August 27, 2007

Wham! [UPDATED and UPDATED AGAIN, NOW WITH MORE “TREND” STUFF]

In comparing recent stories of misconduct by Congresspersons, Allah points out that media reports of Republican Sen Larry Craig’s June arrest on suspicion of “lewd conduct” will include, prominently, Craig’s party affiliation — while the initial stories detailing Rep. Bob Filner’s shoving of a baggage claim attendant at Dulles conspicuously avoided mentioning his being a Democrat.

The observation Allah makes is factual. And beyond that, it is relevant — not with respect to either of the arrests — but in pointing out how the mainstream press oftentimes uses a kind of descriptive double standard when it comes to identifying party affiliation in these kinds of stories.

Unfortunately, this relevance is lost on true conservative John Cole, who — after appeasing his readers with the requisite closeted gay Republican jibes — characterizes Allah’s post thus:

In case you are wondering how the right wing will treat this, Hot Air addresses the issue of a Republican Senator soliciting sex in a bathroom and discovers… MEDIA PERFIDY:

If you’re wondering which party he belongs to, let me put it this way: the media will be sure to specify it in its reporting on this story.

Yes. The fallout from this one clearly can be pinned on the media, Allah.

One can only assume Cole is either too stupid to see how a post about the way a story is reported can differ from a post about the story itself (and that the two posts have different aims), or else he is intentionally misrepresenting Allah’s post, likely so that he can join Andy Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald in the neverending quest to shore up his “sensible conservative” bona fides among those who count most: dedicated progressives and fag bashers.

I can’t speak to Cole’s motives — it’s possible, after all, that he’s simply grown moronic from surrendering himself to the only people who still regularly read him — but I don’t think we should look past the possibility that John might be angling for a NYT bestseller, or that he is desirous of having one of his posts about Matt Sanchez blowing a male candystriper for a fistful of Percocet and a snack bag of Cheez-its read into the Congressional Record.

Though probably not by Barney Frank.

****
update: Cole immediately responds by missing the point entirely. Which is this: Cole tries — even in his update — to minimize the fact of these reporting differences by pretending, each time, that they are one-time events. He seems to go out of his way, in fact, to mock the very posts that, taken in the aggregate, point to the kind of trend he appears desperate to avoid noticing.

— All for a clap on the back from people who actually claim to believe that Michelle Malkin wants to murder Hispanics by firing buckshot the size of ping pong balls at them from her hate-clenched snapper.

So no, John, I’m not upset with you. I just think that pretending not to see the difference between covering a story and covering the way a story is covered is disingenuous. Or else you really have become as dumb as those you surround yourself with.

****
update 2: Sorry, been away from the computer for a bit and didn’t anticipate the deluge of “progressives” demanding “proof” that this kind of double standard in reporting happens rather frequently — first, because I thought they’d embraced “the fallacy of proof,” and second, because, well, I have a search function here on the site, and Google has one that keeps track of the whole of the internets.

But here is a recent post where I’ve addressed the same phenomenon.

As I noted in the comments to that post, I care about this only inasmuch as it speaks to a double standard that is easily correctable — one that is similar to the well-documented phenomenon mentioned by dicentra here:

[…]

Just as when a talk-show host shows up on an MSM news program, it’s always “conservative talk-show host Hugh Hewitt” or “right-wing talk-show host Dennis Prager.”

When was the last time someone was described as “left-wing” or “liberal” in a similar situation?

Almost never.

So I guess if I interpret that as bias, I’m just frothing at the mouth. Got it.

Essay question:

A particular phrase shows up frequently in the stories of a newspaper, “so-and-so is a member of the X church.”

The phrase is inserted ONLY when so-and-so has done something naughty, and the X stands for one church only. If a suspect belongs to church Y or Z or no church at all, the religion is never mentioned. Also, the suspect may not have darkened the doorway of church X since his baptism, but the information appears anyway.

Is that newspaper displaying bias against church X? Why or why not?

****
update: In the comments, Tim in SF, a new visitor to the site, writes: “I see no evidence of any trend. Coverage of party affiliation is spotty at best.” Then, later:

I don’t see a trend, but I do see a lot of whinging.

If you have evidence of a trend (as opposed to one example), let’s see your evidence. Cite a study or show us your evidence. And spare me your perception general trends. I want to see proof. Put up or shut up, buddy. […]

What I don’t get is that Larry Craig tried to suck some guy’s dick in an airport bathroom and you are whining about media bias.

Ah, there’s that tolerance for alternative lifestyles the left is so famous for embracing!

Now, I can’t speak for the nuance crowd, but from my standpoint, I find it quite easy to separate the story of a plea to disorderly conduct from the separate consideration into the way that story is reported in relation to similar stories wherein the perpetrator is a Donk.

But all that is beside the point. Tim in SF wants a trend (though he won’t define what a “trend” is), but to get him started, Karl has put together a nice compendium over at the Pub.

Add to that the 3 more from Good Lt. and I think we’re at 21 thus far (unless there’s been some overlap. Truth is, the examples are coming so fast, who has a chance to vet them all?).

Posted by Jeff G. @ 4:35pm
480 comments |

Comments (480)

  1. This Bob Filner . . . he’s not an Asian male, is he?

  2. Pingback: Balloon Juice

  3. Someone still reads John Cole??

  4. Poor John is upset with Jeff. Fuck stats, my impressions are better.

  5. “In comparing recent stories of misconduct by Congresspersons, Allah points out that media reports of Republican Sen Larry Craig’s June arrest on suspicion of “lewd conduct” will include, prominently, Craig’s party affiliation — while the initial stories detailing Rep. Bob Filner’s shoving of a baggage claim attendant at Dulles conspicuously avoided mentioning his being a Democrat.”

    Oh to live back in the days when shoving had a partisan affiliation.

  6. John Cole is the ultimate reminder that it’s always a little surprising and amazing to see the same people who present themselves as paragons of morality resort to the most base, vile kinds of smears—whether it’s homophobia, sexism, anti-Semitism, or whatever, and they give themselves permission to use it—especially when appealing to their perceived fans, namely the typical reader at Balloon Juice in the case of Cole.

  7. Well, since Sen. Craig is my senator, I guess I’m compelled to come to his defense in the only way possible: I can attest he’s never hit on me. And I was seated next to him at a George Strait concert last Jan.

  8. It’s because they have THE RIGHT IDEAS, Andrew! Geez! Kids!

    I wonder if his journey is the same as Andrew Sullivan’s. You know, from regular guy who has some interesting stuff to say to angry whack job with a messianic streak who’s convinced anyone who doesn’t see the world the way he does is evil. Or…in the case of Andrew, “gobsmackingly vile.”

    I knew when Andrew started spending an inordinate amount of time blogging about his dog and his farts that something very bad was happening. Maybe someone should check John’s expenses at Petco and his cupboard for an overstock of Goya frijoles negros.

  9. markel:

    I can’t remember if you’re one of “us” or one of “them,” so I’ll be gentle.

    If not mentioning the party affiliation of congressional wrongdoers were an occasional elision, we wouldn’t care.

    But it happens. Every. Time.

    Just as when a talk-show host shows up on an MSM news program, it’s always “conservative talk-show host Hugh Hewitt” or “right-wing talk-show host Dennis Prager.”

    When was the last time someone was described as “left-wing” or “liberal” in a similar situation?

    Almost never.

    So I guess if I interpret that as bias, I’m just frothing at the mouth. Got it.

    Essay question:

    A particular phrase shows up frequently in the stories of a newspaper, “so-and-so is a member of the X church.”

    The phrase is inserted ONLY when so-and-so has done something naughty, and the X stands for one church only. If a suspect belongs to church Y or Z or no church at all, the religion is never mentioned. Also, the suspect may not have darkened the doorway of church X since his baptism, but the information appears anyway.

    Is that newspaper displaying bias against church X? Why or why not?

  10. dicentra —

    markel defends the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE — which is doubly ironic given that FAIRNESS evidently includes ignoring precisely this kind of discrepancy in reporting standards.

  11. Golfballs! Golfballs the size of hail!

  12. Wham’s first album was called “Make it big”.

    Just sayin’ is all.

  13. Loved that post about Greer’s latest insanity, LMC.

  14. dicentra beat me to it …

    This is such an old tactic I believe Cole-boy’s high dungeon is less Emily Latilla and more Sully or GG.

  15. “But it happens. Every. Time.”

    I’m really shocked that roll call would break a story and mention the party of the politician. Frankly i’m tired of it.

    “markel defends the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE .which is doubly ironic given that FAIRNESS evidently includes ignoring precisely this kind of discrepancy in reporting standards.”

    No. I don’t. But Remember last time we talked about discrepancies? about 6% of one and not the other? this is what discrepancy here? Whats the number?

  16. You’re right – the media picks and chooses. Here’s a picture of John Warner telling a story about that very same restroom, and we haven’t heard a word about it.

  17. I don’t get it, why can’t these GOP Senators and Congressmen just be out and be gay with a partner as opposed to hiding it.

    Why is it necessary to cruise a dirty bathroom incognito and get caught?

  18. This is really disappointing. I thought there’d be more comments. You all must not be that enraged at the MSM — or are you suffering from rage-fatigue?

    later taters

  19. uh Clay… you did see the title of this post?

  20. I’m from the Institute of Italics Abuse. We’ve received reports they’ve been used out of hand on this blog entry, and encourage the author to consider that not every point need be so emphasized. We thank you.

  21. Cole immediately responds by missing the point entirely.

    Reminds me of that Long Haired Wierdo fella in the Ready, Fire, Aim kind of way

  22. To channel ol’ Noam on a subject he actually has some expertise I offer Mr. Cole a primer:
    You can discuss the map or you can discuss the territory. One is geography the other is cartography. See, two different words entirely. Capisce, you vapid twat?

  23. I think the AP’s link to Mike Roger’s website is probably more egregious than the party identification issue.

  24. the very posts that, taken in the aggregate, point to the kind of trend he appears desperate to avoid noticing

    I see no evidence of any trend. Coverage of party affiliation is spotty at best.

    And out of curiosity, how does Fox identifying Mark Foley as a Democrat play into your theory?

  25. Michele “Grapeshot” Malkin?

  26. “Cannonball” Malkin.

  27. “Firecracker!”

  28. I’m really shocked that roll call would break a story and mention the party of the politician. Frankly i’m tired of it.

    Uh, no. The pattern is that the press will leave out party affiliation if the accused is a Democrat, but feature it in the first paragraph if the accused is a Republican.

    I see no evidence of any trend. Coverage of party affiliation is spotty at best.

    I guess you could call generally mentioning it for one party and rarely mentioning it for another “spotty”.

    And out of curiosity, how does Fox identifying Mark Foley as a Democrat play into your theory?

    How long and how often did they repeat that mistake? Did they correct their mistake?

  29. “The pattern is that the press will leave out party affiliation if the accused is a Democrat, but feature it in the first paragraph if the accused is a Republican.”

    And the pattern at roll call is to identify party affiliation. But treasonous and partisan AP story that Jeff links to, the party identification is not in the first paragraph. So maybe there’s a new trend?

    “Uh, no. The pattern is that the press will leave out party affiliation if the accused is a Democrat, but feature it in the first paragraph if the accused is a Republican.”

    Someone’s run numbers on this haven’t they? People keep telling me there is a comparative trend. And man, I just want to believe it.

  30. Where did all the dissenters come from?

  31. I totally agree with Jeff on this.

    The commonality of Republican perverts makes it unnecessary to denote
    the party affiliation. It will henceforth be understood.

  32. Interesting. If you Google “gross misdemeanor interference to privacy,” you get 10 results, all related to Craig. Did they make that charge up to make it sound more dirtier?

  33. I guess you could call generally mentioning it for one party and rarely mentioning it for another “spotty”.

    I don’t see a trend, but I do see a lot of whinging.

    If you have evidence of a trend (as opposed to one example), let’s see your evidence. Cite a study or show us your evidence. And spare me your perception general trends. I want to see proof. Put up or shut up, buddy.

    How long and how often did they repeat that mistake? Did they correct their mistake?

    They repeated it twice. I never saw a correction but that doesn’t mean they didn’t air one.

    Senators are always going to have more coverage when they fuck up. Sex scandals are always going to have more coverage than someone acting like a jerk in an airport.

    What I don’t get is that Larry Craig tried to suck some guy’s dick in an airport bathroom and you are whining about media bias.

  34. I don’t think it’s that hard to understand. The Republican Party goes to extreme lengths to paint itself as the party of “family values”, piousness, abstinence, traditional marriage, and missionary-position-only sex. So when a Republican is caught soliciting gay sex, it’s sort of a big deal given their party platform.

    On the contrary, “don’t be a meanie” has never been an official plank of the Democratic platform.

  35. “interference to privacy” is kind of unheard of in this context. Someone explain it so I can understand.

  36. Calm down, Jeff. Fox will call him a Democrat and report the story over a picture of John Edwards.

  37. Yep Semanticleo – Republicans have sex with other people. The horrors. You leftards just read news about Republicans having sex with other people, get excited and then have sex with yourselves. There’s a certain moral purity to the sexual excitement you seem to get from politics… not sure I really like it though.

    And hey, do me a favor, go tell Sully and Gigi they’re perverts too, as long as you’re labeling gays as perverted. Or does it only cut one way with you, in which case we can dismiss your sudden attack of conventional morality as mere partisanship?

  38. This is going well.

  39. The commonality of Republican perverts makes it unnecessary to denote
    the party affiliation

    Do you mean like Bill Clinton?

  40. Yeah, Tim — let’s go down the path of Chiron labelling on television.

    Re: Mark Foley:

    Yet, eleven months later, when it was revealed Friday afternoon that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement apparently hasn’t found anything to actually charge Foley with, besides UPI and a brief mention by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, not one major press organization felt it was newsworthy.

    Not one. cite: newsbusters.org

    Also, the Stop(apparentlynon)SexualPredators site that brought the Foley non-scandal to the fore was — gasp — a Democrat.

    Go figure.

    As for John Cole … he’s become hella-stupid in that ‘I must be smart I’m a professor’ sort of way. My guess is that Jane Hamsher’s browbeat him into submission and he’s toeing whatever line tossed his way.

  41. Nice to see the flood of leftards completely misunderstanding the issue and projecting their usual stupid canards.

  42. Actually Pirate, the Dems sex scandals get less coverage because its hard to be accused of violating one’s own moral standards when you don’t have any.

  43. The Pirate is quite astute though; morals have never been the Dems’ strong suits, so why make a fuss when they prove to be corrupt or perverts or traitors or what have you.

  44. >
    I don’t think it’s that hard to understand. The Republican Party goes to extreme lengths to paint itself as the party of “family values”, piousness, abstinence, traditional marriage, and missionary-position-only sex. So when a Republican is caught soliciting gay sex, it’s sort of a big deal given their party platform.
    >

    See how easy it is to be a liberal Democrat? No standards necessary. Just a wad of self-loathing cash.

  45. Quite a lot of hifalutin talk about standards from the group whose leaders are giving blowjobs in public toilets.

  46. Maybe someone should check John’s expenses at Petco and his cupboard for an overstock of Goya frijoles negros.

    There go my plans for tonite’s dinner.

  47. You are sizzling hot today, Jeff.

  48. Even my worst days as a Senator, have been better than my father’s best days. Except for that part where I got busted trying to get a little happy on in an airport bathroom. That sucked.

  49. “Actually Pirate, the Dems sex scandals get less coverage because its hard to be accused of violating one’s own moral standards when you don’t have any.”

    See. There is an actual political harm to hatin’ on the homogay.

  50. And oh…by the way before the ‘hypocrisy’ index card is pulled out by the illiberal left cultists so they can remember their next point

    I’d rather count as my friend the recovering alcoholic, even if s/he falls off the wagon once in a while… then hang with the unrecovered one who keeps saying “hey, this is a free country, I can do what I want, My body My choice!”

  51. BumperStickerist: Nice single example, but again, not evidence of a trend. Sorry, your point fails.

  52. Yep, Tim, and he’ll be jetisonned. See, standards are about not tollerating bad behavior, not about pretending representatives aren’t human. If a Republican drove a woman off a bridge and left her to drown, say, or ran an escort service out of his house, he’d be replaced. But not a Democrat.

    Do you understand now?

  53. , “go tell Sully and Gigi they’re perverts too,”

    If they loiter at the toilet hoping to get a peek and play footsie under the splash guard. they might just be a pervert.

  54. markel

    Notice who engages in worst kind of mean-spirited antigay jokes, slanders, and rhetoric (ie Gannon, Foley, Sanchez) then try to figure out who is really hatin’ teh ghey.

  55. Wow Eric, the best you got is to reach all the way back to Chappaquiddick? That’s pretty pathetic.

  56. dudgeon. Not dungeon. I only mention it because I so rarely get a chance to point things like that out, here. Over by there.whatever. Carry on, etc,etc.

    What I don’t get is that Larry Craig tried to suck some guy’s dick in an airport bathroom and you are whining about media bias.
    Turnabout is fair play, Tim. You whined when the media made a fuss over Billy Clinton getting a hummer in the oval office.

  57. Shorter Tim in SF: “NO SINGLE EXAMPLE CAN TRUMP THE NARRATIVE! EVERYONE KNOWS THAT THE ONLY PERVERTS IN WASHINGTON ARE RETHUGS!”

  58. Everyone has sex, and everyone is randy.

    Would you have it any other way?

    Next?

  59. Well Tim, it’s kind of hard to top murder, and the Cape Cod Orca is still in the Senate. If you want a more recent case we could discuss William “Cold Cash” Jefferson.

  60. Cleo don’t know much about Sully, do s/he?

  61. Can we think of any ways in which this situation would have been handled differently if it had happened at the Tehran International Airport?

  62. Pingback: A Blog For All

  63. Jeff,

    You are freaking BRILLIANT.

  64. So, Eric, you jump from a gay-bashing Senator soliciting gay sex to a crooked guy? You’ll lose this you know, as three national Republicans have been charged with crimes re: sex in the last month.

    Stick with leftists trying to surrender to terrorists and cut your loss on social conservatives and their hypocrisy.

    PS Since everyone is on a side, per Mr. Goldstein and dicentra, maybe the word press generator should put an “R” or a “D” next to posters’ names?

  65. Not to derail the “only right-wing gays are perverts” parade, but one thing about this story caught my eye. Gays have bathroom codes to signal a willingness for anonymous sex? I thought they were educated beyond that whole SanFran bathhouse mentality. Guess not.

    Mental note: No foot tapping in the can, no matter HOW catchy the elevator music is.

  66. “Notice who engages in worst kind of mean-spirited antigay jokes, slanders, and rhetoric (ie Gannon, Foley, Sanchez) then try to figure out who is really hatin’ teh ghey.”

    Those people won’t get to be senators either. But Gannon? I’d love for him and sanchez to get married.

  67. I don’t understand the problem.

    Clearly, the media’s standard is to identify the political party of anyone arrested, or suspected of a crime.

    Logic suggests, therefore, that ANY crime-related news story which does not specify the alleged perpetrator’s political party is meant to be interpreted as if the report specified that the accused is associated with the Democratic party.

    ANY crime.

  68. Wow Eric, the best you got is to reach all the way back to Chappaquiddick? That’s pretty pathetic.

    No statute of limitations on murder.

