Very nice insight.
=================

Elegant exposition thereof.
==========================

How quickly the liberal forget about hillarys shady dealings

Jay

And as far as the hypocrisy issue goes... everyone's a hypocrite.....Thank you for pointing that out.
As the trolls ascend to this post they should be reminded of everyone's humanity.

Other than being factually incorrect with an incredibly glaring omission it was well. kinda, hypocritical.

Factually incorrect as it was his fellow Republicans who were calling for his resignation with the noticeable exception of Trent Lott. It just amazes me how right-wing republicans can take the facts and just completely turn them around. Mitch McConnell, you know the REPUBLICAN LEADER of the Senate called his conduct, as I recall, "unforgivable." Here's a paragraph from the International Herald Tribune:

"Through intermediaries and unusually harsh public statements and actions, party officials made it clear they wanted Craig to quit before Congress returned from its summer recess next week, hoping to quickly conclude an embarrassing episode that threatened to "implicate an already difficult election cycle for Senate Republicans."

So, the REPUBLICANS made a political decision to dump him. But all you hear from the right is all about how the democrats are responsible for the reaction to him.

As for that dreaded concept of hypocrisy the author excoriated those who use the "chickenhawk" label used by liberals as an ad hominem attack but not a peep from him about the completely dishonest use of terms like traitor and terrorist and terrorist sympathizer so eagerly and easily tossed around by his fellow righties. Now, that's hypocrisy.

Seems that Clinton selling out to Chinese interests, and Kennedy salaaming Saddam, traitor seems apt; now about you, you hypocrite.
=================================

And the left are celebrating their latest scalp.

Jay, it seems to me it was the Republican Party who cut Craig off at the knees. They said they wouldn't give him any financing and would run a candidate in the primary against him.

Personally, I think it would have been great if Craig had continued serving as an openly gay (or bisexual) Republican Senator. I think that's something that's long overdue in American politics.

It would certainly help the country move beyond some of this homophobia that is perpetuated by a small minority of the right and Republican Party. The truth is that a good number of Republicans secretly support gay rights and are, in fact, gay themselves. It's high time they start coming out of the closet.

I am not sure that any Republican would want to "come out" after reading all of the homophobic "stuff" on WizBang Blue...

Darn, JFO, you're right. I should have said those "celebrating" Craig's ouster instead of those "calling for" Craig's ouster.

Oh, that's right, I did.

Oh, and good luck finding places where I referred to "traitor" and "terrorist sympathizer," JFO. I've been damned careful about such loaded language, and at least once condemned those who toss it around casually. Every time I've used "treason," I've backed it up with examples of why I thought the term was appropriate.

Other than that, JFO... nice comment.

J.

There's no crowing from me -- I consider this to be a very sad thing. I don't think a person's sexual orientation should be a disqualifier for office, but there are people who believe homosexuality to be shameful, thus driving folks like Sen Craig into the closet and into sneaking around restrooms. If Craig's sexuality were accepted by society in general and by the Republican party in particular, he would still be serving the people of Idaho. But he was forced by political pressure to deceive the voters about his own orientation and to vote against his own lifestyle, which is the saddest thing of all. This nation needs to get over this sort of destructive puritanism so that politicians can address the truly important issues rather than trying to serve as arbiters of morality.

FBI on Hillary's butt. Hsunami, h/t Gateway Pundit.
======================================

Also h/t Doug in Upland at the Free Republic.
======================================

Jay Tea;

I wasn't accusing you of the usage of the traitor label, merely commenting that you were taking the chickenhawk label users to task and ignoring the others. But I take your word that you have condemned those who toss it around and apologize for any confusion i caused. I appreciate your stand on the "traitor" issue - it's an honest one.

"It seems that the greatest weapon on the Left these days is the charge of "hypocrisy."

Jay, you are simply amazing at putting Democrats at the center of every transgression that the Republican party commits. My commendations. And a classy last line as well.

I think the crux of your argument is a total cop out.

The rich can't talk about the poor? That means no single politician can ever talk about poverty. FDR, sorry.

Slim to none can talk about family values. Thompson? Reagan? Rudy? McCain? Can't even stay married.

