Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Craig accepting intern applications

Friggin’ wonderful.  I guess as long as the interns don’t follow Sen. Wide Stance into the bathroom, they just might make it through this internship in one piece.

Advertisements

February 26, 2008 Posted by | Larry Craig | Leave a comment

ACLU: Public bathroom stall sex is “private”

Just when I thought that the ACLU (A$$holes, Commies, and Leftists United) couldn’t get any more depraved than they were, they prove me wrong.  I really don’t know why I’m shocked, considering that these reprobates argued that we have a constitutional right to kiddie p0rn.  Anywho, from the AP:

In an effort to help Sen. Larry Craig, the American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that people who have sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy.

Craig, of Idaho, is asking the Minnesota Court of Appeals to let him withdraw his guilty plea to disorderly conduct stemming from a bathroom sex sting at the Minneapolis airport.

The ACLU filed a brief Tuesday supporting Craig. It cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms “have a reasonable expectation of privacy.”  (Leave it to Minnesota to find this to be a “right”! – Ed.)

The ACLU argued that even if Craig was inviting the officer to have sex, his actions wouldn’t be illegal.

“The government cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Senator Craig was inviting the undercover officer to engage in anything other than sexual intimacy that would not have called attention to itself in a closed stall in the public restroom,” the ACLU wrote in its brief.

The ACLU also noted that Craig was originally charged with interference with privacy, which it said was an admission by the state that people in the bathroom stall expect privacy.  (And other people in the public bathroom expect to not have to deal with hearing or seeing people having sex while they’re in the john! What about THEIR expectations, ACLU? – Ed.)

Got that?  If Junior has to go to the little boy’s room to tinkle, and two people are going at it in a bathroom stall next to him, he just needs to “man up” and deal with it.  Thanks for the clarification, ACLU.

I don’t care if the stall occupants are of the same or different genders.  There is a definite compelling government interest to prohibit people from boinking in public places…period.  Public restrooms are made for washing up or relieving yourself of bodily waste…and nothing else!  Get a hotel room, you pervs.

January 16, 2008 Posted by | ACLU, Larry Craig | 5 Comments

Sen. Craig: Hell no, I won’t go!

Great. It’s not bad enough that our Senate has a former Klansman, a drunken vehicular manslaughterer (Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment), a plagiarist who wants to be president, half a waitress sandwich (to go with the other half, see aforementioned drunken killer), and an author of kiddie porn. No, we also need those hallowed halls tained by Senator Wide Stance ’til the bitter end!

From Breitbart/AP:

Idaho Sen. Larry Craig defiantly vowed to serve out his term in office on Thursday despite losing a court attempt to rescind his guilty plea in a men’s room sex sting.


“I have seen that it is possible for me to work here effectively,” Craig said in a written statement certain to disappoint fellow Republicans who have long urged him to step down.

Craig had earlier announced he would resign his seat by Sept. 30, but had wavered when he went to court in hopes of withdrawing his plea.

His colleagues in his own party are, shall we say, none too pleased?

Senator John Ensign of Nevada, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, demanded that Mr. Craig keep his initial pledge and leave the Senate.

“The type of behavior we are talking about here is not exactly something that I think a senator should be engaged in,” said Mr. Ensign, who again raised the possibility of public ethics committee hearings into whether Mr. Craig brought discredit on the Senate, which could be grounds for action against him.

The leaders of the ethics panel said today that a complaint filed against Mr. Craig by the Republican leadership in August, when the news of his guilty plea became public, remained an open case, given his decision to remain in office.

Other Republicans stopped short of calling on Mr. Craig to give up his seat, but they were clearly dismayed that he would stay in office, citing the distraction his presence could provide as well as the potential harm to the party and the Senate.

“I can’t think of anything good about it,” said Senator Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia.

“You don’t want to know what I really feel,” said Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina.

Way to think of someone other than yourself, Sen. Wide Stance. A cherry red state like Idaho could very well have itself a Democrat Senator because this perv won’t do what’s in the best interest of his state and party. Nice.

October 5, 2007 Posted by | Larry Craig, shameful | 4 Comments

Goldberg: The left wants us to have no principles

Awesome column from Jonah Goldberg:

In the wake of the Larry Craig “Bathroomgate” story, some intrepid free-market-oriented bloggers came up with a novel solution to the problem of closeted gay conservatives indulging their carnal desires on the side. Gay-sex offsets.


