Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

The Outcome of Wanting (Gay) Sex

By Sandip Roy, New America Media. Posted September 5, 2007.


Few mourned the downfall of Sen. Larry Craig. But what exactly did he do that was so wrong? And what kind of precedent has it set?

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Nobel Laureate Slams the Bible, Calls It "A Catalogue of Cruelties"
Mario de Queiroz

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
As Foreclosure Nightmares Increase, Will More Homeowners Pay Off Their Bankers in Violence?
Scott Thill

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Despite Censorship By Beef Magnate, Michael Pollan Spreads Message About the Real Price of Cheap Food

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
How Biased Media Can Brainwash You
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Sandip Roy

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

SAN FRANCISCO -- I come to defend Larry Craig, not to bury him. He is a homophobe and a hypocrite. He is a holier-than-thou Senator with feet of toilet paper. But Larry Craig has been forced to resign his seat for all the wrong reasons.

Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell called Craig's conduct "unforgivable." Et tu Brute! Then falls Craig.

As far as I can make out from the audiotapes released between Craig and Sgt. Dave Karsnia, Larry Craig did not have sex with the police officer. Larry Craig did not expose himself a la George Michael. Larry Craig did not offer Dave Karsnia any money to have sex with him. Larry Craig didn't verbally ask Dave Karsnia to have sex with him.

Even taking the officer, described by MSNBC as a "compassionate man with diligent work ethics" at his word, all the senator did was stare at him through a crack in the toilet stall, tapped his shoe, touched his neighbor's foot and passed his hand underneath the stall in what is apparently some time-honored gay mating ritual.

So adding all of that up, all I can get is Larry Craig might have wanted to have sex with Dave Karsnia. Perhaps right there in the bathroom. Perhaps in a hotel room somewhere. And that is what Mitch McConnell calls "unforgivable."

If one person hitting on another person in a public place is a crime, then every singles bar in the country on a Friday night where shoe tapping does often occur is a hotspot of unforgivable crimes. It is America's stunning prudery that just the thought, the desire to have (gay) sex has been criminalized so that this man is blackballed, ostracized and forced to resign.

President Bush who has defended his incompetent Attorney General to the bitter end, never retracted his "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" about director of FEMA after the Katrina disaster, left a press conference without answering when asked if Larry Craig should resign. No one, it seems, wanted to touch the Idaho hot potato, except, of course, the poor stoic wife who had to stand by her man in humiliating press conferences.

I will praise Larry Craig for the courage to fight back and not just blame alcoholism and check into rehab. Unfortunately for the senator, so busy was he chanting his "I am not gay; I never have been gay," mantra he didn't leave himself any room to state the obvious truth, that the only thing he was really guilty of was wanting to have sex. What if when he passed the paper under the toilet stall he had just written on it "I'm Craggy69 on MSN Messenger. IM me 2nite"? Would that have constituted disturbing the peace?

On the other hand Louisiana Senator David Vitter's name showed up on the phone records of the "D.C. Madam," accused of running a prostitution ring in the capital. The good Senator even admitted that he was guilty of "a serious sin in (his) past." From that we might assume that unlike Larry Craig, Vitter actually had sex and unlike Craig again, paid for it.

Yet Vitter remains a senator. He was not forced off all his committees though his website claimed he was committed to "advancing mainstream conservative principles". He asked to keep the matter between "God and (his) family." It seems everyone obliged. Cynics among us might think that it was because the governor of Louisiana who would have appointed his replacement is a Democrat while the governor of Idaho is a Republican and apparently already has the Lieutenant-governor lined up to go to Washington D.C.

But I think the rot is deeper than just Senate arithmetic. Larry Craig, homophobe on the Senate floor is dying a death of a thousand cuts by homophobia disguised as non-judgmental fairness.

Gay activists are rejoicing at the fall of another homophobe, hoisted on his own petard, tripping over the skeleton in his own toilet stall. Activist Michelangelo Signorile who has defended the "outing" of anti-gay closeted public figures said in Newsweek, "For me, this is all about journalism and equalizing the reporting of homosexuality and heterosexuality."

But if there was a case of a radical discrepancy in how homosexual and heterosexual sex were treated by the media, it is Larry Craig vs. David Vitter. And while it's always gratifying when a hypocrite gets his comeuppance it's tragic that those activists rubbing their hands in schadenfreude didn't stop to note that gross inequality.

This is not about the right to have sex in a public place. Larry Craig is being sacrificed for the mere act of perhaps wanting to have sex. Nothing more. And that will come to haunt us all long after we have forgotten the unfortunate Senator from Idaho.

To paraphrase Mark Antony -

Little good is interred with Larry Craig's resignation.
But the evil that this precedent sets lives after it.

O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;
Something has been lost in that toilet stall with Larry Craig,
And we must pause till it comes back to us.


Alas, I fear we will be waiting for a very long time.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: sex, gay, larry craig

Sandip Roy (sandip@pacificnews.org) is host of "Upfront," the Pacific News Service weekly radio program on KALW-FM, San Francisco.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
important point
Posted by: Ames on Sep 5, 2007 12:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an important point to make and I'm somewhat surprised that it hasn't been made earlier. Wanting, thinking about, or engaging in homosexual behaviour (with a consenting adult) is neither morally wrong or a crime, and it's important not to lose sight of that fact.

Ok, so it's pretty seedy to try and elicit sex (either homosexual or heterosexual) in a public restroom as it's not the safest or cleanest place. But the focus needs to remain on his hypocrisy and bigotry, his rabidly anti-gay public statements and actions, and the ever increasing shrillness of the people that demonise not only him but gay sex in general and use it as a means to further their homophobic hateful and bigoted views, all in the name of God. As Ghandi once said, "I like your Christ, it's your Christians I don't like". Christ didn't speak against homosexuality but he did against hate and judgement of others.

