Larry Craig: Seed of Insanity

The whole "Anti-gay Senator Larry Craig busted for trying to find sex in a men's room" thing is a rich repository of insanity of all kinds. First, though, a bit of sanity to steel your resolve: Alex Blaze from The Bilerico Project speculates on just how appropriate this whole thing is, as well as whether or not it's okay to point and laugh. (For the record, he says yes, and I agree.)

Now for the crazy crap: First off, right from the horse's ass, Craig himself blames everyone but his own need for cock for his plight:

Second, Pandagon covers the Freeper reaction, and boy howdy is it CRAAAAZY!

You all have been waiting for it…some knuckle-dragging commentary from the swamps of Freeperland about conservative Republican U.S. Senator from Idaho Larry Craig’s same-sex bathroom booty call. Enjoy!

Actual Freeper Quotes

Part of the perversion that is homosexuality; sex in public places.

I agree. This looks very bad, indeed. He can use all the excuses that he wants, but I doubt that he will convince many that he was “innocent.” I hope that he does the right thing for the GOP and decides not to run again for the senate. He is political toast. Unlike the Dems, Republicans care about sexual ethics.

[And my personal favorite –]

I think this is another Democrat setup. Anyone who says anything against gays nowadays is persecuted.

Nah, I think more likely the GOP bigwigs eventually knew about it and figured it will come out any way, dump it today under the flash of the Gonzales stories.
You gotta wonder how nuts those psychos at Freep have to be to actually believe the horseshit they spew in every direction. And you might notice how nearly every freeper quote has either a "dem queerz is ebil" or "the Dhimmicrats are teh REEEEL prevertz" smear in it. That's conservative class for you.

Speaking of, what would a look at psychosis be without the pathological hatred of oneof my favorite trolls, Dana of Common Sense Political Thought and common troll at Pandagon and Liberal Avenger:

Mr Craig’s votes on the issues that Mr Rogers and Pam Spaulding of Pandagon find important:

* Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (June 2006)
* Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (June 2002)
* Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (June 2000)
* Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (September 1996)
* Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (September 1996)

Even though I don’t see any particular reason why people ought to be discriminated against in employment for being homosexual, I see no reason to add it to federal job discrimination laws — since I don’t like the idea of such laws in the first place. Nor do I think we ought to have hate crimes laws: we should punish people for the crimes they commit, not the motivations behind those crimes. Senator Craig’s positions are perfectly reasonable, even if he is on the “down low.” But our friends on the left all assume, since they dislike those positions, that Mr Craig must be a major hypocrite.

That's right, Dana's trying to deny Mr. Craig's hypocritical gay-bashing by saying that it must be because he just thinks it's bad policy to give equal rights to gay people. Inbetween calling everyone who doesn't agree with him "scumbag", Dana has to try and stick up for the gay-bashing homo (to take a phrase from Mr. Garrison) because he might have to admit that maybe, just maybe, Craig is a fucking hypocrite for voting for bigoted anti-gay laws while bering a closet case himself.

And why is he defending the anti-gay decisions of an outed hypocrite? Why, because conservatives have more class.