The obligatory “Craig denies everything to the Idaho Statesman” post; Update: Craig’s airport restroom rated top notch!

posted at 1:07 pm on August 28, 2007 by Allahpundit

It’s been up all morning at Drudge so most of you have probably seen it, but if not here you go. If nothing else, you can count on the big A to sweep up the Fedora’s table scraps.

The Statesman spent the last five months investigating the myriad gay innuendo about him over the years and found three sources among 300 interviewees whom they deem credible, one of whom claims Craig come onto him when they were in college. The “strongest” source:

On May 12, two days before its interview with Craig, the Statesman finally interviewed Rogers’ “best source,” the man who says he is certain he had a brief sexual encounter with Craig at Union Station, which is two blocks from Craig’s office. The man said the sex occurred in two restrooms on a weekday afternoon. He estimated the encounter lasted three or four minutes.

The man’s motive was twofold. A lifelong Republican, he recently had re-registered as a Democrat because he’s angry with what he sees as the GOP’s gay-bashing. Second, he was tired of Rogers picking on congressional staffers and offered him the chance to “out” a senator.

He was tired of Rogers trying to out closeted Republican staffers … so he decided to egg him on and make him famous by helping him out a senator?

It would all be darkly funny if not for this:

In the May 14 interview, Craig and his wife listened to a four-minute excerpt of the Statesman’s interview with the 40-year-old man who first spoke to Rogers. At first, Craig objected to the man’s anonymity, but agreed to listen. The man’s voice was disguised…

Suzanne Craig’s eyes reddened and filled with tears as she listened. After her husband’s denial, she said, “I’m incensed that you would even consider such a piece of trash as a credible source.”

To which Craig added, “Jiminy God!”

Before moving on to the next question, Craig turned to his wife and said, “Sorry, Hon.”

Assuming the rumors are true, I wonder if she suspected. Hard to believe she didn’t:

Most of Craig’s college friends say he was disciplined, studious and serious, even if he was awkward with women.

One woman who dated him off and on for a year asked not to be named, but said, “I don’t imagine that he ever held my hand. He was into the gotta-hold-the-door-for-the-woman sort of thing. But I always felt like I was an accessory. I might as well have been his briefcase.”…

McClure, whom Craig succeeded in the Senate, said Craig’s formal manner of speaking has fueled rumors. Craig was taught by an old-school orator — the late D.L. Carter of Weiser…

“Larry’s speech patterns are very precise,” said McClure. “They’re not what you expect from a rancher from Midvale. His speech patterns say, ‘Hey, here’s a guy who’s a little different.’ And he is, he’s a little different. But that doesn’t mean he’s homosexual for heaven’s sakes! You have to jump from prejudice to suspicion to I don’t know what to give the rumors any credibility.”

But what about the all important gaydar test?

Last fall, Craig’s neighbors at a Washington marina expressed disbelief at Rogers’ attempt to out him. Ed Johnson is an openly gay man, former local elected official and has been an acquaintance and neighbor of Craig’s off and on for 15 years. He is president of the Gangplank Slipholders Association, a neighbor to the smaller Capital Yacht Club, where Craig lives.

A Democrat, Johnson works for the American Humanists Association, which he describes as “the godless, liberal, left-wing atheists.”

“If I thought there was truth to the rumor, I’d be first in line to out him,” said Johnson, who agrees hypocritical public officials should be exposed.

“But after 15 years in a close-knit community where everybody knows everybody’s business, to be that clandestine and never have anything said — it’s just hard to imagine. I mean, if somebody has a fight and breaks up with their boyfriend or girlfriend, you know it the next day.”

Read the whole thing, especially the part about how the rumors about Craig first surfaced in 1982. Bizarrely, he implicated himself in a page sex scandal by publicly denying his involvement — even though he hadn’t been accused yet. And then, almost as bizarrely, he did an expert enough job at damage control to become a three-term senator. Here’s the clip from 1982 of his denial that’s making the rounds.

Update: Turns out the airport restroom in which Craig had his “misunderstanding” is notorious for gay trysts. What bad luck.

The restroom where Craig was arrested is well known among men who seek sex in public places.

Squirt.org is a site that runs a bulletin board for such men. “If you enter from the terminal, turn left and go past wash basins, urinals to the back where the stalls are. This place is THE most cruisy public place I have been,” wrote one poster. “Just passed thru here the other day. This place is so hot. This place has a constant flow and variety of hot guys,” wrote another. Even another poster wrote, “This is the best spot for anonymous action I’ve ever seen.” Of all the postings in Minnesota, the airport restroom was ranked the top by that website.