Yes, Larry Craig's an idiot, but by focusing on him we lose sight of the main game, the arguments and actions of Republicans (and even some Democrats sadly) who use him to rebuke gays, gay sex and sexual equality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: important point Posted by: LMNOP
» RE: important point Posted by: clgal07
» ANOTHER important POINT... Posted by: Bozwell
» RE: ANOTHER important POINT... Posted by: Intellect
As far as I know,
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Sep 5, 2007 1:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sen. Craig left himself a HUGE out. He hasn't resigned - he's merely signaled his intent to do so at the end of this month, I believe.
If I'm wrong on this point, please let me know here.

plur

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: As far as I know, Posted by: hagwind
angela
Posted by: genderbender on Sep 5, 2007 3:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
my question is if we don't believe that heterosexual behavior is the only "correct" behavior then shouldn't all the publicity and focus and desire to bring things to light really be focused on the idea that what most all believe to be a serious commitment (i mean marriage) should be upheld with the utmost respect by a person with significant stature in our government? a person who, most likely, displayed his devotion to this committment while on the road to his current position? if you think about the ongoing struggle to remove the barriers and prejudice that surrounds gay marriage, then you can see that if this incident focused on craig's "not acted out but potential" discretion (seriously though, we all know that this wasn't the first time he ventured down that path) rather than the homosexual nature of it, others that have actually admitted (or nearly admitted) that they cheated would have to be held up to the same harsh light. honestly, straight, gay or otherwise - if you are in a committed relationship (esp marriage) it is cheating. and even though i am very very liberal - cheating is not ok. one would think that such a conservative government would feel the same...isn't our "dear" george W a christian? look at the 10 commandments...thou shalt not committ adultry...that doesn't say anything about man/woman or woman/woman or man/man now does it? it says don't cheat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I disagree Posted by: Libertine
» RE: I disagree Posted by: Basenjis
This is decency?
Posted by: douglashoyt on Sep 5, 2007 3:53 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Conformity to prevailing standards of propriety or modesty."

Gay sex is not the question or problem with the actions of Craig. He was being indecent.

His bathroom antics shows a disregard for the mores of this society. As a public figure, he has shown his stature, and should not continue to represent the people of Idaho.

He is a poor example.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» YOU HIT IT !!! Posted by: Bozwell
» RE: This is decency? Posted by: RLG1111
» RE: This is decency? Posted by: Intellect
» RE: This is decency? Posted by: donsmith755
Craig is no Gay
Posted by: Abushite on Sep 5, 2007 4:13 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On his own testimony Craig is not Gay.

Fine - just a commonplace pervert - a buggerer - his plea of guilt to whatever - is enough. Back in Roman times - sodomy not a big deal. Nor was the spectacle of animals pitted against each in combat abhorrent . Today civilised peoples believe differently.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Craig is no Gay Posted by: Tefech
» RE: Craig is no Gay Posted by: pmaxon
» RE: Craig is no Gay Posted by: maestra
He was and is a hypocrite
Posted by: bryanth798 on Sep 5, 2007 4:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If he had admitted that he was gay from the start and had gotten elected in spite of that, then he could actually take the offensive and rail against anti-gay laws. Instead, he was masquarading as someone who SUPPORTS them! If it had been someone else besides him, he would be calling for their blood. What did he he do wrong? He got caught redhanded being a complete hypocrite.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: He was and is a hypocrite Posted by: InsertNameHere
Senator Craig and Homophobia
Posted by: stormrunner on Sep 5, 2007 4:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I also do not think that Larry Craig should have been pressured to resign from the Senate, and find the hypocrisy of the politics that propelled this as reprehensible as the alleged closeted life of Senator Craig.

As a gay man I feel aggressive cruising in public toilets and sex in public toilets to be repulsive and completely inappropriate. However, I think a better choice for the airport police would have been to give Craig a warning and that the police consequences for this indiscreet cruising were overkill.

It appears that this story struck both a voyeuristic attention for the press and for the public, suggesting it hit a nerve with the psychic unconscious of the nation -- a sensitivity not unlike that which makes uncomfortable the suggestion of allowing gays to serve openly in the military.

Hopefully, a longer lasting lesson for Republicans will be that continuing a political tactic of using social wedge issues, as the gay marriage boogeyman, to enhance voter turnout, will eventually show the party for being out of touch with both facts and with the changing mood of the nation. And that the public will sooner or later catch on to this political hypocrisy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cottaging
Posted by: colinmeister on Sep 5, 2007 4:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hanging around public lavatories looking for homosexual sex has been a long standing tradition in the U.K. Homosexuals call this "Cottaging", and they call the public lavatories "Cottages".

This rather seedy practice has been regarded as a nuisense by people wanting to use the lavatories for the intended purpode of defacation, and is also used as a reason to mock homosexuals by some members of the heterosexual population. The police will arrest and charge offenders with the specific crime of "Engaging in sexual activity in a public lavatory", or the more general one of "Indecent exposure".

In modern times, when most sizeable cities have "Gay bars", it seems a little sad that homosexuals have to seek dates in public lavatories. As to Senator Craig, the joke is very similar to the situation with Presedent Clinton and Monica Lewinsky - not what these men were doing, but the fact that they were stupid enough to be caught doing it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Cottaging Posted by: Jeo567
» RE: Cottaging Posted by: jbur816
» RE: Cottaging Posted by: Jeo567
» RE: Cottaging Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Cottaging Posted by: HoboHomo
comments on a previous thread showed the complexity of this situation
Posted by: Suzon on Sep 5, 2007 4:48 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. To disapprove of homosexuality is not okay.
2. Men soliciting sex in public toilets can be excused on some grounds and absolutely condemned on other grounds.
3. Politicians have a right to express their sexuality like anybody else.
4. No, they are obliged to set an example of moral probity.
5. Republicans tell other people how to live their lives so it's great fun when they (and their families) can be publicly humiliated.
6. It a bit shameful to rejoice at another person's downfall.
7. Hypocrisy in a politician is a fatal flaw (so why aren't they all dead?).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Craig's Legislation is the Crime, not His Personal Predilections
Posted by: thornwolf on Sep 5, 2007 4:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I couldn't care less about Larry Craig's extracurricular sexcapades. I don't even see where he committed any real crime in that mens room, really.

In my mind, Craig's crime -- and a pernicious crime it is, with ill effects on the society -- is his oratory and legislation against the very sort of conduct he engages in. That hypocrisy, displayed by a senator, is a crime against the society and deserves punishment and expulsion.

If Larry Craig were just some guy busted for seeking consensual sex with another guy in a public place, I would call that unfair, no one injured or threatened, no foul no crime. If he were a senator who had not publicly railed against gay sex nor legislated against it, I would say leave him alone.

