| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: Idaho Senator pleads guilty airport lewd conduct Posted by: PJ - [8751282] Tue, Aug 28, 2007, 04:08 The Capitol Hill newspaper, Roll Call, reports that Idaho Senator Larry Craig (R) pleaded guilty on Aug. 8th after being arrested in June at the Minneapolis Airport for lewd conduct inside a men's restroom. I wonder how such a public figure as a U.S. Senator could be so brazen with his behavior inside a public restroom. Sheesh! The Roll Call Article | |||||||
| 60 | Baldwin ID: 125312919 Thu, Aug 30, 2007, 17:25 |
Questions that occur to me: Did he actually plead guilty or no lo contendre and if so why? The prosecutor wouldn't give him an easy deal for anything less than a full guilty plea? I can imagine a guy who had already dodged a male page pointing fingers, thinking he could have talked his way out of being convicted of tapping his foot in a bathroom stall. Gay activists had clearly been tracking this guy's activities and making a book on him for a long time. Why should anyone be so sure the whole trap wasn't designed specifically to snare him...and tip the political balance towards the gay-friendly dems at a time when we are so very close to the tipping point? Something tells me that if he had used Reagan's line to his doctors, 'I sure hope you guys are republicans' in the police station or the courthouse, it wouldn't have gotten the jocular reaction Reagan got. | ||||||
| 61 | holt ID: 587112719 Thu, Aug 30, 2007, 17:37 |
"The "sharks" are eager to attack their own" either that, or maybe people just don't like the idea of a senator looking for a little game of sucky sucky in the airport bathroom. not everyone forms their opinion just based on what spin best helps democrats/republicans. I think this whole situation is a great example of the kind of politicians that the two-party system creates. you probably don't want to elect anyone who works their way up the political ladder. | ||||||
| 62 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Thu, Aug 30, 2007, 18:01 |
Gay activists had clearly been tracking this guy's activities and making a book on him for a long time. So you can surmise then that hte local MN LEOs are "gay activists" since this man was arrested??????? Tell me baldy, which numbers are going to win tomorrow nights $325,000,000 mega lottery drawing? maybe people just don't like the idea of a senator looking for a little game of sucky sucky in the airport bathroom. You have absolute proof at your disposal do you? | ||||||
| 63 | Baldwin ID: 125312919 Thu, Aug 30, 2007, 18:31 |
The original link to this story at the top of this thread was very clear about gay activists having tracked his activities for some time. Thus the ability to set him up was there. The question is...were those who planned the sting targetting Craig or were they needled into setting up the sting by the gay activists who had reason to believe he might be so engaged? I'm not saying those who set up the sting even had any way of knowing whether they were being used...they may have not seen a pattern to the complaints. I can't say it went down that way but it coulda. In a world where dem activists spy on republican cell calls with scanners and generate scandals from the results, such a world also could include what I suggest may have happened. Besieged politicians plotting against their enemies, for instance? Embattled House Speaker Newt Gingrich, whose travails took a bizarre turn two weeks ago when a transcript of his cell-phone war council with G.O.P. allies turned up in the New York Times, may be comforted to know that his was a cutting-edge victimization. John and Alice Martin, the Florida residents-cum-Democratic Party activists who taped Newt & Co.'s call, spotlighted one of...Yeah, I wouldn't put it past them. | ||||||
| 64 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Thu, Aug 30, 2007, 18:35 |
The original link to this story at the top of this thread was very clear about gay activists having tracked his activities for some time. Not true. The original link takes you to an error page. Typing in "Sen Craig" in the search function, brings up a number of stories and their summaries. NONE of those summaries dtd post 8/1/07 and indicating this arrest, contain anything "making it clear" that Sen Craig was being targetted. Rather, that seems to stem from your own fears re gay activism. | ||||||
| 65 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Thu, Aug 30, 2007, 18:38 |
Even more to the point...you are "alledging" (I can't say it went down that way but it coulda.) that gay activists in MN, set up a sting to target the Idaho Senator?????????? I can't say it went down that way but it coulda. In that vein Baldy, I could concoct a scenario where you were involved with say 9/11. Then simply apply your disclaimer, and all is well????????????? | ||||||
| 66 | Baldwin ID: 125312919 Thu, Aug 30, 2007, 18:46 | Or you could always consider taking them at their word... | ||||||
