Thank you for your response. Oh I forgot about the poor children. I forgot we always must think about the children. Let's assume you are right and Sen. Craig was looking to hook up for some man on man sex. The man he tried to pick up was that a man, not a child. He didn't come on to a child. So your what about the children is crap. No one is defending child molestation here.

As before, I am quoting you directly along with my responses, so that your words are not distorted. This is in contrast to what you are doing, which is to completely rewrite my comment, transforming it into utter nonsense so that you can more easily shoot it down.

What we are talking about is consensual adult sex. As long as they don't do it in the public bathroom, but go somewhere private. I don't see the crime, nor is it a crime. Now if he engaged in sex in the public bathroom, that would of been a crime.

But this is exactly the criminal activity that the police claim they were trying to stop -- the whole reason they say they were doing the sting in the first place. I thought this was obvious to everyone from all the reporting. So when you wrote dismissively about it, and said, "So instead of catching murderers and rapists, they hang out in men's bathrooms making sure no hanky panky goes on," it sounded like you think men having sex in public restrooms is no big deal, just some "hanky panky." That is why I said, "Even if you think other adult men who use the restrooms shouldn't have a problem with this behavior, what about kids that have to use the facilities, for chrissakes?" This is not, as you well know, the cliché, hand-wringing lament, "What about the children?!" Nor is it your other Straw Man, "child molestation" -- no one, not even the police, has claimed that children were in danger of molestation. The men were having sex with other men in the restrooms, and the concern was that children might witness this activity.

But Craig didn't do that, nor did he even ask for sex. IF it's a crime to try to pick someone up for sex, better arrest most males at single bars. As for his actions, they are definetly subject to interpertation. All we have is the police report and the vice cops interpertation of what Craig did. Everything is premised from the viewpoint that he was trying to pick someone up for sex. Now maybe the cop is right, maybe he was engaging in coded actions meant to send the signal he was interested in sex. So what? It's not illegal to try to pick someone up for sex. So there should of been no reason to arrest the Sen. and have his life ruined because of this blown out of proportion incident.

I think you need to go back and look at the reporting, as you claim to have already done. Otherwise, you end up making ill-informed statements, like the above, which, through its ignorance, includes equating actual sex in a public space with "pick[ing] someone up for sex" at a "singles bar."

Note also that I have never claimed that Craig did anything wrong, only that he took an oath to tell the truth, and then plead guilty. If, as he now claims, that was wrong, then I'm sure a judge will let him recant his plea and go to trial. But, IIRC, the court originally dropped the more serious charge of invasion of privacy (allegedly staring at the cop through the stall door crack) as part of the plea agreement. So he takes a huge risk -- and faces even more devastating public scrutiny -- if he goes this route. My prediction: he won't, and he resigns.

Gees Gleen, did you take Mona's advice to hold the libertarian line and then let Dean quote you to Bill Kristol about beastiality?

Yep you did.

Now Dean can say not only that you are the pres of his fanclub, but he can also say you support beastiality.

perfect.

thanks Mona.

why nothing here about your tow segments on Hugh Hewitt with Dean today?

just askin'

lwm, che pasa I only come back for these things.

now that glenn gets painted with the progressive, liberal, and democratic label -- we all know he is wiht Mona's libertarianism --thanks a load Glenn.

FUCK YOU AND MONA

I greatly enjoyed this analysis Glenn.

In my view, this story should have been buried several days ago. But our corporate dominated media can't let a good sex scandal go particularly when there are other less interesting stories going on (Rove resigning, Gonzales resigning, Bush ratcheting up the Iran rhetoric, Katrina anniversary, etc).

However, I personally have been struck by the coverage of this "scandal" from the folks on the left. Despite the obvious cries of "hypocrite" which Craig may or may not be, I have seen folks on the left refer to him as a pervert and a criminal.

I have been tagged over at Huffington Post as a troll not because I am defending Craig for being a hypocrite but because I am wondering why police are targeting gay males at public restrooms at all. One commenter equated what he allegedly did with soliciting a prostitute.

Apparently, some on the left think gay marriage is fine but allegedly soliciting gay sex in a public restroom is immoral, dirty and perverted and Craig should be fired and prosecuted for allegedly wanting to engage in it.

I think the "cost-free" moralism you talk about abounds on the left as well.

Now, perhaps their glee in Craig's demise has more to do with the fact that he is Republican then whether or not he is gay. But their criticism of his actions is vehement. He did something criminal, unlawful, and, in fact, perverted based upon a single officer's police report and Craig's panicked admission of guilt to a lesser charge.

Frankly, I am not as upset at Craig's hypocrisy as I am at the fact that police are making arrests and coercing confessions of gay men in public restrooms over interpreted "signals".