Thoughtful Commentary on Senator Craig:
TalkingPointsMemo has it in this post by Josh Marshall and this post by David Kurtz.
Related Posts (on one page):
- The elephant in the room:
- What was Craig's crime?
- Thoughtful Commentary on Senator Craig:
It seems very, very implausible to me that U.S. Senator, with all the connections that position implies, would not consult an attorney before having involvement of any sort with the criminal justice system.
Speaking of, if you are going to open up comments on this I will take 25 and the under. I'd love to be wrong.
Meanwhile, the stars of the supposedly "serious" magazine, the National Review, posting at the Corner are having a grand old time making petty, juvenile, and cheap "homo" jokes -- I would be interested in Jonathan Adler's thoughts on whether he thinks this conduct is appropriate, as he is a regular contributor there.
I've gone to the bathroom in plenty of stalls, and never once done either one of those things.
At worst, the government could prove that Craig was seeing if another adult was interested in having sex with him. There is nothing illegal about that. I find this whole situation very disturbing, and it is a shame that Craig would not defend himself because (I assume) he is too ashamed to have to deal with his own personal demons here.
Tough + thoughtful?
Agreed w/ Carolina that no heterosexual U.S. Senator would cop a plea here. So despite the reasonableness of CrazyTrain's comment, the fact remains that, whether Craig did anything criminal or not, he did *plead* guilty.
One cavil w/ C.T. however. I'm sitting in a bathroom stall, and the guy next to me slides his shoe under the partition to touch mine and stay there? That is conduct I'm happy to see prohibited by law.
Craig's explaination of his guilty plea is not plausible. But assuming he did not really commit the underlying offense, he is now claiming that he perjured himself in federal court when he plead guilty. Stand up guy.
He's pulling a George Michael. OF COURSE people are going to make fun of it. Not so much an example of a politician's hypocrisy as a politician going about that hypocrisy is a silly, foolish manner that is going to lead to people skewering him.
The main allegation in Garance's post - that there was no allegation of "Peeping Tom" conduct - was debunked by the very first comment.
She goes on to acknowledge that okay, maybe there was such an allegation, but "the judge rightly threw the peeping Tom charge against Craig out, because it was a very, very weak case against Craig on those grounds." In fact, there has been no report that I've seen to the effect that the charge was "thrown out" by the judge; the most plausible scenario is that the "gross interference with privacy" charge was dismissed as part of a plea bargain arrangement, since it happened at the same time Craig pled guilty to the other charge. So basically, I'm not sure Garance was right about anything.
The Minnesota statute in question provides:
A bathroom stall pretty clearly qualifies as a "place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to expose their intimate parts." As to the intent requirement, arguably it's a weak case if all you do is look through the crack a time or two, but Craig's subsequent conduct rebuts any claim that he was simply checking to see if the stall was occupied, or what have you. The charge seems fairly solid to me.
Is it surreptitious if he doesn't do anything to disguise the fact that he's looking through the crack? I think of "peeping" as looking from afar through binoculars or using a hidden camera or the like.
But your point is well-taken, that the most likely inference is that the charge was dismissed as part of the plea.
Which gets back to the tricky issue of where to draw the line - while I don't think any act by Craig was overtly criminal, I have to say, as someone "exposed" to that kind of behavior in a public place, I wasn't terribly comfortable then, though now I'd find it more weird than creepy, and just leave it at that.
That is apparently true from what I read, but . . .
The analogy may be a bit offensive, but just like a crack dealer will send out certain signals that people who purchase crak will immediately know means he sells crack (but that a non-crack dealer would view as entirely innocent), it's the same thing with what Craig did in that bathroom.
The difference is that buying/possessing/selling crack is illegal. Two adults having sex is not. I don't know anything about the "cruising" scene, but is it not at least possible that sometimes these people go to a private place to do the deed. I mean if I met a hot chick outside a bathroom and knew she wanted to hook up, I sure as hell wouldn't do it in a dirty bathroom, I would want to go somewhere a little more clean and private.
Agreed, but it is pretty clear that those at the Corner are extremely homophobic from their comments. Even more outrageous is this post by Hugh Hewitt. He all but admits that he is a hypocrite. Between Vitter and Craig, what Vitter did was clearly worse --- he was consistently using the services of a prostitute whose madam is now under federal indictment. Craig tried to have consensual sex with another adult.
