See the main page for Ted Klaudt
See all entries for Ted Klaudt
Ted Klaudt has ballooned to 550 pounds (what, has been eating other prisoners?), and his friends — such as State Senator Bill Napoli — are worried he’s going to die in prison.
Uh, Bill? Klaudt was convicted of repeatedly raping his foster daughters. If there’s any justice in the world, he will die in prison.
 |
Claims to fame: Junior U.S. Senator from Louisiana; former U.S. House rep; anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-safe sex, abstinence-only crusader; anti-science creationist; anti-United Nations, warmongering globalist; anti-SCHIP gun nut; Southern regional chairman of Rudy Giuliani’s 2008 Republican presidential campaign; real “family values” family man; hothead; adulterer; diaper-wearing hooker’s john
Moral apex: Lots of folks would say it was getting it on with hookers working for the “D.C. Madam,” or paying a Canal Street brothel $300 an hour for the privilege of wearing a diaper.
We say: neither. See, we have nothing against safe, sane sexual activity of any flavor of kink between consenting adults. We do, however, have a big problem with a self-righteous, moralizing hypocrite who demonizes gay and lesbian Americans under the guise of preserving the “sanctity of marriage” while trampling all over the sanctity of his own marriage… and then lying about it, repeatedly.
No, ’twasn’t the sex, nor the diapers; we say it was the continuous gay-bashing — followed closely by Vitter’s condemnation of Bill Clinton as “morally unfit to govern”… which, curiously, doesn’t seem to apply to Vitter himself in the strange, dichotomous world of “sin and redemption” theology.
Anyway…
“[T]o recap,” wrote Glenn Greenwald, “in Louisiana, Vitter carried on a year-long affair with a prostitute in 1999. Then he ran for the House as a hard-core social conservative family values candidate, parading around his wife and kids as props and leading the public crusade in defense of traditional marriage.
“Then, in Washington, he became a client of Deborah Palfrey’s.”
The Times-Picayune spelled out the details on July 10, 2007, while Mary Ann Akers explained exactly how Vitter’s cover was blown: Dan Moldea, “the gumshoe Washington-based reporter who moonlights as an investigator” for Hustler publisher Larry Flynt, was working “to expose ‘hypocrites’ on Palfrey’s client list.”
If that isn’t enough to convince you that David Vitter is a slimeball to the nth degree, there’s always his frightening temper, resulting in an assault on a woman (and fellow Republican) — or there are his apparent ties to David Duke, and related dirty tricks. See “There is a house in New Orleans,” Mary Jacoby, Salon.com, October 29, 2004.
Fun facts:
• In a runoff election, Vitter replaced Bob Livingston when Livingston suddenly resigned his Senate seat after his extramarital dalliances came to light. (Thank you once again, Larry Flynt!)
• Vitter is one of the great Queens of Denial. Noted ABC News in mid-2007: “On Aug. 30, 2005, the day after Hurricane Katrina hit, Vitter erroneously told the public that, ‘In the metropolitan area in general, in the huge majority of areas, [the water is] not rising at all. It’s the same or it may be lowering slightly. In some parts of New Orleans, because of the 17th Street breach, it may be rising and that seemed to be the case in parts of downtown. I don’t want to alarm everybody that, you know, New Orleans is filling up like a bowl. That’s just not happening.’”
Memorable quotes:
Some current polls may suggest that people are turned off by the whole Clinton mess and don’t care — because the stock market is good, the Clinton spin machine is even better or other reasons. But that doesn’t answer the question of whether President Clinton should be impeached and removed from office because he is morally unfit to govern.The writings of the Founding Fathers are very instructive on this issue. They are not cast in terms of political effectiveness at all but in terms of right and wrong — moral fitness. Hamilton writes in the Federalists Papers (No. 65) that impeachable offenses are those that “proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”
— David Vitter
Editorial
Times-Picayune
October 29, 1998
I think Livingston’s stepping down makes a very powerful argument that Clinton should resign as well and move beyond this mess.
— David Vitter
on Bob Livingston’s resignation
to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
December 20, 1998
I’m a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he does something like that, I’m walking away with one thing, and it’s not alimony, trust me.
— Vitter’s wife, Wendy, to the Times-Picayune, 2000
…on whether or not she could forgive her husband for an extramarital affair (as Hillary Clinton and Bob Livingston’s wife had)
This wasn’t in response to any dramatic issue or event, but to the cumulative stress from working in a high-pressure job, living in two cities, building a house, raising four young kids including a newborn, having our campaign activities based at home and traveling the state considering running for governor.
— David Vitter
May, 2002…explaining why he and his wife had entered counseling for marital problems, and why he was abandoning a gubernatorial run… a week before he was forced to confront the Canal Street brothel allegations (which he denied, of course, calling the story “a rumor and attack campaign”)
(”The irony,” wrote Kos two and a half years later, “is that Vitter dropped out of that governor’s race last year because of an affair with a prostitute and has an illegitimate child with another woman. No big scoop — this is all out in the open and well-known in the state, yet Vitter is still running on a ‘family values’ platform and obviously getting away with it.”)