But for him to lord it over others in a way that legislatively condemns the very act he engaged in, I say expell him from the senate, clap him in irons and throw him into the dungeon -- not for the sex part but for his blatant hypocrisy as a legislator.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The right to have sex??
Posted by: hagwind on Sep 5, 2007 5:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even if you can find such a right in the Constitution or the common law, we're not talking here about a right to have sex; we're talking about a right to have sex whenever and wherever you feel like it, without regard for consequences or circumstances. In a diverse society, such rights are limited, and with good reason: otherwise "me, me, me" would be continually riding roughshod over "us, us, us." We all have the "right" to pee, but for various reasons, including public health, we aren't supposed to do it on Main Street or in a public park. Our "right" to make loud music is limited by the likelihood that someone upstairs or next door is trying to sleep or play the flute. In another thread, several posters pointed out that public restrooms are not good places to have sex, and that having sex -- or even being willing to have sex -- in a public restroom is not a sign of good judgment. Being willing to have homosexual sex in a public restroom if you're a prominent member of a moralistic, hypocritical, homophobic political party goes way beyond stupid.

Sorry, I'm not willing to go to the mat for Senator Craig, or anyone who thinks there's a right to have sex (heterosex as well as homosex) at any place and time of their choosing. I do suspect that Craig is being skewered at least as much for wanting to have homosex as for wanting to have it in a public restroom, but look who's doing the skewering! Lie down with camels, get up with fleas -- and Craig's been sleeping with the mangiest herd to have run the U.S. government in my lifetime.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The right to have sex?? Posted by: Intellect
what's wrong with straight sex?
Posted by: johnp on Sep 5, 2007 5:41 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's almost diabolically amusing to see the question asked that: in wanting gay sex, "what was so wrong" about what Craig did? Well, I'd like to know if this author asked the same question about "what was wrong" when Bill Clinton was crucified because he wanted "straight" sex? I completely agree that there's nothing wrong with wanting gay sex, if that's what your preferences are, but almost no-one came to Clinton's defense when he was exposed as someone who wanted straight sex. Why? Was it because Clinton was "married?" In spite of the fact that at least 50% of marriages end in divorce, and a sizable percentage of the ones that seemingly remain intact, are miserable marriages of resignation and convenience, what's the fuss about? And it isn't because, aside from their marriage, Clinton betrayed the confidence placed in him, by Hillary, because we're apparently asking why we should be upset at gays for wanting gay sex, when we know that gays are notoriously unfaithful to one partner. I know this latter claim will be disputed by people, but I think it's truer of gays than it is of straight people, and, what's more, I don't give a damn, if they are; because I believe that if a people are unhappy with a marital arrangement, it's the marriage that's a failure, and certainly not a failure of the individuals that agreed to it. And, in the same way, the notion of "remaining true" to a one person, whether of the opposite, or of your own sex, is ultimately a hopeless cause, and is responsible for much misery in people's lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Clinton's popularity.... Posted by: morticia
I agree with the writer of the article
Posted by: freedom38 on Sep 5, 2007 5:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is exactly is wrong with having sex with someone of your gender? Nothing, hopefully, because otherwise millions of Americans would suddenly find themselves without jobs. (And they do, all the time, for this reason.)

We shouldn't ousting Larry Craig- rather, we should attack his hypocrisy. We should let him remain in the Senate, but everytime he attempts to discriminate against the LGBT community, we'll hold up an article or photo and cough loudly ("Ehemm...").

What we need to combat is the society that encourages such "in the closet but trying to attack those who are out of the closet" behavior, as I call it. We need to attack those who uphold "family values" while being LGBT- we should not attack them simply for being LGBT.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

schadenfreudeschadenfreudeschadenfreude
Posted by: Kryptman40k on Sep 5, 2007 6:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why are people obsessed with the word schadenfreude lately?

I think most of you are missing the point here. This isn't about gay sex, or some grand declaration of homophobia.

Lets not forget that Barney Frank was caught with a gay prostitute (which yes is illegal) and wasn't ran off by his own party.

This is about hypocrisy and the fact that craig thinks he is above the laws he creates. End of story. He should be kicked out of congress for that alone.

Every republican thinks they can break the law, trash our country, and smile at us all the while.

Please stop trying to confuse this issue/scandal with gay rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: schadenfreude Posted by: Ames
rhrandall@icehouse.net
Posted by: rhrandall on Sep 5, 2007 6:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good comments from many of the above and all to the point. However, the argument that the senator was indeed "trolling"
and in a public place seems correct. Sex is a great part of being human, but it is not the only part. I do not care about people's sexual lives: I do care very much about leadership, and hypocrisy ( a form of lying and often worse) and Craig's behavior for years is notorious on this issue. He is a mean-spirited person, and notwithstanding his comments to the contrary, no friend of disabled veterans. He is typical of so many of the GOPs current "leadership" in that they lie, deceive, are driven by terrible motives, e.g. greed, racism, bigotry and yes homophobia and have no regard for the lives of others. U.S. senators should understand who they are and what they are, and we should be proud they are there, and not worrying if they are seeking anonymous sex in public bathrooms, or playing with the staff in goverment supplied offices. It is not what they are paid to do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: rhrandall@icehouse.net Posted by: maestra
» Trawling it is Posted by: hagwind
Fight on, Craig!
Posted by: jmooney on Sep 5, 2007 6:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, let me state clearly I am a liberal and detest the fact that Sen. Craig has voted consistenly against gay rights while apparently being gay -- or bi-sexual -- himself. That's bad.
Nevertheless, I believe it should be up to the people of Idaho to determine his fate. He should go on statewide TV and make his case and ask for Idahoans to call his office. If they call in with a majority favoring he stay, he should stay until the next election, and if he wants to run, do it and see what happens. That's how Ted Kennedy did it after Chappaquiddick. He made a speech on TV and the response in Mass was strong for him to stay. I like Ted Kennedy and think he has been a great senator, but does anyone think that some questionable behavior in a public bathroom is worse than the death of a young woman caused by Kennedy's questionable behavior. Others such as Barney Franks and Gerry Studds were allowed to stay in office after questionable behaviors relating to prostitutes and pages. They even went back before their electorate and won re-election. If we pull stuff like this away from the voters of a given jurisdiction, that just makes voters less and less competent. If Idaho wants Craig to serve in the Senate, I say let them. I wish they wouldn't not so much because of the bathroom thing but because of his politics, but that's what democracy is about. Now, if a member of Congress commits a felony, that would warrant expulsion by the body. But anything below the level of felony should result perhaps in Congressional condemnation or rebuke, but not expulsion or attempts to coerce a member to resign. I believe Craig's offenses were of the misdemeanor variety. Let's say he solicited a female prostitute and that was a misdemeanor. Would he be in the situation he is now? Why not ask Sen. Vitter of Louisianna who I don't guess was charged but certainly has admitted to committing misdemeanor solicitation of female prostitutes. And, as the writer here says, Craig apparently didn't offer up any money or even talk about sex in that bathroom. What kind of police state do we live in where police can just create crimes out of whole cloth? That's manufacturing crime, in my view. Don't we have enough real crime already? Craig does seem to be his own worst enemy in that he does something (like cop a plea or announce he'll resign) then changes his mind, but he is probably under a lot of stress not the least of which is likely the fact he is gay or bi and is trying to hide it. And that's the real rub, because if people like Craig didn't hide from it or actually legislate against the very homosexuality that they are part of, maybe he'd be healthier as would other gays who are still in the closet (and straights who oppose sex outside of marriage while busily participating in that very thing).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

