What Would The U.S. Do Without Conservatives?

[pbleighton]

Warning: this post may definitely make your day, or maybe definitely not:

 

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/08/gop_...ewd_conduct.php

 

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested in June at a Minnesota airport by a plainclothes police officer investigating lewd conduct complaints in a men’s public restroom, according to an arrest report obtained by Roll Call Monday afternoon.

Craig’s arrest occurred just after noon on June 11 at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. On Aug. 8, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct in the Hennepin County District Court. He paid more than $500 in fines and fees, and a 10-day jail sentence was stayed. He also was given one year of probation with the court that began on Aug. 8.

 

Here's what Craig did that day, according to the incident report filed by plainclothes officer Dave Karsina:

 

Craig then entered the stall next to Karsnia’s and placed his roller bag against the front of the stall door.

“My experience has shown that individuals engaging in lewd conduct use their bags to block the view from the front of their stall,” Karsnia stated in his report. “From my seated position, I could observe the shoes and ankles of Craig seated to the left of me.”

 

Craig was wearing dress pants with black dress shoes.

 

“At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. While this was occurring, the male in the stall to my right was still present. I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area,” the report states.

 

Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times, and Karsnia noted in his report that “I could ... see Craig had a gold ring on his ring finger as his hand was on my side of the stall divider.”

 

Karsnia then held his police identification down by the floor so that Craig could see it.

 

“With my left hand near the floor, I pointed towards the exit. Craig responded, ‘No!’ I again pointed towards the exit. Craig exited the stall with his roller bags without flushing the toilet. ... Craig said he would not go. I told Craig that he was under arrest, he had to go, and that I didn’t want to make a scene. Craig then left the restroom.”

 

In a recorded interview after his arrest, Craig “either disagreed with me or ‘didn’t recall’ the events as they happened,” the report states.

 

Craig stated “that he has a wide stance when going to the bathroom and that his foot may have touched mine,” the report states. Craig also told the arresting officer that he reached down with his right hand to pick up a piece of paper that was on the floor.

 

“It should be noted that there was not a piece of paper on the bathroom floor, nor did Craig pick up a piece of paper,” the arresting officer said in the report.

 

 

A very quick check of Craig's record on gay issues turns up the fact that he voted in favor of an Idaho Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and also voted in favor of last year's Federal Marriage Amendment doing the same thing.

 

Though it should be noted that neither of those votes is directly at odds with engaging in lewd conduct in a public men's rest room.

 

Late Update: The Roll Call piece is not accessible right now, so let me add that it contains this denial from the Craig camp:

 

A spokesman for Craig described the incident as a “he said/he said misunderstanding,” and said the office would release a fuller statement later Monday afternoon.

"He said, he said?"

 

Later Update: In light of today's news, this Larry Craig quote about Bill Clinton during the height of Monicagate seems worth recalling:

 

"GOP Senator Larry Craig, who we now know was arrested for lewd conduct in a men's room in June, had this to say about Bill Clinton on Meet the Press on January 24, 1999, at the height of Monicagate:

 

MR. RUSSERT: Larry Craig, would you want the last word from the Senate be an acquittal of the president and no censure?

SEN. CRAIG: Well, I don't know where the Senate's going to be on that issue of an up or down vote on impeachment, but I will tell you that the Senate certainly can bring about a censure reslution and it's a slap on the wrist. It's a, "Bad boy, Bill Clinton. You're a naughty boy." The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy, a naughty boy.

 

I'm going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy. The question issue now is simply this: Did he lie under oath? Did he perjure himself and did he obstruct justice? And that's where we're trying to go now in this truth-seeking process."

[hrothgar]

I admit that the hypocrisy has some minor amusement value. Even so, I really don't think that its worth blowing this incident out of proportion.

 

I'd be shocked if the police can make a case out of this.

If they can, I find it genuinely scary.

[pbleighton]

Even so, I really don't think that its worth blowing this incident out of proportion.

 

:D

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

Even so, I really don't think that its worth blowing this incident out of proportion.

 

:D

 

Peter

was wondering whether that would get a rise out of anyone

[hrothgar]

BTW: For sheer amusement value, its hard to top the following:

 

Exclusive: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy

Philip Atkinson

 

Author: Philip Atkinson

Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.

Date: August 3, 2007

 

While democratic government is better than dictatorships and theocracies, it has its pitfalls. FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson describes some of the difficulties facing President Bush today.

 

 

Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy

By Philip Atkinson

 

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

 

Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

 

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

 

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

 

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

 

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

 

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation's powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

 

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

 

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

 

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

 

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

 

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

 

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

 

He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

 

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

[keylime]

Y'all are having way too much fun at this. Then again, Democrats get away with much more nonsense.

 

The U.S. without conservatives would become the North American form of Sweden.

 

Instead, I'm going to go back to reading Lucianne and American Thinker.

[jtfanclub]

I'd be shocked if the police can make a case out of this.

If they can, I find it genuinely scary.

They did. He pled guilty. He paid a fine.

 

I'm not sure why he didn't fight it. Maybe it's a gross misdemeanor in this state or something?

[Winstonm]

This certainly makes Craig look like a hardened criminal.