This is a real outrage. The Hollywood left is redefining the most basic institution in human history, and our two U.S. Senators won’t do anything about it.We need a U.S. Senator who will stand up for Louisiana values, not Massachusetts’s values. I am the only Senate Candidate to coauthor the Federal Marriage Amendment; the only one fighting for its passage. I am the only candidate proposing changes to the senate rules to stop liberal obstructionists from preventing an up or down vote on issues like this, judges, energy, and on and on.
— David Vitter
Statement on Protecting the Sanctity of Marriage
2004
I’m proud to join Matt and the entire Alliance for Marriage in support of the Marriage Protection Amendment and other pro-family, pro-marriage initiatives that we are pursuing in the Congress. Matt, I think your group, including the representatives here today, illustrate what a broad and deep consensus this is in the country — that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. … Your group recognizes a central truth from throughout human history, that marriage is the most important social institution in human history and is the most significant factor in terms of minimizing all sorts of social ills. We go on the floor of the Senate and debate domestic problems, drug use, crime, illegitimacy, all of these things, and yet the single biggest factor in all of those problem areas is the single question: “Is there a mom and a dad at home helping bring up kids?”
— David Vitter
Alliance for Marriage Press Conference
May 25, 2006
I don’t believe there’s any issue that’s more important than this one. I think this debate is very healthy, and it’s winning a lot of hearts and minds. I think we’re going to show real progress.
— David Vitter
on the importance of a constitutional
amendment to ban same-sex marriage
June, 2006
This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible. Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there — with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way.
— David Vitter
July 9, 2007
Memorable pre-scandal observation:
Louisiana Senator David Vitter, speaking at a Lafayette Parish Republican Executive Committee luncheon, referred to hurricanes Katrina and Rita coming through the same areas as a same-sex marriage.In his statements at the luncheon, Vitter referred to the impact of both hurricanes on the Lafayette area. “Unfortunately, it’s the crossroads where Katrina meets Rita,” said Vitter. “I always knew I was against same-sex unions.”
. . .
In response to the comments by Vitter, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese sent the following letter to Vitter:
… Katrina and Rita caused devastation and despair for millions of Americans, including gay Americans. There simply is no way to make a joke out of this kind of disaster.
Either you need a new speechwriter, or your sense of humor is really off the mark. Your state is home to almost 9,000 same-sex families, according to 2000 U.S. Census data. These constituents also faced devastating losses caused by the hurricanes, and I doubt they found any humor in your jokes.
More than 1,100 rights, responsibilities and protections are denied to same-sex couples without the right to marry. That means the same-sex couples who lost loved ones in the hurricanes will be unable to receive Social Security benefits as other spouses will. They won’t get tax-free access to their spouses’ pensions. For families already facing hardships from the hurricanes, they have these obstacles and more to confront. The last thing they need is their elected officials mocking their misfortune.
At the very least, the people of Louisiana are due an apology.
Louisiana Senator Compares
Hurricanes to Gay Marriage
Gayapolis
October 18, 2005
Memorable post-scandal observations:
David Vitter stands aside other Towering Icons of the Great Social Conservative Movement, those moral stalwarts who are defending The Institution of Traditional Marriage in our country — he stands with Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Fred Thompson, and Vitter’s chosen presidential candidate, Rudy Giuliani…As always, it is so striking how many Defenders of Traditional Marriage have a record in their own broken lives of shattered marriages, multiple wives and serial adultery. And they never seek to protect the Sacred Institution of Traditional Marriage by banning the un-Christian and untraditional divorces they want for themselves when they are done with their wives and are ready to move on to the next, newer model. Instead, they only defend these Very Sacred Values by banning the same-sex marriages that they don’t want for themselves.
— Glenn Greenwald
Sen. David Vitter, a leading
Christian social conservative
July 10, 2007
Perhaps Vitter ought to revisit the issue of whether the absence of moral fitness is a firing offense for a public official.
A Blast from Vitter’s Past
The Nation
July 10, 2007
If Deborah Jeane Palfrey is being prosecuted for racketeering, then, shouldn’t Vitter implicated as an enabler? What is good for the gander, is good for the goose.
It takes two to racket.
It is also a racket that the woman gets legally swatted but not the John, or the David.
— Stephen Sabludowsky
David Vitter, Resignation and Prosecution
BayouBuzz.com
July 10, 2007
But… you have to understand. Dressing up like a school boy and getting a spanking from a woman in a nun’s habit wouldn’t be half as much fun if you didn’t first run around telling everyone else it is wrong, wrong, wrong, to dress up like school boys and get spankings from women in habits.
