08/22/2007
Florida Rep. Bob Allen Apologizes to NAACP
Florida Rep. Bob Allen, who was arrested for solicitation in after offering an undercover police officer $20 for the opportunity to perform oral sex, spoke to the North Brevard branch of the NAACP last night and apologized for comments about black men in the park where he was arrested.
Florida Today reports: "In his second appearance before a Brevard County branch of the NAACP during the past 10 days, Allen said in a half-hour speech that he understands 'you're guilty until proven innocent' thanks to incessant media coverage. He said he also understands how those who still fight for civil rights, including members of his audience, might be offended by his words, especially comments he made to police after his July 11 arrest on the misdemeanor charge. According to recordings, Allen spoke of 'a pretty stocky black guy and there's other black guys around in the park that -- you know. . . I'm about to be a statistic here.' As he has before, Allen on Tuesday apologized for those words, saying he did not mean them to be racist. He said he was just giving police what they asked for: a description of what happened. 'That is not me,' he said of accusations that he is a racist."
Allen told WFTV that his comments were taken out of context: "I don't consider that a racist description. The description was of the people outside the facility and inside the facility with me. They described me as an overweight, disheveled white man. I don't consider that a racist description. The description was of the people outside the facility and inside the facility with me."
Allen is scheduled to make a court appearance in the next few days.
Representative Accused Of Racism, Meets With NAACP [wftv]
Apologetic Allen disputes allegations of racism [florida today] (video)
Allen Apologies For Comments [cf news 13]
Posted 8:50 AM EST by Andy in Bob Allen, Florida, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Can anyone point out the exact moment that the NAACP lost their collective minds?
Even if Allen hadn't gone on a racist tirade, it seems entirely inappropriate for the NAACP to invite, or allow, a hypocritical homophobe to speak at one of their meetings.
Is the the NAACP now climbing in bed with the anti-gay, African-American, fundamentalist pastors who seem to believe that anyone who beats up on the gays, regardless of their racist tendancies, is a friend of African-Americans?
Posted by: Zeke | Aug 22, 2007 8:59:51 AM
Guilty until proven innocent.... I am sure that there are many within the African-American community who can identify with that.
It's not like Allen actually cruised the restroom.... you know, walking around and in and out of the restroom, looking for something. It's not like he approached an UNDERCOVER COP and offered him $20 to let Allen perform oral sex on him. Oh wait... yeah he did.
Posted by: Jonathon | Aug 22, 2007 9:16:36 AM
Zeke honey, the whole USA is fuckin nuts! just look around you and see what happening. Surprised the NAACP invited that clown into their midst? It's simple as pie for the powers that be to get any downtrodden minority to vote against its own best interests and the interests of other minorities. Just appeal to and inflame its core superstitions, ignorance and fear. Divide and separate. That's how they've been controlled and will continue to be controlled until they wake up which is probably never.
Posted by: the queen | Aug 22, 2007 9:26:36 AM
How is it that there haven't been calls for this man to resign? This is one of the most ludicrous defenses I've ever heard, yet people are just letting it lie. This country is going to hell, folks.
Posted by: Larry | Aug 22, 2007 9:31:53 AM
Power will get you to sell your soul. Unfortunately these representatives of the African American community are willing to set for much less.I don't have much faith, but I would like to see them wise up and attain true power through their collaboration with the collective community.
Posted by: Rafael | Aug 22, 2007 9:55:13 AM
Oink. Here, piggy piggy.
Posted by: Becks07 | Aug 22, 2007 10:08:20 AM
"Allen spoke of 'a pretty stocky black guy"
Do you think he meant a PRETTY, stocky black guy?
The NAACP is struggling to find cultural relevance beyond its storied history. Many hard fought battles have been won by the civil rights organization in the past but they can't seem to make a meaningful impact in the lives of todays aa's, especially young black men who are increasingly losing their lives to violence and/or the criminal justice system.
To gay men who question the motives/direction of the modern NAACP I say the best way to change it/guide it, is to JOIN IT.
Much like the Jews in the 50's and 60'S who took a remarkably active role in the civil rights movement it seems to me if gay men genuinely want to see a difference in black
america as it relates to homophobia it must become more involved in black america as it relates to itself and the country as a whole.
