As the Republican Party conducted a virtual firing squad style expulsion of Idaho Senator Larry Craig from their ranks for his indiscretions, I was reminded of a line from the 1998 movie Lost in Space that was based on the TV series from the 1960’s. While exploring a strange spacecraft, the crew is attacked by giant space spiders. Will Robinson is controlling the robot by remote control and witnesses a wounded spider being devoured by other spiders and utters the line “eew… they eat their wounded.” I’m guessing the cannibalism scene was meant to make the space spiders even more frightening than they already were. It begs the question as to why Republicans are able to turn on their own so quickly and coldly.
Democratic political commentator James Carvelle said he was astonished at the total lack of compassion for Craig coming from the Right. Personally, I’m not surprised at all by the cold blooded nature of the Republicans response to news about Craig’s arrest in Minneapolis. Any time a Republican find himself caught with his pants down so to speak, they are spit out like a bad piece of meat. But find one embroiled in a financial scandal, or in other words, his hand in the cookie jar and it’s all about, “nothing illegal was done,” or “it’s nothing but a witch hunt by the Democrats.”
What it reveals is a basic contradiction that exists on the Right. When it comes to personal freedom, they adhere to so-called conservative values that coincidentally are in lock step with the Christian Right. That is why when one of their own demonstrates that he is a flawed human being, they quickly turn on him, chew him up, and spit him out. But when it comes to economic freedom, they seem to be the “anything goes” Party. I find it ironic that folks on the Right are totally in agreement that a personal assault is serious crime and should be punishable by imprisonment. But an economic assault by one company against another is just good business. In fact, businesses and corporations through lay-offs commit economic murder everyday and it’s simply shrugged off and we’re told things like, “it was the only way to protect the bottom line.” In other words, they were looking for ways to increase profit and found one through requiring more work from fewer people for the same pay.
But back to the execution of Larry Craig. I think this habit of systematically ousting anyone who is found to be human by the Republicans is self defeating. While as a Democrat I disagree with most of Craig’s positions, my research on the man revealed a hard working, effective politician. While he has not voted with his party on every issue, he has been a solidly loyal conservative and apart from the recent scandal and long time rumors that he was gay, Sen. Larry Craig has been a dedicated and highly respectable member of congress.
So why do the Republicans so quickly throw away many very highly skilled and basically good politicians. I think it’s the price they think they have to pay for claiming to be the party of family values and that they feel an obligation to their Christian Right constituency to “walk the talk.”
Last Sunday I watched a top Republican on Meet the Press brag about how Republicans oust scandalous persons and the Democrats keep theirs using Sen. Ted Kennedy as an example. Well, if that’s the case, I sure am glad we Democrats don’t require our politicians to possess God like perfection.
*****************
Devin Barber, Politics Correspondent Devin’s column, “Left Of The Right” published twice weekly or more to Gather Essentials: Politics is a Blue Collar Democrats take on current political news.
Devin was raised by proud Roosevelt Democrats. Being the son of parents counted among the throng of Americans displaced by the Great Depression has given Devin a deep rooted passion for causes dealing with the poor and the working class.
You can find all of Devin’s columns at http://gather.com/leftoftheright You can keep up with Devin’s postings and his Gather activity by joining his Gather network. Just click here:http://kiwina58.gather.com and then select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page.
You can find Devin and other Political Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other politics experts at Politics.gather.com. 
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 99
..
U wishing you laughter
To me the answer is simple....Craig's shame isn't that he may be gay or that he committed a near harmless misdemeanor.....It's his incredible level of hypocrisy that is so revolting. To hear the replays of his condemnation of Clinton was to witness one of the ultimate and extreme lows in politics. It's all about credibility and Craig's sank to zero.....
Thanks for the interesting post....
The Senators and Representatives who steal thousands of dollars, have affairs with pages, etc seem more deserving of having to leave Congress.
PS. You need to change the G in the title to a C.
My Word program does auto spell check and you know computers.
While I do agree with you to a point I dont feel that the dems are any more accepting of their rotten apples....look at what happened to Howard Dean.