— Comment from “jake”
Balloon Juice
David Vitter has a long history of voting against the sexual freedom of other people, and against rights for loving, faithful families that center around two people who happen to be of the same gender. Vitter votes to deny homosexual couples equal marriage rights, using the excuse that homosexuality somehow threatens the sanctity of marriage. Yet, at the same time, Senator Vitter has been running around abusing the sanctity of his own marriage. Homosexuals were not to blame for that. David Vitter was to blame. …
The public offense of Senator David Vitter is not his extramarital affairs, or his use of prostitutes. That’s all between David Vitter, his wife, and the local police.
The public offense of Senator David Vitter is to deny equal rights under the law to many American families, and to refuse government support for programs that help people plan their families and maintain them in healthy ways. David Vitter’s offense is to promote an anti-family agenda, and placing it into the disguise of conservative Christian religion, all the while betraying the requirements of that religion.
Vitter has cheated on the American people. That’s the affair that matters.
Bitter on Vitter
Irregular Times
September 12, 2007
Suggested Bible reading for Mr. Vitter:
But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.
Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:
For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:
— Proverbs 1:25-29
 |
Claims to fame: Republican U.S. Senator from Idaho (1991-2008); former U.S. House rep (1981-1991); National Rifle Association board member; Idaho Hall of Fame inductee; farmer/rancher; anti-gay, not-a-gay gay Republican (who earned a 100% rating from the Christian Coalition in 2003); men’s-room-sex cruiser; denial queen; biggest Republican laughingstock of 2007
Moral apex: It’s hard to choose. There is, of course, his June 11, 2007, arrest for lew conduct (a.k.a. “cottaging“) in a men’s room at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Here’s the police report:
At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. I oved my foot up and down slowly. … The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area. Craig then proceeded to swipe his left hand under the stall divider several times, with the palm of his hand facing upward. …
But then there’s his claim that he was railroaded into pleading guilty (albeit to a lesser charge of disorderly conduct, for which he received “a suspended 10-day jail sentence, was fined more than $500 and was placed on unsupervised probation for one year” [NYT]).
Then there’s his resignation from his Senate seat. Then there’s his withdrawal of his resignation of his Senate seat.
|
Then there’s his attempt to have his own guilty plea overturned. (It didn’t work; you can’t just “withdraw” a guilty plea.)
Then there’s his insistence that he’s not gay (not, I tell you, not, not, not!).
Then there’s the allegations that his dalliances with other men were known as far back as the 1980s — with “with underage congressional pages,” no less (but he’s still not gay!).
Then there’s the “40-year-old man [who] reported having oral sex with Craig at Washington’s Union Station, probably in 2004,” and the “man who said Craig made a sexual advance toward him at the University of Idaho in 1967 and a man who said Craig ‘cruised’ him for sex in 1994 at the REI store in Boise.”
Then there’s…
There’s a lot.
Here’s just one of Larry’s versions of the story:
I’m a commuter. As you know Mark, Suzanne and I decided to build a home back in Idaho. (We have) seven grandbabies here, our family’s here, and that I would become the commuter for the balance of my time in Washington, so that we wouldn’t miss those grandbabies growing up. So nearly every week I was flying through and stopping at the Minneapolis airport, and walking from one side to the other side of it to catch an airplane to Washington. I’ve learned to do that with my lifestyle for Idaho. When I stop, I often times go to a bathroom. It’s early in the morning when I leave here, so about the time I get to Minneapolis, I’ve had several cups of coffee, so it’s a natural thing I do before I go on to Washington.. . .
I go to bathrooms to go to bathrooms. I walked in that morning into a sting, that I had no idea I was walking into. I suspect every American, or anyone who wanted to listen or try at all has heard the tape of the interrogation. They know a great deal of the detail that has been told by others. Yes, I walked by the stalls. I looked to see if they were empty, most of them were full, or apparently all of them were full as I recall. I stood back, I waited, I kept looking — finally, one opened up. I walked in, I put my suit case down — I sat down on a bathroom stool. I did not realize that to look into a stall, set a suitcase in front of you was a gay action, or at least according to this law enforcement officer. He was watching out through a door profiling me. “Oh my goodness he did this, oh my goodness he did that.” At least that’s my reaction to what I finally experienced.
Something caught my eye. I glanced down. Whether it was foot movement close to my stall, I was spreading my legs, and uh I saw paper — it looked like it was stuck to the heel of my shoe. … Toilet paper. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen anyone walk out of a toilet with toilet paper stuck to their shoe….
Well, I reached down, I pulled it off. My hand went below the divider. Within seconds there was a card under the divider that said “police,” and the motion of the finger to the door. And I said “no!” — then the motion again.
I stood up, stepped out and was physically jerked out of the bathroom in to a lobby area. And I said “what’s going on here, what are you doing?” “You’re under arrest.” I said “I’ve got a plane to catch, what are you doing?”