Prosecutor (to defense atty): look, your guy obviously doesn't want to take this to trial, and I'll have to admit that the evidence on the soliciting charge is a little thin. How 'bout he pleads to disorderly conduct and pays a fine?
As a prosecutor, it is easy to imagine an airport police officer (or anyone in law enforcement) finding, in otherwise innocuous acts, criminal behavior of the exact sort that he is looking for. The prosecutor in this case likely took that into account, felt that there was nonetheless a factual basis for a disorderly conduct plea, and felt that this was a just resolution of the case. Fortunately for all involved, this prosecutor was not a Nifong.
No paper trail.
Both are risky. I understand that risk is part of the thrill.
Hewitt was far more in control of his language last night on his radio show. Purposefully making comments that could be taken both ways. For example calling for the Republican party to remove such "perverts" as Larry Craig and Mark Foley from their ranks. Purposefully not making clear if he is referring to homosexuals, people who may break the law connected with sex, or scandalers. I assume this is an obvious conscious act on Hewitt part so he can gay-bash/be homophobic and at the same time deny it if someone calls him a homophone.
Of course such doubts could be overcome by testimony such as by GV (at 1:33 PM.)
Hey, that's a good question. The closest thing to a definition under Minnesota law is provided by State v. Hartwig, 355 N.W.2d 333 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984), which cites the dictionary definition of "surreptitious" as "by stealth, without authority, secret." The case involved a creepy guy who kept walking by a woman's window and checking her out; the court rejected his argument that he wasn't being surreptitious about it.
The facts here are somewhat similar to State v. Ulmer, 719 N.W.2d 213 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006), in which the defendant followed a 7-year old boy into the bathroom and then leaned over a urinal partition to watch him. The court didn't discuss the "surreptitious" element, but it didn't seem to have a problem upholding the conviction even in the absence of evidence that the guy tried to conceal his peeping. My impression is that certain types of peeping - such as looking through the crack of a bathroom stall - are unavoidably surreptitious.
That well-known homophone, Hew Hugh-wit.
That's right, although the word "surreptitious" seems to recur throughout the statute. I'm actually having a hard time figuring out what the word "surreptitious" actually adds; I doubt the legislature meant to suggest that if you brazenly open the stall door to gaze upon the unclothed person inside, it's not a violation. And if you were to mistakenly open the stall door under the belief that the stall was empty, you'd be missing the intent element, so I guess I'm hardpressed to come up with a counterexample.
If not, then what is the rationale for saying that conduct sending the same message is illegal?
If so, then would that apply to the same sentence if uttered in a bar, or is there a "bathroom rule" that changes the outcome?
He put his foot into the stall next to his. Does anyone have any idea how creepy that is? If someone in the stall next to yours put his/her foot under the stall, you wouldn't consider that strange? "Oh, he must just use a wide stance."
Then he reached his hand under the stall... Come on, people.
While I agree with the overall sentiment that creepy does not always equal criminal, what this guy did was so far beyond the norm that we can reasonably infer that he was up to no good.
Also, that he (almost certainly) lied about not consulting a lawyer doesn't make his story more believable. Does anyone here really think a United States Senator would have pled guilty before at least talking to lawyer friend of his? Then again.... Maybe he was so embarrassed by his conduct that he didn't want anyone to know. Which sort of cuts against the, "I just use a wide stance" narrative.
As MikeC&F's comment after yours shows, Craig's conduct was creepy. I'm perfectly happy with people asking politely if I'd like to have sex; I say "no, thanks," and they go about their business.
Prosser &Keeton's tort hornbook had a great note on how it was held non-tortious to ask a woman for sex -- "the theory being, apparently, that there is no harm in asking." Wish I had that in front of me to find the cite.
How would that have any relevance, or even be a relevant factor for a jury to weigh?
a.) The fact that he pled 'guilty' means nothing one way or another. The American justice [sic] system is so SNAFU'd that innocent people frequently plead guilty just to avoid the hassles.
b.) That said, I agree that he most likely is guilty which makes him a world-class, sleazy hypocrite and -- worst of all -- monumentally STUPID. But aren't those the basic job qualifications to be a Senator, anyhow?
c.) Don't they have any real crime in Minneapolis?
d.) Isn't this pretty much a self-correcting problem that the people of Idaho can take care of very easily at the next election, if they want to? It ought not really be any concern of the rest of us. .... After all, if Massachusetts can keep re-electing an adulterer who caused the death of his mistress and then tried to cover it up; why shouldn't Idaho re-elect a[n apparent] closet homosexual? (Or should that be 'water-closet' ?)
