More Thoughts on Larry Craig
In my first post on Larry Craig which I had to write in a rush as I was chairing a meeting that evening, I wrote that I expected I’d have “more to say about this at a later time.” Well, as I was collecting my thoughts, Pajamas Media asked me to write a piece on the situation which is now up on their web-site.
To whet your appetitie, I’ll give you the first paragraphs and then encourage you to read the rest at Pajamas:
When I first read about the arrest of Senator Larry Craig in a restroom at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Aiport earlier this summer, I was stunned. I wondered how a man in his position could have shown as little judgment as he had.
Ten months ago, he was the subject of rumors in the blogosphere, talk radio, cable TV and even a few mainstream newspapers that he had engaged in sexual acts with other men in restrooms at Union Station in Washington, D.C. At the time, I was skeptical of the claims, but also thought that if they were true, the Senator, realizing that his restroom activities were not as anonymous as he had assumed, would have ceased seeking them out.
Last October, he escaped the public humiliation he is experiencing today. Indeed, his local paper, the Idaho Statesman had followed up on the allegations against him, but until this Monday, “had declined to run a story about Craig’s sex life, because [it] didn’t have enough corroborating evidence and because of the senator’s steadfast denial” (Via Hugh Hewitt). The paper even interviewed the Senator. He was thus well aware that people knew about his actions.
39 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
You’re right on this one….you know that the inevitable is already being reported, that yet another Republican is saying one thing and (quite literally) doing another. However, this is not about hypocrisy, it is about a lack of judgement.
One of the biggest criticisms of gay men is our inability to “keep it in our pants”. Actions like those of Sen. Craig simply reinforce this.
This isn’t about his political affiliation, this is about his stupidity…… STEP DOWN!
p.s. Sen. Craig: If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…..chances are you’re a duck!
Comment by JimO — August 29, 2007 @ 11:42 am - August 29, 2007
Isn’t it convenient that this story breaks just in time to bury any coverage of Hillary’s peculiar campaign donors?
Comment by V the K — August 29, 2007 @ 12:08 pm - August 29, 2007
[...] Original post by GayPatriotWest [...]
Pingback by Politics: 2008 HQ » Blog Archive » More Thoughts on Larry Craig — August 29, 2007 @ 12:53 pm - August 29, 2007
Dan, good article, and congrats on the Focus placement at PJM!
Indeed. And now we hear that, compounding the error, Craig is showing his narcissism and arrogance to boot – further lying about his situation and actions, when he should be resigning and disappearing for the good of Idaho and America.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 29, 2007 @ 1:48 pm - August 29, 2007
@2: LOL. Maybe Craig should stop timing his repressed closet-case antics to match the story that somebody donated money to a politician.
Comment by torrentprime — August 29, 2007 @ 2:29 pm - August 29, 2007
Larry Craig gets a new publicist.
There, fixed it for you.
Comment by V the K — August 29, 2007 @ 3:00 pm - August 29, 2007
Wait…how did you know about my appetitie? Aphrodite?
Comment by HardHobbit — August 29, 2007 @ 3:47 pm - August 29, 2007
Blame-Shifting Without a Clutch…
Fellow blogger and friend GayPatriotWest has a good piece up today covering the ongoing saga of apparent restroom frequenter Senator Larry Craig.
But I have a quibble with the thrust of several statements he makes………
Trackback by North Dallas Thirty — August 29, 2007 @ 5:25 pm - August 29, 2007
You can imagine what it’s like here The Athens of Attitude, Boston. Only a surrender to Hugo Chavez would thrill these Liberals more. Their shaden-freude makes today’s humidity effervescent. (Hmmn, I might use that line again.)
Comment by Shawmut — August 29, 2007 @ 6:54 pm - August 29, 2007
Shawmut, I hope you’re letting the babies have their bottle
Craig deserves their (verbal) abuse, even if they’re probably missing the real reasons. If the Republicans fail to pressure Craig to do the right thing (as he seems disinclined to do), they will deserve it as well.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 29, 2007 @ 7:00 pm - August 29, 2007
A man as stupid as we now know Craig to be does not belong in the US Senate. If he has any decency left, let him resign NOW. The sooner he disappears into the background the sooner we can get on with far more important issues. So, today he resigns his committees. Senator Craig…avoid wasting all that paper and resign NOW from the US Senate and do it all in one fell swoop. Continuing this charade shows you put yourself before the good of his state and country. Every day that passes prolongs the agony.
Comment by benj — August 29, 2007 @ 7:01 pm - August 29, 2007
When you think about it, you can’t really have a “wide stance” while sitting on the john unless your pants are already off.
Comment by V the K — August 29, 2007 @ 7:26 pm - August 29, 2007
Why is it so hard to believe Senator Craig is not gay? A gay person is not simply “one who has at any time engaged in homosexual activity”, or “who under certain conditions will engage in homosexual activity.” A gay person is one who in his attraction to the same gender will find a more fulfilled life and will than give better of himself to others. That’s not Craig.
The unfortunate myth that no heterosexuals ever engage in same-sex activity, and so everyone who does must be gay, is being used by bigots to denigrate gay people. This myth is most advanced by liberals, but conservatives (bigots) are making full use of it to denigrate gay people.
Comment by arturo fernandez — August 29, 2007 @ 7:41 pm - August 29, 2007
“…same-sex activity…” should be “same-sex sexual activity”.
Comment by arturo fernandez — August 29, 2007 @ 7:55 pm - August 29, 2007
Yes, and “Thanks for coming out.”
