Comments (35)

dg wrote on August 28, 2007 1:47 PM:

For a really interesting answer to the question, "What Did Sen. Craig Actually Do?" go to Princess Sparkle Pony's blog today:

http://sparklepony.blogspot.com/2007/08/i-guess-larry-craigs-favorite-airport.html

Hilarious and also, incidentally, quite enlightening.

Anonymous wrote on August 28, 2007 1:54 PM:

Seems to me that CREW is loosing some of its credibility, a little quick on the trigger! It seems the Idaho senators action in no sense of the word were lewd or lascivious, just open to interpretation from a homophobic retro police officer! And if you read some of the comments on the progressive blogs, you really begin to wonder.....

ted wrote on August 28, 2007 2:13 PM:

It isn't the misdemeanor conviction that is the problem for Craig and the US Senate. It is that Craig failed to report this to the Senate Ethics Committee, which he should of, that is going to get him in much bigger trouble, both as his role as a US Senator and his politcal power. He was required to report this to the US Senate Ethics Committee once he plead guilty to the charge.

Craig is toast. He may had a chance if he came clean right after the incident, with the Republican Party Leadership, and at least gave them a heads up what was coming. Instead he tried to ignore it, thinking it would go away. He is not going to get any money via fundraising or it will shrink, and if anything else comes out, and every top new organizations is going through every Union Station restroom arrest right now, besides other places to see if he got arrested, my guess he has, given how he has handled this incident. The Republicans are going to hang him out to dry, when he needs them the most is right now. They are not going to circle their wagons for him. The Idaho Republican Party will tell him to retire, and put someone like the Lt. Gov in his place who can at least raise money.

This is politics, whether Democrat or Republican, and hiding something like this, thinking it will go away, and once it hit the press, any political party is not going to support the politician. The Republicans are also still shell shocked from the Mark Foley scandal, which hit them at the worst possible time. If this hit in Oct 2008, with Craig running, the Idaho Republicans would force him from the ticket, because now Craig has all the media going through restroom arrest since the 1980s. (which is kind of yucky in itself, yeech)

Jason M wrote on August 28, 2007 2:20 PM:

Hey anonymous troll --

Craig plead GUILTY -- under OATH -- to lewd behavior. There's no interpretation involved there.

Everything else that he's saying to the press, that he "shouldn't have plead guilty, he said/he said, etc etc etc" is not under oath, so it really carries no weight at all, now does it?

Anonymous wrote on August 28, 2007 2:30 PM:

Hey Jason once a homophobe always a homophobe ever hear of ENTRAPMENT and you obviously haven't tried fighting our dipshi@ justice system, in case you haven't notice most people aren't willing to fight they just want to exit the system asap. Pleading guilty in cases like this means absolutely nothing!

Anonymous wrote on August 28, 2007 2:35 PM:

Hey ted you are a little off, the article above says nothing about his failure to report it only mentions the police ENTRAPMENT action, nothing in the complaint even fits the legal definition of lewd and lascivious, unless you want to go back to the NYPD definition prior to Stonewall, wake up people as bad as CRAIG is politically, this is not a Progressive action. It has all the smell of a 1950's gay bar raid.

theswan wrote on August 28, 2007 2:38 PM:

The Domenici delay will continue until the Whitehouse and the senator can get their stories straight. Holding a fundraiser is a good format to corner the senator and tell him how to play out the hand.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on August 28, 2007 2:46 PM:

___ @ August 28, 2007 1:54 PM:

CREW is correct. Craig plead guilty. I know that Rebuplicans being involved in hinky shit is commonplace these days but this sort of BS is less than appropriate and definitely outside acceptable for a Senator . . . Craig put hisself on the high crimes and misdemeanors list with his own mouth (pun intentional accurate and appropriate).

Trying to kick dirt on CREW beside Craig turned his own service in the Senate into something trite is . . . well . . . Republican-like.

What happened to family values, responsibility ones own actions and integrity? Why is it only Edwards, Kucinich and Gravel speaking to these points with any credibilty these days.

CREW is clean in this story. CREW is correct and CREW is right.

Mike Conwell wrote on August 28, 2007 2:54 PM:

___ @ August 28, 2007 1:54 PM
___ @ August 28, 2007 2:30 PM

(is anonymous posting like anonymous sex in a bathroom)

re: CREW

It's not just the one act. BlogActive.com ID'd this guy back in 2006 and have had (and are offering now) more documentation on his past activities.

All this was "Out" in 2006, but the old media outlets did not cover it, even though they had the BlogActive.com writer on teevee several times regarding other matters.

ted wrote on August 28, 2007 3:00 PM:

anon

Whether this was entrapment, and given that the Airport Police were staking out this place, Craig pled guilty of disorderly conduct. He could had hired some of the best Minneapolis/Hennepin county attorneys to fight this, and have a good chance of winning. Instead he took the denial, let's get this over and under the rug route. If he was so outrage getting arrested and charged with this type of offense, he would had fought this, given the rumors in the past, and given he is in an election contest next year.