At about that time, and I was attempting to pull away — about that time another officer came up, grabbed me by the other arm and said “if you don’t behave, we’re going to arrest you and throw you in jail.” I’ve never been arrested in my life.
I was blown away.
. . .
[The arresting officer] was trying to put words in my mouth, I refused to allow that to happen. I knew what had gone on there. Oh he said, “just plead guilty and file it in the court, pay a fine, it will go away, and I won’t call the media.” Those are pretty intimidating things.
. . .
I don’t know that I touched his foot. In the interrogation, while he attempted to get me to say things that weren’t true — none of that came up in the interrogation. That was in the report that he obviously spent an awful lot of time and put an awful lot of detail into. Sounds to me like this is an officer who was more interested in an arrest than he was in the facts.
— Larry Craig
Interview with Mark Johnson, KTVB
October 16, 2007
Sounds to us like this is an officer who was simply very clear in his recollection of the facts. “Craig,” Sgt. Dave Karsnia added, “would look down at his hands, ‘fidget’ with his fingers, and then look through the crack into my stall again.”
Where the “wide stance” line comes from:
According to the arrest report prepared by Sgt. Dave Karsnia, “Craig stated … He has a wide stance when going to the bathroom and that his foot may have touched mine.” Craig never used the term “wide stance” himself. According to the transcript of the police interogation, Sgt. Karsnia asked: “Did you do anything with your feet?” and Craig replied: “Positioned them, I don’t know. I don’t know at the time. I’m a fairly wide guy.”When the officer asked Craig about the use of his hands, Craig said that he reached down with his right hand to pick up a piece of paper that was on the floor. The officer disputed Craig’s version by saying “there was not a piece of paper on the bathroom floor, nor did Craig pick up a piece of paper.” Craig also disputed the officer’s assertion about the position of his hand, claiming that his right palm was faced down as he picked up the paper from the floor. The officer disputed Craig’s version, alleging that Craig used his left hand because his thumb “was positioned in a faceward motion.” During the interview and in the incident report, the officer commented that Craig either disagreed with what happened in the restroom or could not recall the events as they happened.
Ultimate hypocrisy: The I’m-Not-Gay Gay Republican’s guide to voting, or: a few relevant items from Larry Craig’s Senate voting record, culled from OnTheIssues.com:
Larry Craig on Civil RightsVoted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Rated 25% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
And Craig:
• Voted to cut off debate on the proposed 2006 Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage;
• Voted against the 1996 bill prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, which,” notes MediaMatters, “failed by one vote in the Senate.” Another way of looking at it: Larry Craig singlehandedly prevented gay and lesbian Americans from protection against being fired just because of who they are.
Fascinating, especially for someone with a 0% rating from Americans United for Separation of Church and State, “indicating opposition to church-state separation,” and a 0% rating from the Human Rights Campaign, indicating… well, indicating that a certain self-loathing (water-)closet queen — so ashamed of who and what he is that he feels the need to consign himself to seeking out sleazy, anonymous sex in public restrooms — is so bitter and jealous of every out, proud, and well-adjusted gay American that he wants to punish them all for daring to live the open and honest existence he can only dream of.
Well, that’s what it indicates to us; your mileage may vary.
(For the record, he’s no friend to women or minorities, either; Larry Craig would rather throw unwanted stem cells in the garbage than use them to save lives; doesn’t give a damn if children die without health insurance; and is a corporate-whoring warmonger who thinks the government should be able to spy on you, anytime, anywhere. Don’t believe us? Check the link.)
Fun facts:
• Until news of his arrest came out (the cover-up lasted months), Craig was U.S. Senate co-chair of the Mitt Romney for President campaign. When the toilet lid was blown open, Craig “resigned” (read: got dumped) from the campaign — and, almost simultaneously, the Romney campaign canceled a Boise whistle-stop. (Gee, coincidence? Not.)
Craig was bitter, to say the least. “I was very proud of my association with Mitt Romney,” Craig told NBC’s Matt Lauer in October, 2007. “I’d worked hard for him here in the state. I was a co-chair of his campaign on Capitol Hill. And he not only threw me under his campaign bus, he backed up and ran over me again.”
• Larry likes to make up words, such as “mug-shotted” and “criticizer”:
I went down, I was interrogated. I was fingerprinted, I was mug-shotted.— Larry Craig
Interview with Mark Johnson, KTVB
October 16, 2007
I’ve had criticism thrown at me. But I’ve never had the criticizer, or the investigator go out and try to question all my friends.
• In November, 2007, Mike Jones, the “male escort” whose affair with megachurch superstar Ted Haggard, claimed that Larry Craig was also a client. Of course, Craig denied the allegation — but then again, noted KESQ-TV, Haggard “originally denied Jones’ allegations of sexual relations in 2006,” too.
• By December, 2007, a total of eight gay men had “come forward since news of U.S. Sen. Larry Craig’s guilty plea [to] say they had sex with Craig or that he made a sexual advance or that he paid them unusual attention.”
