Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I dunno

Ask Hugh Hewitt

Posted by Bill White at August 28, 2007 12:40 PM

I think that Hugh Hewitt thinks that oral sex is sex. I think I do, too.

What do you think, Bill?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 28, 2007 12:43 PM

I don't think it's a big deal at all. The entire GOP senate contingent can give each other blow jobs for all I care.

Posted by Offside at August 28, 2007 12:53 PM

Rand,

You don't understand. Democrats tend not to think oral sex is sex, when Democrat officials are giving and receiving. It IS sex when Republicans are involved.

OTOH, Republicans think oral sex IS sex, regardless of the participants and circumstances.

Trick question regarding oral sex: Is it truly better to give than to receive?

Posted by MG at August 28, 2007 12:59 PM

Very few, if any, Democrats are calling for Craig to resign or suffer any consequences beyond what that Minnesota court already did, after his guilty plea. We are too busy laughing. Anyway, getting arrested in a men's room may be punishment enough, already.

Me? I think he should stick it out, defy the critics and run for re-elecion.

It's Mitt Romney, High Hewitt and Michelle Malkin that are all a'twitter over this story.

= = =

Related, I do feel some genuine compassion for David Vitter (R-LA).

While that guy obviously has some odd cravings those cravings must be very real (at least to him) and now his ability to satisfy those cravings must be very greatly reduced.

Posted by Bill White at August 28, 2007 01:57 PM

Very few, if any, Democrats are calling for Craig to resign or suffer any consequences beyond what that Minnesota court already did, after his guilty plea.

Of course they aren't, Bill. Why would they? It's severely weakened a Republican senator who was already in big trouble with his own base over immigration.

I think he should stick it out, defy the critics and run for re-elecion.

Of course you do, Bill. You may be partisan, but you're not stupid. Who wouldn't want to run against such a weak candidate?

Fortunately, the Idaho Republicans aren't stupid either, and don't tend to take political advice from partisan Democrats like you.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 28, 2007 02:06 PM

So, a conservative Republican Senator known for his anti-gay views gets arrested for soliciting gay sex in a men's room and pleads guilty and you don't know what the big deal is?

Is Michelle Malkin a Democrat?

The Larry Craig mess
By Michelle Malkin
August 28, 2007 12:29 AM Update 5:15pm Eastern. Here’s the full statement on Craig's site. He's not just a lying crapweasel.

He's a supremely arrogant, lying crapweasel. Blaming the press. Non-apology apologizing. How do you spell creep? C-r-a-i-g.

Posted by Bill Vednerek at August 28, 2007 04:03 PM

Personally, I'm laughing at the gay liberals, who are pointing at the supposed hypocrisy, while blissfully ignoring the fact that police used profiling tactics to catch a homosexual in what the state deemed "lurid" acts.

If Josh Marshall indeed has the actual police record, I'd think Senator Craig could have easily fought the charges and won.

Posted by Leland at August 28, 2007 04:07 PM

So, a conservative Republican Senator known for his anti-gay views...

He's "known for his anti-gay views"?

Do you have a citation for that? I've never heard of any particular views that he's expressed about gays, other than that he claims not to be one.

(Hint: being opposed to gay marriage is not necessarily an anti-gay view, except to ideologues.)

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 28, 2007 04:14 PM

Senator Craig could have made this whole thing go away by just saying "I'm not gay. I was just trying to buy some pot."

Posted by tom at August 28, 2007 04:22 PM

The guilty plea baffles me. A US Senator says he lacked competent counsel and didn't understand what he was doing?

Now, if I were the Minneapolis prosecutor I'd think about saying, "Okay, you want a trial? We will jointly ask the judge to vacate that guilty plea and we can have a trial."

That would be fun.

Anyway. you can't make up stuff better than this -- at his press statement, Craig began:

"I'd like to thank you all for coming out today . . ."

Too bad Jon Stewart is on vacation.

= = =

Finally, as far as I know the official liberal handbook decrees (mandates? - heh!) that gays who admit being gay and want to get married (Andrew Sullivan) are good. Gays who prefer anonymous sex in men's rooms? Not so good.