No one can talk about the environment anymore. No one.

White people can't talk about racism.

Or do these politicians actually draft and back legislation to make changes? Isn't that what's important?

You talk about "cheap victories" here. Yours is a cheap argument that serves to attack your enemies.

If Craig's sexuality were accepted by society in general and by the Republican party in particular, he would still be serving the people of Idaho.

Uh, Paul? Is this where you want to make the argument that sex in public restrooms is to be accepted by society as acceptable public behavior??

JFO:

So, the REPUBLICANS made a political decision to dump him. But all you hear from the right is all about how the democrats are responsible for the reaction to him.

So that's all you hear... that the Dems are being blamed?

Where is it in this post JFO? Or are you admitting you didn't read it all or fail to understand what you read?

Another ignorant, thoughtless post by you.

dishonest use of terms like traitor and terrorist and terrorist sympathizer

Actually, that's Tim Robbins.

The truth is that a good number of Republicans secretly support gay rights and are, in fact, gay themselves. It's high time they start coming out of the closet.

They're called Log Cabin Republicans aren't they? But they are excoriated by the left for not being good libtards and not towing the liberal group-think.

Darleen is right. Gay men regularly engage in behavior that is unhealthy and dangerous. If homosexuality were openly accepted in our society we would see bars and bathrooms where gay men would engage in promiscuous sex with multiple partners. Who knows what kinds of diseases would appear?

Oh, oops, already happened, in San Francisco in the 70's and 80's, and the result was AIDS.

I'll continue to consider homosexual behavior unacceptable, thank you.

marc

How's the first sentence of the post marc? Take your head from out of your ass and try getting honest - just once. Moron. And the last full paragraph of the post - moron. And the news, the radio, the blogosphere. Wake up fool and come out of your cave.

Paul Hamilton said:

"But he was forced by political pressure to deceive the voters about his own orientation and to vote against his own lifestyle, which is the saddest thing of all."

His LIFESTYLE is that of a married man who is accused of attempting to have sex with men in public restrooms. Do you really believe he should have voted in favor of that lifestyle?

He claims his sexual orientation is straight (clearly we all have doubts about this one) and he is the only one who truly knows.

While I agree that the pressure to conform existed in the past, particularly in Senator Craigs generation, that is not as large an issue for people today.

That is a fact of life and of history. While railing against this fact can help to lessen the societal pressure on future generations, as Jay says, his actions have no bearing on his stance on gay marriage.

That, however, is no excuse for his behavior, which, by the way, has nothing to do with his sexual orientation whatsoever!
DKK

To put it in simple baseball terminology: Whether Larry Craig liked playing a "pitcher" or a "catcher", nonetheless he still struck out big time this last week and now is a mere bench observer to American politics. How political fortunes can change.

JFO:

How's the first sentence of the post marc? Take your head from out of your ass and try getting honest - just once. Moron.

JT addressed that, guess you missed it. Nice toss of an invective BTW, and a free pass for me to do the same.

Your a-hole has become bigger than the sum of all your parts.

And BTW, where's the ref to dems in general or specifically in the last para?

marc,

You are stupid, but not as nearly as you are conveniently trying to be. But then that's so stupid, I guess you actually are a moron.

Cute try though for a moron.

"And with that, we are all a little poorer. Not for the loss of Senator Craig from public service, but from yet another win chalked up to the "politics of personal destruction," another scalp collected by those who prefer to win their arguments by removing the debater, not by triumphing on their own merits."

Agreed. And, unfortunately, we'll probably be seeing more and more of this process of elimination as the final ticket approaches. The parties concerned seem to relish a forfeit rather than a gun fight.

JFO:

Cute try though for a moron.

Just as I expected, JFO's "answer" to what even he knows can't be answered and still paint himself in a good light. So out comes the ever popular Invective Card and avoidance of a valid question.

Darleen et al:
If homosexuality wasn't treated like a criminal and/or sinful act by certain elements of American society, there would be no need to for anyone to be so ashamed of their own sexuality, there would be no perceived need to lurk around in men's rooms. So those of you who sneer at him would do well to examine your own role in his actions.