The details of Craig’s arrest are not unique. According to a post in June at cruisingforsex.com, another public sex site, “Twenty people were arrested within the past week. Plainclothes officers wait in the stalls and tap their feet and even put their foot on yours and then arrest you when you look under the stall wall.”

Actually, does that make it easier for him to claim it was a misunderstanding? Not that anyone’s buying it, but if the place is crawling with cops who are looking for “signals,” they might be more likely to interpret innocent gestures as non-innocent.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Since when is “man-to-man foot touching” illegal? What exactly did he plead guilty to? And another thing, who cares if he’s gay or not? is he a good legislator? that’s all that should matter.

pullingmyhairout on August 28, 2007 at 3:57 PM

The scary part to me? This was a STING OP!

Yes, our Tax dollar is being used to have policemen sit in Airport stalls and act gay.

Now, last time I checked, there is no crime in being gay… if they wanted to actualy stop this behaviour, put a UNIFORMED cop in there, and it would immediatly stop… this was a sting however… they wanted to Catch people…

Once again, nothing the Senator did was illegal IMO (creepy? yes, illegal, no)… why he plead out I have no idea.

Romeo13 on August 28, 2007 at 4:01 PM

that’s all that should matter

Nah. I don’t want a restroom-trawling queer representing _me_

Ochlan on August 28, 2007 at 4:02 PM

This was a STING OP!

What did I tell ya? Minnesota is da bomb for all manner of homo-nanigans. Minnesota ‘men’ are such a furtive bunch of rectal engineers that they need an _undercover_ hit squad to catch the filthy buggers.

Ochlan on August 28, 2007 at 4:05 PM

Romeo13, here’s why he plead out:

Editor and Publisher story.

The news media missed it for almost 3-months since he was only pleaing to a minor misdemeanor he hoped would be overlooked.

Whether it was likely to be overlooked or not is a good question, but it had been for the first two months so he probably thought he could get away with it.

Certainly, men’s capacity to hide and hope they can get away with bad behavior is legendary.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 4:06 PM

BTW, Craig’s children are adopted (from his wife’s earlier marriage).

baldilocks on August 28, 2007 at 4:18 PM

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 3:50 PM

This is not a case of two men who want to go to sit side by side in toilet stalls and touch their feet together as you put it.

This is a case of one man making unsolicited advances at another man…in a public bathroom. Besides, what kind of person would prearrange a “flirtation” with another person just to play footsie in a freaking bathroom, no less? Really, do you know anyone who does that? I can just imagine the conversation beforehand.

You just can’t arrest someone for touching someone else’s foot, seemingly with consent.


Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 3:46 PM

You keep leaving out the part where Craig flashed his baby blues through the crack in the men’s room stall for a few minutes, and reached his left hand under the stall.

Do you think he was looking for toilet paper? And have you ever heard of a “Peeping Tom”, or is that, along with playing footsie in public restrooms, normal “flirting” behavior in Canada?

Buy Danish on August 28, 2007 at 4:20 PM

You keep leaving out the part where Craig flashed his baby blues through the crack in the men’s room stall for a few minutes, and reached his left hand under the stall.

No, you’re a liar. I mentioned both.

The point is the cop seemingly went along with this ritual and gave encouragement to the suspect to convince him to cross the barrier into physical contact.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 4:22 PM

Christoph, I agree with the fact that it was wrong to nail the guy (no pun intended) for something he hadn’t done yet. You’re right…he was not really guilty of any truly ILLEGAL act.

Now about that Georgia thing you keep bringing up. You DO realize that every government, pretty much, on earth has obsolete laws on the books, right? They don’t go through the laws every few years and throw out what’s now deemed ridiculous, right? Death for horse-stealing, horse-drawn carriages can only be in the middle of the road on Weds, etc. There are billions of these stupid things.

Yes, the South does have some obsolete laws regarding sex, as do many other places in the world, because of religious values held in the past. However, it is RARE to see these laws enforced, and it is usually for some other reason that the law is used to prosecute someone. I don’t know the story of the soldier charged with doing his wife – but more than likely there was something else to the story that got them prosecuted in the first place. Pissed off a cop, someone’s vendetta, etc.