As I sometimes travel with my family I can see the point of that. If two gays get a room at the Marriott, and lock the door, I couldn't care less.

But if my seven year old son asks "Daddy, what are those two men doing" while we are in the men's room at some major airport, I can see how that is different.

Posted by Bill White at August 28, 2007 04:31 PM

By the way, Mr. Vednerek, are you unfamiliar with the concept of sarcasm?

Bill, how about Democrat gays who diddle young boys, like Gerry Studds? He was cheered as a Democrat hero. Especially after he martyred himself with AIDS.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 28, 2007 04:40 PM

Rand,

You are twisting yourself up in your knickers trying to figure out a way to bash Democrats with this.

Don't be silly. Just give it up. Really.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at August 28, 2007 05:17 PM

You are twisting yourself up in your knickers trying to figure out a way to bash Democrats with this.

No, give the history, it's no effort whatsoever. Trivial, in fact.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 28, 2007 05:40 PM

Remember, Studds was re-elected 7 times after having sex with a male page. A contemporary Republican who had sex with a *female* page resigned. There's a clear double standard.

Posted by Rick C at August 28, 2007 05:49 PM

This is not Hewitt's or Malkin's finest moment. I think they're pissed mostly because it's political bad news for the Republican Party.

Part of the problem is that the entire national discourse has shifted towards fluffy blonde girl values, where your sincerity and appeal to empathy are more valued than a code of honor. So everyone goes on about Craig's hypocrisy and such, as if it would be all totally OK if only he'd preached Larry Flynt's live 'n' let live any orifice will do kind of (non)morality, or if he went on Oprah, cried in remorse, and revealed that it all stemmed from his being beaten regularly by his alcoholic absent father. Blech.

The correct response of the Republican Party is a dignified and sympathetic silence -- after all, the guy is clearly troubled, and after one relatively minor mistake, one of those "victimless" crimes like smoking a joint, his career is officially in the toilet, and his mark in history is henceforward to be the butt (so to speak) of crude jokes -- followed by the quiet purge of Senator Craig from important assignments and his replacement in the Republican primary. There's nothing terribly wrong in what he did, but it does indicate someone with emotional, judgment, and self-discipline issues, and someone who has got some nasty skeletons in his closet with which he can be blackmailed. That's not a great person to have running on your ticket for the Senate, unless he's got some other (spectacular) redeeming values.

But hounding him from office with a big public shrieking stink is a Pharisaic disgrace.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 28, 2007 06:19 PM

There's nothing terribly wrong in what he did, but it does indicate someone with emotional, judgment, and self-discipline issues, and someone who has got some nasty skeletons in his closet with which he can be blackmailed. That's not a great person to have running on your ticket for the Senate, unless he's got some other (spectacular) redeeming values.

I agree, Carl (emphasis mine). But when I made that exact same point about Bill Clinton a while back, you disagreed. How are the two cases different? It's OK for the most powerful man in the world to be blackmailable, but not for someone running on your ticket for the Senate?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 28, 2007 06:33 PM

I never said Craig should resign over this. I'd prefer he didn't, and that he stand for re-election.

Although that guilty plea business gets us into Lisa Nowak territory at least with respect to bad judgment.

As for sex with Congressional pages, I would support a zero tolerance policy. Period. And yes, BOTH parties are pretty much equal when it comes to fooling around with the pages.

Posted by Bill White at August 28, 2007 07:29 PM

Its just amazing how us humans are driven crazy by our nether regions. Someone can have everything and become the leader of the most powerful nation in the world. Yet, still demonstrate that we as a species just barely have our foot out the door from flinging poo at one another.

Besides maybe Craig really isn't gay and just enjoys the romance and excitement of travel.

Posted by Josh Reiter at August 28, 2007 07:38 PM

blissfully ignoring the fact that police used profiling tactics to catch a homosexual in what the state deemed "lurid" acts.

I've been wondering about that one myself. There was a lot of "George Bush's fascist Christian Gestapo is going to round up all the gays!" rhetoric flying around the upper Midwest after the 2004 election; I'm really surprised I haven't heard it yet this week. Especially since it would be "Rovian" to try to mislead people by arresting a Republican.