Sen Craig seems to be a consistent conservative voice in congress and now he's lost to the party and the nation because of the intolerance of a few members of the party hierarchy who want to define all these characteristics which they believe disqualifies someone as a "real conservative." It's going to end up like the French Revolution -- you're going to politically-decapitate yourselves right out of existence.

"It seems that the greatest weapon on the Left these days is the charge of "hypocrisy." "

You know what they say about low hanging fruit?

"The ouster of Senator Craig was in no way proportional to the magnitude of his offense. "

Of course, if it was then the Pubs would call for the resignation of Vitter, and Gulliani would have dropped out by now.

Don't forget, it was the moral majority that pushed Craig out, and not the Libs.

Barney: That lazy schmucks who can't get off their asses and WORK for the good stuff tend to go for it? Thanks, already figured it out.

And Paul -- it's not just homosexuality. Most people don't want details of their sexual practices and preferences made public. For example, I don't mind discussing my fondness for red-headed ladies, but I'd be mortified if the precise details of what I'd like to do with them were published.

J.

"..whatsoever on his stance on gay marriage.."

If that was all (why did you forget the rest?):
Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation.
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage.
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation.

He also was a vocal supporter for a state (ID) wide ban on gay right issues even though he has no voting rights in the state legislative body.

Good comeback jay.

You toss 'em up there, Barney, I'll swing away. So don't complain if you leave an opening big enough to drive a John Edwards-carrying SUV through, and I decide to take it.

J.

"So don't complain if you leave an opening big enough to drive a John Edwards-carrying SUV through, and I decide to take it."

Have I ever, Jay?

Are you ready to explain why you forgot about Craig's voting record on all gay issues?

I guess that was just a lack of due diligence on your part.

Baghdad barney:

Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.

So? You can be gay and not believe in same sex marriage. If you want to argue the need for a constitutional ban please do so.

Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation.

Ho-hum... screw "hate crime" laws. Everything they cover is already illegal and they serve no purpose but to waste fed money.

Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Again, you can be gay and against it. That aside it should be left up to the states to decide, the feds have no business intruding.

Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation.

The only valid point you have, the rest is fluff and you attempting to make a bigger issue than it is.

...so, Barney, you wanna talk about those issues? Or do you wanna keep talking about soon-to-be-former Senator Craig?

I've made my opinions quite clear on gay issues before. I'll say it again, if you like.

But you first.

J.

"Your a-hole has become bigger than the sum of all your parts."

Thus allowing JFO to wear his skeleton on the outside proving all along he IS a frickin cockroach.

"not by triumphing on their own merits."

Because Criminal Frauds have no merit. Democrats know they can't win unless they and their Media along with the immorals in liberal Hollywood lie , smear the Republicans , distort and deceive their incompetant asses into power.

So by all means JFO and dummies , keep deluding yourselves and as far as I'm concerned you are traitors, dictator/enemy terrorist lovers and UN-AMERICAN.

You simply can't win if you dare to serve while Republican. It's practically an indictable offense -- and why? Because conservatives dare to have standards. The flesh being weak, sometimes we fail to meet them. But he who has NO standards can never be called to account for violating them...however stridently he excoriates others for occasionally violating theirs.

jay, as I said before: Are you ready to explain why you forgot about Craig's voting record on all gay issues?

I guess his gay rights voting history was not important in your thread on hypocrisy?

Barney, you prove my point for me better than I could.

I decry the focus on individuals, and call for honest discussion on issues. You piss and moan because I didn't focus enough on the individual in question when setting the context.

I have to keep reminding myself of what I said last week:

I have officially given up on Barney. He HAS to be feigning idiocy because anyone that stupid would have forgotten to breathe and died years ago.

That, or elected to the US Senate from Massachusetts.

j.

Baghdad barney:

jay, as I said before: Are you ready to explain why you forgot about Craig's voting record on all gay issues?

Why? JT stating "What he did was boorish and stupid, and he's paying a hefty price for it. I have no sympathy for the guy whatsoever," isn't enough for you

Quit playing the school yard gotcha game.

You want someone to address his voting record.... I did. You're apparently ignoring them out of convenience.

