Mitt Romney for President My Man Mitt

(note: I'm back from a crazy summer of very light posting. Thought I would comment on the Craig incident since it's right up my alley now)

By 1984 millions of copies of a special Marvel funded Spiderman comic book (excerpt above) were published by the National Committee for the Prevention of Child Abuse, endorsed by the blue ribbon panel of scientists and by the National Education Association and distributed free to children nationwide. The story described the strategy of “grooming” boys (like the young Spiderman) by an adult pederast who showed the boy a “GIRLIE” magazine in order to molest him.

I want to believe Senator Craig but I can't attribute any prescient powers to leftist bloggers who accused Craig of this behavior last October. I alone possess this power. And now I give it to you.

Let me be clear. I did not predict the Senator Craig incident nor did I out him last year (the leftist blogs that did now appear to be pretty accurate).

But I can write for you the story on how he got there.

This is a recent super power that I've acquired since I joined the Lighted Candle Society. It goes something like this:

I'm at some party or event discussing what LCS does
A woman that's been listening in to my conversation takes me aside to tell me her story.
Before she begins I predict what her story is. I recite the following suppositions:

Her husband was a porn addict since the age of 11
He hid it from her and her family all his life
An unfortunate incident exposed the children to his horrible addiction
His affections towards his spouse changed and his demands because untoward
His addiction led to serious financial repercussions
She discovers some evidence that confirms her suspicions
The addiction led to prostitution and worse over the course of the marriage.
They divorced and he continues his struggle.

The woman will stand there stunned admitting that I have accurately retold her terribly tragic marriage and divorce. The details vary of course but the milestones and the results are usually the same.

If I had to guess, I would say that Senator Craig is on the same course with a homosexual twist. To wit: there was probably some sexual abuse that took place in his childhood. Of course this is a gross generalization but I've found it to be true in almost everything I've investigated and read.

Bottom line: I think Senator Craig should come clean. The evidence points to serious sexual addiction coupled with denial and lies.

