I suppose people like Larry Craig, raised in a strict anti-gay religious household, find themselves hating their own irrepressible desires, and so they seek to punish those desires in others by passing anti-gay legislation.

Whew, long sentence. Life, in fact.

"Death before being dishonored any more." - Col. Ted Westhusing

yes SP it is not the same blog you left this morning

http://agonist.org/tina/20070831/omg_lmao

As far as I know, sexual orientation has little to do with the basic difference between what we call liberals and conservatives. Conservatives believe in more hierarchy, liberals in more equality. Hierarchy requires rules for sorting people into their appropriate ranks, and the heterosexual model of patriarchy with the stern father guiding and disciplining his children has been the favored rule-generator for modern society. Gays who are conservatives buy into the model. But like any other self-styled elites, they don't think the rules apply to them.

Whenever someone tries to repress emotions which they think are "bad",
they go underground, and come up in sneaky, sometimes unconscious ways, and stronger than they were at the start. It has to do with self-acceptance. That is why a lot of the religious right (how many can we name, Jim Baker to start with) who staunchly espouse "pureness", have been caught up in scandals, whether it be with female or male prostitutes. (I can say this with a little bit of authority, since I have an M.Ed. in counseling psychology.)

having extramarital sex, or being gay does not cause a scandal or charges of hypocrisy for Liberals, but it does in the case of conservatives because they claim higher values. The hypocrisy factor does make a difference.

People resign or are driven out of positions in England and the United States when sex scandals are present, but it's okay to stay in office if you're a thief because that's expected behaviour from politicians and doesn't carry the extra condemnation of hyprocisy.

It's okay to be gay if you're a Liberal, but it's a mortal sin if you're a religious right-wing wacko. And when Conservatives are caught with their fingers in the sexual cookie jar, they get nothing less than crucification by the nation regardless of party affiliation.

Double standards have been in existence since time began...woman; slut/man; virile. Yet they both indulged in the same act. L0L Prostitute; wicked/John; accepted. First party is condemned to burn in hell, the other gets a seat in Heaven. Eve ate the apple!/Adam was seduced. L0L Obviously it wasn't a woman that wrote the bible.

A person who has unwanted homosexual feelings might convince themselves that, since they are obviously "normal", all people must have those same feelings and that heterosexual people are merely able to control those impulses. In which case, claiming to be not gay is just a matter of being able to demonstrate enough will power. Failure to live up to the standard, then, would not necessarily be a lie, just personal weakness.

We are all entitled to our own opinions but we have to share the facts.

I think you have to really understand how deeply the closet lifestyle is entrenched into the Republican party to know why Craig is such a serious threat. From those I've met in the Republican party leadership, it's obvious many are closeted, and the young male Republicans vie for favors from the leadership within the party. I think the closeted sex is a big part of this.

This kind of scandal threatens much more than the Republican image - it also threatens their internal private power structure. That's why it is a big deal for them.

It is not about being gay - it is about who does what to whom and how it is done. When it is exposed, their world crumbles. It keeps them in the party line. And for the general public to become aware of this is very dangerous for the entire party.

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”

Charles Darwin

When the non-sociopath arrogates power and privelege, they may well subconsciously set themselves up to be punished. In fact, I would say there's a national epidemic of "stop me before..." behavior. Tax cuts raise revenues, wars save lives, torture works, mass surveillance keeps us safe... In a psychological frame, all of those are calls for intervention.

Senator Craig is both playing "Let's make a deal" to make everyone sweat and get the most he can for taking a powder, or he is indulging in the massively narcissistic notion that he can make it through. Or he is doing both. I bet both.

Forget it, Jake - it's AmnesiaTown

I would be inclined to say he panicked if he would have plead guilty immmediately, but he didn't, he mailed in his plea weeks later. He could have consulted a lawyer at any time but he didn't.

Craig's lawyers: Guilty plea was product of panic

In a petition to pull the plea, the Idaho senator's legal team argues he committed no crime.

By Rochelle Olson, Star Tribune

Under pressure from a newspaper investigation, Sen. Larry Craig "panicked" and pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in a Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport men's room, according to court papers filed Monday.

The plea constitutes a "manifest injustice" and should be set aside, his lawyers say.

The 50-page filing in Hennepin County District Court said Craig feared his arrest in the airport sting would prompt the Idaho Statesman to publish a story examining his sexual orientation. The Republican, who has represented Idaho in the U.S. Senate for 17 years, "felt compelled to grasp the lifeline offered to him by the police officer, namely that if he were to submit to an interview and plead guilty, then none of the officer's allegations would be made public," the filing said.

Craig pleaded guilty by mail to disorderly conduct in August following his arrest in June. A police report alleged that Craig had solicited sex from police Sgt. Dave Karsnia, which the senator has denied.