The way you explain it, it sounds as if the people in the South are consistently policing the bedrooms. I can tell you flat out that that is not the case – and that example is a freak one. So, chill on that one as representative of our laws – and go check your own town’s laws and see how many freakin stupid ass law classics you can find.

tickleddragon on August 28, 2007 at 4:23 PM

There are indeed dumb laws in Canada. My personal favorite?

35% of a radio stations content must be “Canadian Content”.

Everyone sing along: “Near…Far…WhereEVER you are…”

Slublog on August 28, 2007 at 4:26 PM

Whoops – WherEVER

Slublog on August 28, 2007 at 4:27 PM

Slublog on August 28, 2007 at 4:26 PM

Teehee…that’s just wrong, eh?

tickleddragon on August 28, 2007 at 4:28 PM

Citizens may not publicly remove bandages.

Now THAT is an important activity to halt. EWWWWW.

tickleddragon on August 28, 2007 at 4:29 PM

tickleddragon on August 28, 2007 at 4:28 PM

Celine Dion is always wrong. No exceptions.

That being said, I love Canada. Beautiful part of the world, friendly people.

The only bad part is drivers with Quebec license plates. Whoa…

Slublog on August 28, 2007 at 4:31 PM

You DO realize that every government, pretty much, on earth has obsolete laws on the books, right?

Yes.

They enforced it vigorously, however. International athletes were specifically warned by the Olympic Commission about it, which is how I learned about it. At the time, there were over 40-people imprisoned in Georgia for oral sex.


“the South does have some obsolete laws regarding sex…”

Had. The Supreme Court struck them down in Lawrence v. Texas.

I can tell you flat out that that is not the case – and that example is a freak one.

As a Canadian heterosexual, I’m proud to tell you I’ve bedded a few southern girls including from Georgia.

Indeed, a great aversion to oral sex was not a characteristic I noticed, but it did make for some great jokes at their expense.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 4:31 PM

35% of a radio stations content must be “Canadian Content”.

That is a very bad law. My Canadians mock it by buying satellite discs to get U.S. TV stations. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (among others, but usually them) actually do on occasion arrest people for this.

My point as I specifically made at 3:04 PM is Canada doesn’t have this particular vein of bad legal practice.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 4:38 PM

*Many Canadians.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 4:38 PM

Maybe it’s just a confusion of terms – maybe Craig doesn’t think that having oral sex with men makes him gay…

Enrique on August 28, 2007 at 1:25 PM

Indeed. Using other/anonymous men (or women for that matter) for sex doesn’t specifically mean you are gay. I just means you are a pervert.

Lawrence on August 28, 2007 at 4:39 PM

My point as I specifically made at 3:04 PM is Canada doesn’t have this particular vein of bad legal practice.
Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 4:38 PM

I know, but I’ll take any excuse to link to Dumb Laws. Endless fun on that site.

Slublog on August 28, 2007 at 4:40 PM

You bet.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 4:40 PM

This is a case of one man making unsolicited advances at another man…in a public bathroom.

You just can’t arrest someone for touching someone else’s foot, seemingly with consent.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 3:46 PM

Actualy part of my problem with this is it was a STING OP… saying it was unsolicited is untrue.

Romeo13 on August 28, 2007 at 4:42 PM

Craig’s problem was that he didn’t take the officer out for drinks then drive his car off a bridge, then walk to the family house while the officer drowned in the car.

Had he done all of that, he’d be exonerated and reelected for 40 years.

Nethicus on August 28, 2007 at 4:43 PM

Yes, Romeo, I agree. Even by the police officer’s own account, he was playing along at least partially begging the question of how two men willfully touching their feet together is disorderly.

A great use of tax dollars indeed.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 4:44 PM

Stories of this type — putting aside the whole Larry Craig issue — where the homosexual community’s apparently inherent promiscuity and recklessness is exposed to the straight world, are stunning.

Maybe this is old hat for you metrosexual city boys, but I read this and wonder what kind of a world we live in, where queers go into an airport bathroom, play a little footsie with God-knows-what-in-the-next-stall, and then pile into a toilet stall for oral sex. Like pot-luck sex. In their mouth.

I thought queers were supposed to be fastidious? Airport.Bathroom!

Do straight people do things like this, and I just don’t know it?

Jaibones on August 28, 2007 at 4:48 PM

They enforced it vigorously, however. International athletes were specifically warned by the Olympic Commission about it, which is how I learned about it. At the time, there were over 40-people imprisoned in Georgia for oral sex.