Labels: senator craig


	4 Comments: I did an internship for Senator Craig in undergrad. The guy seemed like a good man and he was an outstanding speaker. He certainly worked hard to pass good legislation. His bad behavior is truly unfortunate. I honestly don't think Craig is a hypocrite. I think he is just weak and does not have the strength to do what he believes. Too bad. He should come clean, fix his personal/family problems and step down. By Slick-Willy, at August 29, 2007 at 10:22 AM I have to say that this particular post is one of the most obnoxious and self-righteous posts that I have ever seen from someone on the the Right. The possible consequences that Senator Craig is facing have nothing to do with your work in any group unless you are a law enforcement officer, a prosecuter, or a judge. The Senator's problems are his own. There is no need to advertise for your group's work on this website. I'd suggest putting up a link and keeping the rest of your posts focused on Mitt Romney and his campaign. Senator Craig, of course, is an important topic since he was the Senate Co-Chair of the Romney campaign until all of this came out. My biggest problem with this whole thing is that this is just one more example showing how Republicans just don't get the game of politics. And Democrats do! This is one of my biggest problems with the Republican Party in general. There is no coordination of crisis management. Instead of letting the media and the Democrats attempt to overplay their hands in a frenzy on whoever their current target is, Republicans always act like rabid wolves in this kind of situation & decide it's time to join in on the fun & eat their own as well. Now, let's step back. Yes, Senator Craig should have alerted the leadership to this IMMEDIATELY when he was arrested. But there's nothing that can be done about that now. Now, this will just become one more expample of how Republicans do not know how to respond to internal crisis situations compared to the way that Democrats respond to similar crisis situations. Once again, many commentators on the Right are already jumping on Senator Craig's political grave. This is way premature - or at least it may have been if there was at least the slightest bit of hesitation in beating Senator Craig while he is down and @ least for the time being taking him at his word. Why should we at least give him the benefit of the doubt? First, well, none of us are God. So, none of us were there. And as such, we can't judge what happened and what his intentions really were. Second, his denial is absolutely plausible. It may not be likely, but it is possible. Stop for a second and really think about what he plead guilty to. It had nothing to do with sex whatsoever. Disorderly conduct. Harassment. You could get charged with that for Trick-or-Treating at the home of a Jehovah's Witness. I mean what is disorderly conduct? It is not a sex charge. It is what the police charge a person with if they want to file a charge for the sake of filing a charge but have nothing at all that proves any law was broken. If the officer had any sex charges to bring against Senator Craig than that's what he should have been charged with. Even in the police report, Senator Craig claimed that the whole thing was a huge misunderstanding. Next, harassment, well, I can state this from personal experience, not often do I speak do I speak of my own usage of public restrooms, but I can tell you that I have seen times when people are taking longer to use the restroom than others. And there have been times when people waiting outside the stall have peeped in to see what was taking so long, either as a signal to the person using the toilet to hurry up or as a gesture of annoyance. I'm sure that everyone has experienced something similar. Now, I don't know if Senator Craig was soliciting sex, but even though his "wide stance" defense has been ridiculed on the Right with what seems to be a talking point of his defense being "laughable" - I've heard that phrase used at least 7 times by so-called conservatives - it is still possible that he does indeed have a wide stance. Now, I also must admit that I have used the bathroom in an airport before. I know... Everybody should gasp now! And I usually put my carry-on in front of me blocking the door. ...another gasp... I mean seriously. That was one of the reasons that the police officer said made him suspicious that Craig was soliciting sex? You've got to be kidding me, right? At this point, I am completely afraid of putting my carry-on anywhere in the airport. If it's too far away it can be stolen or people will think that it's unattended and it will be destroyed as a possible explosive device. If it's in front of me in the stall, that will mean that I'm obviously trying to have sex with someone in the restroom. I mean, give me a break! That's when I talk about laughable! In an airport bathroom stall, I almost always position my carry-on exactly as it was described in the police report. And to the best of my knowledge no body has ever thought his was a signal to try and get-it-on with me in the restroom. This is more of a defense mechanism to reinforce the stall door and make sure that some random person does not barge in on me while I use the facilities. I also like to have as much space as possible for at least a few moments before a cramped flight. I think that it is ridiculous to associate placing a carry-on bag in front of the door with soliciting sex, as the officer in the Craig report did. Now, I cannot account for the foot tapping but when I travel in the airport, I often have my IPod, and I've caught myself grooving to the beat of whatever song I'm listening to a few times. Regardless, there is no strong evidence that Senator Craig was soliciting anything. And his guilty plea wasn't for soliciting anything. Should he have pled guilty? Well, what he was convicted of is as much of a misdemenor as a speeding ticket. Should every member of Congress with a speeding ticket be forced to resign? The worst thing about this whole thing to me is that I cannot believe the number of people on the Right who have flattly accused Senator Craig of outright lying when he denied that he did anything the other day. This blog is included in that. I did not know that so many people had the gift of descerning the truth. What the Democrats would have done in a similar situation is circled the wagons - neither defending nor attacking their own. They would have waited out the storm. Not so with Republicans. Remember the whole Trent Lott affair with trying to wish Strom Thurmond a Happy 100th Birthday? Remember how well the Bush Administration defended Lott? The situation with Senator Craig is the same exact thing - on a political level of course. The Democrats would have stonewalled. They would have consistantly ignored the $100,000 found in the freezer. They would have defended their filandering President. I'm not saying what the Dems do is right. But it is politics. It's a brutal game. Sometimes to belong in the big leagues of politics, one needs to play like he or she belongs in the big leagues. It's pathetic being on the team that gives up whenever the water looks choppy. I don't know what is going to happen to Senator Craig, but I'll tell you that the Republicans aren't helping the situation, they are only feeding the fire and eating their own. And they don't have to. They can wait it out, and let the events unfold and the dice fall as they may. That would be a Party with a brain though. So, I can't expect that from the Republicans. By Anonymous, at August 30, 2007 at 9:18 AM At the moment, I am moderating the comments. That will probably be decried and ridiculed by many. Think whatever you want. Some people might think that the aforementioned comment should have been left off. You mentioned that the Senator Craig debacle is related to a prosecutor's work only and not to an organization committed to fighting pornography. As a prosecutor, I felt obliged to respond. I humbly disagree. First and foremost, the evidence is overwhelming that men do not get themselves into these situations who have steered their life clear of pornography. Since I think that Romney shares our disdain for the objectifying of individuals into objects for consumption, I think it is an appropriate topic. Second, you seem to have not located any of the alleged facts or understand a great deal about the criminal justice system and the pressures on a criminal defendant in that system and how that might relate to the Senator's plea deal. You left out much of the key narrative and isolated your analysis on one aspect of the Senator's behavior that could be explained away as potentially innocent. History is replete with examples where looking at things in isolation has disastrous consequences. For a recent example, take the failure of different agencies of government pre-9/11 to put together seemingly innocent isolated pieces of information. Your analysis further ignores the very damaging facts that I think few if any people who are not engaging in something disgusting would ever find themselves innocently caught doing. Since this is a family friendly blog, I will not elaborate further. Finally, you seem to assume that the Senator was charged with simply disturbing the peace and not some more serious crime. Actually, my understanding is that he was charged with soliciting a lewd act and was allowed to plead to a lesser charge. Disturbing the peace is a charge that is often used by defendants to avoid the stigma associated with the more explicit charge (Not a prosecutor's tool where there is no other crime. I have never seen it filed as a charge ever. It is a substitute charge.). In other words, they are willing to plead to doing something wrong, but they don't want to be tagged with the lewd language. The prosecutor gets their plea, the defendant avoids the label and the very embarrassing trial. Finally, you seem to suggest that Republicans could and should just ignore this behavior. You are wrong, I believe, both morally and in your political calculation. I am proud to be part of a party and to be associated with a candidate who will not stand for this type of behavior amidst their ranks. This behavior goes beyond private matters when a public bathroom becomes a place of solicitation. Lawmakers should stand up and decry it. Further, as Senator Craig avoided a public and embarrassing trial that would have featured a star witness police officer doing his job who witnessed some highly disgusting behavior, ethics hearings in the Senate will likely feature the same information. Hopefully, the Senator will resign before such hearings are necessary and avoid the public embarrassment. Such hearings will not be good for the party, the Senate, or the country. By Anonymous, at August 30, 2007 at 12:07 PM Anonymous- You say Craig's story is "plausible," but maybe not "likely." These words are pretty much synonymous. Anything is "possible." You tear apart a few pieces of evidence the officer used, but omit the more damning facts. Specifically, you left out the claim that Craig's stance was SO wide it caused his foot to move into the other stall and touch the officer's foot. Upon touching the officer's foot, Craig did not pull back. Also, that Craig reached under the stall several times (to pick up a paper, Craig claims). These two actions are not "plausible" at all. In fact, this is exactly the kind of thing most people avoid in restrooms. For example, I go out of my way to make sure I'm at least one urinal away from anyone else. I'm a man. I like my space and I'm just as aware that everyone else likes theirs. If it's a crowded bathroom I may not get my space, but even w/a wide stance, I won't be playing footsies or reaching under the stall. Ever. The biggest difference between the Republicans and Democrats (in this regard) is that the Dems circle the wagons and raise the status of sexual deviants. Republicans stand by their beliefs and rid themselves of sexual deviants. We believe in good and bad moral/ethical conduct. Political expediency is not our only objective. By Slick-Willy, at August 30, 2007 at 1:17 PM Post a Comment

