Why are these dumbass repukes not stripping Ted Stevens of his committee roles

[LynneSin]

I mean this guy is under a major FBI investigation for Bribery and kickbacks and yet he's allowed his position but Craig isn't (and don't get me started about Vitter)

[NewJeffCT]

1. Simple - it's "the gay"

But, I think your question was rhetorical, and you knew that, right?

[Virginia Dare]

2. I think the word dumbass would be the key to your answer...n/t

[SteppingRazor]

3. Actually, it's the word "guilty"

Neither Vitter nor Stevens have been found guilty of anything.

[BOSSHOG]

6. Point taken

similarly republicans are insistent that only lies told under oath are really lies.

I think vitter and stevens are guilty of really pissing off whatever amounts to gop leadership today. But buying the services of prostitutes (one might call that adultery if it involves a married man) and fucking around with tax payers dollars aren't gop sins, but attempting to do something not heterosexual is.

Not calling for stevens resignation or not taking away his committee posts is more telling to me. Leave them where they are.

[MagickMuffin]

8. To clarify Vitter hasn't been charged with his crime but did ADMIT Guilt

So, Vitter admits guilt publicly but no legal charges have been filed against him therefore he hasn't plead guilty, or at least that's how eyes sees it:crazy:

:evilgrin:

[SteppingRazor]

10. Well, that's right, but when I said guilty, I meant guilty in a court of law. n/t

[eleny]

4. Maybe they want to spare themselves one of his tantrums

[ThomCat]

5. Homophobia.

They'll tolerate a lot from straight people. Outed gay people must be purged. x(

[Ian David]

7. Stevens didn't have to blow anyone to get his bridge, I guess.

"A bridge isn't a big truck you can dump stuff into, it's a series of tubes."

[coco77]

9. Yes, why not...

and why isn't anyone out getting the dirt on Orrin Hatch and Mitch Mc Connell...

[monmouth]

11. And don't forget his "vote"....The party first doncha know..

[calimary]

12. I'd say it's the gay angle.

Randi Rhodes was just talking about that with the Highly Useless richard "Monica" wolffe. The key, which she pointed out and I COMPLETELY agree, is the stench of RAMPANT homophobia - because of what seems suspiciously like a WHOLE LOTTA closeted gays who are imprisoned into silence and lives of lies by the oppressive policies of their frickin' party, and also, various and assorted sexual perverts and child predators like mark foley (not to mention diaper dudes like david vitter). Yet these are the same people who scream and holler on at the top of their sanctimonious, holier-than-thou, phony-baloney lungs about "family values" and "gays are bad" and "defense of 'marriage'" and all that bedroom-busybody crap. We HAVE TO start screaming JUST AS LOUD to EXPOSE this.

Might be "manna from heaven" so to speak (!) to start prying the fucking religious wrong and all the fucking mullas and ayatollas from the Bible Belt to Colorado Springs away from the political party structure. Or, compel them to break off and form their own "Party of God" separate from either the Dems OR the hijacked GOP. It would be a very good and shrewd move, I think, to further empower and enable those on the other side of the aisle who are growing increasingly uncomfortable about their party veering off onto the morality hard-on path. Some of them have already started talking about wanting to get back to the days when the Republican Party stood for secular things that benefited any congregation (or not) like less government spending and less government intrusion. Frankly, that's where they SHOULD be, instead of being fucking latter-day Puritans. Those who are starting to talk up this schism should be encouraged. Because religion DOES NOT belong in politics. This is NOT Tehran. This is NOT a theocracy and wasn't designed to be that way. And regardless what the "God's Warriors" crowd from Regent University and elsewhere want to insist, there IS a separation of church and state, and it ABSOLUTELY should NOT be undermined.