Jay said:
>>Most people don't want details of their sexual practices and preferences made public.

I agree completely. So will you join me in condemning the Republican party's ongoing assault on aspects of the personal lives of citizens which have no public significance? It's not the Democrats who raise a hue and cry about the "menace" of homosexuals -- and if there wasn't such a poisonous atmosphere in place within the party about gays, Craig could very well have survived this incident.

This only became a viable political issue because Craig made such a big deal about stuff like denying ordinary rights to gays and lesbians while being gay (or at least bisexual) himself.

Hooson:

So will you join me in condemning the Republican party's ongoing assault on aspects of the personal lives of citizens which have no public significance?

And who would they be, name names.

And BTW, by you implying the "Republican Party" in conducting an ongoing assault doesn't aid your argument in any way.

That brush is too broad to be painting with, put it down and back away.

marc, ah no! Jay did not address Craig's hypocrisy. All he stated was this:

"Craig got caught acting in direct contravention with his own public stated opinions and beliefs. And he's paid a heavy price for it. But that has absolutely no bearing on the positions he challenged. What he did -- or did not -- do in that airport bathroom has no bearing whatsoever on his stance on gay marriage, for example (I happen to disagree with him, and have repeatedly argued in favor of gay marriage here), or any other issue."

In defense of the charge of Craig's hypocrisy he made the point that gays could be against marriage equality (not likely), but he failed to mention that Craig has a long history of voting against gay rights. Not to mention his "family values" endorsement of Romney.

Jay is still ducking the question of why he did not include Craig's voting record to his tread that is about hypocrisy?

Jay, are you too weak to leave up to your own standards? I seem to recall a recent tread on that very issue. Do you?

Barney, I am very tired and that makes me cranky. I didn't include the details because they were irrelevant to my point -- Craig's hypocrisy was a given. In fact, they would have detracted from my point -- that we should stick to the ISSUES, and stop attacking those making the arguments.

Because by hounding your adversary out of the fight, you haven't won the argument in any sense but by default. You've shot the messenger. The message's truth remains unchallenged.

If you can construct an argument on how an exploration of the extent of a hypocrite's hypocrisy enhances an argument that allegations and instances of hypocrisy ought to take a back seat to actually discussing issues, I'll be very impressed.

I'm not expecting it to happen, though.

J.

Since both JFO and Rivera have turned into blithering idiots, which of them plays the man and which the woman in their love affair? Does AIDS effect the brain? If the sorid lot of homosexuals are 'gay' why do they complain so much. Doesn't sound to me like they are gay or happy, but are trying to make excuses for the homosexual lifestyle 'choice' they know is wrong. I've always thought they became homosexual by choice to punish their parents for something they think was done wrong. Maybe they bought them pink or black underwear when they were kids. That does cause life long mental problems according to some murderers who used it as a defense to murder charges.

jay, my comments were directed at marc and not you. For someone that has pledged, over and over again, not to respond to me you are sure spending a lot of time on me!

Do you have Craig thing for me?

Porretto at Nine, thanks. That is the most concise presentation of the hypocrisy these hypocrites are blindered to.
==============================

Read Aron Belkin in the WaPo today. Quite a thoughtful editorial.
========================

Some observations for Jay Tea:

"the "chickenhawk" argument -- the notion of attacking supporters of the war in Iraq because they themselves aren't currently serving on the front lines."

It's not so much that they are currently not serving, but in some instances took 5 deferrments because they "had other priorities" or used the Air National Guard at a time when it was a Viet Nam service escape shoot. The reason that righties scream about "chickenhawk," is because in many instances the shoe fits but feels very uncomfortable in public.

"The ouster of Senator Craig was in no way proportional to the magnitude of his offense"

Basically a fair point, but I can't recall any Democrats or liberals of significance howling for his ouster. It was rather the Grand Old Potty that was scared to death that its values issues they have been useing for the past 20 years or so to blast & defeat others through division and deliberate distortion were finally being seen by the public for the sham that they have been.