he DID NOT have sex! he DID NOT have sex!
Posted by: tomkara on Sep 5, 2007 7:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
several posters here keep saying or implying that Craig "had sex" in public. HE DID NOT. At most he was engaged in trying to make contact. He was charged with disorderly conduct because, apparently from a legal standpoint, he "intruded" into someone else's temporarily private space - another stall, with his hand. He was stupid to plead guilty. I am gay and have no great sympathy for hypocrites, but the author of this article is correct - Craig was being subjected to a double standard. If he had flirted with a pretty woman in the next airport waiting room seat, he would not have been arrested. We do not need "vice cops" trying to trap people for making "inappropriate signals" to other people. If Craig was openly masturbating in the men's room, they'd have a point - BUT HE WAS NOT. This vice cop activity is merely an extension of the longstanding oppression of gay people. Yes, Craig had the "option" of findng somebody in a gay bar or going online - but as a horribly closeted man he wouldn't have been caught dead in a gay bar and would have left a trail had he gone online. He was not forced to resign for "disorderly conduct", but rather because the Republicans were mortified that he had engaged in what was perceived aa "immoral gay conduct" - trying to make contact with another man. They wouldn't have cared a hoot if he had tried to make contact with a woman, unless it went much further.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is What Craig's Misdeed Was
Posted by: louisa23 on Sep 5, 2007 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When he got arrested, he pulled out his US Senate card and said, "What do you think of that?" Trying to intimidate a police officer and abusing his position was unethical - and in a highly Dem state, REALLY DUMB!

But, as I told my Mom, George Michael must be laughing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The truth does matter...
Posted by: SevenStarHand on Sep 5, 2007 7:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Larry Craig, Mark Foley, George Allen, Karl Rove, and many of their cronies and ilk have proven that Karma can be a bitch when the time to pay the piper for such staggering levels of hypocrisy rolls around. Remember the old adage; What goes around, comes around. Never forget that this is the holier-than-thou crowd (a.k.a., the sacred-pomp) that deceptively gave us The Patriot Act, the Iraq war, torture, secret prisons, Abu-Garib, Gitmo, spying on the innocent, etc., etc. Oh, how the greedy and arrogant are falling low...

Larry Craig's biggest problem was that he was so vociferously anti-gay as a lawmaker, while doing the opposite in private. His sexual orientation is his "choice," if you believe him and his duplicitous cronies. Therefore, it was his choice to live a lie and then to exponentially compound it by using his power as a US Senator to oppress and exploit others as a smoke (and mirrors) screen to help obscure what he does in the shadows.

Eleven illuminates hypocrisy, once again !!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clarification is needed
Posted by: sss4r on Sep 5, 2007 7:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But I think this article missed the point. He pleaded guilty to a crime--a crime that was not exposed until a newspaper published the incident 77 days after the fact--and being an elected public servant, that alone warrants calls for his resignation.

Agreed that it should be made loud and clear that it is NOT because he is gay (although, that may be the justification in the minds of some).

And I despise his ilk because he pisses on the Constitution, denies gay rights, lies about his orientation, etc. This nation's biggest problem is hypocrisy, and sadly Craig is the living embodiment in the spotlight at this time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

poetic justice
Posted by: Dboy on Sep 5, 2007 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's about time that these law-makers have their careers ruined by the stupid morals they attempt to inflict on everyone else as laws. It's especially fitting that he's expressed homophobia.

Private users and growers of cannabis have their lives ruined all the time by this govt, for nothing. I really hope that MORE of these people go through what Craig is going through. These people ALL deserve it.

Dboy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What if...
Posted by: greenman on Sep 5, 2007 8:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...Senator Craig manages to get the judgement against him nullified? After all, as many have pointed out, he really didn't do anything of a criminal nature. Just suppose he wins exoneration, and imagine the welcome he would receive from his fellow Republicans upon his return to the Senate. If ever a politician and a party deserved one another, this is it! Fight on, Larry!

Greenman

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He was well known as a promiscuous gay
Posted by: ScottP on Sep 5, 2007 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem with Larry Craig was that it was all a lie. He did have plenty of public bathroom sex, on a regular basis, and was well known in the DC gay community. You can find it easily, here's one example:
proudofwhoweare

But his lies didn't end with being an active gay who uses his position to thwart progress in his own community. He also fights against health care for children, food for the poor, women's rights. Finally, he continually supports the war with his votes and propaganda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Craig set himself up?
Posted by: vomeggido on Sep 5, 2007 8:45 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I for one would not be surprised to hear that Sen. Craig allowed himself to be "set-up" and busted in a sting operation that would require more security and under-cover cops to entrap homosexuals in public bathrooms with little or no evidence- which would mean "even a look" could get you thrown into jail (watch the film documentary film Paragraph 175).

This whole scenario and Craig's response seemed "clever" scripted- and I mean too clever in it had wit- means a writer was very busy.

Also Craig is no dummy- and I seriously doubt his homosexuality (and I have high-speed GAYDAR which has been clocked and measured!).

Something smells fishy about this entire presentation. This is another scenario designed to attach to our freedoms and rip them out from under us.

I just really feel this one and something is not right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Craig set himself up? Posted by: smart soprano
It's about judgment, doofus
Posted by: doodahman on Sep 5, 2007 8:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Give me a break. It's one thing to see some small, tiny, defensible thing about any incident. It's entirely another to miss the big, glaring, in your face import of the event. In this case, the problem with Craig isn't his cock craving, but his judgment. Risking sex in an airport restroom? What kind of reckless idiot does that? An idiot who, as Senator, has to know the repercussions of his actions should he be, ahem, exposed.