I think both political parties would drop you like a hot potato the minute it looks like you are human.
_The deal began in 1998 when Reid bought undeveloped residential property on Las Vegas' booming outskirts for about $400,000. Reid bought one lot outright, and a second parcel jointly with Brown. One of the sellers was a developer who was benefiting from a government land swap that Reid supported. The seller never talked to Reid.
_In 2001, Reid sold the land for the same price to a limited liability corporation created by Brown. The senator didn't disclose the sale on his annual public ethics report or tell Congress he had any stake in Brown's company. He continued to report to Congress that he personally owned the land.
_After getting local officials to rezone the property for a shopping center, Brown's company sold the land in 2004 to other developers and Reid took $1.1 million of the proceeds, nearly tripling the senator's investment. Reid reported it to Congress as a personal land sale.
The complex dealings allowed Reid to transfer ownership, legal liability and some tax consequences to Brown's company without public knowledge, but still collect a seven-figure payoff nearly three years later.
Reid hung up the phone when questioned about the deal during an AP interview last week."
I'll bet the little worm did hang up. If he is guilty of what he is accused of, then I think he should go. But if it were revealed that he was gay or cheated on his wife, I would not.
VOTE 2008 - Sweetpea for President
Soliciting in a public restroom is.
My question is this; How would any straight man know the sign languages used in public bathrooms by Gay men soliciting sex? (unless he is an undercover cop)
It's not the issue of Craig's sexual preference that makes me want him gone, it's the issue of his steadfast denial of equal rights to American citizens who happen to be gay. If he's gay himself, that makes him a hypocrite; but either way, he's not acting in his constituents' best interests by limiting their freedom to pursue happiness.
No, they just send thousands of our soldiers to their deaths to satisfy their own rabid, arm-chair desire for blood. These guys thought they were too good to serve in Vietnam, and now have there own Vietnam.
Explain...
You are right and if you go back you'll find many of my articles deal with improving things for the poor and working poor. But first we have to move the elephantine road blocks to progress. And the best way to do that is to convince people not to vote for them anymore. Now do you see what I'm up to. This idea of the parties working together was squashed by the Republicans a long time ago. The only road left to the Democrats is to take the majority and hope the choke hold the extreme Right wing of the Republican Party has on the GOP will loosen and the more reasonable Republicans will re-emerge as the leaders of that Party.
A married man soliciting sex in an airport bathroom is appalling to conservatives. An anti-same sex marriage man soliciting homosexual sex in an airport bathroom is even worse. Conservative writers have been crucifying the GOP for straying from their party line, Senator Craig is just the first casualty in the war which will eventually be fought between liberal Republicans and Conservative Republicans.
If only all politicians had the backbone to denounce a fellow party member for their misdeeds, maybe our government wouldnt be so corrupt.
Appearances are more important than realities to them. When personal realities impinge upon the party's appearances, someone has to go so that the appearance can be reset.
On the reverse side of this, I would hope that had this happened to a democratic office holder, that they would also resign. Soliciting for sex from strangers in a public restroom is a fair distance from sexual liaisons held discreetly behind closed doors. We never would have found out about Clinton's Lewinsky affair if it hadn't been for the betrayal of discretion and friendship which Linda Tripp (a Republican sympathizer) perpetrated.
As for the movie scene of space spider canabalism, that trait turned out to be a crucial, exploitable weakness. It was the spider's reflex for canabalism that led to the evil Dr. Smith's eventual undoing.
Hmmm, I wonder if they have something there..?
Congratulations for getting what I was insinuating. And just like the space spiders, the Republicans will eventually completely turn on Shrub and devour him.
After Tom Delay, absolutely astonished, except for one thing. The only time they spit them out is when they are gay. You folks have a positively homophobic party, and you know what the shrinks say about homophobes.
But why John Edwards? Though Danish, I have the luxury and right to vote in the coming US presidential race, and am not yet certain which Democrat I should cast by ballot for to realistically make a difference for the future of the US political landscape. The one I would like to vote for would likely mean that my vote actually would enable the Republican voting block since he likely is not electable in the final analysis.
