WASHINGTON - Idaho Sen. Larry Craig’s political support eroded by the hour on Wednesday as fellow Republicans in Congress called for him to resign and party leaders pushed him unceremoniously from senior committee posts.

The White House expressed disappointment, too — and nary a word of support for the 62-year-old lawmaker, who pleaded guilty earlier this month to a charge stemming from an undercover police operation in an airport men’s room.

Craig “represents the Republican Party,� said Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, the first in a steadily lengthening list of GOP members of Congress to urge a resignation.

Craig said Tuesday he had committed no wrongdoing and shouldn’t have pleaded guilty. He said he had only recently retained a lawyer to advise him in the case that threatens to write an ignominious end to a lifetime in public office.

Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Norm Coleman of Minnesota joined Hoekstra in urging Craig to step down, as did Rep. Jeff Miller of Florida.

McCain spoke out in an interview with CNN. “My opinion is that when you plead guilty to a crime, you shouldn’t serve. That’s not a moral stand. That’s not a holier-than-thou. It’s just a factual situation.�

Coleman said in a written statement, “Senator Craig pled guilty to a crime involving conduct unbecoming a senator.�
link

1. Should the Republican Party demand Sen. Craig's resignation or stand by him?

2. Does the fact that Sen. Craig pleaded guilty to charges of lewd conduct weaken his claim of innocence?

3. Is Sen. Craig a person worthy of sympathy or scorn?


SPECIAL PLEA: Please do not turn this thread into a flame war between gays and straights. This is not a debate on whether being homosexual or heterosexual is cooler. This is a provocative political issue being discussed nationally. I would hope it can be discussed on with civility and respect for the other person's position. If not we're fated only to be able to discuss our choices in movies and favorite recipes for sloppy joes.

I question the questions. Why should the Republican Party demand the Senators resignation? Is being gay a crime? He likes guys. Oh well. Certainly, there is irony involved since the Republican Party is suffering from a series of hypocritcal party members' preferences. You can't be the party that opposes gay marriage and have members of your leadership being gay. It is an argument ad hominen to attack the messenger, but the Republicans have put themselves in this position. Sen. Craig should be judged on his ability to govern, not whether he likes penis or not. It's sad that we have debates like this because it exposes America for what it really is, a regressive country that can't handle the responsibility of freedom. The Red, White, and Blue embarasses itself again.

I question the law. Lewd conduct is a matter of outcome. Let's say he rubs up on the man's leg in the bathroom and they wind up in a hotel room sweating and panting. Is that against the law? If so, the law needs to be changed to no law at all. Don't govern my sexual preference. Or any preference for that matter. The plead is meaningless. The lie we tell ourselves is that you are innocent until proven guilty. Actually, you're innocent until you're proven innocent and then you live with the cloud of suspicion, but usually, you're guilty no matter what. You can't actually fight a case at any level of the court system unless you have enough money. So really you're guilty if you're poor and you have a chance if you're rich. So they should change the statue of Lady Liberty. Instead of holding a scale, she should be holding some dice, because it's really a crap shoot and the odds favor the house.

Is Craig worthy of sympathy? No. You can't sympathize with someone who is too cowardly to be who he really is. He's a sell out, so I don't sympathize. I do scorn our media and our citizens for engaging in such talk like we have the right to asks these sorts of questions about people's personal choices. A nation at war is discussing one man's sexual orientation.

The ones who are calling for his resignation have hit the nail on the head. Kudos to them for doing the right thing in calling for his head. the bleacher gallery bloggers have also refused to defend Craig. The party leadership has done a good thing in taking away his committee assignments. It's good they are not footsying around about this.



His claim of innocence means nothing. He plead guilty and as such, he is guilty. Whether he felt the matter would be hushed up is inconsequential to the matter.



I believe that he is worthy of scorn. Instead of leaving quietly or tearfully apologizing, he blamed the media for his grief. Larry Craig's problem is due to Larry Craig and his use of a common foot tap that is known by all people involved in the sordid matter that he was involved in. The man has not been honest, he has been trying to play the role of the victim by blaming the media. I think he is hoping that he can pass it off as a big mistake and something tht awas misconstrued on the part of the police. However, the people of Idaho aren't buying it.

1. Should the Republican Party demand Sen. Craig's resignation or stand by him?

I think they ought to stand by him. Senator Craig has, until recently, been loyal and not an embarrassment to the GOP.

Of course, political parties have also been known for doing things out of a sense of expediency rather than loyalty.

2. Does the fact that Sen. Craig pleaded guilty to charges of lewd conduct weaken his claim of innocence?

Well, yeah. Reminds me, however, of a Shakespearean quote, "Methinks the [senator] doth protest too much" the way he has been vociferously denying that he is homosexual. I think he's digging the hole deeper for himself.

3. Is Sen. Craig a person worthy of sympathy or scorn?

He is no more and no less worthy of scorn or sympathy than any other human being. I do think that he could use a little more dignity, though. It does seem like a lot of the most vocal public figures against homosexuality have been outed lately, whether Senator Craig is one of those people or not.

1. Should the Republican Party demand Sen. Craig's resignation or stand by him?

He pled guilty, so I think he should resign.

2. Does the fact that Sen. Craig pleaded guilty to charges of lewd conduct weaken his claim of innocence?

Yes, his guilty plea makes his claim of innocence untenable.

3. Is Sen. Craig a person worthy of sympathy or scorn?

I have some sympathy for him. He won't admit to himself that he's gay, and that has to be a terrible way to go through life. I'd feel more scorn if he'd publicly denounced homosexuality, but I don't think he has. Glenn Greenwald would be thrilled if he could find a quote from Senator Craig denouncing homosexuality, but the best he's been able to come up with is Craig criticizing Bill Clinton for infidelity. That works for the standard "hypocrisy" charge (Senator Craig is married), but it's not quite a self-hating-gay money-quote.