Posted by Heather at August 28, 2007 08:16 PM

I never said Craig should resign over this.

Who said you did? Why do you keep defending yourself against a charge no one has made?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 28, 2007 08:19 PM

It is interesting reading the Slate editor comments, particularly the ones going after Craig's "lewd" conduct. Curious, does anyone have any facts that Senator Craig had any kind of sex in a public restroom? Indeed, besides the nominal reason for exposing yourself in public, is there any facts that suggest he was doing anything else that might be graphically lewd in public?

Again, going by Josh Marshall's police report, about the closest thing to lewd IMHO would be peeping through the cracks in stalls. All the other activities I could probably find people doing around the seats in the airport, if I wanted to look for it. And if Senator Craig was really trying to pick up a guy, I see nothing that suggest he was hoping to get any action in the restroom right then. So, are gay liberals actually happy about police interference in whatever methods men may use to pick up other men? As Bill suggests, is their some prudish gay code on the appropriate way a man should pick up a man? If so, they may want to note that men use similar methods out in plain view to pick up women from time to time, and there are not plain clothed cops running sting operations to catch them.

Actually David Plotz and I seem to have a similar take...

Posted by Leland at August 29, 2007 07:09 AM

But when I made that exact same point about Bill Clinton a while back, you disagreed. How are the two cases different?

Well...I don't remember exactly what I said then. But I can see a few distinctions that should be made.

First, I haven't said Craig should resign. I don't think he should (so far). He's not guilty of malfeasance in office, and whatever damage will be done to his effectiveness through exposure has already been done (barring some new revelation, and then of course we re-evaluate). What I said is only that he should not stand for re-election, and his power within the party should be minimized. But that's as far as the national party or people not in his district should go. It's up to the citizens of Idaho to recall him if they wish -- and they can do so at any time.

In the case of Clinton's sexual pecadilloes, I had the same feeling in 1998. Not enough to impeach him, but I would not have voted for him had he run for any other high office. Nor would I have in that case either made a grand high stink.

But I think, if I recall that conversation correctly, your issues with Clinton went far beyond teenage sexual stupidities: you suggested much darker events, including rape and a long history of using the powers of his office to cover such things up and to abet his own selfish ends. (Lying to a grand jury doesn't impress me, though. I'd lie to grand jury myself if I felt like it or the phase of the moon was right. I believe in no citizen's obligation to tell the truth to the government, the natural enemy of individual liberty.)

But the rape and mis-use of office charges, now, if true, are indeed gross malfeasance in office, and merit impeachment and removal from office. I haven't seen any evidence that Craig is guilty of such evils.

Incidentally, since that conversation, I've taken some time to look into the charges against Clinton, particularly those from Juanita Broaddrick, and I have to say I've come much closer to your point of view. There's something a lot uglier in Bill's past behaviour than mere boyish enthusiasm for having your cock sucked by cute strangers. The role of the press in glossing over this is despicable.

It's OK for the most powerful man in the world to be blackmailable, but not for someone running on your ticket for the Senate?

Eh, it's a question of degrees. We're talking about human beings here, not perfect Asimovian robots. If the first requirement for public office were the moral record of an angel, no one would be elected except autistics and the most talented antisocial liars. If we demand supermen that don't exist, we only get crafty fakes.

For some difficulties, you just don't elect the guy again. For others, you do need to pull him out of office right away. Reasonable men can differ on exactly where the border lies.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 29, 2007 12:05 PM

It is interesting reading the Slate editor comments, particularly the ones going after Craig's "lewd" conduct.

Indeed. Jack Shafer's comments are particularly revealing. That boy has some curious dark demons lurking in the back of his own mind. Wonder what he's been up to?

Posted by Carl Pham at August 29, 2007 12:09 PM

Carl, I'm still scratching my head. You claim that someone shouldn't be in the Senate because they expose themselves to blackmail, but you think it's OK to be president? A president is a lot more attractive blackmail target than a Senator, in terms of the power he wields. At the time, you disagreed that the potential for blackmail was a problem for Clinton. Have you or have you not changed your mind?