"And as far as the hypocrisy issue goes... everyone's a hypocrite"

No problem here save that, when one is practicing counter to his public posture on an ongoing basis and seeking to assail certain behavior in elections and/or legislation, then that is a hypocrisy beyond mere individual inconsistent behavior or occasional lapse. It is DEMOGOGUERY, pure and simple. And that is why the Grand Old Potty is being hoisted on its own petard.

Craig, Foley, Haggard and others are exact examples of the very meaning of hypocrisy. It's not just failing to practice their principles; they've used those so-called principles to assail others for devious gain, frequently elections.

Perhaps a better title might have been, "Three cheers for Demagoguery"

freedomFRIED:

It's not so much that they are currently not serving, but in some instances took 5 deferrments because they "had other priorities" or used the Air National Guard at a time when it was a Viet Nam service escape shoot. The reason that righties scream about "chickenhawk," is because in many instances the shoe fits but feels very uncomfortable in public.

Horseshit, tens of thousands used what was a legal "out" at the time. How many of those that voted for the AUMF had family members in the military or were veterans?

Or it it fair to say you won't be voting for Obama, Hillary or Edwards because they are chickenhawks.

Let's not even go down the civilian control of the military road... you'll only make yourself look ignorant.

or used the Air National Guard at a time when it was a Viet Nam service escape shoot (sic).

It was shown during the 2004 election that both candidates had the mission change on them during training. When Bush joined the Guard, they were routinely sent to Vietnam. While he was at training that changed.

When Kerry joined the Navy, PT crews were primarily used for shore patrol, so it was a relatively safe choice. By the time we was sent to Vietnam PT crews saw more action with the enemy.

While I thought the horrific implosion of the conservative right would be enjoyable, like the cop that busted Craig said, "No wonder we are going down the tubes"

The whole conservative/republican mindset reminds me of the movie "Se7en"

No other country would ever destroy America, its fall will come from within. I hope you people that have backed the republican rule for the past 13 years are enjoying the ride to the bottom.

It's not so much that they are currently not serving, but in some instances took 5 deferrments because they "had other priorities" or used the Air National Guard at a time when it was a Viet Nam service escape shoot.

You know what John F'ing Kerry asked for before he went in the Navy? A deferment so he could go study in Paris. It was denied. They must have known of his predilections for meeting with North Vietnamese commies in Paris.

It wouldn't have bothered me that Clinton didn't serve in the military. What bothered me was the lengths of deception and fraud he utilized to avoid his draft notice. If he hadn't been such a narcissist with visions of grandeur, he would have fled to Canada, or in his case, more likely the USSR.

The reason that righties scream about "chickenhawk," is because in many instances the shoe fits but feels very uncomfortable in public.

No, they scream about it so much because it's an ad hominem. All it's good for is a non-argument that leftists like FreedomFried think will shut down debate. It's just like calling a conservative a racist. There's no basis in fact in the charge, but it makes the jfo's, nogo's, BaghdadBarney's and FreedomFried's of the anti-military left feel better.

I was actually told once, after being called a chicken hawk and establishing my veteran status, since I hadn't been in the Army it didn't count and that still made me a chicken hawk.

And of course, there are even those on this blog, like jfo, who maintain that even if you have served, you must go and serve again if you support the mission in Iraq.

Of course, jfo is a and won't actually call anyone a chicken hawk. He just uses intimation and innuendo because he doesn't want to be caught slinging the ad hominem term chicken hawk.

All it does FreedomFried, is show your contempt for the military.

Basically a fair point, but I can't recall any Democrats or liberals of significance howling for his ouster.

You're right. They were waiting until the campaigns heated up, closer to election day, to roll it out and use it as an attack club. In fact, they're probably quite disappointed that the weapon has been removed from their attack arsenal.

Ummm, somehow lost a word or two. Should be:

Of course, jfo is a chicken shit and won't actually call anyone a chicken hawk.

"Horseshit, tens of thousands used what was a legal "out" at the time. How many of those that voted for the AUMF had family members in the military or were veterans?"

marc, the better question is, how many became vice president of the US?

My guess is one.

Hey John in CA, based on your comments I am sure that you will lead the call to kick Vitter out of the Senate.

I only base that on you dogged call for purity in federal government.

I await you response.