I agree to this extent: there should be no law against gay sex in private places, like homes or hotels. Fortunately, the Supreme Court also agreed, in Lawrence v. Texas.

It's possible that some of the people arrested in this sting were intending to take their newfound acquaintances back to a hotel, and it would be a shame if they ended up with a criminal record because of that. But that's not why the cops were there. The airport restroom where Senator Craig was arrested was a well-known spot for finding anonymous sex in the stalls:


I've got no problem with gay people meeting each other and having sex, but I don't see why it should be allowed in airport toilets.

1. Should the Republican Party demand Sen. Craig's resignation or stand by him?
I agree with Jobius here. He should resign, IMO.

2.Does the fact that Sen. Craig pleaded guilty to charges of lewd conduct weaken his claim of innocence?
Yes, entirely. By pleading guilty he has discredited himself.

3.Is Sen. Craig a person worthy of sympathy or scorn?

Personally, I feel a lot of sympathy for him...and I question this method for arresting people. If the Senator had actually dropped trou and engaged in lewd conduct in the restroom, that would be one thing. Solicitation for sex is another. Why is that illegal? It isn't. And how is the policeman to know if he would have stayed in the restroom or gone to a hotel? At any rate, if there is evidence that the Senator has been publicly denouncing homosexuality I would feel less sympathetic, but at this point in time I just feel very sorry for him.

He has a clear record of being a hypocrite. He voted for the defense of marraige act and voted to cut off debate and have a quick vote on a proposed amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage. He also voted against a provision that would have added sexual orientation to the list of reasons why a person can't be unfairly fired. His actions and his votes are pretty hard evidence as to why some people view him as a hypocrite.




I agree with you here. I'm sure if a person is looking to hook up that way, they can put a personal ad in the paper, hit a bar like the one in the police academy movies, or browse the internet. Hitting the airport for that reason isn't logical when the demonstrated facts show it was utilized for something else to be done on the scene, as opposed to picking someone up and taking them home. his intent was to "cruise" the bathroom and have a good time there, not to bring the person home.

1. Should the Republican Party demand Sen. Craig's resignation or stand by him?
Give him the boot. Strip his committee memberships, and urge him to resign. Have the full Senate censor him. If he doesn't, modify the NRSC rules so that he doesn't get funding for re-election, and mount a primary challenge against him.

Note that my stance on this has nothing to do with the orientation of the Senator, and everything to do with a Senator guilty of lewd conduct in a public restroom. Lewd is lewd, regardless of orientation.

2.Does the fact that Sen. Craig pleaded guilty to charges of lewd conduct weaken his claim of innocence?
Well, yes. Now, the only possible mitigating circumstance is that Sgt. Karsnia of the airport police has been known to support over-zealous police work in the past. Link is to a story of a guy arrested and physically abused by Minneapolis airport police for riding a bicycle.



Now, as the Minnesota Monitor article that Jobius linked notes, this restroom was a noted hookup place, which is why the Sgt. was there in the first place. I think that this is probably good police work, and that the Senator was indeed probably looking for a hookup. Moreover, based on what I read on the gay hookup websites regarding how observant the cleaning crew etc. are, I bet that the vast majority of these hookups are for public sex in the restroom. Sorry, but you have to have a boarding pass to even get to the restroom. Sure, there are going to be people who just landed in Minny, and they may go to nearby hotels, but the majority (like the Senator) are on their way somewhere else, just looking to, er, blow off a little steam.

It's bad enough that some of these creeps have ruined highway rest stops, which should be safe for traveling families. Now, I have to worry about sending my child into the restroom at an airport for fear of perverts in the stalls. Sorry, no sympathy from me. Lock 'em up.

3.Is Sen. Craig a person worthy of sympathy or scorn?
Both. Blaming his problems on the media was cowardly, as is his refusal (so far) to resign. He needs to re-evaluate his life and figure out what he wants.

BUT - he's not a hypocrite. Case in point:


Defense of Marriage Act - Why do you have to support re-defining marriage, just because you enjoy a little clandestine action in the airport? Why would this kink make you think that a child shouldn't be raised in a home by a man and wife?

Sexual orientation / firing - Same case. Granting special rights to gays is a requirement for everyone who enjoys restroom hummers? Really? Sounds like someone who does this may recognize that (some) gay activity could potentially even disrupt a workplace. Say you worked as an airport restroom cleaner, for instance... There are plenty of laws protecting employees in the workplace; all of this PC sensitivity crap is a joke anyway.

Why do you have to support the entire agenda of HRC or the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force or ACTUP just because you swing both ways? Let me try this. Note that alcoholism is a disease and being gay is not. I'm just making an example.

Say the Senator was a drinker. Yet, he supported the ban on Sunday sales of alcohol. He supported higher taxes and more restrictions on sales. He supported lowering the BAC and other stronger drunken driving laws. Then, he gets arrested for drunk driving. Does that make him a hypocrite? No it doesn't. It makes him weak and human. He recognized that the activity was potentially harmful to society, he helped legislate to protect the public good, and yet he was weak and could not stop himself. Same thing here. You can argue the psychology of self-loathing or gay denial, but to fail to conform to the gay lobby's agenda 100% of the time does not make you anti-gay, nor a hypocrite.

I completely hear what you're saying, but I think being bi-sexual is probably the coolest...lol. I'm kidding.

Seriously, this is par for the course these days for "so called" conservatives. A dude preaches about conduct and family values, then pleads guilty to this. Why would you plead guilty if you didn't do anything? I personally don't know how foot tapping in a bathroom is a crime, but maybe I'm missing pieces of that puzzle. He plead guilty.