Craig got a misdemeanor conviction, it isn't the biggest deal. The big deal is that he tried to hide this from his fellow Republican Senators, it appears his staff, and I wouldn't be surprise to his wife. He does have a duty to report this to the Senate Ethics Committee, given it is a criminal conviction, whether he was a Democrat or Republican.

The biggest problem is that he didn't report this, not the conviction itself. I assume he wanted to this to go away, because the Republicans are still smarting over the Mark Foley imbroglio. The rumours about Larry Craig have been going back since he was elected to Congress in 1980. blogActive.com basically stated that Larry Craig was into Bathroom hook ups in Oct. 2006, and they had four eyewitnesses stating this, (even though they seemed all kind of weak, given they wouldn't go on record)

It isn't that Craig was set up, it is now that the press has Craig in its sights, and they are going through Craig's life to see if he has other arrests, or any verified witnesses. He needs to come clean to at least his fellow Republicans in the Senate, especially Senator Ensign who is charge of the fundraising for 2008. The whole "Wide Stance" is going to make him a complete laughingstock, given we all used airport toilets, and feel as comfortable taking a "wide stance" as dropping our trousers at the dentist office.

Craig is toast. He can't run in 2008. If there are other incidents, they will come out. He won't be able to fundraise, and any political party would be piss off to the max, for not telling them beforehand what they may face without doing some serious damage control. Craig could had overcome this, if he handled this the proper way. Instead he took the route of the political suicide handbook.

tbhull wrote on August 28, 2007 3:09 PM:

No reerection in 2008 for Craig.

Anonymous wrote on August 28, 2007 3:12 PM:

I'm not saying the guy isn't a hypocrite, but some of the above statements are definitely homophobic and CREW is not clean. In this case the police actions are definitely open to question. And in these days of DON't ASK and DON'T TELL and with what happens to those who do. It is probably best to remain anonymous, in answer to Mike Cromwell just being SAFE!!

jmnyc wrote on August 28, 2007 3:12 PM:

I have to agree with Anon and I am not a fan of Larry Craig. While I suppose his misdemeanor conviction could be constrewed as a black mark against the Senate, I think the role of the Ethics Committee is about abuse of office ie taking bribes, soliciting sex from pages, etc. Now I don't like Craig's anti-gay stances on issues but I don't think this incident is an abuse of office. Actually, there is something really pathetic about it and if he weren't such a big homophobe I'd actually feel sorry for him.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on August 28, 2007 3:14 PM:

___ @ August 28, 2007 2:30 PM or should we say Senator Craig:

Look behind you . . . The barnyard animal called 'ENTRAPMENT' is partying in the next county, so trying to close the broken gate on the police and frankly everyone else is assinine.

Craig plead Guilt. That means Craig himself says he IS LEWD et al. He has the distinction of being an actual sex-crimes criminal. Hell, Foley is not even to that level yet . . . Under Megan's Law, Craig should be registered and the pages kept away from him.

Nobody here is playing the homophobic card except you. We are saying that Craig is an admitted criminal and we don't want a criminal serving as a Senator. The fact that Craig's crime is a sex crime is bonus for its irony factor. CREW is right . . . Craig needs disciplined for his malfeasence . . . So de-bunch-ify and accept the truth.

SIDE NOTE: Those folk who chose to hide behind a blank moniker should not try to play credibility games with those of us who sign our real and actual names to our postings . . . popular or not . . . Every time. That sorta crap lacks class.

Anonymous wrote on August 28, 2007 3:14 PM:

And lets not overlook the fact that it is the GOP that is criminalizing sexuality.

Against gay marriage, civil unions?
GOP

Rick "man on dog" Santorum?
GOP

Gonzales "top priority" of the Justice Department to prosecute internet porn and obscenity cases?
GOP

Anon, it's the GOP who set the standard. No crocodile tears that Craig got caught up in a net of the party's own making - and one he heartily endorsed.

Plus, guilty is guilty. Or, like his sexuality, was he lying about that too?

troll wrote on August 28, 2007 3:22 PM:

The only one who lacks class is named Adlof, you show no understanding of the police state we live in!

Jeff wrote on August 28, 2007 3:28 PM:

Hey guys, the dirty secret is that gay men solicit and engage in public sex in rest rooms all over. I could care less what two consenting adults do in privacy, but a public place is another topic. Perhaps I need to point out (redundantly) that a public restroom is a public place. Solicitation of or by prostitutes of both genders is also not tolerated in public and subject to prosecution when observed by a law officer undercover or otherwise.

