I have been reading and listening to a few things on the Sen Larry Craig story and a few things really stick out to me as being particularly weird.

1) This happened in June... Why are we hearing about it now? The timing is simply bizarre.

2) Senator Craig was late for a flight, he mentions this several times in his interrogation; is that why he took the guilty plea? To get going?

3) Senator Craig has been accused of being gay before. Is it likely that someone has been trying to make him "look gay" in order to get him to change the way he's been representing himself and in what he proposes and votes on/for/against? Basic Blackmail 101.

4) Assuming he's not gay and wasn't trawling for sex in a public bathroom (which seems like a really stupid way for a Senator to have hidden gay sex) why did he plead guilty to this crime he now claims he did not commit?

5) The officer interrogating him says several times (paraphrase) you can just plead guilty and be on your way; why not make the bust or just let him go? Why insist on writing a summons?

6) Senator Craig insists that the officer solicited him putting the entire affair in to the realm of He Said/He Said, again; why plead guilty?

7) I am not now, nor have I ever been a Senator - I don't use public restrooms in airports - I use the restrooms in places like The Admiral's Club (American Airlines) etc.... So if I have access to places like that (and you can too for about 150USD/yr) why doesn't the Senator?

Look, end of the day, it looks to me like Senator Craig is probably a (sad) gay old man with a fetish for public sex - BUT there's a lot of things wrong about this story. What do you think?

I am certain that as welfare-warfare state politician he had violated the constitution on numerous occasions whenever he adopted laws to provide federal largesse to numerous parasitic groups including those composed of war profiteers.

Instead he is brought down by a police officer who claims that he acted in a homosexual manner. Our priorities are screwed up!!!!!!!!

I wasn't exactly impressed by the police officer's demeanor. But I guess they don't get their best and brightest to loiter restroom stalls and pick up homosexual "offenders".

Other then that, I don't have much....he did mention being late for a flight once, but he also said that he had used that bathroom many times before, which would indicate that he doesn't seem to frequent Admiral club bathrooms, and there might be a reason for that. I do have to wonder how a man that age, and a Senator, would learn the signals for picking up strangers in public restrooms. Maybe one of his aides taught him..... Anyway, I suppose it could have been a "setup" but that's far too conspiratorial for me. I'll go with sad older gay man who is into some odd kinky things like personal degradation (probably brought on by being in the closet for all those decades).

This happened in June... Why are we hearing about it now? The timing is simply bizarre.

The story broke on August 27 in Roll Call. Apparently, the story was missed back in June for a variety of reasons (as detailed by The Minneapolis Star Tribune), partially due to such reports being fairly routine (and the name "Larry Craig" not quite leaping out the way "Karl Rove" might), partially due to most local reporters being caught up in covering the bridge collapse, etc. The Roll Call story included details of Craig's plea on August 8, so they presumably got wind of it on the basis of the hearing rather than the original arrest. It could take two weeks or so to check out such a lead, especially as Roll Call was subsequently able to acquire a copy of the police report to include in their article. It doesn't look as though Roll Call had been sitting on the story - and it doesn't look as though anyone else had had it. The only remaining questions are: Who passed the information on to Roll Call? and Why? As Roll Call has said nothing about their source(s), we can only speculate. It could be anything from "concerned citizen" to "partisan insider" to "disgruntled former Republican" to "corrupt civil servant" to "remote viewing captive alien".

Senator Craig was late for a flight, he mentions this several times in his interrogation; is that why he took the guilty plea? To get going?

It's possible. If so, it's also possible that he wanted to "get going" so he wouldn't have to explain why he had missed the flight. And that could either be because he was caught seeking furtive sex in a men's room or because he was wrongfully arrested while indulging in inadvertent peeping, misleading foot-tapping, and phantom paper-grabbing - with a wide stance. Again, we can only speculate.

Senator Craig has been accused of being gay before. Is it likely that someone has been trying to make him "look gay" in order to get him to change the way he's been representing himself and in what he proposes and votes on/for/against? Basic Blackmail 101.