I hit a redneck (*I know- some of y'all are saying that I'm the pot calling the kettle black*) at Mardi Gras years ago and plead no contest to get me out of court. It was in self defense, but I knew I was guilty of hitting the dude regardless. Why did I not fight it? Well- because I hit him. Seems pretty simple.

The idea that he's now saying he's innocent is literally absurd. I think it's ridiculous. This dude needs to be kicked out of Washington by a rainbow colored boot.

I need to change my "republican" status... I just haven't done it. I suppose I consider myself a "real" conservative. Does the way that the Republican party act change what a Republican should be? hmm....

1. Should the Republican Party demand Sen. Craig's resignation or stand by him?


I'm disappointed in the public reactions of certain members of the GOP on this one. It's one thing to quietly talk to Craig about the situation and give him some advice on it in private. Going public and seeking out the first camera they can find ala Chuck Shumer to throw him under the bus is a pretty crappy and petty thing to do. Not to mention cowardly. There would be more dignified ways to do this than what's happened. Some of those folks are clueless.

Were I to advise Sen Craig, in private, I would tell him to consider his personal life to be sure, but I would also advise him to consider whether or not he can continue to effectively represent the people of the State of Idaho in the US Senate. At this point I don't think he can and so I'd advise him it would be best for him, and for the people who elected him to resign.


2. Does the fact that Sen. Craig pleaded guilty to charges of lewd conduct weaken his claim of innocence?

Duh....... Ya think?

3. Is Sen. Craig a person worthy of sympathy or scorn?

I do feel a bit of sympathy for the guy on a personal level because he is absolutely getting hammered by everyone and their brother. There's a feeding frenzy right now in the national media over all of this. As far as scorn is concerned, it depends on what he does now and how he handles everything. If he does it right, then no, no scorn.


Aquilla

Here's the police report and here's a reenactment of Craig's bathroom shenanigans.

Yes it's creepy. Yes he may have asked for sex right then and there, but he didn't get a chance to and we'll never know. He pled guilty to a misdemeanor. If people feel trolling the stall and signaling you're ready to have sex is so terrible it should be more than misdemeanor. (The real crime was putting his eyeball between the gap and staring imo. Dude, some privacy.) I think Craig's pathetic for blaming the media into pressuring him to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, but I don't think he should resign. Men aren't arrested for trolling sidewalks with undercover hookers. Men aren't arrested, as far as I know, for even trying to convince a date to have sex in public. I think the law might be worded in such a way that it presumes public sex will occur 99% of the time. It's the equivalent of shopping for hookers without exchanging money. So much for our concerned thought crime citizens.

If I would suggest anything to Craig it would be to come forward about his homosexuality and leave it to his constituents to decide if that's all right with them.

Neither. Let the voters decide.
He isn't innocent. He's at most a closeted gay man, at the very least a closeted bisexual who's free to continue lying to himself and his family, but he's all done lying to me. I have no sympathy for hypocrites. Guess that leaves scorn...and amusement. Shoot me if I find it funny when a pontificating, self-righteous ideologue gets caught with his pants down.

That's a fair comment, which I believe was directed my way...

As I noted in my post, 99% might be the number, though. Reading the reviews of this famous restroom, even the hookup sites note that you need a boarding pass to get there. Let's see - 2 strangers meet in a bathroom at a hub international airport, both with boarding passes. What percent of the time would you estimate they go get a room in Minny or that they would have the same destination city, where they would delay gratification until they arrive? 5%? 10%? At the squirt.org site, it's listed as the #1 cruising site in Minnesota, "The best site for anonymous action I've ever seen," one poster said. "Plenty of stall action." Again, they stationed a Sargeant in the stall - not a cheap solution if this weren't much of a problem.

But, you do raise an important question - what to do when no sex actually happened. Hence, the lewd conduct charge. If some stall-neighbor touches my foot in the stall, stares through the crack, swipes his hand underneath, I'd call that lewd, and that's what the Senator got. Is just the signaling lewd? Probably not, but the staring could be.

My "send them all to jail" comments were for people that actually engage in this activity in public. At beaches, parks, truck stops, and yes airport restrooms. It's for the children.

On edit - -Reading the topic in the title (I am not gay. I have never been gay), I just wish the senator were cool enough to have said "not that there's anything wrong with that" in his presser. Just once.

1. Should the Republican Party demand Sen. Craig's resignation or stand by him?

Why should a U.S. Senator, who embodies the sovereign choice of the people of his state, resign over a mere misdemeanor, whether sex-related or not? Only in the imaginations of social conservatives are Republican leaders any more free of homosexual impulse (or any other impulse of the human appetite) than other group of people, and I fail to see that any U.S. Senator should resign to preserve the illusion.

If being a four-star hypocrite and a liar were any grounds for a Senator resigning, most of them on both sides of the aisle would have to resign.

2. Does the fact that Sen. Craig pleaded guilty to charges of lewd conduct weaken his claim of innocence?

Senator Craig is guilty by his own admission. Unable to come to grips with impulses that he regards as a weakness, or with the public's knowing about them at any rate, he now wants to have it both ways. But he can't.

Carlitoswhey: Court was the place to argue this business about the police sergeant's supposed excess of zeal. Court is over now.

3. Is Sen. Craig a person worthy of sympathy or scorn?

All social conservatives are worthy of scorn, whether or not they are gay: scorn for their willingness to allow the tyranny of the group, and its close cousin, organized religion, to impede the general pursuit of happiness; scorn for spreading irrational fear of those who don't conform. But social conservatives who are gay are worthy of special scorn, not for being gay, but for being hypocrites.

Might. You don't know. What's more, this is the assumption behind that Texas law we both find unacceptable.