    Unless you’re a Kennedy.

  69. People with a willingness for anonymous sex in bathrooms have bathroom codes, dumb ass.

  70. “So, Eric, you jump from a gay-bashing Senator soliciting gay sex to a crooked guy?”

    Gay bashing. Ah, yes, the Scarlet R next to his name is all the proof you need of “gay-bashing.”

  71. “Cleo don’t know much about Sully, do s/he?”

    I didn’t need to know that much. But I do wonder how much preening
    he would receive from the Craig Apologists, were he still in the circle of trust

  72. You’ll lose this you know, as three national Republicans have been charged with crimes re: sex in the last month.

    It’s utterly bizarre that you’d be tracking that statistic.

  73. I didn’t need to know that much. But I do wonder how much preening he would receive from the Craig Apologists, were he still in the circle of trust

    Wait. Who’s acting as a “Craig Apologist”?

    Fer fuck’s sake, it’s getting so you can’t comment on how the press covers a story without people assuming you’re coming to the defense of some pervert.

  74. I appreciate it, Rob.

  75. Heh! This doesn’t surprise me at all. In fact, it explains 100% why Craig voted the way he did on the immigration bill. Remember – he’s an Idaho Senator and I assure you the State of Idaho was not happy with his vote.

    A while back, about that same time, there were rumors from that the gay group who outed Haggart (or however you spell it – the minister from Colorado outed just before the election) that Craig was playing boys in the cabin. I thought it ominous because that group has been accurate with their accusations in the past.

    Isn’t it time we demand background checks of our Senators and Congressmen so they can not be blackmailed for their votes?

  76. And… good riddance Larry Craig. But I do have one more question, how has this been kept a secret since June???

  77. Heh. Next you’ll be saying that they ought to be vetted for security clearances, you fascist.

  78. In fact, it explains 100% why Craig voted the way he did on the immigration bill. Remember – he’s an Idaho Senator and I assure you the State of Idaho was not happy with his vote.

    Unemployment rates have been as low as 2% this year in places like Montana, and nearly as low in neighboring states.

  79. Tim,

    How many examples would it take for it to be, as Jeff likes to say, dispositive? Five, ten … a couple hundred? What’s your personal tipping point for examples of observable bias?

    Along those lines, there’s been a fair amount of annecdotal evidence that the Republicans are the party of family values et yada yada … would it be fair to require the Lefties to cite studies showing the proportional representation of the group making the claim to the overall self-identifying Republicans rather than taking their simple perceptions as something other than their simple perceptions?

  80. What I don’t get is that Larry Craig tried to suck some guy’s dick in an airport bathroom and you are whining about media bias.

    Are you disappointed that we’re not all condemning his eternal soul to hell? Does our reaction not fit Teh Narrative?

    Nice single example, but again, not evidence of a trend. Sorry, your point fails.

    You know, Tim in SF, you could really rub it in our faces if you went to the NYT, for example, and looked for first reports of congresscritters getting in trouble, and tally up the number of times that the “D” shows up next to the first mention of said critter’s name. As opposed to the “R” that is.

    Unless the research comes out in our favor, then feel free to withhold the results from us. It’s the latest craze, after all. Wouldn’t want to be un-stylish.

  81. Personally, I don’t give a shit if some guy wants to bang another guy in the bumper.

    But I do tire of the suggestion that all those “on the right” care so terribly about such a thing that it is the job of the left to out such bumper-banging rightists to show the “hypocrisy.”

    That argument is a load of crap, and they know it; sure, some social cons are anti gay — though the left should begin looking at that black vote they court so routinely for evidence of homophobia — but there are a whole host of conservatives who are more libertarian / classical liberal than they are social cons, and we don’t believe every Republican has to walk in party lockstep.

    No “unity of narrative” demands coming from any of our “netroot” leaders.

    Quite a lot of hifalutin talk about standards from the group whose leaders are giving blowjobs in public toilets.

    Again, this misses the point on a number of obvious levels. First, the post talks about the standards of the press; second, it assumes that all conservatives are Republicans, or that all conservatives support social conservative policy.

    For my part, I have attacked, quite vociferously, at times, the bluenoses on the right. I don’t like nannystatism, and I don’t like prohibition. So the idea that all conservatives think alike on such issues as “family values” is just another of those convenient fictions certain leftists internalize in order to forgive and justify their own crass behavior — which includes using identity groups for political purposes (and to bolster their reputation as people who care), even as they despise actual members of those groups, something they make clear each time one wanders off the plantation, or out of the bathhouse.

  82. Oh, Christ. Now you’ve gone and insulted their aesthetics.

  83. clay-

    Why is it necessary to cruise a dirty bathroom incognito and get caught?

    HOMOPHOBE!

    How dare you suggest that Gay ‘cultural norms’ are deserving of our ‘societal disdain’…

    NTTAWWT! (BTW, that’s “Berliner Park”- I-71 and Greenlawn Ave–Columbus, Ohio…)

  84. “That argument is a load of crap, and they know it; sure, some social cons are anti gay — though the left should begin looking at that black vote they court so routinely for evidence of homophobia — but there are a whole host of conservatives who are more libertarian / classical liberal than they are social cons, and we don’t believe every Republican has to walk in party lockstep.”

    Social cons that vote for dems are just fine. Don’t need no lockstep here, they can believe what they want.

  85. How can Idaho Governor and the Senate be “blindsided” by this event.

    “Craig pleaded guilty Aug. 8 to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge. Craig was fined $1,000 and sentenced to 10 days in jail, Peters said. However, the 10-day sentence was stayed for a year, meaning that Craig avoids jail time unless he is re-arrested on a similar charge within a year.”

    A US Senator is arrested for bathroom stalking and no one knows!

    I understand there is more than one discussion going on in here. One about how the MSM reports incidents in a biased manner – an easily verifiable, fair complaint.

    But why/how come did the MSM keep this secret. Is it because it is better to have Republican Senators who can be blackmailed than it is to report the truth?

    WHY is this information just becoming public now???? The good people of Idaho should be allowed to choose if they want to employ a bathroom stalking perv. That he voted against the wishes of his constituents on the immigration bill should give pause to whether or not he was blackmailed.

    HOW WAS THIS KEPT A SECRET FOR SO LONG???

  86. I’m not disputing his party affiliation is getting extra attention. I’m not aggreived by it. Why wouldn’t it, then? isn’t it part of the story? Isn’t a Republican supposed to stand for containment of base desires, and exhibit continent, prudent, rational command of his carnal nature?

    A conservative Republican elected official with conservative values trolling for anonymous sex in a public place is a story, and frankly, it is because of the….I don’t have to say it, do I? You’re not going to make me say it?


  87. HOW WAS THIS KEPT A SECRET FOR SO LONG???

    /whistles and keeps on walking.

  88. Markel believes s/he’s the Sphinx…

  89. Isn’t a Republican supposed to stand for containment of base desires, and exhibit continent, prudent, rational command of his carnal nature?

    It’s a lot easier to stand for that sort of thing, you know, after.

  90. ZOMG!!! There are queers in the GOP?!?! Noooooo! Say it isn’t so! Halp me, I’m going to faint!

    /rolls eyes

    (Wasn’t his sexual orientation pretty much NOT a secret already? And…exactly who gives a shit besides the left? Names, please?)

  91. And I would have to farking misspell “aggrieved.”

  92. Beth – your blog – very very cool design, and I love your point about Debbie. She creeps me out.

  93. Yes, it matters that someone who gets elected on family values is out stalking boys in bathrooms. Just like it should matter if Senator Feinstein is war profiteering. The people have a right to expect that a guy voting against gun control isn’t involved in selling illegal arms or selling profiting from illegal marijuana sales while voting against the legalization of marijuana.

    Does the MSM bias in favor of the Dems? Yes, but they seemed happy to keep this quiet. Why. Could it be so that “they” could continue to blackmail Larry Craig?

    We need to throw out the whole damn lot of them and demand background investigations on the new ones. And we need term limits.

    Makes you wonder if every single one of them is not chosen because they have dark secrets rather than in spite of it.

    We need to demand background investigations for anyone obtaining a position of trust in our government.

  94. Are you disappointed that we’re not all condemning his eternal soul to hell? Does our reaction not fit Teh Narrative?

    Bingo! Because of course, if you are a Republican or a conservative, you ARE Dr. James Dobson. No, wait. Vote for the GOP, and you are Fred Phelps! How have we not nominated him for President yet?

  95. Beth, his sexual orientation is one thing.
    His behaviour is another.

  96. I love your point about Debbie. She creeps me out.

    You and everyone else with a brain, happyfeet. ;-)

    I might have to retract my “Names, please” comment now, ’cause knowing her, she’s feeding Larry Craig to the lions right now. Probably thinks he’s a terrorist, to boot.

  97. Senators are kind of sucky generally speaking, Beth. This is just the sort of thing that happens when let them mingle freely with the general population. Not safe with children or small pets, these.

  98. Oh – you caught that about Fred’s staffer… that’s when I first realized she needs meds.

  99. whoops – #97 was @ Becky, not Beth

  100. I’m not sending Craig to Hell. I don’t have any say over his soul, and If I did I wouldn’t be tossing him into the pit for that.

    I would not elevate him to govern me, however, as he cannot govern himself.

  101. Beth, his sexual orientation is one thing.
    His behaviour is another.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Yes, because all gay men are celibate, except for Larry Craig (and the other gay conservatives that you silly people hate)!

    So tell me, do you condemn all other gay men’s behaviour? Or just the ones who are conservatives? (Ever hear of the Log Cabin Republicans, or any other homosexual conservatives? Duh!)

    Yeah, I thought so.

  102. Did I drop down the rabbit hole? What does it matter about Craig’s eternal soul? It is more interesting that the MSM did not report this than it is that they are biased when when reporting crimes against the GOP. What does his sexual orientation have to do with ANYTHING!

    Good God Almighty. The man has plenty of pages about – yet he is still so perverted that he’s slinking around bathrooms.

    I get the feeling that poster’s here would be willing to accept their highly paid representatives peeking in their windows and flashing children on the street – as long as they had the correct party affilation.

  103. Or else you really have become as dumb as those you surround yourself with.

    Occam’s Razor.

  104. deep breaths. in. out. in. out.

  105. Yes, it matters that someone who gets elected on family values is out stalking boys in bathrooms.

    Did Craig get elected on family values? Is he married? Have kids?

    I honestly don’t know, because that’s not what the post was about. If he ran on such a platform and then got caught tossing someone’s salad in an airport john, you can hammer HIM for hypocrisy.

    But not “Republicans,” because not all those who vote Republican do so on a family values platform — and even those who do haven’t had the platform nullified because some phony played to them.

  106. Becky

    Yes, it matters that someone who gets elected on family values is out stalking boys in bathrooms

    Boys? Did I miss something?

    Granted, cruising public restrooms/parks/adult bookstores for anonymous sex I would deem immoral however my understanding was this was solicitation for a consenting adult act …

    not the, say, ephobophilia of Mel Reynolds

  107. oops – I should have said, Is it not more interesting that the MSM did NOT report this GOP transgression for MONTHS _ rather than that they are consistently biased when reporting party affiliation??

    This is not about his eternal soul.
    This is not about his sexual orientation

    This is about an elected representative so perverted that he can’t fly from Idaho to DC without publically jacking off in airport bathroom. It’s about his ability to be blackmailed. It is about the fact that his arrest was kept a secret.

    Crazy!

  108. Beth, he isn’t celibate, he’s married. And the “behaviour” that concerns me is his choice of partners ( anonymous, multiple, without seeking a permanent relationship or bond, divorced from commitment or attachment of any kind) and more particularly the venue in which he seeks to fulfill his urges, and methods he makes contact with his partners. Demanding continence in a Senator is not an outrage.

    If he wants to behave like an animal, well then, fine. Let him rut and enjoy the consequences. But I would rather not be governed by someone like that…I expect more out of leaders than that.

  109. Mel – this may be hard for you to fathom – but it is illegal to solicit sex or fu## in public bathrooms. But then you probably don’t see anything wrong with your peeking the windows of little boys and girls either.

  110. I get the feeling that poster’s [sic] here would be willing to accept…

    Wow, I didn’t know being gay was an actual crime. “So perverted”…um, Becky? Bathrooms aren’t exactly uncharted territory among gay men. Considering you equate gay men with pedophiles, flashers, and peeping Toms AND think they’re perverts, I’d say you aren’t being completely honest about your real issues with this story. Fess up, you really just hate gays, don’t you? (Especially if they’re conservatives, but they’re all pretty damn sick, aren’t they!)

  111. he can’t fly from Idaho to DC without publically jacking off in airport bathroom.

    Becky, girlfriend, have you looked at the police report

    or did you imagination just run off the rails?

  112. Pingback: It depends on the meaning of the word "trend" [Karl]

  113. Someone throw a bucket of water on Becky …

  114. What if we made him promise to never ever ever do it again?

  115. Your brilliance dazzles me. I guess they arrested him just because he’s gay.

  116. But here is a recent post where I’ve addressed the same phenomenon.

    So, how many posts can you do on the end of the Iraq before the insurgents surrender. This super-power “Multiple Postings create reality” of yours could really be used to better effect.

  117. Tim in SF thinks there is no trend to downplay the “D” in scandal reporting?

    For Tim’s consideration, here’s Ex-MD State Sen. Tommy Bromwell, US Rep. Bob Filner, TN State Sen. John Ford, Fmr. GA Gov. Lester Maddox, Rep. James Traficant, Rep. Gary Condit, former LA Gov. Edwin Edwards, former NC district court judge Garey Ballance and former U.S. Rep. Frank Ballance, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, former NC state House Speaker Jim Black, Former Newark Mayor Sharpe James, NOLA Councilman Oliver Thomas, US Rep. Kendrick Meek, Atlanta Councilman Jim Maddox, and Revere city councilor Mark Casella, just to name fifteen.

  118. Beckums

    Your pornographic imaginings underwhelm me.

    He got arrested for behavior in a public bathroom that wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow in a bar.

    UNLESS you can show me he was “stalking boys” or “jacking off in public”, I think teh ghey hater here is you.

  119. “But not “Republicans,” because not all those who vote Republican do so on a family values platform — and even those who do haven’t had the platform nullified because some phony played to them.”

    It’s not nullified. The platform has gotten more delicious though:

    One of the tragic characteristics of the homosexual lifestyle is its emphasis on anonymous sex and multiple sexual partners. It is a little-acknowledged secret that many active homosexuals will have more than 1,000 sex partners over the course of a lifetime (the average among heterosexuals is seven — still six more than we were designed for). This sordid fact of homosexual life surfaced yesterday in an AP article yesterday that reports on the number of arrests police have made for indecent exposure and public sex acts in the restrooms at Atlanta’s airport, the busiest in the world. The increased restroom patrols, begun to apprehend luggage thieves, instead uncovered a rash of sex crimes. Airport restrooms have become so popular that men looking for anonymous sexual trysts with other men have advertised their airport availability on Craigslist. One such ad was from a man saying he was stuck at the airport for three hours and was looking for “discreet, quick action.” (AP: Arrests Up in Atlanta Airport Restrooms)

  120. Demanding continence in a Senator is not an outrage.

    No, it isn’t, and I have higher expectations as well. But clearly, trolling for sex in public bathrooms isn’t something unheard-of among gay men. And God knows, he’s not the first SOB in Washington to break his marital vows (sham that they are in his case), gay or straight. The only reason this is even a story is because Larry Craig doesn’t march in lockstep with the left. He’s got an “R” next to his name, therefore, he MUST be voting the Dobson agenda, right? (Not.)

  121. Is Becky a lefty?

  122. Is Becky a lefty?

    Who knows/cares? Either way, she’s wrong.

  123. This is a teachable moment.

  124. This is about an elected representative so perverted that he can’t fly from Idaho to DC without publically jacking off in airport bathroom. It’s about his ability to be blackmailed. It is about the fact that his arrest was kept a secret.

    I’d ask how does this relate to his station in society. Or rather how some of our representatives, regardless of party affiliation, simply can’t handle the responsibilities and allow themselves to be corrupted by the power they wield.

  125. Vote for the GOP, and you are Fred Phelps! How have we not nominated him for President yet?

    That may be too subtle for the prog-trolls showing up, so let’s point out the answer is “because he’s a Democrat.”

  126. Yeah, because it is way beyond the imagination to think of anyone ever jacking off or having sex in a public bathroom, right? I’m sure the sting operation was just because guys were doing what they always do in bars – right?

  127. Darleen, Becky hasn’t run off the rails. Its clear to me, anyway, that he was soliciting sex from an anonymous partner in a public restroom, and this is something he has indulged in on a regular basis.

    Being gay isn’t a crime, and it was public indecency that got him arrested.

  128. Karl

    Please add LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to your list.

  129. “He got arrested for behavior in a public bathroom that wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow in a bar.”

    Now democrats? They get arrested in a bar for behavior that woudn’t have raised an eyebrow in a public bathroom. But we don’t know that, because the media covers up their party affiliation.

  130. It’s not like the anonymous partner didn’t have a name. In fact, could have been a relative of yours.

  131. I’m sure the sting operation was just because guys were doing what they always do in bars – right?

    Have you ever been to a bar in the Castro?

  132. I’ve updated; the count is now eighteen.

  133. “clearly, trolling for sex in public bathrooms isn’t something unheard-of among gay men”

    You apologise for that behaviour because it isn’t unheard of? I don’t think sex in public restrooms is ok for straight people, either, if you think I’m singling out gay culture.

  134. I still don’t take your point, markel. So this group of anti-gay Idaho social cons liked Craig and will likely reject him now that he’s not hewed to their standards. That’s how it’s supposed to work, right?

    The question is, how representative are they of “the right”? Seems many people here think Bush was elected by 59 million racist homophobes, which is a fairly ridiculous (or, alternately, ballsy) assertion.

    Me, I never voted for Craig, and if I did, it wouldn’t be on some family values platform.

  135. Happyfeet, You are talking like I don’t think a person who would do that is human, or a person I could care for or even love. That doesn’t mean if my niece comes upon the town I want her to run for Senator.

  136. Have you ever been to a bar in the Castro?

    Oh hell, add South Beach, Scottsdale, Key West, Los Angeles, Sedona, Orlando, etc, etc, etc.

    Not to mention every single friggin cosmopolitan city in the world. Fodors now has an entire section of each book devoted to the lifestyle, with all sorts of creative euphemisms for the types shenanigans to be found at the various establishments.

    And these lefties pretend to be worldly, and open minded. Please.

  137. I didn’t mean all that Sarah, just imagining that Larry’s kids aren’t having a very fun day is all, and that if he had been caught in the act, that “anonymous partner” would be in every news article along with Larry, and that guy, well, he could be just about anybody. Even a Democrat.

  138. Sarah

    and this is something he has indulged in on a regular basis.

    Odds are you’re right. But does soliciting adult consensual sex mean underage boys or the other behaviors springing forth from Beckums moist imaginings?

    All sorts of people get caught in police sweeps for public solicitation, and that includes straight as well as gay … either for paid or unpaid sex. However, they are misdemeanor charges, usually with requirements to get an HIV test, and probation. These people are NOT considered “sex offenders”.

