Sexless Sex Scandals

Everyone loves a healthy debate. Post an idea or comment about a current event or issue. Let others post their ideas also. This area is for those who love to explore other points of view.

Moderator: Nicole Marie

Sexless Sex Scandals

Postby Haggis@wk » Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:57 am

What is it with Republicans that they can't even run a proper sex scandal?

Who ever heard of sex scandals without sex?

At least when the Democrats have a sex scandal, it involves real, honest to god sex.

Yeah, I know, Bill Clinton said the sex wasn't sex. But let's face it, it was.

Had Bill tapped Monica's foot, the most he'd have been accused of was playing footsie, and there'd have been no outcry, much less an impeachment.

And the double standard is appalling; Democrats keep their jobs after drowning women in cars or keeping male brothels, having sex with teenage boys while Republicans are hounded out of office for sex scandals that don't have, you know, sex.

Sheesh, if I were the American people, I'd be totally sick of sexless Republican sex scandals by now.

The GOP needs to shape up.

Starting with Larry Craig. Even the most diehard conservative ought to be able to recognize that a gay sex scandal without gay sex is even more abnormal than gay sex. I mean really. It's just plain weird.

Couldn't the guy have at least managed to get caught in a gay bathhhouse or something, like a normal homosexual?
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Postby OperaTenor » Sat Sep 01, 2007 3:21 pm

Let's not forget Mark Foley....
"To help mend the world is true religion."
- William Penn

http://www.one.org
OperaTenor
Patron
 
Posts: 10457
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Paradise with Piq & Altoid, southern California

Postby analog » Sat Sep 01, 2007 3:25 pm

http://www.idahostatesman.com/eyepiece/story/143801.html


"The Statesman began its inquiry last October, after a gay activist blogger, Mike Rogers, published a claim that Craig had sex with men. Rogers cited anonymous sources. Rogers believed he had the evidence to nail a hypocritical Republican foe of gay rights, raise the din in the Rep. Mark Foley scandal, and help the Democrats win the Congress..........

.........On May 12, two days before its interview with Craig, the Statesman finally interviewed Rogers' "best source," the man who says he is certain he had a brief sexual encounter with Craig at Union Station, which is two blocks from Craig's office. The man said the sex occurred in two restrooms on a weekday afternoon. He estimated the encounter lasted three or four minutes.

The man's motive was twofold. A lifelong Republican, he recently had re-registered as a Democrat because he's angry with what he sees as the GOP's gay-bashing. Second, he was tired of Rogers picking on congressional staffers and offered him the chance to "out" a senator.

The Washington-area man's story has remained consistent, beginning with his Aug. 9, 2004, e-mail to Mike Rogers: "I've hooked up with Craig ... why not out some actual members and not their staffers?"

That suggestion came shortly after Rogers launched his outing campaign, prompted by his anger over the GOP election-year push for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Craig voted for the failed measure July 14, 2004. He also has opposed allowing gays or lesbians in the military and voted against extending civil rights protections to homosexuals in the workplace..........."



Could be much ado about nothing. I hope there's a happy ending.
Cogito ergo doleo.
analog
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 12:01 am
Location: arkansas ozarks

Postby Haggis@wk » Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:32 pm

OperaTenor wrote:Let's not forget Mark Foley....


Oh yeah, he at least talked about sex. I think
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6055
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: Sexless Sex Scandals

Postby Nicole Marie » Tue Sep 04, 2007 7:45 am

Would it be so terrible for him to come out tof the closet? You are gay... big friggin deal!! Stop living a lie, it only hurts everyone around you.
H.R.H. Nicole Marie
Eve was Framed
Nicole Marie
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1843
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Hartford CT

Re: Sexless Sex Scandals

Postby analog » Tue Sep 04, 2007 8:23 pm

Craig's being pilloried because he doesn't vote the way that activist blogger would like him to vote, not because of his alleged orientation and promiscuity.

Now that's the pot calling the kettle intolerant, if you ask me.
Cogito ergo doleo.
analog
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 12:01 am
Location: arkansas ozarks

Re: Sexless Sex Scandals

Postby barfle » Tue Sep 04, 2007 8:50 pm

I have no idea of Craig is gay or not, and I really don't care. And if he is gay, I don't care if he wants to keep it a secret. Everyone has private things they want to keep private.

From what I've heard of the "interview," he could have very well made those "signs" innocently. I know I could have.
--I know what I like--
barfle
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6144
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Springfield, Vahjinyah, USA

Re: Sexless Sex Scandals

Postby Shapley » Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:18 am

barfle wrote:From what I've heard of the "interview," he could have very well made those "signs" innocently. I know I could have.


I agree with that point. There are signs and codes used by various groups - druggies, homosexuals, etc., that the majority of us are unaware of. I'm sure they prefer it that way. However, it does seem that, while one may make one, or even two, signs inadvertently, it would seem unlikely that one would make an entire series of such signs.

