- ‹ previous
- 4818 of 8835
- next ›
Shame on Larry Craig? Or on the Cops?
If, as an open-minded liberal, you are somewhat uncomfortable with the idea that an individual, gay or otherwise, can be arrested for repeatedly tapping his foot in a public bathroom, I would suggest the Slate article up today that contains an email dialogue between the magazine's editors.
Among other excellent points raised, there is this question: since when is propositioning someone illegal, even if done in a public place? Doesn't there need to be more "conduct" involved for a lewd conduct charge?
Update: As you may have seen on today's internets, Larry Craig held a press conference saying that he pleaded guilty — even though he is not really guilty — in order to make the situation go away. (That plan does not seem to have worked out for the senator.) Craig also said, "I am not gay."
No, senator, you are not gay. You just like sex with men. And that's fine. We just wish you would own up to it so young, gay Idahoans don't think being homosexual is the worst thing in the world.
Update Update: Republican heavy Ralph Scott Reed is pissed. From the New York Times:
"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."
Don't lose track of the real scandal here. Craig, like David Vitter, isn't merely being hypocritical. Rather, as part of their hypocrisy, they deliberately make other people's lives more difficult because of their notions of sexual morality. I'm willing to let them both off the hook, provided they stop discriminating against homosexuals, and attacking people who don't live up to their rhetoric about family values.
I agree completely with Eric. I think we should seriously reconsider this notion of family values. Consider two scenarios: Senator Craig lives openly and happily with a gay partner that he loves, or Senator Craig lives with a wife (that he probably loves) while secretly searching for sex in public bathrooms because he is too afraid/ashamed to seek it through more normal venues. Obviously this is a bit of a straw man because Senator Craig is a lonnnng way from accepting who he really is and probably thinks living with a man on a long-term basis is disgusting. But in which scenario is the idea of "family" more strongly upheld?
Update Update Update: The NYT article quotes a guy named Scott Reed, not the boyishly cherubic hypocrite Ralph. Not that the other Mr. Reed can't be a hypocrite too, given his current occupation...
Sigh. Thanks B.
Though I despise Craig's hypocrisy and the resulting damage done to the LGBT community, what I despise even more is that Craig taps his foot and gets arrested, and Arnold Schwarzenegger commits multiple sexual assaults, including at least one of a minor, and gets elected governor of California.
Don't knock Arnold, he is the best thing California has had since Jerry Brown as Governor. He is a "manly man". "commits multiple sexual assaults" are only allegations, never proven in a court of law. Sorry Diane, innocent until proven guilty. I think that somebody is a "man hater" and Arnold personifies a real "man".
Wow - Horst, your attraction to Arnold is palpable. I'm surprised you had a free hand to reply.
Everything about this story bothers me. On one hand, Craig's actions do seem suspicious, especially his plea. I'm not sure that his behavior really constitutes anything that should be illegal, though. I'm confounded as to where "lewd behavior" really comes in to this story. Count me among the many that didn't know tapping your foot could be considered a sexual advance.
What really gets to me is the role homosexuality is going to play into this whole ordeal. I can't say whether or not Craig is gay, but I can tell you now that the mere suspicion of it is going to destroy him. Some Democrats are going to revel in the fact that Republican homophobia is going to hurt Craig, and I think that's just wrong.
I do not question the arrest record, but I don't understand this: How could Craig move his left hand under the stall when he was in a stall to the left of the arresting cop? The cop also stated that he saw Craig's ring under the stall, which would be on one's left hand. How could Craig reach across himself to put his left hand under the stall?
Anyone have an explanation of this?
Tony
What Craig does in his private life is none of mine or anyone elses business. What I take issue with is the public outcry regarding the perception of hypocrisy. What people seem to forget is that Craig is a public representative. His votes represent the wishes of his constituents.
If Craig was an openly gay man and was elected to a public office his votes should reflect the wishes of his constituents, not his own personal affiliations. I don't care what orientation my representative has. I only care that they cast votes reflective of the community he or she represents.
In my opinion, there's nobody more deserving of contempt than a hypocrite and I say that Larry Craig fits the bill quite nicely.A homophobe on the downlow, that's been caught with his pants down(figuratively).Deserves the contempt,humilation and to be shunned.He has brought this all upon himself, with his dishonsety.
David, "What Craig does in his private life is none of mine or anyone elses business", and I think this is true, but he was in a public restroom.
