Senator reneges

[Savaric]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/...ing/index.html

I dunno... Something tells me it doesn't look good for the grand ole' party.

[Aristotle]

You know, stuff like this SHOULD matter, but it doesn't seem to anymore.

It is getting somewhat insane the degree to which the voting public will completely ignore ethics as a valid element of a candidate.

I'll give you two examples, one from each side of the aisle. I won't go into details, since that would create two massive tangets of their own.

Hillary Clinton: If people cared about ethics, could she even BE in office?

Tom Delay: Look at all the crap he pulled, including being indicted for conspiracy to violate election laws. In fact, if not for a law that would only let him win re-election as a write-in candidate (since the indictment meant he couldn't be on the ballot representing a party), he probably would still be in office.

It is sad and shameful that voters give short shrift to ethics when examining candidates.

[Savaric]

People really need to start caring about these things. Hollywood and government are becoming synonymous in this country and that is extremely bad. We're really starting to lose our step.

Oh and you know I feel I should mention I have nothing against this guys sexuality. I'm convinced he was trying to initiate sex in a public place (which is lewd behavior for straight or gay). That might be daring intrigue for average couples but not a damn U.S. senator. And not to mention the real issue that he's married with kids (the one that pisses me off the most).

These people make our policy. People should be picketing up and down D.C. for this assholes resignation. U.S. government is not Hollywood.

[Grantref]

I'm not sure that Craig's failure was a failure of ethics. It may have been a failure of morals, but I see that a failure of ethics for a senator would be doing things like that Delay did -- doing sneaky things trying to get reelected, misappropriating public funds, misusing congressional priviledge, passing a law that they know is unconstitutional and will fall at its first challenge in the courts, but passing it anyway to curry favor with voters, things like that. In other words, when the act is directly related to their job, I see it as a failure of ethics that should get them thrown out. If it's a failure of morals, then it may or may not be something related to their job.

Being a closeted homosexual is no walk in the park, and though he ought to have picked a less public place, I wonder would people be more or less upset if he just said, "I'm gay" like the new jersey governer did?

I don't see that having homosexual desires and apparently either a bit of a fetish for engaging them anonymously, or feeling that having a secret boyfriend would be too risky (obvjously a failure at risk assessment), should disqualify one from holding office, any more than, say, being openly homosexual, or engaging in BDSM in private with a consenting adult or adults.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Grantref

Being a closeted homosexual is no walk in the park, and though he ought to have picked a less public place, I wonder would people be more or less upset if he just said, "I'm gay" like the new jersey governer did?

Lets not rewrite history. The NJ Governor did not just come clean. He got busted using his power to give his gay lover a freebie, easy, high paying job. He only came out of the closet when he was caught doing this and everything was hitting the fan.

It was the financial scandal that brought the information to light - not any desire to finally be honest about his sexual orientation.

Originally posted by Grantref
I don't see that having homosexual desires and apparently either a bit of a fetish for engaging them anonymously, or feeling that having a secret boyfriend would be too risky (obvjously a failure at risk assessment), should disqualify one from holding office, any more than, say, being openly homosexual, or engaging in BDSM in private with a consenting adult or adults.

It most certainly should. Because that kind of behavior is very, very risky. Senators, Congressman, etc. are privy to national security information. Engaging in such wild, risky behavior creates opportunities for spies, blackmailers, and other nefarious enemies of our country to obtain that information. That is a major reason why it is so unethical.

Being openly homosexual creates no such risks, nor does being into BDSM and doing that with your spouse or (if you're into it) with friends. Those are far different things than seeking out random, anonymous sex partners who would be anyone - including someone with a desire to harm our country.

[Graeblyn]

Originally posted by Aristotle
Lets not rewrite history. The NJ Governor did not just come clean. He got busted using his power to give his gay lover a freebie, easy, high paying job. He only came out of the closet when he was caught doing this and everything was hitting the fan.

It's actually far worse. The relationship was basically the result of McGreevy sexually harassing a male employee. In order to continue to receive sexual favors from this employee, the Governor appointed him to be in charge of coordinating NJ's anti-terror efforts with the federal government. Now, NJ is a very heavily populated state with large parts of the state in the NY City and Philadelphian metro areas, as well as having a MAJOR international airport. This was by no definition an EASY job (I realise that this wasn't the main crux of Ari's argument, but I wanted to make clear why what McGreevy did was so terrible). NJ is a fairly progressive state, and had the story been that McGreevy simply came out as gay, he not only wouldn't have had to resign, he could have ran for a second term and could well have won. The main reason he was in the closet was due to his family, and specifically due to his father. However, he was a sexually harrassing employer who put the state at risk of terror attacks in the post 9-11 culture. That was the reason he was forced to resign, and indeed left political life entirely. He is now in seminary, and has found God, basically. He wants to be an Episcopal priest. I suppose he hopes to be the second gay Episicopal bishop one day. More power to him...

Anyway, contrast that with the current scandal. The current scandal is more about hypocrisy and the dynamics of the GOP than it is about actual ethics. Craig's politics have been rather homophobic over the years. This is why, to my knowledge, the Log Cabin Republicans have joined with the other elements of his party and have called on him to resign. It's one thing to be closeted, but it is highly hypocritical to spend your political life driven to destroy the lives of a group of people which you yourself are secretly one of. Not only that, but the Senator's party (unlike McGreevy who was a Democrat in a fairly progressive state), the Idaho GOP, is hardly going to embrace a gay man, let alone one who is into random anonymous sex in public places. Thus, there is no way the Senator can serve his constituents while he is fighting for his legal and political future. He should have resigned immediately, but the least he can do is live up to the self-imposed date for his resignation.

[Savaric]

Originally posted by Graeblyn
Anyway, contrast that with the current scandal. The current scandal is more about hypocrisy and the dynamics of the GOP than it is about actual ethics. Craig's politics have been rather homophobic over the years. This is why, to my knowledge, the Log Cabin Republicans have joined with the other elements of his party and have called on him to resign. It's one thing to be closeted, but it is highly hypocritical to spend your political life driven to destroy the lives of a group of people which you yourself are secretly one of.

This is one of the biggest points of the entire scandal that I forgot to put in. Thanks for adding it.

[Aristotle]

Thanks for the additional details Graeblyn.