Go back and read my article titled "LEFT OF THE RIGHT: Why John Edwards is Right For America." He is currently leading in the polls in Iowa, which is where the first primary is. Remember, prior to the Iowa primaryin 2004, John Kerry was in third place too.
This is all about the gay issue. Nothing more. They couldn't care less about the scandal being sexual in nature. Look at Newt Gingrich and Rudy Guliani, for examples. You don't see the GOP rushing to toss them out the door over their sexcapades.
Oh, that's right.....another example of right-wing hypocrisy that is rampant in today's politicians.
Rich? Hello....anybody out there?
using Sen. Ted Kennedy as an example And doesn't it seem they would be embarrassed when they have to go back this many years to find a scandal that lives up to their own, even though it is a man who has dedicated the majority of his life to doing wonderful things for many people?
David: I agree with you. I think it's the rank hypocrisy of being so against exactly what he actually is, if indeed the man is gay which is yet to be proven. On the other hand the ex-Governor of New Jersey wrote a hugely revealing and interesting piece in one of the New York papers yesterday (McGreavy I think his name is). I heard it read by a radio commentator yesterday and I was very taken with the logic there. It's very insightful, particularly about why those who are gay themselves are often the most adamantly and publicly against gays.
This is what did it for me, since I am aware of many of the other characteristics you brought forth: "...he refuses to accept campaign contributions from corporations and lobbyists."
Just as religion ought to have no power in politics, so too should we dis-empower all corporate interests from politics, as was Eisenhower's warning right after McCarthyism and again at about the time of Kennedy's assassination.
It does show how many people have been suckered by the red herring issue of gay marriage and the "homosexual agenda."
You are correct about the Right's homophobic nature, but I was thinking about a Republican whose name evades me who resigned over a simple heterosexual affair. He was the guy that was up to Replace Newt Gingrich as speaker of the house when he had to step down, but resigned when his affair hit the news and they ended up going with Dennis Hastert.
Douglas,
Don't worry, Rich will show up sooner or later and all will be entertained.
Bent,
Exactly, and his dedication to improving the plight of the working class and the poor is our best chance for real progress for our society.
(However, plenty of politicians on both sides have been linked to dead girls and gotten away with it - so yes, it IS about the homophobia.)
A great man and Demo-crap. To Sandy and all you Acute Liberal diseased minds, i have a question, would you have any trouble with allowing a BI-Sexual -being to marry a GIRL and a BOY ON THE SAME DAY. Mary- Jo, you kept that Drunkard- Teddy, from becoming President. GOD bless you. Sandy what a humanitarian Democrap Teddy is.
Deven do you really believe that if the Republicans had done nothing about this that the Democrats wouldn't have gone Ape shit over the Republican party letting another one of their party get away with something.
Correct me if I'm wrong but as long as you don't take a stand and use morals as a goal for the country then everything would be ok if it turned out that you're not a perfect human being and do something wrong.
What I'm saying is that if we didn't live in such a sexually uptight society, guys like Larry Craig wouldn't have to live in the closet pretending to be something they are not. The Victorian way of thinking sets us up for failure.
It is about the sexuality of the issue - nothing more and nothing less.
As to Gays being drawn to the Republican Party, the Party that identifies them as being sickos, it is because of their own self-loathing and feeling that they must work to over come this human failure on their part, so they join the party that eventually, as Devin pointed out, will "eat them alive". They should have joined the priesthood instead. At least the Catholic Church, even in it's hypocrisy, protects its own.
looks like he'll try to get his given of his own free will guilty plea reversed.
This maneuver should be a doozie .(it was Minnesota after all)
He didn't even show up in Washington for work.
Craig was "thrown under the bus" because His integrity was in jeopardy. See, when Republican politicans make mistakes, it is time for them to step down. Leadership is a priviledge, and as such they should be held to a higher standard. Because conservatives hold morals to be a reflection of how someone runs there life, when people make big mistakes (like breaking laws), they should no longer be allowed to be in public office in the form of leadership.