    I find Craig’s crime a lot less injurious to the public than, say, a politico who uses his public office to financially help his paramour.

  139. Is it worth asking why signs aren’t posted letting people know that – hey you – our security people check these restrooms frequently and even like to pretend they want to have sex with you just to see what you’ll do, so you guys need to be on your best behavior. Have a nice day.

  140. Happyfeet, I’m guessing that’s for The Children™.

  141. This super-power “Multiple Postings create reality” of yours could really be used to better effect.

    I agree, Jeff. You really need to stoke the blog with posts about rainbows, unicorns, and cute little forest creatures.

    And pie. Fresh peach pie being in season and all.

  142. I’m not certain exactly what makes Larry Craig a hypocrite – was he an outspoken advocate for outlawing sex between men? I do know that he supported the FMA. I don’t think that he was caught trying to marry the stud in the next stall, was he?

    I think that something that is necessary in these instances is for libertarian types to recognize that we more culturally oriented conservatives accept that human nature involves a certain degree of weakness – in carnal matters especially – and that there is a marked difference between “sin” and “hypocrisy.” The fallen nature, or concupiscence, if you will. The hypocrite says, simply, that the standard that applies to everyone else does not apply to him. See Ted Kennedy Re: bussing, affirmative action, DUI laws, homicide laws, windmills, etc. The sinner upholds the standard and acknowledges his transgressions, and recommits to do better, recognizing that perfection is unattainable, rather than to build a lifestyle around the favorite sin.

    And another word about “family values,” a term which has been corrupted and distorted by the Left – “family values,” properly understood, refer in the primary sense to the natural authority deriving from the family to organize its affairs and raise children in the manner parents deem fit. It is very much more a matter of securing these natural rights against intrusion on the part of the state or bureaucracies, and to more or less maintain the status quo of certain established institutions against culturally Marxist assault and agitation – e.g. marriage, the boy scouts, etc.

  143. “a politico who uses his public office to financially help his paramour.”

    New Jersey Governor James Mangravy, (D)?

  144. Then, I’d guess, being that secret codes are part and parcel of the deal, maybe an arcane symbol that says – hey you…

  145. As for John Cole … he’s become hella-stupid in that ‘I must be smart I’m a professor’ sort of way.

    He’s really devolved into one of the crappiest, bloggers – This post really illustrates what a joke Stupidjuice has become — the “clue” is in update #1, update #2 didn’t come for quite sometime after…so in update #1 you learn that in both instances he really hasn’t bothered to read or look into the subject, he just throws up a screed, his nutters freak, so typically throws up a crowd pleasing update but that solidifies his ignorance. Even though his first instinct is correct, why would anyone waste their time reading some blowhards moronic rants?

  146. Darleen, Isn’t that kind of soft pedaling what he did? If i agree that the other examples of breach of the public trust are worse breaches ( and I do), that doesn’t really rehabilitate Craig as a man of self-control, self-restraint, or self-command.

  147. Something like this, hf?

  148. OoOoOo!

    I’ve got three examples of “Name That Party” since July. Representative, not exhaustive.

    http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/188805.php
    http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/188671.php
    http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/188662.php

    This NEVER happens, though. EVER.

  149. Darleen, Isn’t that kind of soft pedaling what he did?

    Is it? He apparently tried to hit on some dude in the crapper, and from the details provided, it looks like that’s the end of the story. Now, we can talk about what he might have done had things gone differently, or what he’s probably done at other times, but within the 4 corners of this story, it ends at a muffed pick up attempt.

  150. Good Lt., that brings an appropriate search term to mind.

  151. There are quite a few passages in this Camille Paglia interview that are relevant here.

    Regarding Rep. Mark Foley (another gay Republican accused of bad behavior):

    The way the Democratic leadership was in clear collusion with the major media to push this story in the month before the midterm election seems to me to have been a big fat gift to Ann Coulter and the other conservative commentators who say the mainstream media are simply the lapdogs of the Democrats. Every time I turned on the news it was “Foley, Foley, Foley!” — and in suspiciously similar language and repetitive talking points.

    After three or four days of it, as soon as I heard Foley’s name, I turned the sound off or switched channels. It was gargantuan overkill, and I felt the Democrats were shooting themselves in the foot. I was especially repulsed by the manipulative use of a gay issue for political purposes by my own party. I think it was not only poor judgment but positively evil. Whatever short-term political gain there is, it can only have a negative impact on gay men.

    Regarding the image of Republicans as social conservative fundies:

    I think the center of the Republican Party really is small-businessmen and very practical people who correctly see that it’s job creation and wealth creation that sustain an economy — not government intervention and government control, that suffocating nanny-state mentality. The Democrats are in some sort of time warp in always proposing a government solution to every problem. It’s like Hillary’s philosophy that it takes a village to raise a child. Well, does it? Or does it take a strong family and not the village?

    What’s broadened the appeal of conservatism in recent years is that Republicans stress individualism — individual effort and personal responsibility. They’re really the liberty party now — I thought my party was!

  152. Darleen, I think you are too generous to him. I think it’s very clear what he was about, and it’s not acceptable conduct in a Senator. The end.

  153. Pablo –

    Heh. Isolated incidents, no doubt. Hundreds/thousands of them.

  154. Clearly, you are correct. This is just blown way the fuck out of proportion. After Craig brushes off this nonsense charge, which he accidentally plead guilty to, I’m certain he will run for a 4th term and win the election next year. If he doesn’t, well, you know – liberal conspiracy and such.

  155. SarahW

    Soft pedal? Not at all. You forget, I see hundreds of police reports a week … from the banal to the truly horrific. Believe me, solicitation is down there at the ho-hum end of spectrum. If nothing else, we get annoyed at these people for their stupidity of doing it where they’d get caught more than at what they were doing.

    Kinda like the idiots behind the wheel at a stoplight who like up a nice fat doobie without noticing the cop car in the next lane.

    I have no idea if this were a one-time, spur of the moment thing (really bad luck) or if Craig’s frequent flier miles accumulated because he was enamored of comparing regional differences. All I know is that if he had hit on someone in a bar, this would have been a non-story.

    that doesn’t really rehabilitate Craig as a man of self-control, self-restraint, or self-command.

    No it doesn’t, but you know, it’s not stopping someone like LA Mayor Villaraigosa from running around rehabilitating himself with the help of friendly media.

  156. “This is just blown way the fuck out of proportion.”

    Actually, I think the point was to put this into proportion, instead of letting your “all Republicans are closeted homosexual hypocrites” “metanarrative” rule the day.

  157. Now that the foot tapping codes have been publicly exposed, when and where will the new communication methods be disclosed?

    Do I have to go to one of those tolerant lefty blogs to find out?

  158. Frankly, I am a little worried tapping your feet and under the stall hands constitute lewd behavior – I recall some really old foreign lady grabby grabby under the stall once, she couldn’t speak english and wanted toilet paper I guessed – I shoved some in her hand and she stopped. I won’t even get into profiling, but I bet you can guess by the pushiness.

  159. Clearly, you are correct. This is just blown way the fuck out of proportion. After Craig brushes off this nonsense charge, which he accidentally plead guilty to, I’m certain he will run for a 4th term and win the election next year. If he doesn’t, well, you know – liberal conspiracy and such.

    Seems to be working for Vitter – 60% approval – and I know liberals just love them some polls.

  160. “I think that something that is necessary in these instances is for libertarian types to recognize that we more culturally oriented conservatives accept that human nature involves a certain degree of weakness – in carnal matters especially – and that there is a marked difference between “sin” and “hypocrisy.” ”

    What exactly does one call it, then, when a man condemns a certain act as a sin, and then runs around engaging in it anyway, because, hey, we’re all sinners anyway, so why should he do any better? If that’s not hypocrisy, what exactly would you call it?

    And what would you call voting against allowing people to engage in homosexual sex within the moral framework of a legally binding monogamous relationship, while engaging in the same sort of sex with random strangers?

  161. Too bad Larry didn’t have the pull to have the Idaho State Police or Capitol Police just deliver those anonymous boy toys to his office like another famous politician we know.

    Anyway, he sounds like a manly, man. Family at home. Connecting flight through Minneapolis. Feels an urge. Heads to the bathroom to get a little trim. Relax for the rest of the trip. No worries.

    Damn police state. I blame Bush.

  162. Ardsgaine, you’re conflating sex with marriage. They’re not the same thing.

    If Craig has been running around denouncing the hot male action, then, yes, he’s a hypocrite. Has he?

  163. Clearly, you are correct. This is just blown way the fuck out of proportion.

    Oh, look! heet completely misses/mangles the point. Again.

  164. In comparing recent stories of misconduct by Congresspersons, Allah points out that media reports of Republican Sen Larry Craig’s June arrest on suspicion of “lewd conduct” will include, prominently, Craig’s party affiliation…

    You’re kidding, right? You’re basing a post on the prognostication of one of Malkin’s hangers-on and you expect people to take you seriously? Surely, you jest…

    Oh, Pablo? You keep humping Jeff’s leg like that and you’re going to end up with a serious chafing problem.

  165. Clearly, you are correct. This is just blown way the fuck out of proportion.

    Who are you responding to heet? I didn’t read that comment here. No one here has argued that Craig is innocent, or that the charges are the result of a liberal conspiracy.

    There are apparently some differences of opinion regarding the gravity of the offense, and its larger significance, but no has argued that it has been blown out of proportion yet.

    Jeff’s post alluded to the difference in the way that that media covers Republican misconduct versus Democratic misconduct. Some commenters have questioned whether such a disparity actually exists, so I quoted Camille Paglia remarking on the phenomenon in the context of the Mark Foley story.

    In Ms. Paglia’s opinion, that story was blown out of proportion by the media. She believes that the media coverage of the Floy case was saturated with rhetoric deliberately crafted by her party to fan and exploit the public’s revulsion toward homosexual sex, in the hopes of putting a Democrat in Foley’s seat in the upcoming midterm elections.

  166. Hey Ripley, wanna blow me?

  167. It’s strange that the lefties have their knickers in a bunch over Craig’s tap dance, cuz I can’t recall one fucking liberal who had the stones to condemn the VA head of the ACLU, Charles Rust-Tierney, for enjoying the crap out of hard core “horrific” child porn – little league coach he. He pled guilty.

  168. New update that links to Karl’s documentation of the little trend that could.

  169. Surely, you jest

    You first, Rip.

  170. You’re kidding, right? You’re basing a post on the prognostication of one of Malkin’s hangers-on and you expect people to take you seriously? Surely, you jest

    You see those orange thingies, Ripley? Thems is links.

    Allah guessed it would happen in this instance, John attacked him, and Allah was proven right — which you’d know if you clicked on the links. But let’s not forget that none of these posts were written in a vacuum. That is, there’s that we knuckledraggers over here on the right somehow managed to stumble across while we were waiting to be outed for our love of the gay sex that we used as our contextual frame — a trend that won’t go away despite your valiant attempt to thrall me with nose for my acknowledgment of Allah’s use of the future tense.

    I said “will, incidentally, because Allah’s post hadn’t yet linked to any coverage, I don’t believe; when I wrote mine, however, media coverage had begun to trickle out. And it just so happened to prove his point. By, you know, adding to the trend.

    As for taking me seriously, that’s up to you, Ripley. But if it helps you make your decision, I certainly don’t take you seriously.

    Still, two wrongs and all that.

  171. Oh man – I’d let Pablo hump my leg. For free. :;wink::

  172. What exactly does one call it, then, when a man condemns a certain act as a sin, and then runs around engaging in it

    Sin, weakness, character flaw … but it’s not hypocrisy

    unless you can back up your assertion with evidence that Craig publically condemned homosexual behavior while believing he, himself, was exempt from that standard.

    And what would you call voting against allowing people to engage in homosexual sex within the moral framework of a legally binding monogamous relationship, while engaging in the same sort of sex with random strangers?

    I’d call it irrelevant. The behavior of a person advancing arguments against same-sex marriage has nothing to do with the merits of the argument.

    But hey, if you can’t be intellectually address the argument, attack the arguer, right?

  173. Great, now I won’t get any sleep tonite. ;-)

  174. “What exactly does one call it, then, when a man condemns a certain act as a sin, and then runs around engaging in it anyway, because, hey, we’re all sinners anyway, so why should he do any better? If that’s not hypocrisy, what exactly would you call it?

    And what would you call voting against allowing people to engage in homosexual sex within the moral framework of a legally binding monogamous relationship, while engaging in the same sort of sex with random strangers?”

    I believe the greeks would call it “missing the mark.” Like I said, it is a sin – a failure to do what he ought to have done. He would be a hypocrite if he decided for some reason that gay sex was an accomodation which was acceptable for him or his class alone, but not for others. Clearly, the act of seeking out daliances in public restrooms demonstrates that Craig probably didn’t think that his homosexual attractions and behaviors were acceptable. It appears that he took his medicine and accepted responsibility for whatsoever was illegal about what he did in that bathroom.

    I don’t think that it is all too well hidden that by your definition of hypocrite, we really could have no law, and no morality at all. Who would make these laws? Hypocrites? Who would enforce these laws? Hypocrites? Is there a perfect man to rule us? I think it is wholly unfair for you or anyone else to ridicule cultural conservatives for their beliefs, and then ridicule them when they fail to live up to them.

    And as far as I am concerned, maintaining marriage as a union of complementary opposites is a position that can be held by heterosexuals and the most flaming, fervent homosexuals as well. Is a lack of so-called “gay marriage” somehow curtailing man-on-man gay sex in a way that I am unaware? I think that it is wholly valid to say that a relationship between a man and a woman is qualitatively different than that between two men or two women – would you disagree?

  175. This must be terribly exciting for Idaho though. This is one of them where the local news will do the “how to talk about it with your kids” bit, and ask “is our town safe?” Or not, but it must be terribly exciting for Idaho.

  176. Anyone else notice how the left takes these sort of mini digressions of republicans and loose their cookies, but dismiss the rather larger real instances of corrupt or criminal and pretend they haven’t even, like happened?

    Quickly, one could start with Ted Kennedy’s homicidal plunge and move up (or down) the totem poll- say Barney Frank’s basement gay whore ring, Gerry Studds’s proud and defiant child seduction, William Jefferson commandeered National Guard during Katrina to secure his bribe money, Murtha likey the cashy on tapey, on and on and yet liberals are afflicted with hair pulling and the sweats because Ben Demenche lifted movie reviews in College, etc.

  177. Becky, you still around? See #178 for a real example of creepy stalking.

  178. Darleen @ 10:33 – That is probably one of the most profoundly stupid comments I’ve seen online in months.

    Jeff, you reference one orange thingy (Yahoo – which I clicked on) that doesn’t mention ‘Republican’ until the third paragraph. And you admit that you uncorked this post before Allah had found any links to back up his assertion. My mistake? I don’t think so, pally. But knock yourself out, looking for more links to back up your “trend”. While you’re at it, do check into those FOX News chyron anomolies that labeled Republicans as Dems. The blogosphere is right to not take you seriously.

    Pablo, you embiggen the site with your cromulent comments. Entourage, brother!

  179. Darleen, you are completely of base with that characterization.

    But go ahead and cover your own actions by going “look look”

    You and perhaps JD have something to answer for.

  180. Geez, Rip, I won’t get a wink of sleep tonight worry about your disapproval.

    BTW, can you actually, you know, refute anything I said?

    thought not

    carry on

  181. Hey, don’t embiggen this site because you html challenged.

    My guess, StupidJuicer – don’t know how to read links, the host doesn’t.

  182. can you say, Darleen, that it wasn’t you?

  183. Rip isn’t about the refuting, Darleen. He’s all about the need to be taken seriously. Which, you know, you just throw Michelle Malkin’s name into the conversation and it’s Game Over, baby.

    Because of the seriousness.

  184. toppy

    ur st00000pid

    but that’s ok

  185. It was me, Michelle.

  186. You all assume that you are the only ones who read mill blogs or know anyone in the military.

    You all think that we forget your perversions.

    You all are wrong.

    Fess up Darleen, JD.

  187. can you say, Darleen, that it wasn’t you?

    It wasn’t me what?

    Pablo, is the stalker in #184 Chips?

  188. Pablo speaks

    Nothing.

  189. Darleen, do we have to do this? Sigh.

  190. You all think that we forget your perversions.

    OMIGAWD..yes yes..it’s all true! I did it, in the library on the rug

    then I did it in the diningroom… right on the table

    (the children would never eat there again if they knew)

  191. pablo=jeffy

    thanks “darleen”

    night jeffy.

    you did it.

    thanks for confirming it for me

  192. incontrolados

    Um – I was speaking about ripley…you sound like you could use a drink, a walk with your dog, massage?

  193. koko want ball

  194. It’s tough to keep all the handles straight, but this one is our enlightened ESL internationalist/RWS stalker.

  195. I call a DougJ going on here. Juice got his nitters in a wad.

  196. Darleen, you are now cleared.

    Hate me no more.

    Go live your live of theory.

    I say no more.

  197. Pablo

    Ah! Yes. One of those handles was “Doritos” so I just called her “Chips”

    and definitely one creep of a stalker of RWS

    maybe it’s time RWS got a restraining order against her

  198. OMIGAWD..yes yes..it’s all true! I did it, in the library on the rug…

    No, I did it in the Conservatory with the wrench. Which is to say that Jeff did it in the Conservatory with the wrench, what with he equaling me.

    It must be bong hit night at Michelle’s place.

  199. Jeffy you show yourself again.

    Only you would remember threatening to “comment” at my univeristy’s site.

    Have you found the way that Kathleen did to complain about what I do while at home or on vacation?

    Oh, yeah, you and Darleen and Kathleen don’t “get” it because you DON’T WORK for a living.

    Next

  200. It must be bong hit night at Michelle’s place.

    ::::sigh:::: It might be nice to think so, for no other reason we could look forward to Chips being sober in the morning

    but I’m afraid she would just still be crazy

  201. –Darleen, you are now cleared.

    Hate me no more.

    Go live your live of theory.

    I say no more.–

    The sky is blue

    the sea is green

    see you in Tangiers

    — Natasha

  202. Chips

    stalking and harassing can get one in trouble no matter where your location when you’re doing it.

    Work for a living? You might try it sometime.

  203. Yes, we are into some hi-test crazee, aren’t we?

    Michelle, you demented fool, I am not Jeff. Though I have been known to be Karl Rove on occasion.

  204. Jeff, you reference one orange thingy (Yahoo – which I clicked on) that doesn’t mention ‘Republican’ until the third paragraph. And you admit that you uncorked this post before Allah had found any links to back up his assertion. My mistake? I don’t think so, pally.

    Yes, I uncorked this post linking to Allah’s post, which was written long before mine, and so didn’t include any links. But I found a link to back up his assertion as I was writing my post — referencing both his post and John’s — which I included.

    So you see, Allah speculated. John called Allah on his speculation. I noted John’s calling Allah out for his speculation — and even noted that Allah’s speculation was, at the time, just that. But, given that I did all that AFTER BOTH ALLAH AND JOHN’S POSTS, I was able to find, in the interim, a link proving that Allah’s assertion (which at the time was merely that) did, in fact, prove correct.

    Pally.

    I can’t help that you have trouble with conditionals and time frames.