Likely? No. Possible? Well, anything's possible. While Craig has generally voted on the more conservative side of gay rights issues (he scored "0" in the HRC's 2004 legislative Scorecard), it was not until fairly recently - hopping on the Rovian bandwagon of pandering to the religious right - that it became central to his campaigning. He had previously been a more generic "family values" kinda guy. It's unlikely that he would have been targeted for "outing" from the start of his political career - unless there was something substantive to the intimations. And that's the second thing that mitigates against a single "blackmailer": there have been a variety of stories from a variety of sources concerning allegations of Craig's homosexuality and none of them seem to be linked. They've also been fairly spread out - 1967, 1982, 1994, 2004 - to look like much of a concerted effort.

It wasn't until Mike Rogers (a bit young to have been trying to make Craig "look gay" since 1982, never mind 1967) started pulling a lot of stories together last year that there appeared to be a history of allegations regarding Craig. If there had been some class of blackmail campaign going on, why the protracted timing? If "someone" was behind leaking Craig's name in 1982, it clearly had no impact on his voting record. Why stop? Why not apply pressure prior to some of the things Craig has voted on/for/against rather than trying to make him "look gay" - somewhat listlessly, I might add - over the course of thirty-odd years?

Assuming he's not gay and wasn't trawling for sex in a public bathroom (which seems like a really stupid way for a Senator to have hidden gay sex) why did he plead guilty to this crime he now claims he did not commit?

Making that assumption (and anonymous sex in public places is a much better way to "hide" gay sex than hiring hustlers or frequenting gay clubs - that's what the "anonymous" part is supposed to mean), one can again only speculate. Perhaps an innocent man in this situation would feel that a "disorderly conduct" plea was better than a "lewd conduct" conviction. But for a senator with a history of denial of gay charges, the guilty plea sounds almost psychotic. I have nothing. Maybe he just found Dave Karsnia irresistible.

The officer interrogating him says several times (paraphrase) you can just plead guilty and be on your way; why not make the bust or just let him go? Why insist on writing a summons?

I suspect that this may have more to do with police bureaucracy and/or PR than anything. If there was a perceived problem with sex in public toilets, it's better for the police blotter to register as many arrests as possible in this type of sting operation. And, obviously, a plea is more expedient than a trial.

Senator Craig insists that the officer solicited him putting the entire affair in to the realm of He Said/He Said, again; why plead guilty?

Again, the guilty plea baffles me - if we're still assuming that Craig isn't gay and wasn't trolling for sex. If we assume that he is and was, then pleading guilty to a charge that is no longer "lewd" (and hoping that the whole thing would go unnoticed) might have seemed like a better option than fighting the charge. Any hearing could have led to a lot more publicity - and that could have led to lot of the allegations that both Mike Rogers and the Idaho Statesman had made gaining higher profile, including guys that Craig knew had attested to having had sex with him in similar situations coming forward. As it turns out, that's what's happening anyway - but it might have seemed like a reasonable gamble at the time.

I am not now, nor have I ever been a Senator - I don't use public restrooms in airports - I use the restrooms in places like The Admiral's Club (American Airlines) etc.... So if I have access to places like that (and you can too for about 150USD/yr) why doesn't the Senator?

Why doesn't Craig use the Admiral's Club? Well... maybe he just prefers Seamen.



He did seem to wax a bit judgmental - "It's embarrassing... I mean, people vote for you" - but I suspect he was given the job due to qualifications other than his interrogation skills. If you're on a fishing expedition, you want good bait.


I wouldn't assume that Craig picked up public sex signals recently. If he's been closeted for years (and the stories date back to his college days), then he's most likely been pursuing anonymous sex in public places for years. I imagine Senator Craig could teach his aides a thing or two.