• In September, 2007, the “infamous airport men’s room where Sen. Larry Craig was arrested is getting new stall dividers that drop nearly to the floor to make it a less inviting spot for sexual liaisons.”
• Craig used “about $23,000 in campaign money on lawyers in his ethics investigation.” It that ethical? It it even legal? Experts disagree — so it looks like it’s up to the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee to sort it all out… while they’re deciding whether or not “Craig violated Senate ethics rules by engaging in behavior that reflects poorly on the institution.”
Denial is Not a River in Egypt quote:
I am not gay; I never have been gay.— Larry Craig
Press conference
August 28, 2007
More memorable quotes:
Bad boy, Bill Clinton. You’re a naughty boy The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy, a naughty boy. I’m going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy.— Larry Craig
“Meet The Press”
January 24, 1999
What do you think of that?
— Larry Craig,
handing his Senate business card
to the arresting officer
I’ve been in this business 27 years in the public eye here. I don’t go around anywhere hitting on men, and by God, if I did, I wouldn’t do it in Boise, Idaho! Jiminy!
— Larry Craig
to the Idaho Statesman…I made a big mistake. I didn’t seek counsel. I didn’t tell this wonderful woman sitting behind me… I didn’t tell my staff. I sought my own counsel, and I was a very bad counsel.
— Larry Craig
Interview with Mark Johnson, KTVB
October 16, 2007Everything I was getting from Washington, from Republican leadership was they were going to force me out — they were going to force me to resign. That’s what I believed.
. . .
I was being all but ordered to resign. … Circumstances changed.
Quotes ripest for parody (Hey, kids! Make up your own retorts!):
I stand my ground.My dad … said, ’son when you start a job, you stay in there and finish it, no matter how tough it gets.’
Resigning would have been the easy way out. Duck my head and leave.
Yeah, a few had lopped off my head and rolled it right down the street.
Memorable observations:
As this message is posted, I have apppeared on the Ed Schultz Show, a nationally syndicated radio program broadcast in more than 100 cities and on Sirius Satellite. On the show I have called on Senator Larry Craig to end his years of hypocrisy by leveling with Idahoans about who he really is. I am also calling upon several prominent Idaho social conservative leaders to ask them how they square their anti-gay positions with their support for this leader.I have done extensive research into this case, including trips to the Pacific Northwest to meet with men who have say they have physical relations with the Senator. I have also met with a man here in Washington, D.C., who says the same — and that these incidents occurred in the bathrooms of Union Station. None of these men know each other, or knew that I was talking to others. They all reported similar personal characteristics about the Senator, which lead me to believe, beyond any doubt, that their stories are valid.
Larry Craig being mentioned as possibly connected to Congressional scandals is nothing new. Check out these video clips from 1982 when he preemptively denied his involvement in a Congressional sex and drug scandal. (I love what he says about unmarried people back then and how often do politicians issue preemptive denials based on rumors?)
Senator Craig has consistently relied on the support of Idaho’s “values voters,” but he has not been honest with them about his own conduct. Conservatives and liberals are both standing up and recognizing the hypocrisy of elected officials like Senator Larry Craig. The time for treating Americans one way and behaving in another is over.
— Mike Rogers
…outing Larry Craig nearly eight months before Craig’s arrest and one full year before news of the arrest was made public
Senator Larry Craig…. What’s with the gay bashing?
October 17, 2006On Wednesday, the Spokane Spokesman-Review made the controversial decision to run a story about rumors swirling around Idaho Senator Larry Craig — a story that likely never would have seen the light of day a few short years ago. The basics of the story are as follows: Gay-rights activist Mike Rogers claimed on his blog and a syndicated radio program that confidential sources had provided him information concerning consensual homosexual relationships involving Craig. The senator responded to the story through a spokesperson, calling it ‘completely ridiculous.’Just so we are clear… I, too, think it’s “completely ridiculous” for an anti-gay Senator to have sex in Union Station bathrooms. See, Craig’s office and I do agree on something.
— Mike Rogers
CBS chimes in on Larry Craig
October 20, 2006I – I actually served in the House with him, and my sense tells me to just shut up. [laughter] [applause]
— Openly gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.)
to the question:
“What does your gaydar tell you about him [Craig]?”
“Real Time with Bill Maher”
October 20, 2006Video:
I have a certain sympathy for closeted gay men and lesbians. I think that being so deeply ashamed of a part of yourself that’s so fundamental, and that you can do nothing to change, must be close to unbearable; and the knowledge that coming clean would involve not only admitting that you’re gay, but also that you have lied for years to people you care about, and who trust you, would only make it that much worse. But my sympathy vanishes when it comes to people who support amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage, as Craig did. There are limits to what you
get to do to protect your own secrets, and being willing to permanently destroy gay men and lesbians’ chances to marry the people they love, and with whom they have found happiness, is way, way outside them.. . .