The same market-based approach is used by environmentally crapulent liberal celebrities all the time. They use private jets, drive around with big entourages and own numerous energy-sucking homes. To make amends, they purchase an indulgence in the form of “carbon offsets” — a contract whereby the equivalent amount of greenhouse gases are soaked up by newly planted trees and the like.


So why not do the same thing with gay sex? Cruise the bus station, cut a check to the heterosexuality-promoting organization of your choice.


Since most on the Left think Craig’s alleged sexual liaisons are perfectly benign, they shouldn’t object. “Who are we to judge?” and all that. Rather, the Left claims it hates Craig’s hypocrisy, not his behavior.

One solution to the hypocrisy epidemic, of course, is to have no morals at all. You can’t violate your principles if you don’t have any. Another solution: simply define down your principles until they are conveniently consistent with your preferred lifestyle. My own perfect moral code would mandate a strict regimen of not enough exercise, too much scotch and a diet rich in cured meats. Men would be religiously barred from taking out the garbage until their wives told them no less than three times to do so. “Thou Shalt Not Shave More Than Thrice Monthly”: I’d never be a hypocrite if only the Bible gave us commandments like that.


But the Left has another solution. Under its system, you can still be a moralizer. You can still tell people what to do and how to live. And, best of all, you can still fall short of your ideals personally while guiltlessly trying to use government to impose your moral vision on others. All you have to do is become a liberal moralizer.

Once you become a liberal, you can wax eloquent on the glories of the public schools while sending your kids to private school. You can wax prolix about the greedy rich while making a fortune on the side. You can even use the government to impose your values willy-nilly, from racial quotas and confiscatory tax rates to draconian environmental policies and sex-ed for grade-schoolers — all of which will paid for in part by people who disagree with you.


You don’t even have to give up traditional religion, so long as you now define the teachings of your faith in perfect compliance with the Democratic platform.


Why, just look at John Kerry. In 2004, the Democratic nominee repeatedly insisted that his religious faith is “why I fight against poverty. That’s why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth. That’s why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith.” Great! But when it comes to, say, abortion, consulting one’s faith is a no-no: “What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn’t share that article of faith.”


So I guess under a Kerry administration, America’s civil rights and economic and environmental policies would all be voluntary?


The point is simply this: Hypocrisy is bad, sure. But it’s a human failing that should fall upon the individual in question. What the left wants to do is use hypocrisy as a cudgel to declare that conservative ideals are categorically illegitimate because some conservatives fail to live up to them. But we all fail to live up to our ideals sometimes (just ask John Edwards, who wants get rid of everyone’s SUV, save the one in his driveway). That’s sort of why we call them “ideals.” Most of us don’t fall as far as Larry Craig seems to have fallen, but that’s not necessarily an indictment of his arguments, it’s an indictment of the man.

I will still continue to pound hypocrites on the left and the right because I can’t stand them. But as Goldberg’s column points out, the left cries “Hypocrite!” while constantly and conveniently overlooking (or outright defending, to the point of absurdity) their own hypocrites.

September 5, 2007 Posted by | hypocrisy, Larry Craig | 1 Comment

Quote of the day

More like “snark of the day”, from Larry Craig:

“I am not gay!”

Of course not. Why is it that in this society of ours, we think that a man who likes to boink other men necessarily must be gay? I mean, just because he gets off on dudes doesn’t mean he’s queer, right?

Wait a minute…yeah, it means exactly that. OK, never mind.

September 4, 2007 Posted by | gay, Larry Craig, quote of the day | 2 Comments

Craig story three years old?

From Ace:

This is an awful lot like the Mark Foley scandal. The story had been out there for years but, conveniently enough, it was only pushed into the MSM before an election.

In this case, the arrest report wasn’t leaked earlier when it would have given an Idaho GOP challenger time to suddenly whip up the makings of an insurgent campaign. Instead, it comes far too late for that, making it almost certain Craig will prevail in the primary for lack of a real challenger and then be defeated by a Democratic candidate.

How do these lucky breaks keep accruing to the Democrats?

The Roll Call reporter who broke the story himself questions the timing by wondering how it could be that this was never broken previously.

He could help answer that himself by divulging not the name but the partisan leaning and organizational association of who tipped him the story. Of if it was done anonymously, he ought to say so.