| 67 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Thu, Aug 30, 2007, 19:12 | odd...I didnt see a single ref to the Idaho Senator. | ||||||
| 68 | Baldwin ID: 125312919 Thu, Aug 30, 2007, 19:14 |
simply apply your disclaimer, and all is well????????????? Each reader will form their own estimate of the probabilities. Let the neophyte political junkie be made aware of the brutal continuous warfare involving activists lobbing grenades over transoms. | ||||||
| 69 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader ID: 01629107 Thu, Aug 30, 2007, 19:14 | Not worth responding to. | ||||||
| 70 | walk ID: 2530286 Thu, Aug 30, 2007, 20:26 | Being boxed in | ||||||
| 71 | PJ ID: 8751282 Fri, Aug 31, 2007, 03:23 |
After reading the copy of the police report linked by MBJ (post 22), it's clear that the police officer DID NOT arrest Senator Craig for solicitation or lewd conduct. Per the police report, Senator Craig was arrested for Disorderly Conduct (MSS 609.72) and for Interference with Privacy (MSS 609.746). My guess (and it's only a guess) is the Disorderly Conduct charge could be the result of the Senator touching the police officer's foot and passing his fingers underneath the stall. The Interference with Privacy charge seems more clear-cut -- it seems to stem from the Senator repeatedly peering into the police officers closed stall. It could also stem from the Senator touching the police officer's foot too. Question, has anyone from the Minneapolis DA Office explained in detail why the Senator was initially charged with these two violations? BTW, what was the Senator's plea for the Interference with Privacy charge? Or did the DA office drop that charge? | ||||||
| 72 | Perm Dude ID: 9737318 Fri, Aug 31, 2007, 09:40 | The interference charge (which I understand was dropped) is for peeking into the stall. | ||||||
| 73 | Seattle Zen ID: 86541617 Fri, Aug 31, 2007, 11:08 |
 You know, I don't think he'll have a key to that bathroom much longer. | ||||||
| 74 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Fri, Aug 31, 2007, 15:17 |
GOP officials say Craig may resign And for the environment of the Pacific Northwest, it couldn't come soon enough! The federally funded Fish Passage Center quietly, credibly performed its vital task of counting declining salmon runs in the Columbia-Snake River system, until it stood as a potential obstacle to agencies and politicians running the river. | ||||||
| 75 | Baldwin ID: 125312919 Fri, Aug 31, 2007, 20:25 | Why is the 9th circus passing legislation now? | ||||||
| 76 | Perm Dude ID: 52737319 Fri, Aug 31, 2007, 22:21 | Telling the Administration they need to follow the law isn't passing legislation. I know you hate it when a Republican Administration gets their hand slapped by the courts, but you, of all people, protecting an Administration which has expanded the power and the reach of the Executive (in part, by refusing the follow the laws he signs) aren't even acting in your own (conservative) self-interest. | ||||||
| 77 | Baldwin ID: 125312919 Sat, Sep 01, 2007, 10:53 |
A year after Congress passed Craig's language... ...the ninth circus told congress to go screw themselves, the 9th circus would be rewriting the laws. | ||||||
| 78 | Perm Dude ID: 5381919 Sat, Sep 01, 2007, 11:08 |
Wow, you really are actively ignorant about this particular issue, aren't you? Do you even know what actually happened? About what the 9th Circuit said? About how Craig's language costs a lot of money, didn't accomplish any of its goals, and was illegal to boot? And this is what you're defending? | ||||||
| 79 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Sat, Sep 01, 2007, 11:18 | Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not the venue of the courts to determine the actual legality of the legislation passed by Congress? | ||||||
| 80 | Perm Dude ID: 5381919 Sat, Sep 01, 2007, 11:36 |
Oh no. It is the job of the courts to overrule liberal actions as overreaching. It is the job to let stand conservative actions so as not to "legislate." :) I suspect there are many conservatives who need to have their judicial outlook dosed with a little more reality. There have been few Administrations in need of judicial review than this one. They not only ignore laws in place for years, they ignore laws they sign themselves. | ||||||
| 81 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Sat, Sep 01, 2007, 11:45 |
It is the job of the courts to overrule liberal actions as overreaching. It is the job to let stand conservative actions so as not to "legislate." But of course. How silly of me. *makes some more popcorn in preparation for watching the "Baldwins blind defense of all things Republican" hour.* | ||||||
| 82 | Perm Dude ID: 5381919 Sat, Sep 01, 2007, 14:29 |
He's outta there! I like how Republicans are quick to claim credit, saying they have a new "zero tolerance policy" policy for scandal-ridden members. The numbers don't lie, however. The only one they have forced out was the one that might be gay. Everyone else is still in office. This is the version of "don't ask, don't tell" that the RNC is running. | ||||||