The laws are meant to apply to everyone, Senators included. No one gets to violate laws he himself supports and then use the fact that he has been elected to high office to get himself off the hook. Being elected Senator means being given a position of trust and responsibility that you should work every day to be worthy of, not a Get Out Of Jail Free card.
— Obsidian Wings
Larry Craig
August 27, 2007All we know is, Craig’s opening line from today’s news conference at which he — again, and repeatedly — denied that he’s gay will surely make the late-night comedy rounds. Craig’s opener: “Thank you for coming out today.”
— Mary Ann Akers
Larry Craig: Still Not Gay
Washington Post
August 28, 2007Back in October, scads of right-wing pundits pretended that Craig’s bathroom behavior was irrelevant to them not because they actually believed that (as their commentary now demonstrates), but only because they were petrified that the revelation of his behavior in October would harm Republican electoral prospects. It is just conclusively clear that so many of them insisted to their readers something they obviously did not believe — that nothing could be less relevant than whether Larry Craig commits adultery with anonymous men in bathrooms and the only grotesque immorality is from those who report such matters.
Today, with the election safely over, that exact same behavior makes Craig a scumbag who should resign. Who would ever listen to anyone who engages in such patently duplicitous advocacy? Shouldn’t all the people who were depicting Mike Rogers as Satan’s spawn for reporting something so clearly irrelevant as Senator Craig’s bathroom sex be condemning with equal vigor their comrades who, today, cite that same bathroom sex as a ground for mocking Craig and even demanding that he resign from the Senate? How can it possibly be that Mike Rogers was despicable slime for reporting on Craig’s bathroom behavior without its being true that Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt and Mark Steyn are all despicable slime for demanding that he resign based on the same behavior?
— Glenn Greenwald
Larry Craig’s bathroom behavior
and the right wing — then and now
August 28, 2007If we were to go back over the last few decades and do a tally on which side — left or right — had more high-profile sex scandals, I have a hunch it’d be about even. The difference, however, is that only one side claims the moral high-ground, holds itself out as the arbiter of virtue, is quick to judge moral/sexual failings in others, and wants desperately to use the power of the state to regulate (and ban) some of the behavior they personally engage in. …
Conservatives are demoralized because their leaders keep getting caught in sex scandals? Perhaps, if they stopped trying to use sex as a culture-war weapon, these revelations wouldn’t be so damaging. Indeed, perhaps if the right would give up on demonizing gays, then men like Craig wouldn’t be forced to go into men’s rooms looking for sex partners in the first place.
I don’t want the right to feel dispirited because of these scandals; I want them to give up. Give up on using gays as a wedge issue. Give up on abstinence-only policies that don’t work. Give up on constitutional amendments regarding personal behavior. Give up on holding up the GOP up as the authority on what should and shouldn’t be allowed in bedrooms.
Or don’t. Go ahead and continue to embrace hypocrisy. Keep hiding your head in your hands every time a Larry Craig gets caught. Continue to argue that it’s not at all odd that your presidential front-runner is a thrice-married adulterer.
— Steve Benen
‘It’s the hypocrisy that people can’t stand’
Carpetbagger Report
August 28, 2007I find the whole Larry Craig thing quite sad. It’s sad for his family, for his constituents, but mostly, sad for Craig.
Craig hates himself, and that is sad, no matter how you slice it. His explanations for the events in Minnesota are so ridiculous, they defy logic and credibility, even in Idaho.
— John Aravosis
Better To Be Thought A Fool
AMERICAblog
August 28, 2007Yep, that’s right Senator Craig, you heard me right, I want to thank you. You see, you have just shown millions of parents who have gay and lesbian children why they absolutely, positively MUST encourage their children to come out and proudly be who they are. You have also confirmed why all parents should not only accept their gay and lesbian children but embrace and love their gay and lesbian children just exactly as they are.
And Senator Craig, you have done a marvelous job of showing millions of parents just how toxic and harmful the closet is and why all parents need to encourage their gay and lesbian children to come out into the sunshine and proudly celebrate who they are. I mean after all, no truly good and loving parent would ever wish upon their beloved child the pitiful, tortured, hypocritical, and pathetic existence you have endured for decades.
But that is not all you have done for the gay and lesbian community Senator. In addition to all of the above, you have also confirmed for the many parents like me who have embraced their gay and lesbian children from the start what great gifts unconditional love and acceptance are for our children. Could there be any greater family or Christian value than that Senator?
— Seething Mom
Dear Senator Larry Craig from Idaho
August 29, 2007If Larry Craig were held to the standard of sexual conduct he imposes on the U.S. armed forces, he’d be out of his job.
Fourteen years ago, in his first term as a Republican senator from Idaho, Craig helped to enact the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. …
[T]he Idaho Statesman reports three other incidents, from 1967 to 2004, in which Craig allegedly made similar overtures. … These accounts, combined with Craig’s arrest report, would easily get him thrown out of the Army if he were a soldier.
