With the Craig incident it is helpful to review exactly where Republican members of Congress stand on family values....and how they take actions that define their moral standing and leadership on these issues: 1. Gay Sex. Definitely Against it. Once the news hit about Senator Craig several Republican Senators immediately asked for his resignation, the leadership removed him from all committee leadership positions and all committee positions. 2. Having Sex with a hooker while married. Republicans don't seem to care at all. Senator David Vitter was left alone. He remains on all committees and nobody said a bad word about him. Hmmm. I guess that is okay. 3. Having Sex with other women while married and being a Democrat. The Republcans tried to impeach Bill Clinton. Actions and non-actions speak louder than words. The current moral direction from the Republicans in power say this to the American public. Gay sex=bad. Paid sex with hookers=okay. Sex with another woman while you are married and a Democrat=bad. I now finally understand family values!
Clinton got impeached (charges where later acquitted by senate) for perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power, not the sex scandal. Learn basic history before you go bashing someone. And please don't act like one bad republican represents the beliefs of them all.
The problem is that it's not just one... Republican Senator Larry Craig Pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in an airport men's room http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/08/senator_larry_craig_got_busy_i.html Republican Representative Robert Allen Charged with solicitation of a male prostitue http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2007/07/florida-republi.html Republican Representative Mark Foley Resigned after alledgedly sending sexually charged e-mails to congressional paiges http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/29/congressman.e.mails/index.html Republican Senator David Vitter Admitted to a "horrible sin" after his number was found on the DC "madams" phone list http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/09/AR2007070902030.html
So theres a few, it still doesn't represent the party as a whole. And the hypocrisy argument is still a fallacy for two reasons. 1. Clinton was not in trouble for the sex scandal (as stated above) 2. The senators got in trouble for what they did (you seem to be in support of that), Clinton didn't and you don't seem to have a problem. It appears that you're morals are the ones in conflict. I am not saying the democrats are a party like that, I am saying you are holding a double standard. My stance: It is wrong no matter who you are, the republicans deserved to get in trouble, but so did bill Clinton.
One word comes to mind: Partisan Sound familiar, Earl? It's always amazing that democrats claim to be the party for gays, but liberals are the first to pounce on gay politicians (not that Craig is such, according tot he audio). Yet, they believe hypocrisy is on the other foot
Partisan....hmmmm. When one party claims the moral high ground, stakes out claims of a "higher level" of moral behavior by tieing itself to the claim of being the party of "family values", ties itself with various religeous elements in promoting these values and villifies the other political party and segments of the population.....then partisanship begins to become vicious and at the same time creates dangerous cracks in Americanism versus partisanism. Having made those claims and worked to pass legislation that would villify homosexuality both statewide and nationwide it is amazing to see a significant number of Republican legislators who are either secretly engaging in homosexuality or being accused of doing so. Its striking to see legislators trying to enact laws about morality while secretly violating those laws. It doesn't inspire belief in the particular legislators, and it also questions the party itself, specifically in the Foley case, where legislators seemed to know about his activities and did nothing. So if after all this has happened ....you think it is partisan....so be it. I think after all these personal actions have been made by various legislators, the concept of Republican "family values" has been inalterably shattered.
Who was criticizing him for being gay? I believe he should be criticized for a few other things, like solicitation of sex, lewd and "disorderly conduct", and being a hypocrite (voting against gay marriage, then trying to pay for sex from a man)... But I don't think there's anything wrong with him being gay; just voting against homosexually-friendly legislation, then being a homosexual... Even though he claims to not be gay, is anyone willing to call the police officer a liar?
Well said, Tarpon. Contrary to what Gtech wrote.....Dems or liberals didn't attack Craig at all. Republican members of Congress jumped on and figuratively, slit the guys throat in a couple of days. When it came to attacking Craig....Republicans have done it in spades.
there is one more difference here: when a member of the GOP screws up, the GOP dumps them, gets the out of office, do whatever they need to do....however, when the libs have someone that screws up, they embrace them, raise them up, and then help them get re-elected. It seems that the libs love it when they have criminals in their party...The kennedy family alone is a prime example, but then again so is the Clinton family.
Thanks for the confirmation a la Vitter. Like I said. GOP moral leadership perspective on a married guy paying a hooker for sex=Good, OKay/no problem. Do it all you want!
no, see the difference is that what you posted in the first post of this thread is merely your opinion, and when it comes to that, it is always biased, you can't be non-partisan.
Politicians in general don't understand morals.... however, Republicans are probably closer than the Democrats. There's nothing surprising about a abortion loving, homosexual supporting Democrat, is there? Also, David Vitter never admitted to anything he was claimed of doing. This is why no action was ever taken against him.
He admitted to a "serious sin"... If you ask me: (Serious Sin) + (Phone Number on Madam's List) = Kind of Obvious
Comments from Vitter's press conference.... Not specific...but what do you think he was referring to? Trying to have sex with a guy in a men's room? oops that was the other guy.
Apparently the D.C. blogger (here's an interview: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295806,00.html) has a list of up to 10 more elected GOP officials he is prepared to "out." This was already ugly, and it's only getting worse.