Novak: Republicans KNEW about Craig's habits and did nothing
Anyone seeing a pattern yet? First they knew about Mark Foley's little boytoy exercises, now it appears they may have known about Senator Craig's toe-tapping, homosexual tendencies and did nothing about it.
Coming from Bob Novak, who tends to have some of the best GOP inside connections:
quote:
"I have talked to several of my sources in the Senate, and this came as a surprise to me...They knew about it. They knew that he had this problem, and it was in the closet. And it was not just a homosexual relationship. It was this weird conduct. They didn�t do anything about it."
Full vid:
What is it with closeted gays joining the damn Republican party lately, and then turn around and vote so fervently against gay rights?
Furthermore, why do so many Republicans who hold these "family values" know about such behaviors from their colleagues but turn around and cover it up for them?
Psychotherapists have got to be loving their business with guys like Craig.
Posted by Krypton on Oct-07-2007 17:37:
Posted by mndeg on Oct-07-2007 19:35:
to win the vote of their base, which is poor religious white people.
poor religious white people have nothing to do with rich white people.
Posted by Q5echo on Oct-07-2007 20:00:
Re: Novak: Republicans KNEW about Craig's habits and did nothing
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Coming from Bob Novak, who tends to have some of the best GOP inside connections:
wtf is the party supposed to do about Craig if they knew he was closeted ghey? run him out of the Beltway with torches and pitchforks? where would your indignation be then if he had never gone to the bathroom in Minnesota?
real sleazy paring with Mark Foley btw. thats politics i guess.
...and "gay rights" is actually "gay marriage" so lets not sleaze it up some more by paring that with the indecent adventures of closeted gay men for the sake of pure partisanedship. it's offensive to homosexuals everywhere.
...and all of a sudden Novak is your best friendPosted by MisterOpus1 on Oct-07-2007 21:22:
Re: Re: Novak: Republicans KNEW about Craig's habits and did nothing
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
wtf is the party supposed to do about Craig if they knew he was closeted ghey? run him out of the Beltway with torches and pitchforks? where would your indignation be then if he had never gone to the bathroom in Minnesota?
Being a closeted ghey is one thing, and no I wouldn't expect the Republican party to do anything about that alone. However, practicing lewd behavior in bathrooms, should have raised some red flags long ago, don't you think?
I also do find it interesting to consider the thought of these GOP Congressmen who own the high ground and teach us all about moral values yet fail to acknowledge one of their own practicing behaviors that is anything but moral in their eyes - i.e. being married with kids and being a regular at lewd behavior, let alone lewd homosexual behavior.
quote:
real sleazy paring with Mark Foley btw. thats politics i guess.
Let's see - one practices lewd homosexual behavior in airport bathroom stalls,
the other practices homosexual behavior with his pages.
If we are to believe Novak's word, in both instances members of the GOP, including top ranking members with Foley, were well aware of this behavior.
quote:
...and "gay rights" is actually "gay marriage" so lets not sleaze it up some more by paring that with the indecent adventures of closeted gay men for the sake of pure partisanedship. it's offensive to homosexuals everywhere.
Please.
I've argued this many times before. When there are rights taken away from individuals because of the preference of sex between two consenting adults, you could call it anything you like. I don't care if the word "marriage" is there or not. If gays want that word there for their own sake then I'll leave that fight up to them.
The rights, however, such as over 1,049 benefits that our government allows heterosexual married couples but does not give to consenting homosexual relationships/marriages, is exactly what I would argue needs to be given.
quote:
...and all of a sudden Novak is your best friend
Hardly. But I will concede, as do most of us libruls, that he has the connections inside the GOP and in Administrations that run very deep. I think you would agree with that, wouldn't you?
Posted by Q5echo on Oct-07-2007 22:01:
Re: Re: Re: Novak: Republicans KNEW about Craig's habits and did nothing
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
However, practicing lewd behavior in bathrooms, should have raised some red flags long ago, don't you think?
long time ago? like when? where did Novak ever say people knew he liked to troll bathrooms? Novak implied that the party suspected he might be in the closet. thats it!
youre the one spinnin the theories.
quote:
I also do find it interesting to consider the thought of these GOP Congressmen who own the high ground and teach us all about moral values yet fail to acknowledge one of their own practicing behaviors that is anything but moral in their eyes - i.e. being married with kids and being a regular at lewd behavior, let alone lewd homosexual behavior.
morality is not specific to a political party. lewd behavior, straight or gay, is not specific to a political party nor is it the party's motif. it only applies when one party uses it as instances to embarass the other one. that's it's only value at the shallow end of the political pool. so enjoy.