When Democrats make mistakes, they are reelected. When leaders in the democratic party live immorally, they are not condemned by others in there own party because they simply don't care. When liberals don't think sexual immorality, taking bribes, selling secrets to China, taking campaign contributions from fugitives, among other things isn't wrong, then there is no reason for condemning someone who committs them.
There are moral failures on either side of the isle. The difference is that Republicans hold themselves to some sort of a standard where as Democrats have none.
Power corrupts and the temptations are unimaginable. After being there a while far too many of both parties forget who they are and begin to feel they are entitled to break the rules, take the bribes, and accept the favors for votes. That's the nature of politics and the more that big money is allowed to stick it's ugly nose into these things, the more it will happen.
Craig was not thrown under the bus, but rather had made a very serious error in judgment that was going to cause severe problems for the Republican party. And no, the mistake wasn't being caught in that sting. I don't really give a rat's rump if the guy is gay or not. His mistake was not consulting legal counsel and not fighting the charges if he were indeed innocent. He plead guilty. He admitted by doing so that the charges were true. You can't just take that back.
Should he have resigned? I'm not really sure he should have, and it looks as if he agrees since I heard this afternoon he was reconsidering his decision. In the end it really is up to the voters of the state of Idaho to decide if they wish to keep him in office or not.
What do you say about Arlin Spectre coming to his defense and calling for him to fight the ethics committee's investigation and stay in the Senate?
So much for your evaluation...
Apperently one Republican is speaking for the entire party? Nice try. Did you hear all the other Republicans speaking out against it? I don't have a hole lot of respect for Spectre anyway.
Carolyn:
He resigned not only because of the sting operation, but because he tried to hide it from his wife and kids. If someone can't be honest with there closest relatives, then they can't be trusted in public office. Kind of like Clinton....
He may or may not have done anything wrong, but the fact is that he at least made the mistake of pleading guilty to a misdemeanor and hiding it from his wife. (regardless of whether or not he is gay)
"Apperently one Republican is speaking for the entire party?"
Again you inject your own conclusion as to what I'm saying. Did I say that...NO. I simply asked what your take on this "individual's" statement was, who by the way is considered part of the leadership of YOUR party. And besides, Craig is running with it and it looks like he'll fight to stay.
n. Any of various edible mushrooms of the genus Morchella and related genera, characterized by a brownish spongelike cap.
Republicans have mushrooms?!? I'll have to think about THAT for a spell! LOL
Being gay is not a crime. Being a United States Senator who consistantly votes against legislation that requires gays and lesbians be treated as fairly as any other human being, all the while living a secret gay existence IS!!!!!
Devin, your response to this is perfect. I'm so glad you got here before me because I might have said something like, "Your ignorance is a crime against nature."
Let's see:
Bush opposes gay marriage, but supports the state's right to decide on civil unions. That makes him a homophobe opposed to equal rights to the liberals.
That SAME position is shared by Hillary Clinton, John F.You Kerry, John Edwards, "Osama Obama", Screamin' Howie Dean etc. However, they're not homophobes and, in fact, love and support gays meanwhile raking in millions in campaign cash.
Further, it was democrats who gave us Don't Ask/Don't Tell, the Defense of Marriage Act and even the Texas anti-sodomy law. Again, the democrats aren't called homophobic and are, in fact, the leaders in anti-gay legislation. But they're hailed as gay supportive and are showered with millions of dollars because they claim to love gays.
Republicans, on the other hand, are "homophobes" merely because the liberals WANT them to be. It's another one of their fear cards. That's how they appeal to consumate victims.
Talk about hypocrisy.
Then he plead guilty of his own free will.
Two months later some damn liberal (the evil ones) found out.....................................