Nope. We gays make sex jokes all the time. It's a question of intent: We all know the difference, and so should you.
What is interesting is that in Florida, a legislator (Rep.) was caught soliciting sex in a bathroom recently. These issues weren't raised then, but perhaps now it's time to talk about what constitutes sexual solicitation in a bathroom, and whether it should be illegal.
To me, it doesn't matter which way you go, so long as you treat both homo and hetero sex solicitation the same way.
How is hitting on someone in a bathroom different from hitting on someone in a barroom? You're kidding right?
Perhaps but elections have been nationalized to the extent that it’s not about just voting for the person but voting for which Party you want to control the Senate and whether the controlling party is going to have enough votes to stop a filibuster. In which case considering that the next President is going to be facing the retirement of the first of the baby boom generation (and the bankrupting of Medicare and Social Security), possibly two SCOTUS appointments, and the continuation of the War, then yes, even though I don't live in his State, I hope that Craig does the decent thing and steps down so the governor of Idaho can replace him with someone who will be a strong incumbent in the next election.
Finally, a voice of reason! Would that our society acted as such -- it would make things so much easier. We wouldn't be left trying to interpret flirtatious comments or movements.
On the other hand, I suppose it might make the whole mating ritual more banal.....
Consider a circumstance where the Senator was able to prove the fact that he is not interested in men as sexual partners. That might make his "wide stance" or "picking up toilet paper" more likely to be true, no? Or, contrary, if he is in fact gay and closeted, it might make it a bit more likely he was cruising for anonymous sex in a mens room, no?
In any event, I don't think it's asking too much to be able to go to a public restroom without having to be propositioned.
I'm much happier having people give me ambiguous foot signals, recognize that I have no idea what those signals mean, and moving on. I don't need the police to protect me from that, but I think I'd be much more creeped out if I was in a bathroom minding my own business, and someone directly propositioned me for sex.
Funny. I have no first hand experience in this kind of situation, but I suspect that if some dude slid his foot under the stall and started rubbing up against my shoe, I'd see nothing ambiguous about it.
If his own people had been there, it'd be a case of one cop's word against the word of a U.S. Senator and the word(s) of his security personnel. As it stands, though, Senator Craig's presence in a public place all by his lonesome is just awfully suspicious.
Sitting in a bathroom with my pants around my ankles, I feel a bit more vulnerable than I would out in the bar. YMMV.
Regarding disorderly conduct, he pled guilty. Look up the state statute if you like to see if it's ambiguous, but it doesn't really matter because he agreed that he was guilty of it, probably because he did not want to fight a charge of an attempted lewd act or solicitation of a lewd act or something similar, which he was likely guilty of.
Those commenting on whether the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of a crime simply have not seen the evidence that the prosecutor would have put forward. If the prosecutor established through expert testimony that his signals were as clear as if he said to the officer, "I want to have sex with you in this bathroom stall," that could very well convince a jury to convict.
As for feeling sorry for him, this is not about being gay. This is about cruising for sex in a public bathroom. It's disgusting and I have no problem with cops arresting people who do it. Elsewhere I saw a link to a site that reviews places where men cruise for anonymous hookups, which apparently rated this particular bathroom highly, until several postings noted that people were getting busted. Presumably the enforcement worked and now people can take their kids to that restroom without worrying about what they might encounter.
The major difference is that people who meet at the bar don't normally go on to engage in sexual acts right there at the bar.
The reason why the police conduct stings in certain restrooms, rest stops, etc. is not merely because people sometimes meet there, but because sex acts routinely take place there. A restroom proposition is generally understood to be an offer for oral sex right there in the public restroom, not simply a suggestion to go have dinner or rent a hotel room.
The fact that he pled 'guilty' means nothing one way or another. The American justice [sic] system is so SNAFU'd that innocent people frequently plead guilty just to avoid the hassles.
Uh, yeah, maybe in the context of a parking ticket. Otherwise, a guilty plea most certainly means something.
It ought not really be any concern of the rest of us. .... After all, if Massachusetts can keep re-electing an adulterer who caused the death of his mistress and then tried to cover it up; why shouldn't Idaho re-elect a[n apparent] closet homosexual?
I don't understand how "the rest of us" are doing anything more than discussing the events in question, just as you're discussing the colorful history of the Senator from Massachusetts. No one is suggesting that there ought to be some sort of nationwide recall proceeding.