57. Posted by BarneyG2000

BaghdadBarney, what the hell are you talking about?

marc, the better question is, how many became vice president of the US?

My guess is one.

BaghdadBarney, how many legitimate draft dodgers became President of the United States and Commander in Chief, deployed military forces, slashed the military budget, was despised and reviled by the bulk of the career military and despised the military himself?

My guess is one.

Baghdad barney:

marc, the better question is, how many became vice president of the US? My guess is one.

And your "guess" is childish and ignorant.

Your "guess" leads you into a position of not being able to support nearly the entire field of Presidential candidates regardless of party they belong to.

So... asshat, when wil you start a petition drive to disqualify all those that haven't served in the military?

john, I guess I touched a nerve?

john, I guess I touched a nerve?

61. Posted by BarneyG2000

You would guess wrong. But again, what the hell are you talking about?

BTW Bagdahd barney.... its too bad this was turned down.

Nitwits like you, JFO and freedomFRIED would have to find some other nonsense to whine about.

Not to mention a 20 year career of doing nothing never would have happened.

And where is John F'ing Kerry's signed SF180? What is in his records he doesn't want anyone to see? Why haven't Mary Mapes and Dan Rather ginned up some "fake, but accurate" documents to cover Kerry's butt?

I guess you guys are trying to hijacking the tread.

It seems that the greatest weapon on the Left these days is the charge of "hypocrisy." Never mind that it's rampant on their side as well

One difference is that those you list on the left have practiced their hypocrisy in public. The voters are free to consider both their positions and their behavior. Craig kept his hypocrisy secret, thus denying the public the truth, and the right to evaluate him on that truth. And when the truth came out, the public got angry.

Plus, Republican hypocrisy tends to involve sex, which other Republicans won't tolerate.

What he did -- or did not -- do in that airport bathroom has no bearing whatsoever on his stance on gay marriage...
The argument is NOT inseparable from the arguer.

So then you would equally dismiss the arguments of those who decry John Edwards claiming to be sympathetic for the poor while collecting five-figure fees for lecturing about them and building a mansion off his career as a trial lawyer? Al Gore zipping around the world in private jets to lecture about global warming? Hillary Clinton collecting scads of money from the rich while espousing socialism? Barack Obama insisting that he will give "the fatcats" no breaks, while back in Chicago one of his biggest donors has called in numerous favors from the Junior Senator? Ted Kennedy championing the raising of the inheritance tax while he had his mother declared a resident of a state she hadn't visited in well over a decade purely for tax purposes? And so on, and so on?

Badhdad barney:

I guess you guys are trying to hijacking the tread.

We must be if you say so. You're an expert at it.

BTW when will you put that petition online?

I guess you guys are trying to hijacking the tread.

Again, BaghdadBarney, what the hell are you talking about?

Brian:

One difference is that those you list on the left have practiced their hypocrisy in public.

Damn...! Just how many public sources can you cite that told to story of Barney Franks prosti ring before it was busted?

What he did -- or did not -- do in that airport bathroom has no bearing whatsoever on his stance on gay marriage...
The argument is NOT inseparable from the arguer.

So what are you saying, that that statement is untrue? That every gay is in favor of gay marriage?

If so cite a source that backs that up. It's highly unlikely EVERY gay is in favor and the former Sen. stance on the issue isn't relevant.

Just how many public sources can you cite that told to story of Barney Franks prosti ring before it was busted?

Hmm, is that one of the incidents cited by Jay? *scroll* *scroll* *scroll* Nope.

So what are you saying, that that statement is untrue?

Let me check... *scroll* *scroll* *scroll* Nope.

Wow, two strawmen in one post! Another like that, and you'll just about have a "surge"!

You can scroll yourself right into hell for all I care.

The only connection between straw and a man is whats between your ears.

Porretto's point at nine, hier. You have my sympathy, hypocrites.
============================

I have no problem with gay marriage myself. I'll admit though, it certainly isn't at the top of my list of questions when deciding on who I vote for.

The Republicans are caving to the pressure of the "hypocrite" argument. If this keeps up, there won't be any gay Republicans in office.

End of subject? Nope.