Posted by Q5echo on Oct-07-2007 22:13:
Re: Re: Re: Novak: Republicans KNEW about Craig's habits and did nothing
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Hardly. But I will concede, as do most of us libruls, that he has the connections inside the GOP and in Administrations that run very deep. I think you would agree with that, wouldn't you?
right but you're so easy to take his word and run with his nuance but a year ago you called him a traitor and a piece of shit and didn't take his word for anything.
and you were soooooo wrong to boot.
Posted by MisterOpus1 on Oct-07-2007 23:01:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Novak: Republicans KNEW about Craig's habits and did nothing
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
long time ago? like when? where did Novak ever say people knew he liked to troll bathrooms? Novak implied that the party suspected he might be in the closet. thats it!
youre the one spinnin the theories.
Parsing words again, Q? Let's see again what Novak said:
quote:
And it was not just a homosexual relationship. It was this weird conduct. They didn�t do anything about it."
Soooo, what do you surmise the "weird conduct" implied?
Dancing naked with his canary to the oldies?
Juggling the heads of helpless decapitated baby kittens?
What do you think Novak was implying here? What kind of weird behavior has Craig demonstrated as of late? Are you suggesting it's not appropriate for Novak and his audience to tie that weird lewd bathroom behavior to him mentioning the Repubs. knowing of his weird behavior in the past?
quote:
morality is not specific to a political party. lewd behavior, straight or gay, is not specific to a political party nor is it the party's motif.
On the surface of that argument I can't help but agree. However, agreeing in full would be to agree to erase the GOP's morality religious base that is so closely tied to the political scheme of your party. I'm sorry, but I can't play along with that historical mind-erase with you this time. Your party has owned the anti-gay rights issue to the core.
And by the way, correct me if I'm wrong but Craig's behavior wasn't just immoral, was it?
Seems that you're deliberately avoiding the fact that is was also ILLEGAL. Remember that little interesting nugget of ethical lapse?
quote:
it only applies when one party uses it as instances to embarass the other one. that's it's only value at the shallow end of the political pool. so enjoy.
Just stop. Your defense is becoming silly here. When a man carries the morality flag around while voting consistently against gay rights and benefits and then gets busted for homosexual acts IMMORAL and ILLEGAL lewd behavior, one doesn't need an opposing party to embarrass the guy. His contradictory actions and rhetoric did that all on his own.
Hell, you had guys like Barney Frank standing up for him. Don't tell me about opposing parties taking advantage of this when you had the gayest of the gay Democrats standing up for the guy. Jesus.
Posted by MisterOpus1 on Oct-07-2007 23:05:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Novak: Republicans KNEW about Craig's habits and did nothing
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
right but you're so easy to take his word and run with his nuance but a year ago you called him a traitor and a piece of shit and didn't take his word for anything.
and you were soooooo wrong to boot.
Being a traitor for deliberately outing a spy for the CIA who's sole job was to find WMD in Iraq and Iran does not take away his credence for having strong inside connections inside the GOP party and Administration who wanted and got that CIA operative exposed. If anything that only supports his credibility for having such strong connections.
I'd prefer you not derail the topic of this thread. However, if you feel so strongly about me being soooooo wrong, I'd ask you to start back up any of those threads pertaining to the Plame case right where we left off to make your case. Because if memory serves, you had a propensity of leaving on nearly all occasions.
Posted by Q5echo on Oct-07-2007 23:37:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Novak: Republicans KNEW about Craig's habits and did nothing
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Being a traitor for deliberately outing a spy for the CIA who's sole job was to find WMD in Iraq and Iran does not take away his credence for having strong inside connections inside the GOP party and Administration who wanted and got that CIA operative exposed. If anything that only supports his credibility for having such strong connections.
I'd prefer you not derail the topic of this thread. However, if you feel so strongly about me being soooooo wrong, I'd ask you to start back up any of those threads pertaining to the Plame case right where we left off to make your case. Because if memory serves, you had a propensity of leaving on nearly all occasions.
he was as much a traitor as she was a spy. the courts, the grand juries, and Fitzgerald have already proven that. wtf do you not get about that and what more do you want from me?
Posted by Q5echo on Oct-07-2007 23:44:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Novak: Republicans KNEW about Craig's habits and did nothing
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Soooo, what do you surmise the "weird conduct" implied?
i know what it doesn't imply.
you'd think if Novak, of all people, had information that the party knew of anything illegal Craig was doing he'd be a little more specific...but he wasn't. not even close.
hence the tea leaves you're reading right now. from a man you frikken don't trust as far as you can throw him.
no, you're parsing words.
