Larry, just admit it

[boywiththorninside]

I'll take the chimp face for not knowing it wasn't for me.

[bjorn_skurj]

The quote thing ain't working for me, so I went old-school. Copy and paste.

 

QUOTE (bjorn_skurj @ Dec 3 2007, 02:20 PM)

 

Sen. Craig is a liar and hypocrite. Do you not think his constituents ought to know that?

 

QUOTE (boywiththorninside @ Dec 3 2007, 04:33 PM)

 

Craig already pleaded guilty to the bathroom solicitation, why pile on with a story for which there is no definitive evidence? What does this new story add to what was already known? That there are eight more men

[boywiththorninside]

And doesn't voting against gay rights while being a closet case strike you as a very unwelcome trait in anyone, not to mention an elected official in the United States Congress?

 

I get it, Craig's a hypocrite and this makes the Statesman's actions a-ok.

 

I'm sorry, but I'm going back in the thread now. Clinton supported sexual harassment laws while being accused by the right of being a serial sexual harasser. The right thought this was hypocritical. So following the logic that assumed hypocrisy is worth exposing at seemingly all costs, I guess the time spent on Paula Jones and others was worthwhile then.

 

I'm really going to have to reevaluate my thoughts on the '90's. Ken Starr wasn't a puritan a-hole? He was merely a crusader against Clinton's apparent hypocrisy, defending the word and honor of Clinton's multiple accusers. Starr didn't merely wallow in rumor and speculation? Damn. I never saw it that way before.

 

Seriously, Bjorn, no hard feelings but I can't see eye to eye with you on this. I hold the Statesman in the same regard I hold Star or the Enquirer.

[bjorn_skurj]

It's OK. Your point of view is not unreasonable.

[Sir Stewart]

And the award for Best Subject Header/Subhead of the day, goes to:

Larry, just admit it

Eight men out

 

Well done bjorn.

[MattZ]

I agree that the Clinton vs. Craig comparison is not apples to oranges, but it's not oranges to oranges either.

 

Yes, you have two political figures with private lives that are (or are alleged to be) inconsistent with their public lives. But one of those (Clinton) used his political power to advance the rights of people while the other (Craig) sought to restrict the rights of people.

 

If Craig is going to dedicate his political life to (among other things) restricting the rights of homosexuals, then I am very interested in that hypocrisy given that after taking a plea deal he tried to revoke it and now claims that he just has a "wide stance."

 

I agree with you, boywiththon, that the level of proof that a newspaper needs to print allegations is troublesome. But I dont agree that this is the same as Clinton. And I don't agree that Craig admitted it and so we should drop it. Craig is the one claiming (now) that he was framed. And the revelation that there are 8 others in the wings ready to admit previous flings is certainly news. It's not random and unfair mudslinging. I'd like to see higher standards at newspapers, but this is definitely news and it adds to the debate (that Craig himself has tried to continue by attempting to revoke his plea deal).

[bjorn_skurj]

And the award for Best Subject Header/Subhead of the day, goes to:

Larry, just admit it

Eight men out

 

Well done bjorn.

Thank you!

[froggie]

[boywiththorninside]

I agree that the Clinton vs. Craig comparison is not apples to oranges, but it's not oranges to oranges either.

 

Yes, you have two political figures with private lives that are (or are alleged to be) inconsistent with their public lives. But one of those (Clinton) used his political power to advance the rights of people while the other (Craig) sought to restrict the rights of people.

 

If Craig is going to dedicate his political life to (among other things) restricting the rights of homosexuals, then I am very interested in that hypocrisy given that after taking a plea deal he tried to revoke it and now claims that he just has a "wide stance."

 

I agree with you, boywiththon, that the level of proof that a newspaper needs to print allegations is troublesome. But I dont agree that this is the same as Clinton. And I don't agree that Craig admitted it and so we should drop it. Craig is the one claiming (now) that he was framed. And the revelation that there are 8 others in the wings ready to admit previous flings is certainly news. It's not random and unfair mudslinging. I'd like to see higher standards at newspapers, but this is definitely news and it adds to the debate (that Craig himself has tried to continue by attempting to revoke his plea deal).

 

That's fair. I'm sorry if I got pissy with anyone. It wasn't intentional. It's just the notion that an accused person (no matter who that person is) must now bear the burden of proof really gives me the heebie-jeebies - even if it is only in regard to the publication of a news story and not in a court of law.

 

Again, no hard feelings.

 

"Eight Men Out" was a great subject header.

