All I wanted to do was to expose the thinking behind the weird rationale among the Salonistas that people like Craig or Foley or Dreier need to be outed, based upon some notion of their alleged 'hypocrisy'. (You all would like to out Rep. David Drier, R-Cal., right? Not because he's committed any crime or other wrongdoing. But because he is a Republican.)

All I wanted from Salon was the list of public policy positions that subjects a legislator to Salon's Moral Purge Police. If you are a closet case, and you happen to favor same-sex marriage, are immune from the investigation? Why? Is there more to the list? How about "Don't Ask Don't Tell"? What about the JAG Corps recruiting at ABA-approved law schools? Do you have to be on one side of those issues in order to escape scrutiny from Salon? What about abortion policy? Is that somehow a "sex" policy? Are there other sex policies that make you a 'hypocrite' if you are a closet case? Or is it, as I suspect, as simple as being a Republican. ("Republican sex scandal = Bad hypocrisy." "Democrat sex scandal = Republican gestapo tactics.")

Again, because the comprehension level is so dismal at Salon, I say again -- I do not condone what Craig, or Foley, are alleged to have done. I favor their criminal prosecution for any and all valid charges. (By the way, was Foley ever prosecuted for anything?) If I were in the party leadership in either the House or Senate, I'd do my best to send them home for replacement.

All I am trying to figure out is Salon's code for linking policy matters to sexual escapade investigations. So far, the Salonstas have succeeded in making a pretty good case for the investigation of Bill Clinton. (Adultery, abuse of power, perjury, hypocrisy in relation to his public image and campaign rhetoric, etc. Really, just think about the matter of discussing troop movements in Bosnia over the telephone with a member of the House Armed Services Committee while being orally serviced by a White House intern.)

So again, no defense of Craig. Just questions as to where the 'hypocrisy' argument begins and ends.

There was no crime in any of this. There was nothing more nefarious than political promotions and some political policy disagreements. No crimes! No important investigations foiled! No phony investigations started! Nobody wrongfully convicted! Nobody wrongfully acquitted!

Where the hell is Leahy's investigation going to go?

What a collossal waste of time. What pure political theatre, just as Presiednt Bush said...

So how far does this hypocrisy thing go? If, for instance, you are John Edwards, talking about the wrongs in the "two Americas" but you are a multimillioniare trial lawyer and hedge fund consultant, and you also happen to be the former running mate of Mr. and Mrs. Theresa Heinz Kerry who paid only a tiny fraction of her trust-fund income in taxes, is that the kind of hypocrisy you were talking about? Or does it have to have some sex in it?

Tell me, what was his offense? Having a consensual affair, without the involvement of homosexuals or airport bathrooms, or for that matter any White House interns or House pages?

Was Bob Livingston's offense in the nature of 'hyposcrisy'? I forget; did he campaign on a platform of 'no extramarital affairs'? Have I forgotten about any Democrats who have run more forthright campaigns on platform of "more swingin' affaiars for everybody!"

Was Bob Livingston faulted for favoring the impeachment of Clinton when he had an affair of his own? (Jesse Jackson did, too, right? Jesse even brought his little bootay princess to the White House for photos with the big guy. Then an intensive round of spiritual healing until Jesse Jr. was safely reelected.) Anyway, Clinton's affair was impeachable because, while private and consensual, there was a crime (perjury) involved. Just like Larry Craig's alleged perversion was intended to be private and consensual, but involved a crime while pursued in a public restroom.

So help me out. All of these 'legions' of Republican perverts; there was Foley and now Larry Craig. And who else?

So Edwards made his money by helping the little guy? Hmmmm. Now I am not at all sure that this constitutes 'making money on the backs of little guys,' but can anybody just imagine the John and Elizabeth Edwards pronouncements if a Republican had done what they did? Sheeeeeeeesh!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/18/us/politics/18edwards.html?ex=1188360000&en=2f0cd5a4ee68fd8b&ei=5070

Edwards really did make money off the backs of common people, by driving up the costs of delivering babies in North Carolina. I am willing to accept that the frankly silly subprime lending fiasco was nothing compared to Edwards' years of concerted offenses against doctors in North Carolina.

Larry Craig deserves to be outed because his activity is so hypocritical -- he opposed equal rights for gays in one or more legislative initiatives. And, he is also alleged to have engaged in homosexual contact.

The consequenc may be that Craig will effectively be banished from leadership within the party, and he may resign. And a great many Republicans will say, "Good riddance; we have had one too many Foleys the first time."

Then we have Hillary Clinton. She too opposed at least one arena of homosexual rights, in her support (with her husband, the President, whos signed it into law) the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Therefore, the Craig-Foley Principle holds true with Mrs. Clinton, and if she can be shown to have had lesbian sexual contact, she should and must be outed, in order to fight her hypocrisy.