Doesn't John McCain now carry his own bags when going and coming from an airport? I don't think the federal government pays for the kind of service you are talking about. I guess the president could order a Secret Service detail for every senator, but that would get costly.
Yeah, but you wouldn't need cops for that. Just 'accidentally' Pee on his foot, and he'd get the message that you're not interested.
Especially at an airport. Imagine a mother travelling with a young son who is too old to take in the ladies' room with her. Shouldn't she be able to assume she's not sending her boy into a gay cruising spot?
Yes, but this was at MSP airport, which is not part of Minneapolis. MSP airport has it's own police force. So the effort spent here did not impair efforts to control "real Crime" in Minneapolis.
Now these same MSP cops run speed traps on the state highway that runs past the airport entrance all the time. I do wonder about their jurisdiction there, particularly since they are not under any direct elected control. The are under the Metropolitan Airports Commission, which runs the 4 or 5 airports in the metro area. The members are appointed by the governor, except for a member each appointed by the mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul
For all you know that's just another signal for something.
The Secret Service doesn't normally protect movie stars or corporate CEOs when they go out mixing with the hoi polloi, do they?
I guess the difference is that celebrities can typically afford more in the way of security protection than what you can buy with a $165,000 US Senate salary.
IIRC isn’t the cost of security for movie stars (CEO’s) when they go out in public usually or often picked up by the studio (company)?
But now, due to their choice of how best to use a relatively high-paid cop, I can at least feel secure that I'll not be accosted by any of that foot-tapping or rubbing that we all fear in these post-9/11 days.
(I can walk into any airport bar and watch hetero near-penetration while I eat my breakfast, but MN has clearly come down hard on that whole icky gay thing. Wellstone would be proud.)
Yes, but this was at MSP airport, which is not part of Minneapolis. MSP airport has it's own police force.
OK, so I'll re-phrase my question, then: Don't they have any real crime at the MSP airport?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that to me (a hetero male, BTW), this whole thing sounds so bizarre. Do I have to worry, next time I go into an airport restroom, that I'm going to be suddenly set upon by a bunch of Jack-Booted Thugs for accidentally wiggling my foot the wrong way, or scratching behind my ear with my index finger, or setting down my luggage at the wrong angle, or inadvertantly sending some other "secret" code message that I don't even know anything about?
And -- at the risk, I suppose, of sounding prurient and naive -- could somebody please explain (in a family-friendly sort of way) how the Hell it is possible for two people to have any sort of sex in an airport restroom stall without running an extremely high risk of being observed; at which point, the police would of course be completely justified in arresting the individuals. And could do so without engaging in entrapment.
Exactly. Also, whether Craig's conduct should be criminal is different from whether his story is believable.
If people want to argue that it should be OK to stick your foot under another person's stall to solicit sex in a public restroom, fine. I don't agree with that, but people disagree on many things. That's cool.
But to say that you believe that Craig was just taking a "wide stance" and "picking up toilet paper"? Well, it's impossible to take such people seriously.
That being said, I miss the good old days when to much inquiry into a persons private life would result in an invitation for an early morning meeting with your weapon of choice and your best friend.
My barber might be gay. I think the clerk at one(ok several) of my local stores uses marijuana. I don't care. It has no bearing on the job I hired them to do. That makes it none of my business.
As my wife, the English teacher, tells her students: Spell check is not proofreading!
Agreed. I also put US Senators who claim to not have consulted an attorney before pleading guilty to criminal charges in the same category.
The Idaho Statesman newspaper is reporting Craig is going to have a press statement at 4:30 pm EST. Anyone want to take odds on what he says?
I was in a not-so-great part of Germany. I went to a train station to use the bathroom. Some shady looking older guy comes in right after me and hits up the urinal next to mine. The creep vibes were strong, but I am block-headed, and don't let creepy people dictate my conduct. So I kept doing my thing instead of leaving.
I could then see from the corner of my eye that the guy was watching me with a creepy-pervert-man look. I looked over at him, he looked down like there was something very important on the ground, and I reflexively looked down. He was "playing with himself."
I then decided it was time to get out of there. I put some serious distance from the restroom. When I looked back, creepy guy and a partner I assumed he kept posted at the doorway the entire time were waving their hands in a "Come back" sort of way.