And why say that he shouldn't run again, but that he shouldn't resign? Either he's fit to be a Senator, or he's not. If you advocate that he not run again, you're implying that it shouldn't be up to the people.

So if you want him to leave the Senate, why wait? If he's a bad enough Senator that he shouldn't serve another term, why isn't he a bad enough Senator that he shouldn't leave now? Particularly when the appointment of someone else now could give Idaho a better Senator, with a better chance of reelection next year, since they'd be an incumbent?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 29, 2007 12:44 PM

Geez, Rand, politics ain't like crisp, black-and-white Newtonian mechanics. You don't make decisions on whether to recall or impeach an elected official on the same basis as you decide whether to elect (or re-elect) him. It's not like there's a Conservation of Fitness For Office principle to which we can appeal, and if he's not fit for office, then he shouldn't hold it, whether or not he presently does, and regardless of what damage is done in removing him.

The barrier for removal is necessarily high, because it's very disruptive and divisive. Hardly anyone is so wicked that he won't have adherents, and they will be profoundly alienated by his removal. Even if you feel Clinton should have been impeached, you can't deny that the whole process was very disruptive for the nation. Far more disruptive than merely not electing him in the first place. That's why the barrier for removing him is and ought to be higher than the barrier for not electing (or not re-electing) him.

Precisely because the barrier for removal is high, however, the standards for election are justifiably higher than mere fitness for office. The voters are reasonably more demanding before you're elevated precisely because it's difficult and expensive to get rid of you if you screw up.

I don't think what Craig has done rises to the level of removal from office. From your point of view, I do not think he is presently unfit for the job. But since the standards for re-election are higher, I think with perfect consistency that he is also not fit to be re-elected.

Let's just consider electing decent government as an engineering project. Changes in the design phase (pre-election) are cheap, so we work really hard to get that right. Changes in the construction phase (post-election) are expensive, so we avoid them as long as things can be patched up until the next re-design.

Or consider it as the difference between choosing to not marry someone and choosing to divorce them. You don't just ask yourself Is this person fit to be my spouse? and if the answer is in the negative get rid of them, whether they're merely your fiancee of 6 months or your wife of 24 years. In the former case prompt dumping is reasonable, but in the latter marriage counseling is probably a more reasonable first step.

As for the potential for blackmail, when we're talking about something that is merely embarassing enough to sink your re-election hopes, the blackmail potential only exists if you can stand for re-election. Craig can. Clinton couldn't. (And if we're talking about something far darker, e.g. leading to criminal charges, then we're on a different subject.)

Posted by Carl Pham at August 29, 2007 02:37 PM

I don't think what Craig has done rises to the level of removal from office.

But by saying that he shouldn't run again, that's exactly what you're saying. You're simply delaying the removal until January '09, but you're still saying that he should be removed.

From your point of view, I do not think he is presently unfit for the job.

If he's not presently unfit for the job, why does he become so in January '09?

But since the standards for re-election are higher, I think with perfect consistency that he is also not fit to be re-elected.

All right, that's your opinion, but why not let Idaho's voters decide that? Whether or not someone is fit for re-election is what elections are for.

I just don't understand the position that he shouldn't run again, but that he should resign, either. Either he's fit for office, or he's not.

As for Clinton's susceptibility to blackmail, the fact that he wasn't able to run again doesn't hold much water with me. Even if one believes his enablers who claimed that he was only lying to "protect his family" (riiiggghhhttt), he was clearly highly motivated to keep this affair a secret, even in a second term. If he was willing to perjure himself, suborn perjury, intimidate and bribe witnesses, what else might he have been willing to do, had there been a need, and he thought it would keep things quiet?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 29, 2007 02:59 PM

mere boyish enthusiasm for having your cock sucked by cute strangers...

The only way to absolutely 100% guarantee that this does not happen with the next President is to elect a woman.

Posted by Offside at August 29, 2007 03:24 PM

If he's not presently unfit for the job, why does he become so in January '09?

Because, as I said, there's hysteresis in these things. If you aren't having a good time on a date, most of the time the correct thing to do is not ditch her by the side of the road, but to simply not invite her out again. The standards for firing an employee are much higher than for not hiring him in the first place. And so forth.

