuality that somehow trumps the religious rational.
I can understand the second point because I used to suffer from it to some degree. I was never an outright homophobe, but I'm sure I've felt the same way from time to time at being revolted at the general concept.
The first point one, of course, is just confirmation in my mind that the biggest bible-thumping politicians are usually the least familiar with the text and the least inclined to use their religious faith for guidance.
The separation of Church and State means that the State should not propound a specific religion or practices specific to that religion on the rest of us through the mechanism of the State. It doesn't mean that the individual political leader is not permitted to use their particular faith to guide their decisions. I have always suspected though that the politicians who claim piety and faith in God don't really have much of either.
So when I see someone claiming to be a man of faith like Mitt Romney throwing a fellow sinner under the bus, that convinces me that his faith is a matter of convenience and showmanship. He would show a lot more character by telling us that he had taken the time to speak with his friend and fellow Christian Senator Craig and that they have mutually decided that Senator Craig should step down from his campaign. Instead, he called the Senator's behavior "disgusting" and dropped him like a bad habit.
I would gladly have the entire Congress be homosexual and have them drop the crooks who pocket our money like Senator Stevens and Congressman Cunningham. Their behavior is the truly disgusting behavior, but no one seems to care.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Senator Craig - part I
http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-oppin305351459aug30,0,2457073.column
This is Pinkerton's article, but there are thousands of others out there.
Here are my quick rushes to judgment on the matter which I'm sure many others have already stated:
* A Sting Operation? Do we really need to have law enforcement involved in these types of sting operations? Keep in mind that the crime here was a misdemeanor. And yes, I do not want to have to go into a bathroom in an airport restroom and listen to two men (or even a man and a woman, or two or more people) going at it. I've seen that in other countries primarily. It's amusing when you're blasted drunk at a bar in Reykjavik at 2am, but otherwise it's not something you really want to encounter. But again, is this something law enforcement really needs to be involved in for sting operations? How about just calling the cops when something is going on to have it stopped and have the people arrested on the spot? What kind of cop would volunteer for this? At least prostitution stings sound fun.
* GOP Bashing. The hypocrisy of some left leaning groups on this is pretty interesting to watch. If this were not a conservative Republican Senator we would hear all kinds of conspiracy theories about how this was a set-up by the right wing media, how the police are strictly targeting homosexuals who have sex in inappropriate places instead of straight couples who do the same, etc., etc. Instead, a lot of the people who claim to represent the gay community are seeing this as a better chance to republican bash rather than use it as an opportunity to prove their points that homosexuality is much more widespread among the general population than anyone cares to admit. Way to shoot yourself in the foot! way to show your real agenda!
* Senator Craig. I'm reading about this and I cannot help but come to the conclusion that Senator Craig is on the down-low or is a full blown homosexual (no pun intended) but is either in a state of denial or is lying through his teeth to save himself. It's sort of fascinating to watch but in the long run I don't care what his own personal demons have lead him to. He didn't harm anyone as far as I can tell and he is guilty of nothing more than having low class in this instance. He's probably done this before though, so who knows what this will do to his home life.
* Bashing by the GOP. Everyone seems to be keen to throw him out of the Senate but it seems obvious at this point that a simple misdemeanor is not sufficient to give rise to an expulsion. I have such contempt for Congress, the President, and the government at this point with the way they have spent us into oblivion and seem keen on keeping us in Iraq and possible Iran for the next 20 years, that someone attempting to get his jollies in public restroom doesn't strike me in the least as being a real crime. The quick call to sacrifice him to the masses by his own party leadership shows what a contemptible bunch of scoundrels the GOP has become. Keep in mind also that Ted Kennedy killed someone by driving drunk and he is still in the Senate. Senator Craig didn't even get the satisfaction of committing a real crime.
* Police Interrogation. The interrogation of the Senator sounded pretty intense and it's seems at certain points that were badgering him to get a confession. It almost seems that he pleaded guilty just to get out of the office. Now granted, that works sometimes to get innocent people to confess if they don't have a very strong will, but this is, after all, a U.S. Senator. He's attempting to recant his guilty plea now on a number of bases that don't sound terribly convincing. As I see it though, this is not a real crime or one that should really be used against him. If Clinton can lie in a civil trial, cheat on his wife, and first lie and then later admit to it in public, I don't see why this is such a big deal.
I still think the real story hear is that they are conducting sting operations in an airport men's room to curtail consensual gay sex. Just call security.
Also, I will be avoiding public bathrooms in airports for a while.
This is Pinkerton's article, but there are thousands of others out there.
Here are my quick rushes to judgment on the matter which I'm sure many others have already stated:
* A Sting Operation? Do we really need to have law enforcement involved in these types of sting operations? Keep in mind that the crime here was a misdemeanor. And yes, I do not want to have to go into a bathroom in an airport restroom and listen to two men (or even a man and a woman, or two or more people) going at it. I've seen that in other countries primarily. It's amusing when you're blasted drunk at a bar in Reykjavik at 2am, but otherwise it's not something you really want to encounter. But again, is this something law enforcement really needs to be involved in for sting operations? How about just calling the cops when something is going on to have it stopped and have the people arrested on the spot? What kind of cop would volunteer for this? At least prostitution stings sound fun.
* GOP Bashing. The hypocrisy of some left leaning groups on this is pretty interesting to watch. If this were not a conservative Republican Senator we would hear all kinds of conspiracy theories about how this was a set-up by the right wing media, how the police are strictly targeting homosexuals who have sex in inappropriate places instead of straight couples who do the same, etc., etc. Instead, a lot of the people who claim to represent the gay community are seeing this as a better chance to republican bash rather than use it as an opportunity to prove their points that homosexuality is much more widespread among the general population than anyone cares to admit. Way to shoot yourself in the foot! way to show your real agenda!
* Senator Craig. I'm reading about this and I cannot help but come to the conclusion that Senator Craig is on the down-low or is a full blown homosexual (no pun intended) but is either in a state of denial or is lying through his teeth to save himself. It's sort of fascinating to watch but in the long run I don't care what his own personal demons have lead him to. He didn't harm anyone as far as I can tell and he is guilty of nothing more than having low class in this instance. He's probably done this before though, so who knows what this will do to his home life.
* Bashing by the GOP. Everyone seems to be keen to throw him out of the Senate but it seems obvious at this point that a simple misdemeanor is not sufficient to give rise to an expulsion. I have such contempt for Congress, the President, and the government at this point with the way they have spent us into oblivion and seem keen on keeping us in Iraq and possible Iran for the next 20 years, that someone attempting to get his jollies in public restroom doesn't strike me in the least as being a real crime. The quick call to sacrifice him to the masses by his own party leadership shows what a contemptible bunch of scoundrels the GOP has become. Keep in mind also that Ted Kennedy killed someone by driving drunk and he is still in the Senate. Senator Craig didn't even get the satisfaction of committing a real crime.
* Police Interrogation. The interrogation of the Senator sounded pretty intense and it's seems at certain points that were badgering him to get a confession. It almost seems that he pleaded guilty just to get out of the office. Now granted, that works sometimes to get innocent people to confess if they don't have a very strong will, but this is, after all, a U.S. Senator. He's attempting to recant his guilty plea now on a number of bases that don't sound terribly convincing. As I see it though, this is not a real crime or one that should really be used against him. If Clinton can lie in a civil trial, cheat on his wife, and first lie and then later admit to it in public, I don't see why this is such a big deal.
I still think the real story hear is that they are conducting sting operations in an airport men's room to curtail consensual gay sex. Just call security.
Also, I will be avoiding public bathrooms in airports for a while.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)