The way I read the comments the "best site for anonymous action" has been downgraded because it now requires a boarding pass. That Craig was looking for some anon action is obvious. What you don't know is whether Craig was willing to miss his flight. He appears to have been cutting it close when he told Karsnia that he'd miss his flight. In fact, I think he did.

Craig was worried about missing his flight. Detective Nelson tried to call the airline to hold the plane. The airline did not answer the phone.

At 1215 Craig entered the stall. By 1222 they had him in custody. Quickies can be fabulously short, but would he have been able to wham, bam, thank you sir without calling attention to himself and make it to the terminal on time? I dunno.


His staring is better construed as an invasion of privacy, a violation that isn't sexually oriented, in my opinion. According to Nolo: Lewd contact between heterosexuals usually includes any conduct that is considered indecent or offensive. Today the term is often used when referring to pornography, prostitution and indecent exposure. (Nolo's dictionary is down atm so I have to link this newzine.) I can't help but wonder if there's a different definition of lewd conduct for homosexuals granting uninterested heterosexual men getting hit on extra protection.


I don't have a problem with this. I agree with you. But I don't think, besides rudely invading someone's privacy while they're supposedly dropping wolf bait into the throne, there was anything lewd about Craig's come on, unless a homosexual come on is lewd by definition.

I hear what you all are saying, and guess I'm on the fence.

My question would be that if he did plead guilty, apparently not being a stupid man, why is there any debate? The man said he did it. In my opinion if this is an issue, there has to be a way to stop it. What does the "line" have to be?

Maybe the officer should've waited for him to mention sex? What are the laws on prostitution?

It seems to me that there should've been some direct solicitation other than a finger wave. Then again I really don't know much about how those laws work. If the cop immediately identified himself, and the senator assumed that he was busted... and plead guilty to keep it under wraps and stay out of prison, I understand that.

If he plead guilty to something that wasn't even a crime, that's another story I guess. Or is it?

I agree completely with Vladmir [let's stop for a minute and take this moment in, Vladmir ].


Why should he resign? For pleading guilty to a misdemeanor [on the same level as a moving violation in a car]? Or for making foot contact in a bathroom? Or should he resign for being a hypocrite. Ha. As Vladmir stated, if hypocrisy was a legitimate reason for resignation, we would have anarchy [hmmm...]. There is no reason for Craig to resign; if constituents reject his behavior they will vote him out, end of story. Besides, every good congressional Republican knows: it ain't queer unless you get married


Well yeah. Pleading guilty to a midemeanor and then saying you aren't guilty of a misdemeanor would weaken your argument. This however, is irrelevant as he has done nothing warranting dismissal.

Neither. He is worthy of my sarcastic commentary. He's a joke, this entire situation is a punchline. There's no reason for outrage nor is there any reason to feel sorry for the man. He should be made fun of and then forgotten.

CP

Well I stand corrected. Apparently you can be arrested for loitering with the intent to commit prostitution. Intent is up to the police's discretion. Wonderful.

Anyway, I want to point out that Craig wasn't arrested for staring into the stall. He was arrested for telling Karsnia he was looking to hook up through body language. Karsnia wouldn't know where Craig wanted to have sex without being able to speak to him. He could act the clueless homosexual and whisper "Here?" or point to the floor and open his hand as if asking a question. Then he would have an idea whether Craig wanted to have public sex and not have to arrest the Senator based on an assumption. Am I asking for a lot in an age of warrantless wiretapping?

1. Should the Republican Party demand Sen. Craig's resignation or stand by him?

This one is the hardest for me to answer. The hypocrisy card would make me ask him for a resignation if I were in the republican leadership- his effectiveness in any anti-gay debate is essentially destroyed, and his credibility is reduced to 0 as well. I am thinking the voters MAY be smart enough to remove him, but it is hard to say in this age of idiotic voters

I would certainly strip him of all commitee chairs if I were in the republican leadership.

2. Does the fact that Sen. Craig pleaded guilty to charges of lewd conduct weaken his claim of innocence?

Duh. He did it, admitted to it, and now wants to retract it.

3. Is Sen. Craig a person worthy of sympathy or scorn?

Social conservatives that act all pious and "family values" that are secretly leading double lives deserve total scorn, and derision, and shame and humiliation at every turn. He should not be able to walk into a public place without being pointed at, laughed at, or even screamed curse words at his person.

In your opinion. I have a hunch that, were it a guy staring at you in a restroom stall, you might find it sexually something, if not lewd. Keep in mind that men's rooms are a little different from the ladies' in that we have our stuff, um, handy to show off. Sometimes (I hear) the guys show you what they've got in the urinals, then you can discretely go to a stall and have your quickie. I'm sure I sound like an idiot, but I'm not about to go read about all of the signaling that goes on.

I will say, pursuant to my earlier comments about 'the children,' that the few times I have heard these things going on, the gentlemen were not being discreet. Of course, that was in a nightspot where things are a little looser.


I have to wonder whether giving heterosexual men extra protection is any worse than giving gay men extra rights... Which reminds me, the word "hypocrisy" has appeared in about 8 posts without anyone rebutting my point on that subject.


I can't find the point scoring for misdemeanors in Minnesota anywhere online, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a misdemeanor disorderly conduct or lewd conduct conviction is worse than a traffic ticket. Think of the last time you filled out a job application. You probably saw this:

Have you ever been convicted of a crime other than minor traffic violations or as a youthful
offender? Mere conviction of a crime is not an automatic bar to employment. All factors will be
considered.

This ain't a traffic violation, and the Senator ain't youthful. His future employers will find this conviction of interest.

Republicans have a pretty decent record of eating their own... see also Trent Lott. However, they should have asked for his resignation when he plead guilty a few months ago.
Yes but it also weakens any claim he has of having a modicum of intelligence.
Depends. Is he Gay or Straight? If he's Straight and innocent then he deserves our sympathy for getting himelf in a really bad situation by tapping his foot in the gayest airport restroom in North America. If he's Gay and has been lying to his wife and the world then he deserves our scorn. I'll leave the question of if he's Bi to someone else.

