Captain's Quarters -

From what I've read, this mens room was well know among fags who want to have non-personal consensual sex.

Bear in mind, this is in an airport. No one should have to be aware of what mens rooms to avoid in an airport so they can avoid having some guy waving to them from under the stall walls.

By the way, fix the comments. HTML tags don't work and the comments don't remember you even when you click on the left radio button. And, it takes forever for the comment to submit.

Crime or not (and I agree with you that what Craig did was...odd...but not criminal) as a United States Senator, you get held to a higher ethical standard.

The best thing Craig could do would be to resign...something no Democrat would do in the same situation, assuredly.

How does anybody..I mean anybody run of the mill regular reasonable guys still call themselves a Republican after 6 years and unending hypocrisy, corruption and unmitigated disregard for the law and the constitution and driving this country to ruin. What complete , total abject failures. I really feel for you all.

I've mostly stopped posting on these blogs in favor of discussing things with the libertarians who at least have some ideological consistency.

I agree with you in general on this question. Some of the reporting on this has indicated that the poor cop was sent there because of numerous complaints about such behavior in the restroom. Apparently it was a well-known pick up spot and even talked about on gay web sites. Frankly, as the mom of a 12 yr old son that I have to send into the restroom by himself, I don't want him to have to see this kind of stuff.

If it had been just some ordinary person, he would have been busted and no further questions asked. Guess it's not O.K. to get charged if you're a Republican who happens to be a Senator though. Hmm...

Let's stipulate that "intent" is an integral element of any "crime."

If I kill you, it isn't necessarily murder ... but if I intend to murder you, that's a crime.

So ... one way of proving intent is to ask the suspect: "How do you plead to the charge."

An innocent suspect would almost always respond: "Not Guilty, your honor."

But that's not what this Senator did.

This Senator, when asked by his judge whether he knew his actions were illegal, admitted that he had engaged in illegal activities by PLEADING GUILTY.

You don't realize this, of course, because you haven't gone to the trouble to dig up the transcript from Senator Craig's sentencing.

Do a little legwork. He was sentenced by a judge who accepted his guilty plea. That judge can't just blindly accept such a plea. The judge has to question the defendant to ensure not only that the defendant understands what he's being charged with, but that the defendant agrees that he's guilty of the charge.

So, do the legwork a normal journalist would do. Go retrieve a copy of the transcript. It's an open record.

"No one was harmed, and no crime was committed, even though many view the behavior as distasteful and out of place. As long as no sexual act takes place in the public area, I'd say no crime takes place."

Many reasonable jurors -- or judges, in the case of a bench trial -- would agree with you. But the weight or sufficiency of the evidence supporting the criminal charge of disorderly conduct is no longer at issue, as Craig conceded that his actions were as the officer believed by pleading guilty. Had he said nothing and challenged the prosecution, then certainly any good lawyer would make the same argument you have: The State cannot present evidence sufficient to establish each of the elements of the crime of disorderly conduct beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, do the legwork (some journalists) would do. Go retrieve a copy of the transcript. It's an open record.

"No one was harmed, and no crime was committed, even though many view the behavior as distasteful and out of place. As long as no sexual act takes place in the public area, I'd say no crime takes place."

Many reasonable jurors -- or judges, in the case of a bench trial -- would agree with you. But the weight or sufficiency of the evidence supporting the criminal charge of disorderly conduct is no longer at issue, as Craig conceded that his actions were as the officer believed by pleading guilty. Had he said nothing and challenged the prosecution, then certainly any good lawyer would make the same argument you have: The State cannot present evidence sufficient to establish each of the elements of the crime of disorderly conduct beyond a reasonable doubt.

Let's assume that this was not a crime. Let us also assume that it should make no difference whether the sex solicited in public was homosexual or heterosexual. The fact still remains that as a married office holder, you have several duties in Craigs:

1. Do not embarrass your family, they do not deserve it.

2. Do not embarrass the people who worked hard to get you in office.

3. Do not let down your colleagues that you work with.

4. Do not embarrass the voters who put you in office.

He undertook these responsibilities voluntarily, he did not live up to them and he probably should leave the field of politics if he cannot do so.

Sen. Craig plead out as guilty.
He is guilty.
Period.
Sam Houston, as governor of Tennessee, was run out of office because of questions about his anulled marriage. The point was that he was a public official and was held to a high standard. This sort of decrepit creepy behavior by a Senator of any party should be unacceptable to either party. That it is not is not the topic of this thread.
Neither is the question of the criminality of acting creepy in a public restroom. We Republicans and conservatives have deeper issues to confront than the chronic double standard of this nation.

The problem, muirgeo, is that you hate your political opponents so much that you only see the bad in them, while refusing to see the bad in your political allies.

Political extremism has destroyed your ability to see people as people. This is increasingly common all across the political spectrum, and sadly, I think it's only going to get worse.

I've mostly stopped posting on these blogs in favor of discussing things with the libertarians who at least have some ideological consistency.

We appreciate your restraint, and forgive you for you your lapse in judgement this time. I can sympathize. I stopped posting on liberal blogs long ago because there was no consistency in morals, compassion, or common sense.

I have not relapsed. I suggest you get back on the wagon and take your donkey home.

At this point, I don't care if it's a 'crime' or not. It's reprehensible behavior from a person we entrusted with a public office. If he, Vitter and the like cannot honor that trust and use that office to fulfill their 'baser' instincts, then they should step down! They are to set the example for us lesser mortals.

At this point, I don't care if it's a 'crime' or not. It's reprehensible behavior from a person we entrusted with a public office. If he, Vitter and the like cannot honor that trust and use that office to fulfill their 'baser' instincts, then they should step down! They are to set the example for us lesser mortals.

I've mostly stopped posting on these blogs in favor of discussing things with the libertarians who at least have some ideological consistency.

We appreciate your restraint, and forgive you for you your lapse in judgement this time. I can sympathize. I stopped posting on liberal blogs long ago because there was no consistency in morals, compassion, or common sense.

I have not relapsed. I suggest you get back on the wagon and take your donkey home.

From the hotair post linked below, it looks like the only way Craig would have known that was a hookup spot is if he found it on the internet. Whenever they do the investigation they need to get his internet records and look for cruiser sites.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/28/the-obligatory-craig-denies-everything-to-the-idaho-statesman-post/

The only way I could find Craig innocent now considering he already plead guilty is it could be proven that it was a setup. At the very least the investigating cop needs to looked into, that one guy outing the "hypocrites", the paper he denounced in his speech, and whoever tipped rollcall off to the arrest. I read the police account and I wouldn't be surprised to see if the arrest wasn't premeditated, but I'm not going that direction till there's more proof.

But for the guilty plea and the history of claims regarding Craig's orientation, this would have reminded me of the episode of L.A. Law where Douglas Brackman Jr. (played by Alan Rachins) was erroneously busted for solicitation after describing varieties of expensive sushi to an undercover vice detective:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0624051/

If this had come out of the blue with no prior history, and if Craig had not pled guilty but had instead maintained from the beginning the story he's selling now, I could give him the benefit of the doubt.

But with the prior claims and the guilty plea, I can't give him the benefit of the doubt. Craig should resign, or at the very least announce he will not be running for re-election.

That's just my opinion - any persuasive counterarguments?

One charge was Interference with Privacy. Never heard of that one, but I guess it refers to Criag's interference with the officer's privacy, in the neighboring stall.
Think if it had been merely a citizen, and not a policeman, in the next stall; a young person, perhaps. It would be anywhere from annoying to frightening, to have a stranger harassing in such a way.
I'd like to have someone arrested, or at least taken away, for bothering me likewise in a public place.
God knows there've been enough public places given over, through lack of policing, to undesirable behaviors.

Cap'n Ed: No one was harmed, and no crime was committed, even though many view the behavior as distasteful and out of place. As long as no sexual act takes place in the public area, I'd say no crime takes place.

Excellent point. I am among those who demand a high standard from elected officials (as in "burn them at the stake when they screw up" standard), but I can see a double standard at work here: is a double standard not equally wrong no matter which way it goes? Is it not just as wrong to punish Craig MORE severely because he is a senator than it would be to punish him LESS severely for the same reason?

Let me throw gas on the fire and ask if the homosexual community wouldn't be up in arms if Craig wasn't a Republican. After all, he was essentially the "victim" of a police queer hunt. They staked out that bathroom (apparently) to target homosexual men. Well! How very '50s of them.

If Craig had succeeded in finding an (ahem) willing adult partner for some (gag) diversion while waiting for his plane, who are we to harass or penalize him? Is there really that much difference between trying to pick up somebody by some weird system of covert signals in a restroom and trying to pick somebody up in a bar by offering them a drink?

/attempt at reasonableness

Ah, what the hell. Hang the dumbass.

I don't understand why the officer couldn't have gone a bit further with it. Just tapping the toes and the hand waving thing just doesn't seem enough to accuse someone to me. Too many other explanations for it.

I'm not defending him. I think he was soliciting sex, but this gave him room to deny it and thus stay in office, which sucks.

I don't know if this behavior is a crime:

"“I could see Craig look through the crack in the door from his position. Craig would look down at his hands, ‘fidget’ with his fingers, and then look through the crack into my stall again. Craig would repeat this cycle for about two minutes,” the report states."

but if not it should be. It sounds like he's a Peeping Tom in addition to whatever else. You can take a glimpse through the crack to verify that there is someone in the stall, but repeatedly staring through the crack for any period of time longer than ~1/2 second is pretty obviously voyuerism.

I had some guy do that to me a few years ago. Fortunately (whether for him or me, I don't know), he had disappeared by the time I finished up. Maybe he was in the stall next to me desperately waving his hand. Creepy and disgusting either way.

I agree, Ed. How tapping your foot can be a crime is quite beyond me. But now we live in a place where lying to any federal officer, even while not under oath, is a crime. Having too much cash is a crime, apparently, since the cops will just take it from you and not give it back.

Maybe it's a good thing this happened to a senator. Hopefully his colleagues will ponder on the meaning of it all.

By the way, regarding his "do you know who I am" play: Why wouldn't he expect that to work? Our representatives seem to be immune from investigation regarding crimes committed in DC. His mistake was forgetting where he was.

But for the guilty plea and the history of claims regarding Craig's orientation

For me, the history of claims would be meaningless -- there's a brand of political activist that will say anything about anybody.

The guilty plea, however, puts the burden of proof very heavily on Craig if he now wants to claim his actions were misconstrued. When I consider what I might have done under the same circumstances if I were innocent of the charges, I just can't see myself pleading guilty -- instead, I imagine myself displaying the cop's badge on my mantelpiece as a trophy.

Fans of the iPod beware: You don't want to play toe-tapping music while in a public bathroom!

I agree with your position. While his personal conduct is reprehensible, attempting to use his position as a US Senator is not only reprehensible but stupid; did he actually think the cop was going to let him walk because he's a Senator?

As to the police I think they overreached as they often do in these kind of cases. The charge should be tossed and the officer reminded that foot tapping is not a crime in this country. Craig has his own demons to confront now, prosecuting a bogus case like this is just harrasment. I think there is a good chance that had he NOT been a Senator he would have walked.

Kids:

Pleading guilty means he's guilty. It doesn't matter after that if it's a stupid law, or that he wasn't really soliciting. It's over.

One of the small remaining points of pride that I have in the Republicans is that they accept the consequences of their misdeeds, unlike the Democrats who don't (90 K in the freezer, anyone?).

I don't want to surrender that small remaining shred of dignity to some self-convicted queer in an airport bathroom

Out of office and let's move on.

These are all interpretive signals by the officer. If this is the new standard for ending a Senate career, we will have very few of them remaining. Well, except for Barbara Boxer.

Honestly, the D's will have us in a corner if we demand resignations for any pugnacious behavior from our own. That's too old school for these times-- the culture is just not so lily white anymore. Don't let the Dem's have the entire government because we got too high on own theoretical purity.

muirgeo,

How can any regular person after 6 years still call themselves a Republican?

Answer: Because the alternative is far worse.

I've been wondering the same thing, Ed. Of what, exactly, is Craig guilty?

Here's the statute for "disorderly conduct"
in Minnesota:

*******************************

609.72 DISORDERLY CONDUCT Subdivision 1. Crime.
Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:

(1) Engages in brawling or fighting; or
(2) Disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or
(3) Engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.