Dirty tricks like this aren’t all that dirty. It was Craig, after all, who colluded in this by trying to hide what could not be hidden, leaving himself at the mercy of partisan opponents as regards the timing of the inevitable leak.

And yet the media is awwwwwfully interested in the skullduggery aspects of stories like this when the GOP is behind them — or even whispered to be behind them. Indeed, the rule is generally this: If a leak hurts a Republican, the MSM focuses on the content of the leak. If a leak hurts a Democrat, the MSM plays down the actual information divulged by the leak and instead focuses on the skullduggery of how the leak came to happen.

Obviously, in both cases, the MSM is casting the GOP as the bad guy. A leak that hurts a Republican proves the Republican is the bad guy. A leak that hurts a Democrat also proves the Republican is the bad guy, because what’s he doing spreading malicious information?

The MSM now routinely “questions the timing” of even terror alerts but apparently has no interest in the well-timed outing of closeted gay Republicans engaging in highly questionable behavior. Even though this is the second time running that a Late Summer Surprise threatened to turn an election in the direction of Democrats.

Related: To both the Craig and Hillary! stories.

While the media floods the zone on Craig, they seem curiously uninterested in the details of Hillary’s shady fundraising from Peter Paul — despite the fact she might soon be under oath and required to answer questions about the matter in court.

Nope…no liberal media bias!

August 30, 2007 Posted by | Larry Craig, media bias | 6 Comments

Another edition of “Guess Which Party Affiliation?”

A little compare and contrast from Protein Wisdom:

Former State Senator convicted of taking bribes in Tennessee Waltz sting

Unfortunately, he appears not to have been a (closeted? In denial?) gay Republican. Otherwise, his party affiliation may have found its way into the article. You know, eventually. From the Commercial Appeal:

His voice breaking and fighting to hold back tears, a contrite John Ford asked forgiveness Monday from his family, the public, and foremost, from the judge who holds his future in his hands.“I accept the jury’s verdict. And I take full, total and complete responsibility for my action,” the once powerful state senator said in a hushed yet direct voice.

Speaking from a podium 10 feet away, Ford looked directly into the face of U.S. District Judge J. Daniel Breen, who will issue a sentence this morning, and told of the pain, embarrassment and humiliation he’s endured since his 2005 indictment followed by his conviction in April on a single bribery count.

Unfortunately, the Commercial Appeal’s only coverage of the Sen Larry Craig story comes from the AP, which introduces the latest — Craig’s denial that he is gay — thus:

A defiant Sen. Larry Craig denied any wrongdoing Tuesday despite his guilty plea this summer in a men’s room police sting, emphatically adding, “I am not gay. I have never been gay.”Craig, a third-term senator from Idaho, proclaimed his innocence as well as his sexuality less than an hour after Senate leaders from his own Republican Party called for an ethics committee review of his case.

“This is a serious matter,” they said in Washington in a written statement that offered neither support nor criticism of the conservative senator.

A bit of compare and contrast. For what it’s worth.

Which is probably not much. After all, a teensy little discrepancy in standards for what prompts mention of party affiliation in stories of government corruption is not really all that important. I mean, it’s not like we’ve noticed a trend or anything, right?

Besides, Ford was just taking bribes and making threats to shoot people. Whereas Larry Craig? — he brushed his gay foot up against some cop hoping for a little bit of porcelain seat lovin.

Burn him, I say.

And of course, Newsbusters shows a similar little nugget:

In its continuing coverage of Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), the Associated Press now reports:

A government watchdog group filed an ethics complaint against Idaho Sen. Larry Craig Tuesday after Craig said he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges stemming from complaints of lewd conduct in a men’s room.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a complaint with the Senate ethics committee seeking an investigation into whether Craig violated Senate rules by engaging in disorderly conduct.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) may qualify to be described as a government watchdog group. What the Associated Press should have told its readers is that CREW is an extraordinarily partisan watchdog group.

According to its Web site, CREW has initiated lawsuits or lodged complaints against Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL), Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA), and House minority leader John Boehner (R-OH).

Moreover, CREW has launched Federal Election Commission complaints against the campaign committees of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), and former speaker of the House Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-IL).

Oh, and then there’s CREW’s complaint against Rep. Duncan Hunter’s (R-CA) leadership PAC. And, of course, CREW has sued the Bush administration.