Has Craig’s arrest chastened him about DADT? Not a bit. Two weeks ago, in a letter to a constituent, he reiterated his support for the policy. …
Now you know why Craig is trying to withdraw his guilty plea. The cardinal rule of “don’t ask, don’t tell” isn’t heterosexuality. It’s hypocrisy. The one thing you can’t do is tell the truth.
— William Saletan
Same Sex: Larry Craig’s anti-gay hypocrisy
Slate
August 30, 2007Mark Johnson: We gave folks an opportunity on our website to ask questions — and boy did they submit the questions. Many of them you’ve answered here tonight. Mark from Boise… not this Mark from Boise — had one that I think you might find interesting. Mark writes “You are accused of a sex crime without physically committing one. Would you support legislation that protects citizens from police entrapment in restrooms and other public places.Sen. Larry Craig: Mark, I’d have to take a very seri
ous look at that. I’ve not only heard from Mark — I’ve heard from a lot of citizens and e-mailers. They’ve felt they got entrapped, they felt they got profiled. The worst thing in a free society is to have law enforcement profiling people because they look a certain way, therefore they must be. That is just wrong. I’ve always opposed it — and I’ll continue to oppose it. If legislation like that comes along, I’ll take a very serious look at it. I’m innocent, I’ve been through it. It’s not a very pleasant experience. It’s changed my life, it’s changed my family’s life, it may have changed the political life in Idaho, I don’t know. But, it is the question — a very important one.So, if someone proposes such legislation to protect citizens from profiling — doesn’t sound like he’s ready to take up activist arms and do it himself — how many of Larry’s GOP colleagues do you think are going to co-sign it? A bill that protects busts of people for “looking a certain way” (guess this time he couldn’t squeak out “gay”) when caught up in a public restroom sex sting? These stings focus almost exclusively on gay men cruising in these public facilities — an issue right there that probably has Republicans squirming.
Oh my, the gift that keeps on giving… :)
— Pam Spaulding
Larry Craig Considers
Anti-Bathroom Sting Legislation
October 17, 2007Yesterday, Sen. Larry Craig announced that he is not going to step down because he is still able to work effectively with his fellow senators. Sen. Craig’s exact quote was, “No one reaches across the aisle like I do.”
— Conan O’Brien
October, 2007Suggested Bible reading for Mr. Craig:
For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.
— Isaiah 56:4-5
|
Claims to fame: Former South Dakota state representative; farmer; child rapist
Moral apex: Raped two of his foster daughters.
“The two girls,” reported AP, “testified that Klaudt touched their breasts and genitals as part of a phony scheme to help them make money by donating their reproductive eggs to infertile couples. The examinations occurred in Klaudt’s motel suite during the 2005 and 2006 sessions of the South Dakota Legislature.”
Klaudt sent some 70 bogus e-mail messages to one of the girls using the name “Terri Linee” — a fictitious representative of a fictitious agency promising payments of tens of thousands of dollars for the girl’s eggs.
The girl then testified that “Klaudt did up to ten examinations of her breasts and vaginal area, supposedly to see if she would qualify as an egg donor.”
What happened next: It took the jury just three hours to convict Klaudt on four counts of second-degree rape.
But, wait, there’s more: Klaudt also faced ten more charges of “rape and other offenses” in his home county — but plea-bargained out in order to avoid a second trial.
“The formal charges,” reported KSFY, included “4 counts of second-degree rape, 2 counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, 1 count of sexual contact with a child under the age of 16, 2 counts of witness tampering and 1 count of stalking.”
He pleaded guilty to the two counts of witness tampering, admitting that “he offered to forgive a debt if the mother of one of the foster daughters would call off an investigation of his actions. And in the earlier trial, one of the young women testified Klaudt had urged her to lie to authorities.”
Where he is now: Free on bond, awaiting sentencing (slated for January 4, 2008) on the rape convictions, and due for sentencing six days later for the witness-tampering charges.
He could get up to 100 years in prison — 25 years for each of the four counts of rape — plus another twenty years more on the latter charges. (If he had gone to trial for the ten counts of “rape and other offenses” in Corson County, he could have been racked up an additional 140 years in the pen.)
His lawyer says any decision to appeal the rape convictions will come after Klaudt is sentenced on all charges.