A person does not violate this section if the person's disorderly conduct was caused by an epileptic seizure.

*******************************

So I guess he's supposed to be guilty under section 3?

I think this is a pretty weak charge. Craig's arrest also seems both sexist and homophobic, doesn't it?

If an undercover policewoman is standing on a street corner and a man walks up, takes a good look at her, moves close enough to touch her lightly with his elbow and then crooks his finger in a beckoning way, as if in invitation... is his behavior "offensive, obscene or abusive"? Would he be immediately arrested and charged?

Too bad Craig panicked and pled out. A good lawyer could surely have got him off (... oh dear, you should pardon the expression...) But in any case the damage would have been done to his career, I suppose.

I just wonder how this can in way be considered justice. (Maybe it's best to stay away from Minnesota if you're not good at pick-up lines :-)

I had a run in with law enforcement where I did nothing wrong, but they said I did. When it came time for court, I refused to plead guilty and asked for a trial. The judge said, "you are being offered a reduction to nothing more than a citation (like getting a speeding ticket) and no jail time, no probation, just take it and get on with your life." I refused, ended up with the case dismissed 3 years later and then I sued them and won a sizable settlement, almost 6 years after the original event. But, would someone in the public eye do that or would they plead out to keep it out of the media and not gin up a scandal that would surely cost them their career no matter if they won the case or not? I only did because there was police brutality involved and it became a matter of principle to me. Without that factor, I'm sure I would have taken the guilty plea on a citation and forgotten about the whole thing.

I'm not excusing Craig, but the guilty pleas would be the least weighty thing for me as people plead all the time to avoid bad publicity or the costs or time involved in defending themselves or any of a number of other reasons.

Don't misunderstand me. I am not arguing to reopen the case; Craig pled guilty, and he's a grown-up with plenty of access to an attorney. Claiming that he did that as a "mistake" is almost as laughable as the rest of his defense.

Let's put it another way. Take Craig out of the equation and replace him with Generic Suspect. What crime got committed? (I should have framed it this way from the beginning....)

As I understand Senator Craig's statement 'He did nothing wrong' Now, given that his behavior is suspicious, and that he pleaded guilty to public lewdness, one finds this an intersting position. One may conclude the good Senator finds nothing wrong or reprehensible about his conduct. This is the same response given by pedophiles who claim there is nothing wrong with 'loving pre-adults'.

On the other hand, we have alcoholics, racists, admitted war criminals, open-secret homosexuals and various other low-lifes in the House of Lords. Why should we be concerned about one more?

Jim T... there's a good explanation for Craig peeping through the crack in the door. He was thinking, "That poor guy's been sitting in there for THIRTEEN MINUTES! I wonder if he's sick or something?"

Okay, I'm kidding... but this whole thing sounds really stange. I'm sure we'll be learning more in days to come, and maybe then it will all be clearer.

The senator delivered a defiant statement to the press about an hour ago.

He's adamant he's not gay, never has been, and isn't stepping down.

Has he has decided to drag the republican party through a slow-motion train wreck?

This script looks all too familiar. I hope one of his advisers can persuade him that it's time to go.

Cap,

He engaged in 'lewd behavior.' From the police report:

“I could see Craig look through the crack in the door from his position. Craig would look down at his hands, ‘fidget’ with his fingers, and then look through the crack into my stall again. Craig would repeat this cycle for about two minutes,” the report states.

So, he's staring at a guy who's on the crapper. Not exactly normal behavior. Continued:

“At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. While this was occurring, the male in the stall to my right was still present. I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area,” the report states.

He touched the guy's foot in the bathroom, and not by mistake, either. If someone touched me in the bathroom, I would be pretty angry.

Seems to me that unwarranted intrusion on someone's private space in the bathroom is cause for a charge of Lewd behavior. If you put yourself in the officer's shoes, I have no doubt you (or anyone not actively seeking such an encounter) would be offended.

Cheers

Craig, like Eddie Murphy...just being friendly to a stranger....

From:
Eddie Murphy stopped by deputies, transvestite prostitute arrested
The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 05/02/97
http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/050397/eddie.htm

WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. (AP) - Eddie Murphy was pulled over by sheriff's deputies Friday and a cross-dressing prostitute he had picked up was arrested on a prior warrant, authorities said. No charges were brought against the ''Beverly Hills Cop'' star, and Murphy said Friday he did nothing wrong. ''It wasn't like we drove to some dark spot to do something,'' Murphy told television's ''Entertainment Tonight.'' ''It was like they pulled me over, 'That's a hooker. She has warrants. You be careful, Eddie. Go on home,' That's what it was.'' Murphy's attorney told the E! cable channel that the actor stopped to help the prostitute, who seemed ''disjointed'' as he walked along Santa Monica Boulevard at about 4:45 a.m. After Murphy stopped his car, the prostitute asked for a lift home, said attorney Marty Singer. ''Eddie was shocked to hear he was a transvestite. He thought he was doing someone a favor,'' Singer said. Murphy was followed by an unmarked sheriff's car that was working in a ''prostitution abatement zone.'' Deputies followed the vehicle for about two miles after Murphy picked up a transvestite prostitute, said Lt. Mike Ford, a sheriff's spokesman. ''Investigation revealed no illegal activity had occurred,'' Ford said. ''However, the passenger had a warrant for prostitution.'' Atisone Seiuli, 20, of Los Angeles was jailed on $15,000 bail.

The Senator was caught between a rock and a hard place-if he had pled not guilty, the media would have tried him and found him "guilty" anyway. So like a good Roman, he fell on his sword and plead guilty. Although, I think in order to complete the act, he needs to resign. Hence, whether he committed a crime is irrelevant to his subsequent actions.

Given the fact the man didn't have sex, I'm surprised the GLBT hasn't called foul on 'gay profiling'.

The reason why I prefer the Republican Party is that they do an excellent job of beating down their own, I have yet to see the Democrat Party publically go after one of their own corrupt sleaze.

For example how come the DC Madam has released only one name and that name jsut happens to have a R behind it.

I would guess that he pled to disorderly conduct under the offensiveness portion of the statute rather than the obscene or lewd provisions. It appears from reading the paper that police officers overall tend to take offense at PDAs of gay people, thereby satisfying the second portion of the statute. If Craig wanted to engage in such offensive behavoir, he should have done it with his interns as is de rigeur for democrats whether in Congress or the WH. I really can't understand why anyone would want to engage in sex in public restrooms they are the most befouled areas imaginable and can't imagine how anyone's sexual desires could be aroused in such confines.

I'm tired of trying to get a sympathetic reading, so I'll probably give it up with this one.

The aspects of assault (a term from a time when "battery" was a different matter) on people who just need to use a toilet are bad enough.

That the problem is bad enough that such people are afraid to use public facilities is bad enough.

That so many police involved in dealing with the problem (I think there is a whole precinct assigned to the restroom in Elmwood Park) is bad enough.

And so on.

But what is the worst of all by a wide margin, in my considered opinion is that the people that are supposed to be the best and the brightest to govern the republic (small "r" intentional) are not smart enough to spot an obvious sting.

That is what smarts^Whurts the worst.

That and the fact that he is named "Larry".

Captain I have to disagree that there is little to charge the Senator with. There is a huge problem out there with homosexual activity going on in public restrooms across the country.

Remember when George Michael "outed" himself by soliciting sex in a restroom? This is more common than most of us realise. I would hate to think, although I am not naive, that elicit sex acts or "thrill" sex is not part of the homosexual community.

I decided to try to gauge the problem via a google search and found out that the problem seems widespread, and that certain areas in Minneapolis seem to be frequented by those who believe in "wild life" (their term not mine), according to one site:

Squirt also listed four other locations to meet men in Burnsville, including Alimagnet Park, Crystal Lake, a J.C. Penney store washroom in Burnsville Center shopping mall and a Target bathroom. There were 45 locations listed in Minneapolis and 11 in St. Paul.

Few could doubt that these same places are also places where children also might frequent.

I could really care less what people do in the privacy of their homes, but I do care if they are doing things in public, Hetero or Homosexually based. Children do not need to be in danger of viewing sex acts, period.

You know, his arrogant card routine makes me wonder how many times he may have been caught in this situation and gotten away with it. Take away his title and replace him with generic suspect and what happens? Probably the same thing, minus the senatorial business card. I imagine lots of arrests are made when police respond to complaints (and let's face it, this probably wasn't a 911 rapid response thing) and then witness behavior that is known to solicit something (buy/sell sex, drugs, smuggling, etc.). Sex in a public restroom is illegal, isn't it? It sure sounds like he was soliciting an encounter.

Peering repeatedly into a restroom stall occupied by a stranger, then moving your foot inside the stranger's stall to touch them, then reaching inside the stall- would this not tend to cause others to feel alarm, anger or resentment? I'm pretty sure I'd be resentful and angry at the invasion of privacy while in such a vulnerable position.

Case closed- guilty of a crime.

Why has no one caught the error in the arresting officer's report? Am I the only one?

The officer wrote that Craig entered the stall to the left of the officer. After the foot dance, he states that Craig put his hand under the wall between the two stalls and that he noticed Craig had a gold ring on his ring finger. Do the exercise. What hand would you use to signal to someone on your right (as Craig was in the stall to the left of the officer)? It would be your right hand. Even the report states that Craig had a ring on the ring finger of his left hand. If Craig has used his left hand, as in the report, he would have had to cross his body with his arm and stretched to put his left hand under the stall wall. There is no mention of Craig doing that.

Now either Craig was in a twisted position or he had turned to face the back of the stall.

This was a bad bust. There was no reason to arrest Craig as he did not solicit the officer. It is a he said/he said situation and one that would have been quickly dismissed in court. It could also be considered entrapment if the judge was liberal enough.

"I am not a crook."
"I am not gay."

Fatty is a'singin'.

Take Craig out of the equation and replace him with Generic Suspect. What crime got committed?

In that abstract sense, I agree that it is a little odd that somebody can get arrested for foot-tapping and hand-waving. And it is amusing, and dare I say "hypocritical", that the liberals and libertarians are not springing to his defense on those grounds. But liberal hypocrisy is so rountine as hardly to be news.

Regardless, Craig cannot be taken out of the equation. This is no longer a question of law, but of politics, common sense, and morality. Trolling for anonymous gay sex in a bathroom IS worse than what Vitter did, or what Clinton did. If this is not the case from a libertarian perspective, that simply shows the defects in the libertarian perspective.

The CEO of Atlanta's public transit system, MARTA, was caught in a similar situation (sex in a bathroom at Atlanta Airport)earlier this year. He resigned.

But, he didn't just foot-tap and hand-wave. He stared inside a gentleman's stall, while in use, and then proceeded to rub his foot against the gentleman's foot.

I think there's a slight bit of denial going on here...

All Senator Craig needs to do is switch his affiliation to the Dem Party and, presto chango, no problem! The press can eat ---- on this one. Maybe Senator Craig should hire Barney Frank as his spokesman. Tom

Lets face it folks, the Senator is a homosexual who was busted for propositioning an undercover police officer. This sort of thing happens all the time, but it's usually a heterosexual male busted for propositioning a female officer.

He's backtracking now and making up all kinds of nonsense about the incident, but he's lying. Every normal heterosexual male in Amrica goes out of his way to avoid making any unusual contact whatsoever with another guy when he's in the can. Craig pled guilty for the simple reason he was guilty. In all likelihood, he pled guilty with the belief that this incident would remain secret, but now that the cat's out of the bag, he knows his career is over.

Ok, Captain ... let's see if we can make it simple, by using an analogy:

Let's say you're on the streetcorner, and you are approaching men and asking them if they want a "date" and that, as any woman would, you want your date to buy you 20 flowers.

And let's say I'm a cop, and you get into my car, and we drive around the corner to a dark alley and before the "date" can begin, I hand you $20 and you place the $20 into your purse.

If I arrest you right at that point, what law did you break?

You haven't done anything illegal, have you? You're out on a date. The cop, rather than have to go to the florist to get flowers, decided to give you cab fair home after the date. You took the money. There's nothing illegal about accepting cab fare before or after a date.

Right?

This scenario happens in every city, every day, dozens of times each day. And every time, the hooker pleads out, pays her fine, and goes on her merry way.

Just like Senator Craig did.

A crime got committed, whether you agree that prostitution should be a crime or not. It is a crime.