**Jalepenos are the secret to great Sloppy Joe's

Well, actually, we did have this female in the platoon who could not stop staring whenever we were lined up naked in the squad bay. Whether she was a lesbian or not, who knows. But we couldn't stop laughing at her expense when the DI would repeatedly yell at her for failing to keep her eyeballs straight ahead.


What you're describing is not what happened. What you're describing also falls under the lewd definition I gave. That is, exposing your junk.


Oh, not the anti-extra rights gay marriage argument again. I can turn your anti-hypocritical stance on its head by criticizing Craig for believing he has the right to enjoy the kinky sort of homosexual encounters he trolls for and at the same time thinks he has the right to deprive other homosexuals of enjoying committed sex in a recognized marriage. Reckless sex is good—oh so naughty good—if you're a homosexual (but not if you're a heterosexual). Committed sex is very bad if you're a homosexual (but good if you're a heterosexual). Very bad!

What a jerk and yes, a hypocrite.

Sound advice. I'd like to see him face a primary challenger and lose rather than resign-I like to think that I have some faith in my fellow citizens.


the question had to do with being a hypocrite. If I cheated on my wife and advocated that gays shouldn't marry, that would be hypocritical of me-period.



As opposed to?



Straight people do this kind of thing too, not all of the evils of the world came about due to homosexuals. Any public sexual act with any person is not legal, no one is claiming that people have that right.



Being a drinker and wanting abstinence on sunday doesn't make him a hypocrite. If he gets drunk on sunday and gets caught-then he is a hypocrite.

If he supported stronger drunken driving laws and gets caught, he is a hypocrite.

It's a simple definition really-not living up to the values that you believe everyone else should live up to. In the amusing, sad cases of Ted Haggard and Larry Craig, it's pretending to be Mr. perfect married man and voting the "family values" ticket 100% of the time, while you are out in bathrooms or lord knows where elsewhere. It's one thing to say that you have weaknesses and that you believe people should change their behavior. If he admitted he was gay and tried to start a group to do "conversion therapy" for homosexuals, then your example would be relevant. However, he was married, he denied past allegations, and then proceeded to vote against a segment of the population that he was very much a part of. He pretended to be the perfect married man who "defended marriage."



He did it out of the goodness of his heart? I'm sorry, I don't buy that. For your line of reasoning to work there, he would have to admit that he was gay and be genuine in his desire to help others. He can't admit his own predilections, therefore his "sincerity" is not present here. He acted out of selfish interest and politics, not out of concern.

What is potentially harmful to society? Voting against gay marriage because of people hooking up in stalls? Wouldn't the reverse be true? Wouldn't you want to encourage people to marry rather than to cavort around like that? Wouldn't voting against gay marriage actually endorse that kind of behavior? The republican party is for promiscuity and irresponsibility among the gay populace?

Should the Republican Party demand Sen. Craig's resignation or stand by him?

I don't really care what they do. Nothing is going to make the "moral wing" of the party look any less hypocritical than it already does. I'd recommend neither of the above and would suggest they just let him serve out his term as quietly as possible, throwing all their weight behind whoever opposes him in the next primary, should he be idiotic enough to run again. Either way, his career is in the toilet. Yeah, pun intended.

Does the fact that Sen. Craig pleaded guilty to charges of lewd conduct weaken his claim of innocence?



His guilty plea isn't the only thing weakening his claim. I mean, come on - the "wide stance" defense is one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard in my life. If one is sitting on a toilet with one's trousers around one's ankles, how does one possibly effect a wide enough stance to span the width of a toilet stall on both sides? Does the senator have a sixty-inch waist? Or is the Honorable Gentleman admitting that he was sitting in a toilet stall with his trousers fastened? If that's the case, then he was either trolling for sex or else - ew - he might want to compare notes with Sen. David Vitter (a.k.a. "Diaper Man").

The rationalization for repeatedly reaching under the next stall and waving his hand might be seen as equally ridiculous ("I was picking up a piece of paper"), but I'm a bit more willing to accept this one. On more than one occasion, I've noticed men dropping pieces of paper under toilet partitions, usually with pleasantries like "wow - youve got a big one" written on them. The senator may actually be telling the truth in this instance... Okay, so no paper was found. Maybe he panicked and ate it. Makes as much sense as anything else the good senator has said.

As to the reasoning behind pleading guilty to a charge of which he was innocent, well... I'm afraid Sen. Craig's logic escapes me here. If he was innocent in thought, word, and deed, then why was his reaction to the officer's badge being flashed under the partition "NOOO!" rather than "What the hell are you doing?" Why, when asked for his driver's license prior to his interview, did he instead throw down a business card identifying himself as a US Senator, saying "What do you think about that?" rather than simply producing his license? If he were innocent, why would he resort to a display of power and position to get him off? Er - no pun intended this time.

Meh - who knows? Maybe he's not gay. Maybe he's just certifiably insane.

I should add here that I remain uncomfortable with this sort of entrapment operation - and the potential "thought crime" implied in assuming that any contact in a public restroom necessarily implies a desire for sex on the spot. While it certainly looks as though Craig was seeking sex right there in the stall, there is no proof of his actual intent. It is possible that he would've invited the policeman to a hotel room for a glass of burgundy and some discreet anilingus. Assuming that the footsie and hand signals meant Craig was willing to drop to his knees then and there is not what I would call "provable". While the police work here seems to have been more "by the book" than Perverted Justice's vigilante stings (it was Craig who initiated the whole thing, for example, not the decoy), there was still no actual crime committed. In fact, several legal experts have claimed that, on the basis of the purported evidence, Craig could easily have beaten even the "disorderly conduct" rap, had he not confessed to the crime.