By becoming more of a presence in the community be it through volunteering, mentoring, hiring or even something as personal as BEFRIENDING, gay men (of every hue) will go a long way in winning the hearts and minds of those who at the moment seem to be out of reach/touch. Make yourself useful by becoming an indispensable ally and you can't be ignored. By seeking to make a difference in someone else's world we will surely make a difference in our own.
It's one thing to consistently point out that the battle for civil rights and the battle for gay rights are one and the same - it's quite another to actually BELIEVE it.
Remember Bayard Rustin!
Posted by: Giovanni | Aug 22, 2007 10:16:20 AM
Oh come on, the goofball wasn't appearing at the NAACP because they were endorsing him. He went there to apologize in person!
Also, this is a local branch of the NAACP, not the national association.
Yesterday, people were jumping to the defense of Darren What's-his-face. A cute white gay guy is accused of racism and it's suddenly impossible for him to have done anything wrong. Darren was INNOCENT until proven guilty (especially since he's a cute, white gay guy) and it's impossible for a gay white guy to be intolerant! Right???
You people are condemning others because they allowed someone to apologize to them.
Arrgh!
As for the lack of calls for resignation, how hard is it to believe that a middle-aged white guy like Commander Doofus doesn't receive the same kind of knee-jerk defense some of you gave to the Pretty Australian? Then again, how many of you jumped to the defense of James "I'm a gay American" McSleazy? Hey, it was okay that he cheated on his wife the night she gave birth to his child, gave his lover a high paying job for which his lover wasn't qualified, and gave corruption a new definition. After all, McSleazy was a handsome white gay guy who was forced into the closet by society!! So, anything he did was justified subterfuge! Right?? As Homer Simpson might say, "Rotten heterosexual society!"
Hypocrisy...
Posted by: noah | Aug 22, 2007 10:22:48 AM
What did he apologize for? That he's part of a racist party that has no need to ever do outreach or even try to be inclusive of blacks?
And, Giovanni, tell it like it is dude, the one thing that could help with the tensions with the AA community and the gay community is for the two to try to work together and UNDERSTAND where both are coming from. As it is now, most blacks shudder at the thought of anything gay, and most gays dismiss blacks and their concerns. Both sides are getting the brunt of societies hates, but, the larger society sees that they can find a few blacks to jump on their bandwagon of hate.
And, Noah, spot on, spot on, sometimes the hypocisy is as heavy as smog on a hot summer day in LA. It seems as though if one is deemed "attractive" they get a pass, us normal folks never do with the cybergays.
Posted by: Sebastian | Aug 22, 2007 10:57:54 AM
McGreevey was not anti-gay Noah, anyway a lot of gays were hostile about him even after he came out. I think we all understand he's at least a moderately shady character. But he was still a liberal Democrat, not an enemy of gays like Allen is. McGreevey also admitted to being gay, while Allen continues to lie. The situations aren't even close to being analogous.
Posted by: Johnny | Aug 22, 2007 11:02:18 AM
NOAH, sorry my friend but your analogies are bogus and of the straw man variety.
First of all, the OVERWHELMING majority of people here condemned McGreevy, often to the point of visceral contempt.
Secondly there is a HUGE difference between calling a person out on his racism based on statements that HE ACKNOWLEDGES he made and which HE stated on the record in an official police interogation, and the allegations of racism that have been denied by the alleged perpetrator.
You are comparing apples and oranges. There is no innocent until proven guilty analogy here. The "pretty Australian" IS innocent until proven guilty because he disputes the accusation. Allen IS guilty of making the comment because he admits it and it is recorded. Can you not see the difference.
If you can show me the proof of "Darren what's his face's" guilt I will be happy to give him the same treatment that I've given Allen.
It's bogus claims and accusations like these that fuel the race vs. orientation "culture wars" that benefit NO ONE but people who hate African-Americans AND gays.
Don't allow yourself to be drafted into being a footsoldier on the frontlines of a culture war invented and prosecuted by racist homophobes.
Posted by: Zeke | Aug 22, 2007 11:49:12 AM
This whole thing is retarded. A clown like Allen apologizing to a bunch of clowns like the NAACP. Allen should just shut up and the NAACP should try to get some relevance back by worrying more about the black-on-black murder rate instead of some "apology" that means nothing.
Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 22, 2007 11:52:21 AM
Noah: I think you need to reread comments here since you seem to be misrepresenting/misunderstanding a lot of them. Allen is also white--we already know what he said and did. Few people here defended McGreevey. Hayes is being caught up in the Big Brother legal system of the UK right now, regardless of what he said. People on this site get angry because they like to get angry I feel--spare us.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Aug 22, 2007 11:53:53 AM
Noah should be back there banging his pots with the Duke lacrosse case like he did in '06.
Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 22, 2007 11:59:41 AM
Well isn't the key point here that Allen is an anti-gay Republican? Anyone who expects gays to side with an anti-gay Republican is out of their minds. We hate him because he's fat and ugly? Like we'd all be willing to ignore that he's aligned with the religious right as long as he was a hottie? What a laughable argument.
Posted by: Johnny | Aug 22, 2007 12:08:18 PM
Actually JoeT, the black on black murder rate affects all of us, not just the black community. As for the Duke lacrosse case, apples and oranges yet again, since the vicious racial slurs that the young
"men" spewed to the strippers was largely ignored by the press who wanted to make them out to be victims when nothing could be further from the truth, when no one in that case was innocent, all acted poorly.
And, also odd how the one guy with the gay bashing record in DC is now some sort of "victim?" I guess we should ask the guy he bashed.
Why is it that anytime its a black person in a story, it turns into a racial, anti-black thread, and not one of the facts? This is the sort of divisviness that the GOP and so called "evangelicals" love, two minorty groups hurling mean words and nonsense at each other, when both should be trying to work with each other.
Posted by: Luke | Aug 22, 2007 12:14:24 PM
No, Luke, the "vicious racial slur" was yelled by ONE person (none of the three arrested, ignoring all due process which the NC NAACP said was just fine, though now of course they're screaming that Michael Vick deserves to be assumed innocent). Also, the slur was in response to the racial slur from one of the strippers. And the media didn't ignore it: they went to town on it to make the white boys look like villains. What they DID ignore was black activist homophobe Victoria Peterson inciting the New Black Panthers to "burn the house down!", and the protestors outside the house (including gay activists) holding up a huge "Castrate" sign. So get your facts straight. Gays made barbaric buffoons of themselves along with black and leftist activists in that case. People like Noah were banging their pots over that case, and what makes it even more hilarious is that Durham has at least 25 black-on-black real rapes every year, as well as one of the highest murder rates in N.C. But...the hatred for white heterosexual males runs deep, huh? You hoped in the Duke case you'd "got some."
Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 22, 2007 12:25:50 PM
And you should also educate yourself on the supposed "gay bashing." Learn the facts. Even the DC Blade said it wasn't a "hate crime." But, again, that was your wishful thinking, wasn't it? "Oooohhh...look, he's a racist rapist and a homophobe too!"
Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 22, 2007 12:29:12 PM
JOE T., the occasional valid points in your (always race related) comments notwithstanding, your anger and bitterness toward all things not-white and not-straight has been made clear at Towleroad repeatedly over the years.
I can't imagine how difficult it would be for you to decide who to side with in the case of a white racist vs. a black homophobe.
Posted by: Zeke | Aug 22, 2007 12:40:48 PM
Thanks for the heads up Zeke, man, I was just not getting where all that rage was coming from although I have seldom found anyone who race baits to have a valid point on anything, oh well, to each his own, hate is wrong, be it race or homophobia. In the end we are all human, and like it or not come from one woman, who happens to have been black, LOL!
Posted by: Luke | Aug 22, 2007 12:47:44 PM
Uh huh. But...that's fine (whether or not I'm hostile to blacks and non-heterosexuals) as long as my points are valid. Are there any points of mine above you disagree with? (with all respect to you, Zeke).
Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 22, 2007 12:48:15 PM
When is this clown's court date? This circus needs to move to the next step where some legal authorities start to rule on the evidence and then this scumbag can't do the Texas side-step.
Posted by: ATLSteve | Aug 22, 2007 12:57:54 PM
At any time during the apology did he use the phrase "Mandingo cock"?
Posted by: chandler in hollywood | Aug 22, 2007 1:15:43 PM
As I said Joe T., you make/made valid points. The Duke LaCross scandal was a disgrace. Thankfully the prosecutor in that case has been convicted and sentenced for his conduct.