All there is to it.

What Senator Craig was doing was soliciting another man for gay sex in a public bathroom with no idea whether there were children also in the bathroom with him, or would be when the sex got initiated.

Can't you see that?

He claims he is not gay. But nobody ever arrested him for being gay. And he didn't plead guilty to being gay.

He plead guilty to committing a crime.

Would you plead guily to committing a crime that you didn't commit?

Does anyone?

Crimes go back 40 years.

There were reports Larry Craig, in college, took a "pledge" (A guy looking to join the fraternity, up to his room, and made a distinct homoxesual offer.) Seems Suzanne, Craig's wife, is his beard.

And, if you know anything about the homosexual community, when they take over a men's room, it gets very uncomfortable for straight men to even go in there.

Larry Craig is used to LYING through his teeth about this!

He's been in congress since 1980.

And, he was "2nd in command" at Romney's campaign. Drudge has posted Rommey's remarks about the "corruptions in DC!" Extending how Larry Craig held onto power. Why? Because he learned how to "vote a certain way?"

When the newspapers came, six years ago, with the rumors, he brought his wife along. So, yeah. He knows how to lie. Even when men come forward claiming they've had oral sex with him.

This time? It exploded.

Sure, you can say Larry Craig "talks a good game."

He also pled guilt.

Did he expect this would just "pass under the radar?"

Over in the media, and for the Bonkey's, the affirmative action crowd could care less (at this point.) It would have blown up like a freak storm, though, closer to the 2008 election.

Romney's haing NOTHING OF IT!

Neither is Drudge. WHo has no problems with headlining this one. Because, my guess is that he knows a thing or two about freaks. And, giving them the "benefit of the doubt" ain't gonna work.

WHat's it like in those men's rooms that become places where the gays go? Well, you can't send in your kid to use the restroom, without worry!

What this story exposes? Among other things, in the3se restrooms, the men wheel in their luggage, an then use it to block the views from the front of the stall.

Any-hoo, this isn't Larry Craig's "first time." He lies about this subject with ease.

But the candidate, Romney, just blasted him a "new one." It's over.

Does that mean there aren't republican men who know from first hand experience what it's like to lie TO YOUR CONGREGATION as you go "cruisen?" Heck no. But doing without regard to your family and your colleagues is just what blew up in Larry Craig's face.

Doesn't change that the affirmative action crowd's got all the creeps, nuts, union folk. And, lots of the stranger homosexuals.

Normally, though, this behavior doesn't fly.

And, you don't have to shill for the affirmative action folk, either.

Larry Craig is finished. He's got nothing to run with in 2008. And, the GOP? Now that Romney's called ALL OF DC a very sick place, indeed, there will probably be an ethics investgation ... not about George Bush, either.

"Tolerating" homosexuality, has absolutely nothing to do with these bathroom antics. Parsing words, where Larry Craig pled guilty misses the point.

What? He wasn't wearing a red bandana? He didn't have a green carnation in his lapel?

I pity his wife and kids. But at least "denial," for them, now, is more than a RIver in Eygpt.

The complaint reads Interference with Privacy. So there's your crime.
I know I certainly presume privacy, even in a public restroom.
Lord knows, enough public places have been ceded to rude and sometimes criminal behavior, through lack of policing.
If it hadn't been a police officer, it would've been a private citizen--perhaps a youth or young, innocent adult (there are such things these days). Such a come-on runs all the way from annoying to frightening, depending on the target.

Cycloptichorn

I think there's a slight bit of denial going on here...

If there is, it must be on your part.

While the Idaho Senator was busy refuting the charges against him, a much more interesting story was happening with a South Dakota Senator in Sioux Falls.

Senator Tim Johnson returned to South Dakota after a nine month absence and appeared at a convention center for a "Thank You" speech to fellow citizens. Johnson did not appear for the first thirty five minutes, which was taken up with music and honor guards, but when he did arrive, he was rolled in via a wheel chair. He then was assisted to stand at the podium and proceeded with a nine minute speech. He expressed appreciation for his support from South Dakota citizens even though some support has been slipping in recent weeks.

Johnson read from a printed script of several pages and could be understood for most of his speech. Sometimes he would mumble and I could not understand what he was saying. His wife Barbara stood at his side and would mouth the words, which indicated that the speech was very much rehearsed. Barbara knew the speech better than Johnson did. He had to read it and she knew it by heart.

Nightline will be showing a program tonight with Johnson appearing. Nightline will have had the advantage of several hours of interviews with Johnson and will undoubtedly edit his remarks. This should make him appear to be better than he actually is. He has been unwilling to be interviewed by any South Dakota reporter.

Senator Reid is extremely interested in Johnson running again. Reid's tenure as Senate Majority Leader is at stake. Johnson does not appear to be up to any strenuous reelection campaign or to do the duties of a United States Senator. It appears that he is in need of more recuperation and I think it is time for him to retire. It will be a well earned rest.

While the Idaho Senator was busy refuting the charges against him, a much more interesting story was happening with a South Dakota Senator in Sioux Falls.

Senator Tim Johnson returned to South Dakota after a nine month absence and appeared at a convention center for a "Thank You" speech to fellow citizens. Johnson did not appear for the first thirty five minutes, which was taken up with music and honor guards, but when he did arrive, he was rolled in via a wheel chair. He then was assisted to stand at the podium and proceeded with a nine minute speech. He expressed appreciation for his support from South Dakota citizens even though some support has been slipping in recent weeks.

Johnson read from a printed script of several pages and could be understood for most of his speech. Sometimes he would mumble and I could not understand what he was saying. His wife Barbara stood at his side and would mouth the words, which indicated that the speech was very much rehearsed. Barbara knew the speech better than Johnson did. He had to read it and she knew it by heart.

Nightline will be showing a program tonight with Johnson appearing. Nightline will have had the advantage of several hours of interviews with Johnson and will undoubtedly edit his remarks. This should make him appear to be better than he actually is. He has been unwilling to be interviewed by any South Dakota reporter.

Senator Reid is extremely interested in Johnson running again. Reid's tenure as Senate Majority Leader is at stake. Johnson does not appear to be up to any strenuous reelection campaign or to do the duties of a United States Senator. It appears that he is in need of more recuperation and I think it is time for him to retire. It will be a well earned rest.

notalawyer... interesting analogy. (I love analogies :-)

But in your scenario, money actually changes hands. What if two gay guys have sex for mutual pleasure? Is that a crime (except in Texas, which is a "whole other country"?)

If a man in very obscure fashion signals a willignness to offer sex to another man for free, mistakenly thinking the other guy might be interested... well that's certainly a social faux pas. But is it a crime?

Because I gotta tell you... men do this all the time to women. They signal interest, indicate their willingness and availability in subtle ways, check for response and move away if none is forthcoming.

It's called "hitting on somebody." I had no idea it was illegal!

While the Idaho Senator was busy refuting the charges against him, a much more interesting story was happening with a South Dakota Senator in Sioux Falls.

Senator Tim Johnson returned to South Dakota after a nine month absence and appeared at a convention center for a "Thank You" speech to fellow citizens. Johnson did not appear for the first thirty five minutes, which was taken up with music and honor guards, but when he did arrive, he was rolled in via a wheel chair. He then was assisted to stand at the podium and proceeded with a nine minute speech. He expressed appreciation for his support from South Dakota citizens even though some support has been slipping in recent weeks.

Johnson read from a printed script of several pages and could be understood for most of his speech. Sometimes he would mumble and I could not understand what he was saying. His wife Barbara stood at his side and would mouth the words, which indicated that the speech was very much rehearsed. Barbara knew the speech better than Johnson did. He had to read it and she knew it by heart.

Nightline will be showing a program tonight with Johnson appearing. Nightline will have had the advantage of several hours of interviews with Johnson and will undoubtedly edit his remarks. This should make him appear to be better than he actually is. He has been unwilling to be interviewed by any South Dakota reporter.

Senator Reid is extremely interested in Johnson running again. Reid's tenure as Senate Majority Leader is at stake. Johnson does not appear to be up to any strenuous reelection campaign or to do the duties of a United States Senator. It appears that he is in need of more recuperation and I think it is time for him to retire. It will be a well earned rest.

"This was a bad bust. There was no reason to arrest Craig as he did not solicit the officer. It is a he said/he said situation and one that would have been quickly dismissed in court. It could also be considered entrapment if the judge was liberal enough."

Retire05 ... OK, that's an interesting legal analysis.

Please now explain to us why, once arrested, the good Senator went before a judge and admitted his guilt and accepted 1 year of probation, a $1,000 fine, and a 10-day suspended sentence?

Because you see, where I think your argument falls apart is about the time Senator Craig admitted his guilt, paid his fine, and went on his way.

All Senator Craig needs to do is switch his affiliation to the Dem Party and, presto chango, no problem! The press can eat ---- on this one. Maybe Senator Craig should hire Barney Frank as his spokesman. Tom

"This was a bad bust. There was no reason to arrest Craig as he did not solicit the officer. It is a he said/he said situation and one that would have been quickly dismissed in court. It could also be considered entrapment if the judge was liberal enough."

Retire05 ... OK, that's an interesting legal analysis.

Please now explain to us why, once arrested, the good Senator went before a judge and admitted his guilt and accepted 1 year of probation, a $1,000 fine, and a 10-day suspended sentence?

Because you see, where I think your argument falls apart is about the time Senator Craig admitted his guilt, paid his fine, and went on his way.

Flenser,

Perhaps you could detail exactly what it is that I am denying. But I doubt it.

Some people mix apples and oranges.

This, here, isn't about Johnson. Isn't about South Dakota. Or Harry Reid. It's about Larry Craig's homosexuality. And, his pleading guilty, when caught in a men's room, where he FLEW IN to cruise.

If you think there's Bonkey support, nah.

This would have blown up LATER. But George Romney selected Larry Craig, on his republican credentials. He's been in the senate since 1980.

And, he's tossed Larry Craig OUT of his campaign! And, Drudge has a headline up, from Romney's campaign, BLASTING the DC crowd. Comparing this to the crap that flies in DC. And, it's BAD FOR THE COUNTRY.

Sure, Larry Craig lies. He's been lying about his homosexuality when challenged, before. And, he was challenged six years ago, when he was running, again.

Then? When the questions came up. Because men had come forward to discuss the sex they've had with Craig, he produced his wife Suzanne. "To vouch for him.

Just as he also uses his Christian credentials.

It's a studied art.

Why was the press "shy?" Because this would have been an even bigger "bonanza" later on.

Now it's just a story.

WHere most people know how unpleasant toilets can be when they're used by homosexuals for "cruising."

The other thing? All those who love affirmative action hires, vote Bonkey, anyway.

Maybe, there was a hope that this story would prick open the republican party? WHy?

We all know all we need to know about congress critters. And, for those who don't understand me? Go to Drudge. Look for his "above the fold" link to George Romney's remarks.

Will the GOP lose voters, here? You're pulling my leg, right?

Captain Ed, I don't think you get it. You want to prove that Larry Craig didn't do enough, because the evidence is flimsy.

On the other hand? Larry Craig, always, when challenged, fakes his answers. So being a senator just makes him more dishonest. Using his wife, Suzanne, to buck up his "family values" credentials? The guy's just too stupid. He shouldn't have risked so much for a blow job in a toilet. Better let toilets be places the public can go into, without dealing with these "aggressive cruisers."

That's why the toilet was under surveylance.

I think the cop, who was assigned this task, should be given a medal.

Otherwise, whores and homosexuals would turn all your public space into toilets and whore houses.

And, this story? Oh, if Larry Craig thought he "got away with it?" Nah. The Bonkeys were waiting. They just wanted to run with this one "later." In 2008. And, that's not gonna happen.

Make sure to read George Romney's remarks. Drudge has the link up.

Pardon me for being stupid, but just what, exactly, can 2 men do in a public restroom seperated by the stall divider?

"Pardon me for being stupid, but just what, exactly, can 2 men do in a public restroom seperated by the stall divider?"

Bob ... first, you're not stupid. You're just normal. But what they can do is not much beyond what actually happened in this case.

The next thing they do, once the signalling is over with, is to share the stall of the guy with the luggage, because his luggage blocks the view in front so people can't tell there's two people in there.

Then, let's say example that the guy with the luggage is a Senator. What he might do next is he would begin sucking the penis of the person he just met, until that person ejaculated semen into his mouth. He may, or may not, then swallow that semen.