He was observed by an undercover police officer peering through the gap in the door to the stall the policeman was in not once or twice, but several times and these peerings were of a lingering nature. The Sen. Craig entered the adjacent stall placing his suitcase in front of the doorway as is done by culprits of this activity to obscure the view of anyone looking under the door. Then he pushed his foot completely under the divider and touched the officer's foot. Anyone who has ever used a public toilet knows that you just don't accidentally slip your foot underneath the divider. But that was not all, the senator reached across his body, under the divider and gave the "come here" curl of his index finger indicating he wanted to have sex.
Under the statutes of the state of Minnesota it is known as solicitation of a prostitute. Anyone who thinks this experienced police officer mistook the so-called innocent acts that are claimed by Sen. Craig for those of a man trolling for a male prostitute is in denial.
"Bush opposes gay marriage, but supports the state's right to decide on civil unions."
IINNHH, wrong answer Rob, minus 25 points. And what's the correct answer?
President Bush supports a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as only between one man and one woman. In other words, he wants to take the matter out of the states hands.
Boy, when you get something wrong, you really get it wrong.
Really?
"I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so," Bush said in an interview aired Tuesday on ABC. Bush acknowledged that his position put him at odds with the Republican platform, which opposes civil unions.
"I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights," said Bush, who has pressed for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. "States ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6338458/
Or how about this:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush endorsed a constitutional amendment Tuesday that would restrict marriage to two people of the opposite sex but leave open the possibility that states could allow civil unions...
Bush also said state legislatures should be left to define "legal arrangements other than marriage," suggesting that such an amendment would allow states to establish civil unions for same-sex couples.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/index.html
Or this:
By supporting civil unions for gay couples--which, practically speaking, is the cutting-edge issue in the battle for equality--President Bush has become a leading advocate for gay rights. In doing so and winning, he has made it a lot easier for others to recognize civil rations, especially political leaders in red states. If gays accept Bush's support and find ways to work with him, the 2004 election will mark a turning point in America's acceptance of gay relationships.
The Advocate http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2004_Dec_21/ai_n8706681
Shall I go on?
If you're honest, you'll note that I never said, or implied, that Bush didn't support the ammendment, did I?
Who's wrong here?
Why, then, is it that we're supposed to genuflect to the liberals that hold the same position? Why is it that Bush is a bigot homophobe and they aren't?
And Bush talking out of both sides of his mouth is no surprise either.
Your talking out of both sides of your mouth is no surprise. The thing is that he didn't. He wants to protect marriage in this country, but has no problem with states enacting civil unions on their own. What is it that you don't understand about it?
Your commentary is a brilliant example of the Bush Derangement Syndrom and your hypocrisy is showing.
Perhaps a better thing to do would be to call the thing we now called marriage a civil union and make marriage something without the legal trappings like community property, inheritance, etc. that's a religious ceremony.
Because it's all a lie. Republicans will say stuff like that in a lame attempt to apear compassionate, but they don't believe it. I've overheard them talk of gays and lesbians as if they were lower than child molestors. In fact many of them believe the myth that all homosexuals ARE child molestors.
Do you know that to be true, or do you merely ASSume that it is because that's what you want to believe? Fact is, I find that many Republicans are more compassionate than the liberals claim to be. Not only that, but they're more accepting of gay conservatives than gay liberals are. And God forbid that the gay left actually acknowledge the truth that Bush and quite a few Republicans are NOT the racist, sexist, bigot homophobes they want them to be. It wouldn't fit their template. They might not have anymore reasons to be in a "purple-plectic" rage all the time.
Further, how much more anti-gay legislation do the liberals have to hand us before we realize that they're the homophobes? By my count, they're beating Republicans 3-0 and that's including the overturned sodomy law.
Not only that, but the gay-baiting of Republicans both here in this thread and elsewhere is compassionate how???
In fact many of them believe the myth that all homosexuals ARE child molestors.
In fact many liberals believe that. I recall, after the Mark Foley kerfuffle, that libs were saying gay = child molestor.
Devin says it all,
"Last Sunday I watched a top Republican on Meet the Press brag about how Republicans oust scandalous persons and the Democrats keep theirs using Sen. Ted Kennedy as an example. Well, if that's the case, I sure am glad we Democrats don't require our politicians to possess God like perfection."