Even the Associated Press should be able to recognize a pattern here. It owes it to readers to clarify that this watchdog group only watches one side.

Just like PW and NB show, it’s not like this “Oops, I forgot to list the party affiliation of the perp and he just so happens to be a Democrat” incident hasn’t happened before. Nope…no liberal media bias!

August 29, 2007 Posted by | Larry Craig, media bias | 2 Comments

GOP Senator caught in gay “lewd act”

Those of you who know me or who have been around here long enough know that I don’t like hypocrisy, regardless of from which side it originates.  Therefore, I have no qualms about whacking a Republican when he/she has it coming to him/her.  Right Wing Nut House reflects my sentiments here:

I have made no secret on this blog of my distaste for the Republican strategy of pushing opposition to abortion and gay marriage as litmus tests for GOP candidates and as “wedge” issues to use in campaigns.

While I acknowledge there are many millions of sincere, devout Christians (and other social conservatives) who see these issues as vital to the moral fiber of the nation and thus worthy of standing them up front and center as the party’s main identity, from a personal standpoint, I strenuously disagree. (This isn’t the part where I agree, but he’s leading up to it. – Ed.)

Another time I might make the argument that they are not even conservative issues but such a post is not in my pen tonight. Instead, I want to talk about the regularity with which conservative Republicans seem to get themselves into trouble over sex. The latest is Idaho Senator Larry Craig who was arrested in a Minneapolis restroom for “lewd conduct.”

“At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. While this was occurring, the male in the stall to my right was still present. I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area,” the report states.

Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times, and Karsnia noted in his report that “I could … see Craig had a gold ring on his ring finger as his hand was on my side of the stall divider.”

Karsnia then held his police identification down by the floor so that Craig could see it.

“With my left hand near the floor, I pointed towards the exit. Craig responded, ‘No!’ I again pointed towards the exit. Craig exited the stall with his roller bags without flushing the toilet. … Craig said he would not go. I told Craig that he was under arrest, he had to go, and that I didn’t want to make a scene. Craig then left the restroom.”

The conduct doesn’t seem lewd to me and the whole story reeks of something very fishy. But the fact is, the Senator pled guilty and probably thought that it would stay out of the papers if he didn’t make a fuss.

The point really isn’t whether he’s guilty or innocent. The point is that this sort of thing becomes a huge issue because of the way the party talks about gays and the way many GOP stalwarts like Reverends Robertson and Dobson talk about sex. The perception that Republicans are a bunch of bigoted blue noses stuck in the 19th century with Victorian sensibilities about the bedroom turns off a lot of voters – especially the young.

A brief look at this eye popping poll that shows the vital 18-29 year old group turning up their noses at Republicans is very significant. I was in that age group when I became a Republican and many of my fellow Reaganites were also young, eager conservatives who drank in the enormous intellectual ferment that bubbled up from dozens of places in Reagan’s Washington. We were on the cutting edge and we knew it.

Nowadays, I don’t blame young people for turning off the GOP. The corruption, the hypocrisy, the sanctimony, and the tired old men pushing tired old ideas to an ever shrinking number of wealthier, whiter, men has the GOP in deep, deep, trouble. If I were that age again, I probably wouldn’t support Republicans either.

Perhaps the predicted disaster in 2008 will wake a few people up. Not likely based on what happened in 2006. As the left did for 30 years, the push will be for more ideological “purity,” more fealty to what passes for conservative issues today.

Just at the moment that our country needs the right’s commitment to fight a war against an implacable, unyielding foe, our own stupidity is going to allow the milquetoast left to ascend to power. For that, our children and grand children may curse us for our folly.

One of RWNH’s commenters observes that in order for the GOP to excel, it needs this kind of “internal examination” of people like Craig, Foley, etc. I don’t disagree with that.

Look, I see absolutely nothing wrong with a gay Republican. You don’t have to dig chicks to see the damage that liberalism inflicts on the body politic. However, if you’re going to campaign on “traditional family values” and what a big “family guy” you are, it probably wouldn’t be a bad idea to avoid public bathroom sexual hookups (especially with other dudes), now would it?

By the way, Craig was part of Mitt Romney’s campaign team, but not anymore.

August 28, 2007 Posted by | gay, hypocrisy, Larry Craig | 15 Comments