Is Sen. Craig a person worthy of sympathy or scorn?

I'm going to go with scorn here. I'm not happy with the sting operation and don't believe it constitutes grounds for a charge of "lewd conduct" (unless that dropped note really did exist). But I am so over self-loathing queers who not only damage themselves and their pathetic families in their desperate eagerness to be "accepted" by those who hate them as much as they hate themselves, but who also damage the entire gay community. Forty years ago, I might have been more sympathetic - men like Craig may have had fewer options (though no more justification for rank hypocrisy). But Stonewall was thirty-eight years ago and people at least have the option now of being honest - with themselves, with their families, and with their communities. It's fine for people to remain closeted if they're that frightened of their own sexuality or the homophobia of society at large - so long as they are only damaging themselves and their so-called loved ones. But there is no excuse for such people to espouse positions that can destroy the lives of others like themselves who are being honest. The man's entire life is a fraud - and he has practiced his sanctimonious deceit at the expense of many, many innocents.

Besides, the man is not only a deranged hypocrite, he is almost terminally stupid - at least, if every single aspect of this case is anything to go by. The fact that he has somehow managed to dupe enough constituents into electing him to the United States Senate almost demands scorn just to redress the balance - and maybe wake a few voters up. Hello, American public: When you hear a Republican talking about morality and family values, it's time to start looking for the hookers, hustlers, and teenage boys.


And not even "cool" enough - just decent enough. Too many people - Craig included - are treating this as though being gay were the crime. Like sex in a public toilet would be just fine if it had been a female crack whore rather than a male cop. Then again, it seems that sex with female prostitutes is just fine - look at the difference in the way "Pampers" Vitter is being treated by the party faithful. Of course, this may not be homophobia as much as political opportunism: sex crimes committed by senators under a Republican governor (like Craig) are intolerable and the culprit must resign because their successor will still be a Republican, but sex crimes committed by senators under a Democratic governor (like Vitter) are no biggie because - horrors - it could result in another Democrat in Congress. In that context, tapping your foot in a bathroom is practically impeachable, but scatological sex with streetwalkers is hunky-dory. Ah, Republicans - you gotta love 'em.

The same could be said for the difference between Craig's sex in public toilets in an election year vs. Craig's sex in public toilets in an off year. When Mike Rogers reported, a few weeks before last year's election, that Craig had repeatedly had sex with anonymous men in public bathrooms, the right wing - red in tooth and claw - leapt on... Rogers. With the midterm election safely behind us - and Craig's toilet sex arising far enough away from the next election - the same politicians, pundits, and bloggers are all over Craig like white on rice. (Glenn Greenwald had an entertaining item on this last Tuesday - and, I just noticed, an item today about Craig vs. Vitter.)

In any event, it would seem the moral relativism of the GOP knows no bounds. Officer Karsnia probably put it best during the course of his interrogation (after Craig had, again, lied to him): "Embarrassing, embarrassing. No wonder we're going down the tubes." No wonder, indeed.

I agree. It's the hypocrisy that really ticks me off.

That's funny! It's all about power not morality. You wonder what it's going to take before the social conservatives recognize they've been had. That's the truth. Tom Delay was trying to straighten things out for all of us last night on tv but failed miserably, imo. Social conservatives have been standing on the moral-relativism-as-left-wing-evil soapbox even though it's been obvious for decades that their members are no better than anyone else. For some reason they think an apology and 2-3 weeks of Jesus camp makes it all go away. It doesn't.

But Senator Craig is 62 years old. He was in the military when they had actual witch-hunts for homosexuals (a friend of my dad was kicked out of the military for simply displaying "overaffection" after getting drunk at a squadron party...hell, they could and often would even bug your home in military housing if you were accused). Craig has likely lived his entire life around this lie, and that isn't exactly surprising for that generation....when almost everyone but the terminally effeminate would try to "pass"....for rather sound reasons like personal employment and social acceptance. Once a person lives his life around a lie, it's very difficult to become unembroiled. I'm reminded of The Human Stain. I think people are being a rather harsh with this Senator. It's really a pitiable situation, IMO.

And there are both politically conservative and politically liberal homosexuals. If a person can be a liberal homosexual and remain in the closet without being a hypocrite I don't see why a person cannot be a conservative homosexual and remain in the closet without being a hypocrite. A person could be living as an open homosexual, with a partner, in a commited relationship and still be against gay marriage without being a hypocrite (it would be VERY odd but not hypocritical). UNLESS he has condemned homosexuality, or has a male partner (whom he surreptitiously married) living somewhere, I don't see why being homosexual would make him an automatic hypocrite.

Edited to add: I hadn't heard that he pulled out the Senator card and acted arrogant when he was caught, though. That isn't good.

1. Should the Republican Party demand Sen. Craig's resignation or stand by him?

2. Does the fact that Sen. Craig pleaded guilty to charges of lewd conduct weaken his claim of innocence?

3. Is Sen. Craig a person worthy of sympathy or scorn?

This whole Republicans-out-of-the-closet thing is getting hard to follow. Must be overcompensation to beat the drum against gay rights and be gay yourself. Sad.

Craig ought to quit the Republican party and join one that's honest about these things. I think that'd be a healthy thing to do, even at the age of 62. That's not too old to change.

Pleading guilty to anything weakens a subsequent claim to innocence, as long as the confession is not coerced. Or maybe he just wanted the ticket fast to catch his flight, like accepting a traffic citation without argument. Eh, I'll give the crazy old senator the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he has gay-cruising Tourette's. I like the thing about his business card. It'd work in an SNL bit.