Had he plead ignorance from the outset, he might have a case. However, his first act upon being shown the badge was to flash his Senate credentials, which makes me believe he was aware of what he was doing.

I think a court would have a difficult time convicting him on the evidence - no provable solicitation or actual 'lewd acts' seem to have taken place. However, he pleaded 'guilty', probably thinkng a quiet loss would be better politically than a noisy win. He was wrong. Had he fought in court he might have a leg to stand on. By entering a 'guilty' plea, however, he admitted to responsibility for his actions, and now he has to answer for that.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Sexless Sex Scandals

Postby jamiebk » Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:48 am

barfle wrote:From what I've heard of the "interview," he could have very well made those "signs" innocently. I know I could have.


Remind me not to tie my shoe, pick up a dropped item, sneeze, cough, ask the guy in the next stall for TP, clear my throat, move my feet, etc. next time I am in a bathroom stall. Sheesh

(However, like Shapley, I feel that Craig knew what he was doing and that his "signs" were purposeful.)
Last edited by jamiebk on Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Re: Sexless Sex Scandals

Postby jamiebk » Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:53 am

I just flipped ovver to MSN news page and caught this article. Do you suppose the headline was purposeful? :rofl:

Lawyer says Senate should not probe Craig
Idaho Republican may fight to keep Senate seat, reverse guilty plea

The Associated Press
Updated: 6:15 a.m. PT Sept 5, 2007

One of Sen. Larry Craig’s lawyers said Wednesday the Senate has no business looking into the conduct of one of its own following Craig’s guilty plea in connection with an airport men’s room sex sting.

An unbroken line of precedents dating back 220 years makes clear the Senate does not consider misdemeanor private conduct to be a fit subject of inquiry, asserted Washington attorney Stan Brand.

“We ought to seek to have the committee dismiss this outright,” Brand said of a Senate ethics panel’s investigation. “The Republican leadership called for an ethics investigation that had nothing to do with his office,” said Brand on NBC’s “Today” show.

Craig says he may still fight for his Senate seat, a spokesman says — if the lawmaker can clear his name with the Senate ethics panel and a Minnesota court.

The Republican lawmaker, who has represented Idaho for 27 years, announced Saturday that he intended to resign.

“It’s not such a foregone conclusion anymore that the only thing he could do was resign,” Sidney Smith, Craig’s spokesman in Idaho’s capital, told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

“We’re still preparing as if Senator Craig will resign Sept. 30, but the outcome of the legal case in Minnesota and the ethics investigation will have an impact on whether we’re able to stay in the fight — and stay in the Senate,” Smith said.

‘This is the senator’s decision’
Dana Perino, White House deputy press secretary, said Wednesday she’d heard news reports that Craig was reconsidering his resignation. “I don’t think that our views have changed,” she said, “but of course this is the senator’s decision, the senator’s seat.”

In Washington, D.C., Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s spokesman and the senatorial campaign committee had no immediate comment on Craig reconsidering.

On Aug. 1, Craig, 62, pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of misdemeanor disorderly conduct following his June 11 arrest at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

But Craig, who remained in Idaho on Tuesday as the Senate reconvened following its summer break, contended throughout last week he had done nothing wrong and said his only mistake was pleading guilty.

“It was a little more cut and dried a few days ago,” Smith said. “There weren’t many options. He was basically going to have to step aside. Now, there’s a little more to it.”

A telephone call Craig received last week from Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., urging him to consider fighting the guilty plea — and for his seat — affected Craig’s decision to reconsider his resignation, Smith said.

On Tuesday, Specter, senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, suggested Craig’s GOP colleagues who pressured him last week to resign should re-examine the facts surrounding his arrest.

“The more people take a look at the situation, there may well be second thoughts,” said Specter, a former prosecutor. If Craig had not pleaded guilty to a reduced charge and instead demanded a trial, “I believe he would have been exonerated,” Specter said.

‘A victim of circumstance’
Craig has hired a high-powered crisis management team including Billy Martin, the lawyer for Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick in his dogfighting case, and Brand, a former general counsel to the U.S. House. Martin is looking into the Minnesota guilty plea; Brand, who represented Major League Baseball in the congressional investigation into steroid use, will handle any Senate Ethics Committee probe.

Craig’s third six-year term in the Senate expires in January 2009.


Before Craig announced his intent to resign at month’s end, McConnell called Craig’s actions “unforgivable,” while the White House termed the situation disappointing. Republican Senate colleagues John McCain of Arizona and Norm Coleman of Minnesota said Craig should resign.

Republican Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter has not named Craig’s successor and hasn’t said when he will.

Craig has won support from his family, including his three children, whom he adopted after marrying their mother, the former Suzanne Scott, in 1983. Jay Craig, 33, told The Associated Press that he, his brother, Michael Craig, 38, and his sister, Shae Howell, 36, spoke candidly with their father about what happened in Minnesota.

“Our conclusion was there was no wrongdoing there,” Jay Craig said. “He was a victim of circumstance, in the wrong place at the wrong time when this sting operation was going on.”


© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17152243/
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Re: Sexless Sex Scandals

Postby barfle » Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:58 am

As I noted, I don't know and I don't care about Craig's sexual orientation. Whether he did what he did inadvertantly or deliberately makes no difference to me.

It seems as though he thought the charge was much like a traffic violation - probably easier to pay the fine and be done with it. I can't say I know much about the solicitation laws in Minnesota, and it appears as though Craig is as ignorant of them as I am. But if it's lewd conduct to drop your drawers in the stall of a men's room, it seems like a law against flatulence is in the works.
--I know what I like--
barfle
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6144
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Springfield, Vahjinyah, USA

Re: Sexless Sex Scandals

Postby Shapley » Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:27 am

I have to agree with Barfle, again. I cannot understand the concept of looking in public restrooms for strangers to engage in sexual intercourse with, let alone strangers of the same gender. Even so, we are supposed to be in an era in which such activities between consenting adults is acceptable. There is no indication that Sen. Craig attempted to force himself on anyone, or that he ran afoul of the prostitution prohibition, but rather used 'signals' that presumably would mean nothing except to a receptive individual, or to a police officer looking for them. The average joe would likely have just told him to keep his hands and legs in his own stall and then skedaddled away as fast they could finish the paperwork, or at least placed their body out of reach of the person in the next stall.

I guess I've been fortunate enough not to have been propositioned in a public restroom. I suppose, however, that that is because I do not send 'signals' that would make me appear receptive to such advances. It could be that such 'signals' are going on around me all the time, and that I do not perceive of them. Then again, I spend as little time as possible in public restrooms.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Sexless Sex Scandals

Postby jamiebk » Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:36 am

Shapley wrote:Even so, we are supposed to be in an era in which such activities between consenting adults is acceptable. There is no indication that Sen. Craig attempted to force himself on anyone, or that he ran afoul of the prostitution prohibition...

V/R
Shapley


That would be true for Clinton as well
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Re: Sexless Sex Scandals

Postby Shapley » Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:49 am

That would be true for Clinton as well


Perhaps. However, Clinton's did involve sexual contact in the workplace with a subordinate, which is construed as sexual harrassment (the same thing that sent Bob Packwood packing).

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Sexless Sex Scandals

Postby jamiebk » Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:06 pm

She was not a "direct report" and relations were consentual. It's a stupid thing to do, but does not qualify for harassment
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Re: Sexless Sex Scandals

Postby Shapley » Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:27 pm

Again, perhaps. However, her superiors removed her before the 'scandal' broke, because they felt she and the President were spending too much time together and were creating a unwelcome atmosphere in the office, which can result in charges of harassment by coworkers even if the activity among the principles is consentual.

It's a grey area, true. However, it is worth noting that Clinton was not impeached on charges of sexual conduct or of harassment, but rather on charges of lying under oath regarding his actions.

Of course, the President could have refused to answer the question, citing his Constitutional right against self-incrimination, but such a refusal would have been construed as an admission of guilt. Having chosent to answer, however, he was obligated to answer truthfully.

V/R
Shapley
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Sexless Sex Scandals

Postby analog » Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:17 pm

Of course, the President could have refused to answer the question, citing his Constitutional right against self-incrimination, but such a refusal would have been construed as an admission of guilt. Having chosent to answer, however, he was obligated to answer truthfully.



Clinton is about my age. We had our formative years before the "sexual revolution".
In our youth, it was generally understood a gentleman doesn't sully a girl's reputation. JFK's philandering was kept under the carpet, that's about the time Clinton was in junior high school and learning social behavior. Somewhere along the way our MSM became pathologically voyeuristic. In his shoes I would have tried to head off the press too - it's a holdover from the days of 'noblesse oblige' . I doubt he could have done otherwise.
Cogito ergo doleo.
analog
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 12:01 am
Location: arkansas ozarks

Re: Sexless Sex Scandals

Postby Shapley » Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:00 pm

Clinton was also a lawyer, and knew the penalty for lying under oath. The priviledge of acting the gentleman ends when you place you take the oath the 'tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Besides, I thought a gentlman didn't cheat on his wife. He had sullied her honour long before he took that oath...
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15196
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: Sexless Sex Scandals

Postby jamiebk » Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:13 pm

Shapley wrote:Besides, I thought a gentlman didn't cheat on his wife. He had sullied her honour long before he took that oath...


A (married) gentleman doesn't solicit gay sex in a public toilet either
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4284
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Re: Sexless Sex Scandals

Postby analog » Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:39 pm

Shapley wrote:
Besides, I thought a gentlman didn't cheat on his wife. .........


I'm certainly not defending him for that. I just think way too much was made of it.

He did try to "act the gentleman", that being what was drilled into young men in the 1950's.


It didn't work out. Most insincere acts don't.
Cogito ergo doleo.
analog
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 12:01 am
Location: arkansas ozarks

Next

Return to The Debate Team

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot]

cron