What I take particular exception to is your seemingly complete inability to ever challenge white racism or straight homophobia, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that such has occurred. Certainly there are times that even you recognize that there is such a thing. I could be wrong Joe but I can't recall a single time that you ever posted a comment to condemn a white racist or a homophobe. You have, however, repeatedly felt compelled to comment in defense of people accused of being racist or homophobic. Certainly, you are sometimes, if not often, justified in speaking on behalf of those who are accused but I would be more open to your opinions if you didn't have such a consistent bias in favor of straight white men. You seem too eager to side with straight white men over gay people, or black people or gay black people, regardless of the evidence involved, facts known or nature of the issue, complaint or accusation.
I certainly could be mistaken but that is the impression I get from the many comments I've read from you over time.
Am I mistaken when I say that you almost never comment on stories that don't involve claims of racism or homophobia?
Posted by: Zeke | Aug 22, 2007 1:23:01 PM
I say celebrate diversity! But realize in the real world people bring personal issues and enough baggage to fill a ship to the table that squashes that idea. The one thing that will remain is that when oppressed people can't get together and find common ground, the only ones who win are the oppressor and we end up with the ilk of Bush and a Superme Court that says states rights are valid when they put in place legal ways to discrimanate against certain groups. But, all that said, thank goodness that there are still decent people all over the place, in the gay rights movement and in the people of color movement,and a few in the good old GOP for that matter, all who want what this country was built on fairness for all, so, that negative crew can keep that hate just where it is, in their hearts and online.
And, Chandler in Hollywood, do people still use that term?? That was too funny, not PC, but funny!
Posted by: Sebastian | Aug 22, 2007 1:25:37 PM
.
I find it humorous that this is a white man feeding a bunch of baloney (my spelling) to a group of Blacks, when you know he would rather it be the other way around.
.
Posted by: chandler in hollywood | Aug 22, 2007 1:39:18 PM
Zeke: Perhaps I more often agree with those who happen to be Caucasian and Asian or heterosexual. I'm not choosing to agree with them BECAUSE of those reasons. I might not comment on stories regarding white homophobia or racism as much, no. (Though I have sometimes). Of course I think those are wrong , too, but they're probably each less of a pet peeve issue for me, as much as the issue of always feeling the idea of blacks-united-with-gays-versus-white-racist-homophobes often pushed down my throat by ex-Civil Rights activists and the wishful politically-correct, when that whole idea doesn't eem to fit into the world of reality for me. (And the Duke case represented those tired old falsehoods coming to a head at the hands of a bunch of genuinely wicked people, thus my often referencing it). I think you're off-the-mark on a lot of your gay/black ideas, Zeke, but....I can deal with it because I sense you're genuinely well-meaning (not like these probable sociopaths like Luke, who gush "we're all human.." EXCEPT for white heterosexual males. I mean...would you ever leave your son with that guy? Or with the Durham potbangers? At least with me, in reality, you could leave a child of any hue or sexuality and I'd treat him/her with the utmost care).
Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 22, 2007 1:46:24 PM
I suspect, Joe T, that happiness eludes you but hang in there, eventually it will be all over. As for Luke - well I don't have a son yet but when I do I would hope he too would be a humanist.
Posted by: Giovanni | Aug 22, 2007 2:10:53 PM
LOL, not a sociopath JoeT, just a out gay white man sides with people who are trying to do right by others, not as you put it just whites and Asians, the umm, model minority, who to you are always right for whatever reason you seem to feel, and thats cool. And for crying out loud, why would I have issues with white heterosexual males? My dad is one and so are my brothers and most of my friends, so, that tired old GOP code word is as fake here as it is when they put it out to put fear into voters. At last glance, white heterosexual men still run this country but still have the little boy need to find scapegoats for their own shortcomings in life.
Wrong is wrong, be it the prosecutor in the Duke case or the NAACP getting behind Vick or the creep who this thread is about, so, I'll keep living in the real world and not attack people based on my own hangups. No skin off my back, I don't know you and really have no desire to, so, I'll take the sociopath as a compliment as I have a great life and have no need nor interest in bashing or hating or elevating anyone as better for such a trivial reasons as skin color.
Posted by: Luke | Aug 22, 2007 2:22:44 PM
Chandler, that comment was REALLY bad and I'm probably gonna go to hell for laughing so hard I spewed ice tea out of my nose!