    But knock yourself out, looking for more links to back up your “trend”. While you’re at it, do check into those FOX News chyron anomolies that labeled Republicans as Dems. The blogosphere is right to not take you seriously.

    Uh, that’s been covered, I think, in this very thread.

    And tell me, why do you put trend in quotation marks? At what point does this practice become more than just a great big giant forgivable coincidence?

    And again, I don’t know who takes me seriously and who doesn’t. But I suspect I’m doing okay outside a certain segment who likes to pretend that they don’t take me seriously.

  205. Jeffy you show yourself again.

    Only you would remember threatening to “comment” at my univeristy’s site.

    Have you found the way that Kathleen did to complain about what I do while at home or on vacation?

    Oh, yeah, you and Darleen and Kathleen don’t “get” it because you DON’T WORK for a living.

    Next

    Anybody speak mental midget with the frightening face of a bridge troll?

  206. Did I miss something? I saw a comment about Pablo chafing and figured I may have missed the party…you know, the one where we get the right wing talking points and then gay it up over some single malt…

  207. I call a DougJ going on here. Juice got his nitters in a wad.

    TSK9, you think he’s seeing himself in the Sigourney Weaver role or more of a “Believe It or Not” way?

  208. Darleen, what occupies your time? Kids? School? Plolitics?

    Bingo!

    Darleen you would do anything to discredit me, no?

    It’a in your best interest to do so.

  209. For those not understanding the point Jeff is making here, please tell us what a comparible fault would be in a Democratic senator?
    I can only think of one: Democratic Senator _________ caught saying something nice about the United States and meaning it.
    I wonder if any Dems are hiding in the patriot closet?

  210. Mental midget with the hundred yard stare of a bilingual bridge troll hungry for a juice box and maybe some Mentos? Anybody speak that?

    hello…?

  211. Michelle – Drunk, lonely and angry again tonight? How are the pets?

    Don’t you have some future terrorists who need to be taught English?

    A mature woman could teach them things in addition to our language.

  212. It’s Greek to me.

  213. Sorry about the spelling of comparible…comparable…. It’s late and I am drinking alone while my family sleeps upstairs and I surf goat/baby porn… because I am a hypocrite.
    Don’t worry though, because much like Mike Vick, I have found Jesus and know that now I have to grow up.

    I only posted this because I am aware that most of my pals in the teaching profession are left wingers and they are completely anal about spelling. Yup, bad spelling and goat fucking is what us conservatives are all about.

  214. Was Pan a goat?

  215. Were I Sparkle, I’d most definitely be contacting the authorities about this binge-drinking nutcase.

    She’s a stalker. And believe me, I know from those types.

  216. Darleen, what occupies your time? Kids? School? Plolitics?

    Why yes… and a 9/80 work schedule, and a fixerupper house that is getting fixy-upped by me and hubby, and sewing, and scrapbooking, and watching the grandkids a few weekends a month (today I got them their first library cards) ..

    my life is full … of family, love and wonder …

    you might get yourself into therapy so you could get there sometime

  217. Mental midget with the hundred yard stare of a bil
    ingual bridge troll hungry for a juice box? Anybody speak that?

    This crap from a man (?) that threatened to comment on my univerisity’s web site.

    Jeffy you and Darleen are stay at home target practicers.

    Darleen can tell you — since she did the deed — that it doesn’t matter — you, darleen JD, pablo, you all are party to it.

    That is why you all are all fury signifying nothing. I know. Jeffy, if you could complain with an effect, I wouldn’t have my job.

    I still do. And I got a raise. Best ever.

    Please Jeffy, complain to my school.

    Perhaps next year I will get a 22% raise.

  218. incontrolados

    Darleen, what occupies your time? Kids? School? Plolitics?

    Plolitics?

    ur st00000pid

    but that’s ok

  219. That therapist better have a secondary degree in plastic surgery. To remove that hateful smirk of a crazed bridge troll — which I’m told not many men find particularly enticing.

  220. Of course there’s a bias here – its the “man bites dog” bias. When a “tough on gays” republican is caught in a men’s room, his party affiliation is noted. If Barney Franks is caught in a men’s room, its just not so big a deal.

    Conversely, if a “minority loving” democrat is caught using a racial epithet or belongs to a racist country club, his party affiliation is noted.

    Why is this so hard to understand?

  221. —Jeffy you and Darleen are stay at home target practicers.—

    tsk, tsk tsk…Firedogswamp lefty says this is very masculine. Off the reservation so easy eh?

  222. Jeff

    Maybe that smirk is nature’s warning to any unwary man

  223. And just as a note, I generate international income. My salary comes from outside the U.S. I produce outside income. Jeffy, [Pablo], Darleen and JD, where is your productivity?

    I bring in more money year by year than you all can coinceive.

  224. What are you saying, nutjob? That I called your school?

    Uh, not guilty. Hell, I never even contacted Dr Demento’s school. And she threatened my kid.

    You, you don’t even register. Other than as yet another minor glimpse into the life of the sad, lonely, and crazy.

  225. Chips

    no one’s tombstone never sez “here lies _____ she got a good raise”

  226. er… “ever sez”

  227. Brian —

    Are you saying that Dem noted in the story is not particularly tough on assault?

  228. Yeah. I bet you’re just rolling in the yen there, Michelle.

    Save it up. So that later you can buy your many many cats some of the really good canned cat food.

  229. I bring in more money year by year than you all can coinceive

    And today I snuggled on the couch with my twin grandsons and read to them about a dog’s trip to the vet and a banana slug’s adventure on a rainy day

    I got the far better deal, and my life is head and shoulders more productive then yours.

  230. –TSK9, you think he’s seeing himself in the Sigourney Weaver role or more of a “Believe It or Not” way?–

    I had a Townhouse meets Hardy Boys, worships Derek Flint but takes orders from Maxwell Smart who in turn provides lots of Mountain Dew, kinda thing in mind.

  231. “Of course there’s a bias here – its the “man bites dog” bias. When a “tough on gays” republican is caught in a men’s room, his party affiliation is noted. If Barney Franks is caught in a men’s room, its just not so big a deal.

    Conversely, if a “minority loving” democrat is caught using a racial epithet or belongs to a racist country club, his party affiliation is noted.

    Why is this so hard to understand?”

    Is it REALLY noted though? I mean I think the last time I remember any leftist getting it from all 3 was the Jessie in hymie town scenario, and he is still invited back regularly to their shows.

    Let me ask you something deeply personal, do you like the United States?

  232. coinceive – Plolitics

    I’m always cool with typo’s, seriously very, very cool – but it’s a little embarrassing to see this humiliation from someone only instant comeback is teh stoooopid ad homs

  233. What are you saying, nutjob? That I called your school?

    Jeffy, you threaten to “comment” on my university’s site.

    You don’t remember. Just like you and Pablo and Darleen and JD don’t remember.

    Please Jeffy, “comment” on my university’s site.

  234. While I work for a living, bringing in money from international sources, you all keep generating self-consuming income.

    It’s kind of like that porn guy who could suck his own dick.

    You all feed on yourselves.

  235. Wow, I wander off and come back to find teh crazee babbling away here! LOL!

    Someone’s got buffalo chips in her head…

  236. Also I notice that the defense of ad hominem attacks is nearly as common as equating your enemies to Hitler. Is there a course for that these days?
    “Ok students, what do we do if we are in an argument with anyone we disagree with?”
    “Yes that’s absolutely correct, first we compare their leaders to Hitler and then we state that all of their debate tactics are ad hominem attacks!”
    “Yes of course Mz Smith, after class we can meet at my flat and discuss the hypocrisy of your parents and the capitalist machine that turned them into hate robots”

  237. You Defenders of the Faith are real artful dodgers. Can’t you just admit that Larry Craig is a hypocrite? Can’t you just admit that Vitter is a hypocrite? Incidentally, I like Vitter; he does a good job for his constituents, and has worked long and hard (no pun intended{okay, pun intended])to help the victims of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina.
    Comparing a Democratic congressman’s shoving of a baggage clerk with Craig’s obvious baggage is quite ludicrous, and you are really dense if you think that regular folk outside your bunker can’t see right through this attempt to make it a media bias issue.
    And to the goat-lover, when George Thorogood drinks alone, it is cool. When a teacher does it, and belittles spelling on top of it, it is sad. Get Help!

  238. Republican on Acid – I need to correct you. You are not drinking alone. I mean there are other people in the house and all. You know what they say about drinking alone. I’m almost out myself.

  239. Ohh, Beth, FYSW.

    Oh and Beth, FYSW

  240. While I work for a living, bringing in money from international sources, you all keep generating self-consuming income.

    Oh, so you outsource, huh?

    Comment by daleyrocks on 8/28 @ 12:17 am

    Your comment was meant for Mel Famy

    Mel Famy?

    You Defenders of the Faith are real artful dodgers.

    You Defenders? A few, in general? Nice lumping hypocrite.

    Comparing a Democratic congressman’s shoving of a baggage clerk with Craig’s obvious baggage is quite ludicrous,

    YEAH! Because assault is ALWAYS preferable cigaring a twat!

    Actually, I think juice’s dougj can’t even keep up with himself anymore.

  241. If Darleen has lead you to my schools blog, expect to get your comments deleted.

  242. “Republican on Acid – I need to correct you. You are not drinking alone. I mean there are other people in the house and all. You know what they say about drinking alone. I’m almost out myself.”

    What is it about Monday nights that do this? I think I drink more on Mondays than I do on any other day of the week.
    Of course that’s probably because on every other day I am talking to other men about Jesus in public bathrooms.

  243. Can’t you just admit that Larry Craig is a hypocrite? Can’t you just admit that Vitter is a hypocrite?

    Sweet Jaysus … could you please at least ATTEMPT to understand what hypocrisy is??

    SYLLABICATION: hy·poc·ri·sy
    PRONUNCIATION: h-pkr-s
    NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
    1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness. 2. An act or instance of such falseness.

    Can you please source your assertion that Craig OR Vitter did not hold to their own professed beliefs?

    Or, alternately, please show us the perfect, unflawed human that has never stumbled so we may all take teaching from this perfect non-hypocrite.

    Heavens, even Jesus had his weak moments!

  244. Thanks TS? 12:17 was for 11:49

  245. Topsecretk9, Your post is indecipherable. Craig was playing footsie with guy in a public restroom. That is a bit on the creepy side. I like your turn of phrase re cigars, but Clinton was pilloried for his indefensible actions. If Bush had done the same thing, you would be blaming the press for harping on it, would you not?

  246. Daley – i know – it was a weak attempt at the incontrolados drinks alone — Trippin Gop is goating and so on.- scratch.

  247. –If Bush had done the same thing, you would be blaming the press for harping on it, would you not?–

    Sandy Berger and deaddropping docs under a trailer – Condi Rice doing the same in the press? Think about it for second, it will come to you.

    Playing footsies? —if you scroll above you’ll find a myriad of ignored situations (Kennedy death plunge, ACLU head hearts kiddie porn, Stubbs, Franks, Murtha, Jefferson…) that went beyond mere footisied, which are consistently celebrated.

  248. Darlene, you are so right. Vitter was just taking after Samson, who also visited with prostitutes. I realize my error in pointing out that a married man breaking his vows is doing a bad thing.
    Sarcasm aside, I wish that what a public servant does outside their working hours mattered not a whit, as long as it did not affect their decision-making while serving their constituents. Which I did note Vitter does exceptionally well.

  249. The real question here is this: What would Ted Kennedy do?

    This is all I have for the this topic. A few years ago a pal of mine who teaches philosophy was absolutely livid that his father (who paid for his education in full) could be such a “christian” and yet have a history of porno surfing on his web browser – which my friend had looked at without his fathers knowledge.
    After a long and timeless rant on the “hypocisy” of his CONSERVATIVE ASSHOLE FATHER, I had but one sentence to offer him. This was the sentence: Dear friend, regardless of your fathers religious and political affiliations, your father was born with a penis. As such he is also a male of our species. In that he has hormones that dictate to him at least several times a day (if he is like any other male I know) that he NEEDS to get rid of a certain package that resides in his testicles otherwise he will be hateful and mean. In that I find that your fathers hypocrisy is nothing more than normal male behavior.
    Thankyou and rub one off for me.

    Of course this is not exactly the same thing, but it was funny that my friend had such OUTRAGE at discovering his dad beat his meat…

  250. “Why is this so hard to understand?”

    Because thats not the way it happens, even though your logic is valid.

    All I know is that when politicians are caught up in scandal, I can always predict their party affiliation by how the MSM reports the story:

    1) if the perp is GOP, the media always tells me, usually above the fold

    2) if the perp is Dem, I’ll know it by the media’s ommission of party affiliation.

  251. Trippin’ GOP

    You could have easily pointed out to pal-o-yours that some of the blame could be with mama – he’ll find out one day.

  252. Oops, not one sentence, but one thought… my apologies.

  253. Top, my friend, none of those situations you mentioned have been ignored, although your characterization of the ACLU head is typically distorted. As far as Jefferson goes, he was
    stripped of his committee assignments while repubs were defending his right to keep bribe moolah in his freezer. It is called a news cycle, and the the wagging finger having writ, moveth on. My apologies to Omar for mangling his dictum. I know how much I hate having my dictum mangled.
    I would like to interject that I admire the passion of the posters in here. Also the speed at which comments appear. HuffPo is a lumbering dinosaur in that regard.

  254. “Trippin’ GOP

    You could have easily pointed out to pal-o-yours that some of the blame could be with mama – he’ll find out one day.”

    Well, mama was a protestant “liberal” and papa is a first generation american from syria. So it seems that makes sense.
    He also had issues with his dad becoming too “american” and losing his cultural heritage.

    My response to that is that he was lucky he wasn’t born to a family with Scottish blood. All I ever knew growing up was that I was likely to get made fun of by both parents in a hideous manner if I showed any normal qualities of human emotion.
    Or maybe “human emotion” is abnormal and scottish american hate is the norm?

  255. 2) if the perp is Dem, I’ll know it by the media’s ommission of party affiliation.

    Interestingly enough, I actually have the actual Washington Post paper of their first official Ted Kennedy takes a plunge report — it was pretty matter of fact and IIRC (it’s in a box in a closet) they pretty much say the “answers” to the questions weren’t adding up, but NO real inquisitiveness why a married senator was parting with a lot of unmarried women on a island party house left in the wee hours of the morning with an unmarried girl when everyone else stayed to party…

    I do believe though the WAPO’s phrasing of Ted’s return to hide in the backseat a car until he could get the attention of his handlers was skeptical lite, but still skeptical.

  256. –Comment by Mel Famy on 8/28 @ 12:56 am #–

    You are wrong on so many fronts it’s not even worth responding but — although your characterization of the ACLU head is typically distorted. — how so?

  257. Because Tony Romero is gay, he likes kiddie porn? That is quite a conceptual leap. if you have something besides your gut feeling to back that up, please link it. No one I know on the left or right of the aisle would condone sexual acts upon a child, nor do they tolerate unwarranted allegations about same.
    I have to get some sleep, so do not expect a reply before morning, good fellow

  258. Trippin’ GOP

    –Well, mama was a protestant “liberal” and papa is a first generation american from syria. So it seems that makes sense.
    He also had issues with his dad becoming too “american” and losing his cultural heritage.–

    Oh — I get it – I already like the dad more than the son.

    –My response to that is that he was lucky he wasn’t born to a family with Scottish blood. All I ever knew growing up was that I was likely to get made fun of by both parents in a hideous manner if I showed any normal qualities of human emotion.
    Or maybe “human emotion” is abnormal and scottish american hate is the norm?—

    Ugh – sorry. Well, I am glad someone broke the Scottish mold with my mom -I think her upbringing was similar but I am guessing it was innate and compounded that she lost both of her parents in a horrible car accident that she was in too – they were not found for 72 hours having driven down a hillside. All I’ve ever known was affection was a rule in my household.

  259. Please Jeffy, “comment” on my university’s site.

    What would “you” like me to “say” when I “comment”?

    And what’s the web address? Believe it or not, I don’t keep track of where you teach, or what your school’s website address happens to be.

  260. Because Tony Romero is gay, he likes kiddie porn? That is quite a conceptual leap.

    He is?

    Mel, what the frick are you talking about?

    from my comment if you scroll above you’ll find a myriad of ignored situations

    Scroll bar, to the right side, push UP — here, I will help you a bit –10:22 pm

  261. Pingback: Liberty Pundit

  262. Scroll bar, to the right side, push UP — here, I will help you a bit –10:22 pm

    ha ha! the appositives matter. someone just lost some reading comprehension points.

  263. Here is what I am referring to, top..scroll down 10 lines, read left to right, got it?
    Comment by Topsecretk9 on 8/28 @ 12:42 am #

    –If Bush had done the same thing, you would be blaming the press for harping on it, would you not?–

    Sandy Berger and deaddropping docs under a trailer – Condi Rice doing the same in the press? Think about it for second, it will come to you.

    Playing footsies? —if you scroll above you’ll find a myriad of ignored situations (Kennedy death plunge, ACLU head hearts kiddie porn, Stubbs, Franks, Murtha, Jefferson…) that went beyond mere footisied, which are consistently celebrated.

  264. I see that at 10:22 you meant the aclu’s lead guy in virginia. In the post I responded to , you left out the state appellation. A misunderstanding, no harm done. If the guy is guilty of promoting child porn, let’s give him a fair trial and then let a jury of his convict peers mete out exercise-yard justice.

  265. Nice try Mel – but you actually made the point of Jeff’s entire post – you don’t even know about Rust-Tierney – you should look into it.

  266. –let’s give him a fair trial and then let a jury of his convict peers mete out exercise-yard justice.–

    Ugh –You STILL didn’t even READ 10:22 you dork — he’s in jail – HE PLED G U I L TY -there was nothing he could do. I can see you won’t ever learn just how “horrific” the porn he was into – or how his wife is a mucky much in the Beltway.

  267. I’m sorry, but this whole exercise just reminds me of that Homeland Security dude busted in an internet chat sting – setting up dates with a teen girl — the lefty blogs all tripped on their own dicks posting for the children and the horrors of Bush administration preying on the children etc, etc…until I think was James Tarranto? (WSJ) who found like the next day that not only did the dude only contribute to Dems – was a registered Dem and proud dem -what did the lefity blogs and MSM say? NADA – zip, zero, nada. DOA – story DIED.

    And what of the children? C R I C K E T S.

  268. “Darlene, you are so right. Vitter was just taking after Samson, who also visited with prostitutes. I realize my error in pointing out that a married man breaking his vows is doing a bad thing.
    Sarcasm aside, I wish that what a public servant does outside their working hours mattered not a whit, as long as it did not affect their decision-making while serving their constituents.

    Now that is hypocrisy, right there, Mel. See the distinction?

  269. LarLarry Craig comedy video- http://podblanc.ath.cx/?q=node/5778
    Downlow US Senator Larry Craig’s Snug Love Nest– “Here’s my business card. What do you think about THAT, Mr Policeman?”

  270. Typical right-wingnuts; you offer an olive branch, and they beat you with it. So long, no intelligent life here.

  271. #

    Comment by incontrolados on 8/28 @ 12:14 am #

    While I work for a living, bringing in money from international sources, you all keep generating self-consuming income.

    It’s kind of like that porn guy who could suck his own dick.

