It isn't McCarthyism Mr. Murphy, nor a double standard Ms. Matalin

[dsc]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20562794/

Here is a part of the exchange on MTP in regards to Mr. Craig and his resignation.

MR. MURPHY: Yeah, but there’s an ugliness in all this, too. I, I think Craig is an unsympathetic figure. But there has been this case of bloggers on the far left trying to expose closeted politicians if they don’t fall completely into lockstep with a certain liberal gay agenda. And I think that’s unfair. It’s a form of McCarthyism, really.

MR. SHRUM: Don’t you think the ugliness was voting against the hate crimes bill, as Craig did...

MR. MURPHY: No, no, no, but what Dems do is...

MR. SHRUM: ...and then going into a men’s bathroom...

MR. MURPHY: This is—no, it’s...

MR. SHRUM: ...and soliciting a police officer?

MR. MURPHY: Of course, that was ugly, but, but the point is, there is a tendency to apply an identity politics test now, which, which has a real chilling effect on politics, that somebody’s private life has—or their, their race or their gender or their orientation—has to dictate where they stand politically. If you’re a woman, you have to be a pro-choice Democrat. I mean, that calculation cheapens politics, and it’s unfair to people in public life who do have private lives.

end of quote

As usual when Democrats have the audacity to ask that Republicans both own and live up to their rhetoric and votes with their own lives we are being mean and evil. Give me a fucking break. Though I would have used a different example, Craig's votes in the Senate have shown him to be utterly willing to have ordinary people who are considered gay be fired from their jobs, (he voted against ENDA every single solitary time he could), cashiered from the military (he not only wrote DADT but as recently as a month ago told a constituent he supported it), and unprotected by hate crimes laws (repeatedly voted against the Matthew Sheppard Act).

This isn't the case of some politician who votes against one or two bills favoring gay rights. He votes against it all, every last bit. Craig's America is an America where people who are perceived to be gay can and often are, fired from their jobs or forced to resign. Since, thanks to him, I have to live in Craig's America why in the Hell shouldn't he? Holding Mr. Craig to the standard he wishes to hold me to isn't McCarthyism, its personal responsibility.

Here is some more of his wisdom

MR. MURPHY: But, but the argument I would quibble with you on is when you say the president demeans gay people because he doesn’t support gay marriage, that’s what the Democrats do. They turn a policy debate into a personal attack on a whole sector of the population. And I think that is the Democratic...

end of quote

Oh really. Well Mr. Murphy, I kind of take it personally when the President declares me too immoral to be married (in front of a body made up of adulterers, homewreckers, page chasing codgers, and people who solicit sex in men's rooms. I take it personally when the President refuses to sign a hate crime bill because it includes me in its definition of potential hate crime victim. I take it personally when the Senate refuses to pass a bill telling employers I can't be fired for being gay. I take it personally when I am denied the same rights as you are given simply because you like women and I like men. I am sure for you it is a policy issue and not a personal one. After all you have your rights.

Here is Ms. Matalin's take

MS. MARY MATALIN: If you’re a liberal and you cheat on your wife, it’s a private affair. If you’re a conservative and you cheat on your wife, you’re a hypocrite. Normal people, when the husband cheats on the wife, the wife does not consider the politics before she gives a response on this. Normal people out there did just what James just referenced, they looked at Mrs. Craig, and I remember looking at Lee Hart and through the years this—these poor suffering families. The first thing normal people thinks are—think are, “What? Is—this is a family tragedy.” The second thing they think is, “Why is everybody in Washington glued to this? And can’t—and don’t you guys have something better to do?” And thirdly, I didn’t listen to the tape, I didn’t watch any of this, but the people that I talked to are not particularly Craig fans, or critics, said, “That sounds like entrapment. Don’t the cops have better things to do than tap dance in bathrooms in the airport?” I’m just telling you the normal person view at the end of all...

MR. SHRUM: But he pleaded guilty, Mary, that was the—I mean, he pleaded guilty. I mean, that killed him. I mean...

MS. MATALIN: I—but my larger point is, I think this has no political legs. And I further think, to the extent we’re discussing it in the political arena, I don’t think the best strategy for Hillary Clinton is to attack the Republicans by defending her husband for a 10-year-old charge. She doesn’t want to re-bring up those scandals. This week she also had the other Johnny Chung redux scandal, so if I were you guys, I would just move, move ahead and not put Clinton and Craig in the same pot.

end of quote

I just love this. First, to give credit where it is due, you are right about the entrapment. That said, you have the audacity to claim that only GOP people are targetted for cheating on their wives. Are you serious? Remember Bill Clinton, or Senator Hart? I sure do. They weren't Repubicans. In the very same race that Hart had to abandon due to his affair, your boss was widely rumored to be having an affair with no apparent press interest at all (despite his position as VP of the US). At the very same time Clinton was being Impeached by Congress, Newt Ginrich was cheating on his second wife, the chief Impeachment manager had broken up a marriage with his affair, and a Louisiana Congressman was cheating on his wife with a lobbyist. One wasn't covered at all, the second only due to the aggrieved husband refusing to take no for an answer, and the third only due to Larry Flint's operation. Incidently, my own Congressman also was having an affair and got no press coverage until he filed for divorce 4 years later. He was GOP too.

The simple fact is that your party is obsessed with telling the rest of us what we may and what we may not do in regards to sex. It is your party which wants sodomy laws restored (which would make the entrappment issue moot in the Craig case), your party refuses to back hate crime laws, ENDA or to end DADT. We gee, color me shocked that gay people would have the audacity to feel aggrieved by this and feel Craig should actually have to live up to the rules your party promlogates. Your side started this, we simply are finishing what you started.

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. But her new hair style was so cute!

:)

[hootinholler]

2. GodDamnit! Who do I have to blow to get the liberal gay agenda memos?

:shrug:

-Hoot