Joe T., there may be some people who feel so victimized by straight white men (rightly or wrongly) that they blame them for all the world's problems. I'm certainly not one of them. My best friend (besides my husband) is a straight, white, man and two of the three most important, and most beloved, men in my life are straight, white, males (my son and my father). I too feel that straight, white, men often get more credit than they deserve for being the sole source of all the evil in the world, but I don't let that blind me to, or bias me from, or discourage me from calling a bigot a bigot when it's appropriate.
Just a few days ago, I was savaged on another Towleroad discussion; accused of being a racist white man living in an Ivory Tower with no concern for children of color. This accusation came from an African-American commenter (whom I’ve never seen before or since) who clearly doesn't know me from Adam. When I challenged him to tell me what he had done, other than bitch and moan, to improve the lives of children of color he ignored my question and turned up the viciousness of his attacks against me. When I pointed out that I have been mentoring two young men of color for over 6 years he took the opportunity, as was expected, to mock me for being a person selfishly and self-servingly looking for a pat on the back by helping poor black kids. For no other reason than my race, he considered me to be THE enemy of him and all people of colors. What was I supposed to do in the face of such blind hostility? I took a deep breath and accepted the fact that HE, and HE alone, was a jerk with a chip on his shoulder and an anti-white bias; NOTHING more. He is not a representation of his race or his sexual orientation or anything else. And, for the record, neither am I.
As offended as I was by this person I didn't let the experience affect my consideration of completely unrelated instances where there are accusations of racism against white men. Of course it makes me a bit more skeptical of bogus claims of racism but it doesn’t cause me to see every claim as a malicious and unwarranted assault on white men.
I try my best to consider people on an individual basis and to judge actions on a case by case basis rather than going in with expectations that all gay people, and all people of color PROBABLY have an agenda when they make accusations. Of course some people, regardless of race or sexual orientation, have an agenda attached to everything they do but I don't think the majority of people do. Once again, I could be wrong, but it seems that you, based on your real life experiences and observations, assume that all accusations of sexism, racism or homophobia are part of an anti straight white male agenda, until proven otherwise. The Duke scandal gives good cover for such feelings but don’t forget that the Duke scandal is most certainly the exception rather than the rule.
Regardless of any disagreements that we may have, I want to thank you for your civil and polite discourse with me. We may both learn something from this discussion.
I have no doubt that you, AND Luke, would be perfectly fine to leave my son with, even if we have differences of opinion on certain things. I don't think you are really a racist or a homophobe, even though I think you sometimes come across as one. I wouldn't leave my son with anyone who was a racist or a homophobe. Of course I wouldn't leave my son with anyone based on what I know about them from the discussion boards at Towleroad. :)
Posted by: Zeke | Aug 22, 2007 2:55:33 PM
Well, he'd be safe with me, Zeke...unless he's over seventeen and playing varsity football, then I wouldn't leave him with me.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Aug 22, 2007 5:18:23 PM
Oh HELL NAW Derrick, I know what a freak YOU are!
I wouldn't leave my DOG with your crazy *ss!
Just kiddin'! You know I love ya brother! I'd let you watch over my kid ANY day!
Posted by: Zeke | Aug 22, 2007 10:35:01 PM
Don't worry, Luke. I know just what you are. The sad fact is that you probably walk around in public and others are totally unaware how badly you might want to hurt others. Even to the point of joining with black homophobes if it serves your purpose. (Anybody that wants one of the photos of the "Castrate" sign crowd can email me. Maybe you'll spot Luke. Probably Giovanni too, who can only throw a verbal tomato and say nothing substantial dealing with agreeing or disputing my statements).
Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 22, 2007 11:31:30 PM
Zeke : I might or might not be a racist. I don't know what it means, really. I like and admire certain black individuals (both past and present), and I think anyone who'd be cruel to anyone solely because of race is a sadistic scumbag, but I think the black community is really dysfunctional, both in the U.S. and overseas. So I don't think any black community leaders or reverends have any say over my same-sex preferences when they can't clean their own houses (just like people on here scream that divorced Republicans shouldn't talk about family values). So...label me as you will. (It's just my own, opinion, too, though that almost everything comes down to the individual. I might think a whole race is a trouble-making one, but any individual is capable of anything). You might think the Duke case was the exception to the rule, but I really see it as the revelation to the rest of the country to underlying hatreds. (At least there were some black heros in it, like Ed Bradley and Professor Coleman. No gay heros). I have lots of problems with the "gay community" too, but I'm not homophobic. If you saw me on the other side, arguing against certain homophobes, you'd see that. I think nobody has educated others about Plato, Alexander, Turing, Newton, DaVinci (and all the other homosexuals who changed history so drastically that every hetero life would be so much poorer without them) more than I. And, in spite of the obvious Panzrams, Gacys, and Dahmers we see on Towleroad wishing death and AIDS on others, you should hear me take on the conservative fanatics that have tried to claim most of the top ten serial killers were homosexual. They messed with someone who knows too much about True Crime. (Thanks).
Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 22, 2007 11:53:36 PM
The Duke case was interesting because the prosecutor did what any normal prosecutor in a similar case would have done (and this does not say much for normal prosecutors, but the law works this way) but he didn't count on having to fight the almighty power that is Duke Sports. Without the privilege of that protection, the players would have certainly gone to trial and probably convicted. In that sense they were the typical privileged athletes who got away with a sex crime (this happens quite often), even though in this case the evidence suggests they were innocent. The irony is rather thick I suppose. Few of us would receive the same protection if falsely accused.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Aug 23, 2007 12:18:20 AM
No, anon. Their season was canceled, and 88 (primarily) gay, black, and feminist professors turned against them and thanked the protestors for arriving with their death threats as well as helping to put every face of every athlete on a Wanted poster. Duke turned against them. "Duke sports power" had nothing to do with it. Why do you think Duke just had to pay big bucks to the defendents? To avoid the lawsuits (bad publicity). And, yes, of course they would have been convicted in Durham County, solely because of being white, heterosexual, upper middle class Northerners. As the vindicated Reade Seligmann stated (approximate quote): "I couldn't imagine what happens to (railroaded) defendents who don't have the legal resources I did." With Nifong having a DNA lab lie, it makes you wonder how many innocents are in prison in Durham County.
Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 23, 2007 12:39:22 AM
The vast majority of sexual crimes against women on any college campus in America not only go unprosecuted they go unreported as well. One disturbed girl does not an innocent demographic make.
Posted by: Giovanni | Aug 23, 2007 10:00:56 AM
If they go unreported, how do you know they happened? Their Myspace pages?
Once again, Giovanni shows up to defend the "people of color" against the mean white establishment.
Male, White Hetero (and Homo, apparently)= BAD, BAD, BAD!!!!
Posted by: jmg | Aug 23, 2007 10:17:24 AM
Actually, Jackass, there is no mentioning of race in my post.
Posted by: Giovanni | Aug 23, 2007 10:32:50 AM
As for the rest of your comment, if your head really is that far up your ass regarding sexual assaults on college campuses, google it.
Posted by: Giovanni | Aug 23, 2007 10:50:06 AM
JMG : Come on, now. You might feel Zeke does that too much, but if you read his posts above you'll see he's being fair here.
Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 23, 2007 11:52:44 AM
Ooops. My mistake, JMG. You were talking about someone else. Sorry.
Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 23, 2007 11:56:19 AM
While we're on the subject, some of you (others out there reading this, not some of the apparent sadists on ths board) should read the op ed by Allan Gurganus that was in the New York Times back in '06. You gotta read this lisping creep, who thinks he's THE writer of the "new south", expressing both contempt for those racist lacrosse rapists (of course there's no question in his mind that they did it) at the same time seeming to drop indications of his sexual desire for them (their "Ambercrombie appeal"). The whole thing is very creepy, and shows true gay hatred (yeah, Gurganus is an individual and doesn't represent all gays...hi Zeke). Like so many others, Gurganus hides from any questions on that piece now. But you just know, like most of his kind, if he could magically press a button to plant evidence that would make those guys appear guilty all over again he'd do so.
Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 23, 2007 12:07:37 PM
I can't stand politicians who use gay people as a wedge issue to either court the bigots' votes or as a neurotic way to deal with their own self-esteem problems.
But we need to keep Senator Allen's "crime" in perspective: He tapped his foot and the officer apparently read his mind about what he "wanted" to do.
While people with his voting record possibly don't deserve the freedom they have (and therefore it may be fun to watch his embarrassment), the prospect of anyone being arrested for thought crimes doesn't bode well for anyone.
Posted by: GregV | Aug 28, 2007 12:22:37 PM
Sorry, my mistake, I think in my comment above, the "foot tapping" thing refers to the (similar) case of senator Craig from Idaho.
Posted by: GregV | Aug 28, 2007 12:47:08 PM