    You all feed on yourselves.

    You Win!!! We’re all very happy for you.(No. Really!)On both counts. But this really isn’t a big dick contest. ’cause if it was, you’d lose.

  272. How big do the “feet wash, prayer rug” rooms at the airport need to be? Couldn’t you partition off a little square footage for a “cock and ball tickle” room?

    Problem solved.

  273. “Typical right-wingnuts; you offer an olive branch, and they beat you with it.”

    We suck at diplomacy, didn’t you get the memo?

    War mongerers and all like that.

  274. NBC this morning runs “the CONSERVATIVE (read, hypicritical) Republican was arrested in June . . .”

    One wonders if Arlen Spector would be reported to have been a “CONSERVATIVE Republican” if he found himself in the same predicament?

  275. “Tim in SF wants a trend (though he won’t define what a “trend” is), but to get him started, Karl has put together a nice compendium over at the Pub.”

    But to show a trend you’d have to show it happening to republicans but not dems. In a random sample of stories. I think we can all agree that hte null hypothesis is no trend. But you don’t do it by picking for ones that you think prove your point. That just confirms bias.

    The story you linked to on Craig didn’t say he was a republican till later in the story. Point for, or against?

  276. Good morning. I was still bothered by this thread when I woke up today. I still don’t understand why every one is so shocked- SHOCKED that Craig’s Republicanism would get a mention in the press.

    I think it’s disingenuous to argue that Craigs party affiliation isn’t an aspect of the story. Republicans are generally thought to be on the conservative side, and conservatives thought to generally hold to ideas of self-command, prudence, self-regulation; and conversely to argue against reckless and immoral conduct, whether that conduct is legal or illegal. It’s part of the story when a conservative Republican senator fails to control himself and his appetites, and behaves so very cheaply and so very recklessly.

    Darleen:
    By soft pedal, Darleen. I meant your minimized Craig’s problem, not the crime/nuisance of men or women coopting the public toilets for public sex in the public toilet. Though I think maybe, after all, you are minimizing that sort of crime because you see so much worse in your day-to-day review of criminal behavior.

    By soft pedal, I meant you described Craig’s behviour as “soliciting adult consensual sex”, as if that’s all there was to it.

    Can we please drop any pretense that he was doing anything but soliciting an indecent act from a stranger in a public toilet. Will you concede that the public toilets are for other things, and that people who want to use the toilets for the purpose for which they are intended have a right to go in without being accosted by sex trolls or sex in the next stall, and that law enforcement is not draconian for attempting to stamp out regular use of the stalls for sex acts and/or trolling for anonymous partners?

    I can understand your reluctance to cede that his crime merits attention considering the histories you peruse on a regular basis. But a small point here – enforcement of minor crimes can improve the order and safety of a public area more generally. See Gladwells discusison of Times Square if you want a treatise on that.

  277. Alpuccino for the win!

    A dedicated space might just work. Or would it? Would that take the dangerous fun away?

  278. I myself am convinced that what Craig did ought to be a crime. From the shameless shitting manifesto:

    We demand a Fecal Utopia, in which all men and women are endowed with certain unalienable excremental rights —

    FREEDOM OF PRIVACY
    If a Shameless Shitter views this as a time for quiet introspection and enjoyment of the self, no one may disturb them with unnecessary noise or unwanted conversation

    FREEDOM FROM FEAR
    All Shitters are denied any right to Showboat Shitting, Poop Exhibitionism, or Turd Terrorism. Any act that violates the sanctity of the bathroom and poisons the bathroom for other Shitters violates the Shameless Shitting Doctrine.

    As long there are those who bend to the will of Shameful Shitting, we are not truly free. Private or public, at work or at home or anywhere else, the only pressure that should concern a Shitter is the one building in the colon.

  279. Thx for the link, Jeff.
    Dear John, thanks for adding my name to the mix but you don’t parrot Sullivan. You simply retype what he does using different words. A parrot would have at least some talent. Punk.

  280. “A dedicated space might just work. Or would it? Would that take the dangerous fun away?”

    Danger? Maybe. But it definitely takes the Congressional Blumpkin out of play.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go put a dozen or so Crest White Strips all over my brain.

  281. Clearly Chips/doritos/introcoloco is suffering a huge hangover this morning. She really is hung up on Sparkle. I am not sure why it brought up my name so many times. Incomprehension is its greatest tool. Get help, Chips.

  282. Can I be the first to nominate markel for the title of Retarded Telephone Pole 2 ?

  283. Let’s use this thread as a baseline of measurement. The party of tolerance does not appear to be so, and the party of hate seems to be quite tolerant. Interesting, that.

  284. Well, this might make a nice research project for someone. Take 100 Reuters or AP “politician caught in scandal” stories, 50 each party, and see where the party affiliation is listed. 10 points for the headline, 5 points in the top 20% of the story, etc.

    Whenever I read scandal stories on the intertubes, I try to make a note of when/where the party is mentioned. There’s no question in my mind that Republican stories will score much higher on my completely pulled-out-of-my-tuchus-scale than Democrats.

    I would suggest that, as an alternative motivation to exposing Republicans (for their lack of nuance), perhaps it would never occur to most journalists to mention Democrat affiliation because everyone already knows them – they’re the good guys. It’s those evil Rethuglicans whose name you may not recognize – must. out. them.

    Oops, I slipped into character there, didn’t I?

  285. I don’t understand why you guys have such a difficult time calling this guy a hypocrite. I mean, it’s not like I’m saying all Republicans are hypocrites. That would be an odd position for a registered Republican. I’m not even saying that all Christians are hypocrites, although I think that those who condemn sin and then hide behind “we’re all sinners” when they’re caught doing something wrong are hypocrites. If we’re all sinners, then none of us have the right to condemn the sins of others. “Judge not the motes in the eyes of others,” or whatever.

    Craig certainly has a character flaw, but it is more than that. He has been engaged in–let’s call it an intellectual incongruity, since you don’t like the word hypocrisy. The position of religious conservatives regarding gay marriage isn’t driven by an esoteric concern over the meaning of the word “marriage”. It is driven by the belief that homosexuality is sinful, and should not be condoned by the state. It is absurd to suppose that Craig would have ever made it his official position that homosexual sex with random strangers was just fine, but homosexual marriage is wrong. If he believed that sex with men was moral, he wouldn’t have been doing it with strangers in public bathrooms.

    I happen to think that the number of closeted gay Republicans is a problem for the party. Not because there’s anything wrong with being gay and Republican, but because of the ostensive hostility of conservative politicians towards homosexuality. It is beginning to look like their intolerance is a show for the folks back home. It’s red meat to throw to the true believers, but not a good diet for a political realist. When they get to Washington, they work side by side with homosexuals in the party, get along fine with them, and even circle the wagons around them when their careers are threatened by sex scandals. If it is good for them to be so tolerant in Washington, why shouldn’t they tell their constituents that a little tolerance would be a good thing at home? Or if it’s not good to be so tolerant in Washington, when does the party purge start?

    —–
    PS. Is anyone else having a problem with comments shifting to the left (physically, not ideologically) as one scrolls down the page? First the numbers disappear, and then the text on the left hand side of each line. I’m having to copy and paste them into notepad to read them.

  286. This whole discussion can be settled with a simple counterfactual. All the lefties need to do is provide just one example of a republican malefactor whose party wasn’t mentioned in the original news stories about his misbehavior. Burden of proof is actually on you, boys. Go to it.

  287. Ardsgaine – ahemmm, HE’S A HYPOCRITE!.

    There, I said it. Now can we get back to the actual topic here which is how the news media handles stuff like this?

  288. Ardsgaine

    The problem disappears with any browser other than IE, which makes me think it has to do with one of IE’s known layout bugs. Not sure who does Jeff’s layout, but whoever it is may want to start here. To solve in the short term, use Mozilla.

    As to the topic, you are equating marriage with sex, which is where your argument falls apart. In addition, I think the “problem” is far less party oriented than you are making it out to be. Which of the current crop of Dem presidential hopefuls are pro gay marriage?

  289. Why do the Moonbats get so upset when a Republican acts like a democrat?

  290. SarahW

    By soft pedal, I meant you described Craig’s behviour as “soliciting adult consensual sex”, as if that’s all there was to it.

    and several times I mentioned he did it in the wrong venue or are you unaware of people “soliciting an indecent act with a stranger” in a bar, over the ‘nets…hell, at a wedding reception..?

    YES venue is everything … the difference between the public and the private and that the general public has a right to use a public restroom with the expectation of NOT being solicited (for sex or money or cigarettes, etc)

    Craig was stupid and wrong. He should leave the Senate just on the plain stupidity charge that he didn’t even seek legal advice before pleading (on that grounds alone he may get a motion to withdraw granted).

    But is he a hypocrite? I don’t know because I don’t know his background enough to make a guess on whether or not he believed he was exempt from the rules he professed. So at most, I can say he has committed an immoral act for which he needs to make amends.

    Contrast that to Dems caught in the same manner who then REFUSE to give up their seats, or come back to run again (see Mel Reynolds…at least the voters were smarter in ’94)

    to quote Dennis Prager:

    If everyone who violates a standard he advocates is a hypocrite, the word is meaningless. And worse, it makes it impossible for just about anyone to advocate moral behavior.

    And I think that is part of the motivation of Leftists in their salacious revelry over this incident — they really are about destroying all standards of personal moral behavior.

  291. gahrie

    they are not upset…they are deliriously happy

    These are the same people who are estatic anytime a Republican or conservative is hospitalized, dies or has an attempt on their life.

    They are people of very little character…which is why they substitute politics for personal morality.

  292. The position of religious conservatives regarding gay marriage isn’t driven by an esoteric concern over the meaning of the word “marriage”. It is driven by the belief that homosexuality is sinful, and should not be condoned by the state.

    Is Larry Craig a “religious conservative?” Seriously, do you even know the answer to that question?

    Or is he just a “religious conservative” because there’s an “R” next to his name? See, that’s the problem with this whole discussion: the leftwats think R = “religious conservative.” LOL.

    Ted Haggert: big dumb hypocrite. Larry Craig: Eh, not so much. He looks to me to be just a plain ol’ economic/national security conservative, like most of us Republicans are.

  293. …and, what Darleen said in #291.

  294. Sigh. I know you went to Loyola, Jeff, but come on… you can still do better than this. In fact, you can prove over and over again that the press is making a big deal of some Republicans’ party affiliation and not Democrats’, and it still may not matter. Why? Context. (Didn’t you study lit? Jesus.)

    The congressman who punched a guy was a Dem. Worthy of mention, yes, but the punching had nothing to do with his party affiliation. When Larry Craig tries to hook up in a party bathroom, his party affiliation matters to the story. As a reporter, I have no problem telling you that if a Dem were caught doing the exact same thing — and he were not a hypocrite like Craig — I would mention his party affiliation in the standard way (Sen. John Doe, D-Idaho) and then move the hell on. It’s not germane to the story.

    Jesus, people — this is not that hard.

  295. Let’s just apply the John Edwards hypocrisy standard to gay Republicans.

    Charges that Edwards’s (or any — really every — Democrat’s) populist-sounding rhetoric is dissonant with his shockingly elitist lifestyle and the parodically capitalist-exploiter way he “earns” it are rebutted by reference to his supposedly pro-“working families” legislative record, or, at least, to his work for change (unspecified).

    So, the nearer a gay Republican comes in his political life to the stereotype of the Bible-banging anti-gay legislator — the more homo-oppressive his policy preferences, if enacted, would be — the less hypocritical he can be said to be. One free restroom blowjob for every vote for the FMA, say. Reference to the “homosexual lifestyle” in the Congressional Record = guilt-free skullfucking of one male Congressional page. Vote for an anti-sodomy law = we’ll overlook that child-porn-wallpapered Sadean ass-rape dungeon.

    “Intellectual incongruity” resolved.

  296. start here. To solve in the short term, use Mozilla.

    My heart sings when I see a link to PIE. Death to IE! :)

    /pie too

  297. Here’s a little parody about the power of the internet in fighting liberal media bias.

    http://cruxy.com/info/11244
    and here’s one for the last TNR scandal, while it’s semi-fresh in our memories:
    http://cruxy.com/info/10978

  298. Ever since American Tourister did the the “Gorilla Commercial” the racist rage over baggage handling has been building to an ugly crescendo. So Filner’s (D) shoving of an airport employee is really just a release of latent bigoted anger imprinted on his soul, passed down from generations of air travellers.

    Either that or he’s just a dick who thinks he’s better than everybody else.

  299. Oh, and — another commenter upthread mentioned a good analogy, a Dem belonging to a racist club. It’s a good analogy, and though I said before I’d only mention briefly a Dem’s party affiliation if they were caught like Craig was, I’d be sure as hell to stick the racist club up the hypocrite Dem’s craw. It really does work both ways, despite what people who’ve never worked in the media or talked to a reporter say.

  300. of mention, yes, but the punching had nothing to do with his party affiliation

    Wait, I thought Dems were the party of peace and non-violence?

    You mean public brawling is something they condone?

  301. ….which being a dick and thinking you’re better than everybody else has everything to do with being an elitist (D)ooshnozzle, ie John Kerry, Al Franken, Howard Dean, Billary, Schumer, Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, Waxman, Wilson, Plame, Plame Wilson, etc.

  302. By not resigning, Craig gives the story a much longer shelf life, which can’t be a good thing for gays, so how is that hypocritical? I’d say that the innuendo Craig elicits from the left and their ready correlation of homosexuality with “unfit for office” (“another reason not to vote Republican…”) has set back gay marriage enthusiasm, gay anything enthusiasm tremendously. Why? Craig’s married, he was screwing around in bathrooms. Does anyone think if Craig was married to a guy, this wouldn’t have happened? Unfit for office, unfit for marriage is the message that those who don’t appreciate the left’s nuance is getting loud and clear.

  303. BTW Alex

    Look at the coverage of all the “Dems gone Wild” links Karl provides… in those stories the “D” is curiously missing.

    Do you seriously think that if LA Mayor Villaraigosa was a Republican the LATimes wouldn’t be using “Republican” or “Conservative” as an adjective of Antonio at each mention of his name in the coverage???

  304. No matter what the press narrative is, I’m sick of seeing these stories. I hate to even remotely agree (to some extent) with lefties but republicans should do their very best to uphold the conservative values of the Republican party.

    Craig should resign because he’s an idiot not because he’s gay. Do you want someone with judgment that impaired to be making decisions on behalf of any state ni the union (except maybe California).

  305. Darleen, you may have made that distinction of venue, I saw you as glossing over it.
    So I am content to have misunderstood what seemed to me a too-sympathetic characterization of his activities.

    His decision not to challenge his charges was very calculated, of course, being guilty he had to imagine that challenging the charges would make him worse off that if he paid his fine quietly and went on his way. .

  306. Ardsgaine,

    The problem then becomes that civil society is impossible under your standard of hypocrisy. Have you ever had a speeding ticket? Do you think that the police officer who charged you, or the judge or magistrate who did or would have “judged” you ever had a speeding ticket? Therefore should we just do away with all driving regulations, and make the United States one continuous Autobahn?

    You see, the hypocrisy attaches when officer X or Judge Y speeds (obviously, not in the interest of performing their duties) and claims to be exempt from the speeding regulations, and then enforces them on the “other people.”

    If Larry Craig announced that he was in favor of a Constitutional Amendment outlawing any homosexual behavior except that of Senators from Idaho named Larry, then the hypocrisy label has meaning.

    This really is the adolescent rebellion culture of the Sixties coming back around over and over again – the standard bearers are imperfect, therefore the standards are wrong, and do not apply.

  307. Best line at Balloon Juice

    TR Says:

    “Go read Protein Wisdom. It will all make sense.”

    No it won’t. That site reads like Dylan Klebold’s journal.

  308. This really is the adolescent rebellion culture of the Sixties coming back around over and over again – the standard bearers are imperfect, therefore the standards are wrong, and do not apply.

    Actually…that’s a pretty standard adolescent tactic … Parent says “No, you can’t do that because …” and teen lashes “what makes you think YOU’re so perfect?”

    Unfortunately, what we have is a whole set of people whose political foundation is summed up by that arrested development line.

  309. and HPP shows up on cue to demonstrate the truth of what level of emotional and intellectual maturity is evident in the Left cult.

  310. “Believe it or not, I don’t keep track of where you teach…”

    Ummmmmm, surely that incoherent nutjob isn’t a teacher. Or there’s some students getting really, really cheated.

  311. On NPR this morning, talking about state-by-state obesity data, they edited in a comment by an “advocate” who described how intractable the obesity problem in Mississippi was, and helpfully pointed out that in Mississipi, “we have an overweight governor.”

  312. “Do you seriously think that if LA Mayor Villaraigosa was a Republican the LATimes wouldn’t be using “Republican” or “Conservative” as an adjective of Antonio at each mention of his name in the coverage???”

    I don’t know. I don’t work there. I would hope not, and based on my reading of them, I don’t think they would — unless it was relevant. If he had, for instance, been a “family values” crusader, by all means, mention the hell out of it; same for if he had been calling for Clinton’s impeachment, etc., etc., etc. Republican alone isn’t enough if we’re just talking about adultery, and Republican alone wouldn’t be enough if that Republican were actually somewhat moderate on the issue of gay rights. The hypocrisy threshold is higher than that. But once that threshold is crossed, by all means, mention Republican every other word. It’s not just good journalism, it’s our job: Your public servant (or candidate) is a hypocrite and you read us to get the news on that servant or candidate, then we better tell you about it.

  313. Oh, and — another commenter upthread mentioned a good analogy, a Dem belonging to a racist club. It’s a good analogy, and though I said before I’d only mention briefly a Dem’s party affiliation if they were caught like Craig was, I’d be sure as hell to stick the racist club up the hypocrite Dem’s craw. It really does work both ways, despite what people who’ve never worked in the media or talked to a reporter say.

    It’s only a good analogy if you buy into the stereotypes, that of the Democrat not being racists by the very nature of their being Democrats. It’s circular logic, and it once again favors the self view that many on the left have of themselves as the “good guys”.

  314. — All for a clap on the back from people who actually claim to believe that Michelle Malkin wants to murder Hispanics by firing buckshot the size of ping pong balls at them from her hate-clenched snapper.

    Technically, I believe that anything the size of a ping pong ball would be calssified as “grape shot”. And Ms Malkin certainly does give ’em a whiff o’ the grape from time to time.

  315. Jeff,

    Keep whining about the media you ridiculously loose pussy.

  316. “It’s only a good analogy if you buy into the stereotypes, that of the Democrat not being racists by the very nature of their being Democrats. It’s circular logic, and it once again favors the self view that many on the left have of themselves as the “good guys”.”

    No. It’s not about who they actually are, it’s about who they portray themselves as. For instance, I believe even the most conservative Republican congressmen are not homophobic — Santorum had an openly gay man on his staff, and by all indications didn’t bat an eye. But he certainly would like his base to believe he’s homophobic, and his actions are anti-gay. Similarly, the Democratic Party likes to portray itself as the party of anti-racism, and so if one of their legislators were to get caught attending a cross-burning, the hypocrisy charge comes into play.

  317. Your the kind of many man who hides behind the police because a woman threatened you.

    You fucking bitch.