As a semi-aside, let me raise an historical issue that could figure in Craig's story. I came of age during the "social revolution" (or, at least, the slogans that promised such a revolution) of the late sixties. While I grew up with "gay liberation", I knew (fairly intimately) many older men - some much older - and was privy to much "pre-liberation" culture. In short, I knew quite a few men of Craig's age and status.

Until well into the sixties, gay life in America was almost entirely a closet culture. But not all homosexuals found this oppressive. Indeed, many gays were opposed to gay liberation and gay rights.

In many urban academic, business, and political arenas, there was (and, to an extent, remains) a "hidden network" of homosexuals - almost a fraternal order (indeed, perpetuated through more than a few fraternities, secret societies, and gentlemen's clubs) - which not only gave one entree into certain circles, but also gave one a certain amount of power over a number of very influential men: exposure was always a risk, the potential for blackmail always implicit, and loyalty based as much on fear as friendship. Among the professions, there is always a certain amount of networking and closet culture provided - provides - another layer of networking, one that is much less apparent than lot of nepotism, which can make it even more effective.

Many, though not all, of these men married, raised families, kept mistresses, bounced grandkids on their knee - all that was expected to "pass" and then some. They were not living a lie so much as they were living a double life - and profiting from it. It was an underworld, but it was often a very affluent and influential underworld. And many who grew up in that milieu wanted it to stay that way. Many of them still do. The "closet culture" did not die out, it just became even more subterranean.

Craig may be of that culture, at least peripherally. If he was privy to an "inner circle" of closeted professionals, I suspect he may felt he could get away with his behavior because he knew the "secret handshake", failing to realize that, at any point, he could just as easily become a sacrificial lamb. If Ken Mehlman or Ralph Reed or Grover Norquist or any of the other Capitol Queers knew about Craig, they're certainly disowning him now. Indeed, many of Craig's colleagues on both sides of the sexual preference aisle may have "known" or at least suspected he was gay (as was apparently the case with Mark Foley), but so long as it was kept in the closet (and he kept winning elections and casting the right votes), no biggie.

If Craig was not part of the sub-subculture - if he was simply some isolated "sad older gay man", forced into deception by social pressures still perceived by "that generation" - he may nevertheless have felt that there was a certain "code" or "gentleman's agreement" among those who engage in anonymous public sex that would have minimized the risk of exposure. To an extent, he would be right: those who engage in such acts may gossip, but they seldom go public. There are many gay men who successfully lead such double lives from cradle to grave. And, while it seems there were a few men who were kissing and telling in relation to Senator Craig, it wasn't a confederate in the anonymous sex circle that exposed him in the end, it was a strapping young cop.


To the extent that this story broke due to a sting operation and, assuming that Craig is gay, however closeted, and thought, for whatever reason, that anonymous sex in a public toilet involved negligible risk, I'm going to go with setup, stupid, and gay.

1) This happened in June... Why are we hearing about it now? The timing is simply bizarre.

Not really- as Wertz pointed out- UNLESS a cop called the newspaper and told them they arrested a senator- then it is very likely it could slip by- there is just SO MUCH information on everyone today- it is easy enough for something to slip through on a busy news week- and Minnesota just had a bridge collapse as well, etc etc.

2) Senator Craig was late for a flight, he mentions this several times in his interrogation; is that why he took the guilty plea? To get going?

Well, it seems he thought it would be "kept quiet"- it happened in another state, and I think he was sure no cops were calling he papers on him- which seems to have actually happened in this case.

3) Senator Craig has been accused of being gay before. Is it likely that someone has been trying to make him "look gay" in order to get him to change the way he's been representing himself and in what he proposes and votes on/for/against? Basic Blackmail 101.

Wertz has a very good explanation- but I have to say- in a case like this- there has been alot of smoke on this for a long time- and you know the cliche'-

4) Assuming he's not gay and wasn't trawling for sex in a public bathroom (which seems like a really stupid way for a Senator to have hidden gay sex) why did he plead guilty to this crime he now claims he did not commit?

