Torricelli on Larry Craig

As far as I can remember this is the only thing that the Torch hasn't been acccued of. Just can't stand him saying anything

C'mon, he served with Craig who was outed what? 25 years ago?? He's right. Everyone in DC knew Craig was gay and his double life is what makes voters skeptical of politicians of all shapes and sizes.

Say what you want about him, but Bob Torricelli never portrayed himself as a "reformer" or some other kind of do-gooder. His alleged crimes do not contradict anything anyone knew or thought of Torricelli before they came to light.

So why do the Larry Craigs and Ed Schrocks and others survive in Washington -- even as their "private" lives are known to half of those inside the beltway? Simple. What staffer is going to confront a boss in total denial on rumors and heresay? The climate in Washington and the immense power Senators and Congressmembers have makes the answer obvious.

So give Torricelli a break here. He's commenting on his view of a guy he once served with who's life is now hitting bottom. with absolutely no sympathy from anyone. It's hard to disagree with Torricelli's assessment that Larry Craig looks like a complete jerk and a total hypocrite. Politics is a rough sport. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Nobody reads Torch's pathetic blog (myself included) so now his posts get put on the front page of the site?

I think Politics NJ should take the hint.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."- Winston Churchill

Thanks for stating the obvious. I wonder if the Torch's acts were inconsistent wit his blathering about ethics. Go get a grandfather clock and television set you horse's azz. Why don't you bang into someone's car and claim it wasn;t you while you are at it. You, McGreevey, and Craig should just go die. We are sick of you all.

It is not the message I object to - it is the messenger. Since when is Bob in a position to call others hypocritical? Just because he is one, he is allowed to call others one? I do not care - as I have stated in past posts - if Craig may or may not be gay. I find it personally revolting that he has to comb airport bathrooms to find some action. What I do find objectionable is that he pled guilty to a crime and sought to hide it from the public. As Bob certainly knows, we expect our elected officials to be held to a higher standard - or at least we should. When they commit crimes (and plead guilty), they have lost that trust and should be held accountable by the voters. Bob cut bait and ran - unfortunately before the Ethics Committee went after him. Craig should - and is - doing the same thing.

Bobby once again does not get it. He should be doing time for being a crook (we won't even get into the traitor part), and now he wants to give a moral viewpoint? Bobby, hopefully Craig will just go away, which is something you should do also. Just go away!

"Say what you want about him, but Bob Torricelli never portrayed himself as a "reformer" or some other kind of do-gooder. " Wow, you should not be allowed to vote for a statement like that. THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT! He didnt even hide the fact that he was a crook! and you voted for him anyway! he didnt say he was a good guy, you didnt believe he was a good guy, but you voted for him anyway. Dont you see a problem with that??? Again, you dont have to vote for Republicans if you hate lower taxes, but at least vote for better dems in primaries!

For those who wrote critically of Bob, I'd ask you to put aside for just a moment your indignation related to how you perceive Bob Torricelli overall. Not only is he right in what he wrote, his view here is simply incontrovertible.

Bob's point was well-articulated in his 2nd sentence: "What was surprising was the speed and intensity with which his Republican colleagues separated themselves from him."

Certainly, Craig's guilty plea on the misdemeanor paved the way for the Republicans to find their compass to right America's journey back toward morality.

But as Bob said, the "speed and intensity with which" the Republicans did so was striking! C'mon. Do you not agree with that?

Ya know, had equally-moral and married Sen. Vitter, who had his, ahem, "massage" (Is that what they're calling it today?) visits with the DC Madam's gang, (does anyone believe it was just massages LOL?) I wouldn't be as quick, and perhaps Bob wouldn't either, to accuse the Republicans of being overly-eager to expeditiously demonstrate their morality when it comes to a gay pants-down scandal compared to a straight one.

Yeah, yeah, I know, Vitter wasn't arrested for any crime. But uh, the issue the Republicans have their copyright on, as I understand it, is the "moral decay" in this country. At least Craig wasn't arrested for going to a house of whores, high-class as they were. (I mean, a fantasy call-girl operation calling you back to confirm your appointment -- That's courtesy!)

A worthy question is what do those high-profile R's who admonished Craig's behavior/judgment/widely-hypocritical stance think of Vitter having committed his "serious sin," which, unless you think this is an overreaction, in my book, it's quite the exmaple of "moral decay" in this country.

Do you really think the R's didn't react more intensely and quickly because they find it politically popular with their base, and may well subscribe to themselves, to take a strong stand against heinous homosexuality?

Yes, Bob is right, Craig did indeed contribute significantly (I wouldn't use the word "create") toward perpetuating the intolerance in this country of gays. And he got hoisted by his own stance, as wide or narrow-minded as it was.

Shoot the messenger. Attack the messenger. Score points against the messenger because you can't stand him. It's emblematic of the highly-bitter, vitriolic, partisan divisiveness in this country. And Bob has certainly been ferociously-competitive in his partisanship over the years.

That doesn't mean you have to score points against him. You can. It's easy. It's cheap. But reflect for a minute. He's right on this one. It won't hurt you -- well, maybe it will pinch a bit at first -- to say that you don't like the messenger but he has a point.

It does, however, hurt our public dialogue -- our quest for respectful civic-mindedness throughout our society -- to continue engaging in such shrill, mean finger-pointing. I know, some of you can't stand Bob. And you think he contributed toward that, and there's a list of issues you can bring up to hang on him.

But what I think is most important here is this: There remains today enough of a stamp of disapproval of homosexuality by society that we still have people who are so ashamed of their being gay, they are self-loathing, living a lie, and/or even leading -- talk about phony! -- the crusade to turn America away from homosexuality, the grave threat to the institution of straight marriage.

My God, Bob Barr, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, Dan Burton, and yes, Bill Clinton -- and I'm sure there are others I am forgetting to include -- all definitively supported the "Defense of Marriage Act" to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

And another woman on the side!

That's hypocrisy. And it's scapegoating, too.

It's not a question of WHO is or WHO IS NOT a homosexual.

It's a question of whether or not Senator Craig has done something CRIMINAL.

I would want ANY senator to resign if he/she plead guilty to a criminal act. It's that simple. Senators are SERVANTS of the people and should NOT be above the law.

How much self-loathing must it take for Sen. Craig not only to vote against marriage equality for gays and lesbians, but to be blatantly anti-gay in every legislative vote? According to the Ontheissues Website, Craig even voted against bills that would prohibit discriminatory hiring practices towards gays and lesbians at work and against a hate crimes bill that included sexual orientation. Needless to say, his civil rights record is far from impressive.

Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Larry_Craig_Civil_Rights.htm

Tort is a pathetic crook who should have been put in jail for the rest of his life for the corruption he created in both NJ and DC. How can anyone believe anything he says? The man will always be a lying crook in search of an audience. Too bad this website has given him that platform. The only platform he should have is the one under the hangman's rope- and I would gladly kick out that platform. Shame on the NJ "Supreme Court" judged for allowing old man Lautenberg to take Tort's place. NJ is the world's laughing joke for many reasons.