  318. When Larry Craig tries to hook up in a party bathroom, his party affiliation matters to the story.

    Did I miss something here, or did you?

  319. olsenflizz@yahoo.com = r4d20

    Turns up on a bunch of Hillary Duff and Olsen Twins sites, along with Mahablog and Znet.

    Tell me, do Ms Duff and the Olsen twins realize you carry around such anger?

  320. clean up on aisle #318 … indecent troll droppings

  321. “Did I miss something here, or did you?”

    I haven’t had my coffee yet, clearly.

  322. Oh jeez, it must be internet hour at the ape house. r4d20 would like to buy a vowel, Pat.

  323. But he certainly would like his base to believe he’s homophobic, and his actions are anti-gay.

    Huh?

    This is where definitions matter … WHAT is your criteria for a “homophobic/anti-gay” base?

  324. But he certainly would like his base to believe he’s homophobic, and his actions are anti-gay. Similarly, the Democratic Party likes to portray itself as the party of anti-racism, and so if one of their legislators were to get caught attending a cross-burning, the hypocrisy charge comes into play.

    Again, stereotypes, and ones that while you may well “certainly believe” you offer nothing other than what you say each of the parties, or individuals within, like to portray themselves. According to you. It is circular logic, and I hope you can be honest enough with yourself to see it.

    Do you think Hillary will come out in favor of gay marriage? If not, shall we give her a pass because the Democrats make the claim that they are better on gay rights?

  325. Oh, I missed this all along. He’s from Idaho. I DA HO, get it?

    Plus he was in Minneapolis. Is anything illegal there?

  326. based on my reading of them, I don’t think they would

    Don’t know the Paper-trainer much, do you?

    BTW, Antonio did a lot of his campaigning as a loving, faithful family man (and the press kinda overlooked the two children he fathered outside that marriage)

    But y’know… He fancied himself on the fasttrack of CA Governorship and possibly the Presidency, and the LATimes wanted to pimp him for it.

  327. If this were 100 years ago and a leader of the Prohibition Party was found to be a chronic secret alcoholic the headline would have to read PROHIBITION PARTY LEADER FOUND TO BE A DRUNK. When a leading member of the GOP, a party that has ginned up it’s base by being anti-gay is outed as a closet queen who participated in that appeal to family value, it IS a major part of the news story. If you deny this then I guess you are in denial.

  328. “I think it’s disingenuous to argue that Craigs party affiliation isn’t an aspect of the story. Republicans are generally thought to be on the conservative side, and conservatives thought to generally hold to ideas of self-command, prudence, self-regulation; and conversely to argue against reckless and immoral conduct, whether that conduct is legal or illegal.”

    Yes, black-and-white caricatures of their political opponents are mighty conveeeeeenient for Big Media defending the party-anonymity of Dem pervs. “Hey, Dems never claim to have any moral standards like the Bible-humping GOP, so I’ll just leave the word ‘Democrat’ out!”

    As far as I’m concerned, all politicians are “morality” candidates, and therefore should be held to the same standards. Because I’m still waiting for the first Democrat to run as an anti-family, anti-prudence, pro-gay-restroom-sex-with-strangers candidate. That’d go over big.

    The simple, inarguable fact is this: Once a media outlet decides to report a story, the only unbiased thing to do, in order to avoid any claims against their treasured Journalistic Impartiality, is to report party (or philosophy) affiliation for every single politician/candidate, and to report it in the same volume and with the same placement (first graph, third graph, whatever). Or to report no party affiliation at all.

    Can there be any argument against that?

  329. I like this r4d20 chap. He calls people by their first name. Makes them feel important.

  330. Alex, I wasn’t trying to be a pedant. Sorry if it came across that way. It looked like you might have been proceeding from a different set of facts, which if they were somehow true would certainly shape your argument. I understand now it was a typo.

    But, then, how is Craig’s party ID relevant if it’s a “public bathroom” and not a “party bathroom” story?

  331. BTW – I just want to point out how delicious I find it that someone can believe that Santorum wants to appear homophobic by employing an openly gay man. Apparently, not only is the base homophobic, but we is dum as rocks too.

  332. Wow. True Conservative John Cole has his nuanced group of Juicers in quite the lather, doesn’t he.

    You can tell by their passion, which they try to get across by tossing off invective and cursing like Rosie O’Donnell getting fucked asswise by a camel.

    They are angry at the Man!

    It’s like they think by watching the Monterrey Pop Festival on Criterion DVD, they’re practically part of the Weather Underground.

    So cute. The RAGE. Like little fuzzy ducklings with nose piercings and anchor tats.

  333. “Again, stereotypes, and ones that while you may well “certainly believe” you offer nothing other than what you say each of the parties, or individuals within, like to portray themselves.”

    First of all, you really think that the Republicans aren’t trying to appeal to homophobia? This, um, isn’t a secret or anything… Second of all, I really don’t feel like revealing anything about myself or my job, but I have done reporting on this stuff before, and it’s high-level Republicans who’ve talked to me about Santorum.

    “Do you think Hillary will come out in favor of gay marriage? If not, shall we give her a pass because the Democrats make the claim that they are better on gay rights?”

    No and no. Again, don’t particularly feel like revealing myself here, but I’ve spanked her and the other Dem front-runners for their hypocrisy/pandering on gay marriage before, as any reporter covering them on the subject should.

  334. Bender’s got it. If it’s newsworthy and involves a politician, the party ID and State or District should always be included, and at the first mention of the politician’s name. Anything else strikes me as hard to defend.

  335. “Alex, I wasn’t trying to be a pedant. Sorry if it came across that way. It looked like you might have been proceeding from a different set of facts, which if they were somehow true would certainly shape your argument. I understand now it was a typo.”

    It’s cool, I thought it was funny, and I really am slightly slow this morning.

    “But, then, how is Craig’s party ID relevant if it’s a “public bathroom” and not a “party bathroom” story?”

    Because his party has, over the past decade, used the issue of gay rights to win elections.

  336. “BTW – I just want to point out how delicious I find it that someone can believe that Santorum wants to appear homophobic by employing an openly gay man. Apparently, not only is the base homophobic, but we is dum as rocks too.”

    That’s not what I meant. Santorum appears homophobic by, for instance, making his “man-on-dog” comments. But I’d argue that, given the fact that one of his top advisers was openly gay and he knew it (though “openly” applies to certain circles in Washington, not to home state voters) Santorum is probably not as homophobic as he’d like people to believe.

  337. “True Conservative John Cole has his nuanced group of Juicers in quite the lather, doesn’t he.”

    True, the Baboon Juicers are generally retarded, but I think these imported retards come from a different (and deeper) retard-hole. Like the Hillary Duff-fancier (ouch, how embarrassing!) — he a different brand of retard than Cole’s.

  338. I totally agree with the larger point about the media’s disparity in revealing party affiliation, but I agree with SarahW that Senator Craig’s case seems like an absolutely awful example for making that point. Denying marriage or any other arrangements with equivilant benefits between homosexuals is part of the GOP’s national platform. It’s just ridiculous to say that Craig’s party affiliation isn’t relevant to this story.

    The posts Jeff and many others had on the differences in the way the Foley and Jefferson cases were covered made a much better case. I mean, both parties are against grown men talking dirty with underage boys and both parties are totally in favor of congressional corruption so the party affiliations were irrelevant to either story.

  339. “First of all, you really think that the Republicans aren’t trying to appeal to homophobia? This, um, isn’t a secret or anything…”

    Not at DU and Kos, it’s not!

  340. First of all, you really think that the Republicans aren’t trying to appeal to homophobia?

    The Republicans?” No. And is appealing to it better or worse than calculating over how much to accommodate it?

  341. Alex – The redeeming aspect of your comments is that you are throwing your pwersonal bias out there for all to see. Thank you.

  342. Because his party has, over the past decade, used the issue of gay rights to win elections.

    Supporting same sex marriage and supporting “gay rights” are not the same thing. You can support gay rights without supporting same sex marriage. With the exception of fringe players like Fred Phelps (a Dem), you don’t really find many openly homophobic political figures these days.

    Much of what people claim is a Republican “anti-gay” agenda is based around a single issue — same sex marriage. Remind me again, though: where did Bill and Hillary stand on that?

    Then there’s the religious component. Believers hate the sin but love the sinner. This is part of their belief system. Not quite the same as dropping walls on them, though.

    And as I pointed out upthread, one of the real centers of anti-gay culture rests in the Democratic camp, namely, with the black constituency.

    A cultural thing, I guess. Like dog fighting. To be forgiven in the name of tolerance, etc.

  343. “Denying marriage or any other arrangements with equivilant benefits between homosexuals is part of the GOP’s national platform. It’s just ridiculous to say that Craig’s party affiliation isn’t relevant to this story.”

    For the 50th time this thread (let’s keep the words small for the visitors).

    Was he marrying the guy in the next stall? Was the officiant next to the paper towels? If so, POSSIBLE hypocrisy (but only if Craig endorsed the party policy against gay marriage — I don’t know that).

    Otherwise, barring a gay marriage in the can, it’s faulty reasoning on your part.

  344. “In order to avoid any claims against their treasured Journalistic Impartiality, is to report party (or philosophy) affiliation for every single politician/candidate, and to report it in the same volume and with the same placement (first graph, third graph, whatever). Or to report no party affiliation at all.”

    Nope, no argument. I would think Party affiliation ( or lack of it) of an elected official or candidate for office is always a detail of interest appropriate for reporting, in any story about the official or candidate.

    In Craig’s case, though, I argue there is a man-bites-dog aspect that adds a dramatic twist. Straight laced-type, a cool, cool considerate Republican man goes wild. But I think Senator caught cruising in toilet is worthy of a (D-Virginia) snippet, too. Even if the D is “out”.

  345. Comment by Alex on 8/28 @ 9:06 am #

    “Santorum is probably not as homophobic as he’d like people to believe.”

    You keep using that word, but I don’t think it means what you think it means.

  346. Santorum appears homophobic by, for instance, making his “man-on-dog” comments.

    Oh Jaysus… just keep repeating a meme and it becomes true

    from the same crowd that knots their knickers when Repub’s mock Gore’s internet invention claims … and YES we do know he didn’t exactly say he ‘invented’ it, but we are mocking he self-puffery … are you mocking Santorum or are you serious with the claim?

  347. First of all, you really think that the Republicans aren’t trying to appeal to homophobia? This, um, isn’t a secret or anything… Second of all, I really don’t feel like revealing anything about myself or my job, but I have done reporting on this stuff before, and it’s high-level Republicans who’ve talked to me about Santorum.

    First, let me just state that while we are certainly going to disagree on these things, I find your ability to argue the issues refreshing. Second, I think the way you conflate support for the FMA as an act of homophobia completely and totally dishonest. If you really are as “in the loop” as you claim to be, then you know how the country feels about this issue. It isn’t split along party lines, as you are trying to make it out to be.

    No and no. Again, don’t particularly feel like revealing myself here, but I’ve spanked her and the other Dem front-runners for their hypocrisy/pandering on gay marriage before, as any reporter covering them on the subject should.

    But they won’t, will they? Which leads us right back to the topic of this post.

    For the record, I am against the FMA, and am fine with individual states determining for themselves what constitutes the legal definition of marriage. I think the an opportunity for equality under the law has been missed by not being willing to compromise on civil unions. I do not think that, by and large, the American people are bigoted, but I do believe that they do not want to change the definition of the world marriage.

  348. world being idiot speak for word.

  349. First of all, you really think that the Republicans aren’t trying to appeal to homophobia?

    Certainly less than Democrats are.

    I mean, you haven’t seen Republicans declaring people unfit for office based on their sexual orientation. And it wasn’t a Republican who put together a gay-bashing ad to attack a Democrat.

    And I haven’t seen Republicans attacking Barney Frank for being gay (running a prostitution ring from his basement, sure). Or claiming that reporters are unreliable simply because they’re gay.

    It’s odd, though, how a stance of “we’re not going to let courts change society by applying this particular term in a way outside its definition” while leaving other legal avenues open, and even leaving the question open to representatives and popular ballot is “homophobia”, but attacking people on the basis of their orientation isn’t.

    (And I’m not defending Craig at all. I think he’s an idiot at the least, and doesn’t deserve any position of trust.)

  350. ““The Republicans?” No. And is appealing to it better or worse than calculating over how much to accommodate it?”

    I guess I was imprecise in my word choice, but I don’t think I’m being that imprecise… there’s a reason there were anti-gay voter referendums on the ballot in key swing states in 2004, and there’s a reason the FMA keeps being brought up. It’s because the political minds inside the party realize they have a winning issue on their hands.

    As for whether appealing to it is better or worse than accommodating, no, I don’t think it is — but what I’m talking about is hypocrisy, which is separate from better or worse.

    “Alex – The redeeming aspect of your comments is that you are throwing your pwersonal bias out there for all to see. Thank you.”

    Oh, anytime. And which bias is that? I’m curious.

  351. Alex —

    If we’re going to have a conversation, it helps not to be talking past each other.

    So please, define what you mean when you say “anti-gay”. What are the parameters of what you consider to be an “anti-gay” amendment, etc.

    Most of the commenters here, for instance, or either pro-same sex marriage (I’m not), or pro-civil unions (I am).

    So it would help considerably were you to define your terms: anti-gay, homophobic, etc.

    Common ground from which to proceed, and all that.

  352. Alex is performing a service here. We should thank him for the object lesson he provides.

  353. I know the conversation has shifted directions a bit, but (as I commented at the Pub) here’s my favorite example of hidden party affiliation. Back in January, a S.D. state senator was accused of fondling a male page. In this story his party affilition (guess which one!) appears in the 16th of 16 paragraphs.

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8MSIME80&show_article=1

  354. homophobic (adj.) scared of The Gay
    anti-gay (adj.) finds Elton John overrated, and thinks that high, lispy way they talk is a bit “look at me!” (I mean, we get it — you like to suck a dick, fine, but why must you talk like a cartoon version of Margaret Dumont?)

  355. “Extend an olive branch to Democrats and they bite your hand off.”
    -Ann Coulter

  356. “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.”
    -Ann Coulter

  357. “Second, I think the way you conflate support for the FMA as an act of homophobia completely and totally dishonest. If you really are as “in the loop” as you claim to be, then you know how the country feels about this issue. It isn’t split along party lines, as you are trying to make it out to be.”

    You’re right — about 38 percent of the country says they won’t vote for a prez candidate who supports same-sex marriage. But that’s public support, not support from the parties, which is generally split among party lines. And just because something’s popular doesn’t mean it’s not homophobic or racist or anti-Semitic or whatever the case may be.

    “If we’re going to have a conversation, it helps not to be talking past each other.

    So please, define what you mean when you say “anti-gay”. What are the parameters of what you consider to be an “anti-gay” amendment, etc.

    Most of the commenters here, for instance, or either pro-same sex marriage (I’m not), or pro-civil unions (I am).

    So it would help considerably were you to define your terms: anti-gay, homophobic, etc.

    Common ground from which to proceed, and all that.”

    Jeff — fair point, and I’ll admit that I’m often ticked at people like the HRC who assume their agenda is the agenda of their interest group, and that no one can differ. For me, in this instance, it’s really about intent, motive and the public face: your commenters may disagree, but it’s pretty clear to most people who follow politics (and frankly, I’m shocked to find people who don’t think it’s clear) that the Republicans’ various actions and words on the subject of gay people and rights for gay people are aimed at homophobic people, or at the very least people disinclined to think favorably about gay people and gay rights. My definition, then, is really about who the measures are aimed at and why.

    And anticipating the response — yes, the Dems are accommodating of this. But there’s a difference between the parties; the Republicans are actively trying to use homophobia to their advantage, while the Democrats are generally trying to not get burned by it. That makes them cold, callous, calculating and hypocritical on a certain level (what I was talking about earlier in re. Clinton supporting civil unions and not marriage — Obama and Edwards were actually worse), but one different from the level that makes Craig’s party affiliation relevant to this story.

  358. The tactic I love in the reactionary left press is to label a conservative think tank as right-wing, but if they use a label like “non-profit organization”, it’s 1,000% guaranteed that it’s a collection of leftist barking moonbats.

  359. This whole Craig story is just a ploy to keep us from focusing on the progress in Iraq.

  360. I guess I was imprecise in my word choice, but I don’t think I’m being that imprecise… there’s a reason there were anti-gay voter referendums on the ballot in key swing states in 2004, and there’s a reason the FMA keeps being brought up. It’s because the political minds inside the party realize they have a winning issue on their hands.

    Has anyone ever done a correlative study to find out how this works? I mean, the Reps picked up 3 house seats in 2004. Of the races they won (swing state or otherwise), how many had an FMA type issue on the ballot?

    I find it curious, because Republicans had a 3% population disadvantage in 2004. While Conservatives outnumber liberals by about 2 to 1, you would still need a large chunk of the “moderate” vote to get one of these to pass.

    Anyway, It would be cool to see an analysis of each of the elections in which that issue appeared on the ballot.

  361. Alex, the Left, by that same definition, panders to truthers and anti-Semites, as well as those soft bigots who just think brown folk need a dictator to keep them in line.

  362. Alex – The bias is evident. Those that have differing views on same sex marriage are anti-gay, homophobic, and the Republican party activelt appeals to bigots. You are no different than Caric, you just have better manners.

  363. And just because something’s popular doesn’t mean it’s not homophobic or racist or anti-Semitic or whatever the case may be.

    True, but it also doesn’t mean it is. According to the latest CNN poll, the no on gay marriage is running close to 2 to 1 against. However, if you read the rest of the polls on the page, it becomes clear that this is not a country that hates them some gays. So, if both things are true, then opposition to gay marriage must be something other than homophobia.

  364. “Has anyone ever done a correlative study to find out how this works? I mean, the Reps picked up 3 house seats in 2004. Of the races they won (swing state or otherwise), how many had an FMA type issue on the ballot? …

    Anyway, It would be cool to see an analysis of each of the elections in which that issue appeared on the ballot.”

    I’m pretty sure studies have been done, yes. I’m already way behind at work today, or I’d try to pull them up. But it wasn’t about Congressional elections; the referenda were in states that mattered to the presidential election, like Ohio, and were aimed at energizing evangelical voters, who have been key to Bush’s electoral success.

  365. Alex, you think that Republicans are prejudiced.

    You’re wrong.

    Leftist are the haters in the American political system.

    But you keep chanting your mantra and remember, “Oceania Has Always Been At War With Eastasia!”

  366. That being, the sample polled does not favor gay marriage by a roughly 2 to 1 margin. I miss preview.

  367. Too many layers here. Can we just cut the crap? Fairly or unfairly, the Republican party is perceived a particular way. It makes a story like Craig’s pop. I don’t really see the injustice, except to the extent Dems are protected from their indiscretions by the press.

    I say, the poor man is troubled – he has been for most of his life – and needs a rest from his duties. I don’t hate him, or begrudge him his desires, so long as he keeps them orderly and discreet, but I don’t want him making law for the nation, either.

  368. I don’t really see the injustice, except to the extent Dems are protected from their indiscretions by the press.

    Then you do really see the injustice.

  369. “and were aimed at energizing evangelical voters, who have been key to Bush’s electoral success”

    I think that one of the post-election myths that Time debunked after the 2004 election (I had that old article linked but now it’s dead).