Then, that stranger would leave the stall, and the Senator, in this example, would wait for another person who responded to his signals, and he'd do the same signalling process through the stall walls all over again.

All night.

Then he'd go back to Washington and raise your vote to raise your taxes and give illegal immigrants your job.

See, you get screwed here too.

So stop being so coy.

Okay, Bob Mc. It gets crowded. But then you get two guys in one stall.

One can stand on the rim. Pants down. And, penis erect. One guy gets the blow job. The other guy "gives."

Or, One guy bends over at the waist. And, both guys are "pants down." They meet. One man's anus (which can accommodate a fist, now. Is there for the other guy's erect penis, to go in.

I'll guess that you think sex can only happen in a bed, in the missionary position. So, now you know a bit more. And, I'm a female. only using her imagination. But, yes, I knew that there are toilets, frequented by homosexuals. They disregard the public nature of bathrooms, though. Be it in a store, where word goes out "they meet." Or in a park, somewhere.

When the complaints are made to the police, however, these toilets are staked out. Because stopping these behaviors frees the toilets up, again, for public use.

I know. It's hard to believe a married man; let alone a "good Christian," would ever do something like this.

Well, their AIDS. And, that doesn't stop the risks,either.

And, ya know what else? Homosexuals looking for sex venture farther than just bath houses in San Francisco.

Okay. What if the men use condoms? And, then don't flush them away? You think it's great to see "signs?" You think homosexuals might want to "advertise?"

I'm not buying Larry Craig's excuses; even if his wive, Suzanne, vouches for him.

And, George Romney is right. There's a "culture" that goes with this corruption. The GOP is wise when it doesn't tolerate the "mishigas."

Ray -- My sister had a stroke when she was 30. She still has difficulty with her speech seven years later because part of her mouth is paralyzed. Her thinking is fine -- she just has trouble with articulation. She finds this embarrasing and tries to avoid speaking to strangers when possible. The fact that Tim Johnson could deliver MOST of a nine minute speech so soon after a massive stroke is great. He might not want to speak to reporters because he knows people like you will seize on any missteps and make fun of him or insinuate that he is mentally deficient.

I'm just wondering if Mr. Craig and the rest of the Gay Bathroom Republican Caucus realises there's a frakin war on, and they probably got better things to do on our fkin dime than to give Al Queda one more reason to boast that the US is immoral and should be destroyed.

Shep Smith spent a great deal of time on this case at the start of his Fox Report tonight, referring constantly to Sen. Craig's Republican affiliation. The next report was a brief story about the Tennessee state senator who was just convicted on corruption charges, and who is also the uncle of former Rep. Harold Ford. At no time did Shep Smith mention their political affiliation. I expect better of Fox News. Of course, Shep probably thinks that corruption of the financial nature is far less serious than dalliances in restrooms.

Notgayneverhavebeengay; your response is way better than mine, to Bob Mc's question. Because you included how we all get screwed! I forgot that part!

But George Romney's having NONE OF IT!

Hope you've gone to Drudge to see Romney's official statement.

Remember Jack Nicholson's courtroom appearance in "Chinatown?"

Mark F(oley)... are you suggesting that the media should NOT report that Mr. Craig, the latest in a long string of Republicans pulling their pants down to the nearest strange man or boy, is a Republican?

I am a lifelong Republican. The party, just like the Catholic Church, has been inundated with folks who think giving blowjobs to perfect strangers who may have AIDS in public bathrooms in the possible presence of children is just AOK behavior.

It's time we Republicans make it clear exactly where we stand with these people and vote them out of power.

I LOVE IT that they're being outed, one by one. One blowjob at a time. Hell, they're being SET UP and they still do it!

I think it's WONDERFUL that Shep is reminding true Republicans that they have wolves in the midst of their children.

I could care less he doesn't mention Democrat bribe-takers. We EXPECT Democrats to take bribes.

We don't send our Republican Senators to Washington to hang out in bathrooms sucking people's dicks.

The GOP is in fine shape, folks. Stop worrying that Irak confuses the situation. It doesn't.

And, George Romney has gone full blast at the ethical corruptions in DC. Both parties, if you please, have lowered their standards. And, most Americans are fully aware of this.

As to the story, it actually blasted out on the Internet. If the dudes and dudettes of the media are playing with it, too, so what?

The secret's gone out of it.

You can read about it here. At Drudge. And, up at Lucianne. Oh, and Hot Air.

It's not as if republicans are ducking.

Or they have to worry about exposure, "because we're at war in Irak."

Oh, ya know, I think I saw Chinatown. Jack Nicolson's nose carries a bandaid over it. I think Faye Dunnaway was young, then, too. But courtroom scene? From a hollywood movie? Nope. Drawing a blank.

Was this an attempt, richard mcenroe, to change the subject?

I'm sure hollywood types are very familiar with homosexuals. But there never has been a toilet scene, that I can remember, done in some park setting. Guess it doesn't sell tickets,huh?

This comments thread is funny... The police have been arresting gay men for decades for doing less than Craig did. If you don't like the laws, change them and maybe the police can go catch rapists or murders instead of weenie waggers. Craig is getting what he deserves. Many in the gay community actually do feel sorry for Craig, particularly because he was caught and charged with doing something that we have tried to change for decades. Did you guys think that it sucked (pun intended) when it was just "fags" getting arrested for this shit?

notalawyer, while you may not agree with me, Craig probably copped a plea to try to keep this on the Q.T. It didn't work. But there was no sexual crime. He was booked on "invasion of privacy" and that could happen to you or to me if someone in the bathroom decided that you were doing more than checking the stall to see if anyone was in it.
And since there was no measurement of the stalls given, it doesn't surprise me that the roller bag would be placed in the front of the stall by the door (some stalls being extremely narrow). I have place my bag in the front by the door before in an airport because the stalls at Houston Hobby are very narrow.
Craig did not address the cop, made no comments to the cop, did not take any money or be threatening in any other way. The cop was there for one reason; to bust gays.
And you still have not answered my question; if Craig was in the stall to the left of the officer, how did he stick his left hand under the wall?

Anyone think that maybe Carol Herman gets off with her/his dirty talk about homosexual activities? How does Carol know so much about the activities of gay men? And yes, Carol can be a man's name just as can Joyce.

retire05,

"If Craig was in the stall to the left of the officer, how did he stick his left hand under the wall?"

You're arguing the facts of the case, and I laud your efforts ... however your client has already been convicted.

The facts of the case are not in dispute ... since the esteemed Senator has admitted his crime by pleading guilty to it.

There was no "sex" but there was a "sexual crime" in the same way that when a cop busts a prostitute without having actual sex with her, there is a "sexual crime."

The fact that he plead guilty to the crime of Invasion to Privacy does not negate the fact that a crime of a sexual nature was about to be committed and that the only reason it was not committed is that the police officer stopped the crime before it could happen - which he is required by law to do. In the same way that police offiers do every day when arresting prostitutes without actually having to go all the way with them and do the sex act.

It's just common sense, sir.

And for you to keep arguing as if there wasn't a crime ... when the Senator plead guilty, accepted paying a fine of $1,000, received a 10-day suspended jail sentence and one year's probation, indicates to me that you are "spinning" for the Senator.

Shame, sir. Just shameful.

Just like Dr. Ruth, retire05, I can talk about sex, openly. It ain't dirty talk, unless it's your ears that have the problem.

When homosexuals take over public toilets they become unusable for everyone else.

And, it's no excuse that "fags" have designated toilets, either.

For me, Romney, who got caught with this man on his staff, has gone to great lengths to distance himself from the fallout.

For the GOP? Lucky it's out in the open, now.

And, not something that bursts when we're closer to election time.

Good for the Net! It actually broke the story, today. A bit late. But ahead of the news cycles. Perhaps they were saving this one for future use?

If Larry Craig doesn't resign? Well, congress is on recess. But he doesn't own enough wool, now, to pull off a defense that he's a married man. From Idaho. Poke-a-hole just happened to his excuses.

And, Idaho'an's aren't happy about being considered naive enough for their Brokeback Moutain crew.

Having sexual encounters in public toilets isn't worth it. The cops do get called. And, who can complain except men who walk in on this stuff, and don't like it. Keep public toilets for public use.

And, for those who vote the affirmative action Bonkey? They're not in the majority, yet.

Scott Lemieux at Lawyers Guns & Money agrees with you, Captain, that the arrest wasn't justifiable.

http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2007/08/partisan-homophobia.html

I'm more curious about the unreported June arrest, in that it shows that Craig took a calculated risk that backfired. Surely he expected front-page treatment in June- the Idaho Statesman goes nuts, the cable talk shows morph him into that day's Mark Foley. Incredibly, nothing is reported. He's amazed, even heartened. He lurks for 2 more months- still nothing. So he figures he's in the clear & cops a plea. Then, whammo- the story breaks, and it's the worst of all worlds- he's made an admission against interest and marshalled no defense to the charge. Put yourself in his shoes- for two months, he thought he'd slid in under the tag. That was his gambit. He lost.

40 years ago I was a Sophomore at Penn. I was, and remain, straight. Driving to Florida for spring break I was arrested on charges remarkably like this in a small town in South Carolina. In the real world, all I'd done was use the urinal for it's intended purpose, and glance at the cop who tapped me on the shoulder while I was in the middle of the act. Of course it didn't read that way in his report.

I was arrested and given a choice - either try to make an absurdly high bail - more than my parent's house - and face a felony trial with a policeman who was swearing to bald-faced lies, or plead no contest to a misdemeanor and pay about a month's salary for said cop.

It wasn't much of a choice.

I don't know what Craig did or did not do. Given the rumors that have floated about him, he may well be closeted and guilty. But he might also be an innocent man faced with crushing injustice no matter what he did. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that he was innocent, his innocent plea would have been met with a lying officer, a conviction and the end of his career, along with a long spell in jail. If he plead out he would face no jail, a small fine, and maybe - just maybe - he could keep it out of the media and stay in office.

Guilty or innocent, he would make the same decision I made.

DSINHOPE -- Give me a break. First of all, had this gone to trial, even if found guilty he still would have served zero time and gotten a fine. There was no jail time ever in play here. Certainly no one would have railroaded a US Senator in court with all the nation watching the trial.

Second of all, this was not a panicked decision. THe incident occurred in JUNE. He had all of July to think on it, get a lawyer, tell his family, etc... before he went back in AUGUST to pay the fine. He was hoping to get away with it.

Third of all, I'd say this officer and the people in Minnesota were pretty damn nice to him. None of this leaked until three months after it happened which means the police and judge and people in the courthouse were not running to the press to leak this hot story -- even after Craig acts like a jerk and tries to pull rank on them.

You can get arrested in West Hollywood CA for simply driving around certain streets after dark. You are presumed guilty of cruising for public sex just by having to drive past the same corner twice, for whatever reason you may need to.

I say Craig should stay on.

I see there's another Ray here, so I'll have to change my nic a bit.

I don't think the senator should resign. There's too may calls for "gay rights" for the Democrats to beat him up on this. If he lied about his actions, he'll have to live with the legal consequences of that, if he didn't he has nothing to feel guilty about no matter what the rest of us think. I can't understand why Democrats insist that Republicans be held to a higher standard then fellow Democrats anyways. That's the epitome of hypocrisy.

The senator's constituents will be the final judge of his behavior, so let's let them make the ultimate decision.

notalawyer, now you say that a crime was "about" to be committed? Since when did "about to commit a crime" become prosecutable? Are you "about" to commit a crime of say, speeding, because you get into your car? We don't second guess in our judicial system. Our judges are not Karnack.
And a cop cannot bust a hooker unless there has been money transferred or a verbal agreement to the charges for services. "Will you have sex with me" and getting the answer "yes" is not a crime. If it were, 90% of Americans would be in jail The criminal part comes in when "how much?" is answered. Consentual sex is not a crime. So common sense about criminal activity seems to be something you are a little short on. You cannot arrest someone because you think they are going to commit a crime.

Carol, I don't know about you, but I don't read with my ears. I use my eyes. And if you want to talk dirty, I suggest you find some XXXXX rated website to fulfill your desires.

"When homosexuals take over public toilets they become unusable for everyone else."