I am sure some people here will say that creepy old guy, like Senator Craig, was engaged in truly innocent conduct. Because, you know, watching someone use the restroom and playing with yourself in a public restroom, like putting your hands in feet under the stall next to yours, is just something people do - not because they are looking for sex, but, well, "just because."
I am reminded of the greatest retort used when people, when confronted with improper sexual conduct, say something like, "It just happened." The retort, or course, is: "It just slipped in, right?" Poor Senator Craig's hands and feet just "slipped" into the stall's next to his.
Next time... He'll have to be more careful with his appendages.
Uh... "It was Bill Clinton's fault"?
The last time I flew out of Reagan National, I ran into Senator Lieberman
and his wife, all by themselves and without "security detail." As I saw them
stand on line for cheap airport food, the kindly Senator even let a couple
of schmoozy DC ladder-climbers approach him and chat him up (a la,
"Hi Sen. Lieberman, I met you at the such-and-such fundraiser, yadda,
yadda, yadda."). I think I also saw an unescorted Sen. Richard Burr (NC) at
Reagan not too long ago, but I am not sure. Anyway, the point is, Senaotrs
do not have security detail. As taney71 pointed out, McCain even carries
his own bags.
Gasp! The horror that public servants should act just like the rest of us!
That being said, I miss the good old days when to much inquiry into a persons private life would result in an invitation for an early morning meeting with your weapon of choice and your best friend.
Well, unfortunately, Larry Craig and his party have done a lot to make people's sex lives other people's business. So, although as noted above I am disturbed that he was criminally prosecuted for this, I have Zero, Zero, absolutely no sympathy for him. He is a hypocrite of the highest magnitude -- and the Republicans have a problem with closeted gays. It seems obvious to me that a party that is so obsessed with homosexuality would have a disproportionate number of them. From what I hear, the Congressional staffs of Republican congressmen is like a who's who of semi-closeted Gay Washington. I mean, I am as straight as they come and I spend as little time as possible thinking about gay sex -- at the same time, I have no problem with people who want to engage in such activity. It seems very obvious that those like Ted Haggard and others who obsess about gay sex are likely gay. My favorite from this set are those who claiming that homosexuality is a choice say that homosexuals "cant control themselves." I don't know about hte rest of you, but in all my 31 years, I have never had an urge to have gay sex that I needed to control. That's how I know I am straight.
Unless true, that's a really dumb thing for him to say.
Exactly. Craig is simply living in the world he helped create.
Not to spam the thread here, but is it possible that this story comes out now in order to obscure another, more interesting story (e.g., Big Source of Clinton's Cash Is an Unlikely Address)?
you're right.
of course, this in no way makes it any less likely that his statement is false.
If anyone out there believes a sitting US Senator could be buffaloed into pleading guilty to a crime he didn't commit by some yokel airport cops in Minneapolis, I have a bridge to sell you . . . .
From 1980 onward, relatively few people argued much against decriminalizing homosexuality. Most states allowed homosexuals to adopt, and a few adopted anti-discriminations laws. What really got the engine underway was the attempts by homosexuals to force states to recognize same-sex marriage--something that did not enjoy even large minority support, even as late as 1990.
If you want to blame someone for the rise of political action on this, blame your friends who decided that they had a right to get married.
Obsessed? That's a rather strong claim. Remember, it is homosexuals who raised the issue by filing suits to force states to recognize same-sex marriage.
Oh, and he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct which I think was defined as "engaging in behavior likely to cause annoyance or disturbance" or words to that effect.
Now, *that* would be funny ... what could the MN DA find to charge him with?
So people who support equal rights for gays are the ones to blame for the bigoted treatment gays receive? Wow.
As a matter of basic logic, no one would have the need to fight anti-gay bigotry if said bigotry did not exist. This isn't complicated. Then again, when it comes to discussing gays, logic is not to be expected from some.
Presumably you mean a subset of the gay community, right?
Anyway, I'm sure you're correct, but if actions are completely below the radar of the typical bathroom-goer, should they be grounds for criminal charges?
The last time I flew out of Reagan National, I ran into Senator Lieberman and his wife, all by themselves and without "security detail."
I see them at home in Connecticut sometimes. He had obvious Secret Service protection during the 2000 campaign, but normally walks around with no (visible) security.
Is that a joke? Weren't some of the kids in the Foley scandal under age??????
