A scandal-scarred Republican party asks, 'What next?' By Sheryl Gay Stolberg August 28, 2007 WASHINGTON: Scott Reed, a Republican strategist, was at a dinner in Philadelphia on Monday night when his cellphone and Internet pager began beeping like crazy. Only later did he learn why. His party was buzzing with news of a sex scandal involving a Republican United States senator — again. Just when Republicans thought things could not get any worse, Senator Larry Craig of Idaho confirmed that he had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct after an undercover police officer accused him of soliciting sex in June in a Minneapolis airport restroom. On Tuesday, Craig, 62, held a news conference to defend himself, calling the guilty plea "a mistake" and declaring, "I am not gay" — even as the Senate Republican leadership asked for an Ethics Committee review. It was a bizarre spectacle, and only the latest in a string of accusations of sexual foibles and financial misdeeds that have landed Republicans in the political equivalent of purgatory, the realm of late-night comic television. Forget Mark Foley of Florida, who quit the House last year after exchanging sexually explicit e-mail messages with under-age male pages, or Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist whose dealings with the old Republican Congress landed him in prison. They are old news, replaced by a fresh crop of scandal-plagued Republicans, men like Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, whose phone number turned up on the list of the so-called D.C. Madam, or Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska and Representative Rick Renzi of Arizona, both caught up in FBI corruption investigations. It is enough to make a self-respecting Republican want to tear his hair out in frustration, especially as the party is trying to defend an unpopular war, contain the power of the new Democratic majority on Capitol Hill and generate some enthusiasm among voters heading toward the presidential election in 2008. Read the rest . . .
i dont understand these "sex scandals". who cares? you can solicit homos in bathrooms all you want for all i care. democrat or republican. when it makes the news i am bored by it. same **** happens in coates hall, what do i care, i just avoid it. scandals in general, and moral/sexual scandals in particular, are irrelevant. they belong on the back page of the NY post for me to ignore. policy is what is important.
Yep, I tend to agree, though I would support a paper that had a headline of "Gay Senator denies being gay." I think it turns into more of a scandal because so many Republicans run on morality-based platforms. Hypocrisy tends to get people in trouble, though mainly only on moral lines, not so much on "spend-happy but reduce taxes" platforms.
I disagree with the headline unless the paper knows something no one else does. I am not denying the possibility that he is gay, but until more information is forthcoming, no newspaper is justified in such a headline. I agree with the rest of the statement.
You won't see a third party in the White House anytime soon, probably not in our lifetime. The two parties don't agree on much, but they both agree that a third party is a bad idea. They'll work together to prevent it. As punishment, this dude should be required to play sucky sucky in a port-a-potty during the next gay parade. Tho, it doesn't sound like much punishment for him.
I am not aware of many straight dudes who solicit sex from other men or in men's restrooms. I know when I solicit sex in a restroom it is in a women's restroom.
You guys sure are something....even his own party is bailing on him... http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/29/craig.arrest/index.html Sometimes I think a Republican Senator could murder and you guys would be fine with that because it's his "personal life." Martin, you say "you can solicit homos in bathrooms all you want for all i care." It doesn't matter what you care, it's AGAINST THE LAW.
A gay incident in the republican party is labeled a "scandal" while a gay incident in the democratic party is labeled "the norm".