Get serious. Gay or straight, keep your goddamn dingies in your goddamn pants when you are in a public place. Is that too much to ask of our gov't representatives?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree with doofus
Posted by: vomeggido on Sep 5, 2007 8:51 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Supposedly Craig has had other encounters according to witnesses and former sex partners. I am still not quite buying this story. He has not been busted before and that would be something. One cannot believe the gay press and most gay witnesses especially if what they witness has anything to do with republicans. Gay will scream out "Oh, yeah I had her in the stall at Dulles. Queens can be very nasty when it comes to gossip and rumors- and this should always be taken into account before allowing hearsay to be included in commentary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I Would Have More Sympathy For Craig If......
Posted by: Libertine on Sep 5, 2007 8:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...he'd not supported anti-gay legislation and other anti-progressive measures. It's the hypocrisy that causes me to lose all sympathy for him.

I'm a promiscuous heterosexual and I've hooked up with partners in a wide variety of settings, so I can actually understand his predilection for bathroom pickups, though I've not picked up anyone in a bathroom, for obvious reasons. The clandestine nature, the danger of discovery, and the anonymity of it all can be highly arousing -- it's a very similar rush that some people get when engaging in other, nonsexual types of thrill seeking behavior, such as auto racing, mountain climbing, etc.

Should Craig resign? I can't say for sure, but I'm guessing he's got about as much right to be a Senator as Vitter does.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bizby
Posted by: Bizby on Sep 5, 2007 9:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good point, well made.

One small correction. You state "Gay activists are rejoicing at the fall of another homophobe, hoisted on his own petard, ...."

A petard is not one's backside. It is an explosive charge. Originally, one was hoisted BY one's own petard when one planed for an explosive charge to direct damage away from the person planting the charge--like through a wall--but the explosion actually rebounded back toward the person who planted the charge--if, for example, the wall was too strong.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It was entrapment
Posted by: mdharold on Sep 5, 2007 9:16 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Craig is a hypocrite and he should be called on it. But hypocrisy is no crime. I don't like him, I don't like his policies and I don't like the Republican party. But there is no reason for him to resign.

His arrest was a case of entrapment and he will probably go free if he contests it. In any case, it doesn't warrant his resignation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It was entrapment Posted by: angryyoungwoman
wether he is gay, or had sex, is not even the point
Posted by: mnlefty on Sep 5, 2007 9:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have no problem with married politicians having a closeted gay life if that's what they choose. I have no problem with two consenting adults having nasty public bathroom sex. But to stare into a bathroom stall at someone you don't even know while they are trying to take care of their business? Eeew. If that happened to me, I would FLIP OUT. Again, if it's two people who want the same thing, fine. Since this incident, in talking to my gay friends, I have been educated in the lovely aspect of 'glory holes.' I had no idea this existed, and clearly there are people who think it's great. You have to understand if a huge portion of the public finds it completely disgusting. The anonymity, the hygiene factor, the potential for serious abrasion....(!)The cop clearly didn't want what Craig was offering. And some people have said the cop didn't need to actually charge him, implying the Senator was treated differently because of who he was. First of all, who knew who he was before this story? Not some airport security guy, I'll bet. Secondly, they have been making a lot of these kind of arrests at the airport, largely because people trying to go to the bathroom were bothered by these hookups. I think once you flash your badge you have to act on that. So that's probably why he followed through...because the Senator kept the encounter going until it got to that point.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just curious
Posted by: Axiom69 on Sep 5, 2007 9:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I travel occasionally but apparently I have been completely ignorant of the goings on inside the airport restrooms. Is this really such a serious problem that the police had to set up a "sting"? Would not the law enforcement officers at the airport have more serious concerns than two adults trying to hook up for consensual sex? Please someone enlighten me. Is this really such a problem that we have to take cops away from looking for terrorists and have them on bathroom patrol?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just curious Posted by: maestra
» RE: Just curious Posted by: Ames
Hypocrisy
Posted by: RGO on Sep 5, 2007 10:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sick to death of Larry Craig and all the other gits in positions of power and influence who take it upon themselves to tell people how to behave while doing the exact opposite in their personal lives. If a person - not surprisingly - finds it impossible to live by the standards he tries to impose on others, then he should retire to private life and leave the preaching and/or legislating to more rational, fair-minded, less hypocritical people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the Only difference between vitter and craig
Posted by: Gaubladt on Sep 5, 2007 10:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The governor of louisiana is a democrat while the governor of idaho is a republican

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Missing the point
Posted by: cc on Sep 5, 2007 10:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
> If one person hitting on another person in a public place is a crime, then every singles bar in the country on a Friday night where shoe tapping does often occur is a hotspot of unforgivable crimes.

The author is missing a very important point here. Pretty much everyone who goes to a singles bar does so with the expectation that they will be soliciting or be solicited for sex. A public restroom is supposed to be different. You expect to be able to do your business there without being solicited or accosted.

If I were to go to a singles bar I would love it if some hot chick were to hit on me. But if I were in a restroom you can bet that I am not looking for anyone's (male or female) attention.

I fully support sting operations to catch gays looking for sex in public restrooms. Gays that want sex should find it through other more traditional and safer channels - gay singles clubs, internet ads, dating services, friends, whatever. I don't have a problem with that. But hit on me in a public place, when you don't even know if I am gay, and you deserve a date with the cops.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Missing the point Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» RE: Missing the point Posted by: Kryptman40k
» RE: Missing the point Posted by: babs
» RE: Missing the point Posted by: cc
» RE: Missing the point Posted by: mnlefty
» RE: Missing the point Posted by: Kryptman40k
» RE: Missing the point Posted by: charemor
» RE: Missing the point Posted by: HoboHomo
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
the Repugs would love to make THINKING about sex among Gays Illegal!
Posted by: emccready on Sep 5, 2007 12:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with those who say the focus should be on the hypocricy of this guy's actions and not his committing a victimless "crime".

What Barney Frank said on a previous vidoe at this site is so important.... the Republicans (with the blind support of gay republicans) would really love to make being gay illegal and a crime...meaning that thinking of sex with another man and being gay would be punishable and outlawed.

One would think that the Police should have better things to do than sitting around in a public toilet trying to entrap a person who - for whatever reason - is interested in finding a sex partner. They should be out stopping real crimes instead of ticketing jay-walkers as they do in Los Angeles, where it often takes sometimes 45 minutes to an hour and a half for a real crime victim to get the attention of the police only to find that they are often victimized themselves by the police.