Posted by MisterOpus1 on Oct-07-2007 23:49:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Novak: Republicans KNEW about Craig's habits and did nothing
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
he was as much a traitor as she was a spy. the courts, the grand juries, and Fitzgerald have already proven that. what more do you want from me?
If you want to claim that she wasn't a spy when I've clearly laid out the case otherwise in those previous threads, then by all means continue that debate in those selected threads.
That's what I'd want from you - to keep the topic of this thread at hand, please.
Posted by MisterOpus1 on Oct-07-2007 23:55:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Novak: Republicans KNEW about Craig's habits and did nothing
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
i know what it doesn't imply.
you'd think if Novak, of all people, had information that the party knew of anything illegal Craig was doing he'd be a little more specific...but he wasn't. not even close.
hence the tea leaves you're reading right now. from a man you frikken don't trust as far as you can throw him.
no, you're parsing words.
Then what does Novak imply by "weird" behavior in this sense, Q? What is the topic that is being brought up at the moment in the interview? Quit playing games here. There's no other logical implication that can be read from Novak's statements other than the same WEIRD behavior that Craig has demonstrated in a bathroom stall today versus in the past.
But I'd be interested in hearing you continue to try to explain that Novak was meaning some other kind of weird behavior of Craig. What other logical conclusion can Novak's audience come to here?
As for not trusting him, in a number of respects regarding that prior Plame issue, you're damn right I didn't trust him. But again that doesn't take away his credibility of having inside sources to your party. That's not news, Q.
Posted by Q5echo on Oct-08-2007 00:17:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Novak: Republicans KNEW about Craig's habits and did nothing
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Then what does Novak imply by "weird" behavior in this sense
who f**king knows? but if he did, no doubt he would be more specific.
hell, Craig being gay and in the closet is probably weird by Novak's standard. Novak is a boozing old bar-fighter. if there were a picture of the words 'hetero booze hound' in the dictionary, he'd be there.
he could be paying lip service to Republicans that want Craig out of Congress seeing as how Craig doesn't want to go anywhere.
this, like the Plame garbage, is just you wanting something embarassing on Republicans that just isn't there.
Posted by MisterOpus1 on Oct-08-2007 00:32:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Novak: Republicans KNEW about Craig's habits and did
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
who f**king knows? but if he did, no doubt he would be more specific.
hell, Craig being gay and in the closet is probably weird by Novak's standard. Novak is a boozing old bar-fighter. if there were a picture of the words 'hetero booze hound' in the dictionary, he'd be there.
Irrelevant. You're going beyond the realm of absurd with this. The reason you give does not fit the context to which Novak was discussing by any stretch. Novak was SPECIFICALLY discussing behavior outside of merely being a homosexual as he outlines here (again, since you continually seem to miss it):
quote:
And it was not just a homosexual relationship. It was this weird conduct.
So being a homosexual is nothing in the context to what Novak is referring to. Rather, it's the additional "weird" behavior in the context to what Craig had just recently been busted for is exactly what Novak is discussing.
There's not one fucking person that could possibly read that differently. Again what logical conclusion could one one come to with Novak's statements other than Craig's SAME lewd behavior exhibited at present with past behaviors?
quote:
he could be paying lip service to Republicans that want Craig out of Congress seeing as how Craig doesn't want to go anywhere.
If you come to that conclusion, that would imply that Novak is stretching the truth or slandering Craig with false statements.
Funny, I thought you implied earlier that Novak wouldn't do such things?
quote:
this, like the Plame garbage, is just you wanting something embarassing on Republicans that just isn't there.
The only embarrassment that's clearly on display is your attempts to parse the words of Novak and defend your contradictory closet-gay and illegally lewd Senator.
Finally, stop playing games, Q. You want to bring up the Plame argument, then show some integrity and continue that debate EXACTLY where you disappeared in all those previous threads elsewhere. Continuing to bring up that issue in this thread when you clearly bowed out of those arguments in the past gives you little credit here.
Posted by Q5echo on Oct-08-2007 01:18:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Novak: Republicans KNEW about Craig's habits and did
quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Irrelevant. You're going beyond the realm of absurd with this. The reason you give does not fit the context to which Novak was discussing by any stretch. Novak was SPECIFICALLY discussing behavior outside of merely being a homosexual as he outlines here (again, since you continually seem to miss it):
So being a homosexual is nothing in the context to what Novak is referring to. Rather, it's the additional "weird" behavior in the context to what Craig had just recently been busted for is exactly what Novak is discussing.
