Fox News defending Craig's "wide-stance" argument

[berreal]

Even for fox news ... this is a new low!! Shawn Hannity is defending Craig's wide stance rule ..and blaming the police.....unbelieveable!!

He's saying the police officer jumped the gun and didn't wait long enough... in escessence he's saying the arrest was premature. I had to laugh ...what was the officer to wait for ...Craig's dick in his behind??

In addition he's saying the police intimidate Craig and bullied him into pleading guilty. In other words ...CRAIG IS A VICTIM!!! Really? A white US senator being bullied by a lowly cop in a circumstantial case?

Does this guy have any idea what cops bullying citizens is all about? Does he realize what can happen to the average joe accused by an officer?

If nothing else ..Craig should be dismissed for his stupidity ..because the cops really didn't have a case! Much of what they had was circumstantial, and Craig could have easily beaten it with any lawyer, and the hypocritical republican machine would roll on!

The reason why they end up catching people in these sort of sting is because most people they catch are the average joe ...with no connection or lawyer.

But what made this a slam dunk case to me ..is the fact that this guy was accused of the very same acts before, and he now plead guilty!! So aren't you glad he got caught, aren't you happy that there is one less guy (assumably) out there to worry about when you go to the rest room? No not Hannity ..Craig is a victim ..is what he's suggesting!

That should have stopped any intentions to defend this guy! But no ... not fair-and-balance fox news ... like always ... Craig is a republican ..and it's their guy!

I've always said the right would rally around Bin Laden if he ran on a republican ticket. Party and blind loyalty is what matters most. You have to be comfortable being a hypocrite to embrace that ideology.

Part of this bed-rock of hypocrisy that the right stands on. I

 

[USMC the Almighty]

But no ... not fair-and-balance fox news ... like always ... Craig is a republican ..and it's their guy!

I'm not going to try to defend SEAN Hannity or anything he said because I didn't watch the show, but I will say one thing. Hannity is not a news broadcaster, he doesn't pretend to be moderate. He comes right out and says that he defines himself as a "Reagan conservative" so your attempted "fair and balanced" attack isn't relevant because Sean doesn't say he's "fair and balanced".

I've always said the right would rally around Bin Laden if he ran on a republican ticket. Party and blind loyalty is what matters most. You have to be comfortable being a hypocrite to embrace that ideology.

Part of this bed-rock of hypocrisy that the right stands on. I

I know you have to be partisan and all, but there is plenty of hypocrisy on both side of the aisle. The Democrats are just as hypocritical (if not more). Take for example, the whole Mark Foley "scandal" a while back. When it came out, Foley immediately resigned amid criticism from the right. But when Gerry Studds, a Democrat, was caught doing the exact same thing as Foley with a male page, he claimed he was the victim of a "witch hunt" of homophobic conservatives and attacked those who criticized him for what he called a "mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults."

Needless to say, Studds not only didn't resign, but he was re-elected six times and returned to a standing ovation by the Dems in Congress.

What I'm saying here is that political opportunism is the name of the game. Let's stop pretending. We all know that if this Craig guy was a Democrat, the roles would be completely reversed.

 

[berreal]

I'm not going to try to defend SEAN Hannity or anything he said because I didn't watch the show, but I will say one thing. Hannity is not a news broadcaster, he doesn't pretend to be moderate. He comes right out and says that he defines himself as a "Reagan conservative" so your attempted "fair and balanced" attack isn't relevant because Sean doesn't say he's "fair and balanced".

First ...you are defending Hannity ..and in this case Craig's WIDE-STANCE argument as well.

And Hannity is not a seperate entity, he's not a stand alone news station. Does Larry King or Wolf Blitzer represnt CNN? Were this the case NBC wouldn't have dismissed Don Imus! They could easily assert .."hey he doesn't rrepresent us"!! Look below his mug and you clearly see "Fox News" ...he represents fox ..and Fox holds themselves out here as fair and balance!!

See ...this is what hypocrisy does ..it finds appeasing arguments ..technicalities to try and skirt the real issue. In this case ...your clearly wrong.

I know you have to be partisan and all, but there is plenty of hypocrisy on both side of the aisle. The Democrats are just as hypocritical (if not more). Take for example, the whole Mark Foley "scandal" a while back. When it came out, Foley immediately resigned amid criticism from the right. But when Gerry Studds, a Democrat, was caught doing the exact same thing as Foley with a male page, he claimed he was the victim of a "witch hunt" of homophobic conservatives and attacked those who criticized him for what he called a "mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults."

Needless to say, Studds not only didn't resign, but he was re-elected six times and returned to a standing ovation by the Dems in Congress.