    Turns out, the evangelical and pro-life turnouts were about the same in 2000 and 2004 as they were in 1996 and 2006, and I don’t recall a President Dole, or a current Republican majority.

    But it’s much more fun for the media to pretend that Bush got into office because of tongue-speakers and snake-handlers and whatnot.

  370. “However, if you read the rest of the polls on the page, it becomes clear that this is not a country that hates them some gays. So, if both things are true, then opposition to gay marriage must be something other than homophobia.”

    Absolutely right. But that doesn’t mean that Republicans aren’t trying to appeal to homophobia. Both can be true.

  371. “Turns out, the evangelical and pro-life turnouts were about the same in 2000 and 2004 as they were in 1996 and 2006, and I don’t recall a President Dole, or a current Republican majority.

    But it’s much more fun for the media to pretend that Bush got into office because of tongue-speakers and snake-handlers and whatnot.”

    See, it’s funny, I agree with you that the meme has been overblown, and it’s certainly true that the number of people who turned out to vote on “values” didn’t increase. But I didn’t say that. All I said was that evangelicals were key to Bush’s electoral success, and considering that evangelicals made up 40% of his voters in 04, I don’t see how that’s remotely arguable. (And that number doesn’t even get into evangelicals’ and mega-churches’ impact as the foot soldiers of the party, the ones doing the work to drive turnout.)

  372. All right, who’s got his elbow on the blurb shuffler?

    “…the best blog in the world is now back after a lengthy hiatus”
    John Cole, Balloon-Juice.com

    All this needs is an ironic Turing word. Oh well.

  373. Absolutely right. But that doesn’t mean that Republicans aren’t trying to appeal to homophobia. Both can be true.

    Yes it can. However, it should then follow that the Republicans would do worse at the polls because the American people don’t agree. If I remember correctly, you were asserting that the “use of homophobia” actually helped. It would seem we might be getting close to the classic doublethink moment here.

  374. Fairly or unfairly, the Republican party is perceived a particular way. It makes a story like Craig’s pop.

    Like how a story of a Democrat’s fraud and racketeering would “pop,” since they’re the party that’s for the little guy and against greed? Only…the media didn’t make note of the (D) much in those cases, as noted in many of the 20-odd examples linked. Funny, that.

    I don’t really see the injustice, except to the extent Dems are protected from their indiscretions by the press.

    Um. Yeah. Except for that.

  375. I looked up hypocrisy, and this is the definition I found:

    hy·poc·ri·sy – noun, plural -sies. 1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess. 2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

    I don’t see anything in there about believing that the rules don’t apply to oneself. What I see certainly applies to Craig, and voting for the gay marriage ban was part of his pretense.

    “the standard bearers are imperfect, therefore the standards are wrong, and do not apply.”

    I have said no such thing. I am not arguing against morality. I am arguing against an arbitrary set of pronouncements that have nothing to do with morality, because they have nothing to do with reason or living a good life.

  376. It’s nice to see that the centrist talking points of Kos have achieved broader distribution this morning. The moronic convergence of fiercely independent thinking liberal views has certainly got me thinking. I may need to add some stickers to my personal cardboard cutout to reflect the prevailing view of conservatives by the nonlockstep left on display in this thread. I certainly can’t parade around as Version 2.2 anymore.

    Thank you for helping me to see the light Alex et. al. I’ll try to hew more closely to your view of how conservatives should think in the future. After all, we can’t have any human traits or expect our politicians to have any either. Adieu, I must work on my cardboard.

  377. What I think we should take away from this thread is the sheer number of leftwingers who are unable to say, simply and categorically, that the standards for reporting on any of these kinds of incidents should be the same.

    It’s like they are now requesting reputational affirmative action for Democrats.

    Disappointing, more than anything else.

  378. It should be understood that, as a member of our media overlords, Alex is formally charged with subjectively determining which news stories merit mention of party attachments. We yokels in flyover country certainly are too thick to sort it all out on our own.

  379. Ardsie – read the upthread Prager quote on hypocrisy, and explain where it is wrong. If it’s not, you most certainly are. As usual.

  380. I actually think Alex is being very reasonable, stubborn, but reasonable, so I’m not sure he/she deserves any scorn or labeling. IMHO.

  381. Wingers hate them teh ghey, according to Alex, and he should know since he and his fellow travelers have been actively complicit in pushing this meme.

  382. I’m no leftwinger, but since I’ve chosen to talk about the side of the issue that most of you don’t want to talk about, I will go ahead and say, categorically, that the media reporting of scandals is biased against Republicans, and they should stop omitting the party affiliation of Democrats when reporting on their peccadilloes.

  383. evangelicals made up 40% of his voters in 04

    In that case, I suspect that what a lot of people, including you Alex, think “evangelicals” means, isn’t really what it means. If “evangelicals” really make up essentially 20% of the electorate, that suggests they’re a bit more mainstream than that segment is normally portrayed.

  384. “Then you do really see the injustice”

    Oh! GOBSMACKED, in a most gentlemen-like manner.
    Well, I suppose I do get the point then.

    On reflection though, don’t you think if ol’ Barney Frank himself had been collared trolling the airport can for sweet release with a willing tryster, that his arrest would have made the papers, and that his party would have been mentioned?

    I occurs to me that whenever a politician of whatever persuasion, does one of two things, his party affiliation will make the papers, because it heightens the drama. First, he does something bad that fits preconceived notions or stereoptypes of bad things people of his ilk will do – Or second, he does exactly the opposite of what his party says is smart and cool.

    Democrats do get their parties mentioned when they act up, if they meet either that criteria for delicious story-punching irony, or “lives-down-to-expectations” goodness.

    John Edwards sharks Katrina Victims – STORY! Man with common touch, touches the commoners.
    Barney Frank, caught in a Craig-type situation, would probably generate a lot of “Well, what did you expect” headlines, with sly references to his party. News readers would have that “known PERVY DEMOCRAT” snark in their voice as they announced the headlines. Am I fantasizing, or don’t you think this is true.

  385. “What I think we should take away from this thread is the sheer number of leftwingers who are unable to say, simply and categorically, that the standards for reporting on any of these kinds of incidents should be the same.”

    I’ll say it. All hatahs involved in gay scandals should have party affiliation attached. And lots of follow on stories about their stance on people who catch the gay. And some on their more ridiculous hatah supporters too. Categorically regardless of party affiliation.

  386. ****All I said was that evangelicals were key to Bush’s electoral success, and considering that evangelicals made up 40% of his voters in 04, I don’t see how that’s remotely arguable.****

    “I will bring my faith with me to the White House and it will guide me.” – John F. Kerry, Oct. 20, Xenia, Ohio

    More:
    http://powerlineblog.com/archives/KerryChurch3.jpg
    Link
    Another

    Dems court the evangelicals just as much. It’s just that when they fail to garner their votes, they decide to smear them and use as a strawman for their losses (see: Christianists). And then, they get mad when folks align the GOP with God (go figure).

    If it appeases one’s conscience to say that Karl Rove made all those black people in swing states go vote against gay marriage right before voting for John Kerry (look at the numbers, if you doubt me) then…….whatever makes you sleep better at night.

  387. “I actually think Alex is being very reasonable, stubborn, but reasonable, so I’m not sure he/she deserves any scorn or labeling. IMHO.”

    Thanks, and same to you — it’s why I’ve appreciated talking with you, but have been ignoring some. Which brings me to:

    “However, it should then follow that the Republicans would do worse at the polls because the American people don’t agree. If I remember correctly, you were asserting that the “use of homophobia” actually helped. It would seem we might be getting close to the classic doublethink moment here.”

    There are a couple things going on here. First, there is some amount of the opposition to same-sex marriage that comes out of homophobia, even if the country itself is not homophobic. Second, the country may not be generally homophobic, but I would argue, many people are homophobic when it comes to this issue, even if only on a subconscious level. If you look at psych studies of voter behavior and beliefs, you find that a lot of it is motivated by leaders. So on one side of this debate are leaders a lot of people look up to — political leaders, religious leaders, and so on — telling voters that gays will ruin marriage for everyone else, and that there’s a slippery, decadent slope at work here. In the middle are the mainstream Democrats, many of whom have never met a core belief they’re not willing to throw over for a few votes. And on the other side are… Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. It’s a chicken and egg thing; the American public has become much more accepting of gays in recent years, but hasn’t yet moved on marriage, and because they won’t move on marriage, the Dems won’t support marriage. Because the Dems don’t support marriage, voters don’t move on marriage. And the Dems’ silence gives voters license to indulge their own inner homophobia or to internalize the homophobia they hear from people they look up to.

    “What I think we should take away from this thread is the sheer number of leftwingers who are unable to say, simply and categorically, that the standards for reporting on any of these kinds of incidents should be the same.”

    I don’t know why I bother, since you clearly don’t care to listen, but I know that for me personally you just argued the exact opposite of what I’m saying, which boils down to: if hypocrisy is involved in a story, no matter what the story’s about or the party involved, then reporters should point the hypocrisy out. The standard for both parties is exactly the same.

  388. “In that case, I suspect that what a lot of people, including you Alex, think “evangelicals” means, isn’t really what it means. If “evangelicals” really make up essentially 20% of the electorate, that suggests they’re a bit more mainstream than that segment is normally portrayed.”

    I don’t recall what the definition of evangelical being used here is, but it’s not mine, it’s Pew’s, and that’s what I’m going off of.

    As for how mainstream they are, remember that the stat I gave you doesn’t really make them 20% of the electorate, just 20% of turnout, and they’re a good-turnout crowd. That said, though, yes, evangelicals are mainstream, as evangelical Christianity has essentially crowded out “Main Street” Christianity in this country of late. I don’t totally disagree that their views are presented as weird in the media sometimes, though that’s a whole separate discussion, but I do think that they are presented as mainstream. The media has a reflexive tick of referring to the heartland as mainstream America.

  389. And the Dems’ silence gives voters license to indulge their own inner homophobia or to internalize the homophobia they hear from people they look up to.

    How about an alternative assumption: perhaps people have this crazy notion that a marriage is comprised with a man and a woman? Can one have this admittedly RADICAL point of view and be able to withstand the thought of burning gays at the stake?

  390. Kyle- You might try proving Prager right rather than demanding that I prove him wrong, but here goes. First, if everyone in the world violates their moral code, that doesn’t prove there’s no such thing as hypocrisy, it just means that everyone is guilty of it. If universal guilt makes an accusation meaningless, then the Christian conception of sin is in deep doo-doo.

    Second, how does Prager know, a priori, that everyone is guilty of violating their moral code. It sounds like he has already applied the doctrine of original sin to us, and declared it impossible for a human to live without sin.

    Third, there is a difference between an occasional slip, and an entire life lived as a lie. It is the pattern of behavior that pins the label on a person. One lie doesn’t make a liar, one wrong act doesn’t make one immoral, and one hypocritical act doesn’t make one a hypocrite.

    Craig is a homosexual, yet he denies it and votes against the interests of homosexuals who want to be honest about their lives. By signing on to the fundamentalist attitude towards homosexuality, he condemns himself, and would condemn other homosexuals, to a life spent mouthing lies in public, while pursuing guilt-ridden, furtive sexual encounters in the dark recesses of society; a life of hypocrisy.

  391. by firing buckshot the size of ping pong balls at them from her hate-clenched snapper

    Maybe I am reading too much into this but is this a thinly-veiled allusion to the Asian girl ping pong ball shows that someone made in reference to Malkin that threw her into a rage a year or so ago?

  392. I think that most of the regulars here would agree to the following: if you are ever going to identify politicians by their party, you should do so in the same manner for each party. I am in favor of always identifying them within the first paragraph.

    If you are going to identify an organization as a “conservative think tank,” then you should always identify their counterpart as a “liberal think tank,” or whatever word you want to use for them.

    All we want is equal reporting of party affiliation, all the time, no matter what the content of the story or the alleged offense.

    It isn’t that difficult, people.

  393. As for how mainstream they are, remember that the stat I gave you doesn’t really make them 20% of the electorate, just 20% of turnout

    Fair enough, but I think my point holds.

    evangelical Christianity has essentially crowded out “Main Street” Christianity in this country of late

    […]

    The media has a reflexive tick of referring to the heartland as mainstream America.

    Those are a pair of very interesting sentences, since they seem to suggest that you don’t think the “heartland” is “mainstream.”

  394. If “evangelicals” really make up essentially 20% of the electorate, that suggests they’re a bit more mainstream than that segment is normally portrayed.

    McG, while Alex overstates the %ages (and we’re dealing with those oh-so-reliable exit polls and self-IDing here, so take it for what it’s worth), I’ll summarize the left’s attitudes as to what an “Evangelical” is:

    The 21 million of them that voted for Bush (about a third of his votes) are slackjawed, ripped-overalls-wearing hayseeds who hate sex (especially the gay kind) and Hollywood.

    The 6 million of them that voted for Kerry are enlightened, educated citydwellers with deeply-held beliefs.

    I think what most Democrats think of when they think of “Evangelicals” is the category described in exit polls as “White/Protestant/Conservative/Attends church once a week.” They made up about 15% of the Bush vote. But they control everything in the White House, don’t you know?

    And again, these same people voted in approximately the same numbers since at least 1996, so if “the missing 4 million” evangelicals were the intended targets of Rove’s Dirty Trick Anti-Gay Ballot Initiatives, then he failed, even in the years Republicans won.

  395. cranky-d – It is difficult, apparently, as Alex indicates that should not be the case.

    Personally, I like that fact that he can state that people will indulge their inner homophobe, and think that does not represent a bias on his part.

    As an example of the media, he could demonstrate less ability at introspection if he tried.

  396. “Third, there is a difference between an occasional slip, and an entire life lived as a lie”

    Which completely undermines your attempted dismissal of Prager’s idea. But I do agree with you on this point. And I would guess – though it’s just a guess – that this sort of behavior (Craig’s) is not of the type that is likely to be a one-time boo boo.

  397. There are a couple things going on here….

    I’ll try to break this one down in a little more detail in a bit, maybe, but it kind of reads like “If it wasn’t for those damn homophobic leaders, gays would be getting married everywhere” at first glance. Which I am not sure follows, logically.

    But then, since we come at it from completely opposite starting points, I can see how that would be. My starting point is that the American people, regardless of ideological underpinnings, are basically good people who just do not want to change the definition of the word marriage and not because they hate “the gay”.

  398. 396 comment; you really hit a nerve there.

  399. “cranky-d – It is difficult, apparently, as Alex indicates that should not be the case.”

    Bzzzzt. Try again. I specifically said that I would identify a Dem in the same situation as Craig; I just wouldn’t make it a major element of my story. Strawmen sure are fun, though.

  400. “if hypocrisy is involved in a story, no matter what the story’s about or the party involved, then reporters should point the hypocrisy out. The standard for both parties is exactly the same.”

    Any time there’s a story involving a politician, whether positive or negative, his party affiliation should be included. Any other litmus test invites bias. I’m not proposing we make it a law. I am just saying it should be the gold standard for any newspaper that cares about objectivity.

  401. if hypocrisy is involved in a story, no matter what the story’s about or the party involved, then reporters should point the hypocrisy out. The standard for both parties is exactly the same.

    Gosh, I wonder who gets to decide “if hypocrisy is involved?” Yeah, that’s a much better standard than “treat everybody the same.”

    Progressive, my ass.

  402. “I’ll try to break this one down in a little more detail in a bit, maybe, but it kind of reads like “If it wasn’t for those damn homophobic leaders, gays would be getting married everywhere” at first glance. Which I am not sure follows, logically.”

    Nope. It’s actually “If it weren’t for the fact that the Democrats haven’t found a spine in 50 years, and care about little but votes, gays would be getting married everywhere.”

    And yet I’m a crazy, rabid left-winger!

  403. “Which completely undermines your attempted dismissal of Prager’s idea.”

    I’m getting only a snippet from him, so maybe we’re much closer on the issue than I know.

    And I would guess – though it’s just a guess – that this sort of behavior (Craig’s) is not of the type that is likely to be a one-time boo boo.”

    Yeah, I’m making that assumption, but it doesn’t seem like much of a stretch.

  404. Craig is a homosexual, yet he denies it and votes against the interests of homosexuals who want to be honest about their lives. By signing on to the fundamentalist attitude towards homosexuality, he condemns himself, and would condemn other homosexuals, to a life spent mouthing lies in public, while pursuing guilt-ridden, furtive sexual encounters in the dark recesses of society; a life of hypocrisy.

    Oh, come on now. This is Drama Queen (npi) stuff. Craig’s vote — and all the votes against gay marriage combined — don’t condemn anybody to furtive sexual encounters and a life of hypocrisy. News Flash: Even some straight married people seek furtive sexual encounters!

  405. I specifically said that I would identify a Dem in the same situation as Craig; I just wouldn’t make it a major element of my story.

    Why not make it independent from the situation and always immediately identify party affiliation no matter what? That’s what I advocated. The fact that you “wouldn’t make it a major element” of the story just proves JD’s point, since party affiliation was made a major element of the story in this case. Which, of course, was the whole point of this post in the first place.

  406. Maybe I am reading too much into this but is this a thinly-veiled allusion to the Asian girl ping pong ball shows that someone made in reference to Malkin that threw her into a rage a year or so ago?

    With apologizes to Benjamin Braddock, oh no, it’s fully baked.

  407. “Craig’s vote — and all the votes against gay marriage combined”

    Reread what I said, please: “By signing on to the fundamentalist attitude towards homosexuality, he condemns himself,” etc. It is the fundamentalist attitude towards homosexuality that is driving the whole debate. That, and the fear of being labeled a homosexual if one supports homosexual rights, as you not so subtly try to do to me with your drama queen reference.

  408. Reread what I said, please: “By signing on to the fundamentalist attitude towards homosexuality, he condemns himself,” etc. It is the fundamentalist attitude towards homosexuality that is driving the whole debate.

    Welllll, technically, that sentence doesn’t blame the attitudes, it blames Craig (“he condemns himself”), which I think is a little overreaching… but whatever.

    So what is the “fundamentalist attitude,” anyway, and how did Craig sign himself on to it? Are we talking Middle East fundamentalist attitude (because that’s fundamental, brother), or just an majority-of-Americans fundamentalist attitude? And what kind of attitude do you think would not “condemn” gays to lies and furtive sex? Because if it’s the same attitude we have toward heterosexual sex, that doesn’t work, either.

  409. It’s a common trend in The Netherlands too. This story was reported like this: “a prominent member of conservative president Bush’s party has been..” etcetera etcetera. I’ve seen several variations to this theme; each time, there was a specific reference to “the conservative president Bush” in the opening sentence or paragraph.

  410. This is one of those topics I really like to hear cynn’s take on. Ric’s awol too. And our new friend Gabriel. Just saying. Not taking attendance or anything.

  411. Second, the country may not be generally homophobic, but I would argue, many people are homophobic when it comes to this issue, even if only on a subconscious level.

    Oh for fuck’s sake.

    Stop trying to read minds.

  412. Nope. It’s actually “If it weren’t for the fact that the Democrats haven’t found a spine in 50 years, and care about little but votes, gays would be getting married everywhere.”