I think sympathy rather than scorn. Geez, one little bout of gay-cruising Tourette's and fft, there goes the old business card. Or maybe he just wanted to link up with the undercover cop. Did the senator like wink when he handed it over?

I'm having a pretty easy time seeing both sides of this issue. But I think to call one party over the other as "honest" is a bit disingenuous. While I agree we would expect to see more open gays in the democrat party, each party is as corrupt as the other. If he truly wanted to join a group that is honest about these things, it wouldn't be a political party.

Good point. Although, you must admit that cruising and restroom sex are primarily a gay thing, no? Newsweek even published a 'how to' guide in response to this story. Outside of nightclubs, I've never really heard of straight public sex as a subculture. I'm sure it happens, but not in the numbers that our gay friends seem to be participating, given their population. 40 men have been arrested in that specific toilet since June. I mean, be honest, guys who want sex with guys are more fun, less inhibited and more kinky than straight men, by and large.

As for sex with a prostitute, it's less news when it happened long ago, as with Vitter, and that he wasn't caught in flagrante delicto in public. Makes you wonder what was driving Travis Bickle.

on edit - Pulling out the Senatorial ... business card is probaly the worst aspect of this. "Don't you know who I am?" This is the worst abuse of power there is. Shades of Patrick Kennedy.

Well, there are the Libertarians, the Greens, the Naturals, the Progressives, the Independents . . . and probably more.

Geez, for once I leave it open and I get dinked. Oh well, dink away. I'm a tough old birdie.

Oh, he could do unaffiliated too.

It's only a "gay" thing because there are not very many mixed gender restrooms. If there were, you can be assured that restroom sex would be a predominantly "hetero" thing.

Those who cruise for sex in public restrooms are primarily nominally heterosexual closet cases. Those who have the courage and honesty to live openly have better (and less creepy) places to hook up.

Personally, I prefer to keep in mind that Republican "moral values" apparently include torturing people held with no charge. Call me wacky, but anything sexual pales in comparison with that particularly disgusting moral failing.

I dunno. All the sex I've ever had in public restrooms was totally heterosexual. Of course I found my partner outside the public restrooms... hmmm.

I think you kinda hit the nail on the head when it comes to lack of republica support for this (former) "Team player for the RNC"- it is SOOOOO creepy.

There is LOTS of kink to be had in this world- straight or hetero- but it is hard to imagine a more creepy and, well, anit-hygenic as meeting anon partners in public restrooms.

IT is the "creep" factor that will spell his demise as a politician. As in "eeewwww".

The republicans have built thier political capital on "there ought to be a law because - icky"- not really on any actual harm.

His "ewww" factor became to high for the republican party to continue thier anti-"eeeewwww" agenda.

[quote name='nighttimer' date='Aug 29 2007, 09:51 PM' post='224811']

1. Should the Republican Party demand Sen. Craig's resignation or stand by him?

2. Does the fact that Sen. Craig pleaded guilty to charges of lewd conduct weaken his claim of innocence?

3. Is Sen. Craig a person worthy of sympathy or scorn?

1. It appears by this time tomorrow the first question will become moot. Senator Craig is expected to announce his resignation. You have to either impressed or appalled at how swiftly the GOP flushed away Craig. Rarely do you see a sitting U.S. Senator with a solid conservative voting record dumped like yesterday's garbage without even any pretense of public support from his Republican colleagues or the White House. That leads me to believe either Craig is incredibly unpopular among his peers or there were already strong suspicions about his double life and they're throwing him overboard before any other skeletons come out of the closet.

It just shows that when it comes to sex scandals heterosexuals like Senator David Vitter (R-La) can sleaze around with $300-an-hour escorts and cheat on his wife and his party will stand by him (especially if he resigned and allowed a Democratic governor to appoint his replacement), but a closet case like Craig cruises for a booty call in a public bathroom and everyone is shocked and awed (and he'll be replaced by another Republican). The hypocrisy is so deep you could swim in it.

2. The guilty plea for all intents and purposes was the beginning of the end of Craig's political career. In an attempt to make the matter "go away" he only make himself look both stupid and insincere, a deadly combination. He gave his supporters nothing to rally around and his feeble "I am not gay. I never have been gay" was unconvincing to say the least. If a politician can't fake sincerity there's no hope.

3. I'm not scornful of Larry Craig because he lacks the courage to stop living a lie. I'm scornful of Larry Craig because he's just another Republican who thought his morality was superior to everybody else and that gave him the right to pass legislation limiting the rights and protection of other gay people. I'm scornful of the Republican Party because though they learned a lesson from the Mark Foley fiasco, they still haven't figured out that as long as they peddle this line of nonsense that they are the guardians of the nation's morals, they are doomed to be embarrassed again and again when one of their own is exposed engaging in the same behavior they decry.

Gay activist Keith Boykin said on his blog: And although I generally do not support outing most people, I think it's perfectly reasonable for gay activists to target anti-gay elected officials who happen to engage in gay conduct. It's time for the homophobia to stop. And the only way it's going to stop is if the people in power realize that they will be exposed as liars and hypocrites if they continue on their deceitful ways.

And it's time for the Republicans to get out of our bedrooms and get of the business of being the morality police. Despite the Idaho senator's insistent plea that he is not gay, I don't really care if he is or isn't. There's nothing wrong with being gay. But I do care if Craig is passing laws that take away rights for gays and lesbians and then looking for gay sex on the down low. (Yes, Larry Craig was on the down low.)

The only reason why sex scandals don't hurt Democratic candidates as much as Republicans is because most Democrats aren't trying to run the country's sex police. Nobody is perfect and people tend to forgive others for mistakes they make. But we also like contrition, honesty and acceptance of responsibility before we can move on. It's not as easy to forgive anti-gay conservatives for gay behavior because they don't practice what they preach.