Believe me, the laws are still there is many places, but again..they use it, if they want to get them for SOMETHING, but don’t have evidence on anything legit. It’s like getting Al Capone for tax evasion…get it? An annoyance charge..if you will.

As a Canadian heterosexual, I’m proud to tell you I’ve bedded a few southern girls including from Georgia.

Indeed, a great aversion to oral sex was not a characteristic I noticed, but it did make for some great jokes at their expense.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 4:31 PM

And um…you misunderstood me. I was saying that I know that they are not policing bedrooms as policy…not that I know this BECAUSE I was doing whatever, myself. I don’t know about the Southern girls YOU’VE come (pun intended) in contact with, but a polite Southern lady doesn’t talk about those things. :)

tickleddragon on August 28, 2007 at 4:48 PM

Craig’s problem was that he didn’t take the officer out for drinks then drive his car off a bridge, then walk to the family house while the officer drowned in the car.

Had he done all of that, he’d be exonerated and reelected for 40 years.

Nethicus on August 28, 2007 at 4:43 PM

No, but only because you’re closer to the truth than you realize.

Great example.

Craig’s problem is he has a conscience.

Oh I fully he’s a liar about his sexuality, he cheats on his wife or wants to on occasion, and he would have, if the chance had arisen, committed a sexual act in that bathroom, which would be a crime.

These are just what I think is more likely than not. I could be wrong.

But on some level, Craig knows it’s wrong.

So he’ll fold. He can’t fight it hard enough.

A man like Ted Kennedy loves himself too much to have an effective conscience.

That’s why he could take the time to sober up when she still had air to breath in that car.

That’s why he’s still a senator. He just moved forward and became the icon of the party that believes in cutting up babies.i

Our respective parties don’t have that constituency so that won’t work for Craig and he couldn’t be that heartless anyway.

Flawed, yes. Evil, partly. Edward Kennedy evil?

Not even in the same league.

Kennedy draws his power from a darker source just as Craig draws his weakness from that same source. For Kennedy aligns himself with darkness for power and Craig does not.

He’s just weak. And gay.

Probably.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 4:50 PM

you misunderstood me. I was saying that I know that they are not policing bedrooms as policy

Yep. As I said above, this particular example of the navy Captain who was convicted of a felony, imprisoned, and kicked out of the navy for … well… we know what for… came about during divorce proceedings.

A lot of things came out. Apparently they had never done it before (respectful Georgians them), but during a time when they were reconciling, she asked him, he did, and his life was destroyed, but, the way the way the law was written, she, the beneficiary, wasn’t breaking the law.

So anyway. It came out during unrelated testimony and it’s doubtful whether the parties knew it was a crime or if it would be enforced.

a polite Southern lady doesn’t talk about those things

Chuckle chuckle. Not in most moods!

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 4:54 PM

Man. There must be lot of ghey cruising, eye flashing, footsie playing, reach around bathroom stall wall queers in Canada. So much so that certain people here act like that kind of behavior is normal or at least acceptable up there. Just in case you are a Canadian and wish to come down South and try that crap here let me give you a word of warning. Don’t. I’m not the threat. Try that on me and I’ll laugh at you and go out of my way to publicly humiliate you. Try that on some people I know and you could definitely lose a body part. I love the South. We love and protect our kids to the point where we don’t like them to be potentially accosted in a public restroom in the name of “progressiveness” or “tolerance”. We’re just bigots when it comes to stuff like that stuff like that. We wouldn’t have it any other way. Just curious. Do they have any “how to manage an unwanted sexual advance in public bathrooms” classes in the public schools in Canada? They should.

Guardian on August 28, 2007 at 4:58 PM

Christoph,

The officers account is here:

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

Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times, and Karsnia noted in his report that “I could … see Craig had a gold ring on his ring finger as his hand was on my side of the stall divider.”Karsnia then held his police identification down by the floor so that Craig could see it.

Where does it say that the officer played footsie back?

Buy Danish on August 28, 2007 at 5:00 PM

Here’s another defense for Larry Craig.

He’s mind numbingly stupid.

As AP just reported, this is his statement:

“At the time of this incident, I complained to the police that they were misconstruing my actions. I was not involved in any inappropriate conduct.

I should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this matter. In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously.”

“He believed the police were acting inappropriately accusing him of being a gay sex criminal when he isn’t, he had two months to think about it, and he never got the advice of a lawyer?”