What I'm saying here is that political opportunism is the name of the game. Let's stop pretending. We all know that if this Craig guy was a Democrat, the roles would be completely reversed.

First Subbs was cencured. And like Bill Clinton's case this was a relationship between consensual individuals. So the crime had to be because the intern was a minor. In addition, here you are proving why the hypocrisy lable clearly appplies here! Stubbs was openly gay and this was back in the 70's...note what Craig said ...'I AM NOT GAY" !! Yeah right.

Foley was thrown to the wolves ..and you know why? The crap was about to hit the fan so he got out ahead of it. But more importantly ... his actions were well known by his fellow republicans ...and they did nothing!! Better to quickly serve him up lest more republicans were ensnared. That was why Foley was offered up.

Now when this story was going on ...you friend Shawn Hannity was arguing ...well democrats knew too!! Maybe true. But again the hypocrisy is glaring as you again try to hide behind the technicalities.

See ..... to dig out Foley you need iorn clad proof. But if you were to do this pre-maturely ...who could best do this? His fellow republican collegues who had nothing to gain ...or democrats who could easily be accused of partisanship??


See ... because of right-wing-hypocrisy of being the family values party ...the party of God ... being gay is still a crime!!

Craig wasn't busted for being Gay!!

You wouldn't know that though ..because the hypocrites are only concerned with saying ....I AM NOT GAY!!!

In addition why are republicans calling for Craig's resignation?

1) They can't defend the indefensable because Craig plead guilty
2) Craig is expendable ..he's from a red un-contested state ..so all that will happen is that he's replaced with another republican.


This was partly why we saw republicans cheering Vitters recently when he admitted to dealing with prostitutes. His state was in play.

 

[SW85]

Was Hannity actually defending Craig, or was he simply complaining that the police handled the matter improperly by arresting him prematurely? (I'm really asking here; I don't watch the show. Why do you?) There is a substantial difference here -- if it's the latter he is likely as anti-Craig as anyone, and is angry because police misconduct will net him an acquittal.

I'll give you an example. In the 50's, there was a counterintelligence officer working for the Justice Department who was suspected of leaking classified files to the Soviets. One day it was noted that she was leaving the Justice Department with a purse filled with such files, and authorities followed her to see if she was, in fact, leaking. She drove a short distance, got on the subway, rode another short distance, and met a KGB agent in a dark alleyway in the bad part of town, and was promptly arrested. She was acquitted on the basis of police misconduct.

Why? Because she hadn't actually handed the files over yet. Her defense was that she was going to meet the KGB agent for a sexual liaison and just happened to have those files in her purse at the time. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, she had to be acquitted. And this was in the early 50's, when Soviet espionage was its height and high-profile security breaches were occurring left and right.

I thought it was very suspicious, when I first heard the story, that Craig was arrested on the basis of suspicious foot and hand movements. With cases like the above as precedent, this is not sufficient probable cause to arrest a man. Typically, if you're going to arrest someone for, say, soliciting a prostitute, you do it when they make an offer of cash, not when they pull the car over and take a look at what's on sale. Very likely Craig is going to get off legally because the cop jumped the gun. That's a legitimate complaint, and one can make it without necessarily defending the man.

 

[berreal]

Hannity was merely doing what most right-wing pundits(radio/tv) teach their listeners to do. When someone else is in trouble its .."personal responsibility" ..when they or their candidates are in trouble ...they are victims!!!

Thats essentially what Hannity was trying to carve out of all this. He was defending the ..."wide-stance" ..argument ..alluding to the notion that Craig may have been set up!! In other words ..CRAIG WAS A VICTIM!!!

Why I watch it ...just flipping channels ...and its also good to keep up with what these hacks are saying because invariably the goons take that fart back into the society, or the work-place etc.

Of course it comes down to a he-said-he said situation ... thats why its incredibly stupid of Craig to have plead guilty.


Finally you assert that Craig is going to get off legally ...and I ask how?

Imagine Michael Vick saying today ...."you know what I want to with-draw my guilty plea" ... would you want to be the lawyer with that job?

Thats what Craig is up against ..he already plead guilty ...game-over!!

Thats partly why his colleagues are not defending him today.

 

[top gun]

USMC the Almighty;21141]I'm not going to try to defend SEAN Hannity or anything he said because I didn't watch the show, but I will say one thing. Hannity is not a news broadcaster, he doesn't pretend to be moderate. He comes right out and says that he defines himself as a "Reagan conservative" so your attempted "fair and balanced" attack isn't relevant because Sean doesn't say he's "fair and balanced".