I agree that Craig will probably end up resigning but I don’t think it is “dumb” or “ridiculous” on the part of Republicans to demand it. A lot of their base is still upset with the Party over other issues and allowing Craig to keep his Senate seat would anger them further and likely spillover into other races. For better or worse, Republican voters will hold their elected officials to a higher standard than Democrats (which is damning with faint praise). On other hand, replacing him with someone new would remove the taint from other races and potentially give Republican voters a fresh start which is what they’re going to want going into the 2008 elections.
as opposed to staying in the closet where they belonged.
(happy honeymoon, Andrew Sullivan.)
Steve: Uh, yeah, maybe in the context of a parking ticket. Otherwise, a guilty plea most certainly means something.
Me again: Baloney!!!! Remember all those "satanic child abuse" cases back in the Janet Reno era?? A whole bunch of those daycare workers pleaded 'guilty' even though they were absolutely totally innocent. That is the great evil of Pleas Bargaining. If you are looking at, say, 3 years in jail for pleading guilty versus a 50:50 chance of life in prison for having the audacity to demand a Jury trial, then pleading guilty is the rational choice even when you are innocent.
I wouldn't be so sure, under the circumstances.
Clayton -- you talk about homosexuality a lot on your blog. Yes, you seem obsessed. Do you think homosexuality is a choice? If so, did you ever choose not to be homosexual? From your past writings on the subject, I believe you do think it is a choice. Query when you made your choice not to be homosexual; was it a difficult choice? Again, I can state with no uncertainty that I never chose to be heterosexual, never had any urge to be homosexual and never even considered engaging in any such activity. That's why I believe it is not a choice. But I can understand that some people who have had such urges and repressed them might naturally feel otherwise.
I have yet to see breakfast-time near-penetration in all my years of hanging out in airport bars. I see groggy people waiting for their coffee to pry open their eyelids.
Plus you're mixing what's appropriate to an adult-oriented place with what's appropriate to an all ages venue. In most parts of the US, bars are limited to adults of legal drinking age. Even if that were not true, Mom can avoid taking little Billy to a bar, but she can hardly avoid letting Billy go to the rest room when he has to go.
CrazyTrain writes: It seems obvious to me that a party that is so obsessed with homosexuality would have a disproportionate number of them.
Obsessed? That's a rather strong claim. Remember, it is homosexuals who raised the issue by filing suits to force states to recognize same-sex marriage.
Yes, Clayton, as I said those obsessed with homosexuality are likely homosexual, such as those homosexuals you referencedfiling the suit. pwned. You might want to think before you right.
"Well, unfortunately, Larry Craig and his party have done a lot to make people's sex lives other people's business"
Is this actually true? Has he passed any laws concerning? I suppose there's the Defense of Marriage Act, but then that's making sex "other people's business" as much as the past couple thousand years of prohibiting homosexual marriage have made sex "other people's business." I've seen a lot of talk - not really from Craig, BTW - but, actually, no the machinery of government is not used regularly in this way.
So this is your definition of "frequently"?
If you look at th VC's old archives, you can see that he was a blogger here; and you can also see how that worked out.
That seems about right. CrazyTrain seems to be living up to the first part of his moniker.
If not, then what is the rationale for saying that conduct sending the same message is illegal?
As MikeC&F's comment after yours shows, Craig's conduct was creepy. I'm perfectly happy with people asking politely if I'd like to have sex; I say "no, thanks," and they go about their business.
Prosser &Keeton's tort hornbook had a great note on how it was held non-tortious to ask a woman for sex -- "the theory being, apparently, that there is no harm in asking." Wish I had that in front of me to find the cite.
I think there would be a problem if a man asked a woman for sex in the ladies' room.
CrazyTrain: Is that a joke? Weren't some of the kids in the Foley scandal under age??????
Was Foley accused of a crime? If so, I think I missed it.
1. .Political. Assuming this incident correctly revealed Craig to be gay, he’s paying the price for his hypocrisy
2. Criminal. In the worst case scenario, i.e., he was factually and legally innocent, his guilty plea and punishment should have only an incidental affect on his life. An undesirable result to be sure, and one we should strive to avoid, but in the overall scheme of things not worth the quantity of ink spilled.
3. Personal. I feel sorry for the guy, for his embarrassment and whatever else he must be going through. That doesn't mean I regret the criminal and political consequences of his behavior, past and more recent past, but if our compassion were supposed to be limited to those we believe blameless, it wouldn't be worth much.