If that is true, and I’ll leave that to your judgment, remember that I have said I believe he’s a liar, then he is to stupid to be in the senate and he should step down forthwith.

Wow.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 5:01 PM

Do they have any “how to manage an unwanted sexual advance in public bathrooms” classes in the public schools in Canada? They should.

Guardian on August 28, 2007 at 4:58 PM

Brilliant point! Ha Ha.

Buy Danish on August 28, 2007 at 5:01 PM

Christoph, I’m in NC and I’ve not heard of that sort of nonsense happening here in decades.

You’ve named exactly ONE case. Can you site others?

Chuckle chuckle. Not in most moods!

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 4:54 PM

Okay. Granted. But not in polite discussion.

tickleddragon on August 28, 2007 at 5:02 PM

You’re completely right.

I misread the initial statement by the cop.

Thank you for correcting me and I apologize.

However, it strengthens my case considerably.

As page 5 of that same statement says:

Sergeant Karsnia observed the Defendant tap his right foot, which Sergeant Karsia recognized as a signal often used by person’s communicating a desire to engage in sexual conduct. Sergeant Karsnia moved his foot up and down slowly.

So Craig is moving his foot up and down tapping in what Sergeant Karsnia describes as a signal he desires sexual activity and then Karsnia starts moving his foot up and down?

And then Craig touches his foot?

This’s worse for Karsnia than before. I can’t believe that man’s a Sergeant. I hope his wife and mom are proud.

Good bust.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 5:16 PM

You’ve named exactly ONE case. Can you site others?

I can’t site others, tickle, it’s from a few newspaper articles I read in 1996. They made a big impression on me and I specifically remember the case of the Captain and over 40-being incarcerated for oral sex as of the writing of the article.

Canadians were a bit incredulous about this.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 5:23 PM

*cite

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 5:23 PM

Canadians were a bit incredulous about this.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 5:23 PM

As am I, but for probably VERY different reasons. If it were as prevalent as you’re making it sound…I think I’d have heard about it. Seeing as I live here and all.

tickleddragon on August 28, 2007 at 5:31 PM

No offense…but even urban myths are printed in newspapers.

As to the military officer, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. But one (or two) swallow doesn’t make a summer.

HA! ;)

tickleddragon on August 28, 2007 at 5:32 PM

40-people incarcerates serving longish sentences, probably means no more than 5-8 convicted a year.

I know what I read.

I wouldn’t know how to research it now, not without devoting a great deal of time and energy.

http://www.apa.org/psyclaw/stover.html
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~kurisuto/sodomy.html
[published in two posts to get past spam filter]

In additon to the Captain’s case, which I also found (he was sentenced to 5-years and notice in one of the above cases, the Georgia parole board continued to take a dim view on the awful crime committed, etc.) I found 4 in about 20-minutes and the last one was decided in Georgia’s favour in 1986 by the Supreme Court.

I’ve been up for about 20-hours and am too tired to find more.

There are more.

But I’m too tired. You have have a great night.

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 5:55 PM

http://www.sodomy.org/laws/georgia/anderson_v_state.html
http://atlanta.about.com/library/blscgayruling3.htm

So with the Captain’s case, there’s 5. Anyway, it was rare, but not unheard of, and one person convicted of a felony for oral sex with his wife is one too many.

Heck, as Bill Clinton proved, it isn’t even sex.

MANY people nowadays would agree with that definition.

If many modern people consider oral sex trivial, and unfortunately they do, then surely the flipside is those who believed it was a crime against nature.

And if people believed that crazy nonsense, maybe Bill Clinton really DIDN’T consider oral sex sex. Who knows?

Being married to Hillary, it was probably such a distant memory…

Ooh, horrible image!

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 5:58 PM

Call me simple…but my definition says – if it involves the sexual organs of others(with orgasm as goal)it’s sex.

tickleddragon on August 28, 2007 at 6:21 PM

That’s my definition too tickleddragon but then again I’m not a progressive Republican.

Buzzy on August 28, 2007 at 7:13 PM

So Craig is moving his foot up and down tapping in what Sergeant Karsnia describes as a signal he desires sexual activity and then Karsnia starts moving his foot up and down?

Christoph,

Do they teach you to read in Canada?

The police report says that the police officer slowly moved his foot up and down, not Craig.