Senator Craig missed a golden opportunity on Tuesday to come clean, admit his mistake and beg for forgiveness. Instead he dug a deeper hole that guaranteed his departure. But the Republican Party is also missing an opportunity here too. Until the party learns to resist the unhealthy, self-destructive instincts from social conservatives, they will be doomed to charges of continued hypocrisy as more and more Republicans are outed.

Maybe they don't get it now. But they will once they start to lose more elections. link

For the life of me, I can't understand why so many seem to be treating this issue as though it is a televangelist scandal and Craig is Pat Robertson. Could you be more specific about his "anti-gay" actions and legislation? A person can be simultaneously against gay marriage, secretly gay, and not a hypocrite. Just as a person can be openly gay and against gay marriage. I'm not going to get into a gay marriage debate here, and I SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE, but I'll go out on a limb and say there could be reasons to be against it even if you support gay rights otherwise. Maybe he hates change, who knows. He is 62 years old...I don't think I know any men that age who support gay marriage, Republican or Democrat. I can't imagine my parents sitting at the moose lodge playing cards and the issue coming up favorably to most.

Unless he is on record as saying that the actions of gay people are perverse, and gay couples should never live together, ect, I don't understand the beef here. I don't believe that 14 year olds should marry, but I do think that we should teach them sexual education. I don't think that polygamy should be legal, but I do think that several adults should be able to live together if they wish to, even if they are all having sex together, without government interference...(the aforementioned examples ARE NOT IDENTICAL ISSUES, BUT INTENDED ONLY TO MAKE A POINT. PLEASE DON'T DEBATE MY ROUGH EXAMPLES AS THOUGH I BELIEVE GAY MARRIAGE AND POLYGAMY/CHILD MARRIAGE ARE THE SAME. I am trying to explain why I believe that anti-gay-marriage= hypocricy, is erroneous reasoning. It is not a logically valid deductive argument). I'll use another example: Craig is against abortion. If Craig were caught paying to get his girlfriend an abortion, he would be a hypocrite, but not if he were simply caught in flagrante delicto with hypothetical girlfriend because they might be making a baby and then might want to abort it....

And per the ostensible Democratic moral superiority over all issues of sex. Please. I clearly remember the skewering of Clarence Thomas over a pit of fire for unsubstantiated allegations. And I've never seen NOW so quick to discredit a sexual harassment (ostensible) victim than the time a prominent Democrat was accused mere months later. They didn't even wait for a verdict before pronouncing her a liar.

Please, we are talking about a lawmaker here. Let's not get dragged into the childish semantic games our garden variety bigots use to lie about their support of the law. Craig supported the Musgrave amendment as it was written to ban not only the word, "marriage" but incidents thereof. Incidents like hospital visitation, all the sorts of things we allow civilians to lie about when they say they oppose gay marriage by allowing them to wave their hands and ignore the actual laws they are supporting- Craig supported those things.
I can imagine a pathetic closet case like Craig may not ever care about that, after all cruising for anonymous sex in a public bathroom is quite different from establishing an honest lifelong relationship, but don't pretend we're just talking about words.
And don't pretend that somehow because it's all the bigots have somehow that makes the slippery slope logical fallacy anything other than a logical fallacy.

Craig said this: "I fully support DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act] and still believe the appropriate definition of marriage is a union between one man and one woman, consistent with Idaho's law on the subject. I also believe States must have the ability, if they choose, to create civil unions or grant benefits to persons in different kinds of relationships. I felt that the Senate's marriage amendment would have secured those goals, effectually placing the final determination with the people of Idaho and every other State, where it belongs."

I really don't know much about Craig, but I was the only conservative member of PETA (at my University), and once considered myself to be a feminist (same timeframe, same school). I found that people who disagreed with me on certain issues determined that I wasn't a "real" member of said organizations because I was conservative. In fact, no debate was possible it was a complete shut down of discussion...don't feel like us on every issue, you aren't one of us....even if we agreed on other important points. That's just crap. On the other hand, maybe that isn't Craig, perhaps he is a complete bigot, I don't know.

Is it really necessary to use inflammatory hate speech in every thread talking about gay issues? Good grief - enough already. If you have a point make it. I've had enough of this bitter gay man syndrome.

That's exactly the sort of semantic handwaving I'm talking about. Craig supported the Musgrave amendment, which would not leave anything up to the states, and would not allow any sort of benefits related to marriage to be granted by anything, in fact those states that have passed their own amendments modeled on it have called any number of legal contracts into question.
But surely we must trust his word rather than his actual vote, I mean he's obviously such an honest individual...

I suppose I agree with your overall point. Especially after reading some wikipedia quotes I really must admit to stand corrected.

Wow. Ah, well. I still can't find myself feeling any scorn for this person. His life must be (and have always been) a living hell.

From William Saletan of SLATE:

If 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. It stipulates:

A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations: (1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings--that the member has demonstrated that (A) such conduct is a departure from the member's usual and customary behavior; -B- such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur; [and] the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

I feel sorry for Craig. I hate the idea of cops going into bathrooms and busting people for coded gestures of interest. I'd rather live, let live, and tell the guy waving his hand under the stall to buzz off. But that's not the standard Craig applies to others. Any gay soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine who admitted to doing what Craig has admitted would, at a minimum, lose his job for violating DADT. In fact, many have been kicked out for less.

Most people think "don't ask, don't tell" means that if you don't announce that you're gay, you can keep your job. It should mean that. But in practice, if you don't tell, the military can and often does investigate and interrogate you until you're forced to tell. http://www.slate.com/id/2173102/nav/tap1/

Senator (soon to be former) Larry Craig is just another closet case who stands against the rights of gays and lesbians even while he indulges himself in gay sex. It's "do as I say, not as I do" taken to a ridiculous extreme.