Finally, if, as Craig claims, he isn't gay, and this whole incident was just a misunderstanding, compounded by a hasty guilty plea (a scenario very few people seem to be taking seriously), then he truly is an ill-fated, drive-by victim of circumstance. That's terrible, but irremediable, terrible luck does befall people. He’s in a better position than most to pick up the pieces and get on with his life.
My understanding is that there were about two months between the incident and the guilty plea. I can understand someone who hastily pled guilty that same day or even the same week but two months seems ample time to retain counsel and weigh the pros and cons. He had to have known that his political career was dead once it became public that he pled guilty.
There were several complaints which started the undercover investigation. Perhaps the cop found this issue silly and didn't want to bring charges against a guy, instead giving them a warning after scaring them a bit to seriously stop/deter further actions. He showed his police id right before a more serious crime was committed.
Senator Larry Craig then tried to show he was above the law by doing this "Craig handed me a business card that identified himself as a United States Senator as he stated, 'What do you think about that?'" Since Craig tried to act like he was above the rules of ordinary citizens the police officer decided to arrest the man, and then advocated the DA do a "disorderly conduct" charge.
Which is correct when referring to a plea in the courts: pleaded (he pleaded not guilty) or pled (he pled not guilty)?
"I don't think asking a stranger for sex in a public place, while vulgar and rude under many circumstances, would by itself be a crime under state law."
This begs the question of whether peering in between bathroom partitions, stroking an individual with your foot from an adjoining stall, and reaching underneath to communicate your sexual desires constitutes offensive conduct, sufficient to sustain a disorderly conduct charge. I'm pretty sure "offensiveness" is a fact question, and most people (regardless of sexual orientation) would agree that this behavior qualifies.
Of course, as a counterpoint, the fact that the officer responded to the tapping of the feet, and only then did Craig escalate his conduct, would seem to preclude the conclusion that the follow-up conduct was offensive. So there's that.
I think the statement that "Larry Craig and his party have done a lot to make people's sex lives other people's business" is a red herring, and I'd bet the majority of Republicans are just as tolerant of gays as Democrats are. Like I say, it's politics, and that's a dirty business and I understand that.
I find the whole bathroom sex thing to be disturbing. Back in 1995, I was in a bathroom at a convention center. I just wanted to have a quiet, peaceful evacuation of bodily wastes in one of the stalls. Instead, someone got into the stall next to me, and this hand reached under the divider between the stalls! I got out of there as fast as I could!
LOL.
I have to agree that every single item on this list has a perfectly innocent explanation. (1) Putting luggage at the front of the stall is really fairly common in Airports - I do it all the time; I don't want to leave my luggage out of my sight, &there is really no other place to put it in most of those narrow stalls (only a very few Airport Restrooms have those ledges behind the toilet, &those are usually too narrow for all but carryon items); (2) peered through a crack into an adjoining stall - alright, I will admit that this is a little creepy, but I could certainly understand it if he discovered after the fact that the stall he was in was devoid of john paper - your first instinct is to try to find some within reach without having to get up; (3) tapped his foot -- I don't even know what this means -if it means in some sort of rythm, maybe a song he liked came on his iPod (or, less likely, but possible, the Airport Muzak); maybe he had a cramp or his foot fell asleep from the long plane ride; I'm not familiar with "signals" for solicitation of gay sex in public bathrooms, but if tapping your foot is one, it's mighty subtle, and I'm certain that I've been guilty of this at one time or another with absolutely no thought at all that I was inviting gay sex; (4) moved his shoe over until it touched an officer's - this is just bizarre - those stalls are often very narrow, &it's very hard to find anyplace to put your feet while leaving room to part your knees; I'm quite certain that I've slid one shoe or another under the divider of a narrow stall before, and while I've never run it up on another person's shoe, it certainly could have happened purely by accident; and (4) running his finger along the bottom of the stall - once again, this seems a little creepy (especially if he was aware that the next stall was occupied), but again, if this is a signal for gay sex, it's pretty subtle and subject to a lot of misinterpretation - if it happened to me, I'd be just as likely to think that the guy in the next stall suffered from OCD, and touching the stall bottom (maybe checking for dust) was just one of his idiosyncratic tics.