What a dimwit you are. Are you still operating on the belief that you can catch HIV/AIDs from a toilet seat? And what would you have gay people do? Pee in the waste can? Perhaps you could lobby to have special rest rooms assigned to gay people. That way a bigot like yourself would be assured that you would never get any "gayness" on you.

Certainly no one would have railroaded a US Senator in court with all the nation watching the trial.

And certainly and entire police department and DA wouldn't railroad three innocent college athletes with the entire nation watching, either. But they did. (hint for those that don't get it, Duke LaCrosse)

And a bunch of detectives wouldn't pick a house at random, get a no-knock warrant, break in the door and shoot a 92 year old woman. But they did. (hint for those that don't get it, Kathryn Johnson in Atlanta).

Guilty or innocent, his only choice was to plead out and pray.

We appreciate your restraint, and forgive you for you your lapse in judgement this time. I can sympathize. I stopped posting on liberal blogs long ago because there was no consistency in morals, compassion, or common sense.

I have not relapsed. I suggest you get back on the wagon and take your donkey home.

Yes, for in RightWingNutSparkle's world there is no room for others opinion!

Crime or not, this sorry excuse of a Senator who just happens to be another "I am not a gay" republican has once again shown us that your personal life should make no difference in how you vote. Afterall, we have St, Rudi and Matinee Mitt both disagreeing with pro-choice stances, yet consistently voted and supported such when in power. Ahhh the wingnuts, you gotta love em, they want you to go away on one hand because they disagree with you and then try and defend representatives of their faith as being setup and never ever has a crime ever been committed by Scooter, Gonzo or now the non-gay Senator from Idaho!

Captain,

You didn't include the start of the undercover officer's report. It began with Craig standing in front of the officer's stall, trying to stare through a crack fom almost 2 minutes. And it ended with Craig moving his foot to physically contact the officer's foot in the adjoining stall. I don't think that the officer was a "voluntary" participant in either case.

If you had personally experienced this type of conduct in a bathroom- clear sexual harassment- I don't think you'd have any problem with the police intervening. It's simply not the same as two adults, of any gender or sexual orientation, meeting in a bar and voluntarily starting a conversation.

Recap- straight men start to report acts of sexual harassment in a public restroom. Evidence begins to mount that the restroom has become a favorite place for gay men, many with AIDS, to engage in unprotected sex (think major public health concern). I would expect my local police to take action to disrupt the gay 'bathhouse fun', even though I generally support gay civil unions and gay rights. The rights of gay men end where my rights and the rights of other heterosexual men are violated. Gay men have no right to engage in conduct that's intended to result in the discharge of AIDS-infected bodily fluid in a public place, where others may accidentally come into contact with it.

In other words, would you like to be the next guy to use Craig's toilet?

This sting technique is how the police prevent our public, tax paid facilties from becoming 'French Embassies." Ed, do you want your grandchildren to walk into the MSP restroom and see two men engaged in oral sex? This is how the authorites clamp down (sorry!) on this sort of behavior. Yes, its not like nabbing bank robbers, but do you have a better idea?

So let him stay in office if you don't think this is much of a crime. The GOP's main reason for defeat in 2006 was the Foley scandle, now this. It appears to voters this hypocracy is embedded in the Republican party and more and more of us will flee the party that preached values and embraces depravity. Don't blame the base when the GOP gets its clock cleaned in 2008.

First, let me say I certainly don't envy that cop's job. What a miserable way to spend one's day.

I agree it's a grey area, but the public nature of the act seems central to the charge. This is different than hitting on woman in a bar...even the vilest pick up artist isn't taken to mean "Hey, Baby, let's get it on right here on this bar stool!". Craig's signals were apparently well understood to be a solicitation for his neighbor to join him in his stall...a callous disregard for any other person who might have innocently wandered into that public restroom.

As for signals being a crime...well, the law is always difficult when pre-empting a crime. Suppose a cop were talking to some gang members. Then their leader gives a known sign for "kill him". Is that a crime? Does the cop have to wait til he's actually attacked? Or does the "order" constitute a crime? Frankly, I have no idea.

I agree with most of what Captain Ed said.

If this was a democrat in Minneapolis would he have gotten the same treatment? No.

My concern is Larry Craig was set-up by his political opponents. If so, then Craig should get our support.

It’s well known that Craig was in “Keith Ellison” land at the time of his arrest. It is know that Ellison is Islamic democrat. It’s also known that Craig was a less than a heterosexual Republican. The two are political enemies.

Who, tipped off the Airport plainclothes cop of Craig's location and actions?

Who in ordered the Minneapolis Airport police undercover sting?

Who runs the Minneapolis-St Paul Airport Security?

Who is Jacalyn Hudlemeyer in the police report?

Who is Dave Karsnia in the police report?

If there are direct ties to Democrats in this case I will have to conclude that Larry Craig’s arrest was done for partisan reasons.

John, if you walked into a situation as you described, indecent exposure is a crime. You have to understand what is and what is not a crime.

As to leaving the GOP because of Senators like Craig, well, if that is all it takes for you, you are not a Republican to begin with. If you buy 50 apples and two of them have a bad spot, do you stop shopping at the grocery where you bought them?

Craig will wind up resigning, by Republican standards. If he was a Democrat, the rest of the Dhimmicrats would be standing with him on the Capitol steps to let the nation know they were standing with him in his hour of need.

The '06 defeat was over Foley? Not according to the Dims. They claimed it was the war. And remember, when the Dims were bashing Foley for an email, Gerry Studds died and the Dhimmicrats could not get in front of the TV cameras fast enough to say what a stand-up guy Studds was.

Can we say "double standard"?

retire05, of course there is a double standard, but if the GOP lives by preaching values, they will die of same.
Criag committed a crime and pled guilty to said crime.

I throw out the bad apples to the rest don't decay also. Is Craig going to resign; its coming out he has been associated with this kind of behavior for decades, yet the Republican National Committee kept supporting his reelection. We lumpen our played for fools.

It more than Craig and Foley, rampant spending, a war that's dragged on for years and years with no resolution, Harriet Myers, Gonzo, lack of a border fence and so on. This is just the last apple to fall off the cart.

And blaming the voters will not prove to be a winning strategy. Like Craig at his presser today, they never, never accept responsibility.

Why does everyone assume that if Craig were a Democrat he could survive this?

Jim Webb's a Democrat. Could he survive something like this? Could Ben Nelson?

They both are Senators from fairly conservative states. That would seem to me to be more the point than their party affiliation.

As to his conduct not being criminal, it wasn't until he plead. The police have broad powers to arrest based on any number of factors they determine constitute the elements of a chargeable offense. They are sometimes wrong. And it's up to the prosecutor to decide if the necessary elements to establish a crime can be proven. Clearly the prosecutor here found in favor of that and just as clearly Craig agreed because he plead guilty.

John

of course there is a double standard, but if the GOP lives by preaching values, they will die of same.

The Democrats do preach standards, ones which they frequently fail to live up to.

The difference is, we excuse them when they fail to live up to their standards, and they attack us when we don't live up to ours.

You seem to be saying the GOP should have no values. Is that really what you mean?

John, if you are not going to vote GOP just who the hell is left if you have any conservative values? Hillary? Obama?
Harriet Miers? So, did she make it? Gonzo? Do you have something against Hispanics to call him such? At least give the man the respect he has earned by coming from a set of parents who were migrant workers/share croppers and made something of himself. Border fence? Hell, it up to the Dhimmicrats, there would be no border. How many Dhimmicrats do you think will back the bill to give Elvira Arellano, criminal, a free ride back to the U.S. and her anchor baby.

So while all of you worry if Craig did/did not touch a cop's foot, a major story broke on Hillary campaign financing today, a bill was entered to give Elvira Arellano a free ride back to the U.S. after she broke the law, Dhimmicrats are doing their best to come up with a way to smear General Petraeus and pork barrel spending is more than ever.

So excuse me if I don't get too upset over Craig. He is just a little blip on the radar of what is going on in our nation and I don't have time to worry about a headline that will be gone in a week when we have brave men and women dying in Afghanistan and Iraq trying to cover all our asses.

To markfoleyvictim:

Stop being a jackass by suggesting that I'm that Florida Democrat who found it politically expedient to switch parties several years ago. I'm a Minnesotan who has been a life-long Republican activist, and I'm completely heterosexual. Certainly I'm not suggesting that Sen. Craig's political affiliation be hidden. But Shep Smith did more than mention it, he beat the viewers' heads repeatedly with it, and he then went on to hide the political affiliation of another miscreant. Don't accuse me of wanting to cover something up just because I resent blatant bias and double standards.

To Carol Herman:

Actually, you briefly mentioned an important point. Beyond the offense to sensibilities, the use of public restrooms for trysts can cause major problems for poor souls who desperately need those stalls for their intended purpose. There has to be a special place in hell for anyone who misuses critical facilities. And this includes people like a fellow I know who used to work fairs and carnivals, and bragged about all the times he brought girls (often under-aged) into handicap restrooms for sex.

Years ago I would of thought this an awful embarrassment to the Senator, but life around here has given me the impression that things like this do not matter at all.
We had a congressman from Cape Cod who had sexual relations with a page (Was it Paul Tsongas?) This seemed even more reprehensible, but had no effect on his career.
My own congressman is openly gay, and allowed his apartment to be used for prostitution by his lover. Again, this has nad no effect on his career.
I guess I thought that nobody any more cared at a congressman's sexual life in private. (or even as above, apparently in public)
I would encourage the Minnesota police to go after lewd sexual acts in public, which could have an unhappy effect on children.
But is that really what the officer did here?
This affair reads like an event of the 1950s. Have we gone back to this?

Beyond the "indecency" is the CHARADE.

Made enough to make George Romney react. He not only tossed Larry Craig off of his campaign; he ran a shot across the bow of all DC. Calling the whole town out of touch. And, that this stuff that passes, as long as you're not caught ... isn't the same thing as "upright."

Ya know, I don't care how the affirmative action crowd reacts. I never go to Kos. But I see that sometimes they come here, and spew. Doesn't change anyone's mind.

As to the Captan's reaction? I think it's what's called denial. And, then come the other steps.

As to "what the press could'a done with this story," closer to the 2008 elections, NO LONGER EXISTS AS AN OPPORTUNITY.

And, the other good thing? This story broke on the Internet. Which shows ya how the news cycles run.

Me? I go to Drudge every day. Yes, I've heard the rumors. But Drudge guards his privacy! And, he's not shy putting the headlines up. Where you can link to "outcomes."

For George Romney? This was a big problem. But he lanced it. And, he went after those in DC, who are "inside," so they are prone to knowing the truth. Where they then could line up and "cover" for their 99-others.

By the way, now that Romney says all of DC is corrupted, who'd he pull into his government, if he wins?

And, will Romney's posture force action in congress, when all these weasels go back to work in September?

Don't think politicians can now just blow this one off.

The Internet is spectacular at tapping into the moods of lots of people. (What Abraham Lincoln called "bathing in public opinion.)

As to Mark Foley, it cost the GOP "something." But it wasn't the whole enchilada. Don't forget, the donks who won were running as Blue Dogs.

And, George Allen, who had presidential aspirations, was running as INCIPID.

If there's a contest for the best post, here, my money's on NOT-GAY-NEVER-HAVE-VEEN-GAY. Because he got the hang of it in his conclusion: "And, then Larry Craig got to screw all of us." PERFECT.

That's what makes George Romney's statement; and his anger, so telling.

retire05

Scaring us with the Democrats did not work so well in the last election, did it? There is not a lot I can do about the Dems, I don't vote for them or contribute to them. Perhaps a better strategy would be for the GOP to field candidates who can keep thier zippers up.

flenser,

I am saying the GOP does have values, but exclude from the party who those who like Craig, Vinter and Foley who bring disaster upon us.

Do the Dems preach standards? I never can understand why Mass keeps sending Teddy back to the Senate. And Barney back to the House.

Has anyone seen any mention on just how busy the restroom was when the undercover cop was staked out there? Is it just possible that someone might be keyed up and frustrated about not being able to get a stall? Back in the early Seventies, a few jokers at the University of Minnesota thought it was hilarious to lock as many of the stalls in restrooms as they could, crawling out of each one under the door. It got to be a common thing to try to see if there was actually anyone in those stalls.

Those few hinting that Sen. Craig's arrest was part of a conspiracy really need to take a time-out. The airport cops have a thankless task, and I find it absurd that they would target any individual. It is also absurd to think that they are focusing on gays, since it isn't likely men and women are going to meet in a mens' restroom for sex. There is a problem and they have a perplexing problem in trying to resolve it.

John, I am not trying to scare anyone. But the last time we had a perfect man, the Romans nailed him to a cross. If you want perfection in any human being, you are going to be sorely disappointed for the rest of your life. And if you want to be scared, think President Hillary.

Instead of worrying about those you claim bring disaster upon us, perhaps it is time to start fighting back against Dhimmicrats who use our own standards against us while they try to shove socialism and collectivism down our throats. I don't really give a damn if Vitter sees two hookers a day if he fights terrorism, helps me keep more of my paycheck and doesn't tax me into the poor house.

And neither should you.

Here's a sex-in-the-public-bathroom case that got totally ignored by the national media, because it happened in the most liberal state in the US:

http://archive.salon.com/business/feature/2000/07/11/bishop/

excerpt:

"Gerard Jervis, a trustee of the Hawaiian philanthropic institution known as the Bishop Estate, was caught having sex in a public bathroom with a woman who happened to be a Bishop Estate lawyer. The next day, the lawyer committed suicide by inhaling fumes from her car in a closed garage. Jervis then attempted suicide a week later by taking an overdose of sleeping pills. He survived."

TJM, Larry Craig just can't wave at Harry Reid, and ask to be considered a Bonkey, because his term ends in December. And, he got elected in IDAHO. (Not "poke-a-fella" Idaho, either.)

Craig's been in the senate since 1980. This means he flew in on Reagan's coattails. His known as a senior republican senator from Idaho.

Other than that? His career's over.

And, George Romney, who had welcomed him into his campaign (I think in a #2 spot), just discharged him from service. Dispicable is a work Romney uses. It's dispicable to hide behind your credentials, or your marriage, and then go about trolling in toilets for homosexual "encounters."

What's ahead? Well, the Internet called the shots and broke the story.

The crowd in DC are all out on "recess."

And, we're heading into a very big election year.

To offset the damage to the George Romney campaign, someone there gave a statement to a newspaper, and then alerted Drudge of the link. Drudge is running the piece because Romney knows he's got a fire on his hands. He dealt with it swiftly, too.

Long term harms to the GOP? Nada.

Gearing up to fill the senate seat vacancy? Whether or not Larry Craig "resigns?" Behind the scenes, on-going right now.

There's no comparison between the republican party, and the affirmative action clowns over there where the Donkeys hang out. None.

I'd even bet that's the reason this story is out here ON THE NET. And, not being run by the DC crowd, or their pundits. Even with some silly TV footage thrown in. The audience, here, is larger than the one in front of boob tubes. In my opinion.

This is what sunshine does. It bleaches out the stains. And, it's all for the good. Heck, up ahead? The St.Paul/Minneapolis airport's men's rooms won't be theme parks for homosexual "strollers." I'm anticipating that, that that will come as a relief! Don't forget the police got complaints from travelers. That's why they were there. Will Larry Craig still troll toilets? YOU BET! But he won't have his senator's card to flash around much longer. Most people aren't as stupid as his wife.

retire05,

We will just have to disagree, I did not say I was looking for perfection, but I do expect minimum standards of decency from my elected public officials.

Oh, I call Clinton "Bubba", does that make me an anti Southerner?
Ed wrote:

One person asked me if I want my grandchild to have to witness sex acts in bathrooms. No, of course not, but that's not what happened here. If Craig had dropped trou or exposed himself for the purpose of sexual gratification in public (or the "Generic Suspect", if you will), then I would completely agree that a crime took place and the perp should get arrested.

Ed, where do you want to stop it, when the sex act is taking place? Money is not exchanged in these encounters, so its not exactly comparable to a John getting busted. The police officer has to use some discretion and judgment. And as most all of us keep pointing out, Craig pled guilty. If this was a one time event, maybe it would be debatable, but its now coming out he left a paper (sorry) trail over the years.

I don't want someone hitting on me while I am sitting on the pot in the airport, and as I asked earlier, what do you expect the police to do instead of these stings?

retire05,
This is eating the party alive, from today's NYTimes, a GOP strategist:

“The real question for Republicans in Washington is how low can you go, because we are approaching a level of ridiculousness,” said Mr. Reed, sounding exasperated in an interview on Tuesday morning. “You can’t make this stuff up. And the impact this is having on the grass-roots around the country is devastating. Republicans think the governing class in Washington are a bunch of buffoons who have total disregard for the principles of the party, the law of the land and the future of the country.”

To which I add, Amen.

retire05,

And this, also from the NYTimes today:

Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy group in Washington, said the elections of November 2006, in which Republicans lost control of the House and the Senate, proved that voters want politicians in Washington to clean up their act.

“Exit polls show that was the No. 1 factor in depressing Republican enthusiasm,” Mr. Perkins said in an interview Tuesday. “There is an expectation that leaders who espouse family values will live by those values. And while the values voters don’t demand perfection, I do believe they want leaders with integrity.”

***
With more of these shenanigans Hillary will be sworn in without even breaking a sweat.

notalawyer wrote:
Please now explain to us why, once arrested, the good Senator went before a judge and admitted his guilt and accepted 1 year of probation, a $1,000 fine, and a 10-day suspended sentence?

Because you see, where I think your argument falls apart is about the time Senator Craig admitted his guilt, paid his fine, and went on his way.

Why? Because its a year of probabtion, a thousand dollar fine and a ten day suspended sentense. All things that he can do without it impacting on his life or besmirching his name undluly. Whereas if he has to go to trial his name gets splashed all over the papers and if he tries to fight it gay rumors start flying all over the place and partisans start using the incident to destroy his career. So it seems like coping to a charge that doesn't cost much is better than not copping to it and dealing with the consequences.
Of course, by not figthint the charges his name is still dragged through the mud, so not sure how effective his plan was.

Be that as it may, this has to be one of the lamest stories out there. We have hand gestures and feet touching each other. Were actual words even spoken? Did he gaze longingly into the cops eyes and stroke his groin? THis is what people are getting arrested for? Can we at least wait until maybe he has his pants down around his ankles before charging him with lewd behavior.
Even if he is gay, that's not or shouldn't be a crime to in in effect make a pass at someone.

The greater consequence of all the Republican bathhouse footsie, oral expression, and chid play will be the return of the Horndog In Chief to the White House. Now how ironic is that. And to add salt to the wound, you know that he and the wife are going to raise taxes on the rich...

There are some great comments up at Lucianne's thread.

One points out how Larry Craig starts off his presser with: "Thank you all for coming out."

Of course, you then parse the words. He's saying he's not "homosexual." Well, we know he's also married. So that makes him bi-sexual. Is his excuse in the parsing of the word "gay?"

And, then there was this one. My favorite. By someone who blogs on as "forward."

"My left foot just temporarily forgot which toilet stall I was actually sitting in."

Sometimes, ya just need a sense of humor to go along with this "poke-a-hole" stuff.

Yeah. I wonder how those in Idaho feel about having kept sending this guy to the senate for 27 years. (And, yes, rumors of his homosexuality have been floating around for 40 years!) He's good at denying it. So, there ya go.

Just because a congress critter's lips are moving, doesn't mean you're hearing the truth. But they will tell you want YOU want to hear.

Or, any other excuse BUT THE TRUTH. Till it works.

I don't know if this behavior is a crime:

"“I could see Craig look through the crack in the door from his position. Craig would look down at his hands, ‘fidget’ with his fingers, and then look through the crack into my stall again. Craig would repeat this cycle for about two minutes,” the report states."

but if not it should be. It sounds like he's a Peeping Tom in addition to whatever else. You can take a glimpse through the crack to verify that there is someone in the stall, but repeatedly staring through the crack for any period of time longer than ~1/2 second is pretty obviously voyuerism.

I had some guy do that to me a few years ago. Fortunately (whether for him or me, I don't know), he had disappeared by the time I finished up. Maybe he was in the stall next to me desperately waving his hand. Creepy and disgusting either way.

Disorderly conduct charge?

In Texas that is just a ticket, you know, just like a traffic ticket!

Assuming these events transpired as they've been laid out... (his guilty plea does lend itself to that conclusion)...

I think he maybe should resign.

But...

I think he should resign exactly 12 seconds after Barney Frank resigns, over having once been caught allowing his "partner" to run a "call boy" service from his Congressional offices and his apartment.

Does Craig's "crime" rise to a resign-worth offense? In my opinion, maybe. I'd have to know more than what's been reported. Would I vote for him? Only if the alternative candidate were worse.

But I'm tired of this game. Tired of it.

I'm sure if Craig's problem warrants pushing him out... he'll be pushed out. But I'll be (@&*%@# if I give any credence to the party of Barney Frank's prostitution ring, Robert "Sheets" Byrd's screams of racism, and Ted Kennedy's hammering people over boorish behavior... for their own hypocritical, selective outrage.

His crime is quite clear.

According to to the police officer, Craig spent about two minutes looking though the crack into the toilet area of the officer.

When I'm in a public bathroom doing a #2, I don't want some guy taking repeated looks through the slit between the door and the partition.

Yuck!

His willingness to hide his homosexual side leaves him susceptible to blackmail, btw.

Mark Steyn's take. I got to it at NRO, by following a link up at Glenn Reynolds InstaPundit.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Cruisin' for jihadists [Mark Steyn]

A reader writes:

All of the easy Larry Craig jokes aside ...

So Larry Craig was looking through the cracks in the stalls, moving his hands oddly and tapping his foot in the airport bathroom and was arrested because such behavior fits the profile of someone looking to engage in bathroom sex. OK.

But isn't there actually a serious policy question here about why we're willing to let law enforcement use profiling to apprehend and prevent creeps from getting it on in the airport bathroom but not willing to let law enforcement use profiling to apprehend and prevent terrorists from getting on an airplane?

I take your point. If Senator Craig had gone into the stall, rolled out his prayer mat, yelled "Allahu Akbar!" and been observed attempting to weaponize the ballcock, the undercover cop would have shrugged, "Do I really want to get stuck with another four-week stint in Sensitivity Training hell?" and gone about his business.

Captain Ed - I cannot believe that you are unaware of the way that many Americans feel about some public places we cannot possibly avoid, like public restrooms in airports, and the dangerous places they have become in many areas, like rest stops and truckstops, too - you should h ear what truckers are saying aobut these areas on Talk Radio. As a woman in a sparsely populated area, our family has had many a cause to use even the best of roadside rest stops, and truck stops - IN SPITE OF THE REPUTATION THAT GOES WITH THEM, including that people have been found DEAD at such places.
We have a right to have the police DISCOURAGE rampantly aggressive misconduct in such places where we can often be the most vulnerable, and reprobates most like to congregate.
PLACES THAT THE GOVERNMENT BUILDS AND MAINTAINS for our convenience!

Many places like this are hitting the newspapers with such overwhelming conduct, that sometimes, even in fine restaurants, it isn't safe to send your own children 20 FEET away from you to a public restaurant and expect them to come out ALIVE.

San Antonio had a famous case of that a very long time ago, about 20-25 years ago, when a 9 yr old went to the restroom alone if a very fine upscale Mexican restaurant, and when he didn't come out in a timely fashion, an employee discovered him hanged in the roll towel and dead, and abused.

Are you saying a police VICE OFFICER has to "GO ALL THE WAY" before he can make an arrest?

I pray that the Senator hangs in there until November, 2008 so that he may be used as an example likened to Foley. Foley took the GOP (Grand Old Perverts) down last November and Craig can do the same by holding on to his seat. Stay, senator, stay.

As for him losing his office over this? YES, if for nothing else but pure stupidity.

His reputation was already tarnished.

You can look up what Billy Graham did when immediately following his first out-of-town crusade, the next morning as he was leaving town to fly back home, a lady rushed up to him in the hotel lobby and grabbed and kissed him, with a convenient photographer "just so happening" to catch the fatal moment forever.
The photo was published the next morning, side by side with the photo of him waving cherrily to the crowds from the door of the airplane, on the upper fold of the front page of the newspaper.
He was humiliated, and sat down with his board and vowed such a thing would NEVER BE ALLOWED to happen to him again - and they sat and strategized about EVERY CONCEIVEABLE situation and contingency, and they made plans then and there for policies they would NEVER EVER VIOLATE during his entire ministry.

