More Torricelli on Larry Craig, and on sexual signals

If Coniglio pulled a Torricelli did Craig pull a McGreevey?

"Let me be clear. I don't like Robert Torricelli. He stands for everything that I abhor. It's just that there are some things that I dislike more than left wing, narrow minded, hypocritical disgraced former Senators." I guess Bob you were looking in the mirror when you made those moments? Talk about hypocrisy - you cornered the market on it. Is this the same Bob Torricelli who took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution and the laws of the United States, and then turned around and gave classified information about operations in Central America? Is this the same disgraced individual who thought he was above the law and received illegal campaign contributions, personal gifts and cash from David Wu and his associates? Bob - you shouldn't comment on ethics and illegal activities, unless you are going to finally man up and admit what everyone else knows.

Maybe the Torch could collaborate with McGreevey and put together a blog entry similar to his restaurant guide that ranks the rest stops along NJ's highways that are known hangouts for these types of illicit rendevous?

Like I have said before, it is the messenger, not the message. Craig is stupid, not a disgrace. If he was truly innocent, as he is trying to get the courts to proclaim him to be, he should not have pleaded guilty. And since when is Bob up to speed on the laws in Minnesota? He can't even follow simple campaign finance laws which he voted on, or follow the simple Rulkes of the House of Representatives and Select Intelligence Committee (now there is an oxymoron for you!). Bob is the disgrace for adding to the sullied reputation NJ's elected officials have. Get a real job Bob.

Bravo oc and atticus. And you Mr. toricelli, just keep rebuilding your farm house and stay there!

Nick - I will agree with you 100% that the Craig issue is the epitome of hypocrisy. But again, it is the messenger not the message. Brendan Byrne or Ed Koch says it and I would not have responded to the original post.

Come on, are you for real? Please don't tell me that there aren't social places for homosexual individuals to meet. Have you been to NYC, Washington, DC, San Francisco, or Philadelphia? The problem is not symptomatic of a failure of society to "allow" social gathering spots for homosexuals. The problem lies in the individuals who are obviously afraid of being outed or have sexually deviant behavior and need the "fix" whether it be in a public bathroom or motel room. I would say the same exact thing to a "john" procuring the services of a female "lady of the night" (ie David Vitter). For the record, there are stings which occur to ensnare heteros - you see it every Saturday night on the TV show COPS. So please don't give me the pity party routine. I can't by it based on the evidence. And please don't reply by saying I don't know what I am talking about. I have plenty of gay Republican friends (you called me a liar once for stating that which I am still waiting for an apology) and my wife's uncle came out many years ago - after hiding it from his family including his wife and kids. But I will state it once again - I don't not object to the message of the original post - I object to Bob Torricelli being the moral authority on ethical behavior.

I will have to agree with you on your statement that gays and lesbians do not enjoy the same protection as heterosexuals. I will argue with you that in some cases they have more, not less, legal protection than heterosexuals. For example, if I, or any other heterosexual, were to be attacked by a group, or mob, of people, those individuals would be brought before the local court system and dealt with by a local or county prosecutor. If the same group or mob attacked a homosexual, whether or not they knew the sexual orientation of the victim, those assailants could have federal charges brought against which carry longer, tougher sentences. The gay or lesbian victim could have less severe injuries yet the penalties would be more. Why should there be a difference? Am I less of a citizen or not worthy of equal protection because I am a heterosexual, caucasian male?

First, I must address your response concerning hate crimes legislation and the mistaken claim that homosexuals enjoy more rights than heteros. The basis for any hate crimes legislation is not a punishment for what a person thinks but instead purely based upon actions that are precipated by hatred of a minority. By making legislation tougher on those who target minorities, gays, blacks, or another group, the crime is then viewed as that much more socially antithetical and destructive to a healthy society. If several heterosexuals follow a gay guy home (or take the Matthew Shephard case) and jump him, their guiding motivation absolutely must be taken into account because it resulted in a concrete action.

Further, Larry Craig is a complete and total hypocrite for trying to pass legislation that would further marginalize gays and lesbians while he participated in anonymous homosexual trysts. The Republican Party is dead wrong in its anti-gay policy agenda and is catering to the worst common denominator by trying to restrict gay and lesbian rights through the law. What we need is equal protection for gays and lesbians under the law, which would then make such events as the Shephard case and other such moments, completely horrific and antithetical to any sense of common human decency.

And, no, gays and lesbians don't have as many "safe" places to meet as heterosexual couples. There are many places in the U.S. where a same-sex couple simply holding hands would result in violence against said couple.