After Craig's arrest was made public, the Idaho Statesman published its five-month investigation into previous allegations of homosexual behavior. Craig said he is not gay.

Statesman editor and vice president Vicki Gowler defended the newspaper's investigation. "From the start, it was important to us to do a thorough and responsible investigation, outside of deadline pressures. We did that," Gowler said.

Airport will fight petition

Craig has said he intended to resign Sept. 30, but he has also acknowledged that if he can withdraw his guilty plea, he will keep open a small window to stay in office through the remainder of his term.

A hearing date and judge for the petition have not been set.

Patrick Hogan, spokesman for the Metropolitan Airports Commission, said, "We will file an objection to the senator's motion and defend our case vigorously in court."

Prominent defense lawyers in Hennepin County say Craig may have trouble making the case, but at least two say he should have a day in court. In addition, a land rights group is calling for a boycott of the airport in support of Craig.

In submitting his plea by mail, Craig never appeared in court and was never questioned by a judge. "Craig is not a lawyer and, like any other non-lawyer, should not be expected to understand the intricacies of constitutional law," the petition said.

If a judge had spoken with Craig, "the court would have quickly concluded that, faced with the pressure of an aggressive interrogation and the consequences of public embarrassment, Senator Craig panicked," the petition said.

Craig's lawyers also argued that the evidence is insufficient to support a guilty plea to disorderly conduct, defined by state law as "offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or ... offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger or resentment in others."

Karsnia merely observed "several ambiguous -- but legal -- hand and foot gestures," the petition said.

What defense lawyers think

Twin Cities attorney Michael Colich said the argument that Craig made a mistake "probably isn't going to warrant withdrawal of the plea. ... Countless people after they plead guilty have second thoughts."

Colich said he has successfully withdrawn pleas for clients who had been poorly represented by lawyers. "They certainly didn't have the same background as Senator Craig."

First assistant county public defender Jim Kamin argued that regardless of Craig's status, he should be given a chance to reclaim his constitutional rights. "I like the idea that we get to do it the right way rather than the easy, the slick way. If they've got a case, let them prove it," Kamin said.

One issue for plea withdrawals is whether the state will be harmed. In crimes with victims, the state can argue the withdrawal would hurt the victim, but that's not the case here, Kamin said.

Manifest injustice, however, is difficult to establish, said Bruce Rivers, another defense lawyer. It has to "shock the conscience," he said.

Rivers noted that Craig had several weeks to contemplate before he entered a plea. "There's a little bit of a problem with him being unduly pressured because he wasn't. It was calculated," Rivers said.

On the other hand, he added, "The problem the state might have is there's not a factual basis for the plea. Just because you say you're guilty doesn't mean you're guilty."

more

AP

Ethics Panel Says Craig Acted Improperly

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: February 13, 2008

Filed at 8:01 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate Ethics Committee said Wednesday that Idaho Sen. Larry Craig acted improperly in connection with a men's room sex sting last year and had brought discredit on the Senate.

In a letter to the Republican senator, the ethics panel said Craig's attempt to withdraw his guilty plea after his arrest at a Minneapolis airport was an effort to evade legal consequences of his own actions.

Craig's actions constitute ''improper conduct which has reflected discreditably on the Senate,'' the letter said.

A spokesman for Craig had no immediate comment.

The six members of the committee -- three Democrats and three Republicans -- told Craig they believed he ''committed the offense to which you pled guilty'' and that ''you entered your plea knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently.''

The panel said Craig only tried to remove his guilty plea after his attempts to avoid public disclosure had failed.

''Your claims to the court ... to the effect that your guilty plea resulted from improper pressure or coercion, or that you did not, as a legal matter, know what you were doing when you pled guilty do not appear credible,'' the letter said.

The panel also said Craig should have received permission from the ethics panel before using campaign funds to pay his legal bills. Craig, who is not running for re-election, has spent more than $213,000 in campaign money for legal expense and public relations work in the wake of his arrest and conviction last summer.

The committee said it had reached no conclusion about whether use of campaign funds was proper, but it said ''it is clear that you never sought the committee's approval, as required,'' to use the money for legal expenses.

Any future use of campaign money for legal bills will be seen as ''demonstrating your continuing disregard of ethics requirements,'' the ethics committee wrote in its three-page letter.

The panel also admonished Craig for showing the arresting officer a business card that identified him as a U.S. senator. Craig has been reported to have told the officer at the time, ''What do you think about that?''

The committee wrote, ''You knew or should have known that a reasonable person in the position of the arresting officer could view your action and statement as an improper attempt by you to use your position and status ... to receive special and favorable treatment.''

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the ethics panel, declined to comment. A spokeswoman said the panel's letter of admonition cannot be appealed.

The ethics panel took no further action against Craig.

more