| 83 | holt ID: 587112719 Sun, Sep 02, 2007, 04:47 |
Good ol' two-party political spin. Gotta love it. Never gets old. | ||||||
| 84 | Perm Dude ID: 188729 Sun, Sep 02, 2007, 10:09 | Truth hurts. Because Republicans are locked into homosexuality as a "choice" they have problems with how to deal with it in their midst. | ||||||
| 85 | walk ID: 2530286 Sun, Sep 02, 2007, 11:11 |
#82, PD. Exactly. This incident contradicts with the heavily advocated anti-gay republican platform. They could not "tolerate" the Craig case. However, stuff like this will continue wit this party cos homosexuality, contrary to the "overt" republican view, is not learned or un-learnable, but part of one's nature, like heterosexuality, and as long as folks have to supress their natural inclinations, they will have to seek out alternative, discreet restroom related means of getting "satisfaction." What a shame. Craig is the loser here, but he's a victim of intolerance. I wonder what the Craig's dinner conversations have been since June, and now? This incident reminds me of the recent movie with Dennis Quaid and Julianne Moore, "Far From Heaven," set in the 1950s which dealth with repressed homosexuality...and to some degree, Brokeback Mtn. Oy. | ||||||
| 86 | walk ID: 2530286 Sun, Sep 02, 2007, 13:20 |
September 2, 2007 Oh, Everyone Knows That (Except You) By ABBY GOODNOUGH IN this era of blogosphere gossip, viral e-mail and infinite YouTube video archives, the open secret — unacknowledged by its keeper, theoretically hush-hush but widely suspected or known — arguably should be a thing of the past in public life. But the case of Larry E. Craig, the Idaho senator arrested when an undercover police officer said he made overtures to him for sex, suggests otherwise. Though rumors had long swirled around the conservative Republican senator, the mainstream news media pointedly overlooked them until last week, when Roll Call broke the news of his arrest in June. Most notably, The Idaho Statesman investigated reports about Mr. Craig for months after a gay blogger published a claim last fall that the senator had had sex with men, but decided against running uncorroborated accusations that Mr. Craig denied and continues to deny. As much traffic as the speculation generated on blogs before Mr. Craig’s arrest, it gained currency — that is, it became a “story” suitable for national publication and broadcast — only when it was backed by an arrest report. The same went for former Representative Mark Foley of Florida, who was long rumored to be gay but whose open secret was widely exposed only after his sexually explicit electronic messages to former Congressional pages surfaced last fall and forced his resignation. And for Jim McGreevey, the married New Jersey governor whose homosexuality was suspected for years in local circles, but was left pretty much untouched by the news media. Only after disclosing an affair with a man he had once appointed to a six-figure state job did he resign. Old-fashioned as it seems, there are still tacit rules about when an open secret can remain in its own netherworld, without consequence to the politician who keeps it. But now that any whisper can become a global shout in an instant, how much longer can those rules apply? And should they, anyway? “What fascinates me is the question of, if it didn’t get out for all this time, what does it mean?” said Jeff Jarvis, a journalism professor who now blogs on media and politics on buzzmachine.com. “Does it mean journalists are doing a good job, or does it mean they are doing a bad job?” Jack Bass, who is on the faculty at the College of Charleston and who co-wrote “Strom: The Complicated Personal and Political Life of Strom Thurmond,” said that at one time, politicians whose open secrets were exposed could use the fact to their advantage, on the theory that they were too outrageous to be believed and reflected badly only on the rumormonger. When a small South Carolina paper declared during Mr. Thurmond’s 1972 re-election campaign that he had fathered a child with a black woman — a fact not confirmed until after his death in 2003 — Mr. Thurmond distributed copies of the provocative headline to sympathetic voters. He won the race. In the mainstream media, the recent standard for pursuing open secrets has been murky, but generally guided by the notion that private behavior matters when it is at odds with public declarations. Mr. Foley’s bawdy flirtation with pages was fair game not least because he had sponsored legislation seeking to protect children from online predators. Mr. Craig supported a 2006 amendment to the Idaho Constitution barring gay marriage and civil unions and has voted in Congress against gay rights. Other secrets remain just that, usually because the politician in question has not been perceived as crossing an obvious line into hypocrisy, or