Mitt Romney on the Issues of Gun Control

I get a lot of questions on where Mitt stands on various issues. We put together the interactive issue list together with a quick FAQ on top issues.

One of the issues that bother people is really easy to answer and Mitt's record on the issue is pretty darn good: gun control. Imagine fighting a legislature with 85% Democrats on gun control issues.

Luckily you don't have to take my word for it. Senator Craig of Idaho had this to say about Mitt and Gun Control:

Couple of excerpts:

"Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has announced his candidacy for president, and I support him because he is someone who has a record of standing up for the rights of ordinary Americans – people who are starting a business, looking for a job, building a family, and enjoying the freedoms guaranteed to them by the U.S. Constitution.

"Those freedoms are under constant attack, and perhaps none is more threatened than the rights guaranteed to us by the Second Amendment: The right to bear arms.

"Romney understands that this right can be abridged in multiple ways – gun laws can be written poorly, giving desk-based bureaucrats the ability to take away a gun license from a law-abiding individual."

"How do I know Romney understands these things? Because I've studied his record – and it's impressive. As governor, he took real, meaningful steps to affirm our right to bear arms.

"Romney has shown that he is willing to confront the jumble of state gun laws in Boston – and if he can do that with an 85 percent Democratic legislature in one of the most liberal states in the country, think what he could do in Washington with a more supportive base in Congress.

"In 2004, Romney signed a sweeping reform of Massachusetts' gun laws that made the state's gun laws far less onerous for sportsmen."

"And then in 2005, Romney supported and signed into law legislation that clarified the definition of a loaded muzzleloader, so that hunters would understand exactly the safety precautions expected of them."

"Fact is, if Romney just talked about his support for the Second Amendment and the rights of gun owners, that would be welcome. But Romney has been doing more than talking – he has been taking action for several years, and his approach would be a welcome addition to the gun debates in Washington, D.C."

more here

*Me again :) *
Bottom line: Romney supports the second amendment and showed unique prowess in helping gun owners in a extremely blue state.

Labels: 2nd amendment, gun control, guns, mitt romney, senator craig

Senator Craig and My Powers of Prognostication

Mitt Romney and Gun Control