Frankly, the ONLY thing in the whole story that makes me think that he was soliciting for gay sex in the airport bathroom was the fact that he plead guilty -- and also maybe the fact that he didn't go postal on the airport cop for making an arrest on such tissue paper thin inferences from REALLY ambiguous conduct - I'd have had to plead guilty to resisting arrest, possibly assault, if some a**h*le cop tried to arrest me on those kind of bogus charges, because I certainly would have argued vehemently that the charge was complete bullsh*t, and I certainly would have been calling the cop a LOT of really vulgar names if he interrupted an important trip on that basis.
"...it is homosexuals who raised the issue by filing suits to force states to recognize same-sex marriage."
That's true. But raising the issue is hardly "obsession," especially when the reason for raising the issue is so critical — stuff like inheritance and hospital rights etc etc. It seems to me that it is Republicans who can't let go of the issue.
Yes, I think it's a fair statement to say that Republicans are obsessed by homosexual sex. I can't quite figure out why but it's pretty obvious that it's a real real big deal for them. At least that's how it appears to a straight male middle-aged Democrat.
No one here should take that as a negative, btw. If Republicans have a fascination for homosexual sex, hey! Life's short! Go for it!
If a legislator votes for a homicide law, and then later gets into an argument with someone and shoots him, would anybody say, "Boy, this legislator is a hypocrite! He says murder should be illegal, but then he murders someone!"? Of course not. Hypocrisy would be if Craig said, "It's okay for me to be gay, but not for other people." I don't believe he said the second part, but he definitely didn't say the first part.
cue: have it your way joke
carry on...
You are right though Hypocrisy is not neccessary occurs if someone doesn't live up to his expectations/preaching. Hypocricy does occur when it the hypocrite calls for punishments, shame, or verbally attacks people who do this and then expects a different situation for himself. Larry Craig tried to get out of the incident by showing his senate card, this act is what makes him a hypocrite not him having gay sex, for "lack of moral strength."
1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy
Done bin hoysted by your peetard, or something.
And of course Craig would never say that -- he's not gay! Duh!
That and stupidity. Which should be impeachable. "Stupidity" in elected officials seems definitely to be a "high crime" and "misdemeanor".
Posts worth checking out, include this one by Daniel Drezner (a big-time war supporter), who discusses another article discussing the similiarities between Iraq and Lebannon. It's eerie how right on that other article was.
Another interesting post is by Eugene here, where he states:
I only looked at posts about a month or two before and after the war started. I couldn't find anything critical of the decision to go to declare war.
Asking for special treatment because one is an Important Person is either an attempt at a threat or a bribe.
The meaning has changed. Even Wikipedia defines hypocrisy as: "the act of condemning another person, when the critic is guilty of the same thing that is being condemned."
No offense, btw, as I feel your pain and myself used to flip out when people used "begs the question" as meaning: "an answer begging for an additional question." Then I realized that language changes - whether we like it or not.
In fact, that we have a language at all begs the question: How did we get ever get language? God didn't hand us a dictionary. Rather through enough use (and "misuse") we have our own American English.
Talk about poignant...what do you think of this one:
"Listening to the President on the radio last night, I kept thinking, "Man, I sure hope he knows what he's doing."
Orin Kerr
http://volokh.com/2003_03_16_volokh_archive.html#200005116
That's not to pick on Orin. While I was not a war supporter, neither was I out marching against the war. We let down our country. We all have a lot to apologize for concerning the Iraq War. I am sure some day soon we'll see books wondering how many smart people could be so incredibly gullible.
Imagine that someone has a genetic predisposition for pedophilia. Surely no one would say that this person, to be consistent, should believe that this inclination is right and openly advocate pedophilia. On the contrary, we would have more respect for the pedophile who understands that his predispositions are deeply wrong and who makes an effort not to act on them. Same goes for homosexuality: if there are reasons why a straight person can believe that homosexuality is on balance bad for society, then a homosexual may also believe that homosexuality is on balance bad for society. Some liberals would argue that no one can reasonably maintain that homosexuality is bad for society, but that is a separate argument that would apply for everyone, regardless of sexual preferences.
This is why, at the end of the day, I am quite sympathetic for people like Craig. The man fought for what he believes in all his life, rather than taking the easy way out by assuming that he own predispositions are necessary moral and joining the Democratic Party. What he did in that bathroom was wrong, of course, and he deserves the same punishment as what an ordinary person would get for the same conduct. Maybe I am just more tolerant of homosexuality than are most conservatives, but part of me feels that, by aiming at living a moral life despite his inclinations, Craig deserves, in a sense, more respect than your ordinary straight pro-family Republican (for whom supporting a socially conservative agenda has to be easier).