    Again, I’m not sure this follows. If people look to leadership to determine how to react to an issue, then yes, you are probably right. If, on, the other hand, people formulate their own opinions on an issue independent of what the leadership says then…

    Was MLK the driver of the social change, or was he the messenger (the public face) that society at large wanted the change?

  413. Hey Karl- if you are out there — there are a bunch more “name the party” links in your comments here

    http://proteinwisdom.com/pub/?p=182

  414. Alex – This is just typical Leftist claptrap. You claim to be concerned about the hypocrisy, and then claim dominion over defining who is labeled a hypocrite. Face it, we all aren’t bigots and homophobes like you wish and expect us to be.

  415. Second, the country may not be generally homophobic, but I would argue, many people are homophobic when it comes to this issue, even if only on a subconscious level.

    Oh for fuck’s sake.

    Stop trying to read minds.

    Ditto! And while you’re at it stop trying to psychoanalyze people you don’t know for their views. Many of us can disagree with gay issues on moral and policy grounds without being burdened with a psychological condition. “Homophobe” “Islamophobe”, just get outta here with that crap. (Unless I pay you $120/hour to listen to my hopes and dreams. Even then you’re probably not qualified to issue a meaningful diagnosis.)

    What is it these days with the left and their amateur psychological profiling of dissenting voices? Geez are they nostalgic for the Lubyanka and a pastoral mental health gulag in Siberia? I find both of those terms way more offensive than “Christofascist” BTW.

  416. BJ – Either homophobic, or indulgin our inner homophobes. Either way, BS.

  417. JD: It offends me because it falls into one of two categories:

    1) Person using the expression is too intellectually lazy to argue facts and policy so they just assume their opposite has an “irrational fear” of said victim group, resulting in quick and easy justification. Without, you know, justification based upon facts and argument.

    2) Said person knows that this is BS and really doesn’t care because not only is it quick and easy the “diagnosis” provides a framework for cheapening the opposing person’s views. Who could possibly take seriously anybody who has an irrational and uncontrollable fear of Gays or Muslims? It is a deliberate attempt to frame the argument as “sane” vs. “troubled” and ticks me off to no end.

    However, I could be a “phobophobe” ya know! Let’s start a new instalanch by coming up with convenient “phobias” for strategic policy positions. What fun!!!

    We should be fighting tooth and nail the use of those terms in any discussion of thoseand any issues.

  418. Here’s the article I think Becky was wanting, Drudge has it up now –

    I thought this sentence kind of curious:

    But in addition to the delayed reporting on the arrest is the way news outlets responded to last year’s blogger allegations.

  419. 418 comments!? Is that, like, a record? Who’d a thunk so many people would be interested in one weary little geek courting the spanster in public places?

    Oh wait, it’s about the HYPOCRISY, like that democratic champion of the peepul shoving some poor public employee out of the way with a ‘Don’t You Know Who I Am’. Now I get it.

  420. courting the spanster?

  421. oh – I was checking urban dictionary, should’ve just refreshed

  422. Hence the term for that secret gay ‘I want sex’ sign: The Spankster Wag. Quite a way to have your reverie in the poetry cubicle interrupted, let me tell you.

  423. From the comments at Cap’n Eds

    Posted by Rightwingsparkle | August 28, 2007 4:14 PM

    I don’t understand why the officer couldn’t have gone a bit further with it. Just tapping the toes and the hand waving thing just doesn’t seem enough to accuse someone to me. Too many other explanations for it.

    I’m not defending him. I think he was soliciting sex, but this gave him room to deny it and thus stay in office, which sucks.

    That’s pretty demented.

  424. Humph. The Urban Dictionary says a “spankster” is a Spanish gangster. Knew them was a bunch of pricks.

    Somehow “spankin’ my ganster” just doesn’t have that ring.

  425. I mean demented in a nice way, of course.

  426. “So what is the “fundamentalist attitude,” anyway, and how did Craig sign himself on to it?”

    It’s pretty well summed up in Leviticus: That homosexuality is a sin and gays are an abomination. They’ve dropped the stoning, but they’re definitely not wanting to recognize homosexuality as a potentially moral lifestyle, nor allow it any sort of positive sanction in the law.

    “Are we talking Middle East fundamentalist attitude (because that’s fundamental, brother)”

    Right, but without the stoning, or head chopping, or whatever it is they do over there.

    “or just an majority-of-Americans fundamentalist attitude?”

    I don’t believe that the majority of Americans are fundamentalists. I just think the Bible gives them cover for their prejudices and fears about homosexuality.

    “And what kind of attitude do you think would not “condemn” gays to lies and furtive sex? Because if it’s the same attitude we have toward heterosexual sex, that doesn’t work, either.”

    Well, hiding from your significant other, and hiding from society are two different things.

  427. gangster! Damn that’s good chardonnay! Gots my fingers all tangled up.

  428. I think Swen has found a phrase that ensures PW yet another #1 Google rank. Good work.

  429. And it is not 3:18 pm! It’s almost 4 and it’s got to be after 5 somewhere. And yes, I’m supposed to be working, but nothing eases the pain of compiling bibliographies [snore] quite like a little wine.

  430. Huh. Googled “spankster wag” and it doesn’t show up on Google at all. I guess that’s why its a secret sign, although not at all difficult to interpret in person.

    Oh.. Were you guys trying to have an intelligent conversation about media bias? Is that possible? Here, let me summarize:

    “Is Not!”

    “Sure is!”

    “Is not!”

    “You bet it is!”

    “Yo mamma!”

    There, saved another 500 comments. Almost as affective as a good cock slap.

  431. I’m still trying to figure out what soliciting sex in a men’s room at the airport has to do with gay marriage.
    Anonymous male on male public encounters are often driven by a deep pathology that can have little to do with ones actual sexual orientation.
    I have heard men’s stories on this and you’d be shocked at the history of abuse that sometimes comes out. Fatherless boys get called into the trusted, well liked Principal’s office, or the priests, or the drama teacher’s, or the family doctors for surreptitious sexual encounters. The kids may or may not really be gay, but they’ve been raped and emotionally traumatized by someone they may admire and/or need in their lives.

    I can’t speak for Craig, and he may just be a sleazy consumer here, but a bipolar relationship with homosexuals in this sexual subset isn’t uncommon.
    Another factor in the hatred is the deep shame anonymous public encounters can induce. “Coming out” really doesn’t fix the underlying problem, because often the person is not gay by overall orientation, but are instead acting out of their trauma.
    Some show up in those stalls (or wherever) to use and abuse them, while others show up and act out their dramas with each other.
    Either way, it is exceedingly rare to find well adjusted, psychologically healthy males; gay or not, on their knees in the mens room. Marriage… gay, straight or otherwise is a veil they hide behind or else it is an idealistic construct.
    The gay men I know (who are all in long term monogamous relationships) would be appalled and disgusted if their partner was out cruising bathrooms. Their marriage would be over.

  432. But nothing’s as affective as a good cock slap. No offense, but that had to be Freudian on my part. In vino veritas, I have no other excuse.

  433. “It’s pretty well summed up in Leviticus: That homosexuality is a sin and gays are an abomination.”

    So is eating shrimp. And catfish. Abominations, I mean.

    And wearing polyester/cotton blends, for that matter.

    Which means, according to Leviticus, most Baptist picnics are abominations. Just sayin’.

  434. The gay men I know (who are all in long term monogamous relationships) would be appalled and disgusted if their partner was out cruising bathrooms. Their marriage would be over.

    Oddly enough, judging from the gay men I’ve known, that’s a fairly common way for gay relationships to break up. Also with great acrimony, shouting, and throwing of furniture into the street. If the whole neighborhood didn’t know before they sure do now. And if you want to know all the most hurtful pejoratives for “faggot”, you need to see one of these scenes.

    Which raises an interesting question. We’ve noticed that teh libruls are quick to do a little gay bashing when it suits their purpose, but gays can really bring it. Is it just a groping for the most hurtful thing one can imagine?

  435. I really need to shake my stereotypes about Wyoming.

  436. So is eating shrimp. And catfish. Abominations, I mean.

    And wearing polyester/cotton blends, for that matter.

    Damn straight! My beloved M-I-L bought me a Hawaiian shirt — 110% polyester — saying “Oh, it’s not like the old polyester”. Well, if clinging to you like an ugly date and smelling like a ditchdigger’s jeans is any indication, it’s just like the old polyester. An Abomination fur shure. Which.. Why do they stuff two-headed calves? Isn’t that like flaunting your polyester?

    Just goin’ for 500. What is the record BTW? Let us know when we can stop this abysmal self-abasement.

  437. So happyfeet, what are your stereotypes of Wyoming? All bad press I assure you..

    Well except for that “gun totin’, pickup drivin’ rednecks” bit. I’m happy to report that’s entirely true. And that thing about cowboys and sheep? Well.. sometimes a fella gets lonely even if he’s not in the Senate.

  438. Yeah.

    I was trying to make a distinction between casual gay hook up sex and the guys drawn to public restroom stuff.

    Anyway, you are dead on with the observation that gays can really bring it when it comes to gay bashing.
    They’ve also got good skills on critiquing plastic surgery…. “look, look, oh my god… I think she used to be Asian” Out. Loud.
    My favorite non PC moment that a straight white guy couldn’t pull off was standing in line to buy a sandwich next to a gay friend when he got fed up with an old uptight white hag who was holding up the line with her nonsense… so he fires off an “oh god, somebody buy her a big black dildo and tell her to go home and fuck herself” I guess it only seemed like everyone was looking at me…

    Anyway, it looks to me like Craig is has a problem that “coming out” doesn’t usually fix. He needs to work out any high risk behavior triggers and their roots. He may or may not be gay by orientation, but he does need to honestly assess who he is and what drives him.
    I hope there is somewhere he can find peace while he’s looking.

  439. Oops! 5 o’clock! Time to twist off. Whisky and power tools anyone?

  440. It is the masculine thing to do, and you do have ten fingers, right? How many do you really need?

  441. I guess it only seemed like everyone was looking at me…

    Hm, yes. Not to stereotype the other or anything, but sometimes it seems like inside every gay is a drama queen trying to get out. “Look at me! Look at me! Aren’t I clever and different!?”

    I wonder how much exhibitionism is tied up in Larry Craig’s public spankster wagging? Is it the thrill of the risk of being caught? Is he reading the papers and spanking his gangster as we speak? Would anyone give a damn if he weren’t a Rethuglican Senator?

  442. Republican. Damn, the whisky is even better than the wine. (insert little winky thingy)

  443. I also like how Alex claimed how moderate Dems represent the mainstream. That strikes me as somewhat less objectionable than Kos claiming the center. Couple that with the whole catering to the homophobes meme, and it is instructive as to how the media thinks, while at the same time considering themselves to be unbiased. I call BS.

  444. Swen – mostly trying to square Wyoming with the furniture flying into the street with the screaming pejoratives. That just seems very not Wyoming, where everyone is supposed to be laid back and laconic and all, and sort of a no one wants to make a scene kind of place.

  445. With a little quick thinking by Craig, this whole mess could’ve been avoided. When the airport policeman placed him under arrest, I guarantee he walked Craig out right past the sign on the door that says “All Employees Must Wash Their Hands Before Returning to Work”. So when Craig and the cop got outside, Craig should’ve said “Ha! You didn’t wash your hands! That’s your job man! Good-Good?”

  446. Let me know when the Democrats try to pass a Constitutional amendment (!) banning the shoving of flight attendants.

  447. scarshapedstar – Did the Republicans try to pass a Constitutional amendment (!) banning solicity teh ghey seks in a bathroom?

  448. “Let me know when the Democrats try to pass a Constitutional amendment (!) banning the shoving of flight attendants.”

    Tell me again the good reasons for shoving flight attendants. Is it because they’re primarily women and the fact that only a pencil-dick would shove a flight attendant that makes him masculine because said pencil-dick is so secure that he can do something so cowardly and faggoty (and not in a good way) without worrying that people would think he was a little pussy? And that’s manly, right?

  449. Pingback: The Baltimore Reporter

  450. “scarshapedstar – Did the Republicans try to pass a Constitutional amendment (!) banning solicity teh ghey seks in a bathroom?”

    I’m just saying, it’s like a member of the Anti-Masonic Party being caught in a Lodge. You might reason, “Ah, he may think the Masons have too much power, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be a member!” And people might laugh at you.

  451. I knew the Masons were involved in this. I could smell it.

  452. I’m just saying, it’s like a member of the Anti-Masonic Party being caught in a Lodge.

    <squints>

    <steps back, tilts head>

    <moves in close for another look>

    Nope, I’m not seeing it. Or is there (as I believe someone else already asked) something in The Official Teh Ghey Membership Handbook about how you can’t love teh buttsecks unless you also support same-sex marriage?

  453. I knew the Masons were involved in this. I could smell it.

    There is most certainly a Dixon joke in here.

    But I’ll leave it to others to assemble.

    Being a giver and all.

  454. Ahh, Pynchon.

  455. You might be a current/future English professor if…

  456. scarshapedstar – For the side that claims to be reality based, and all full of nuance and shit, you sure do see everything in black and white. Are you incapable of separating an action from a policy position on a tangentially related topic ?

  457. This is really disappointing. I thought there’d be more comments.

    Good work! Nice job!

  458. doritos – Hitting the sauce again tonight?

  459. Michelines – That was quite a performance you put on last night. Bravo.

  460. I’m just saying, it’s like a member of the Anti-Masonic Party being caught in a Lodge. You might reason, “Ah, he may think the Masons have too much power, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be a member!” And people might laugh at you.

    That assumes that the GOP is indeed anti-gay, or more specifically that Craig is anti-gay. Voting against gay marriage isn’t any more gay than say, voting against reparations is anti-black. Or voting for wiretapping is anti-Muslim.

  461. Erm… dropped an “anti-” out of that.

  462. I had an Aunty Gay. She made the best Apple Brown Betty.

    ..

    ..

    that’s not code btw.

  463. That assumes that the GOP is indeed anti-gay, or more specifically that Craig is anti-gay. Voting against gay marriage isn’t any more gay than say, voting against reparations is anti-black. Or voting for wiretapping is anti-Muslim.

    There is consistency here, because those making these sort of arguments, I have found, do feel that being against reparations is anti-black and that fighting the WOT is anti-Muslim. But only if you are a Republican. Otherwise, no harm no foul.

  464. Or is there (as I believe someone else already asked) something in The Official Teh Ghey Membership Handbook about how you can’t love teh buttsecks unless you also support same-sex marriage?

    I dunno, ask a gay person. Right to marry someone you love vs. no right to marry someone you love… Man, that’s a real head-scratcher. I can see the pros and cons of… wait, no, I can’t.

  465. scarshapedstar – Are you asserting that there is unanimity of thought within the gay community as to same sex marriage. Everyone that is teh ghey thinks that same sex marriage is a right afforded under the Constitution? Every last one of them?

  466. Who has the right to marry someone they love? That’s just luck, my friend. Otherwise, Elizabeth Hurley would be Mrs. Pablo.

    There is no right to marry the person you love. There is also no obligation to marry the person you love, even when it’s mutual. There is only marriage, which a consenting man and a consenting woman can enter into. And there’s domestic partnership, in which you can and/or should be able to do as you please, including benefit sharing, mutual power of attorney, etc…

  467. So, I took your advise, and asked the 2 gay gentlemen that live across the cul-de-sac from me what they felt about same sex marriage. They do not share your opinion, and felt that within their group of friends and acquaintances, that probably 25% or more thought it was either bad timing, forcing something on a public not yet ready for it, or disagreed with it in principle. Not content to survey only one couple, I asked the nice lesbians that live on the other side of the lake from me the same. Their answers were almost identical, but thought that support for same sex marriage may be higher amongst the lesbian community than amongst the men. Go figure. Still unwilling to extrapolate from these people, I discussed it at breakfast with the lesbian “parent” of one of my daughters classmates. She is all for same sex marriage, but feels that it should be done through the Legislature, not the Courts.

    So, out of the 5 people I discussed it with this morning, not a single one held the belief that you claim all gays should hold.

  468. In short, scarshapedstar, you could not be more wrong if you tried.

  469. scarshapedstar – Did you scamper back to your little Liberal enclave?

  470. #436 Comment by B Moe on 8/28 @ 3:53 pm #

    “It’s pretty well summed up in Leviticus: That homosexuality is a sin and gays are an abomination.”

    So is eating shrimp. And catfish. Abominations, I mean.

    And wearing polyester/cotton blends, for that matter.

    Which means, according to Leviticus, most Baptist picnics are abominations. Just sayin’.

    Hey Moe! Learn. To. F’in. Read.

    No wool and linen.

    WOOL AND LINEN. That is it. No prohibitions on silk and cotton, woll and cotton, nylon and dacron, whatever. The prohibition is specifically against wool and linen. This is the doctrine of shatnes.

    Not that anyone here can make anyone else do anything, but why don’t you flaunt your ignorance about another topic? Something you are well informed on, like teh ghey.

  471. #436 Comment by B Moe on 8/28 @ 3:53 pm #

    “It’s pretty well summed up in Leviticus: That homosexuality is a sin and gays are an abomination.”

    So is eating shrimp. And catfish. Abominations, I mean.

    And wearing polyester/cotton blends, for that matter.

    Which means, according to Leviticus, most Baptist picnics are abominations. Just sayin’.

    Hey Moe! Learn. To. F’in. Read.

    No wool and linen.

    WOOL AND LINEN. That is it. No prohibitions on silk and cotton, wool and rayon, nylon and dacron, steel and Kevlar, whatever. The prohibition is specifically against wool and linen. This is the doctrine of shatnes.

    Not that anyone here can make anyone else do anything, but why don’t you flaunt your ignorance about another topic? Something you are well informed on, like teh ghey or something.

  472. Who has the right to marry someone they love?

    As near as I can tell, only men who are either Muslim or paleo-Mormon.

    But we’ve already figured out that polygamy is next on the list, whether or not rank-and-file SSM-promoters realize it, or want to admit it if they do.

  473. I’d just like to point out that “Tim in SF” is using suspiciously furrin constructions (whinging) for an Amuricun.

    Somebody check his immigration status…

  474. #476 Comment by mojo on 8/29 @ 3:03 pm #

    I’d just like to point out that “Tim in SF” is using suspiciously furrin constructions (whinging) for an Amuricun.

    Somebody check his immigration status…

    Possible, but more likely he is a pretentious ass trying to ape those he regards as his betters (i.e. furriners, any furriners).

  475. So, out of the 5 people I discussed it with this morning, not a single one held the belief that you claim all gays should hold.

    Well, shit, that and a Tom Friedman Taxi Conversation and 4 bucks will buy you a cup of coffee. Maybe next you’ll tell me about how a gay guy hit on you in a bathroom stall and so you hit him in the head and then the cops came in and arrested him and then you asked the prom queen out on a date and then you rode a motorcycle, yeah, a red motorcycle!

    (Hopefully that Tucker Carlson joke isn’t lost on this “conservative enclave.”)

  476. Well, shit, that and a Tom Friedman Taxi Conversation and 4 bucks will buy you a cup of coffee.

    Well, shit, it was your idea, wasn’t it?

    Maybe next you’ll tell me about how a gay guy hit on you in a bathroom stall…

    Are you asking him to do that too?

  477. Pingback: Like my Grandfather always used to say...