No, it is not stupid way to have sex- it is an anonymous way to have sex. Perhaps THE way to have anonymous sex.

5) The officer interrogating him says several times (paraphrase) you can just plead guilty and be on your way; why not make the bust or just let him go? Why insist on writing a summons?

This happens in nearly every felony arrest on the planet- they try to make a plea agreement so they have to use up as little of the DAs time as possible. It is staggering the amount of charges that get dropped because it is not "slam dunk" enough for a prosecutor to go forward- we have SO MANY useless "crimes" being pursued because some politician and "community leaders" want to be the bedroom police- prostitution, gambling lower echelon street drugs etc- that the criminal justice system is WAY beyond over-worked- they just prioritize, all the time. I hear the DA all the time saying "it is not worth the risk of losing the case and all the time the assistant DAs will have to put in for a win in this case".

Police officers have learned that the guilty WILL plea out once caught- because they know they take a big risk too if they have to go before a grand jury.

I mean, I have heard interogations that start out with the perp saying "I want a lawyer"- to which the police officer says "okay, no problem, lets go to the station ,we will start the booking process, and you can get your lawyer"- ONLY the really innocent typically will continue to fight, the guilty just wilt when the cops say "arrest" etc.

6) Senator Craig insists that the officer solicited him putting the entire affair in to the realm of He Said/He Said, again; why plead guilty?

'Cause he was guilty

7) I am not now, nor have I ever been a Senator - I don't use public restrooms in airports - I use the restrooms in places like The Admiral's Club (American Airlines) etc.... So if I have access to places like that (and you can too for about 150USD/yr) why doesn't the Senator?

BINGO- "senators for life" like Craig have all kinds of perks, lots and lots of them. And they like to flaunt them as well. The first class ticket holders rarely use the restrooms where this would happen- Craig was a-cruisin' for some wang, no doubt about it.

What I found to be weird, is people demanding his resignation because as a gay man, he's voted against gay rights/privileges.

The problem with this argument, is it assumes Craig is an anomaly in the midst of principled statesmen. Let's be serious here - I defy someone to find any politician that isn't a lying cheating snake on either side of the aisle. People have framed this situation as if there are principled politicians in office and Craig doesn't meet this standard.

Politicians make deals every day counter to their beliefs because it will help them get re-elected. Craig plays footsie in a bathroom and he suddenly becomes a beacon of hypocrisy. Give me a flipping break - they all suck.

The Republicans are pressuring him to step down for two reasons. In the first place, it will make it much easier to keep his seat in the Republican column (though in Idaho, one wonders how much problem there could be). Second, the Republican party pretends to a kind of righteousness that pointedly excludes, condemns even, homosexuality. It would not serve Republican ideology in the large (and Republican chances nationally therefore) to have to admit, well yes, some of us Republicans are indeed homosexual.

But I don't think Craig's resignation will serve good government. He embodies the sovereign will of the people of Idaho, and should not resign on account of a minor misdemeanor. Or if this is a grave misdemeanor, there should be Senate proceedings to prove that it is; that would be the constitutional path. Further it is grossly offensive to liberty that there should be a party so antagonistic to homosexuals that it rejects them ipso facto from its Senate caucus. If this is where the Republican party has come, then it deserves scorn and ridicule.

All of them are corrupt? Come on, that's just a generalization, unless you care to post 100 links of how every senator is corrupt, along with 435 other links of how every representative is corrupt. You want examples of politicians who aren't liars? I nominate Chuck Hagel, Ben Nelson, Adrian Smith, and Lee Terry, all from the wonderful state of Nebraska. Four are republicans. I find their views reprehensible, but that doesn't make them criminal, only misinformed. Are there a handful of bad ones?, no one would argue with you on that point. It doesn't however, excuse the fact that this guy played the "family values" card to electoral victory. He is an opportunist and hypocrite of the worst kind. Corruption and bad acts are one thing, corruption and bad acts while mouthing moral platitudes take it to a whole 'nuther level.