he denies the rumors and no one can substantiate them. Perhaps no one wants to. They may not even be true. “Most so-called open secrets are things we don’t really know the truth about,” said Alan Ehrenhalt, executive editor of Governing magazine. Regardless, he said: “It’s human nature not to pry into dark corners if you don’t have to. Most people would rather just let things be.” And so it happens that a lot of states have lawmakers widely known for heavy drinking or sleeping with aides, whether or not the supposition is proved. One state official has long been rumored to be gay, and newspapers have investigated tips on his relationships. But only bloggers have published details, with little traction. Rick Wilson, a Republican consultant based in Florida who has worked for Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York mayor, and Katherine Harris, the former Florida congresswoman, among others, said that most states have their own expressions for the circumstances under which open secrets stay secret. In Florida, he said, it’s the “Three County Rule” — no girlfriends within three counties of your home district. In New York, it’s the “Bear Mountain Compact” — nobody talks about what politicians do with their free time once they’ve crossed the Bear Mountain Bridge en route to Albany from points south. “There’s a similar phrase in every state I’ve worked in,” Mr. Wilson said. “In a lot of cases it’s because the principals involved are powerful, and a lot of the people who know are aides or staff or lobbyists or even reporters who rely on these people for access. So you end up with this feeling of, ‘It’s just business, it’s not affecting their work.’ Once it starts affecting their work, then the rules change.” Given the power of the Internet, though, the standards could now easily shift with each new salacious rumor reported online. One of the Internet’s main assets, its supporters say, is that it is unfiltered — but that allows sewage leaks of sorts, too. Mr. Jarvis said bloggers constantly had to hone their judgment about when to ignore a rumor, write their own piece on it or — often the best choice, he said — link to another blog’s report on it. “I believe we should do what we do best and link to the rest,” he said. “A link is not necessarily an endorsement, but a way to say ‘you go judge for yourself.’ ” Let the blogger beware, though, of “link bait” — provocative or downright outrageous postings that some bloggers write merely to lure traffic. As an antidote, a growing number of bloggers make it their chief goal to debunk scurrilous rumors circulating on the Web. Take Snopes.com, which calls itself “the definitive Internet reference source for urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors and misinformation.” Its section on politics has subcategories devoted to Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Barack Obama and President Bush. “It’s not strong enough yet,” Mr. Jarvis said of the online debunking trend, “but it’s part of a new architecture of the Web that is necessary.” Michael Kinsley, founding editor of the online magazine Slate, said he used to believe that journalism should have an “intermediate standard” for publishing rumors — one that did not require firm corroboration. At one point, he said, he even defended Matt Drudge, the Internet gossip, for saying that 80 percent of what he published was accurate. He regrets that stance. “I argued at the time that the Internet was the right place for that,” he said. “But at this point, the Internet is the mainstream media, so I think it should be as accurate as possible.” Mr. Kinsley said attitudes toward open secrets have changed since the 1980’s, when he covered a well-known Democrat’s early presidential bid and quit The New Republic when it wouldn’t publish what he said was a solidly reported piece he wrote about the candidate’s philandering. “My argument back then was it was elitist censorship for journalists not to publish what they knew about politicians because they were worried voters wouldn’t handle the information with as much sophistication as they thought appropriate,” he said. “Now, it turns out the prudes tend to be the Washington establishment journalists and the people who take a more sophisticated view are the voters.” As proof, he offered the Monica Lewinsky scandal, which had little long-term effect on Mr. Clinton’s popularity. Mr. Jarvis echoed that view, saying any expectation that politicians will be moral leaders is naïve. “There is always a taint of, if not corruption, then compromise about them,” he said. “This idea that they are moral leaders is moronic.” | ||||||
| 87 | holt ID: 587112719 Sun, Sep 02, 2007, 22:42 |
What a shame. Craig is the loser here, but he's a victim of intolerance. and he's likely to be a victim again if he keeps peeking into mens bathroom stalls. | ||||||
| 88 | Action Figure ID: 20910 Sun, Sep 02, 2007, 22:52 |