There's not one fucking person that could possibly read that differently. Again what logical conclusion could one one come to with Novak's statements other than Craig's SAME lewd behavior exhibited at present with past behaviors?
i think i've made it clear where i stand on this.
weird isn't anything. at the same time weird could mean anything. however what Novak knows is not specific to anything other than the description of gay behaviour that is, by his standard, weird.
but we'll see how far the rabbit hole goes if anywhere.
quote:
If you come to that conclusion, that would imply that Novak is stretching the truth or slandering Craig with false statements.
Funny, I thought you implied earlier that Novak wouldn't do such things?
what i mean is he could be being fed stuff by the party that is essentially what they've seen to be in the past as clues to his sexual orientation. doesn't mean they've known him to be doing anything illeagal. (why in the f**k would anybody in the party tell Novak that? seriously). it just means they're not going to protect his identity anymore because he has broken the law and he refuses to play by the code.
quote:
The only embarrassment that's clearly on display is your attempts to parse the words of Novak and defend your contradictory closet-gay and illegally lewd Senator.
right. no one is allowed objectivity when defending Rebublicans. got it. typical Democrat attitude.
quote:
Finally, stop playing games, Q. You want to bring up the Plame argument, then show some integrity and continue that debate EXACTLY where you disappeared in all those previous threads elsewhere. Continuing to bring up that issue in this thread when you clearly bowed out of those arguments in the past gives you little credit here.
i don't have to defend my point of view Opus. Fitzgerald did it for me.
the whole outcome of the Plame debacle speaks for itself.
Posted by DJ Shibby on Oct-08-2007 07:51:
Maybe because he's allowed to be gay if he wants?
Double standards are bullshit. He got caught doing something stupid and illegal, that's his problem... but being gay is not a crime.
Originally posted by Q5echo
i think i've made it clear where i stand on this.
Yes, your blissful ignorance is quite clear.
quote:
weird isn't anything. at the same time weird could mean anything. however what Novak knows is not specific to anything other than the description of gay behaviour that is, by his standard, weird.
Please read the statement again by Novak:
quote:
and it was not just a homosexual relationship. It was this weird conduct.
What part of that is so difficult for you to understand? It's NOT JUST A HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP, Q, i.e. it's not the "gay behavior" that's "weird", rather, it's some other "weird conduct" being displayed. And in the context of what Novak and EVERYONE BUT YOU is talking about with Craig here, it's painfully clear what "weird conduct" Novak is referring to here.
quote:
what i mean is he could be being fed stuff by the party that is essentially what they've seen to be in the past as clues to his sexual orientation. doesn't mean they've known him to be doing anything illeagal. (why in the f**k would anybody in the party tell Novak that? seriously). it just means they're not going to protect his identity anymore because he has broken the law and he refuses to play by the code.
I'm sorry, but I can only play hypotheticals for so long. We can speculate to live long day about the motives of Novak and the GOP party, but in the end that evidence is not in to make any worthwhile conclusions just yet.
So until we see any possible motives come out for why Novak might have helped the GOP boot Craig out the door by this interview, I think it would be more worthwhile to hold comments until then.
quote:
right. no one is allowed objectivity when defending Rebublicans. got it. typical Democrat attitude.
Typical Republican attitude to deliberately confuse objectivity with blissful ignorance. The former requires you to examine the statements made in full context and rule out all possible implications Novak was making in that full context. Given the full context of what Novak and everyone was referring to here, there is no other conclusion to be made other than weird is implying the SAME behavior that Craig has exhibited and got arrested for recently. That, of course is not the homosexual behavior, as Novak stated again:
quote:
and it was not just a homosexual relationship. It was this weird conduct.
The latter, your blissful ignorance, is to play dumb and pretend no other implication could ever possibly be made and outright ignore the context to which it was being made.
It's quite clear which one you are demonstrating at this point.
quote:
i don't have to defend my point of view Opus. Fitzgerald did it for me.
the whole outcome of the Plame debacle speaks for itself.
Well yes, of course, Novak didn't get charged. However I think his actions speak well for himself (as well as the CIA twit who confirmed Plame's status to Novak):
quote:
Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.
Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.
When told by a CIA man NOT to use her name and he used it anyway in efforts to go after her husband who exposed Bush and Cheney's bullshit story on Saddam's nuke capabilities, perhaps the word "traitor" is too strong for Novak.
Ignorant schmuck?
Shithead GOP Tool?
Dumbfuck?
I'm sure there's some other good terms out there that fit him well too. In any case, neither he nor the players in our Administration did our country a worthy service by partaking in the outing of a cover CIA operative who's job was to protect our country from WMD proliferation in Iraq and Iran.
where would your indignation be then if he had never gone to the bathroom in Minnesota?
