Patterico's Pontifications

8/28/2007

A Response to Glenn Greenwald

Filed under: 2004 Election,Politics — DRJ @ 11:57 am

[Guest post by DRJ]

Glenn Greenwald claims conservatives are duplicitous with regard to Idaho Senator Larry Craig. My response:

Mr. Greenwald,

I strongly disagree that conservatives are hypocritical when it comes to Senator Craig. A few may be – after all, we’re human like you – but most have proven themselves to be just the opposite.

The original claims against Senator Craig were issued by an admitted activist and were politically motivated, as evidenced by the public nature of the charges and the timing of their release prior to an election. There was no concern for the privacy of Senator Craig or his family. Most conservatives objected to the claims as partisan, politically motivated, and based on innuendo.

In recent days, we’ve learned that Senator Craig entered a guilty plea to a disorderly conduct charge involving lewd conduct. A guilty plea removes this conduct from the category of gossip and innuendo. Senator Craig’s actions have placed this matter in the public realm, and I think he owes his family an apology. He also owes his constituents and his Party a resignation and most conservative bloggers have called for Senator Craig to resign.

The Republican Party has a history of resignations by high-profile politicians who confronted varying degrees of wrongful conduct, including recent cases like Mark Foley and not-so-recent examples like Bob Livingston and Richard Nixon. It would be hypocritical for conservatives to claim that their politicians should never resign no matter how serious the conduct – that they are special and should be forgiven even in cases of serious wrongdoing – but that hasn’t happened. Conservatives have been among the first to ask Senator Craig to resign.

Thus, are conservatives duplicitous about Senator Craig? Nothing could be further from the truth.

72 Responses to “A Response to Glenn Greenwald”

  1. “Glenn Greenwald claims conservatives are duplicitous with regard to Idaho Senator Larry Craig”…..that’s the thing about propaganda, if you repeat it often enough people begin to believe it. Some people anyhow. Those of us whom think for ourselves will not be taken in.

    “The Republican Party has a history of high-profile resignations by politicians who confronted varying degrees of wrongful conduct”….a component in such a situation, where resignation is the outcome, is shame, at least at some level. Are the democrats even capable of being ashamed of themselves or their behaviour ? It certainly hasn’t been apparent in the last 50 years or so.

    Edward Lunny (85f233)

  2. Mona Charen has a post on National Review Online which challenges the notion that Craig himself is a hypocrite. I am not willing to investigate myself, so until proven otherwise I will assume that Craig did NOT make family values a cornerstone of his campaign.

    That, of course, does not excuse Craig’s actions nor mitigate the necessity of his resignation from the Senate.

    JVW (6a3590)

  3. I’m not really missing Patterico that much. This blog is swinging.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  4. Patterico who? Oh, that guy. Has he been gone? I haven’t noticed.

    Great job, DRJ. If I were to make an additional remark to the three Glenn Greenwalds it would be that it’s a hell of a thing to rail against homophobia and at the same time accuse people of not being homophobic enough. But I won’t, because if the three Glenns don’t get it first off they never will.

    nk (a6ecc6)

  5. DRJ;

    To be fair, I believe Greenwald is talking pre-election attitudes vs post-election. I think Craig became the Bus-Dummy when he pled guilty, but he seems determined to take back his plea because
    his hope (partially enabled by the Instpundits) was it would just go away once he admitted to it.

    Semanticleo (4741c2)

  6. Can you tackle another Greenwald question? Why should Craig (gay anonymous sex) resign while Vitter (hetero paid sex) remains in office?

    Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9)

  7. I’m not entirely up to speed on this Larry Craig thing, but based on what I know at this point, if he were a Democrat, we’d just be calling him Barney Frank Jr., and it would be no big deal.

    It’s rather interesting that our “don’t ask don’t tell” friends in the liberal press love these stories so much….it seems they can’t wait to bash a gay conservative if they’re not busy bashing a conservative for bashing gays. See this “article” from the Puffington Host, it really says it all, in the hypocrisy department: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/the-weekly-standard_b_58977.html

    driver (faae10)

  8. To quote something Andy Phillips wrote in to Taranto, (emphasis mine)

    “Hypocrisy does not mean saying one thing and doing the opposite. It means saying something that one does not believe. Let’s take the example of getting drunk. Let’s say that I believe that getting drunk is immoral. Does it make me a hypocrite if I get drunk? No, it makes me weak. I could believe that it is immoral but still not be able to resist the temptation to get drunk. It doesn’t make my belief any less true or my actions any worse.

    “Now let’s say that Larry Flynt doesn’t believe that getting drunk is immoral. What are his consequences of getting drunk? Your comment on his living up to his own low moral standards hits the nail on the head. Objectively, my getting drunk is no more or less immoral than Larry Flynt’s.

    “If Larry Flynt attacked me for getting drunk, that would be hypocrisy, because he doesn’t believe that getting drunk is immoral. It’s hypocrisy for him to say that it’s OK for him to get drunk but not OK for me to get drunk.

    “We saw the mainstream media’s reaction to Rush Limbaugh’s addiction to pain killers and Bill Bennett’s gambling problem. These men were not hypocrites. I guarantee you that neither of these men wished for their own problems, and, after having gone through what they did, they most likely feel even more strongly about them than they did before. Again, weakness, not hypocrisy. “

    Craig could sincerely believe that homosexual behavior is immoral, and at the same time not be strong enough to completely avoid committing it. Which would give him all the more reason to push for laws that would remove instances of temptation , because he knows that people like him need such protection.

    LarryD (feb78b)

  9. Can you tackle another Greenwald question? Why should Craig (gay anonymous sex) resign while Vitter (hetero paid sex) remains in office?

    What consenting adults do in private is their own business. As far as I know, someone found Vitter’s name among a prostitute’s clients and published it.

    Craig performed in an airport restroom and was arrested by a police officer. He later pled guilty to a lesser charge.

    Vitter’s act was private and consensual. Craig’s act was public and non-consensual. He should resign.

    Stu707 (adbb5a)

  10. Dale Carpenter over at the Volokh Conspiracy asks what exactly was criminal about Sen. Craig’s conduct? Evidently the charge seems pretty marginal even if you credit all that the arresting officer put in his affidavit.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  11. A succinct, powerful post, DRJ. Thank you.

    Beldar (1b82e4)

  12. Mike Rogers claimed that Craig had a habit of soliciting men for sex in the public bathrooms. Bloggers denounced Rogers not because they said that it was untrue, but because it was “unimportant”, “intrusion of privacy” etc. The thing now reported about Craig is 100% identical to what Rogers claimed. What you say, DRJ, is just BS.
    If you stood by Craig then, you should stand by him now.

    Nikolay (939eb6)

  13. My response to Gleen is considerably shorter and not suitable for publication on a family blog.

    BC (8d1288)

  14. Nikolay – Did Rogers have an arrest report and guilty plea or just an anonymous recording or other bullshit to back up his claims?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  15. Nikolay,

    The refutation of your entire comment is contained in DRJ’s post. Try to keep up.

    Paul (09c70a)

  16. The question Greenwald should be asking is, “What does a liberal have to do to even be called a hypocrite?”

    Would they have to suggest that conservatives have the market on racism cornered while electing a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan their Leader in the Senate? Nope, that wouldn’t do it.

    Claim to be on women’s side should they allege sexual harassment and then call the accuser of a lecherous Democratic President white trash? Nope.

    Rend their garments at the release of The Starr Report with all of its graphic details about a Demo President when years before they were clamoring for the publication of Republican Robert Packwood’s diaries? Nope.

    Claim war hero status after having given aid and comfort to the enemy? Nope.

    Feign shock at the misdeeds of Mark Foley (who resigned in disgrace after dirty talk with underage pages) when they earlier gave a standing ovation to Gerry Studds, who actually had sex with one, refused to resign, and was re-elected until he left of his own volition? Nope.

    Say they will stand up for the dirt-poor victims of Katrina while profiting from foreclosure on their homes and spending hundreds of dollars on haircuts? Nope.

    Whine and cry about how the USA should create incentives to encourage alternative energy, and then sue to make sure such development doesn’t ruin their ocean views? Nope.

    Say they will fight for the rights of Americans to not be electronically eavesdropped on, while they are close-lipped when one of their longtime Senators did just that with Newt Gingrich, leaked it to the media hoping to damage him politically, and was found to have broken wiretapping laws? Nope.

    Spread alarmist publicity worldwide about the pending threat of global warming to the existence of life on earth, make unnecessary plane trips to Norway trying to kiss enough you-know-what to be given a Nobel Peace Prize, and jet home to a lavish mansion that sucks juice off the grid like a thirsty mosquito?

    Nope.

    That’s the great thing about practicing situational ethics 24/7 and having no hard-and-fast standards whatsoever. You can never, ever be a called a hypocrite.

    L.N. Smithee (997f6f)

  17. “What does a liberal have to do to even be called a hypocrite?”

    They’d have to grow a spine. Then they’re demonized.

    Al (b624ac)

  18. That Glenn Greenwald, he’s so smart. He’s always right.

    Sock Puppet (32d1ee)

  19. Semanticleo,

    I don’t agree that Greenwald focused on pre-election vs. post-election responses but I appreciate your effort to carefully explore this issue. Greenwald’s examples were drawn from conservative comments made yesterday, after the news of Craig’s guilty plea was published. His focus was pre-election vs. post-guilty plea comments and to me those are very different issues. The first deals with rumors about Craig based on third-hand reports that may turn out to be true but that were nevertheless hearsay when they were first published. The second was based on Craig’s guilty plea, a plea that Craig might like to rescind but that he has not claimed was given under duress or other legally questionable circumstances.

    Andrew J. Lazarus,

    I differentiate the Craig and Vitter cases because of the standard of proof involved. Craig has admitted his conduct. Vitter has not, nor is there clear evidence of his criminal conduct. If I were his constituent, I would like to ask him some questions but I would not be ready to judge him.

    Christoph,

    Thank you very much for the compliment – but you and I both know Patterico blogs 10 times better than I ever will.

    NK and Beldar,

    Thank you for your comments. I especially appreciate them because of the great respect I have for your opinions expressed here and elsewhere.

    DRJ (bfe07e)

  20. DRJ;

    I honestly don’t see how you cannot see the clear
    distinction in timelines.

    “And at least at the time, Barnett was right. Among right-wing pundits — weeks before the election — there was nothing but support for Craig and outrage over the reporting of this story. The most hysterical outrage of all was from Glenn Reynolds, who went so far as repeatedly to predict — literally — that the country would be so repulsed by Rogers’ reporting that it might actually swing the election in favor of the Republicans. More absurdly still, Reynolds cited a grand total of two reasons why he voted for GOP’s Bob Corker over Harold Ford in the Tennessee Senate race, one of which was actually Rogers’ report on Craig (“the sexual McCarthyism from the pro-outing crowd . . . . has convinced me that [Democrats] just don’t deserve a victory with those tactics”).”

    ……punctuated with a new graf…………..

    “But now, with the election safely over, a fundamentally different view — one might say the exact opposite view — has arisen among this same political faction (and, in some cases, though not all, even among the same individuals)

    Perhaps you take exception to the weasel words;

    “and, in some cases, though not all, even among the same individuals)”

    I will grant you he is painting with a broad brush.

    Semanticleo (4741c2)

  21. Feign shock at the misdeeds of Mark Foley (who resigned in disgrace after dirty talk with underage pages) when they earlier gave a standing ovation to Gerry Studds, who actually had sex with one, refused to resign, and was re-elected until he left of his own volition – L.N. Smithee

    Who is “they?”

    A standing ovation at a townhall meeting with supporters in his home district tells you the crowd “feigned” shock at Foley’s misdeeds decades later? You’re channeling Sean Hannity.

    steve (407249)

  22. […] airport. Some are accusing him of hypocrisy for being gay and not supporting the gay agenda. Some are accusing Republicans of hypocrisy for asking for his resignation after rebuffing a prior […]

    Accounting Bum » Blog Archive » Hypocrisy (afad56)

  23. You’re channeling Sean Hannity

    Poor Steve. Those pesky pronouns have him all confused again. Having a hard time figuring out who they and his refer to, are we Steve?

    Try not taking those moron pills for a couple of weeks. Maybe they oops, what’s he talking about there? will wear off.

    paul a'barge (889867)

  24. Larry Craig, and other members of Congress, in 1993, imposed upon the military the doctrine of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. A military member who acted as Craig has admitted to in court, would be dismissed from the service. It is only fair then, that the Senator resign.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  25. Semanticleo #20,

    Here’s my reasoning:

    In paragraph 7 of his Salon article (linked above), Greenwald notes that right-wing pundits have changed their tune on Craig since the election is “safely over.” However, his subsequent examples clarify that Greenwald’s focus isn’t on comments made in the days or even weeks after the election, it’s on comments made immediately after the guilty plea became known.

    For example, in paragraph 7 Greenwald specifically contrasts Michelle Malkin’s opinion on Larry Craig before the election with her opinion from yesterday.

    In paragraph 8, Greenwald highlights Hugh Hewitt’s call for Craig’s resignation issued yesterday.

    Greenwald notes in his paragraph 9 the critiques of Craig issued yesterday by Mark Steyn and the Corner’s David Freddoso.

    Greenwald adds Jonah Goldberg’s opinion of Craig issued today in paragraph 10.

    Paragraph 11 of Greenwald’s article notes Sister Toldjah’s denunciation of Craig from today’s edition of her blog.

    Greenwald links Ed Morrissey’s comments on Craig published yesterday in paragraph 14.

    Finally, in paragraph 15, Greenwald concludes with Red State’s comments issued yesterday on the Craig affair.

    Therefore, Greenwald’s “proof” of right-wing hypocrisy is completely focused on contemporaneous (post-guilty plea) responses, and that’s why I submit Greenwald was not comparing pre-election and post-election opinions.

    DRJ (bfe07e)

  26. Having a hard time figuring out who they and his refer to, are we Steve?

    Unless someone polled Studds’ townhall crowd ten years later, the statement is utterly whimsical.

    steve (407249)

  27. So, if a guy starts tapping his foot in a stall next to me, that’s an invitation to sex? That’s news to me. Romantic, isn’t it? In the stench of a bathroom with germs everywhere… The soothing sound of gas passing in the background… Lovely.

    Psyberian (9a155b)

  28. Have you read the complaint by the cop? I ask you Patterico, would L.A. have prosecuted such a thin case? I doubt D.C. would.

    clarice (0b28fc)

  29. Clarice,

    Patterico is on hiatus from his blog until after Labor Day.

    DRJ (bfe07e)

  30. Nikolay: “Mike Rogers claimed that Craig had a habit of soliciting men for sex in the public bathrooms. Bloggers denounced Rogers not because they said that it was untrue, but because it was “unimportant”, “intrusion of privacy” etc. The thing now reported about Craig is 100% identical to what Rogers claimed. What you say, DRJ, is just BS.
    If you stood by Craig then, you should stand by him now.”

    Nicolay: hypocrisy is defined as “insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have”….conservatives believe in this, so it is easy for many of us to follow that unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo passed on a politician at election time, by unnamed accusers, is just that: unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo. When this case against Senator Craig was entered into the public realm as facts, conservatives like myself said the same thing: he should go. It is not hypocritical to say to all that unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo is wrong, and then to hammer those who don’t live to their beliefs.

    Unlike liberals, of course….

    reff (f3109d)

  31. Not widely reported, Larry Craig flew back to MPLS ten days later and went to the same airport police station seeking someone in charge. Seemed his “lawyer” had follow-up questions. The staffer called the original arresting officer, Detective Sgt. Karsnia, and put Craig on the line with him:

    “After their brief discussion, Craig stated that was all he needed and departed the area after I asked if there is anything else I could do.

    To note, Craig appeared agitated and demeaning during my first contact with him even though I did my best to answer his questions.”

    http://media.startribune.com/smedia/2007/08/28/19/07002008-082806LarryCraigReport.source.prod_affiliate.2.pdf

    I gather travel from DC to Idaho requires a change in the Twin Cities. The Senator seems arrogant and clueless.

    steve (407249)

  32. That’s the great thing about practicing situational ethics 24/7 and having no hard-and-fast standards whatsoever. You can never, ever be a called a hypocrite.

    Comment by L.N. Smithee — 8/28/2007 @ 5:01 pm

    But of course, they’ve perfected it, learned from the best – the grand poo bah – hard parting with young women, married Ted Kennedy’s homicidal plunge and everyone including feminists still let’s the old bastard slime his ex-wife, because he says what they want to hear.

    Topsecretk9 (1694f6)

  33. Another Drew:

    Larry Craig, and other members of Congress, in 1993, imposed upon the military the doctrine of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. A military member who acted as Craig has admitted to in court, would be dismissed from the service. It is only fair then, that the Senator resign.

    Wrongo bongo. Larry and the (Democratic-led, by the way) Congress BANNED gays serving in the military. The ’93 bill reiterated the prior ban. The Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell policy was Bill Clinton’s and was imposed by executive order. In fact, Bush 42 let that policy stand, even though it’s not, strictly speaking, in line with the legislation.

    Barney Frank was a member of that Congress too. Should he resign?

    I happen to think Craig should resign, although perhaps for different reasons than you. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on the Mike Rogers bathroom-cruising charge, but his guilty plea kind of changes that, doesn’t it?

    I also think Clinton should have resigned, Frank should have resigned, Studds should have resigned, Packwood should have resigned, and Nixon should have resigned.

    I’m fairly consistent. I’m looking forward to seeing Stevens, Mollohan, Taylor, and Jefferson resign, too. I’d like to see Elliot Spitzer resign but he has too much ego, and he’s probably already looking for another way to frame the opponent he got caught framing.

    It’s not very hard to go through life without shaking down people, siccing cops on them, screwing power-besotted subordinates, or grossing out public restroom users. I have managed it for many years, and I daresay all of us commenting here have managed it. So why do the embodied ids of the Beltway have such a hard time?

    The whole Democrat/Republican thing is a swindle. There’s only one party, THEM, and all 535 of them and their precious little staff members and body-fluid interns are only into lining their own pockets and getting various unqualified nephews and nieces more firmly attached to the public teat. But by dividing into sham-Democrats and pseudo-Republicans, they can divide the people into two warring factions, while they personally cooperate in the business of government looting.

    Kevin R.C. 'Hognose' O'Brien (88bf29)

  34. BONGO IS RIGHT

    Wrongo bongo. Larry and the (Democratic-led, by the way) Congress BANNED gays serving in the military. The ‘93 bill reiterated the prior ban. The Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell policy was Bill Clinton’s and was imposed by executive order. In fact, Bush 42 let that policy stand, even though it’s not, strictly speaking, in line with the legislation.

    It makes you wonder if the americans who don’t have a map, or can find the US on one, are really liberals, because they keep are sector who are historically and factually challenged.

    Topsecretk9 (1694f6)

  35. Vitter skates because the statute of limitations has tolled, but he did say

    This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible. Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling.

    Greenwald made two points: that conservatives seem to find Craig’s conduct ickier than Vitter’s, and that many conservatives who ridiculed the possibility that Craig had a practice of gay bathroom sex are not very forthcoming about why they were so adamantly wrong before the election. As for Craig’s beliefs that, for example, gays should be excluded from the military, it looks like a plan to exclude gays from Congress would hit the GOP side of the aisle at least as hard as the Dems…

    Andrew J. Lazarus (7d46f9)

  36. Chris Matthews called Larry Craig a deviant. I wonder if that’s going to lose him many of his friends on the left. Not very accepting lifestylewise there tweety! Haven’t you heard there are apparently sections of travel guides alerting people which restrooms have good action.

    The blowback from this could be very interesting. With the left gloating over the demise of another conservative, they risk ignoring the “yuck” factor this exposes of the homosexual lifestyle to the broader public. Just when gays are making the case for adoption and marriage, that they are just the same as everyone else you get national exposure of high risk, anonymous partner sexual behavior as part of the homosexual lifestyle splashed on the front pages. What, doesn’t everybody go trolling for blowjobs in public bathrooms? Adoption interview, do you or your partner cruise public restrooms looking for sex?

    I don’t think the story is all good news for the left or the gay agenda.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  37. I flew back to L.A. from St. Louis this afternoon on Southwest. After arriving in Terminal 1, I needed to use the men’s room. Before going into a stall, I loudly announced, “Look, if there are any G.O.P. senators in there, I don’t want any funny business.”

    nosh (56a0a8)

  38. It is not hypocritical to say to all that unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo is wrong, and then to hammer those who don’t live to their beliefs.

    Then they should have said so: “we don’t believe Rogers’ claims that Craig likes to hit on men in the bathrooms”. They, however, said otherwise: “we don’t care if Craig likes to hit on men in the bathrooms”. To be consistent, they should now defend Craig’s right to hit on men in the bathrooms (which, BTW, he, on libertarian grounds, likely has).
    This doesn’t really have to do with hypocrisy, it’s just a political opportunism and relativism, “morality” doesn’t even enter the equation.
    It’s the same thing as Rush Limbaugh saying to his listeners that Bill Clinton’s response to Oklahoma bombing would lead to a police state and claiming, among other things, that “military, by definition, cannot function as a police force”. Now that it’s his guy’s response to terrorism that is under question and it’s his guy that is using military as a police force, he’s outraged that some people could be so unpatriotic as to question President’s motives and actions. Use whatever arguments you can find to attack someone you don’t like, use whatever arguments you can find to defend someone you like — the consistency of arguments is irrelevant, since arguments are considered not in themselves, but merely as means to an end.

    daleyrocks,

    anonymous partner sexual behavior as part of the homosexual lifestyle splashed on the front pages

    Hey, is not anonymous partner sexual behavior a permanent fixture of heterosexual lifestyle? Is it not on front pages, like, forever? And it would probably be more widespread if the marriage between man and woman was banned.
    Closeted gay’s lifestyle is about as related to a married gay’s lifestyle as Ron Jeremy’s lifestyle is related to Mitt Romney’s lifestyle — both of them confirmed heterosexuals.

    Nikolay (939eb6)

  39. It’s the same thing as Rush Limbaugh saying to his listeners that Bill Clinton’s response to Oklahoma bombing would lead to a police state

    Are you sure about that? I heard some people say such things, but not Rush. What I remember is Clinton, Carville & Co. doing their best to associate McVeigh and Nichols with Limbaugh. If Rush did say such a thing, I can almost guarantee the context is different than you are suggesting.

    L.N. Smithee (e7ec7f)

  40. I heard some people say such things, but not Rush. What I remember is Clinton, Carville & Co. doing their best to associate McVeigh and Nichols with Limbaugh.

    Which was totally and utterly unfounded, as opposed to the claims (made by same Rush) that Democrats are the terrorist party.

    If Rush did say such a thing, I can almost guarantee the context is different than you are suggesting.

    Of course, the context was “they are gonna shut me down!” — he recently reposted his “police state” rant it in the context of new “they are gonna shut me down” rant. They are always one step from shutting this voice of freedom down, even though they never, actually, you know, tried to shut him down.

    Nikolay (939eb6)

  41. Nikolay, you claim that conservative pundits were saying (and you quote) “we don’t care if Craig likes to hit on men in the bathrooms”. Do you have any cites for this? I don’t believe it. I do believe that conservatives were saying that it was disgraceful for Democrat activists to be floating rumors about private sexual behavior in order to win an election, but that’s quite a different thing than saying that if the rumor were true they wouldn’t care about it. And in answering this, you will have to distinguish conservatives from libertarians. They aren’t the same thing, you know.

    As to Rush, I think that when the president of the United States uses his high office to personally engage in character assassination against a political opponent and try to link that opponent to a mass murderer with no evidence, there is some reason for the political opponent to be concerned. No one has shut down Rush since he started, but during the early part of Rush’s radio career, his current show would have been illegal. It’s not such a stretch to think that it could become illegal again with the president of the United States blaming his show for terrorism.

    There is no parallel between Clinton and Bush in this respect. Rush never did anything to aid or support McVeigh and there was no evidence that McVeigh cared about Rush at all. By contrast, the left has aided the terrorists a great deal and there is evidence that the terrorists have been influenced by the left. The New York Times acts as the espionage agency of the Al Qeda, ferreting out secrets that the terrorists want to know. Various leftist publications and professors try to downplay the evil of the terrorist and blame the US for terrorism. There are Democrats in Congress who call for a pullout every time an American soldier is killed, thus rewarding the terrorists for killing American soldiers. The left has been trying to force us to retreat since before this war began. That means that the terrorists would win, so the left is effectively on the side of the terrorists. And finally, the evidence that the terrorists are listening to the left can be found in their tapes where they occasionally repeat leftist talking points such as Michael Moore’s criticizing Bush’s behavior on 9/11.

    So unlike Clinton, Bush would be justified in blaming his political opponents for supporting terrorists.

    Doc Rampage (ebfd7a)

  42. Greenwald made two points: that conservatives seem to find Craig’s conduct ickier than Vitter’s,…

    A cogent person would state that AMERICANS find the practice of cruising bathrooms & soliciting strangers for sex to be ickier than paid-consensual sex. But, that would mean that sock-puppet would have to step outside of his cocoon (and we can’t forget that he’s also gay, so that adds a lot to the mix….I mean, perpetual victim and all).

    This would be a good time for you to state that liberals do NOT think that cruising bathrooms & soliciting strangers for sex is NOT as icky as prostitution. So, here’s your chance: speak for the masses! (Hey, Greenwald’s various sock-puppets do).

    RW (8f8726)

  43. Which was totally and utterly unfounded,

    There went your credibility. Yes, he did

    RW (8f8726)

  44. They are always one step from shutting this voice of freedom down, even though they never, actually, you know, tried to shut him down.

    Fairness.
    Doctrine.

    Oh, wait, that wouldn’t “shut him down”, would it? Much like demanding that the gov’t dictate the material included within a rap album wouldn’t diminish its sales to nothingness & a cancellation of the recording artist’s contract, Rush would’ve been what AM was during the fairness doctrine days: dead air.

    RW (8f8726)

  45. Nikolay – Exactly, don’t all heteros go trolling for love in Union Station bathrooms where people are dropping a deuce in the next stall. The romance. The excitement. The “normality” and explainability. I’m sure talking about that lifestyle would go over big at the next PTA meeting, but WTF do I know.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  46. What Greenwald conveniently forgets to mention in his piece is that he bravely avoided taking a stand on the extortion campaign of Mike Rogers last fall to out Republican gays. Rogers’ threats to both politicians and staffers to confess their sexual orientation or Rogers would publicly out them was the atmosphere of sexual McCarthyism fostered by the left. Rogers had threatened one Senator with outing if he did not vote the right way on Alito’s nomination and in another instance on gay marriage. Rogers allegations against Craig were not disprovable or provable and made in the atmosphere of sexual McCarthyism ratcheded up by Rogers and people like Aravosis and CREW at the time, seemed particulary odious in light of the anonymous nature of the proof presented, never mind the claimed hypocrisy.

    As always, context is important with Greenwald and something he often deliberately leaves out.

    Introduction to Logical Reasoning 101

    “Yesteryday, I wrote a post pointing out that the hordes of right-wing pundits condemning the Larry Craig outing have no standing to voice such complaints, since the very tactic that they were purporting to condemn (publicizing innuendo about private sexual behavior and exploiting sexual morality for political gain) is one which their political movement has used repeatedly, over and over, as one of its central weapons. I cited countless examples — including some from this week, along with others throughout the last 15 years — which demonstrate that the right-wing of the Republican Party centrally relies upon tactics indistinguishable from the Craig outing, and that unlike the Craig outing (engineered by a single, obscure individual), the entire right-wing political movement traffics continuously in those tactics…………….”
    posted by Glenn Greenwald | 8:09 AM Comments | Trackback links to this post

    daleyrocks (906622)

  47. L.N. Smithee (#16), if I agree with every point you make, do you concede that Craig was a hypocrite? Done.

    But, FYI, your Gerry Studds point omits a critical fact. Studds did not actually have sex with “one,” meaning in your statement an “underage page.” Studds’ relationship, though improper, was with a 17-year-old page who, as such, was of legal age in D.C.

    The Studds affair also might make for better fodder if it weren’t for the pervasive heterosexual bigotry involved. You see, the straight ethics committee decided that Studds offense was identical–apparently solely because of its same-sex nature–to another Congressman’s probably nonconsensual relationship with an female page who WAS underage.

    That double standard, insisted on by antigay bigots, gave Studds a credible argument that his censure was discriminatory. And that undermined its impact. It’s called overplaying your hand. Antigay bigots have such a hard time exercising self-restraint, even when it’s in their own interest.

    Steve (7a78eb)

  48. daleyrocks – My view is that the Left cares less about teh ghey as people, and views them more as yet another voting block to be courted. Were their beliefs true, they would not have to resort to outing people, screaming homophobia for disagreeing with them, and their other tactics.

    JD (e2fc98)

  49. Steve – Yup, it is all antigay bigotry.

    I would not concede that Sen. Craig is a hypocrite. His votes on same sex marriage and what he wrongfully chooses to do in his personal sexual practices are not inextricably linked.

    JD (e2fc98)

  50. It is hard to say whether attacks from the left upon their enemies with allegations of homosexuality are anti-gay bigotry per se. Certainly it often resembles it, especially in the invective.

    There is more, I think, a plantation mentality. A sense that the left owns gays and that any who are not on the plantation can be chased down and abused until they return to the plantation.

    Not sure which is more offensive.

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  51. Robin – I believe that Steve was referring to us as the antigay bigots.

    JD (e2fc98)

  52. JD, yes well I thought his comment was adorable, didn’t you?

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  53. Coming from the tolerant Left, it is as predictable as my ’69 FLH is unpredictable.

    JD (e2fc98)

  54. Sorry, JD, I don’t indulge your creative redefinition of antigay bigotry as reasonable perspective deserving of respect. You must really hate those “intolerant” people who dare to say that slavery or the holocaust were wrong. My goodness, how cultural-relativistic you are for a conservative.!

    Steve (7a78eb)

  55. JD, damn another strawman murdered in cold blood by Steve.

    Got a mop?

    Robin Roberts (6c18fd)

  56. “Hypocrisy does not mean saying one thing and doing the opposite. It means saying something that one does not believe.”

    We saw the mainstream media’s reaction to Rush Limbaugh’s addiction to pain killers and Bill Bennett’s gambling problem. These men were not hypocrites. I guarantee you that neither of these men wished for their own problems, and, after having gone through what they did, they most likely feel even more strongly about them than they did before. Again, weakness, not hypocrisy. “

    -LarryD

    In general, I agree with you. If you asked me if I thought that swearing was wrong, I would say yes… but I still swear like a sailor, because I’ve spent my entire adolescence in environments where swearing is the modus operandi. Half the time, I swear without even thinking about it; I don’t consider myself a hypocrite for doing so – I just acknowledge that it’s something I have to work on and move on with my life.

    That said, I don’t condemn other people’s swearing, or suggest that they should be punished for it.

    Limbaugh rants and raves about drug addicts, advocating their severe punishment… yet, when it is revealed that he himself is a drug addict, he is strangely silent.

    He doesn’t recommend that he serve the same sentence as those he has long condemned. You guarantee that “neither [Bill Bennett nor Rush Limbaugh] wished for their own problems” with gambling or drugs… and I guarantee that none of those that Limbaugh so visciously attacks wished for their own problems, either.

    Leviticus (68eff1)

  57. Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. But that is far removed from the three Glenns’ definition. He wanted conservatives to distance themselves from Craig “dump the queer” based on anonymous allegations put forth by a militant gay-activist. That they waited until Craig pleaded guilty, hoping to hide whatever misconduct he considers himself guilty of under the rug, is hypocrisy only according to the three Glenns’ way of thought.

    nk (a6ecc6)

  58. Limbaugh rants and raves about drug addicts, advocating their severe punishment… yet, when it is revealed that he himself is a drug addict, he is strangely silent.

    I’ve listened to Limbaugh for fifteen years, and I’ve never heard any such drug addict ranting and raving. Got some cites for that, Levi?

    Paul (09c70a)

  59. Steve, first you say:

    Who is “they?”

    A standing ovation at a townhall meeting with supporters in his home district tells you the crowd “feigned” shock at Foley’s misdeeds decades later? You’re channeling Sean Hannity.

    then you say:

    But, FYI, your Gerry Studds point omits a critical fact. Studds did not actually have sex with “one,” meaning in your statement an “underage page.” Studds’ relationship, though improper, was with a 17-year-old page who, as such, was of legal age in D.C.

    Since you were late to the Studds party, perhaps you can avail us of your opinion of the difference in the Democrats treatment of Foley and Studds

    TomB (d49918)

  60. Limbaugh rants and raves about drug addicts, advocating their severe punishment… yet, when it is revealed that he himself is a drug addict, he is strangely silent.

    He doesn’t recommend that he serve the same sentence as those he has long condemned.

    Other than your assertion, can you show this to actually be the case?

    JD (e2fc98)

  61. don’t all heteros go trolling for love in Union Station bathrooms where people are dropping a deuce in the next stall. The romance. The excitement. The “normality” and explainability. I’m sure talking about that lifestyle would go over big at the next PTA meeting, but WTF do I know.

    No, but a lot of heterosexuals do have a habit of picking up random partners. This, however, has nothing to do with parental skills of heterosexuals in general.

    Nikolay (939eb6)

  62. Nikolay – You miss the point. I didn’t say it had anything to do with skills. I said the blowback effect would be interesting. Interesting in probably a bad way I would think. Read closer and don’t jump to conclusions.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  63. nikolay – How many of those hetero’s head out to the nearest public restroom searching for those partners?

    JD (e2fc98)

  64. Steve wrote:

    “But, FYI, your Gerry Studds point omits a critical fact. Studds did not actually have sex with “one,” meaning in your statement an “underage page.” Studds’ relationship, though improper, was with a 17-year-old page who, as such, was of legal age in D.C.

    The Studds affair also might make for better fodder if it weren’t for the pervasive heterosexual bigotry involved. You see, the straight ethics committee decided that Studds offense was identical–apparently solely because of its same-sex nature–to another Congressman’s probably nonconsensual relationship with an female page who WAS underage.

    BUZZZ! Wrong!

    From ABCNews.com last September during the Foley fallout:

    In 1983, two lawmakers were censured by the House of Representatives for having sexual relationships with teenage pages. Rep. Dan Crane, R-Ill., admitted to sexual relations with a 17-year-old female page, while Rep. Gerry Studds, D-Mass., admitted to sexual relations with a 17-year-old male page.

    The ways each lawmaker handled the scandal — and the consequences they faced afterward — were very different. Crane apologized for his actions, saying, “I’m human” and “I only hope my wife and children will forgive me.” He was subsequently voted out of office in 1984.

    Studds, who was openly gay, said the relationship was consensual and charged that the investigation by the House Ethics Committee raised fundamental questions of privacy. He won re-election the following year — in a more liberal district than Crane’s — and served in Congress until his retirement in 1996.

    You suggest that Crane’s dalliance was “probably nonconsensual,” which means you think Crane forced a young teenager to have sex with him. There’s a name for that kind of crime: rape. Yet Crane was never charged with rape.

    You obviously think the system is broken, but it’s no match for your memory.