Craig should resign for his hypocricy and his support for legislation that goes against his own nature. His reaction is a good example of someone who places the value of power and money above their own personal integrity.

Sure sounds like the definition of most polticians these days. Perhaps this is a good argument for strict term limits - sweep out the place no matter how much "experience" at corruption is lost along the way. So what if the economy slows down..so what if it takes a bit longer to get good laws in place... better that than what exists today.

I like the comment of the person who suggested holding up a picture of his arrest every time a gay issue comes up. The unfortunate thing is that the Republicans would do a good job of convincing way too many people that he has been vindicated and just victimized instead of recognizing how this cowardly individual has conspired to bully, punish and destroy the lives of those having his own same deepest inner desires but little or no power.

Ultimately he is the victim of his own policies, and that is where the justice appears. Let him fight the entrapment law but get him off the taxpaper's payroll now!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nothing is worse that a hateful hypocrite!
Posted by: fluffmuffinmom on Sep 5, 2007 2:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What Larry Craig and his entire despicable party have done makes me sick. They have deliberately exploited, encouraged, and capitalized on the ignorant masses' fear of gay people for their own politcal gain and greed.

Don't you dare forget that in 2004 huge numbers of homophobes poured into the polls in droves - in Idaho and elsewhere - motivated to vote against gay marriage. While they were there they happened to elect and re-elect the republican hatemongers. The diabolically crafted plan worked brilliantly: the homophobes took the bait and Craig and his Cronies wallowed in re-election glory.

The mess we're in today - the war, the debt, the torture, the lost civil liberties, etc. - is the direct result of the "political capital and mandate" delivered to the GOP via their disgraceful, homophobic fearmongering.

I'm glad Larry Craig has been yanked out of his pathetic closet. I couldn't care less about who he f***s or where he f***s him, but I do care that he is a hypocrite of the worst kind. Good riddance!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Larry Craig should'nt feel guilty for NOTHING.
Posted by: HumanCourt on Sep 5, 2007 2:24 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Larry Craig shouldn't be lynched - he's not all that bad and his troubles and faults do not warrant his resignation nor does it warrant him being the poster boy for hypocrisy, gay sex in public places and shame guilt.

The first issue is Hypocrisy. ok as a gay person I don't really care about his hypocrisy, its more of a voyeuristic feeling that only works in WATCHING someone get their comeupence. but there is no real effect on my life. Believe me I , as a gay man, do not want to marry another man - I am happy with domestic partnership, and I want equal rights in the workplace - meaning the holly rollers need to leave their god and bible at home. Besides, many private corporations have gay protections and so does government and public policy. PLUS HYPOCRISY IS PART OF POLITICS, ISN'T IT? , WEREN'T THE FRAMERS SOME OF AMERICA's FIRST: EXTOLLING ABOUT ALL MEN ARE EQUAL WHILE RAPING, ENSLAVING AND ABUSING A WHOLE RACE. AN EFFECT THAT STILL HAS ITS COST TO THIS DAY. Wasn't this the ultimate hypocrisy. So people please...yOU HAVE TO WEIGHT THE GOOD WITH THE BAD.

Gay sex in public restrooms, well it's dicey but NOT revolting. Its been a meeting place for ages, along with beaches, parks and ball games. IT doesn't mean you are going to have sex there but meet THEN GO HOME. This is how I met my partner of 15 years. I'm sorry but bars - especially gay bars were few and far between. Ironically there was a trend in gay bars popping up, and now they seem to be infiltrated by straight people.

Straight people, you don't get the issues -its complicated. And maybe Clinton was reprimanded but many other straights have not. Our forefathers were having affairs left and right with there slaves. Its almost this unaccepted part of society that you straight couples can tacitly have sex anywhere Beaches, Bar restrooms, Parks, Cars, and OH Children are around. I now, i've witnessed it and children were around. There too many of you , you are not going to change your habits. This again, is a product and practices going back ages.

His issues Involving his own sexuality are complicated. Maybe he is curious. Maybe he likes living with a woman and having sex with a man (I can see that) Men are not the easiest creatures to live with. He needs to find his own way, this is a bad outing but people need to find some compassion given the circumstances.

His replacement is MUCH WORSE. Jim Resch , well lets say this, even if Craig was caught with his pants down in the restroom, I would still NOT want craig to resign because Resch will replace him.

His records to his consituients should count. After all he appears to have done some good things for his people. Has attempted to even water down the patriot act and has come out against individual rights.

He didn't do anything criminal AND IF HE IS GAY (admitting it or not) HE SHOULD STAND UP- ITS ABOUT TIME, TO ALL THE STRAIGHT PEOPLE TELLING HIM AND BULLYING HIM ABOUT HIS HYPOCRISY. GIVE ME A BREAK. YEARS OF STRAIGHT PEOPLE RULES OF HYPOCRISY SHOULD BE SHOVED BACK IN THEIR FACE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Craig made two mistakes...
Posted by: genek1953 on Sep 5, 2007 3:28 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I say he made "mistakes" rather than "did something wrong," so that there will not be any confusion over moral judgement. I'm not trying to make one.

"Mistake" #1 was choosing a bad time and place to try to satisfy a sexual desire that nobody should have to feel ashamed about having. It was a relatively minor mistake, on a par with littering or misusing a carpool lane, and his $575 fine seems appropriate (the 10 day suspended sentence and year of probation seem a bit excessive, but hardly a monumental injustice).

"Mistake" #2 was aligning himself with intolerant people who would turn on him if they found out what desires he had in his closet. He's not being forced out because he wanted to have gay sex, but because he chose to make his success dependent upon the approval of people who would hate him for doing so.

It shouldn't be necessary to view the consequences of these mistakes as any kind of moral judgement or anything else that Craig "deserved." They're both just the results of making bad mistakes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Horrible analogies
Posted by: animalleaderisgreat on Sep 5, 2007 4:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's a thinly veiled pro-closet subtext to the author's argument, which he may want to revisit.

No reasonable adult cares about Craig's desires. I'd rather not think about them myself since he's sort of repulsive and icky. Of course, we are in the US a rather backward-looking and unreasonable people; why else do we have such elected officials in the first place? I mean, get real.

I prefer to see Craig as a "victim" of the whole kill gay people / Focus on the Family / right-wing extremism the GOP has courted, almost sexually if you will, lo these last 30 years. He gotta dance with the partner he brought.