Thats right democrats point fingers while their members stuff their freezers with bribe money.
If your dems are so compassionate why is the DCCC launching a ad-campaign based on Sen. Craig?
What a load of bull noise. I know it because I've been around for half a century and have traveled the width and breadth of this country listening to what people really think, not what politco's carefully craft for the media. And it has been my distasteful experience that most "conservatives" are racist, sexist, anti-semetic rednecks with zero tolerance for anyone or anything that isn't as redneck as they are and a total distain for the gummint and anything Leebral. I know this because I've heard them say it time and time again until I want to puke.
And your ascertion that liberals were saying gay = child molestor is about as fanciful as believing there are actually REAL plans for a Spanish owned Canadian/Mexican transcontinetal highway. Wow, I feel like I just got dropped into Alice's wonderland.
... that just means you are old.
"and have traveled the width and breadth of this country listening to what people really think, not what politco's carefully craft for the media. And it has been my distasteful experience that most "conservatives" are racist, sexist, anti-semetic rednecks"
Why is it that conservatives support Israel while liberals want to throw them to the Arabs?
"with zero tolerance for anyone or anything that isn't as redneck as they are and a total distain for the gummint and anything Leebral."
Don't you think that calling people rednecks is a bit intolerant?
If not, then exactly what part of heterosexual marriage would be endangered if two people of the same sex whom you've never met and would probably never meet were married in a state 2,000 miles from your home or even next door for that matter?
How absurd can you possibly get, Devin? Racist? Who is it that has a Grand Kleagle as the "Consience of the Senate"? Who is it that wrings their hands wondering if Obama is "black enough"?
Anti-Semitic? There's nothing but fear and loathing of the Jews on the liberal left and strangely, many keep voting for liberals. The U.N. is a huge repository of anti-Semitism in the world. How many conservatives will you find there? How many conservatives do you suppose were on the guest list for Ahmedinijad's Holocaust denial extravaganza a while back? All I saw were died in the wool liberals.
Along the same lines, liberals have a weird affection and will circle the wagons around totalitarian dictators, anti-Semitic or otherwise. Consider their defense of "Uncle Joe" Stalin, Ahmadinejad, Hussein, Assad, Ortega, Chavez, Castro etc. Liberals pretend to give a damn about human rights, but don't have any qualms about humping the legs of murderous bastards as these.
Furthermore, any educated American should have a disdain for the "gummint". They do an aweful lot that they have no business being involved in. Add to that the fact that the liberals have instilled the fear that state's rights = racism to make sure that the ignorant depend on the federal government instead.
I've also noticed that you haven't even touched the facts I pointed out that the most anti-gay legislation we've had in recent years has come from liberals. You'll forgive me if I don't ignore that and get worked up into a tizzy over a proposal for an ammendment. Given that liberals have Republicans beat on that, you'll have a hard time convincing me that it's actually Republicans that are homophobic.
Oh yeah, you still haven't explained how Bush is a homophobe for having the SAME position as many of the liberals on civil unions. Just because you selectively heard conservatives espouse homophobia doesn't make it so. And if what he said was crafted for the media, then what do Hillary, Edwards, Obama etc. REALLY think about gays?
P.S. If liberals hold the ideal for the way government should run our lives, then New Orleans would have been Utopia. To hear them extol the virtues of liberalism, there wouldn't have been stories of "poor blacks" raping, shooting, killing and eating each other. That and FEMA would not have had anything to do with it. Right?
You used the term "protection of marriage."
Without scrolling back, I believe what I was referring to is Bush wanting to defend the term "marriage" from the whims of state or federal level judiciaries. I don't believe that the unions of two men or women would "threaten" anyone. Especially if you're mature and secure in the relationship you're in.