Craig got caught and plead guilty under oath. The entrapment part is bull sh*t. I got an education in gay sex signals at 18 when I blundered into a tea room unawares and sat down in a stall. Even with no prior knowledge there was no doubt in my mind what was going on. I wasn't interested so I left. Nowadays, when I'm taking my boys into a public restroom, the last thing I want to see is cruising going on. I have enough to explain about how the world works. I can wait for that one.

troll wrote on August 28, 2007 3:29 PM:

Believe me I am no fan of the GOP, far from it, I'm just saying before going off on the knee jerk homophobic reactions that are being posted on both the right and left, just examine the police actions, this was a foot tapping as the article notes. There is no definition in the law that includes foot tapping as being lewd and lascivious and as nyone who knows or who has been studying the criminal justice system in this country needss to be aware of the inequities of the system. There may be something out there that could well fit the definition, but until then this does not. I can't wait until one of the above homophobes or self-haters get caught in the same circumstance and see how fast they try to exit the system. The lack of understanding of our criminal justice system is appalling.

troll wrote on August 28, 2007 3:38 PM:

Hey Jeff, this was not a case of solicitation, this was lewd and lascivious/ So if I were you and am in a strange city I would think twice about raising my foot or stretching or scratching, just in case you happen to be in the wrong place.

BushLips SinxShips wrote on August 28, 2007 3:39 PM:

Re: Trolls and imaginary entrapment.

This is a perfectly clear story: Craig was out cruising, and got caught. He even pleaded guilty, under oath. Or was it perjury.

With morals so low, it is a stretch to call Craigs pending prosecution as either entrapment, or not based on lewd behaviour.

I can't imagine what I would do to a senator tapping his foot in front of my bathroom stall, or if said senator coyly rubbed his shoe onto my foot.

And I am no homophobe.

Senor Jaime wrote on August 28, 2007 3:47 PM:

The biggest ethics breach hasn't been mentioned here. Craig's handing the officer his senate card with the implicit "get out of jail free" suggestion in tow. The cop did the right thing at ignoring the attempt at coersion (or maybe he didn't buy that Craig was actually a senator). In any case, our elected officials are supposed to work for us, and should not expect elite treatment. To do so is unethical.

Senor Jaime wrote on August 28, 2007 3:47 PM:

The biggest ethics breach hasn't been mentioned here. Craig's handing the officer his senate card with the implicit "get out of jail free" suggestion in tow. The cop did the right thing at ignoring the attempt at coersion (or maybe he didn't buy that Craig was actually a senator). In any case, our elected officials are supposed to work for us, and should not expect elite treatment. To do so is unethical.

Christopher Davis wrote on August 28, 2007 3:48 PM:

jmnyc: "I don't like Craig's anti-gay stances on issues but I don't think this incident is an abuse of office."

According to the police report, he tried to use his status as a U.S. Senator to influence the arresting officer. "Craig handed me a business card that identified himself as a United States Senator as he stated, "What do you think about that?""

gbheron wrote on August 28, 2007 4:24 PM:

troll-
I agree with many of your points (the police actions ARE open to question, you are entirely within your rights and the nature of online forums to post anonymously) but please stop throwing around accusations of homophobia. Objecting to a senator engaging in and concealing ADMITTED lewd behavior is not homophobia. If anyone is treating this case differently because the police officer was male and not female, it is you.

Anonymous wrote on August 28, 2007 4:31 PM:

When you're a dog yourself, used to tearing the flesh of whatever's thrown at you, and you get thrown to the dogs, I don't have a lot of sympathy for you as your own flesh gets ripped from your bones.

I've never voted against DOMA as a Senator, nor would I. Nor for a constitutional amendment banning marriage, nor against making gay-bashing a hate crime, nor denying equal employment rights to gay men.

And I still look at Larry Craig, and see that the sum total of what he did was tap his foot, pass his hand under a bathroom stall, and that's sufficient to make him a criminal. Because somebody thought he wanted to engage in gay sex.
And he probably did.

It was in a bathroom, a public place; and it was nothing to be proud of, and nothing I'd ever do. But I can't help stop thinking -- that's a person like me, too afraid. And for good reason - because of people like him.

Larry Craig's behavior poses no physical, mental, or property threat, even if someone *did* know what was going on. If it were a teenage heterosexual couple on the side of the road, the cop would flash a light, and maybe -- maybe -- say "move along". Instead, the cop made eye contact through the door, and didn't avoid it; tapped his foot back in an obvious way, instead of ignoring it. Did he pull his foot away when Craig's touched his, as a normal person would have? -- "I'm ready", is what those things mean, and not "move along".