I might also add that some of the sleaziest, most hateful people I have ever met have been in gay bars. Racists and bigots and spongers of the nastiest sort. Don't knock the toilet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Becausew we are not a country run by overly-monied, under-brained, militant puritans...
Posted by: Aussie Kim on Sep 5, 2007 7:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...we have openly gay politicians.

Because they are ALLOWED to be gay, they get to live normal lives like everyone else and, therefore, don't have to pimp themselves in toilets like pathetic, wacked-out junkies in order to get their jollies.

I wanna know how these men's wives feel about being married to someone who only did it so they wouldn't appear to be gay.

Isn't the betrayal of these women and their children INFINTELY MUCH WORSE than being gay AND being a politician?

(ooooh! A _gay politician_! Soon he'll be forcing us all to have sex with toddlers and goats! A _gay politician_ can't POSSIBLY serve any communities properly, it's not like gay people have brains or ethics or education now, is it...?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sex? I didn't have sex witht hat man!
Posted by: silverwizard on Sep 5, 2007 9:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hmm...let me try to remember...wasn't there a president who was impeached for sexual misconduct? Impeached by the Republicons who have ALL been quite strident in their condemnation of ANY of that sort of thing? So...why in HELL is Vitter still a member of Congress?
Republicons, you gonna talk the talk then you better walk the walk! Put your money where your mouth is. Oops, guess Vitter already DID that!
BTW...you could blow up Congress, the White House and all of the people running for president and, at most, have a handful of innocents killed. Maybe a dozen.
Sad, isn't it.
Time for a MAJOR change people!
WAKE UP!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Republicans are cowards
Posted by: slydad on Sep 5, 2007 9:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They're too quick to throw their own under the buss. Look at all the scandals perpetrated by prominent Democrats who are still seated. Craig hasn't been found guilty of anything other than possibly making a lewd sexual advance in a men's room. As far as I know, he didn't have a male prostitution ring running from his apartment. He wasn't caught with $90k in bribery money in his freezer. He didn't have a drunk driving accident where he left someone to drown.

The Republicans ought to be willing to point out the fact that Democrats don't have any moral standards and that's why all these Democrats are still in office.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He didn't do anthing Wrong?
Posted by: Prometheus2112 on Sep 5, 2007 10:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So I guess Sandip Roy doesn't think there is anything wrong about sexually harassing a man with his pants down in a restroom stall. Well I'm thankful that there laws to protect people from sexual Harassment. In This Case Justice was not served Craig was fined for inappropriate behavior and not sexual harassment as I feel he should have. If it was me sitting stall sitting next to Craig I definitely would have filed sexual harassment charges.

- Bob

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hold on, now...
Posted by: Loe_I_Am_Me on Sep 6, 2007 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From what I can understand from the article is that Craig was tapping his foot and making small talk with the guy next door. Then he passes his hand under the stall?
Isn't that the universal public bathroom signal for "I need some toilet paper over here."?
Maybe he'd just passed some messy stool and ran out of tissue. I mean, there wasn't anything in the article to indicate that he was saying lewd comments or making passes.
As far as peeking through the door goes; he probably wanted to see if the coast was clear so he could let a stinker go without drawing attention.
Isn't that what everyone else does in a public bathroom when they just can't hold it until they get home?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Craig is a patsy for more security at airports!
Posted by: vomeggido on Sep 6, 2007 9:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I realize this may sound stupid- but its merely an observation. Apparently, in all this hullabaloo "witnesses" have come forward to state that Larry Craig has accosted them in various bathrooms thereby this news is not new. However- and people fail to realize that these witnesses and other indiscretions are truly hearsay and he has never been convicted in the past.

First off, anytime a republican bigot gets nailed- there is always a symposium of queens who will step up to the microphone and claim "Oh, I had him at the airport in Portland". Queens will jump on and drown an asshole like Craig in a nano-second- and he knows this- which makes me look at the entire situation a bit differently.

What I see is a new gap in airport security and entrapment proceedings and by nailing a high ranking official as just "another one of the people" gives the situation an almost hopeful appearance that we are in fact being protected.

Protected from what? Some guy who wants to blow some guy? We do not need protection from that by a security, police or government officer.

I have been approached in a public restroom before and all you need say is, "Hey dude- I am not into that- try the next guy" and the pervert will leave you alone. Or you can say watch your step I am a vice officer" and they will get out of the bathroom immediately!

All this protection from pervs in a public restroom is merely a smoke screen to have more rights and privacies taken away from us by the police state.

There used to be a time- not so long ago when you could sit in a stall and talk to the guy next to you. You would swap stories about the enormous fat lady you were sitting next to on the plane who was eating an egg salad sandwich and she farted all the way to Chicago! You would wish each other a safe journey to your ultimate destination.

And now you cannot talk to each other for fear it will be misconstrued and you'll be arrested for hitting on someone!

What has this world become? Better yet- what are we being driven to become?

btw, Sen. Craig maybe a bit of a lame- but he is not stupid enough to hit on some guy in an airport. You do not get that far these days by behaving that way and has anyone noticed that it seems to be happening a lot these days with high ranking officials?

Maybe its a way to get themselves thrown out of the republican neocon mafia!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Right to Privacy
Posted by: herbal on Sep 6, 2007 12:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rep. Barney Frank offers absolutely the best solution/defense for homosexual freedom: Right to Privacy "What goes on behind closed doors is Constitutionally guaranteed by founding fathers, etc......"

As a male who had been traumatically hit on by queers in public as a 14 year (and later at 17-21,23,42) old minor, I wish to heartly agree with Barney Frank. Civil rights is what it is all about and tolerance within these agreeable confines (as long as the current revisionist Supreme Justices do not screw things up too much).

This tolerance does not extend, however, to public potty holes and 'Cottaging" where fudge packers ply their sexual desires. Do heterosexuals cross over into each other's toilet rooms to hit on each other without risk of arrest?