At the same time, though, I don't believe that it's up to the federal government to dictate who can get married and who can be happy. I don't have a wife, BTW. I have a partner of, going on, 11 years. We have never, nor would we ever, let others dictate our happiness. We don't need anybody's approval and we sure as hell don't need to pay more taxes for validation. We have our "stuff" together and have few worries about the future. Long story short, neither of us particularly care about "gay marriage". If it comes along, great. Whoopti-freakin' doo! But we both know that it's not happening anytime soon and we're also realistic enough to know that badgering people about it isn't going to make them accept it and neither is the judiciary forcing it on them.
Rob S.
www.ThatGayConservative.com
his State. He pleated guilty to a misdemeaner and gave up his right to serve our Country with distinction. There is know Right wing conspiracy. Individual elected officials
think they have a right of passage to do what they want. We have people on both sides of the Isle who are not fit to sit in tose seats. And that is a problem we need to
address in the next election.
In truth perhaps people would be much better at protecting marriage by reducing the numbers of divorces. Then again that would require people to marry for better reasons and learn good communications and couples skills. Maybe picking someone based on shared values as opposed to the fact they are "hot" would help a lot too. (and no that's not aimed at you, but rather a reference to a recent article I read). It would also require that people desire to save a marriage and seek help if they begin having trouble they can't handle. Unfortunately that help is often too expensive for those who need it the most.
At any rate I am happy for you and your partner that you're found a good life together.
Rich: While you and I agree on almost nothing, we do agree that this whole notion of painting one or the other side of the political divide as evil personified rather than realizing that all politicians are corrupt, and that a few of them are more corrupt than others regardless of their affiliation.
BTW for the record, Craig didn't even know that as a congressman he is immune from arrest for misdemeanors. The bottom line is he plead guilty to the charges. Should he resign over them? That's not for you, me, or anyone else to determine. It's up to Craig now and the voters the next time he stands for office.
Charles,
What you refer to as rednecks, I call good ol' boys, not rednecks. My dad was from Arkansas and many of my relatives are good ol' boys, but many are racist rednecks as well. I call em' as I see em'.
That deserves some debate and scrutiny. Thanks for your thoughts,
In my experience, most men talk this way when they are not with their wives or being recorded for TV/radio. So I guess the majority of men in the world must be racist, sexist and whatever else you think they are and I guess every single word you mutter is perfectly acceptable by everyone's standards. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!!
As for continually aiming your insults at only Republicans, I think we can all agree, that Democrats are equally as bad. I blame it on the whole political system. It seems that only those willing to sell out some of their beliefs to the highest bidder go into politics at this level. As with most things in the US, it all comes down to the power of the dollar. If you don't have the money and suport to be elected, you won't be able to get your message across to enough people to make it into office.
It would be wonderful if the people that write the laws, could actually obey them too.
"As for continually aiming your insults at only Republicans, I think we can all agree, that Democrats are equally as bad."
No, I do not agree that Democrats are equally as bad. Agree with them or disagree with them Democrats for the most part genuinly believe in their issues, the Republicans for the most part do not. A case in point is the abortion issue. Among the current feild of Republican candidates for president the three top pollers are either pro-choice or have a history of flip flopping on the issue, yet right now the flip floppers seem to be solidly pro-lifw and the pro-life guy says things like it wouldn't bother him if the Supreme court overturned Roe vs. Wade. But the reality is that it's nothing but pandering to their Christian Right voting base. You sure as hell don't see Democrats capitulating on that issue like that. And I think it's a little more than disengenuous to complain about me ragging on the Republicans when so many Republicans feel totally oblidged to compare Democrats to child molestors and terrorists. I think your just not used to a Democrat who doesn't pull punches.
I have still to meet an honest politician and though I am not as old as Devin, I have travelled extensively and met quite a few.
What I have noticed is that Democrats vote the party line like lambs to the slaughter while Republicans usually look into the issues and then vote on that information. Though I am sure that Devin will deny this, but I would bet he votes the party line!!!!!!
Check out Ronpaul2008.com.
Thanks for the site. I was impressed by his record and background. Maybe if we all get behind a good alternative we can make a difference. Time to spread the word.