Larry Craig Gets Caught With His Pants Down, As Recalled by Four Men. Actually, He Often Had Gay Sex With His Pants On.

SPMOSHER - Santa Fe, NM (Just like Mexico... only new & improved!)

The sexuality of Larry Craig is a moot point, but his reprehensible voting record as a public official is not. He found it morally necessary to promote the backward ideals of the Republican Party by voting on anti-gay and anti-human rights legislation, but that same morality abandons him when the opportunity of an quick, anonymous sexual tryst came calling.

What really concerns me is that this is the very thing that Morally Upright Zealots do when it comes to self-justification... and I will tell you why IMHO.

People who consider themselves morally and ethically better, because of their religious or spiritual beliefs, find a way to justify taking advantage of their positions. They feel that since they are "better" or "morally grounded" than other people, they can justifiably steal, lie, fudge, obstruct, cheat and other "sins" because of it. But they feel no guilt because they have that justification of "I deserve it" because of self-appointed grandiosity.

This blinds them to looking at themselves with the same critical and judgmental eye they apply to others.

In the express holding in NY Times v. Sullivan http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_39/ The Supreme Court set a new standard for Public Figures and that holding was expanded and applied in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (made into the movie, Falwell v. Flynt). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=485&invol=46

A Mr. Larry Craig of East Nowhere, Idaho is entitled to legal protection from the disclosure of "embarrassing private facts" - but Senator Larry Craig, as a "public official" is protected only from publication of statements containing "actual malice."

Where Clinton was impeached for lying, under oath, about his (very similar) sexual practices with Ms. ML - the very least that we can do is give Larry the opportunity to lie under oath and be sanctioned by the Senate.

Of course, his having a double-life and voting against gay rights / aids research bills while being a key R vote in that razor-thin D majority Senate makes him immune.

My guess: Idaho will go "blue" for Senate because Larry has the "Bill Clinton disease."

I'd really like to see an investigation into his voting / constituent assistance practices to determine if he has been the subject of coercion all of these years. But, we don't investigate Blackwater so why would we go after Larry's potential to be blackmailed into "Duke Cunningham" like deals?

Looks as like the last of the "Singing Senators" will lose his seat.

Nobody will grind him down - the truth about his secret life will send his rabid anti-gay constituency into a tizzy.

Why anybody gives a F**K about how people F**K is our heritage from the Puritans; somebody, somewhere is having fun and we must put a stop to it!

Other than Darth Cheney, nobody says a word about Barney Frank.

"In the part of this universe that we know there is great injustice, and often the good suffer, and often the wicked prosper, and one hardly knows which of those is the more annoying."
- Bertrand Russell -

I agree with leadfoot. Craig's being gay or bi is not the issue.

The issue is his record of voting against gay rights. His hypocrisy is beyond compare. He either hates himself for what he is (which makes him mentally unsuitable to be a Senator) or he is the ultimate "do as I say, not as I do" creep.

Frankly I am surprised that the people of Idaho haven't recalled him yet.

Craig is lowest of the low.

Enough with Larry Craig. Leave him alone now. His life is pretty well messed up, maybe he will quit being such a hypocret now, but I don't think it does us any good to grind a man when he is so down.