[cryptique]

The point I'm trying to make here is that eight men saying that they've had sex with a U.S. Senator is reportable news when it's paired with prior events that include an arrest for soliciting sex in a men's room and a consistent anti-gay voting record, and that the paper covers itself adequately by including the disclaimer that they don't (yet) have definitive proof.

 

The burden of proof is for a court of law ... the media has a burden too, but it is (or should be) in the business of reporting news, not suppressing it. When you have eight men making this claim, and everything the paper has done to verify their claims hasn't managed to debunk a single one of them, it's easy to make the decision that the story is worth running. If it had only been one man, or maybe two -- or if some of the claims didn't hold water after investigation -- I would be just as skeptical as anyone else. But the paper did its investigation and the claims still seemed plausible -- perhaps not the most compelling circumstantial evidence, but you can usually trip up a liar with some basic investigation, and eight liars give you that much more to work with, yet they found nothing.

 

I'm just saying that I don't have a problem with this. Also, thanks to MattZ for articulating the major difference between the Clinton and Craig situations.

[Mr. Kinsley]

I get it, Craig's a hypocrite and this makes the Statesman's actions a-ok.

 

I'm sorry, but I'm going back in the thread now. Clinton supported sexual harassment laws while being accused by the right of being a serial sexual harasser. The right thought this was hypocritical. So following the logic that assumed hypocrisy is worth exposing at seemingly all costs, I guess the time spent on Paula Jones and others was worthwhile then.

 

I'm really going to have to reevaluate my thoughts on the '90's. Ken Starr wasn't a puritan a-hole? He was merely a crusader against Clinton's apparent hypocrisy, defending the word and honor of Clinton's multiple accusers. Starr didn't merely wallow in rumor and speculation? Damn. I never saw it that way before.

 

Seriously, Bjorn, no hard feelings but I can't see eye to eye with you on this. I hold the Statesman in the same regard I hold Star or the Enquirer.

 

I don't see how Bill Clinton figures into this at all. Papers report allegations all the time. That's why they always use the term 'allegedly.' The Statesman isn't saying he did it (with 8 different men), just that 8 men accuse him of lying about his actions and deliberately eroding the rights of a group that he himself is secretly a member of. If his votes are a way of covering his ass (pardon the pun) then it is beyond reprehensible.

 

The Statesman spent months checking out the story and apparantly could only get half the people involved to go on the record. That probably has something to do with their disclaimer as well. That and not wanting to be sued.

 

As for my own disclaimer, I started this reply about 8 hours ago and had to put it aside until now. I'm not about to go slog through the whole thread that's happened since, so if I'm repeating anyone... just consider this a very long winded, "Yeah! What he/she said!"

 

EDIT: Hey! C'mon folks! You only added under a page's worth of rancorous bile! You're supposed to have had this bad boy to about 12 or 15 pages by now. I'm especially disappointed that no one has either quit the board or questioned the existence of God.

 

Sheesh.

 

Slackers.

[Mr. Kinsley]

And the award for Best Subject Header/Subhead of the day, goes to:

Larry, just admit it

Eight men out

 

Well done bjorn.

 

I agree. You should work for a newspaper or something.

[boywiththorninside]

I don't see how Bill Clinton figures into this at all. Papers report allegations all the time. That's why they always use the term 'allegedly.'

 

I don't blame you if you didn't read the whole thread, but Bill was used as an example of what happens when people feel justified to go to any and all lengths to expose a perceived hypocrisy. The Right thought Bill was a hypocrite about women and women's issues (sexual harassment - Jones, et. al). The Right felt justified in trying to expose and bring him down. The Right felt he deserved it. The Right, aided somewhat by Bill, gave us years and years of BS. The current Craig situation is not a direct analogy, but that was the basic point.

 

But how about Hillary Clinton?

 

Hillary on gay marriage: ""Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman."

 

So Hillary is opposed to gay marriage. Say, however, there are rumors that Hillary is romantically involved with another woman. Perhaps even a female campaign worker. Some might say this would make her position on gay marriage hypocritical. Some might say this hypocrisy must be exposed. After all, her position would deny people rights. Would a newspaper or magazine be justified in pursuing this rumor? Should reporters be investigating these rumors and looking to find women from Hillary's past - if there are any? Based on what I've read in this thread, I would guess the answer is yes. However, I hope this doesn't happen. There are far more pressing issues facing the country than whether Hillary Clinton is a hypocrite in regards to gay marriage. In this election I want to hear about the war, education, jobs and maybe a little about the environment. I fear the type of journalism practiced by the Idaho Statesman, if followed by others, will only prevent me from hearing about these issues. Why discuss substantive issues when we can speculate on who Hillary - or Larry Craig or whoever - is sleeping with? You don't think Fox wants the go ahead to pursue the Hillary is a lesbian stories?