So if your politician is screwing up in minor ways, the correct approach is most often to simply not re-elect him, rather than try to boot him out of office in mid-term with much effort and strife.

All right, that's your opinion, but why not let Idaho's voters decide that? Whether or not someone is fit for re-election is what elections are for.

I said nothing about superceding the judgment of Idahoans. What I said is just that the national Republican Party should oppose his primary candidacy. The national party can and properly does have a significant influence in the primary. The guy is perfectly free to run, but if he wants to run with an "R" next to his name, then he necessarily has to deal with the national party's standards.

Either he's fit for office, or he's not.

Yah, I get that. But I don't think most voters think in that kind of black-and-white way.

If he was willing to perjure himself, suborn perjury, intimidate and bribe witnesses, what else might he have been willing to do, had there been a need, and he thought it would keep things quiet?

The problem with an argument like this becomes clearer if we make a parallel version: if Bill Clinton is willing to run a stop sign, why wouldn't he have been willing to commit murder?

Well, obviously there is a difference between perjuring yourself and committing high treason, ordering the FBI to murder witnesses, et cetera. So just because Clinton did the one does not imply he would do the other. I think you're unconsciously using your belief based on other facts (e.g. Broaddrick) that Clinton would stop at nothing. Fair enough. But these facts are far beyond mere sexual misbehaviour. We know that's true because the Clintonistas and their MSM allies have striven mightily to spin Clinton's issues as just sexual misbehaviour. They have correctly understood that as long as it's just that, we've no good reason to suspect darker things.

Anyway, there is no good way to prevent the President from twisting national policy to suit his personal grudges and needs. The President is the highest authority gathered in one person the Republic sports. There is no conceivable effective watcher, other than an infinite regression of a Super-President watching the President and an Ultra-Super-President watching him, and so forth. Any collective agency representing the People as a whole is necessarily far less agile and coordinated than one man. Just ask yourself how effective any board is at guarding against a CEO's mischief.

That's why the Imperial Presidency is just a bad idea. Putting that kind of power in any mortal's hands is playing with fire. Madison knew better. It's a pity his modern heirs (us) are so much more willing to make Faustian deals with would-be Caesars because it's so much easier than solving our problems ourselves. Catch TnT in another thread: you'd imagine he'd be willing to give the President unlimited dictatorial powers, so long as he promised solemnly to use them only for good. Brrr.

Posted by Carl Pham at August 29, 2007 11:54 PM

What I said is just that the national Republican Party should oppose his primary candidacy.

Carl, what you said was: What I said is only that he should not stand for re-election, and his power within the party should be minimized.

I interpreted that (reasonably I think) to mean that you don't think he should stand for reelection. I was just trying to square that with your saying that you don't think he should resign. You didn't say anything about what the Republican Party should (or shouldn't) do. If the issue is what the party should do, it's obviously in their interest to force him out now, so they can get an effective senator in their now, who can run as an incumbent next year, instead of having an open seat.

The problem with an argument like this becomes clearer if we make a parallel version: if Bill Clinton is willing to run a stop sign, why wouldn't he have been willing to commit murder?

It only becomes clearer if one thinks it a valid analogy. I think that the distance between running a stop sign and murder is far vaster than the difference between perjury, witness intimidation and bribery, and many things that might be an disservice to the country that are done only to keep unpleasant facts from coming to light.

I think you're unconsciously using your belief based on other facts (e.g. Broaddrick) that Clinton would stop at nothing.

There is nothing at all unconscious about it. I was talking about Bill Clinton, after all, who had already shown himself to be a sociopath, and willing to put his own interests ahead of those of the nation, on numerous occasions, even if they were muddied and hidden by media coverage. But I also think that it's a good general principle. If you have that much power, and you lack the self control to put yourself in a position in which you can be blackmailed, you have too much power.

Anyone with a clearance who had done the things that Clinton did in his "personal" life would have had his clearance quickly pulled, if they were discovered by the relevant agency.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 30, 2007 06:14 AM

Post a comment