If the Senator had pleaded not guilty and the case had gone to trial,... I heard a lawyer on one of the news shows say if Craig refused the police interview and got himself an attorney this case would have been put off for 9 months to a year and then would have been dismissed. I don't know what kind of publicity that action would have generated but it would have been dismissed. | ||||||
| 89 | Boxman ID: 571114225 Mon, Sep 03, 2007, 08:18 |
and he's likely to be a victim again if he keeps peeking into mens bathroom stalls. Do we as aggressively pursue others with legal action who hit on women and are straight? I don't believe Craig attempted sexual assault or raped this person. He was coming on to him. So, should the straight single gurupies out there be worried when they're at a club or a bar and hit on a member of the opposite sex? I really thought the Democrats were tolerant of gays and gay behavior. Yes Craig is a hypocrite and a liar, but if we threw all politicians who met that criteria under a bus then we'd need a pretty long ass bus with monster truck tires. This seemed to me to be a good time for the Democrats to shine. They could show their tolerance and inclusion of gays in their political process, but instead they are persecuting someone who has a sexual identity problem. The partisan sniping is hiding the real question. Why do gays have to include codes and secret meeting spots like airport johns to begin with? Shouldn't gays be allowed to hit on each other like straight people? | ||||||
| 90 | walk ID: 2530286 Mon, Sep 03, 2007, 09:50 | Uh, box, it's not the dems who are persecuting Craig, but his fellow republicans...They are the one's who have expedited his departure, publicly reprimanded him, etc. This is sorta common knowledge. Please continue to make this partisan. However, I think it's just a shame that our norms in society, clearly exacerbated by conservative intolerance, force a closeted gay man to make restroom connections (as opposed to just like going out on a date). It aint the dems' fault here, and you know it. | ||||||
| 91 | walk ID: 2530286 Mon, Sep 03, 2007, 09:52 |
September 2, 2007 Rising Pressure From G.O.P. Led Senator to Quit By CARL HULSE WASHINGTON, Sept. 1 — Within hours of the disclosure of Senator Larry E. Craig’s arrest and conviction after an undercover sex sting, Republican Senate leaders concluded that the exploding political scandal needed a fast resolution, one that necessitated the Idaho Republican’s prompt resignation. Although Mr. Craig had pleaded guilty only to disorderly conduct in an airport restroom, this was one controversy too far for his colleagues. For one, it involved allegations of homosexuality and put Mr. Craig’s party in an awkward position, given the rhetoric that Republican strategists often employ on an issue that agitates their party’s base voters. With the corruption issue having weighed down some of their Congressional candidates in the disastrous 2006 elections, Senate Republicans saw Mr. Craig as inviting even heavier damage, especially on the heels of ethics cases involving two other Republican senators, David Vitter of Louisiana, who was the client of a dubious escort service, and Ted Stevens of Alaska, who faces a widening inquiry into whether he traded official favors. So Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky on Wednesday sent a blunt message, a threat meant to have the effect achieved on Saturday afternoon, when Mr. Craig announced his resignation. Mr. McConnell enlisted the junior Idaho senator, Michael D. Crapo, a fellow Republican who was close to Mr. Craig, to warn him that he would face excruciating public hearings into his conduct, similar to the threat raised by Democrats against former Senator Bob Packwood of Oregon, who was accused of sexual harassment. Mr. McConnell and Mr. Craig had served on the Packwood investigatory panel. Such hearings would no doubt attract extensive television coverage, possible testimony from the police officer, and a vivid replay of the embarrassing arrest, and would also explore whether there were other, similar incidents in Mr. Craig’s past. The warning, several Republicans involved in the negotiations said, figured into Mr. Craig’s decision to give up his Senate seat. “These are serious times of war and conflict, times that deserve the Senate’s and the full nation’s attention,” Mr. Craig said in Boise, Idaho, on Saturday as he announced the decision. One Republican senator did privately voice reservations about the rush to force Mr. Craig out, compared to the lack of any public reprimand of Mr. Vitter. This senator and others said the different approach made it appear the party was simply less tolerant of homosexual conduct. But that was almost certainly a minority view. President Bush’s weakened political status on Iraq, combined with the reality that 22 Republicans face re-election in 2008 (compared with only 12 Democrats) made the Republican caucus extremely reluctant to weather a protracted ethics investigation into Mr. Craig’s misconduct, which some senators viewed as far more shocking and distasteful than any of the other problems staining their party. If the Republicans seemed draconian, it was because many of them felt they had lost their political margin for error. Mr. Craig did not arrive easily at his decision to quit. Two days after his June arrest became public, he still clung to the idea that he could retain his Senate seat even as prominent colleagues demanded he quit, the details of his encounter with an undercover police officer were replayed endlessly in the news media and his party’s leadership took action against him. On Wednesday, Mr. Craig appeared intent on trying to serve out his Senate term despite the leadership’s decision to call for an ethics inquiry and to strip him of his committee leadership posts. On Friday, Mr. Craig informed Mr. McConnell he was resigning, a decision the Republican leader applauded in a statement on Saturday. “Senator Larry Craig made a difficult decision, but the right one,” Mr. McConnell said. In Idaho, a person close to Mr. Craig did not say exactly what drove Mr. Craig’s decision, but said that the veteran lawmaker had been stunned by the party’s response to his predicament. “Larry was shocked by the deafening silence by some and rush to judgment by others, even in his own leadership,” said the person, who is a confidant and adviser to Mr. Craig and asked for anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about the behind-scenes deliberations. “He had to evaluate what it would be like to go back into that environment.” The adviser said that none of the Republican senators who called for his resignation, including Senator John McCain of Arizona, sought out Mr. Craig’s version of events, and said, “If you served in Congress a long time, you’d think you’d make that call before you ask for someone’s resignation, but that didn’t happen.” In the end, the adviser said, “It may have been the silence rather than the noise that was the tipping point.” Republican officials said Saturday that they needed aggressive action against their colleague once they recovered from their shock at Monday’s disclosure of his guilty plea to a sexually related disorderly conduct charge. While some in Washington and even within the Republican Party suggested that the homosexual nature of the charge was a significant factor, others took pains to make a distinction between Mr. Craig’s case and those of Mr. Vitter and Mr. Stevens. Members of the Republican leadership, scattered around the country as their August recess drew to a tumultuous close, convened over conference calls Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday morning, spurred by visions of the spectacle that would almost certainly surround Mr. Craig and the Senate if he returned to Congress and tried to survive the scandal. On Tuesday, the leadership agreed to seek an ethics investigation against Mr. Craig and purposely left Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a member of the leadership and the top Republican on the ethics panel, out of their deliberations, because as a member of the ethics committee he might have had to review the case. On Wednesday, the leadership — including Senators McConnell, Trent Lott of Mississippi, Jon Kyl of Arizona and John Ensign of Nevada — agreed to strip Mr. Craig of his committee leadership slots, effectively making him, in the words of one, “a rookie” in the Senate despite his ample seniority. After both decisions, which officials said were reached unanimously, Mr. McConnell, the Republican leader, phoned Mr. Craig to inform him of the leadership’s intentions. Mr. Craig, sources said, was understanding, but on Wednesday expressed some hope of finishing out his term — a plea that met no response. It was at that point that Mr. McConnell reached out to Mr. Crapo. During the uproar, most Democrats stayed silent, content to let Republicans wrestle with yet another high-profile misconduct case. Republicans hope that Saturday’s resignation will put an end to the public focus on Mr. Craig and allow them to limit distractions as Congress reconvenes on Tuesday, though they have no illusions that the matter will disappear entirely. A senior Senate aide said on Saturday that the party was making no special effort to try to reassure conservative activist groups in the aftermath of the Craig episode, but said the leadership’s quick action had been noted. Others said there were clear distinctions that separated the Craig case from that of Mr. Vitter. Patrick Sammon, president of the Log Cabin Republicans, a Republican gay rights organization, said: “Senator Craig entered a guilty plea to this crime. Senator Vitter, while he is a terrible hypocrite and his behavior was rotten, he wasn’t convicted or charged with a crime.” But Mr. Sammon also said there were clear political distinctions at play in the way Republicans responded to the two situations. Were Mr. Vitter to resign, his successor would be chosen by Louisiana’s Democratic governor, while in Idaho, Republicans had the comfort of knowing that Mr. Craig’s successor would be chosen by a Republican, Gov. C. L. Otter. Duff Wilson and David M. Herszenhorn contributed reporting. | ||||||