[bjorn_skurj]

I would be very surprised if the Hillary lesbian rumors have not been looked into. If eight women came forward and said they bomped sconce with the junior senator from New York, that might get into the paper. Just ask Gary Hart about the power of the press to blow up your spot if you are not walking the straight and narrow while seeking the highest office in the land.

[boywiththorninside]

I think this was the same blogger who was spreading last weeks Trent Lott rumor:

 

Hillary Lesbian Rumor Given Weight By DOJ Official

 

 

Here as well - what do you know? A Murdoch publication:

 

Times article - lesbian rumor mention inside

 

 

This is the type of crap I'd like to avoid over the next year. If the Idaho Statesman model is followed, expect to see more of it. I'm just saying. If some unsubstantiated (no definitive evidence) Hillary stuff does arise, the moral high ground has been surrendered. If it was acceptable to print the latest Craig allegations, it has got to be okay to print any Hillary speculation. A sad state of affairs, but that's American politics. Why am I thinking of sitting this election out?

 

Go to bed, Bjorn.

[mountain bed]

Remember though, Bill said "I didn't inhale" the first time he ran for President. One of the most ridiculous things ever uttered on the campaign trail!

 

I would assume that HC's words on marrriage fall along the same lines. Just say whatever is necessary at the time to garner some votes.

 

I don't know how to see the Craig thing though. Unless he is running for office again? If the allegations are true, then by being in denial how can his situation turn into anything but a total trainwreck for both him and his family?

 

Off topic here - I dunno if it's on youtube but there was some '96 Gridiron footage that aired last Friday on the "Presidential Libraries" series on C-SPAN. At one point Bill was making a point about something and he stopped and said "it isn't what you think". Pause.. then "yeah, I've never said that before". That shit cracked me up.

[bjorn_skurj]

I think this was the same blogger who was spreading last weeks Trent Lott rumor:

 

Hillary Lesbian Rumor Given Weight By DOJ Official

 

 

Here as well - what do you know? A Murdoch publication:

 

Times article - lesbian rumor mention inside

 

 

This is the type of crap I'd like to avoid over the next year. If the Idaho Statesman model is followed, expect to see more of it. I'm just saying. If some unsubstantiated (no definitive evidence) Hillary stuff does arise, the moral high ground has been surrendered. If it was acceptable to print the latest Craig allegations, it has got to be okay to print any Hillary speculation. A sad state of affairs, but that's American politics. Why am I thinking of sitting this election out?

 

Go to bed, Bjorn.

Dude, do you think the Statesman is doing anything that hasn't been standard journalistic practice for about 20 years? I agree - a lot of it is destructive, but I, for one, would really like to know if someone who is seeking to have power over my own personal self and fortunes is a particularly egregious lying sack. You want to bury your head in the sand, get a subscription to Grit and by all means, take Election Day off.

[boywiththorninside]

Can I get a copy of Grit in Brooklyn? I wouldn't mind checking that out.

[Guest Golyadkin]

If the paper had definitive evidence then, based on Craig's plea, I would agree they should have printed the story. The paper admitted it had no definitive evidence. This new story adds nothing. There's been a lot of innuendo in the past. This is merely more of it.

 

 

 

You spend several months investigating and you can't get definitive proof. For me, that is a good reason not to print the story.

 

Again, my main issue is the "accused has the burden of proof" standard the Statesman is endorsing. I would hate to think this is now the norm. It reeks of McCarthyism. I don't think anyone would be eager to accept this standard if it was applied to a politician whose views we admired, rather than to one whose views we abhor.

 

I agree with boywiththorninside. Bunk article, but Criag should resign. He is a shame, and fights me and Doug against personal freedom.

[embiggen]

who the hell is Doug? is he gay?

[Guest Golyadkin]

who the hell is Doug? is he gay?

 

Doug is my Dogg and he is not gay. He and I fight for personal freedom.

 

So that if one day I do decide to be gay I have the freedom to do so...

 

and pookie, I hope for your sake, Doug does not read your post

[embiggen]

and pookie, I hope for your sake, Doug does not read your post

 

what's he going to do, bite me?

 

maybe he's homophobic, that Doug...

[Guest Golyadkin]

what's he going to do, bite me?

 

maybe he's homophobic, that Doug...

 

lol... never thought of that. However, he is not pulling a Craig, I can attest that he likes his bitches.

 

He will bite your head off though...

[cryptique]

Worst. Bit. Ever.

[embiggen]