Further, I tend to think your view is a bit simplistic in that if Craig was, indeed, an openly gay man I would wager that his constituents wouldn't be his constituents much longer. Because, if the votes he has cast which, as you say, are "reflective of the community he or she represents", then he lives in a community that doesn't support hate crime legislation for gays and lesbians, has supported a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. His community has also compelled the Senator to vote to deny federal recognition of same-sex marriages and against including gays in anti-discrimination laws.
So, rather than be openly gay, he hides it from himself, his family, friends and constituents. He hides it to his own demise. And you don't care as long as he casts the right vote? Well, that's a very enabling thought, however...
How in good conscience can the Senator take an office and cast votes that he should know will have a negative impact on his life and the lives of others? What if it had not been a police officer in that stall, rather a Tucker Carlson, and the Senator had gotten his head smashed into the wall? The very hate crime legislation that he voted to defeat can offer him no protection. Not that he would need it because he's a big-shot senator. "What do you think about that?"
This is very disturbing and I think goes beyond the perception of hypocrisy to the perception of a deeply rooted denial that only Mr. Craig and his family will know the true depths. I'm sad for him and the others that will have to live without the protections and freedoms for which the Senator did not see fit to vote or support.
Tony,
Craig was arrested because the police officer assumed Craig wished to engage in a lewd act. Craig did not engage in a lewd act. He was arrested based on the officer's assumption. The police report is very clear that Craig looked through the space in the stall door, fiddled with his hands, went into the left stall and tapped his foot. Last time I checked none of those acts are illegal. People act as if Craig was totally undressed wagging it around for all to see and asking for sex. He was not undressed. He did not verbally solicite the officer. He tapped his foot and waved his hand and touched the officer's foot with his foot. None of those things are illegal.
Obviously Craig's votes represented the choices of his constituents. The voters would not have re-elected the man over and over again if they disagreed with the votes he cast. I cannot speak to Craig's personal motives. The man says he is not gay. There is no reason for me to not take him at his word simply because he was arrested for tapping his foot in a public restroom. The man represented his constituents and they rewarded him by re-electing him. There is no hypocrisy in that.
Craig pleaded guilty to a lesser crime in the hopes of paying the fine and having the issue resolved. That is not unlike pleading guilty to the lesser charge of speeding instead of facing the harsher charge of wreckless endangerment. Pleading to a lesser charge is very common. It is timely, avoids attorney costs, and a public trial. Craig took a risk and gambled on pleading guilty to a lesser charge to avoid the publicity. The gamble backfired and now the public is more than eager to crucify the man.
Democrats were quick to forgive Clinton for actually engaging in a sexual act in a public building, the Oval Office no less, but want to hang Craig from the highest tree branch. That's what I call hypocrisy.
David, you misunderstand. It is Okay for a straight man to let a woman known that they are interested, but thank God, in our society, it is still against the law for a homo to do the same. The Liberals do not control our society or the law. The Bible Thumpers do, and don't you every forget it. Onward Christian soldiers.
David, we don't want to hang craig for his sexual indiscretions, we want to hang him for his raging hypocrisy and his hateful politics. big difference.
or, how about we flip it around? kenn starr ring any bells? i don't imagine you complained too loud or long while he was hard at work protecting us from clinton's sex life.
nmc,
The hypocrisy you place on Craig is based on an assumption, that Craig is actually gay. He says he is not and there is no proof to the contrary unless you consider tapping your foot in a public restroom a homosexual act. I think even the most conservative person would call that a stretch. Craig's voting record represents the wishes of his constituents. If those votes are hateful then blame the voters, not Craig.
I cannot understand how anyone can equate Clinton's engagement in a physical sexual act with Craig's ability to tap his foot in a public restroom. Clinton abused his office and he blatantly lied about it when there was physical proof of the encounter on Monika's dress. Craig abused the sole of his shoe by tapping his foot in an airport restroom.
I'm tapping my foot right now and it is neither sexually exciting nor homosexual.
David, I admire you for sticking to your guns, but I'm still not convinced based on your argument of pleading guilty to a lesser charge.
Giving the benefit of the doubt to the Senator...
1) let's say he wheeled his bag into the stall and placed it in front of the door, then sits down. Well, this would certainly not give a tall guy like him much leg room so he has to widen his stance and inadvertently taps the guy next to him. Plausible.
2) The guy next to him drops a piece of paper and the Senator reaches out to pick it up passing his hand under the stall divider. Plausible.
