GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
NOTE: This is probably the harshest piece I’ve written about another candidate, but I feel that I am right in voicing my concerns. I don’t mean to offend any Mitt Romney supporters here, many of whom I have a great deal of respect for, and value their opinions. However, the actions taken today have truly infuriated me, and I cannot be silent on this issue. Last night, I tried to appease everyone by trying not to imply that Romney was in the wrong by being associated with Craig, and not being politically damaged any more than the rest of the party for Larry Craig’s actions. I said that it hurts all of the candidates, including Romney. This is my opinion after Romney’s statements today. It is rather harsh, but these are my honest reservations about Romney, at this point. Flame me, bash me, go ahead, but I can’t go on acting like this is a non-issue to me. It gives me serious questions about the character of the candidate. For the record, I hold the view that Craig is guilty, as I stated last night in my post rather angrily. However, I did not appoint him to be a senate co-chair for my campaign, and never will, since I have no desire to ever run for city janitor, much less president…
___________________________________________________________________________________
My Growing Concerns About Mitt Romney
Although I’ve been vocal in my opposition to the former governor from Massachusetts (at least when compared to my preferred candidate), I have been slow to publicly accuse him of pandering and flip-flopping in the past. Today, he went beyond the boundary, and crossed that line. Last night when I was posting on the Larry Craig affair, I even went back and changed my post because someone accused me of using the situation to attack Romney by linking to articles that connected him to Craig. I was, at the time, disturbed by the fact that Romney pulled the YouTube video of Craig endorsing him, but I was willing to let that slide. Today’s actions, I can not and will not let go without calling it for what it is.
Craig was one of Romney’s top two backers in the Senate and had worked to round up support there for the former governor. After Craig’s bathroom encounter was reported, the Romney campaign moved to distance itself from the Idahoan, issuing a terse statement last night that it was no longer associated with Craig and that it didn’t want the senator to be a distraction.
But the candidate himself went much further today, seeking to tie Craig’s alleged search for a gay liasion to the broader pattern of corruption permeating Washington in recent years.
“I think it reminds us of Mark Foley and Bill Clinton,” Romney told Kudlow, in remarks reported on the network’s First Read blog. “I think it reminds us of the fact that people who are elected to public office continue to disappoint, and they somehow think that if they vote the right way on issues of significance or they can speak a good game, that we’ll just forgive and forget.”
“And the truth of the matter is, the most important thing we expect from… an elected official is a level of dignity and character that we can point to for our kids and our grandkids, and say, `Hey, someday I hope you grow up and you’re someone like that person.’ And we’ve seen disappointment in the White House, we’ve seen it in the Senate, we’ve seen it in Congress. And frankly, it’s disgusting.”
Today, former governor Mitt Romney is acting like the ultimate hypocrite and opportunist. The GOP nominee campaigning on moral high ground has behaved today like nothing more than a man, in my view, with questionable integrity, at best. People can accuse former Senator Fred Thompson of being lazy or flipping on abortion, and have solid evidence to criticize him for it. People can accuse former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani of being a philanderer, and out of step with mainstream conservatives on a majority of social issues, and have a valid argument. However, as many faults as either men have, both are willing to fight for what they believe in, without using their own supporter’s downfall to blame the beltway.
You see, instead of staying out of the Craig fiasco, which would’ve been the wise thing to do, Romney had to come out and publicly humiliate him, causing Larry Craig even more damage than he had already caused himself. Earlier this summer, Giuliani had two representatives of his campaign publicly embarrass him. Instead of throwing them under the proverbial bus, the former mayor dealt with it himself; sparing his those at fault with the embarrassment of having their own candidate publicly crucify them. For all I know, Giuliani very well could have tortured them with broken glass and rubbing alcohol in private for the damage they caused him, but publicly he did not feel the need to cause more pain and suffering to those men’s’ families. He apparently understood that the last thing that the children of those accused needed was more piling onto their father, husband, son, brother, or friend. Governor Romney did just that.
In an argument I had last night with a prominent blogger and Romney supporter who I have a great amount of respect for, he said something to the effect of I’d have a problem with this if Romney knew about it beforehand (paraphrase). Well, it seems as though every prominent elected official, not to mention a large portion of the country, were aware of this man’s past transgressions. As organized and well researched as Governor Romney’s campaign is, if he didn’t know about it, then I have seriously overestimated his competence. By saying the above-mentioned statement, Romney appears to be feigning ignorance, and washing his hands of it. First of all, this man has put in a great deal of effort on behalf of Mitt Romney. He has lobbied senators on the governor’s behalf, and served as a campaign chair. He has worked to gain as much muscle for the campaign as possible. Apparently, Romney can overlook Craig’s shady past as long as it suits his purpose, but the candidate with the claim to higher moral standards has no remorse of washing his hands of Craig when it comes back to haunt him. He is first in line for carrying the bucket of tar and feathers. It reminds me of Night of the Hunter, the classic movie starring Robert Mitchum. In it, there was a family who would not hear of anything bad about the mysterious preacher who had come into town, but when the man murdered the local widow he married, they led the mob with pitchforks in hand to string him up before the court could deal with him, all the while feigning ignorance and neglecting the utter torture and emotional roller coaster that the children of the widow were having to deal with out of the way.
If this was an isolated incident of overlooking someone’s past, then perhaps I could be more understanding, but it is not. Let me introduce those unfamiliar with the Romney team to Robert Lichfield. Lichfield is the Utah finance chair for the Romney campaign. In a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, 133 plaintiffs have alleged that Robert Lichfield, co-chairman of Romney’s Utah finance committee owned or operated residential boarding schools for troubled teenagers where students were “subjected to physical abuse, emotional abuse and sexual abuse.”
In fact, according to Reason magazine:
133 plaintiffs filed a civil suit against Romney’s Utah finance co-chair, Robert Lichfield, and his various business entities involved in residential treatment programs for adolescents. The umbrella group for his organization is the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools (WWASPS, sometimes known as WWASP) and Lichfield is its founder and is on its board of directors
And if that is not enough for you, let me introduce you to Mel Sembler, the Romney campaign’s national finance co-chair:
the link to teen abuse goes far higher up in the Romney campaign. Romney’s national finance co-chair is a man named Mel Sembler. A long time friend of the Bushes, Sembler was campaign finance chair for the Republican party during the first election of George W. Bush, and a major fundraiser for his father.
According to the L.A. Times, California investigators said that at Straight teens were “subjected to unusual punishment, infliction of pain, humiliation, intimidation, ridicule, coercion, threats, mental abuse… and interference with daily living functions such as eating, sleeping and toileting.”
These are not proven charges, but just as serious allegations as Senator Craig’s. I am not here to say that they are guilty, but it does make me very skeptical of Romney’s performance on CNBC today. To act as if this was a shock to him was a stretch, considering Craig’s known history.
It appears, to my eyes, that Mr. Romney is willing to name people with shady pasts to his campaign team. This leads me to two possible explanations. My first conclusion is that Romney is an incompetent judge of character. Remember, these are not just supporters whose actions should have no reflection on him, but representatives of “Team Romney.” These are people that he named to personally represent him. This theory of oversight does not hold up under scrutiny though. Romney is running as the CEO whose accomplishments in the business world are near legendary. It reminds me of why I am not a fan of CEO candidates. Executives in the business world who reach the status of a Mitt Romney get there by ruthless, win at any cost type of tactics. In my opinion, one of President George W. Bush’s weaknesses as a CEO and a president is that he is not ruthless enough. Accomplished executives don’t make these types of mistakes repeatedly, which leads me to my second conclusion. Romney, the CEO, is a stop at nothing to win candidate. To this type of nominee, winning is the only thing, whether it is making the sale or getting elected to office. They change their persona to fit their potential buyer’s preference. They are politically amoral. They are able to distance themselves from their personal feelings, so long as they win. Of course, to run the country one has to be able to make tough decisions that can cause pain to a lot of people, but that doesn’t mean using as long as they fit your need. Now, does this mean Mitt Romney is an immoral human being? No, it does not. I do not question his public image of a loving husband, father, and grandfather. Many CEO’s are good, decent human beings. However, when they enter the business world, that moral code they live by in their personal life ceases to exist. They essentially become a different person.
By what I’ve seen today, Mitt Romney has shown me how he treats people who no longer fit into his agenda. Now, in all fairness, I called the GOP leadership out about this. I agree that Senator Craig’s actions are reprehensible. However, I am not ever going to run for office, and as of yesterday, I had no idea who Larry Craig was. To me, he’s just another politician whose own hypocrisy caused his downfall. He was much more than that to Romney. Right after Craig issued a denial of all the charges, Romney made his despicable statement. I’m curious if Romney feels that as president, he would have the moral authority to be the judge, jury, and executioner. As he has shown with his judgment today, it is not a thought I am ready to have to deal with.
To conclude with even more ridiculousness, I leave you with a quote today from famed Romney supporter Hugh Hewitt, who believes that Craig cheating on his wife with a man is apparently worse than David Vitter cheating on his wife with a prostitute. Hewitt gave Vitter the benefit of the doubt, but not Craig.
I realize that I did not say this about Senator Vitter, but Craig’s behavior is so reckless and repulsive that an immediate exit is required. I don’t believe him. Read the statement by the arresting officer. He must think the people of Idaho are idiots.
But even if I did believe him, this would make his judgment too flawed to be in the United States Senate in a time of war. He has to go.-Hugh Hewitt, in his own words, who apparently can tolerate affairs as long as they’re heterosexual
In all honesty, I hope Hewitt is not that biased, as this borders on the point of demeaning. Apparently, it’s not worth resigning if the accused blatantly breaks the law by soliciting prostitutes. However, if he breaks the law by soliciting gay sex, then by all means, he must go. What makes Craig’s behavior more reckless and sinister than Vitter’s? Hugh is wrong.
UPDATE: Apparently, Goldwater took the opposite actions when confronted with similar problems during his campaign. I think it is wise of the Romney campaign to follow these steps…
In 1964, three weeks before the election, Lyndon Johnson’s closest aide Walter Jenkins was arrested in the men’s room of a YMCA near the White House for doing what Craig is now alleged to have attempted.
Barry Goldwater, the Republican candidate for President, refused to comment. In his autobiography, Goldwater late wrote, “It was a sad time for Jenkins’ wife and children, and I was not about to add to their private sorrow. Winning isn’t everything. Some things, like loyalty to friends or lasting principle, are more important.”
But that was before the term “compassionate conservative” had been invented
.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Tommy, you have just said what a lot of us are thinking. On my web site http://www.musingsofawhiskeyrebel.blogspot.com I called for the resignation of Larry Craig. But I find Mitt Romney’s actions to be reprehensible. I, like you am a Fred Thompson supporter, but until today, I could have supported Romney if he were the nominee. Not now.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
I think Mitt is sending the message that his administration will be a clean one and he’ll be swift with anyone who undermines him. I wish Bush was more like that.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
What a stupid assement of the situation. Of course Romney has to distance himself and his campaign from Senator Craig. I’ll vote for people with values and character all day long.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Have to disagree with you one this one, Tommy. There IS a lot about Romney that causes me to deeply trouble him, but as Randy correctly notes, throwing people overboard when they become a political liability is part of the job description (see, eg: Dwight “Better You than Me” Eisenhower). I will say this, though: the Romney supporters who claimed that Rudy’s acceptance of the endorsement of David Vitter somehow demonstrated a failing on Rudy’s part are strangely silent on this particular topic.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
There is ALSO lots about me grammer to High School deeply trouble English teacher mine. Sorry about that everyone. Hopefully the intent came through.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Dude, Craig (stupidly, imho) pled guilty to soliciting sex in a public bathroom. G-I-L-T-Y. This isn’t a case of accusations or even “he said he said.” I could care less who Craig sleeps with, but trying to have sex in a bathroom stall is a different story altogether. Disgusting, even.
As for research, yes, there were rumors about Craig going back a ways. Until a couple of days ago nothing was confirmed. If you believe Craig might be telling the truth with his inexplicable “I didn’t have legal counsel for the past two months” excuse, I guess you could see things differently.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
I was pretty surprised at Romney’s statement and I was dissapointed that Larry Kudlow (who did the interview) did not at least challenge Romney to show a little loyalty. Romney could have easily answered that he did not know all the facts and he was taking Craig at his word. Instead he condemned Craig worse than any democrat did. I watched tv nearly all day and did not once hear a democrat call it “disgusting.” And all the while Romney showed no compassion for Craig or his family. To me it was a case of Romney flip flopping on friendship.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Tommy,
That politico story is a blatant hit piece, and Jonathan has had an axe to grind against Romney all year. The comments, if you notice, in the piece overwhelmingly reflect that sentiment (especially among those who seem to be conservative). People are saying that Romney did the right thing here, and that they wished more Republicans would have so little tolerance for ethical violations. And I’d note here, that if Romney had said something to the effect of “I’m not sure about these allegations, and I’ll wait to see them fully played out”, he would have been vilified as another GOP’er protecting his corrupt cronies. And with good reason. Senator Craig pleaded guilty. Regardless of what he’s saying currently, the matter is, as far as ethical lapses are concerned, closed.
And Romney’s perfectly justified not only in commenting on the matter, but refusing to coddle a corrupt establishment. The idea that this is “despicable”, in any serious sense, is absolutely absurd. Romney had to do something, and demurring on the issue, or attempting to protect Craig, is simply a reflection of the old line of thinking which has made Washington such a mess. Your accusation that Romney “knew” Craig was conducting such unethical acts, seems little more then pure insanity. Craig endorsed Romney some months ago. But, Romney’s been effectively running for president for two years.
Even if we assume that he’s a “panderer” with “no core principles”, seeking “power for powers sake”, the idea still retains the character of vaudeville. Because Mitt Romney knew that he was running a socially conservative campaign well before Craig endorsed him. I can show you videos from 2005 where he’s just as socially conservative as he is today. And any person who’d imagine such a “calculating, manipulator” would purposely select someone with scandal hanging about them, for such a prominent role in their campaign, has to believe that his calculating machine has trouble correctly adding 2 + 2. In other words, Romney can’t simultaneously be a politically amoral, calculating, manipulator, with extraordinary executive sense, and the sort of person who’d knowingly select a man who solicits gay sex in bathrooms.
There’s, shall we say, a disconnect between the two ideas, and it takes really fairly fantastic mental gymnastics, pretty stupendous cognitive dissonance, to hold them both simultaneously. Which goes to my more central point: anti-Romney folks can’t quite seem to figure out why they don’t like him. They have an incoherent mish-mash of reasons, which frequently contradict each other. He’s evil because he’s a an outrageously successful manipulator who’ll do whatever he can to win. He’s also evil because he’s apparently abandoned his manipulating and calculating skills, so that he can do a stunningly stupid thing, apparently in an attempt to lose the race. He’s evil because he “threw a corrupt supporter under a bus”. He’s also evil because his team is filled with corrupt cronies, who he refuses to “throw under a bus”. He’s evil because he clearly has no principles of any kind. He’s also evil because he’s trying to enforce his “values”, which he was arrogant enough to actually demonstrate, on the rest of the country. The whole thing would be awfully amusing, if it wasn’t focused on such an important subject.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Sean, Larry Craig pled guilty to disorderly conduct, nothing else. Having said that, and having done criminal defense work for many years, I can tell you that many times people plead to things they did not do, just because it is the easiest way out of a difficult situation. What Mitt Romney did to Larry Craig is inexcusable. I understand the need to distance himself. He could have done that without the comments.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Some Romney supporters obviously turn a blind eye to anything about Mitt. He has flipped flopped so much who knows what he would do. Anyone that will change his stance to suit the situation is not someone I want near the White House.
The way he handled the Craig incident is disgusting. I am tired of Republicans comparing everything to Clinton and somehow acting morally superior. We are coming off looking like hypocrites over and over again thanks to that morally superior attitude of some candidates like Romney. To come out publicly was unnecessary and to try to remove all traces of him was something I would suspect of Romney. The rumors have been around forever and if Romney has a research team they must have heard but he was so into getting Senators on board, he would have done anything.
The original comments were spot on IMHO.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Ginny,
I know someone who had to do exactly that because he didn’t have the money to fight the charge of the supposed “sex crime” he was charged with. He pleaded down to a totally bogus charge and it haunts him to this day.
It does happen people.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
From what I can tell, Craig was arrested, and pled to the charges, and never told anyone, hoping it would go away. I think Romney is reacting to Craig not being forthcoming, not “throwing him under the bus” because he made a mistake. As we see again and again, it’s the coverup, and not the crime that get you in trouble. I think that if Craig had come out the day of the arrest and been straight up about what happened, Romney would have reacted much differently. I don’t think this makes Romney a bad person. But what kind of support can Craig expect if he isn’t going to own up as soon as he realizes there is a situation?
August 28th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Ginny,
And what else was his disorderly conduct? And sorry, while I understand that people plead guilty to offenses for various reasons, you lose your ability to disclaim all guilt when you do that.
I don’t think its wrong for Romney to say that we should hold our elected Representatives to a higher ethical standard, and that it is, to use his word, disgusting that we’ve had so many examples of Republicans who have failed to reach this standard. I think the Craig affair is disgusting, and I could care less who he is sleeping with.
And quite frankly, after seven years of this President, I’m no longer of the “It is an unalloyed virtue for a politician to be loyal.” After eight years of Clinton’s finger-to-the-wind attitude toward friends, I never ever thought I’d say that . . .
August 28th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Apparently accountability means nothing. How much better off would the GOP be if President Bush and other leaders were more willing to throw hypocrits under the bus?
Gov. Romney has a right to be angry. He’s also dead right in his comments.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
I’m not comfortable with Romney but he did the right move here. Those who embarrass their constituents deserve shame.
Shame is necessary to communicate how disgusting we find certain people’s actions.
I would hope that we’d have more piling on to discourage the crimes Senator Craig committed.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
I don’t have a problem with Romney’s comments. These scandals and crazy sexcapades among Republicans have gone on long enough. Romney has every right to be angry, just as I am. He sees the damage this is causing to not only the party, but the country. Let’s get Craig and anyone else that is still out there among our ranks out of public office.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
everyone is sick of Bush loyalty. throwing the guy under the bus is harsh, but putting the law over loyalty and blood is what makes us civilized.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
You guys are making a mountain out of a molehill… come on, what else could Romeny do. As much as I like Craig, I don’t know that Romney had any choice but to do what he did.
By the way, I like Fred and will vote for him if he is the guy, but I have to say he does not look well physically. He is not the Fred of “Red October” look. I think his ailments may be the reason he is still not declaring. I don’t think he has the gas for the journey. I hope I am wrong on that.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
I’m confused - why are some of you so angry at Romney? Are you guys upset at him for allowing a (possibly) gay man to support him and even take a leadership position in his campaign? Or are you upset that he dismissed from his campaign a Senator who got himself arrested and didn’t just plead guilty, but first tried to use the “do you know who I am” defense to get out of it, and then kept it quiet for almost three months? Or are you upset that he came down harshly against immoral behavior in politics, specifically the hipocracy among many conservative Republicans in Congress who wash themselves in the family values fountain, tell all of us how to live, and then commit immoral and illegal acts themselves? Because in my opinion, none of these should be the cause of pulling support from Romney. In fact, it made me feel better about leaning strongly towards Romney. Mitt absolutely did the right thing here.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
And to clear two things up:
1. The idea that Sen. Craig needs privacy for the sake of his family went out the window when he started making these ridiculous pleas that, despite PLEADING GUILTY he’s innocent. He doesn’t seem to have the good sense to go quietly for the sake of his family, so why does he deserve deference?
2. It’s doubtful Gov. Romney knew anything about some 25 year old allegation. These endorsements are hardly vetted. Pretty much any Congressman, Senator, governor, or other high ranking party member is handed a fancy title of some sort if they’re willing to back a candidate.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Maybe I’m missing something here - or maybe I’m missing the whole point.
Because once 25 years ago Senator Craig preemptively issued a statement saying he wasn’t involved in a page scandal, that magically means he’s gay, into sexual trysts in restrooms? AND, that magically meant that because of that (of which nothing ever happened), that means Craig shouldn’t be allowed to work on a presidential campaign 25 years later? AND, that magically also means that Romney was supposed to somehow know (maybe with his cultish ESP?) about it when Craig endorsed him?
And then this:
“These are not proven charges, but just as serious allegations as Senator Craig’s. I am not here to say that they are guilty, but it does make me very skeptical of Romney’s performance on CNBC today. To act as if this was a shock to him was a stretch, considering Craig’s known history.”
The veracity of the charge doesn’t matter, just the seriousness of them… Clarence Thomas, anyone? And again - what, pray tell, is “Craig’s known history”?
And finally, how exactly do you have the right to throw Craig under the bus (along with the entire GOP Congressional delegation for that matter, for some reason) the other day with some of the harshest language you’ve ever used, and then get upset that Romney would react similarly?
C’mon, Tommy, you’re a lot better than this.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Tommy two points:
1. What Romney said is true. Is Romney to blame that Craig’s children now know he pleaded guilty to attempting gay sex in a public bathroom? Romney is right, it’s disappointing and we should hold our elected leaders to a higher standard. Your insinuation that Romney is somehow man because he says Craig is a disappointing elected official is kind of naive.
2. Have you ever worked for these teen rehab places? They nearly all have complaints from teens, and lawyers love to pick them up. Think about, it you run a business where you house and take care tens of misplaced youth, you think they aren’t going to file complaints and claim abuse? It’s pretty routine. I actually am semi involved with these youth businesses and I can tell you this owner being piled on is actually a pretty typical story.
But I am sure it made for good fodder when the Thompson campaign sent you the email with the goods.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
My response to this quote: “Everyone in this town (D.C.) knows that Craig is gay” Romney is not from DC last time I checked. And I will tell you right now who is responsible for possibly upsetting Craig’s family. Craig. That’s right. For once in this century can a person take responsibility for his actions? Craig blamed it on a newspaper for crying out loud.
One of the biggest problems in any government is covering up the truth. Don’t shelter scandals. Have you not seen the crap going on in the GOP for the past several years. The viability of the nation is dependent on public officials taking responsibility for the office given them.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
EGS, I really liked the point you made about shame. Craig did this to himself. He is only a victim to his own weakness. Why can’t we expect more from our elected officials, democrat, republican, whatever? BTW, Romney is smart enough to separate a persons sexual preference/misconduct from breaking the law, either through solicitation (Craig) or sexual coercion using a position of power (Clinton, Foley). This would exclude a personal weakness to having affairs (Levingston, Gingrich, Giuliani, etc…)
August 28th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
… Forgot to include Vitter in that list as well. Romney has never to my knowledge publicly condemned the marital infidelity of politicians, nor their sexual orientation. He does sell his family values theme by highlighting his own marriage and family though…
August 28th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
“He apparently understood that the last thing that the children of those accused needed was more piling onto their father, husband, son, brother, or friend. Governor Romney did just that.”
So you’re one of those guys that think the father should be spared jail time because his children will be negatively impacted by it. Just ridiculous!
I hope Romney punishes more like this, they will continue to pop up. My loyalty to the Republican Party runs thin when Republicans make a mockery of Conservatism. This is such a case, and I am increasingly thinking that Romney should run as a conservative independent. It’s not the gay sex; it’s the soliciting sex in a public washroom, the epitome of incompetence for an elected official. Then he hid it from all, including Romney. And now Romney’s the bad guy because he won’t act like Jesus Christ and offer unconditional forgiveness to the pathetic man. He must speak out on this, and speak harshly. The reputation of the Republican Party is at stake.
Also, when a guy is willing to support you as strongly as this, and he looks as good as Craig on paper, what are you supposed to do? Say, no I don’t want your support, there is this accusation about you (which you adamantly deny) and disregarding your impeccable conservative record, it makes you too risky. Thanks, but no thanks! You start rejecting support based on accusations and there will be no one left.
Tommy, while I agree with you on Hewitt and Vitter, I’m not sure why you discuss it in a Romney post. This is some serious guilt by association.
In future, the one thing I hope Romney does is focus on the illegality of the act, not it’s “gayness”. This is an important distinction to make.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
A man who pleads guilty to disorderly conduct under an accusation of lewd behavior in a place where children often are (a public bathroom), deserves the full measure of shame.
As a party and as a people it is our responsibility to communicate our disgust with such filthy and dangerous criminal behavior. The only thing that could have been worse is if a child had seen this going on in the bathroom.
What really frightens me is that a child may have. Senator Craig needs to be forced to resign. His colleagues in the Senate need to demand his resignation and need to be willing to vote him out of the Republican caucus if he refuses.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
I am confident Romney will never focus on the “gayness”. He is all for tolerance of people with different sexual orientation. Having said that he also believes that marriage is an institution in which to raise children, so that they have a mother and a father. Can you be tolerant of gays and still be pro heterosexual marriage??? — don’t want to get off topic — but I think you can.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Tommy,
The logic of your post is lost on me. As far as I can tell you seem to be arguing that Romney should assume that any potentially damaging rumors about a person are true and dissociate himself from such a person upon learning of such rumors - even if the person in question adamantly denies the rumors. If this is the case, then you seem to be advocating that Romney express a greater degree of self-righteousness than he currently is. That is quite an astounding position.
Furthermore, you seem to imply that Romney should not associate with people that are rumored to be homosexuals because they may come out of the closet later. You imply this by pointing to the YouTube denail of Larry Craig from 1982 and saying that Romney knew about Craig’s problem and therefore shouldn’t be surprised about this involving Craig. However, Romney probably knew full well that Craig may come out of the closet or get kicked out of the closet. I doubt this would have bothered Romney too much (although it shows Craig’s lack of fidelity to his wife). What Romney didn’t know, and really couldn’t know based on Craig’s past actions, is that he would be busted for soliciting sex in an airport bathroom and then come up with excuses that are downright ridiculous (e.g., the wide stance, picking up paper off the floor, etc.). To argue that Romney should have known that Craig would get busted for this is crazy! On the other hand, maybe you are arguing that rumored gay men have a propensity to do this type of thing and therefore Romney should have known that this kind of event was likely to occur. That argument is even more far fetched.
I have to admit that when I first heard about Romney’s “disgusting” remark, I immediately thought that he was throwing a supporter under the bus. However, after further reflection, this is exactly the type of person I want to be President. I don’t want him to protect his cronies and cover up things like is so common in Washington now. No, I want someone that will throw a former supporter uner the bus if they screw up big time (the screw up being the airport stall solicitation, not coming out of the closet).
By the way, I don’t believe you with regard to your argument that he is a different evil person when acting as a CEO and a nice wonderful grandfather and father at home. Why? Because I remember one of the earlier stories was about how Romney, acting as CEO, refused to invest his personal money in a company that produces R-rated videos because he personally disagrees with those type of movies. That to me was a big indicator that he sticks by his personal convictions (and for crying out loud, just because he sticks by his personal convictions in one business deal does not show that he is ready to implement those same convictions on the rest of the country - if he did, I suppose he would want to ban coffee, tea, cigarettes, and alcohol too since he personally doesn’t consume these drinks). If the guy is willing to forego making a bunch of money for his personal convictions back when nobody was watching, then he certainly seems willing to stick to his convictions.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
So what if Craig is homosexual and Romney new about it. Romney has always stated he is for gay rights and does not discriminate.
The issue is Craig plead guilty for an act that is viewed as soliciting for sex in a public place. If Craig is guilty he was looking for a quick out and hoping no one would find out. If he wasn’t guilty he showed very poor judgment.
I’m glad Romney had the guts to say what he did. Politicians are so afraid to buck members of their party, so the keep their mouths shut and let this type of stuff continue.
The bottom line, Craig pled guilty and later when it was discovered he resigned from Romney’s campaign because of the incident. I’m tired of the poor behavior from our elected officials. I’m very happy Romney called it for what it is. We need leadership, integrity and strong character from our elected officials; we don’t need them rolling on public bathroom floors or the oval office floors.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
What else could Mitt have done? Well, he could have shown some “tough love.” He could have taken the Christian path and said that he hates the sin, but loves the sinner. He could have said that if the allegations were true that Craig would have to first take his punishment and then get the help that he so obviously and desperately needs. He could have shown a little compassion for Craig’s wife and kids by saying that he was praying for them, and, yes, praying for Craig to be freed from his personal demons.
But, no, Mitt was so anxious to distance Craig from his campaign that he took another approach- the low road. Craig’s troubles come on top of those of two other high-profile former members of Romney’s team. Jay Garrity, who was Romney’s Director of Operations, is being investigated for impersonating a police officer. Alan Fabian, former co-chairman of Romney’s national finance committee, was indicted on 23 counts of bankruptcy fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice and perjury. People are saying, “Romney sure can pick ‘em,” and in his haste to try to get out front on this latest scandal to darken his campaign, Mitt demonstrated why so many conservatives just do not trust the man.
If George Bush is loyal to his stqaffers to a fault, Romney seems to be just the opposite. He could have strongly condemned Craig’s actions, and rightly so. But he should have tempered that condemnation with some Christian charity.
But Mitt chose not to, and the political opportunist in him became visible once again for all to see. At least to those who open their eyes, that is.
Excellent piece, Tommy.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:09 am
Sturm,
We don’t need Romney spewing Christian charity on his supporters who break the law. Leave mercy to the churches, applied in their own sphere. Republicans who break the law should be justly punished.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:24 am
I would have to concur with the Matts and EGS.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:46 am
[...] election, argument, corruption, republicans In an article for race42008.com titled aptly titled My Growing Concerns About Romney, the estimable and reflective Tommy Oliver argues: Although I’ve been vocal in my opposition to [...]
August 29th, 2007 at 1:09 am
Re-read post 34, JohnnyG. I said that Craig should take his punishment.
But Romney’s judgement is still called into question after Garrity, Fabian and now Craig, no matter how fast Romeny tries to run from them.
If he can’t size people up any better than this, how is he going to deal with the likes of Putin and Ahmadinejad?
August 29th, 2007 at 1:11 am
Tommy,
If my candidate would refuse to commit, but took me for granted by stringing me along; if his speeches never offered anything new, often sounding like he had never read them before giving them, and constantly dwells upon problems without suggesting any solutions; who would rather drive around in a golfcart instead of meeting and greeting people; who can’t seem to get the basic organization of his “non-campaign” right; and who looks looks very old and very tired in almost all his non-airbrushed pictures; I would be frustrated too. But don’t you think you should be taking your frustrations out on him, not someone else?
August 29th, 2007 at 2:33 am
This makes me even more likely to back Romney. A Republican who doesn’t attempt to make excuses for one of his confidants when they screw up would be a refreshing and good change from Bush.
Anyway, fodder for this site to discuss. RNC does the DNC one better and threatens delegates from any state holding primaries before Feb. 5 (meaning not only FL, but NH, SC, and potentially MI) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/washington/29cnd-calendar.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1188371292-/fTF8WgYVyy8BtVEUJP5aA
August 29th, 2007 at 4:36 am
Another mindless thread.
Wake up! Mitt is winning this thing and the funny thing is most people don’t even realise it yet.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:46 am
I think what people don’t realize is the growing “disgust” with Romney. If what he did was the right thing to do, why is it no other republican came out so harshly against Craig? And the tired attempt to relate everything to Clinton only makes Romney look like he is stuck in the 90’s. Do we want a President who is going to point the finger to the previous decade everytime he finds himself in a spot? Is that courage or cowardice?
What is also interesting from Romney’s interview yesterday was his ability to say absolutely nothing of substance. The only thing he did say was that he was now for making the 2003 tax cuts permanent. Well it should come as no surprise that he opposed the tax cuts when he was governor.
But back to Craig, does anyone know how he and Romney managed to hook up? Seems an odd pairing on the surface.
August 29th, 2007 at 6:47 am
Pablo Zed,
Romney did not oppose the tax cuts when he was governor. This is an increasingly false myth. Romney simply refused to endorse them, while he was busy dealing with a 3 billion dollar budget deficit in Massachusetts. Governors do this all the time. Indeed, it’s considerably more common for Governors to refuse to comment on national issues, early in their term, then it is for them to do the opposite. As for how Romney met Craig, they worked loosely together during the 2002 Winter Olympics, because Idaho was a fairly large part of the planning.
August 29th, 2007 at 6:53 am
‘Anyway, fodder for this site to discuss. RNC does the DNC one better and threatens delegates from any state holding primaries before Feb. 5 (meaning not only FL, but NH, SC, and potentially MI) ‘
And I thought the Democrats were stupid for threatening Florida. Just when the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot (once), the Republicans manage to do it with a machine gun.
Idiots.
August 29th, 2007 at 6:55 am
Sturm Ruger: ‘What else could Mitt have done? Well, he could have shown some “tough love.â€? He could have taken the Christian path and said that he hates the sin, but loves the sinner. ‘
Such a person is unfit to be president. I want a ruthless SOB who will not only throw supporters under the bus, but hijack the bus and drive it over them a few more times, Servius Tullius-style.
But we already know that as a well-known shill for Fred Thompson, you’ll try to use anything against his opponents. Nice try.
August 29th, 2007 at 6:59 am
I did a quick search and you are right, but isn’t that a distinction without a difference?
I also found this:
“McCain opposed President Bush’s tax cuts, Romney noted. ‘I supported them,’ the former governor said.� (Lee Bandy, “Romney Targeting McCain,� The State, 2/4/07)
That apparently is a lie then (that he supported them.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:02 am
‘What Mitt Romney did to Larry Craig is inexcusable. ‘
What Larry Craig did to Larry Craig is inexcusable.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:10 am
All this says to me is that it’s just one more example of how quickly and easily Romney is to shift stances if he believes it will pay him a political benefit. It’s very Clintonesque.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:27 am
So, what’s the possibility of moving this hit piece to a more suitable position, where it belongs … say, the Thompson page?
August 29th, 2007 at 7:34 am
What Senator Craig did was inexcusable. What Senator Vitter did was inexcusable. I can see both sides to this — I can understand Giuliani’s point where he let Vitter take the heat and quietly removed him from anything pertaining to his campaign and I can understand Romney’s public shame tactic. Both tactics cut away the problematic character from your midst, the difference being that the latter keeps the whole story in the public eye for much longer and leads to discussions such as this. The cut off ties and let them deal with the flack themselves like Giuliani did for all the major supporters who proved to have problematic pasts or presents works well and keeps bad press down, I’d think.
I don’t think either option shows a lack of character on the count of the candidate, both show a need to remove cancerous corruption from their midst. The difference is merely whether it was a public or private operation…
August 29th, 2007 at 7:37 am
[...] Tommy Oliver questions the swiftness with which Mitt Romney threw his supporter Senator Larry Craig under the bus amid allegations of sexual impropriety: Today, former governor Mitt Romney is acting like the ultimate hypocrite and opportunist. The GOP nominee campaigning on moral high ground has behaved today like nothing more than a man, in my view, with questionable integrity, at best. People can accuse former Senator Fred Thompson of being lazy or flipping on abortion, and have solid evidence to criticize him for it. People can accuse former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani of being a philanderer, and out of step with mainstream conservatives on a majority of social issues, and have a valid argument. However, as many faults as either men have, both are willing to fight for what they believe in, without using their own supporter’s downfall to blame the beltway. [...]
August 29th, 2007 at 7:52 am
If someone in Romney’s cabinet did something grossly wrong, wouldn’t you want him to give the axe to the individual and publicly denounce the action? Look, Romney isn’t a politician that tries to make everyone happy, he’s a CEO that fires and corrects employees. If you guys care at all about having a person with a backbone that’s not afraid to get the job done, then vote for this guy. There is a difference between loyalty and being overly-tolerant of someone’s wrong-doings. Many of you Fredheads are missing the point, Romney is not humiliating Craig as much as Craig is humiliating Craig. Craig humiliated Idaho, I’m from that state, and although I like the guy, he’s not longer fit to represent the state, and something should be done about it. I hope he resigns. What did you want Romney to say: “I was unaware of the whole situation, and I’m very sad that he got himself into this situation, and I hope for the best for him.” Wouldn’t that have been the politicly correct, wussy thing to do. Some of you pathetically say that Romney is a flip flopper and doesn’t stand for principle, well people, would you look at this? He put a Republican on the same plane as Clinton, if Craig was a democrat and not on Romney’s committe and said what he said in that article above about Craig, you probably wouldn’t have been bothered by it. When am I going to sell some of you on Romney anyways? Somebody in the Republican party should slap the hands of fellow republicans before they get spanked during election time from the people.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:05 am
Dear #42, Pablo Zed
Did you know about Mark Foley? That wasn’t in the 90’s, that was VERY recent. He mentioned Clinton AND Mark Foley. What wrong with looking at the past and comparing it to the future? To point the finger means to place the blame on someone for your own doings. You mixed that up to? What is going on in this thread? It’s like you guys are trying to lynch Romney because he said he is disgusted at Craig and that it hurts the Republican party! Aren’t you disgusted in Craig? Did he hurt the Republican party? If you said yes to both, than consider voting for Romney because he had the guts to tell the press about it.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:13 am
It just sounds like more political opportunism. Did Romney have to issue a statement? This isn’t about Romney “having the guts” to tell the press! You make it seem like Romney is some sort of glorified whistle-blower. That’s nonsense. Do you honestly thing the press would not have found out? It doesn’t take any guts at all to cut someone else down if you fear you’ll be dragged with him, even if not to the same extent. To spin this as some sort of reason to Romney is ridiculous.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:14 am
[...] Mitt Romney’s ties to Larry Craig — and his comments on CNBC last night — are a bridge too far: [I]t seems as though every prominent elected official, not to mention a large portion of the [...]
August 29th, 2007 at 8:15 am
The problem is our party is totally captured by the religious right and any candidate who wants to win at all costs must display the behavior Romney used. I think McCain and Rudy are the only candidates with the brass to stand up for a friend in a time of trouble. There is such rampant homophobia (especially out in the hinterlands) that being seen with a possibly-gay guy is taboo. I’d expect Romney next to go overboard with anti-gay marriage language and really lay it on thick to the social conservatives.
The hard-core religious issues are dividing the party, damaging the country, and helping elect people like Romney.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:16 am
*err - reason to support Romney is ridiculous.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Harper,
I agree with your sentiment. But I would change it to “The hard-core religious issues are dividing the party, helping to nominate people like Romney and elect people like Hillary”
August 29th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Tommy Oliver,
a couple more Romney goons of old deserve mention:
Jay Garrity
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kUWrEZYc3U4
Rocky Anderson
http://youtube.com/watch?v=s9eRKT2ZhB8
John Cogliano
http://youtube.com/watch?v=h-D0CmrORew
August 29th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Pablo Zed,
I don’t have access to the materials just now, but if I recall Romney was speaking in favor of the tax cuts as early as 2004. If by “I supported them” he means that he publicly stated his support for them as they were being passed, then that is indeed misleading, and perhaps an outright lie. But, if he simply means that he was in favor of them, and expressed that sentiment many times since 2002, and before his presidential campaign began, then I think he’s quite right.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Sen. Craig broke the law (he pled guilty, remember), and is now being thrown out of the Romney campaign - and rightly so. You don’t play by the rules, you get busted. Romney did what he should have done - he got rid of the Senator, and made it clear he will not tolerate people like that in his campaign.
As for the florida,Michigan, etc. thing - good news for Romney, but I will save that for another thread.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Is Oliver joking?!! Good for Romney zero tolerance for this crap!! It make me like him more. He has standards and just proved to me that loyalty does not come before competence and results.
craig is disgusting and kudos for romney for pointing it out. this is not about loyalty, this is about doing what is right.
we need someone who will hold these idiots accountable. the evidence is overwhelming against craig. all know he is lying. that bum needs to be kicked out of the senate. his arrogance in not resigning make me sick.
thank goodness, romney blasted him and got rid of him on the spot. you can hammer him for letting him on, but craig has been a reliable conservative in the past. one cannot know they are a sexual devient who solicits sex in airport stalls.
it was not romney who threw him under the bus, it was craig who threw romney and our party and the american people under the bus with his arrogance. just think this happened montsh ago and he was arrogant enough to think it wouldn’t come up.
this guys makes me sick. go romney. nail this guy to the floor.
if craig apologized and resigned and was more reprentent about it, different story.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:05 am
big difference between vitter and craig. craig is guilty, he admitted it. vitter was too. one repented for what his did and asked others to forgive, he owned up to it, one did not. big difference in my book.
who goes into a stall and rubs the bottom of a dirty digusting airport stall door back and forth. who spreads their legs outso much that they touch the foot of another in a stall. to believe that he was not soliciting sex is pure denial.
vitter did it, owned up and then said sorry. someothing more honoralbe about that becuase people do make mistakes. but craig, he makes me sick. he thinks we are so stupid that we can’t see right through him.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Adam #54 “It just sounds like more political opportunism”
Why on earth would a situation where someone in your campaign committs a crime be political opportunism? You’re way off base here. To prove my point, ask yourself this question “If Romney would have known what was going to happen with Craig, would he have let him join his campaign?” So much for political opportunism. The more intelligent argument you might get away with is saying that Romney was trying to save face. You also said I was setting up Romney as a “glorified whistle-blower”, I appreciate you putting words in my mouth that don’t belong. Really, I would call Romney a “glorified CEO that’s not afraid to fire”. I would call the glorified whistle blower the victim in the stall that actually did something about it. You must just hate Romney, maybe that is your reason for being unreasonable.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Well, well, well. It Seems Willard’s first reaction was not disgust and indignation. Bloomberg news is reporting that it interviewed Romney prior to his MSNBC interview. And when asked about Craig: “Romney said he can’t account for the behavior of all his supporters. `I don’t think it reflects on me,” he said. “I don’t know the particulars of this case and, you know, wish him well.”’
So his first thought was himself and then he feigned ignorance (but yet he knew enough to later condemn Craig). This guy is unbelievable and that is a double entendre.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Jrcutler,
“Why on earth would a situation where someone in your campaign committs a crime be political opportunism? ”
The opportunism occurred when Romney sent out a press release. I believe he did this for the dual purpose of trying to save his own hide for criticism and again (as he so often does) trying to suck up to the Religious Right by trying to come across as *shocked and appalled*. He didn’t need to send out a press release. He could have simply responded when asked about it as he inevitably would be.
“If Romney would have known what was going to happen with Craig, would he have let him join his campaign?”
I don’t know. But I do know that you also don’t know the answer to that.
“You also said I was setting up Romney as a “glorified whistle-blower”
Clearly you and I have different reactions to what Romney did. If you had my reaction it’s easy to see how you can think that. I would never expect you to take that point of view though. In the eyes of too many Romney supporters, Romney can do no wrong.
“You must just hate Romney, maybe that is your reason for being unreasonable.”
Hate Romney? Nah. I am definitely guilty of being repulsed by him though.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:59 am
‘It just sounds like more political opportunism. Did Romney have to issue a statement? ‘
He had to make a statement, Larry Kudlow asked him.
‘big difference between vitter and craig. craig is guilty, he admitted it. vitter was too. one repented for what his did and asked others to forgive’
Vitter only admitted it because he was sh-tting his diaper out of fear that Larry Flynt might frame what he did. Instead, he moved to frame it himself. Vitter is despicable. (And so is Craig.)
August 29th, 2007 at 10:08 am
“He had to make a statement, Larry Kudlow asked him.”
He sent out a press release.
August 29th, 2007 at 10:11 am
I have to say that this is the most incomprehensible attack on Romney I’ve seen yet, and that’s really saying something, because most of them so far have made little sense.
August 29th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Well said, Jeremy.
This attack, like all against Mitt Romney, has no teeth. Are there some of you here who honestly think that Romney should have just ignored the matter, or worse, actually showed some “loyalty” to Senator Sleeze?
I think Romney handled it with a remarkable amount of restraint. If I were in his shoes, I would have been merciless, both in public and in private, for how much damage he may have caused to my campaign simply because he couldn’t have even enough class to keep his private sexual exploits private.
Shows you why Romney is a better politician than I am. Better than the entire field, no contest.
August 29th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Ouchi wa wa. I can only figure that the anti-Romney guys are beginning to
see the writing on the wall, thus the incredible reaction to Romney’s tough
response to the gutter behavior of Craig. So when he gets the nomination, just
stay home and pout about how “insensitive” Romney is. You will wake up the
next morning and find that he is the president-elect anyway.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:04 am
When I saw the title…I knew who wrote it. This article in and of itself is an example of how much we need Governor Romney as President. In this case, regrettably the evidence against Craig is substantial. For all we know, he admitted to it privately to Romney when he resigned. It’s a good thing that Romney can condemn Craig’s actions (the illegal part), even though Craig is apparently a friend. It’s not likely that Craig has any future in the Senate after this scandal, and it’s best for him, if he steps out of the limelight.
