Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Vitter v. Craig: Senatorial Double Standards

1

That would be awesome if a gay group got Larry "I'm not gay" Craig off (no pun intended). He would at least have to rethink his wide anti-gay stance, if not his whole sham life.

Posted by idaho | November 13, 2007 9:22 AM
2

I'm totally for dropping the investigation or starting one up on Vitter. We'll see what Boxer does.

Posted by Michigan Matt | November 13, 2007 9:25 AM
3

perhaps they should investigate vitter as well. i mean, i agree that there appears to be a double-standard here. but the cases are still significantly different:

1) vitter wasn't in the senate when he committed his crimes

2) vitter wasn't caught having committed his crimes until after the statue of limitations on them expired.

3) vitter apologized (for whatever that is worth).

Posted by infrequent | November 13, 2007 10:20 AM
4

Right, so because NGLTF didn't support the non-inclusive version of ENDA, that means they must be totally opposed to ENDA! Those hypocrites!

. . . wait, no. You'd have to be a total moron not to be able to make the distinction between supporting one version of a bill over another version, and opposing the bill entirely.

Posted by Cate | November 13, 2007 10:30 AM
5

Vitter should be left alone.

Posted by Toby Weymiller | November 13, 2007 10:52 AM
6

Nice how the diaper-wearing reports are "undependable". Good one, Dan.

Posted by Mittens Schrodinger | November 13, 2007 10:52 AM
7

Neither should be investigated.

Sex lives, even Senators, are a private matter.

Who and how you fuck is your business.

Married folks may have trouble at home, but no trouble from investigators is warranted.

Move on Congress, quit worrying about the where, when, and how of private sexual matters.

Posted by Kip | November 13, 2007 11:14 AM
8

Private sex lives should be a private matter. If the senator was having sex in his home, then he shouldn't have been arrested. But he wasn't having sex at home. He was asking someone (lets ignore the fact that this was an undercover officer for a second) if he could give them a blowjob in a public bathroom. Who you fuck is your own business, as long as the person you're fucking isn't an under-age kid. How you fuck should also be your own business. But I don't think he got in trouble for WHO he wanted to fuck, or HOW he wanted to do it. It was WHERE he wanted to do it that was the problem. If you wanna fuck someone in a PUBLIC place, then it's not really a PRIVATE matter anymore, is it?

Posted by Anna | November 13, 2007 11:57 AM
9

#8 GREAT POINT! A "Public Servant" being paid by the publics' tax dollars is always under the eye of people like me. They have no private life as long as I pay their salary and they are my public servant. When they try to deny me rights they enjoy and then turn around and engage in public behavior they enjoy (but openly deny doing) then I as their employer get fucking mad and call that Bullshit out. (Oh such language!) I totally agree wid ya.

Posted by Sargon Bighorn | November 13, 2007 1:35 PM
10

The comment period for wearing diapers has expired. Sen. Craig is still doing the t-room two-step, whereas Vitter's alleged transgressions happened years ago. Don't make it a het v. homo issue -- they're not comparable.

Posted by ecce homo | November 13, 2007 3:39 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).