| 93 | PJ ID: 8751282 Mon, Sep 03, 2007, 23:46 |
First, I have to strongly disagree with the notion that seeking out sex in a public restroom is being discrete. It's frankly quite the opposite, regardless if it's homosexual sex or heterosexual sex (which also occurs on occasion inside public restrooms). Even if Craig (being a closeted and married gay man) couldn't publicly hit on other gay men, there were and still are other discrete means where a closeted gay man could engage with other gay men, the easiest probably being Internet dating services. But this was not about a gay man being sexually repressed, but a brazen gay (or bisexual) man who allegedly wanted to have a "quickie" between flights in Minneapolis. Now, if Craig was indeed not hitting on the police officer and it was a terrible misunderstanding as Craig claims, then, by all means, Craig should have pleaded not guilty to the charges and publicly fought them as being outrageously absurd. But what ultimately did him in (besides his conduct inside the men's restroom) was that he pleaded GUILTY to one of the charges. I believe if Craig had pleaded innocent to the charges, he would still be a Senator today, and his fellow Republican senators would have rallied to his defense. But his guilty plea precluded that. So Craig was pressured to resign, and he did. | ||||||
| 94 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader ID: 01629107 Tue, Sep 04, 2007, 07:32 |
I believe if Craig had pleaded innocent to the charges, he would still be a Senator today, and his fellow Republican senators would have rallied to his defense. Craig apparently felt that the incident itself (whether he was found guilty or not) was enough of a threat to his career that he decided his best chance to keep the incident from the public was to quietly plead guilty and hope the media didn't catch it. There have been rumors in Congress for a long time about him possibly being gay. Given how quickly his party turned on him, I tend to think Craig was right. There certainly would have been no "rally" to his defense. I don't recall Mark Foley being charged with any crime. Where was the rally to Foley's defense (that is, after Hastert and Tom Reynolds and others were found to be looking the other way for months or years)? Just look at the recent history. There is no shortage of it. If you've paid minimal attention to how the GOP reacts to scandal in their own house, you know that being exposed as corrupt or criminal will not necessarily turn your party members on you. But if you happen to be exposed as a homosexual... | ||||||
| 95 | sarge33rd ID: 76442923 Tue, Sep 04, 2007, 08:18 |
I really thought the Democrats were tolerant of gays and gay behavior. See, even a fool is right now and then. We Dems ARE tolerant of such. Too bad for you, its the Republicans kicking the man out of his political position. | ||||||
| 96 | walk Dude ID: 32928238 Tue, Sep 04, 2007, 14:02 | I dunno PJ. I think if homosexuality was as open in a society as heterosexuality, you would not have folks making passes at each other in restrooms. While there are other options available for Craig, I think that in the bigger pix, this was not a brazen act of sexual conduct, but a way for a closeted gay person to have a fling. I would imagine, but cannot say, that individuals would appreciate other more open tactics. Bigger pic is that folks just cannot be themselves (unless they are hurting someone else) with regards to sexuality due to some pretty intolerant views of others...and I'd some spice to the debate by saying some religious others. | ||||||
| 97 | Perm Dude ID: 283248 Tue, Sep 04, 2007, 23:22 |
Craig might not resign after all I think Specter is right: The more you look at the underlying facts, the more it seems Craig's guity plea didn't make him actually guilty of a crime. | ||||||
| 98 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 454491514 Wed, Sep 05, 2007, 10:33 |
Ed MorrisseyWhile we can look at the arrest academically, and I think we should question the threshold of action which triggered the arrest, Craig pled guilty. He didn't plead guilty in the panic of the initial arrest, either; he entered that plea almost two months later. Craig had plenty of time to consult attorneys and make a rational decision before deciding to accept guilt rather than fight the charges or even plead no contest. He isn't some indigent defendant without resources or recourse to effective legal counsel who got railroaded.A couple of reader responses: When Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) had a sexual flap many years ago (which didn't directly involve him, FYI) his party didn't have a fit, it simply reprimanded him because the Democrats don't make appeals to bigotry a part of their party platform like the GOP does. As long as Republicans value anti-gay votes more than gays, that won't change. I'm sorry, but conservative gays are only deluding themselves if they think their party won't toss them into the gutter when it's necessary to placate their fundamentalist base. | ||||||