There are a several plausible explanations but only one to which he would plead guilty in a court of law. We like to encourage due process and lead with a presumption of innocence which is, among other things, very noble, however accepting a lesser charge does not remove his guilt.
Had it been wreckless endangerment with a motor vehicle, then reduced to speeding from a Senator who had been a strong advocate of seat-belt laws, a key-note speaker for MADD, a strong critic of raising the speed limit, and a proponent of re-testing senior citizens for their drivers licences, would you not think that a bit hypocritical? We don't have to assume anything. This guy was driving recklessly, or at the very least driving above the posted speed limit. The hypocrisy is inherent.
Again, probably the best thing for the Senator was that it was a cop and not a gay-basher. Maybe the Senator will get some help, so that he doesn't feel the need to seek it in the solace of strangers.
Tony,
It is plausible that Craig was trying to hook up with the man in the stall next to him. Is that illegal? No. People meet people every day and have sex. What happens between two consenting adults is no business of mine.
There are inconsistancies though. If Craig was in the left stall why would he use his left hand to wave at the officer? The police report described Craigs ring. That hand is the furthest away from the officer. Craig would have to be sitting sideways in the stall to put his left hand under the dividing wall. People are very quick to judge.
As far as lewd acts in a public restroom I don't know how two people can engage in lewd acts while sitting in different stalls with a metal partition between them anyway. They can only see each other's ankles. Some people find ankles sexy but I don't see how that constitutes a lewd act.
As far as the hypocrisy I believe that a homosexual can have conservative family values. My sister is a lesbian. She has ultra conservative family values. She does not feel comfortable raising a child in her private environment. That's her choice to make. I am a republican that is an atheist. I believe in a small government, the right to life, and a strong military. I have no interest in faith based or intelligent design learnings. The mistake everyone makes is applying a cookie cutter stereotype on people based on one aspect of their persona, political affiliation. That is why I take issue with the characteristic of hypocrisy when discussing Craig.
Craig has a public life and a personal life. His public life is as a representative of the voters who put him in office. His voting choices represent those of his constituents because they are the people who put him in office time after time.
Craig has a private life. I personally could care less what he does in his private life. That is between him and his family. I would invite everyone who would condemn the man to take a good look in the mirror first. I'm sure many of us will see an element of hypocrisy looking back at us.
I am an Idahoan and we're noted for being pretty conservative. Whether Mr. Craig's career would have been any different had he been out of the closet before election, we'll never know. I do know that we despise liars and deceivers, however and personally, I hold that against him more than the accusations of being gay. I don't care what gender, color or religion a person is, as long as he fulfills the job he applied or and I am paying him/her to do. An extension of separation of religion and state affairs, is it not? No pun intended--
Really, who cares if he's gay or not? That's between him, his conscious and his wife and family. The real issue is the duplicity of this man - doing what he can in Congress to block or set back anything to do with gay issues while he trolls public restrooms for sexual encounters with other men.
David, Jeanine, Tony II, Lacy, Dee Lightly,
Message From Senator Craig:
Homo-sexual-mania is running wild in the Re-faglican Party!!
Whatch gonna do when the 12 inch python runs wild on you!!!
Aaarrrgg!!!
David, Jeanine, Tony II, Lacy, Dee Lightly,
Seriously, logic highly suggests that the GOP stop running on the two pronged platform of mass-murder and gay bashing. When Republicans realize and understand that there are more important things in life than killing brown-skinned foreigners around the world and discriminating against gays and lesbians the better off they will be. Wake-up red Americans! Your "saviors" in the Republican party are the very thing that you people rail against. Time to vote for another platform...................
"Seriously, logic highly
"Seriously, logic highly suggests that the GOP stop running on the two pronged platform of mass-murder and gay bashing. "
Why, exactly, do you think anyone would care what you say after spraying that all over their screen?
Get a clue guy, people don't agree with you, they're laughing at how ridiculous your hyperbolic "rhetoric" is.
Of course, that may be because you're not smart enough to actually address the issues, so you make claims of "killing brown people".
Well, genius, the Current Prez IS brown, and just killed some other "brown people". So what about that?
I'll wait while you fabricate an excuse that allows you to maintain your pathetically childish world view.
Last, a person private life isn't your business. And no, that doesn't change because you don't like his politics claiming such means your opinion isn't very well thought out and not worth considering.