Buy Danish on August 28, 2007 at 7:21 PM

First they ruined rainbows for me. Now I can’t “go” to the beat.

sibobr on August 28, 2007 at 8:06 PM

Hmm. After spending a long time reading about this, and reading the police report, the only thing I’m inclined to declare Craig guilty of is reacting inappropriately to a set-up job by an overzealous cop.

Something just doesn’t smell right about this whole thing.

Yes, IF you believe the cop, Craig acted strangely. I’m not inclined to buy into the notion that he committed a crime, though, even if HE DID exactly what the cop states.

The jury is still out on this one….

JannyMae on August 28, 2007 at 11:45 PM

The police report says that the police officer slowly moved his foot up and down, not Craig.

I read that.

Slow movements aren’t part of seduction?

After staring at you off and on for two minutes, some person is tapping his foot up and down in your toilet stall from the stall next to you signaling they want sexuality, you KNOW they want sexually activity, do you:

      a) move your foot away or take stronger action?
      b) slowly tap your foot up and down?

Do they teach you to think in America?

Christoph on August 29, 2007 at 12:21 AM

Something just doesn’t smell right about this whole thing.

Yes, IF you believe the cop, Craig acted strangely. I’m not inclined to buy into the notion that he committed a crime, though, even if HE DID exactly what the cop states.

The jury is still out on this one….

JannyMae on August 28, 2007 at 11:45 PM

And that is another very, very good point.

Christoph on August 29, 2007 at 12:22 AM

Craig’s sex life is of no interest to me–just as Bill Clinton’s sex life holds zero interest to me. Can we go to another topic please? Like what do we say about privatization of Social Security? I think we should despite my skepticism that the system will go bankrupt. I just hold that we should encourage we should make everyone understand their future depends on the stock market.

thuja on August 29, 2007 at 12:23 AM

thuja on August 29, 2007 at 12:23 AM

You missed a small part of this. Do you want someone with these kind of thought processes making those bills. Do you want someone so stupid as this to represent you? Do you think he will be honest in his representation, or vote the way to keep himself out of “hot water”? This guy says he didn’t have a lawyer, and yet records show he did. This is whom you want to help decide our future. One of 100 or so people. We can do better, kick him out and others that are weak minded, crooks, racists, with hands in others pockets, then we will get the bills you and I so desperately want. He’s a loser, kick him to the side.

right2bright on August 29, 2007 at 7:41 AM

The jury is still out on this one….

JannyMae on August 28, 2007 at 11:45 PM

No jury needed, he pleaded guilty.

right2bright on August 29, 2007 at 7:42 AM

Christoph on August 28, 2007 at 2:06 PM

He pleaded guilty, to a lessor charge to get the more obvious one dropped.
He pleaded guilty. A senator, a law maker, with a lawyer, negotiated a lessor sentence. He is guilty.
You don’t have to be a “Christian” to understand a guilty plea and its implications.

To most over used words on HA…Hypocrite, and Christian, often used in the same sentence, used by people who know very little about either.

right2bright on August 29, 2007 at 7:47 AM

The cops that are trained to “cruise” these bathrooms, know the “codes”. It is more than tapping a foot, it is a “dance”, a series of moves and actions that add up to gay cruiding.
I have a friend that is gay (don’t we all) and he uses his “gaydar” to find like people all of the time. He spots them a mile away.

right2bright on August 29, 2007 at 7:52 AM

He pleaded guilty, to a lessor charge to get the more obvious one dropped.
He pleaded guilty. A senator, a law maker, with a lawyer, negotiated a lessor sentence. He is guilty.
You don’t have to be a “Christian” to understand a guilty plea and its implications.

Gee, I said above he committed a crime, a couple times.

I said it’s your laws that are messed up, not that he didn’t break them.

He pled guilty to a crime that amounted to touching another man’s foot specifically after that man had gave him a signal indicating essentially it was okay.

The obscenity is Minnesota law.

Christoph on August 29, 2007 at 8:57 AM

“CAN YOU SPARE A SQUARE?”

maverick muse on August 29, 2007 at 10:33 AM

Can you spare a square?

Who hasn’t felt unjustly treated after having been given a ticket by a police officer?

maverick muse on August 29, 2007 at 10:36 AM

Christoph, love you man, and I adore Canada (Nortel was a long-time client so I was in charming Brampton all the time, and Old Montreal is one of my fave places in the whole world), but the law enforcement community in Canada has been known to crack a GLBT head or two. ’81 Bathhouse raids? Largest mass arrest in Canada since WWII? And that bawdy-house law is still on the books, no, notwithstanding the agreements that came about between the GLBT Community and the Toronto cops?