| 99 | holt ID: 587112719 Wed, Sep 05, 2007, 11:02 | So the outcry against Craig is really just bigotry eh? Of course that would be the natural far left spin. As bigoted as you may think it is, a lot of people in this country still appreciate values like, for example, a man being honorable and faithful to his wife. Yes I know that it's a laughable thing where politicians are concerned, but one can dream. | ||||||
| 100 | Pancho Villa ID: 47161721 Wed, Sep 05, 2007, 11:13 |
> a lot of people in this country still appreciate values like, for example, a man being honorable and faithful to his wife. < Like Rudy and Newt? | ||||||
| 101 | holt ID: 587112719 Wed, Sep 05, 2007, 11:25 | you must mistake me for a republican. | ||||||
| 102 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 454491514 Wed, Sep 05, 2007, 11:27 |
Of course that would be the natural far left spin. Captain's Quarters is a conservative blog run by Ed Morressey, highly respected in rightist circles. There is no questioning his conservative credentials or the sound, conservative judgment he applies in stating; "...other members of Congress have been convicted of misdemeanors more serious than Craig's without being forced out of office and without Republican demands for resignations." | ||||||
| 103 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Wed, Sep 05, 2007, 11:51 |
you must mistake me for a republican. If it quacks like a duck.... | ||||||
| 104 | Tree ID: 3533298 Wed, Sep 05, 2007, 14:14 |
s bigoted as you may think it is, a lot of people in this country still appreciate values like, for example, a man being honorable and faithful to his wife. the bedroom has no place in politics. who cares whether someone is a louse if they do their job fairly and effectively? | ||||||
| 105 | walk Dude ID: 32928238 Wed, Sep 05, 2007, 14:26 |
Craig Leaves Msg about Unresigning on Wrong Voicemail A bizarro twist to a bizarro story...reason alone the guy should go...if true, a real loser move. | ||||||
| 106 | walk Dude ID: 32928238 Mon, Sep 24, 2007, 13:22 | Craig: The Libertarian (for me) | ||||||
| 107 | WiddleAvi ID: 25102616 Tue, Oct 16, 2007, 21:37 | Anyone watch his interview tonight on NBC ? If so what did you think ? My thoughts watching it were does he really expect us to buy his story ? | ||||||
| 108 | walk ID: 2530286 Wed, Oct 17, 2007, 06:14 | I think at this stage he may firmly believe that he did nothing wrong. I think at his level, power and ego sometimes clouds the ability for one to perceive any wrongdoing on one's own part (e.g. for Craig to even acknowledge his bathroom behavior and homosexual tendencies). Apparently, he had been in the news for a long time in Idaho allegedly engaging in extramarital homosexual affairs, but maybe in his mind (and rightfully so, if only our hypocritical culture and political norms, so intensely put forth by his own party) his behavior is "ok and none of anyone's business, and is completely non job-related." So, maybe the way he has had to spin this to himself, to justify his performance as a senator, which in his heart and in his head he knows has nothing to do with some occasional trysts with men, he has to have convinced himself (especially to go it alone within his own party) that his extramarital affairs, public bathroom rendezvous, and guilty pleas, are all valid behaviors done to maintain a delicate and unique "work/life balance." Of course, I have no idea what he really believes...I think it's just as likely that he just refuses to go out like a sissy-boy and is being as tough as he can be, and realizes that most people of power have some sordid skeletons and why should he be a victim since his affairs and his misdemeanor harm no one and don't affect his ability to do his job (in his eyes). I'd certainly be willing to give him a pass IF he were to admit everything and change his contradictory stance on gay rights so that his behaviors and his policies were aligned. Now that would be brave. | ||||||
| 109 | Seattle Zen ID: 529121611 Sun, Dec 02, 2007, 23:51 |
Eight different men claim to have had sex with Sen. Craig or had him make a pass at them. Four men give interviews to the Idaho Spokesman on the record. http://www.idahostatesman.com/localnews/story/226703.html Wow, those are pretty graphic accounts. You don't read blurbs like this every day: Listen to David Phillips' account of Larry Craig performing anal sex on him and how Craig's mood changed when the act was complete. You know, maybe you should have stick with your first instinct and stayed resigned, Larry. | ||||||
| 110 | walk ID: 2530286 Mon, Dec 03, 2007, 06:01 | Yeah, I read that article, too, SZ. Wow. | ||||||
| If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?) | ||||||||