Although sorry-or-not Sen. Craig is coming in handy to discredit the war effort, embarass Republicans and to expose the fact that homosexuality is not the exclusive domain of the Democratic Party, it is important to recognize that the 2% minority crosses all social boundaries. In fact, there may be an over abundant proportion of sexually repressed and gender confused people who are fascists, who cause death and wanton destruction, not unlike J. Edgar Hoover and Ken Mehlman. It is time that Democrats and gays stop embarassing themselves by being blind advocate protectors of homosexual expression in all forms. Lets, instead, limit our advocacy to civil rights of privacy rather than false rights of toilet hit men and priest pederasty, regardless of political philosophy.

btw, if Craig persists by not resigning, all the better to draw attention to the hypocrisy of the religious right and his fellow gay bashers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

finally, some sense!
Posted by: smart soprano on Sep 6, 2007 1:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finally a word of sense in all this baloney. The hypocrisy is sick-making. Cheating dogs like Vitter keep their jobs, but incompetently sexually struggling Mr. Craig must go! Now, of course, the witlessness and lack of political skill he has demonstrated in the last week should lose him his job, if his constituency has any sense. However, just wanting sex, gay or otherwise, should be irrelevant to our judgment of him.

On top of the dichotomy between Craig's maltreatment at the hands of his party (let alone his psychic and emotional maltreatment of himself all these long, sad, repressed years, and the harm he has done to his wife) and the 'aw shucks' acceptance of Vitter's gross behavior, lies the extraordinary contrast between how Bill Clinton's liaison with a certain dress was viewed, and, again, the wanderings of Vitter and his ilk are viewed. We spent $40mm to determine that Clinton had oral sex. Wowie. Time to impeach that guy. But if you send the country’s fortunes into free-fall by screwing the middle class and immersing us in a filthy, illegal, horrendous war, impeachment is ‘off the table.’

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An Idaho constituent
Posted by: angryyoungwoman on Sep 6, 2007 4:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I personally don't care at all what Craig does in his personal time. I don't care who he has sex with any more than I care who he plays checkers with. As long as he's doing all this in private where I don't have to see it (or anybody else does, for that matter) and what he's doing is legal (he's not having sex with kids, secretly watching people, or harassing people), he can get his kicks however he likes. The problems start when he oversteps the bounds of legality.

I don't really understand why we're getting a big lecture about why Craig isn't to blame for what happened. It's not the democrats who've been calling for Craig's removal, it's the republicans. The republicans are the ones who've been calling the homosexuality a crime and ignoring the actually problem: trolling for sex in a public men's room. The democrats have been far less eager to judge.

Finally, to everyone who wants to run to Craig's rescue, as a citizen of Idaho, I feel I must give you some facts about Senator Craig and the state he runs. Senator Craig consistently votes anti-gay, anti-women's rights, pro-war, etc. Until recently, he was a jewel in the crown of the republican theocracy. In Idaho, crimes against women are barely punished. Voyeurism, even after several offenses, is still considered a misdemeanor with no jailtime (no wonder Craig thought it was no big deal to stare into another man's bathroom stall and try to pursue a sexual encounter in a public arena). Recently in my town a man was arrested for stealing women's underwear (hundreds of pairs) from apartment building laundry rooms. He was charged with a misdemeanor and received probation. The republican administration of Idaho simply does not take the safety of women seriously.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why should it matter?
Posted by: rmaple on Sep 7, 2007 6:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whether or not Larry Craig is gay or not shouldn't be an issue. The issue is deciding whether his actions were "wrong". There is nothing wrong with wanting to have sex. He didn't do it. Everyone has a right to have a private life. If he chooses to engage in homosexual activities on his own time, he should be able to do so. He shouldn't be forced to resign from his position because of his sexual preference.
If he was guilty of wanting to have sex with a woman, would everyone look at it the same way??????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why should it matter? Posted by: herbal
» RE: Why should it matter? Posted by: rmaple
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
Craig was framed
Posted by: dougtheavenger on Sep 9, 2007 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Legitimate sting operations have the following characteristis that the Craig "sting" lacked.

1. Video and/or audio tape of crime. Never rely on the word of a policemen vs suspect. In the Craig case, the suspect is socially superior to the cop. Why should we believe a cop over a US Senator.
2. Mutliple cops. The more the better and the less likely to frame a suspect.
3. An actual crime. Foot tapping (if it even ocurred) proves nothing and fails to meet requirements of "lewd conduct" or any other crime.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OK, I'll concede that what Larry Craig did was not in and of itself
Posted by: marrieah on Sep 9, 2007 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
criminal, but by the same token one can say the same method used to "entrap" him are the same kinds used by police to arrest johns and child molesters.

I honestly have more symphathy for the johns.
Child molesters pry on innocent children, and ought to be placed in a cell with 'macho hunks'.

Craig is a hypocrite in much the same way as many of the Catholic priest accused of child molestation, preaching one thing, doing the opposite. Craig's redeeming grace was he seemingly sought adults.

Vetter is another case all togather. He was a cheater who sought prostitutes, he is a good old boy who liked women.
That's something between he and his wife but if she is a Republican I hope she is not one who criticized Hillary Clinton.

No political party wants to touch same sex relationships, because it has been shoved down our throats since birth that there is something tainted and contagious about such relationships instead of it being just a relationship between two members of the same sex. True it's a different type of relationship, but it's a relationship between the two parties involved and have nothing to do with persons not involved in that relationship or people of likewise leanings.

Heterosexuals will never be able to understand the relationship between a man and man/a woman and a woman.
But when I think about, I'm not supposed to understand. It ain't about me, it's about them. They care and love each other in ways that is foreign to me because all most of us hetersexuals understand about love is sex.

People I have observed who are gay have a bond that goes beyond a sexual one, although I have come across those who are totally sexual animals.

When Craig and other pass laws or condemn those who are gay all the while hiding behind their own closeted desires they seeming are passing tailor made laws to protect themselves. They have the power of authority and abused it. That is the crime.

He's a hypocite who got caught in his own web of self deception and I have no pity for him at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Curious that no one has come forward
Posted by: justdontknow on Sep 9, 2007 9:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does no one else find it very strange that after two weeks of intense media coverage, not one individual has come out of the woodwork to claim to have had a sexual relationship with this guy?

Even a thorough read of the Statesman investigation piece only raises doubts about the rumors that have followed him over the years.

Glad to see someone focusing on these stings. This is airport police, which I am guessing are not as well trained as their city, county or state counterparts. And they are clearly there with the intent to arrest someone, anyone. I have seen a number of stories that has opened my eyes as to how common the stings are and how low the standards of arrest - simple movements and gestures that fall far short of sexual overture.

I think every man in America should be disturbed by the idea that anytime they go into a stall in a public bathroom there might be law enforcement personnel (scarier if it is less sophisticated than city police or couty sheriff - as is the case here) in the next stall studying their behavior for any possible sign, intended or unintended, of non-verbal communication.

I agree with the other poster who said they would like to hear from the ACLU on this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement