More Accusations against Idaho Senator Larry Craig

[Jesuslove]

Four more men have come forward and admitted having inappropriate relations with Idaho Senator Larry Criag. I don't know what's worse: his hypocritical voting record, the lies he told his family, or his "family values" image.


For the whole story, see:
http://www.idahostatesman.com/102/story/226703.html

[Pixie Wildflower]

This is sad...but so many polititcians are just projecting an image...what they want people to see...it's hard to trust anyone.

[Valpo]

Yeah, how about this? Interesting, I heard this first on Imus this morning, haha

[clemsontigers23]

The Republican Party is a mess right now, with so much in-fighting and scandal. The Democratic Party isn't much better, though.

[Evanescence]

its hard to tell how much is true or slander....

Both Reps and Dems are susceptable to immoral activity....I don't see one being better than the other....

[middletree]

Four more men have come forward and admitted having inappropriate relations with Idaho Senator Larry Criag. I don't know what's worse: his hypocritical voting record, the lies he told his family, or his "family values" image.


I agree with the above IF the accusations are true. However, he says they are not. And there's no evidence whatsoever. It's his word against theirs. I'd like to withhold judgment until something concrete appears.

[Jesuslove]

I agree with the above IF the accusations are true. However, he says they are not. And there's no evidence whatsoever. It's his word against theirs. I'd like to withhold judgment until something concrete appears.

I think there was some concrete evidence, namely the arrest, and one of the men described the inside of Larry Craig's house going so far to describe the layout and contents of several rooms.

When NJ's Governor McGreevey was forced to come out, many revelations occurred after which the Governor denied, but later admitted to in his book.
McGreevey used to cruise rest stops while he was the acting Governor. Now McGreevey is pursuing a Divinity degree.

The difference between McGreevey and Craig is that at least McGreevey wasn't homophobic.

[in hiding]

I agree with the above IF the accusations are true. However, he says they are not. And there's no evidence whatsoever. It's his word against theirs. I'd like to withhold judgment until something concrete appears.

I'd say that a signed admittance of guilt is kinda concrete..
"Senator Craig signed the petition to enter his guilty plea, which contained the provisions "I understand that the court will not accept a plea of guilty from anyone who claims to be innocent... I now make no claim that I am innocent of the charge to which I am entering a plea of guilty." Craig mailed his signed petition to the court, and his petition to plead guilty to the misdemeanor charge was accepted and filed by the court on August 8, 2007" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig8.html

also, if what those 5 new guys say are false, shouldn't Craig bring them to court for slander to hold them accountable. It's just like Barry Bonds and the book about him. You have documented proof that someone is lying about you and is tarnishing your reputation and the easy recourse is to stop the sales of the book and to punish the people for slander...yet he does nothing, possibly b/c he knows the book is true and therefore not slanderous. If someone was saying very public (wrong) slanderous things about me, i would put an end to it, esp with the resources available to either person.

[Jesuslove]

I'd say that a signed admittance of guilt is kinda concrete..
"Senator Craig signed the petition to enter his guilty plea, which contained the provisions "I understand that the court will not accept a plea of guilty from anyone who claims to be innocent... I now make no claim that I am innocent of the charge to which I am entering a plea of guilty." Craig mailed his signed petition to the court, and his petition to plead guilty to the misdemeanor charge was accepted and filed by the court on August 8, 2007" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig8.html

also, if what those 5 new guys say are false, shouldn't Craig bring them to court for slander to hold them accountable. It's just like Barry Bonds and the book about him. You have documented proof that someone is lying about you and is tarnishing your reputation and the easy recourse is to stop the sales of the book and to punish the people for slander...yet he does nothing, possibly b/c he knows the book is true and therefore not slanderous. If someone was saying very public (wrong) slanderous things about me, i would put an end to it, esp with the resources available to either person.

I agree. If something said isn't true, they have the resources to bring a lawsuit against the individuals. Furthermore, you are right. He plead guilty, knowing all the implications. During the Matt Lauer interview, it was disclosed that he called the prosecutor's office in Minneapolis several times and had lengthy discussions before entering a guilty plea. I suspect he just wanted it to all go away, but truth is... if he were innocent, he wouldn't have tried to hide it.

[middletree]

If you think that people don't plead guilty when they are actually innocent, in order to minimize punishment they'd get if they went to trial, then you are mistaken.

Look, if some of you want to make yourself feel better by pointing to how awful Larry Craig is, then go ahead. I have no interest in keeping you from feeling superior. But I'm telling you that there is something about this case that is very unconvincing to me.

And that's not because he's a Republican, either. I'm on record here and other places saying that I am disgusted that the Republican Presidential candidates are mostly either divorced, admitted adulterers, or both.

By the way, Craig's adamant denial of the charges, and of the latest accusations, is exactly what you said he isn't doing. He's just not employing a lawsuit to refute the charges. Who cares how he denies the charges. Point is, he is very vocal about denying them. For you to judge him because he didn't use the particular method of denying them that you would have chosen (lawsuit) is very flimsy.