You are technically correct however I'm also sure many viewers don't realize that when the neo-con attack dogs are commenting that it isn't real journalism and that it all has about as much credibility as WWE wrestling (no offense to wrestling). But you're right Hannity is just like Rush, Beck and the rest of them... a political action committee for far right Republicans.

I know you have to be partisan and all, but there is plenty of hypocrisy on both side of the aisle. The Democrats are just as hypocritical (if not more). Take for example, the whole Mark Foley "scandal" a while back. When it came out, Foley immediately resigned amid criticism from the right. But when Gerry Studds, a Democrat, was caught doing the exact same thing as Foley with a male page, he claimed he was the victim of a "witch hunt" of homophobic conservatives and attacked those who criticized him for what he called a "mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults."
Needless to say, Studds not only didn't resign, but he was re-elected six times and returned to a standing ovation by the Dems in Congress.
What I'm saying here is that political opportunism is the name of the game. Let's stop pretending. We all know that if this Craig guy was a Democrat, the roles would be completely reversed.

A few things you left out here. First off, it was a Congressional page scandal involving BOTH Republicans & Democrats. Secondly, it was some 24 years ago.

Now I know you were trying to compare the Foley case to something involving Democrats even if it had to be 24 years ago, but what we're talking about is Republican Congressman Larry Craig and his soliciting for gay sex in an airport public restroom stall. Both the Foley & the Craig case happened like now... 2007. I think it's reasonable that people might expect things to change over 24 years... but I guess not everyone got the "memo".

I think that one does have to at least consider that this rash of behind closed doors (it appears even restroom doors) Republican gay sex scandals going on right up to date, 2007 does warrant some reevaluation of Republican credibility on anything they say they so adamantly oppose.

I'll now submit the whole background on what happened waaaay back in 1983.

1983 congressional page sex scandal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The 1983 Congressional Page sex scandal was a political scandal in the United States involving members of the United States House of Representatives.

On July 14, 1983 the House Ethics Committee recommended that Rep. Dan Crane (R-IL) and Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA) be reprimanded for having engaged in sexual relationships with minors, specifically 17-year-old congressional pages. Washington DC law specifies an age of consent of 16, meaning that the relationships were legal; however the committee felt, "any sexual relationship between a member of the House of Representatives and a congressional page, or any sexual advance by a member to a page, represents a serious breach of duty." The Congressional Report found that in 1980, a year after entering office, Crane had sex four or five times at his suburban apartment with a female page and in 1973, the year he entered office, Studds invited a male page, who testified he felt no ill will towards Studds, to his Georgetown apartment and later on a two week trip to Portugal. Both representatives admitted to the charges.

On July 20, 1983, the House voted by a supermajority to revise the reprimand recommendation to censure, a more extreme measure. Censure had never previously been used in a case of sexual misconduct. The motion to censure the two House members was introduced by Rep. Robert H. Michel (R-IL), the Republican House Minority Leader. Aides later said that Michel proposed this bill to head off a move by Republicans to expel the two legislators. Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA) was one of the leaders of the calls for the expulsion of Crane and Studds.

At the beginning of the debate, Rep. Crane said, "I want the members to know I am sorry and that I apologize to one and all." When he was called to be censured, Rep. Crane stood facing the House. According to The New York Times, after the censure was read, Mr. Crane, escorted by a friend, quickly left the chamber. However, an Associated Press article says that Crane walked back to his seat in the rear of the House and slumped in it. In 1984, Rep. Crane won the GOP primary but lost the general election.

Studds gave up his right to a public hearing reluctantly, saying that he objected to the conclusions of the Ethics Committee but wanted to protect the privacy of the pages involved and that that the affair was a "mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults." At the same time, Studds did admit to "a very serious error in judgement," saying that he should not have had sex with a congressional subordinate, regardless of the individual's age or sex. As his censure was read, Studds faced the Speaker who was reading the motion, with his back to the other House members.

 

[Hard Driver]

Actually, I think the guy was pretty stupid for preading guilty. The evidence against him seems pretty weak. I mean, I never start touching other peoples feet in bathroom stalls and I don't reach under stalls, So I think the cop is probably right about what was occuring. But would it be enough to convict in a court room?

I do think that the police officer should have waited a few more minutes to see if this guy made a proposition or something.

 

[vyo476]

I do think that the police officer should have waited a few more minutes to see if this guy made a proposition or something.

That was the proposition. There's a whole subculture of this stuff and, since saying, "Hey dude, wanna blow me?" is not exactly discreet, especially in a public place where the "thrill" of exhibitionism has to be tempered by the desire not to get caught, especially for someone with as much to lose as a member of the government.

Chances are, had the encounter proceeded as Mr. Craig had desired, there would have been very little verbal contact between himself and his partner.