This meant that every time he went to a motel or hotel, 4 or 5 or 6 or 8 of his men would tightly surround him so that NO STRANGER could penetrate their shield and set him up for compromising situations OR PHOTOS ever ever ever again.

Craig has faced this circus many times before - AND STILL HAS NOT PROVIDED for the general welfare of his reputation, job security and health of his marriage, in like manner as did Billy Graham.

Old saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me - but this is many many times DOWN THE ROAD, including one instance Fox News cited from several years ago, where a Congressional intern confessed to the papers he'd had homosexual conduct with 3 different UNNAMED Congressmen.
Craig ALONE answered the UNNAMED CHARGES with an INSTANT PRESS RELEASE that "IT WASN'T HIM!"
(Soon after, the intern recanted.)

Craig has had time to put certain STANDARD PROTECTIVE PROCEDURES in place, and has not only failed to do so, but CONFESSES THIS TIME to the SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR and APOLOGIZES THAT HIS CONDUCT WAS "MISUNDERSTOOD".

Good Grief!

And yes, it is sufficient for him to lose his office BECAUSE HE HAS FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS TO HIS VOTERS, much less to his wife, TO WHICH HE SWORE AN OATH in both instances.

I tell you, once burned by FALSE ACCUSATIONS, most folks in a position that is sensitive to public opinion THAT THEY HIGHLY VALUE will then bend over backwards TO AVOID EVEN THE VERY APPEARANCE of any MISUNDERSTANDING about their conduct! It's about FIDUCIARY TRUST.

Like if your bank's president was constantly seen in the company of known mafia dons.

For instance, a man my family knew was famous for flirting, and broadly assumed to be an adulterer.
One man in the family displayed shocked dismay at the assumption by several women that they had just witnessed him in a sidewalk casual situation of no importance whatsoever, which we all assumed revealed one of his latest paramours.

ALL the women then told the one man we'd all been personal witnesses and even recipients to the initial stages of such initiating circumstances - the eye contact, the casual touch, the too tight hugs, etc, that last a smidge too long... by that man in question.
The innocent man was shocked at our presumption.

But I told him, he himself had looong ago made the adjustments in his personal conduct - so long ago, he'd forgotten, and dismissed them.
He thought I was odd for saying so.
I told him that I had observed the lady in question approaching him, even though he was standing straight beside his own wife whom he loves dearly. The lady had come "too" close on flimsy pretext, and attempted to carressingly lay her hand on his arm as she "shared a thought" with him - but he had instinctively - not insultingly at all, very courteously, casually and without thought at all stepped back a half step towards his wife, and physically removed himself, in slight body language.
When he professed shocked amazement, having not even NOTICED himself do that, all the ladies present said they'd ALL NOTICED IT, same as I did - and THEN his wife confessed with a twinkle that SHE HAD NOTICED TOO. (Because if he had not, she was about to step forward and establish her territory to that lady in no uncertain terms!)
But this good man of innocent heart, had made that adjustment in his relationhip with her some 30-40 years before AND NO LONGER EVEN REMEMBERED the HABITS of behavior he had formed. NEVER EVEN NOTICED the subtle body language with which he had deliberately given his reassurances to his wife, and signalled to other women long ago - NOT AVAILABLE!

This kindly elderly gentleman was ROCKED and STUNNED by our observances.
And I can tell you, in THAT moment, he was also mightily relieved with such a "cloud of witnesses" that he had paid attention to the details of such habits long long ago! AND THUS BEEN himself "CAUGHT" VINDICATED!
Then he had to confess that given what all tiny "insignificant" signals each of us had observed in this one gentleman and one lady, he had to confess that upon careful consideration, we were most likely correct in our assessment of that pair.

And we were, as subsequent events publicly revealed!

It wasn't because we were EVIL EYED BIDDIES - we were just observant of ordinary habitual human behavior, regarding the standard operating procedures of certain dedications of the heart.

You don't call it evil when you recognize the signs of a bird dog "on the hunt" - just OBSERVANT.

Now, if you see something evil in an innocent happenstance, OK, we all know such folks.

But really, people in restrooms should and usually do take ordinary common courteous observances to honor eachothers' "space".

Some high officials may be used to taking a wide swath down the middle, but even so - such people who have "wide stances" would normally make sure several stalls were between him and the only other person in the place! Just because they don't want THAT OTHER PERSON invading THEIR space!
How many of you have seen such people "be approachable" no matter WHERE they are - they even want isolated booths in restaurants, or seats on the plane - much less even in a BATHROOM. They'll use their briefcase and "work they need to do" as a BUFFER ZONE, obviously intended to keep others at bay, in a non-insulting way.

So those of you trying to excuse his behavior are only provoking the rest of us to our memories, which only brings all the more instances of why this man's conduct is screaming at us.

FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS!

We have a right, above all, to expect an attitude towards places like public restrooms to be on the side of public safety and security - I notice people aren't even remembering how often children are in public restrooms, and that some parents are so news-deaf, they have yet to realize that public restrooms are no longer places they can shoo their children to while they are busy with other preoccupations.

A few years ago, one parent brought the plight of public restrooms by public playgrounds to the attention of the local media, when they had done exactly that and shooed a small child to the restroom while they continued swinging the siblings - only to be confronted with a horrifying situation by a child desperately in need of SAFE place to use the facilities, being met with a large number of adults engaged in activities no such a young child should EVER witness in a public place!
Turns out that up til then for an indeterminate period of time, years, that activity was common while the place was unlocked, non-stop.

More recently, parents did the same thing in a local entertainment park, in the San Antonio area, as they sat at a nearby picnic table with other siblings - and the child was taken hostage, and it took some tough negotiations to get the child released alive and safe - and in the mess that followed, the hostage taker managed to escape!

I'd rather have an adult arrested for FLIRTING in a public place than have our children face such situations in a place they cannot avoid needing to go to!

Remember guys, Craig has confessed to the BEHAVIOR the Law Officer accused him of, in his public statments, WHEN HE APOLOGIZED FOR THOSE ACTIONS BEING "MISUNDERSTOOD".

After someone has had the rumors plaguing his career for so many decades, that can hardly be argued ANY MORE as "INNOCENT BEHAVIOR".

Public Servants have obligations to conduct themselves with PROPRIETY.

They don't have "RIGHTS" anymore, THEY SWORE AN OATH to their public office. They owe us an accountability for their conduct.

It's time many of them start remembering that!

If the facts are as they have been reported, this was an arrest made without probable cause. I suspect that police in this situation were more interested in the in terrorem effect of making arrests of closet cases or of hetero men on the down low (to whom secrecy about their sexual proclivities matters more than public vindication of constitutional rights) than in obtaining convictions by fair means.

One irony is that authoritarian Republicans, as a rule, care little about Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable seizures. The schadenfreude on my side of the aisle is sweet.

I am a libertarian (lite), and I happen to think you got it about right. One could argue that there was an element of entrappment. But I hope it makes people think about conservatism, and what political philosophy means - Craig's true crime was a lack of integrity. If Craig had advocated true conservatism - minimizing government intrusion into the finances and bedrooms of people, he would at least not be guilty of hypocrisy.

The lefties crack me up...so sensitive about their "privacy" when they're trying to do their business in a "public" bathroom?

I wonder if they'll maintain their concept of sexual harassment.

The same hypocrites want to do away with the "don't ask" policy in the US Navy. Will it be "harassment" when a homo walks around the berthing area or shower with a woodie? Whether or not there are "foot taps"? How long can he stand two feet away from you with a woodie…while he’s gazing at you in your rack or when you’re undressing? When will it be considered "harassment"? 5 minutes? 10 minutes? Does this time period change if the same woodie-sporting sailor asked you on a date the previous day? Asking someone on a date is not always against Navy Regs /UCMJ.

Remember, I'm not talking about the 5 to 10 minutes you sensitive, metro-sexuals are "exposed" to the harassment in a public bathroom. I’ve had that happen too. It’s uncomfortable but can be dealt with…try taking off your PC tinfoil hats and think about how this will work in a 24/7 situation.

I couldn’t care one bit about who’s a homo and who’s not a homo. The invasion of privacy / harassment is not worth the PC points you guys will gain. Why do you think we don’t make the women shower and sleep with the men?

No, of course not, but that's not what happened here.

You can be arrested for showing you have intent to take part in illegal acts. Look at cops who pick up guys propositioning prostitutes. They didn't pay money for sex, but they showed intent.

And if you have ever seen one of those To Catch A Predator shows... those guys just show up at a house. They didn't do anything wrong, right?

It seems clear that this guy wanted to engage in a lewd act in a public place. You can be charged for that.

Cap, thats some busy bathroom your guys have at your airport, what with the foot washing and gay cruising how does anyone get anything done in there?

TAP THREE TIMES ON THE STALL FLOOR IF YOU WANT ME!!!!!

Several posters have mentioned George Romney....What the heck does George Romney have to do with any of this? If I'm not mistaken, he died years ago. And, he apparently was perfectly straight.

Several posters have mentioned George Romney....What the heck does George Romney have to do with any of this? If I'm not mistaken, he died years ago. And, he apparently was perfectly straight.

I think that, if someone reached their foot from their stall area into my stall area to tap my foot, I'd be pretty creeped out.

I can see the argument that that would be a sufficiently abnormal and overt act to be considered a violation of law.

There many such somewhat arbitrary lines that you don't cross if you want to stay square with the law. It's the nature of law to have such tripwires.

Several posters have mentioned George Romney....I'm assuming the references are about the former businessman and politician, but what the heck does he have to do with any of this? He died in 1995 and apparently was perfectly straight.

For god sake he is a SENATOR. He has all kinds of resources that we do not have. If even a senator has to plead guilty for no crime, what is going on with this legal system?

In the post by notgayneverhavebeengay, he says:

“Then, that stranger would leave the stall, and the Senator, in this example, would wait for another person who responded to his signals, and he'd do the same signalling process through the stall walls all over again.
All night.
Then he'd go back to Washington and raise your vote to raise your taxes and give illegal immigrants your job.”

“Shortly after 1 p.m. EDT, June 11, Craig was in the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, making a connection to Washington. Detained by police for 45 minutes that day, Craig made it back to the Capitol for an early Monday evening vote to support Attorney General Gonzales.”
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/08/on_way_to_gonzales_vote_craigs.html#comments

By the way (I’m a Democrat), I wonder if Sen Craig can claim immunity from arrest under the US Constitution which bars the arrest of legislators (Senators) traveling for a vote?

The section of the US Constitution is:
“Section. 6.
Clause 1: The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. [...] They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
http://www.house.gov/paul/constitution.html#art1

he pled guilty at first because he was caught red handed in the cookie jar and didn't have time to think of ridiculous excuses

There's an old expression, that scoundrels wrap themselves up like patriots, in the American flag.

The same can be said of certain Christians; be they perverted priests, or others who hold high rank in "ditto-head" religous forums.

It seems Larry Craig is one of these. And, he knows how to lie about it, too. Currently, that's his stance. He's a pro! Been doing the homosexual stuff for nigh on 40 years; since college. With rumors that circulate. And, which he "denies."

Poka-a-fella, Idaho-ans, are more than welcome to this trash. He lies like Bubba. But the bigger question is, now that he's out in the sunshine; can he keep his seat?

George Romney had advanced this clown to a the #2 insider's spot on his campaign. HE DUMPED HIM. And, he made sure Drudge had the link where he calls Larry Craig a disgusting piece of work. How so? Because this schmuck lies to his family. Lies to his constituents. And, LIES about his tendencies to troll mens rooms for promiscuous sex.

By the way, heterosexuals have a tough time seeing much in this bathroom trolling. But gay guys, where you find the links to what they're saying ... And, InstaPundit provided one, yesterday ... Say that they recognized the tap, tap, tap ... for what it was. A come-on. Gays don't pursue their "sex interests," by asking for phone numbers; and then sending flowers. Instead, it's very quick. And, it's done with glances.

That's why you've heard about red bandanas. Men with one earring in an ear. Oh, and in the 19th century, green carnations in the lapel.

Homosexuals can do it on the fly. So to speak.

If Larry Craig doesn't resign? All that much worse for the whole crew in DC. Which is exactly what Romney said! He said there's something wrong with all of them. And, from the low regard they're held by the public these days, it's not all about the bathroom pickups. And, the underage male kids that get used, either.

These vultures are at their worst near kids playgrounds.

let's not forget why we have undercover officers there in the first place. Apparently, the MSP has a notorious rep for gay men. I am sure this was not the arresting officer's first rodeo. Now in order to stop this kind of action there must be penalties. You guys want so badly to protect him even as you are repulsed, that you are slamming law enforcement.

While soliciting sex in an airport john is against the law and deservedly so, what makes Craig's behavior particularly repugnant is that he has been highly critical of gay behavior. He has voted to curtail gay rights and done everything in his position to demean their place in American society. Its his hypocrisy that I find so offensive.

While soliciting sex in an airport john is against the law and deservedly so, what makes Craig's behavior particularly repugnant is that he has been highly critical of gay behavior. He has voted to curtail gay rights and done everything in his position to demean their place in American society. Its his hypocrisy that I find so offensive.

As a democrat I could have loved to use this to nail the Republican hypocrats on Family value which they carry as their bible, but I am still trying to understand what this Senator of a man did. By the way why did he plead guilty to what he did not do or understand. Does it mean that he does not have the education to understand what a plea means. If not he does not need to be the Senate

Ted, get real. Any other voting record, for Larry Craig, would have cancelled his abilities to get elected. And, re-elected.

What you're learning, here, is that Bill Clinton's attitudes aren't so unusual. And, infect BOTH PARTIES!

In other words? Larry Craig, lying though his teeth, pulls his "wife" by his side. And, denies it all.

Seems to me, on LYING, alone, his career should be kaput.

As to the "gay come-ons" if you followed InstaPundit's links, yesterday, you'd see where the gays know the come-on signals, EVEN IF YOU DON'T!

Will Larry Craig get away with it YET AGAIN? He's done it before. By claiming Christian attitudes, too.

Which shows ya that perverts can deliver "da religious messages," better than others! They have the gift to stand up there and lie through their teeth.

And, it's here, in DC, you will see IF the GOP is any different than the Donks. Because most people don't think so.

Of course, George Romney just cut Larry Craig a "new one." Let's see how the senator of 27 years reacts to that one, if he remains standing. That, too, is gonna play out in ways that are interesting.

Can this cost the Christian Right anything? You bet'cha! Most people smell the "religious bit" done out loud, and in public, as PHONY. You didn't know?

I haven't read all of the comments above, so this may be redundant, but if you check you will see that Craig's peering into the bathroom stall is a crime under Minnesota law. It's specifically defined in a statute as "invasion of privacy" and is categorized as a "gross misdemeanor."

I haven't read all of the comments above, so this may be redundant, but if you check you will see that Craig's peering into the bathroom stall is a crime under Minnesota law. It's specifically defined in a statute as "invasion of privacy" and is categorized as a "gross misdemeanor."

It goes to the reason we have separate men's and women's restrooms. To take that as far as we SHOULD, there'd be four different kinds of restrooms, not two, to protect EVERYONE from the possibility of being pestered or "flirted with" while their pants are down in a public restroom stall. Lesbians don't pester women in restrooms, so let's say THREE kinds of public restrooms, not four. But that leaves the Gay Mens Room wide open as a place of ceaseless sexual activity, and that's not nice in public, even in a restroom. So, back to the two kinds of restrooms: men's and women's. Now, you've got men and boys having to take their chances every time they go into a public toilet, just because some members of their gender view me the same way other men view women. So, shouldn't there be laws covering that, laws completely unrelated to prostitution, related only to assault, obscenity, and harrassment, let's say? Restrooms are places men should be able to go into for emergency business (non-sexual calls of nature) without threat of being "flirted with" in there! COME ON! It's got nothing to do with consensual sex or prostitution, but keeping men's rooms orderly, in ways that it's not necessary to do in women's restrooms. Men's rooms carry a whole set of laws of their own, or if they don't, they oughta. I'm so glad I'm not a male.

This is why political blogs can't be taken seriously, this post is both stupid and pointless. Stupid because the actual charges are listed on the police report for all to see (even Fox news had a link) and Craig plead guilty to those charges, and pointless because the big story is about being a closeted choadsmoking Republican senator who votes anti-gay. And, he broke the law and plead guilty. Either one of those points is enough to throw him out of office.

It goes to the reason we have separate men's and women's restrooms. To take that as far as we SHOULD, there'd be four different kinds of restrooms, not two, to protect EVERYONE from the possibility of being pestered or "flirted with" while their pants are down in a public restroom stall. Lesbians don't pester women in restrooms, so let's say THREE kinds of public restrooms, not four. But that leaves the Gay Mens Room wide open as a place of ceaseless sexual activity, and that's not nice in public, even in a restroom. So, back to the two kinds of restrooms: men's and women's. Now, you've got men and boys having to take their chances every time they go into a public toilet, just because some members of their gender view men the same way other men view women. So, shouldn't there be laws covering that, laws completely unrelated to prostitution, related only to assault, obscenity, and harrassment, let's say? Restrooms are places men should be able to go into for emergency business (non-sexual calls of nature) without threat of being "flirted with" in there! COME ON! It's got nothing to do with consensual sex or prostitution, but keeping men's rooms orderly, in ways that it's not necessary to do in women's restrooms. Men's rooms carry a whole set of laws of their own, or if they don't, they oughta. I'm so glad I'm not a male. If I were, I'd be glad there was a cop in one of the stalls.

This is why political blogs can't be taken seriously, this post is both stupid and pointless. Stupid because the actual charges are listed on the police report for all to see (even Fox news had a link: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/craig_report.pdf) and Craig plead guilty to those charges (Interference with Privacy and Disorderly Conduct), and pointless because the big story is about being a closeted choadsmoking Republican senator who votes anti-gay. And, he broke the law and plead guilty. Either one of those points is enough to throw him out of office.

It goes to the reason we have separate men's and women's restrooms. To take that as far as we SHOULD, there'd be four different kinds of restrooms, not two, to protect EVERYONE from the possibility of being pestered or "flirted with" while their pants are down in a public restroom stall. Lesbians don't pester women in restrooms, so let's say THREE kinds of public restrooms, not four. But that leaves the Gay Mens Room wide open as a place of ceaseless sexual activity, and that's not nice in public, even in a restroom. So, back to the two kinds of restrooms: men's and women's. Now, you've got men and boys having to take their chances every time they go into a public toilet, just because some members of their gender view men the same way other men view women. So, shouldn't there be laws covering that, laws completely unrelated to prostitution, related only to assault, obscenity, and harrassment, let's say? Restrooms are places men should be able to go into for emergency business (non-sexual calls of nature) without threat of being "flirted with" in there! COME ON! It's got nothing to do with consensual sex or prostitution, but keeping men's rooms orderly, in ways that it's not necessary to do in women's restrooms. Men's rooms carry a whole set of laws of their own, or if they don't, they oughta. I'm so glad I'm not a male. If I were, I'd be glad there was a cop in one of the stalls. (And ditto for me re. the libertarians. I am an ex-Republican too.)

Poor Larry, with the press hounding him, the witch hunts, the nasty "dirty" lies, those awful homosexuals after him, what was he supposed to do?.
It's so simple: Larry was so upset by all this that he was understandably forced to go to the nearest men's room for a little release from the pressure. Wouldn't you? It's not his fault--can't you all see that?
Give him back his fine, some Valium, and send him to Idaho for some well deserved rest! They like him in Idaho. I'd like him in Idaho too.
Poor Larry, give him a break!

It goes to the reason we have separate men's and women's restrooms. To take that as far as we SHOULD, there'd be four different kinds of restrooms, not two, to protect EVERYONE from the possibility of being pestered or "flirted with" while their pants are down in a public restroom stall. Lesbians don't pester women in restrooms, so let's say THREE kinds of public restrooms, not four. But that leaves the Gay Mens Room wide open as a place of ceaseless sexual activity, and that's not nice in public, even in a restroom. So, back to the two kinds of restrooms: men's and women's. Now, you've got men and boys having to take their chances every time they go into a public toilet, just because some members of their gender view men the same way other men view women. So, shouldn't there be laws covering that, laws completely unrelated to prostitution, related only to assault, obscenity, and harrassment, let's say? Restrooms are places men should be able to go into for emergency business (non-sexual calls of nature) without threat of being "flirted with" in there! COME ON! It's got nothing to do with consensual sex or prostitution, but keeping men's rooms orderly, in ways that it's not necessary to do in women's restrooms. Men's rooms carry a whole set of laws of their own, or if they don't, they oughta. I'm so glad I'm not a male. If I were, I'd be glad there was a cop in one of the stalls. (And ditto for me re. the libertarians. I am an ex-Republican too.)

It goes to the reason we have separate men's and women's restrooms. To take that as far as we SHOULD, there'd be four different kinds of restrooms, not two, to protect EVERYONE from the possibility of being pestered or "flirted with" while their pants are down in a public restroom stall. Lesbians don't pester women in restrooms, so let's say THREE kinds of public restrooms, not four. But that leaves the Gay Mens Room wide open as a place of ceaseless sexual activity, and that's not nice in public, even in a restroom. So, back to the two kinds of restrooms: men's and women's. Now, you've got men and boys having to take their chances every time they go into a public toilet, just because some members of their gender view men the same way other men view women. So, shouldn't there be laws covering that, laws completely unrelated to prostitution, related only to assault, obscenity, and harrassment, let's say? Restrooms are places men should be able to go into for emergency business (non-sexual calls of nature) without threat of being "flirted with" in there! COME ON! It's got nothing to do with consensual sex or prostitution, but keeping men's rooms orderly, in ways that it's not necessary to do in women's restrooms. Men's rooms carry a whole set of laws of their own, or if they don't, they oughta. I'm so glad I'm not a male. If I were, I'd be glad there was a cop in one of the stalls. (And ditto for me re. the libertarians. I am an ex-Republican too.)

Am I the only one who has noted how hard it is to post on this subject without unintentionally creating a smirkie, or a double entendre or pun? So goes the corruption of our language. IMO,it is time for the debate to end and the leaders of the Republican party should light the fuse under Craig and get him to resign post-haste. As retired05 has noted there is much else of importance happening and Craig has not been outed by a partisan set-up. He outed himself, in spite of ample warning that he was being watched, investigated and the boom was going to be lowered on him should they get the goods. He apparently has skated so many times he felt fireproof or he has absolutely no self control or he is totally and terminally stupid...doesn't matter which he needs to get out of the news. The Republicans have been handed the news that one of Hillary's major contributors is a criminal and has been dealing with questionable contributions to her campaign and all we are doing is debating whether this guy is a fatally damaged Senator.

Hey Ed,
Is there any way to weed out all the multiple postings in this thread?

And I have faith, mgrody, that eventually Carol will realize that George Romney died in 1995 and renew the CAPS LOCK attack with the other Romney.

Captain Ed, I don't know much about computers which I will probably prove with this post but I have found that one of the ways you get multiple posts is to click refresh right after you post, (I think, maybe,perhaps,this might be true). Also sometimes "this page cannot be found" appears so you think your post does not go through and you click submit again which I tried not to do last time it happened and lo and behold my post had not gone through and I lost it. However, I don't think that anyone whose post shows up multiple times would object to seeing all the extras removed and it would be more enjoyable reading (and less embarrassing).

Note to all commenters -- the emabarrassment is mine. We're working on solutions.

Let me clear up a couple misconceptions that are repeated throughout the above posts: 1) it would be VERY rare for a guy who was looking for public sex to come onto another guy (no pun intended) who was not also looking for same sex contact. There are various signals that give this away -- discreet lingering, mutual eye contact, foot tapping, etc and 2) if a kid is anywhere in sight, NOTHING would be going on at all. I have to laugh at the "str8" guys above who are worried about getting hit on in a bathroom or any other public place. If you are not sending out any sexual signals, you will not be hit on -- period. You have to understand that the guys doing this are VERY frightened of being caught (and are more often than not married) and are trying to do this on the sly and are very cautious. It's not like there are 20 guys out in the open in a public bathroom with their pants around their ankles! A final word about this -- it will never go away. Wherever there are men alone together (bathrooms, locker rooms, steam rooms, saunas, etc), there will always be the occasional sexual contact. Some men are pigs, plain and simple and it doesn't seem worthwhile to consistently police this sort of harmless, surreptitious activity (and often thereby ruin the lives of the people they catch).