This sort of police enforced bigotry is nothing we , as liberals, should be celebrating. Even if we do allow it to become a weapon to ensnare those who we rightly blame for our country's already poor and deteriorating civil rights. Our ruining Craig is enabled by the very bigotry we otherwise decry. Go ahead and make the "But what about the children?" argument. The GOP will help you.

It's a dirty, sordid business - ruining a man who deserves it.

Someday, people like him will be ruined political on the merits of their politics -- like Trent Lott fell for praising Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond, although not enough to suit me. Rather than by the bigotry they created, turned against them.

Security Code: sheep

jmnyc wrote on August 28, 2007 4:52 PM:

Josh and David said it best on the front page. While I am enjoying the hyprocisy considering Craig's voting record, I don't see much here that warranted an arrest. Now I am not sad the guys political career is in a shambles since I don't like his stands on issues but it is not likely his replacement in Idaho will be any better.

I don't think this warrants an Ethics investigation. To put this in some perspective, the guy plead guilty to a misdemeanor, the same level crime as a traffic violation. Would everyone be calling for an Ethics investigation if he had been pulled over for speeding or running a stop sign? I think not.

Everyone is excited about this b/c it is about sex, in this case gay sex. And is always true, sex sells.

ted wrote on August 28, 2007 5:40 PM:

Yes this does merit an Senate Ethics Violation. He didn't report this, and there is some evidence he tried to hide this, or at least wanted it to go away. It should be reported, especially if there were other arrests like this. Whether this is misdemeanor or not, it is a criminal matter on his record. I don't think he should expelled from the Senate, he should get reprimanded and I would support in a way a censure.

Even with his political record, and he comes from a conservative state. If his actions are between two consenting adults, it is none of my business. If he is cruising for sex in public restrooms, that is a little different. Everything points that he didn't want this to come out in the public, whether he was innocent or not, because there are probably many other incidences like this for him, in many other cities. Is that proof? no it is suspicion, everything points that he knows there is other stuff out there. His problem right now, if there is other stuff out there, it will come out sooner than later, he just wet the appetite for the mainstream press, besides the Idaho Statesman must be pissed off that the didn't get this story after doing a five month investigation of Craig and his dalliances.

slb wrote on August 28, 2007 5:53 PM:

>> All this was "Out" in 2006, but the old media outlets did not cover it, even though they had the BlogActive.com writer on teevee several times regarding other matters. <<

Do not miss Glenn Greenwald's excellent blog post on Salon.com today (click on my name for a live link). He documents in meticulous detail the flagrant hypocrisy in the right wing reaction to what was reported before the 2006 election about Craig's habit of seeking anonymous sex with men in public bathrooms ("not relevant" they said, and tore into Mike Rogers of BlogActive.com for being so crass as to report it) and their reaction now in calling for Craig's resignation (if not his head).

He also notes that these same wingers are NOT calling for Vitter's resignation for frequenting prostitutes. He concludes:

"Apparently, what matters is to have moral standards, even if they are completely incoherent, arbitrary and applied solely to suit one's personal biases and political interests [Vitter's resignation would be for heterosexual encounters and would lead to appointment of a Democratic replacement (hence Hewitt opposes it), while Craig's resignation would be for gay sex and would lead to a GOP replacement (hence Hewitt favors it)]. It might be totally 'arbitrary,' says Barnett, but at least it is a moral standard."

Bush LIPS sink SHIPS. wrote on August 28, 2007 6:19 PM:

troll,

""Craig handed me a business card that identified himself as a United States Senator as he stated, "What do you think about that?"""

parrot wrote on August 28, 2007 6:40 PM:

How does one get "entrapped" into fondling oneself in a public mens room? By imagining oneself in a hetero striptease joint?

Tyler Roberts wrote on August 28, 2007 8:17 PM:

He, like many Republicans, is not only gay but a hipocrit as well.

dee illuminati wrote on August 28, 2007 9:20 PM:

Sounds like to me a dirty sock sucker, the kind that finds a dirty laundry basket, public restroom, etc.. and then jumps in head first and vociferously sucks a dirty sock while proclaiming himself clean. I'm glad this compromised POS is exposed and finished....

call a spade a spade

Cynthia wrote on August 28, 2007 9:42 PM:

How about one against Bob Allen.

JEP wrote on August 29, 2007 1:11 AM:

sing along! You all know the tune...

ya put your right foot in,
ya take your right foot back,
ya out your right foot in
and you give a little tap,
you do the toity pokey,
if you're peeking through the crack,
You just can't take it back!

Puts a whole new meaning on the term "Old Blue Eyes..."

Just joshin'...

Anyone else wonder how often Craig passed through that same airport on his way to Idaho?

Better check his web history, he's probably made "arrangements" online.

dee illumuinati wrote on August 29, 2007 10:01 AM:

Audio account of Craig at Union Station.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/localnews/story/144047.html