What would a Democrat have to do to lose the support of other Democrats?

The Larry Craig imbroglio, in which Republicans colleagues have quickly called for his resignation, reminds of the time when Democrats.... Well, okay. You got me. I can't remember the last time Democrats asked one of their own to resign over improprieties. I'm not even sure that too many Democrats, at least the ones in Washington, would view two-to-a-stall solicitations as an "impropriety."

When Democrat Gerry Studds and Republican Dan Crane simultaneously faced House ethics charges for bedding teenaged congressional pages, Crane's constituents promptly threw him out of office while Studds' constituents continued sending him back to Congress. Bill Clinton had sex in the Oval Office with an intern and lied about it to a grand jury. One woman accused him of rape, while another alleged that the president's goons harrassed her. Bob Livingston, soon-to-be Republican Speaker of the House, on the other hand, stepped down when it was revealed that he cheated on his wife. Ted Kennedy killed a woman in a drunken auto accident off a Chappaquiddick bridge. Massachusetts voters responded by making him senator for life. Sorry, I can't come up with a Republican parallelism for that one. James Michael Curley? Alcee Hastings? Huey Long? Marion Barry? Barney Frank?

More so than any stance on an issue, the Democrats' situational ethics alienates me. If you're part of their club (Bill Clinton), you can sexually harrass women, lie, cheat, and have sex with interns without repercussion. But if you're a Republican (Arnold Schwarzenneger, Clarence Thomas, Bob Packwood), the mere allegation of any of that will elicit calls for resignation and investigation, usually in that order. In other words, being a Democrat makes you a good person and immune from consequence. Being a Republican automatically makes you a rogue and guilty until proven liberal (see Trent Lott's lame attempt to support affirmative action after his Strom-Thurmond-would-have-made-a-great-president gaffe).

Good people don't necessarily belong to one party or the other. Both parties have dudes peering through your bathroom stall, using cocaine, and taking bribes. The difference is one party punishes such people, the other reelects them.

This is a great write-up.

I always thought that if I ever ran for office it would probably be on the Republican side of the fence. But you're right, life would be much easier on the Democratic side.

So given that homos are 1-2 percent of the population how is it that there may be even more than that percent in elected office? Two senators now off the top of my head, which would correspond to the 1-2% of the population if that is how it works, but it isn't since the figure is national and surely very different by state.

I guess they just have above average inclination to get into politics, maybe the sweet siren call of high school aged interns beckons strongly.

Double standard you say? Very well done.

Too bad we'll never see in the lame stream media a REAL scandal like the Norman Hsu/Clinton bundling fiasco.

But, again, it's the infamous double standard at work.

MR. BARLEY
Why doesn't the Government do something -- that's what I want to know.

MR. KRULL
What can they do? They're only people -- Just like us.

MR. BARLEY
People my foot! They're Democrats!

Heard a good an@lysis the other day with regard to the two major parties: The Democrat Party is the evil Party and the Republican Party is the stupid Party.

Well, I may be stupid but I'm glad I'm not associated the evil.

Why have so many degenerates flooded our academic institutions, political arenas and media outlets in the last 40 years?

Because it's where they'll be able to have the most impact to advance their agendas. Plus, they tend to go for the no heavy lifting jobs where they have the time and the influence to pursue their lifestyles.

A must read:

The Late Great U.S.A.: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada by J.R.Corsi.

Republicans run for office using morals as a platform. They court the christian conservatives, and follow a president who claimed Jesus Christ is the most influential person in his life. Nobody likes a liar, but we expect a liar to lie. Not an honest person.

I don't think you can fit Craig into that deviant-who-wants-to-wield-influence mold. His refusal to admit that he was cruising could really be about a shame he feels in these actions. And I don't know that he's perfectly happy "pursuing his lifestyle".

But, I've read the report. It's pretty clear. The guy was busted pretty cleanly. I really don't care if he leaves office. I think all the pressure people are putting on him is a little over the top--and Dems are definitely out of line for all that they've ever apologized for.

wheres he-haw? love to hear his or her spin on this.