As far as Robert Lichfield goes, he runs programs for seriously troubled youth, it’s not daycare, it’s a serious/last ditch effort to reform in-danger youth. WWASP has a 97% parent satisfaction rate. Anybody who can’t claim a 97% satisfaction rate, doesn’t have much room to criticize WWASP. Sure, it’s a controversial program, but if you look at Lindsay Lohan, surely there’s a need for these programs, which parents voluntarily sign their kids up for.
As far as Mel Sembler goes, Straight Foundation was a teen drug rehab program that had allegations against it from some of the drug addicted teens who were in the program. Despite the fact that none of the allegations were proven, the program was shut down. Admittedly I don’t know as much about Straight as I do about WWASP, but I do have a drug addict in the family, and I never trust anything she ever says. Nor do I let my daughter associate with her. Drug addicts just seem to be pathological liars.
What’s disturbing to me is that so called REPUBLICANS are throwing Romney under the bus for 1) letting Craig resign from Romney’s campaign, 2) apparently admitting that Craig (who pleaded guilty & was “caught in the act�) is part of the trend of disappointing scandals from Washington (which is obvious), and 3) for allowing principled leaders who care about the youth of America to serve on his campaign.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Foley’s mishap and the wishy-washy response to it by the Republicans cost
them the control of Congress in 2006. Things were looking fairly bright
for them until that happened. Romney will not make the same mistake.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Keven,
Another way to look at it is that both parties are going to have a few bad apples. Romney can’t do anything to stop that and neither can anyone else. But nominating candidates like Romney who constantly preach ’strong families’ and ‘family values’ opens the Republican Party to attacks of hypocrasy.
August 29th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Adam,
Your criticism breaks down when you try to place the hypocrisy of the Republican Party on Romney’s lap. In fact, you make the point even stronger: Romney absolutely had to saw Craig off to show that real republicans–real conservatives–are not hypocrites. If the party can be accused of hypocrisy it’s due to these scummy, self-serving lice like Craig who shouldn’t be in public office to begin with and have no business calling themselves republicans. If Romney shows himself as the true representative of real conservatives, and if the party rewards him for his strong stance in such circumstances by giving him the nomination, it will be the first of several absolutely crucial steps that need to be taken to purge the party of the dead wood and parasites that have plagued it for the past decade.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
just something for you all to think about. I called for Larry Craig to resign as soon as I heard about his plea (www.musingsofawhiskeyrebel.blogspot.com). I still believe he needs to go. But I do not know Larry Craig. He was not working to help me get elected President. He was working very hard for Mitt Romney. Mitt evidently trusted him enough to name him a Senate Co-Chair. I certainly understand Mitt’s desire to distance himself from Larry Craig. He could have done it with a lot more class. It would have been enough to say “He is no longer involved with my campaign. I consider this to be a serious moral lapse.” End of story. Now, everyone says that Larry Craig plead guilty, which he did, but to disorderly conduct, not lewd behavior. Normally I would say, as a retired attorney, that doesn’t matter, because every Judge goes over a plea with the defendant very carefully to make sure they know what the police say happened, and that they are admitting they did those things. Well, now I have found out that Larry Craig entered his plea by mail. Unless they gave him a written colloquoy to fill out, which would have contained questions such as do you understand that you are pleading guilty to . . . the argument can be made that he did not realize that he was pleading to a lewd act. I don’t believe that, but it can certainly be raised.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
‘He sent out a press release.’
My bad.
August 29th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Have not we complained how terrible our own Party is with its conducts? How else can you clean it out? We all make mistakes. The difference is, how do we approach it. If Craig indeed do have homosexuality tendence, he should have seek assistance for it, rather than to hide it. If he has gotten the help, this problem would have stayed in the family. After all, does not the Congress have great healthcare program?
August 29th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Who the hell cares if the guy is gay. That’s not the point. That’s not what Gov. Romney labeled as disgusting. The reason why Romney laid the smack down is because Craig solicited sex from a police officer in a bathroom stall, and plead guilty to the charges. How is the Republican party supposed to shake off the label of ‘corrupt, unethical schemers’ by giving Senators free passes in life? So what, Mitt threw him under the bus. While it is regrettable to lose an ally in the Senate, we as a party cannot tolerate those who do these things.
August 29th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Furthermore, this is about image guys, not lawyers and defendants and attorneys and legal procedures. This is about the Republican party’s image. Heads need to roll, people who have these lapses in judgement need to be made examples of if we are going to shake off this party’s tarnished image. Governor Romney understands that. It’s time you all did too.
August 29th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
‘Have not we complained how terrible our own Party is with its conducts?’
It’s not the party, it’s the people. I don’t think that ‘family values’-voters are any different from family values politicians. They just haven’t been caught…
‘We all make mistakes. ‘
Yet it isn’t Joe Biden who gets caught in a diaper with a prostitute, it’s Vitter the Bitter. I wonder why that is.
‘If Craig indeed do have homosexuality tendence, he should have seek assistance for it’
Ah yes, ‘pay to pray the gay away’. I wonder whether it is a coincidence that people who believe in such nonsense almost always can’t spell very well.
‘After all, does not the Congress have great healthcare program?’
I don’t believe it covers any cures for gay.
August 29th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
‘This is about the Republican party’s image.’
You’ll have to fish it out of the toilet first. Quick, get Larry Craig.
August 29th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
My Growing Concerns About Mitt Romney
Your “concerns” for Romney have grown in tandem with his success and FDT’s slippage. They aren’t worht the paper they’re written on.
September 1st, 2007 at 9:00 am
Adam,
As expected by me, Romney dropped slightly in the polls, no duh, when a person in your campaign committs a crime, it hurts your campaign. The whistle blower was the victim, and the CEO that fired was Romney.
A sign of true leadership is where the leader communicates clearly his stance on negative behavior within an organization, and takes the appropriate steps to root it out.
Your rebuttle lacked any convincing power. When someone in your campaign does something wrong, you SHOULD have a press release for it. Why don’t you stick with attacking the “Oceans” commercial by Romney when talking about sucking up to the religious rite, instead of putting someone down for stating their opinion. It’s called freedom of speech. You just are repulsed by Romney, and that is the reason for your unreasonable reaction to a terrible day in the Romney campaign.