[Jesuslove]

If you think that people don't plead guilty when they are actually innocent, in order to minimize punishment they'd get if they went to trial, then you are mistaken.

Look, if some of you want to make yourself feel better by pointing to how awful Larry Craig is, then go ahead. I have no interest in keeping you from feeling superior. But I'm telling you that there is something about this case that is very unconvincing to me.

And that's not because he's a Republican, either. I'm on record here and other places saying that I am disgusted that the Republican Presidential candidates are mostly either divorced, admitted adulterers, or both.

By the way, Craig's adamant denial of the charges, and of the latest accusations, is exactly what you said he isn't doing. He's just not employing a lawsuit to refute the charges. Who cares how he denies the charges. Point is, he is very vocal about denying them. For you to judge him because he didn't use the particular method of denying them that you would have chosen (lawsuit) is very flimsy.

This has nothing to do with feelings of superiority. We are all sinners. We are NOT all hypocrites. Mr. Craig is a publicly elected official whose private life is not reconciled with his public image or voting record. Maybe he is not gay, but at the least, his behavior indicates he's a sexual deviant.

[middletree]

This has nothing to do with feelings of superiority.

Then why even start this thread?

We are all sinners.
I'm not. I'm a former sinner. Saved by Jesus.

[Jesuslove]

Then why even start this thread?


I'm not. I'm a former sinner. Saved by Jesus.

The thread is about hypocrisy.

I am saved too, yet I am still a sinner.

[in hiding]

I'm not. I'm a former sinner. Saved by Jesus.

i'm at a loss for words, that's a very bold statement. I'm willing to bet that you're not perfect, I know I'm far from perfect and far from not sinning, but thankfully I'm saved by Jesus from those sins for which I should be punished. We shouldn't find arrogance in Jesus, rather a supreme feeling of gratitude and unworthiness to have his grace bestowed on us.

[middletree]

i'm at a loss for words, that's a very bold statement.
It's a biblical statement. We can carry this over to the Word forum if you like, but the more I read Scripture, the more I understand the harm in looking down at one's self, saying "I'm just a sinner."

The statement is technically true, in the sense that if I stole the keys to an 18-wheeler and started it and moved it forward a few feet, I could be labeled a "truck driver," because I drove a truck. But a real truck driver would let me know that I am not really a truck driver. That's not my identity, and just because I managed to drive a truck briefly doesn't change that.

Likewise, those who have bonded with the Father through what Jesus did have many benefits, including the fact that sin no longer has control of them. We still sin, but we're not sinners. That's not our identity. That's not our heart anymore. While Jeremiah says of the unrepentant heart that "the heart is wicked", we have the promise in Ezekiel that God will "replace our heart of stone with a heart of flesh." This is not a future event.

Now, anymore of this discussion would require a new thread, but I want to bring it back to why I said it in this thread. When we look at a man like Larry Craig, who may very well have done what he is accused of, we see evidence of human depravity that JesusLove was likely referring to when he said "we are all sinners." However, such a statement is untrue for the believer, and is also likely to cause believers to dismiss the life-changing work of Jesus Christ.

[clemsontigers23]

What's hypocritical is that Democrats are supposedly huge believers in "innocent before proven guilty" as in the case of Bill Clinton and other cases over the years. However, when it comes down to the opposing party, they are quick to accuse the individual of being guilty before hearing the facts. I can't count the number of times I've heard liberals say "He who is without sin cast the first stone" yet liberals are throwing boulders at Senator Craig right now. It's hypocrisy at its finest.

[Jesuslove]

What's hypocritical is that Democrats are supposedly huge believers in "innocent before proven guilty" as in the case of Bill Clinton and other cases over the years. However, when it comes down to the opposing party, they are quick to accuse the individual of being guilty before hearing the facts. I can't count the number of times I've heard liberals say "He who is without sin cast the first stone" yet liberals are throwing boulders at Senator Craig right now. It's hypocrisy at its finest.

It's quite different when someone who was elected to public office on being a "values" candidate pleads guilty to a sexual offense. I feel that those who run on their values, better live up to those values themselves.

[clemsontigers23]

It's quite different when someone who was elected to public office on being a "values" candidate pleads guilty to a sexual offense. I feel that those who run on their values, better live up to those values themselves.

Oh, and I agree. I was just commenting on how funny I find it that liberals are the ones calling for this guy's head when they are the same ones who quote "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" whenever anyone else is accused of something, whether it be a child molestor or a sports star.

[middletree]

It's quite different when someone who was elected to public office on being a "values" candidate pleads guilty to a sexual offense. I feel that those who run on their values, better live up to those values themselves.

Excellent point. Bill Clinton never claimed to not be a skirt-chaser.

[middletree]

It's quite different when someone who was elected to public office on being a "values" candidate pleads guilty to a sexual offense. I feel that those who run on their values, better live up to those values themselves.

In seriousness, I agree. The party of Family Values has a slate of candidates that include admitted adulterers (McCain, Newt if he decides to run, and Rudy) and divorced men (McCain, Rudy, Fred T., Newt). My only quarrel with you is your insistence that Craig is guilty. I haven't seen any proof of that yet.