[Winstonm]

BTW: For sheer amusement value, its hard to top the following:

 

Exclusive: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy

Philip Atkinson

 

Author: Philip Atkinson

Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.

Date: August 3, 2007

 

While democratic government is better than dictatorships and theocracies, it has its pitfalls. FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson describes some of the difficulties facing President Bush today.

 

 

Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy

By Philip Atkinson

 

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

 

Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

 

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

 

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

 

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

 

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

 

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation's powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

 

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

 

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

 

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

 

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

 

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

 

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

 

He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

 

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

It's frightening enough to know there are people who think this; worse, there are people who not only think it but believe and yearn for it; but to have the audacity to actually write it and publish it in hopes of swaying minds is beyond belief.

[pbleighton]

Y'all are having way too much fun at this.

 

Dwayne, it's conservatives' moral pronouncements make incidents like these so delicious!

 

Vote for the Defense Of Marriage Act, followed by sweaty swallowing in public rest rooms....

 

My, my...

 

Peter

[helene_t]

Y'all are having way too much fun at this.

 

Dwayne, it's conservatives' moral pronouncements make incidents like these so delicious!

 

Vote for the Defense Of Marriage Act, followed by sweaty swallowing in public rest rooms....

 

My, my...

I don't see the problem with this senators behavior. As long as he didn't ask the policeman to marry him. And as for paying the fine: maybe it wouldn't be worth the effort to fight it. What I don't understand is why he stayed ten days in jail. Maybe it was a welcome off from his dayly stress or something.

 

It is, of course, ridicolous that the police can get away with this kind of facist policies. Would otherwise similar, but hererosexual, behavior in public be punished in the same way?

[pbleighton]

I don't see the problem with this senators behavior. As long as he didn't ask the policeman to marry him. And as for paying the fine: maybe it wouldn't be worth the effort to fight it. What I don't understand is why he stayed ten days in jail. Maybe it was a welcome off from his dayly stress or something.

 

He didn't serve any jail time.

 

It is, of course, ridicolous that the police can get away with this kind of facist policies.

 

I agree, but they can because of politicians such as Senator Craig.

 

Would otherwise similar, but hererosexual, behavior in public be punished in the same way?

 

In theory, yes, in practice, possible but very unlikely.

 

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

To answer the thread question; "A lot better."

[cherdano]

Y'all are having way too much fun at this.

 

Dwayne, it's conservatives' moral pronouncements make incidents like these so delicious!

 

Vote for the Defense Of Marriage Act, followed by sweaty swallowing in public rest rooms....

 

My, my...

I don't see the problem with this senators behavior. As long as he didn't ask the policeman to marry him. And as for paying the fine: maybe it wouldn't be worth the effort to fight it. What I don't understand is why he stayed ten days in jail. Maybe it was a welcome off from his dayly stress or something.

 

It is, of course, ridicolous that the police can get away with this kind of facist policies.

Helene, this isn't only about positions on gay marriage. If you see this in the context of the conservative outcry about Clinton-Lewinsky, conservative positions on gay issues in general, the inability of most US states to pass sensible legislation on sex offender issues, etc. etc., it does indeed become mildly amusing. I am pretty sure you would find the conservative persistence on "moral values", "family values" etc. quite hypocrite, too.

[luke warm]

the world is full of hypocrites and no one political party has cornered the market

[Al_U_Card]

But they certainly seem to be trying for a controlling interest....

[EricK]

The U.S. without conservatives would become the North American form of Sweden.

Help me out here. Does this mean you think the US would be better without Conservatives, or worse?

[mike777]

The U.S. without conservatives would become the North American form of Sweden.

Help me out here. Does this mean you think the US would be better without Conservatives, or worse?

I think some liberals would be willing to trade usa conservatives for some swedes, straight up. :)

 

Reminds me of a story my Dad told me on his first trip back to his ancestors hometown in Sweden. He started at the Boot of Italy and worked his way slowly north. He said the girls got prettier and prettier the farther north he traveled until he reached Sweden where even the men were gorgeous. :)

[pbleighton]

I think some liberals would be willing to trade usa conservatives for some swedes, straight up.

 

I'd give a BIG discount :)

 

Dwayne, on the other hand, would love to trade some U.S. liberals for some French socialists.

 

Peter

[keylime]

Sacre bleu....French socialists?! That caused both a laugh and acid reflux in the same motion.....

 

I look at it this way - there isn't many true conservatives left these days in Congress. I think we can say affirmatively that regardless of party, most politicians are either greedy, corrupt, oversexed, or a combination of all three.

[Al_U_Card]

Can you say..."Ancient Rome"?

 

Decadence can also mean that things are way out of order. My fondest hope is that your constitution and bill of rights can withstand the current onslaught. For all intents and purposes....the war on Terror...who is terrorizing whom?

[TimG]

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

I don't think he was chosen by a majority of citizens.

[hrothgar]

Greenwald has a decent artilce on the subject

 

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/28/craig/

[cherdano]

Greenwald has a decent artilce on the subject

 

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/28/craig/

Thanks for the link, this explains much better what I tried to say in my reply to Helene above.

[hrothgar]

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

I don't think he was chosen by a majority of citizens.

I don't recall writing this... Especially not if said event happened two days ago