Didn’t the Kids in the Hall have a recurring skit about a couple of seriously latent Toronto cops staking out the park bathrooms? What was that based on? And have a search at this link for “entrapment.” Not in living memory? How old are you, dude?

The Craig bust is all kinds of wrong to me, entrapment etc., but you can dial the O Canada thing back a little.

DrSteve on August 29, 2007 at 11:09 AM

Dr. Steve, I don’t have a problem with police trying to stop the obscene practice of people meeting strangers in bathrooms to blow them.

Certainly, it’s not very good for the kiddies. And it’s probably a tough job to do, getting evidence and all.

But my problem is, and I’ve never heard of a case like it in Canada during my lifetime, is arresting someone for touching a police officer’s foot.

Especially when the officer is clearly playing along.

It’s ridiculous. Never happen hear. Only in America or another religious country.

There are a lot of great things about Americans, but there are a lot of stupid Americans too.

And this law applied this way reflects that stupidity.

I can give you exampled of Canadian stupidity all day long, to wit, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Yet this bizarre situation and this bust would just not be on in Canada. Local gay activists would be up in arms and the average man or women would be behind them.

If Craig had taken it a step further or not received encouragement from the cop, maybe.

Christoph on August 29, 2007 at 12:27 PM

*here

Christoph on August 29, 2007 at 12:28 PM

But my problem is, and I’ve never heard of a case like it in Canada during my lifetime, is arresting someone for touching a police officer’s foot.

And heretofore I’d never heard of anything quite like this case in the States. With the obscure foot signals and not a word of actual verbal communication and all.

I agree with you it’s completely insane.

Now back to our regularly scheduled neighborliness. Could you please pass the donuts?

DrSteve on August 29, 2007 at 12:37 PM

Back in the early days of usenet, the original internet message board system, there used to be a tradition where a Canadian would use some tangent in a discussion to go off on an extended US-bashing and “Canada uber alles” tirade, generally derailing any useful conversation.

And we would laugh, truly we would.

Thanks for reminding me of those days, Cristoph.

Good times.

Merovign on August 29, 2007 at 1:16 PM

He’s not gay… he just likes to have sex with other men. /snark: off

Maxx on August 29, 2007 at 2:51 PM

And heretofore I’d never heard of anything quite like this case in the States. With the obscure foot signals and not a word of actual verbal communication and all.

I agree with you it’s completely insane.

Now back to our regularly scheduled neighborliness. Could you please pass the donuts?

DrSteve on August 29, 2007 at 12:37 PM

I’ve also referred to the relatively recent, numerous, and documented cases where U.S. citizens were cases were arrested and convicted of felonies by their states for engaging in consensual private sexual activity, oral or in some cases anal, in the privacy of their homes.

That would never happen here. Ever.

That’s also what I meant.

Christoph on August 29, 2007 at 7:50 PM

Forgive the double “were cases”. Getting sloppy. And no pun intended considering the topic of the above.

;-)

Christoph on August 29, 2007 at 7:51 PM

Look on the bright side. Craig will get a lifetime senate pension and probably broker a few commercials with Dr. Scholl’s — he’ll be fine.

Bradky on August 29, 2007 at 8:24 PM

Zane, supra:

* Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
* Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
* Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
* Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

I hate hypocrites, the GOP has way to many.

Save for the constitutional amendment — which I opposed on federalist grounds — my voting record would match Larry Craig’s were I a member of Congress. But you can’t accuse me of hypocrisy. I’m 43, and have been out since my senior year in high school. I just don’t care for liberal social engineering.

By the way, I’m not defending Larry Craig. I have no doubt he’s a closet case. But he’s not a hypocrite, or at least he’s not for the reasons you cite.

paul006 on August 30, 2007 at 1:38 AM

Well, there was that case in Canada in 1979 where a teacher was arrested in his own home for soliciting sex (with other consenting adults) through classified ads. And the bawdy-house law was used to convict people who engaged in activities in private residences.

I’m not sure I’d say it wouldn’t happen ever in Canada, but it’s clear there’s no legal basis for it to happen there anymore, and I think that’s certainly praiseworthy.

DrSteve on August 30, 2007 at 1:27 PM

I swear, my son is going into the ladies room with me until he’s 20.

jjjen on August 30, 2007 at 6:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2