    L.N. Smithee (7d35d5)

  65. Steve, regarding the age of Studd’s page, it is not clear that the page was 17. I was in DC at the time of the revelation of Studd’s behavior. I have not attempted to track down the old press coverage, but, as I recall, the key issue was the lack of proof that the page was underage. Conventiently for Studds, the page could not remember whether the sex act had taken place before or after his birthday. Without definitive testimony from the page, it was impossible to prosecute Studds. Bad memory is, of course, the great escape route for all those who do not want to commit perjury. I personally never found it plausible that someone could forget the time frame of such an unusual event in one’s life, but in fairness to the page, the public revelation was 10 years after the incident. In any event, Studds apparently didn’t make the effort to ensure that the page was of legal age, and it is not unfair for unbiased observers to at least suspect that the page was underage.

    Steven (a311f8)

  66. Steven, if you look closely, steve is trying to conflate underage (under 18) with age of consent (usually 16, but it differs per jusrisdiction).

    However, obfuscations aside, I think steve is doing an absolutely marvelous job of avioding the real point, which is, how do you reconcile the Dems giving Studds a standing ovation and a comittee chairmanship for having sex with a page, while they hounded Foley out of office for talking dirty to a page?

    It is, of course, rank hypocrisy. But steve will never admit it.

    TomB (d49918)

  67. JD –

    I’ll vouch for the essence of the Rush/drug punishment comment. Through the late 90s/early 2000s Rush was of the ‘lock the druggies up’ ilk. And I say this as a long, long time Rush listener, 2x Bush voter, et cetera.

    Rush came around to the ‘addiction as illness’ school of thought about the same time as he was determined to be an addict.

    Which doesn’t make him wrong. It represents either a ‘Road to Damascus’ moment for Rush or a convenient change of position. You choose.

    BumperStickerist (350875)

  68. BumperStickerist – Thanks for the info. Being in recovery myself (clean and sober for 3+ years now) it would not surprise me at all that he could have had a come to Jesus type of moment, the proverbial moment of clarity, where the extent of the problem becomes clear to the addict. My views have likely become broader in these arenas, though as time wears on, I also become more tough love, stronger sentences, etc … In this arena, even if this would be considered hypocrisy, if people are in an active recovery program, their views should grown and change.

    Did he have a problem with the pills at the time he was talking tough about drugs? I would also suspect that he wouold have deliniated between street drugs and prescription drugs, even if I wouldn’t.

    Thanks for the info.

    JD (e2fc98)

  69. I’ll vouch for the essence of the Rush/drug punishment comment. Through the late 90s/early 2000s Rush was of the ‘lock the druggies up’ ilk.

    Are you sure it wasn’t a case where Rush said something along the lines of “if they (druggies) break the law, they should pay the price”? He’s long been more of a libertarian on things like personal use of various vices (cigarettes come to mind) and personal speech (he defended Bill Maher…yes, that Bill Maher) and personal privacy (look at what they did with his privacy when it came to his medical records). I’ve never heard him say that we should lock up people who have used drugs and I’ve been a Limbaugh listener since ’90. I could be wrong, but I’ve had this discussion with many liberals, as well & there’s no hard and fast quote that ‘nails’ Rush vis-a-vis drug use quotes, although it’s a bit of a quibble, since he obviously broke some sort of law when obtaining all those pills, but then again the onus is on the state. I doubt you’d find many prescription drug addicts who would disagree with the notion that the gov’t should jail crack dealers & shut down meth labs, which doesn’t make them any more hypocritical than people who wish to jail people who imprison folks against their will (known as kidnapping); it’s more of a word game & dancing on the head of a pin, isn’t it?

    You see, the straight ethics committee decided that Studds offense was identical–apparently solely because of its same-sex nature–to another Congressman’s probably nonconsensual relationship with an female page who WAS underage.

    Uh-huh. It was bigotry to find that a straight guy having sex with a female page was to be treated the same as a gay guy having sex with a male page. “Apparently soley”, to be sure. From the “straight ethics community”. Someone’s proverbial skirt is showing…..put down the victim flag, ‘kay?

    rjwest21 (8f8726)

  70. Google.

    I want to let you read along with me a quote from Jerry Colangelo about substance abuse, and I think you’ll find that he’s very much right…”I know every expert in the world will disagree with me, but I don’t buy into the disease part of it. The first time you reach for a substance you are making a choice. Every time you go back, you are making a personal choice. I feel very strongly about that.”…

    What he’s saying is that if there’s a line of cocaine here, I have to make the choice to go down and sniff it….And his point is that we are rationalizing all this irresponsibility and all the choices people are making and we’re blaming not them, but society for it. All these Hollywood celebrities say the reason they’re weird and bizarre is because they were abused by their parents. So we’re going to pay for that kind of rehab, too, and we shouldn’t. It’s not our responsibility. It’s up to the people who are doing it. And Colangelo is right.

    –Rush Limbaugh TV show (9/23/93)

    Andrew J. Lazarus (dc5e12)

  71. Andrew – That quote is from 14 years ago. I know it may be a bit nuanced for you, but do you think that his views may have changed over time, given his own personal experience? The rest of it is in reference to remarks made by a great University of Illinois alum, Colangelo, and references personal responsibility, an idea central to any recovery program. So, your point is?

    JD (5edd3b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3390 secs.