Memorable quotes:
its looking very good. Ted’s report was excellent the breast glands are very good position and the oveies are in exact position and the uturis looks very healthy. Dont forget the next test that needs to be done on sunday or monday. Make sure you contact Ted and remind him. Ted said you were a little upset hun please try to relax and the tests wond hurt as much please dont make Ted to upset. Thanks TerriP.S. you need to remind Ted to do the breast measurment this time and the next three times he will know what this means
Hello Ted i know you are busy but i emailed [A.M.] and she said i needed to talk to you. I havent recieved the last two reports. If you didnt get them done then if she ever wants to get into the program you and I will need to talk call me. There is still one last chance if she willing to let you do this test. Its a vaginal stimulation test iam sure you have what is needed to perform this test. It all up to her I know she will need to cooperate with you and let you perform the test on her. I can help you with suggestion to make it go easier. Please talk with her this is her last chance. Iam Cc. a copy of this to her. Thanks for all you do for her and the world of egg donation. Thanks Terri
[A.M.] i takked with Ted on Thursday afternoon thanks for the right #. He is willing to get this testing done for you. There are some committments you have to make first. You have to promise you will do what we need to be done. I can explain the procudure to you if you like just let me know. He did tell me you are on your period which is very good again. You need to promise that you will not do the crying act stuff he just cant do it. He feels like he is hurting you and he told me that is the last thing he would ever do is hurt you. [A.M.] you are 18 now and it time you start to act like and 18 year old girl. I dont mean to sound rude but come on girl it not like you are a virgin.
I can send Ted a relaxer for you if you want. I know any type of alcohol will work just as well.
I have worked alot with Ted and he has never sent us a bad donor. I cant believe Ted has put up with all the issues you have had and now you dont want to take the time and finish it up. I sent him and email and he said he would have time when ever it would work for you. I really dont know why he just dont tell you to forget it really. You see to beable to stall more than anyone i know. Well you are Ted client and he is determined to have us give you an chance. If you cant meet with Ted this next week the sept donations if off.
i would like to know if you have talked with Ted. I am affraid to call him again as upset as he was the last time we talked. I dont understand it you are like inches away from getting it completed and now after all the work is done you both are dropping to ball. I dont understand it. I am at a loss you have prety much been accepted in the program so why not finish it. Please and i ask please talk with Ted about getting it all put together. I hope you will atleast reply to this email please iam begging you we need you so bad now. Thanks Terri
I really do need ted very very bad Please talk to him and atleast have him take my calls.
I am getting so discussed with this whole deal i mean he had several female he was working with inculuding u and u allway seemed to be the one that could get to him. … So PLEASE TALK TO TED LIKE NOW RATHER THEN SOON. Thank You Terri
u must know what happened to have him feel this way Please tell me so i can avoid the subject when and if ted will ever talk with me. Please [A.M.] help all the couples who need u and ted to complete there lifes goals. Thanks Terri
I know teds love for you is unconditional. ted would never not take your call. [A.M.] why would you make up such a lie about a man who loves you so deeply. Are you going to move on this or you going to keep messing around and lying i cant put up with. I will give you until Monday afternoon to make this happen or just forget it but dont lie ever again to me. A very upset terri
I will await your email and see what Teds decission will be. Please beg him into completing the testing and what ever else you need to have done. Thanks Terri
— Typically illiterate missives to victim “A.M.”
from the fictitious “Terri Linee”
Random facts:
• Hughes County, where Klaudt was tried, spent $8,846 to prosecute him.
• The Klaudt case was voted (by “South Dakota Associated Press member newspaper editors an
d broadcast news directors”) the number-four news story in South Dakota for 2007.
Suggested Bible reading for Mr. Klaudt:
A wholesome tongue is a tree of life: but perverseness therein is a breach in the spirit.— Proverbs 15:4
Entry marked for deletion; source links dead.
 |
Claims to fame: Lawyer; former head of the Michigan Federation of Young Republicans; accused kidnapper and rapist; convicted sex offender
Moral apex: After partying hard with fellow members of Michigan’s delegation to the national Young Republicans convention, 32-year-old Flory “escorted” one drunken 21-year-old female delegate back to her hotel room, where she passed out, and Flory, according to Cuyahoga County Assistant Prosecutor Carol Skutnik, “violently forced several sex acts upon her.”
The charges: Rape and kidnapping.
The verdict: The state accepted his plea bargain of sexual battery, dropping the rape and kidnapping charges. (Still, Skutnik said the plea bargain didn’t “include any suggestion of leniency, and the state [would] seek incarceration.)
The sentence: Five years, the maximum allowed.
The stomach-turning plea for leniency:
“My son needs his father.”Michigan GOP activist gets 5 years for sex assault
Cleveland Plain Dealer
September 14, 2007
What’s worse:
Flory and his followers within the Republican organization had been smearing [the victim's] reputation in retaliation for accusing Flory of rape.Michigan Young Republican pleads guilty in sex case
Cleveland Plain Dealer
July 24, 2007
Memorable quotes:
“Sure — yeah.”— Flory, in response to Judge Corrigan’s question:
“Are you indeed guilty?”
“I’m sickened that he is an attorney.”
— Judge Corrigan, at Flory’s sentencing
The burning question: What the hell is wrong with all these “Young Republicans,” anyway? (The burning answer: Simple — they’re just following the lead of their elders.)
Suggested Bible reading for Mr. Flory:
And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.— Luke 11:46