Would it have been enough to convict...? Chances are, yes.

 

[top gun]

Actually, I think the guy was pretty stupid for preading guilty. The evidence against him seems pretty weak. I mean, I never start touching other peoples feet in bathroom stalls and I don't reach under stalls, So I think the cop is probably right about what was occuring. But would it be enough to convict in a court room?

I do think that the police officer should have waited a few more minutes to see if this guy made a proposition or something.

You know... believe it or not I was thinking a similar thought at first. But as I tried to put myself in Craig's position (metaphorically ) I came to this conclusion.

1) I bet the cops had a lot of precedent on the actual actions & signals used in these bathroom sex escapades that they could have brought forward. The same way they can show what different gang hand signals mean.

2) Craig knew if he was guilty or not. He had to weigh what to do from a "risk" perspective. If he knew he really was trolling he'd have to just hope they didn't have enough evidence to convict. When you know you really did do something... that lesser charge looks mighty good. He took it and hoped it might go unreported or at least under reported (without the sex facts) because it appeared to be just a disorderly conduct charge.

I can only say this for myself... and everyone else put yourselves in the same shoes. I'm straight... I go into a public restroom and while grouping repeatedly for the toilet paper my hand flashes underneath the stall divider several times... and then in adjusting myself on the commode my foot slips and touches the shoe of the guy on the other side. Then I'm subsequently arrested...

Under those circumstances I would never cop a plea basically saying I'm gay! I would say... YOU ARE CRAZY! I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU "THINK"! I'LL GET AN ATTORNEY AND I'LL DEMAND A POLYGRAPH TEST (admissible or not just so you "the arresting officer" knows).
THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL I'M SAYING I DID SOMETHING THIS GAY WHEN I ABSOLUTELY DID NOT!

Anyway... that's what I would do. Think about it.

 

[steveox]

Well NBC defends democrats including Bill & Hillary Clinton. Matt Lauer always defend the DNC. Why dont he take the Today show to IRAQ along CBS Katie Couric?

 

[berreal]

Well NBC defends democrats including Bill & Hillary Clinton. Matt Lauer always defend the DNC. Why dont he take the Today show to IRAQ along CBS Katie Couric?

So you want to go on record defending a US senator cruising toilets for sex?

See ..this is why I've always said hypocrisy rules the right!! You people would defend Osama Bin Laden if he said he was a republican.

For you people its always party first!!

Here you were back in the 90's getting feinting spells over Bill Clinton having consensual sex. Oh the horror of his doing what many men with power have done for centuries. Fast forward a few years and we see:

-republicans cheering Arnold Schwarzenegger for almost raping his co-worker
-cheering Vitters for having prostitutes
-Sticking by people like Newt Gingrich and Guilliani
-and now defending a guy cruising toilets for sex!!

I'd take the guy having a "regularl" consensual affair anyday!!

 

[top gun]

So you want to go on record defending a US senator cruising toilets for sex?

See ..this is why I've always said hypocrisy rules the right!! You people would defend Osama Bin Laden if he said he was a republican.

For you people its always party first!!

Here you were back in the 90's getting feinting spells over Bill Clinton having consensual sex. Oh the horror of his doing what many men with power have done for centuries. Fast forward a few years and we see:

-republicans cheering Arnold Schwarzenegger for almost raping his co-worker
-cheering Vitters for having prostitutes
-Sticking by people like Newt Gingrich and Guilliani
-and now defending a guy cruising toilets for sex!!

I'd take the guy having a "regular" consensual affair anyday!!

My friend you are far to logical and realistic for those who want to blame everything that's happened since Clinton on Clinton.

It just goes to show that they realized what a threat of a Democratic dynasty Bill Clinton really was. They should thank Bill Clinton in their prayers every night at bedtime. For if Bill hadn't had a girlfriend we'd be on our 2nd term of President Gore right now, not be bogged down Nation Building in Iraq, and we'd be looking forward to the first term of the next President Clinton...

I'm still looking forward to the next President Clinton...

 

[USMC the Almighty]

And just went I thought no one could be more of a partisan hack than berreal, top gun comes along and proves me wrong.

 

[steveox]

Thats why we need the Green Party Revolution. Throw both parties out lets make a clean sweep and start all over.

 

[berreal]

And just went I thought no one could be more of a partisan hack than berreal, top gun comes along and proves me wrong.

Ok I give up ... having consesual sex ..having an affair like Bill Clinton did is like publicly beheading a baby.

But cruising public toilets to have sex with men ...no ..that's normal ..and Craig is a victim!!

Like I said .... the right built their party on a foundation of hypocrisy!!