When there are no gays holding a Republican seat, the left's accusations will simply change from hypocrisy to bigotry.

John in CA

Check your blood vessels man - looks like you burst a few. Lets see, an ad hominem that pisses you off = racist. An ad hominem you embrace = terrorist in all the derivations and forms you zanies from the right use. No wonder you sound like an out of control wingnut. Are you a survivalist per chance? A John Bircher per chance? Or just an angry jackass? Is marc your twin?

Few so foolish as the hypocrite who brays hypocrisy. The shoes fit, JFO, canter on.

Or stay and prance like the trained ass you are.
==========================================

When I refer to "zanies from the right" Kim - you, of course, are the onanism practicing queen of them.

JFO, but don't you see? The outing of Craig is a Schumer/McNulty plot to get Gonzalez. That's why Gonzo had to resign moments before the Craig Toiletgate story broke. That's what the Fartune kookie kween of kwips will finally string together.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

FF, whatever you've been smoking, you'd best quit before you kill any more brain cells.

We're not the ones who proclaimed, in public, that there is a (whispering now)Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

We're not the ones declaring, in public, that George W. Bush cooked up the Iraq war for some nefarious purpose.

We're not the ones claiming, in public, that the same Mr. Bush set up those planes to fly into those towers on that bright Tuesday morning nearly 6 years ago.

If you want conspiracy theories, look to the left, not to the right.

The only connection between straw and a man is whats between your ears.

And as usual, when shown how disingenuous you are, you resort to the personal attack. And an incoherent one, at that.

"Other members of Congress have committed far more serious offenses while in office, and have been excused. My favorite example has to be Rhode Island's Representative Patrick J. Kennedy."

And they are almost invariably Democrats. Funny how that works...

jfo, how'd you get from

All it's good for is a non-argument that leftists like FreedomFried think will shut down debate. It's just like calling a conservative a racist.

to this?

Lets see, an ad hominem that pisses you off = racist.

If the point escaped you, that is hardly my fault, but not surprising.

And just to answer your questions, no, I haven't burst a blood vessel; I'm not a survivalist or a John Bircher. And why do you ask if I'm marc's twin? Are you and BaghdadBarney and FreedomFried actually the same person, under different screen names?

And just what does this mean

Lets see, an ad hominem that pisses you off = racist.

Although, after all this time, I shouldn't expect anything straight forward from you. You are the guy with a wardrobe of fig leaves. Never saying what you really mean, but using intimation and innuendo, careful not to leave yourself exposed as an ad hominem slinging leftist.

"The ouster of Senator Craig was in no way proportional to the magnitude of his offense."

I disagree. Many seem to think that there should be zero moral standards for politicians of both parties so as to "level the playing field." "We should be able to be just as scummy as Democrats with just as little accountability" is the summation of the argument. On the contrary, although there is little hope, the standards for politicians of both parties should be raised. If the Republicans show the Democrats how it is done, perhaps one day they may get a clue.

There is more than one problem with conduct such as Craig's (or Bill Clinton's for that matter), not the least of which is a huge security risk. Such conduct (weakness) opens up avenues for blackmail, extortion and undue political influence. When it comes time to sway votes in the senate this is not good information for your opponents to have. We should expect higher standards from our politicians than to engage in compulsive homosexual behavior in public restrooms while married. If we cannot even recognize that much, then God help us.

John in CA: hear hear.

Traitor, cut and runner, coward, surrender monkey, chickenhawk, defeatist, terrorist friend, retreatist, whimp.

Pretty lame, JFO and FF. Gonzales leaving around the time of the Craig outing is only causally connected if the Craig outing is Dem sponsored to cover the Hsunami, and the administration needs someone with more credibility to pursue that, and I doubt that scenario. Your poor understanding of the dynamics of the DoJ/Bush Administration struggle forces you to make erroneous calculations about my views on the subject.

Hillary and many Dems are in big trouble with 'Hsunami', criminally so, in my opinion. Kennedey will be defending himself against political attack, and possibly criminal charges re his support of Saddam.

That said, I'm very curious who Bush will nominate for AG.

By the way, did you see how pitiful Schumer was about the Hsu revelations?
====