You just can’t make this stuff up.
Comment by Cosmic Tap — August 29, 2007 @ 8:20 pm - August 29, 2007
arturo, no one here cares if Craig is officially “gay” or not – except (in the unlikely event he’s reading) Craig… and you.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 29, 2007 @ 8:43 pm - August 29, 2007
Top 10 Reasons Why Senator Craig was hanging out in the men’s room:
10) Giving homeland security an ‘oral exam’
9) Weak bladder due to Viagra abuse
7) ‘Stall? I thought this was first-class on Jet Blue’?!?
6) Scouting locations for his next Falcon Video shoot
5) Super –Secret-Select-Senate investigation into…tile
4) “Minneapolis? This isn’t Denmark?!?”
3) Foley & McGreevy gave this place two thumbs up
2) He just quit smoking – and this just seems to help
1) Doing the job ordinary Americans just won’t do
Cheers!
Comment by Vera Charles — August 29, 2007 @ 9:01 pm - August 29, 2007
I know the bathroom meetings were a problem here in Ohio back in the 90’s, I want to know who the cop pissed off to draw that duty.
“Hey Bill, remember how I said I’d not hold it against you that you said my daughter was hot? Here’s your assignment.”
Comment by The Livewire — August 29, 2007 @ 9:15 pm - August 29, 2007
I find it pretty funny that the Republicans, many of whom claim to hold christian values, do not extend the spirit of forgiveness that christians who are supposed to espouse. They are ready to give Craig the immediate boot via some kind of indignant morality. Meanwhile, as noted in other posts, supposedly godless, religion hating democrats have exercised forgiveness in returning some who have committed crimes back to office via their votes. Just an obersvation.
Comment by Kevin — August 29, 2007 @ 9:24 pm - August 29, 2007
ILoveCapitalism:
It’s obvious that you don’t care that social conservatives love to associate all kinds of misbehaviors to “gay”.
Comment by arturo fernandez — August 29, 2007 @ 9:44 pm - August 29, 2007
No arturo, I don’t. I mean, at least not in the sense you mean.
First, it’s almost entirely out of my control. Second, to the extent gays do bad behaviors (and some out / proud gays are in on some nasty stuff, including restroom-cruising with Craig, catching HIV on purpose, etc.) and we fail to call them on it (or each other), we deserve it. Emphasize, to that extent. Third, to the extent gays DON’T do bad behaviors, then we DON’T deserve it… and the truth has a way of coming out, so to speak. (“The truth will out” over time.)
Bottom line: In the long run, the way to stop conservatives “associating all kinds of misbehaviors to ‘gay’” is twofold. (1) Talk to conservatives and correct any really unfair misconceptions; don’t abuse conservatives nor shun them. (2) Just don’t do the worst misbehaviors.
The only person I control is myself, and I do my bit on both scores. Do you?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 29, 2007 @ 10:04 pm - August 29, 2007
ILoveCapitalism, give me a break. You love to attack those who disagree with you. You are now saying we must play nice? Give me a break.
I do concede that not all conservatives are bigots. “To the extent” that they are, they need to be told it.
Comment by arturo fernandez — August 29, 2007 @ 10:25 pm - August 29, 2007
#19, Forgiveness does not mean you are not punished for your crime. If he is guilty (which he already admitted) then he should be punished for his crime.
He is forgiven his sin when he does his time… and repents.
Comment by Good vs. Evil — August 29, 2007 @ 10:34 pm - August 29, 2007
23: He pleaded guilty, the court fined him $500 in fines and fees, he received a 10 day jail sentence (stayed) and one year probation which began August 8th. Therefore, he’s received his justice as MN state law allows. I’m not sure where the repent part part enters into state law, so who exactly decides that? Does repenting mean that he comes clean and that in addition to his crime, he admits he’s either gay or bisexual?
Comment by Kevin — August 29, 2007 @ 10:51 pm - August 29, 2007
#24
How about this:
*Sen. Craig launched an “illegal and immoral war” on public decency!
*Craig lied, sperm died! Craig didn’t have the UN’s permission to enter the gent’s and he went in without building a coalition first.
*The fourth stall was sovereign territory which he invaded pre-emptively.
*How many poor, uneducated, innocent sperm have to die to satiate(sp?) his lust?
*He should have gotten out of there when no Whoppers of Mass Defecation were found.
And last, but not least,
*He should have pulled out a long time ago.
Sound better?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 29, 2007 @ 11:19 pm - August 29, 2007
#22 – arturo, that’s a lame answer. Way to avoid my question.
I answered your (implied) question. (Implied because you stated it as an assertion.) You can’t return a favor?
In my conclusion to #21, all I really said was:
1) Gay people should come out of the closet, to conservatives, with a mixture of courage and goodwill. (Yup. That’s what we called it, in my day… “Coming out”.)
2) Out gay people should NOT cruise restrooms like Craig or the other closet cases. Just don’t. (Nor deliberately catch HIV. And so on.)
Just common-sense stuff. I’m good on both scores. I inquired calmly if you were. You couldn’t as calmly say yes? Instead, you go off into a claim that I was somehow “attacking those who disagree with” me? and “[wrongly or excessively] saying we must play nice?”
Whoa… dude… !
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 30, 2007 @ 12:50 am - August 30, 2007
ILoveCapitalism, I didn’t answer your question because, frankly, it was a lame question.
Comment by arturo fernandez — August 30, 2007 @ 1:07 am - August 30, 2007
Another lame dodge.
What should I think now, arturo? I won’t make any assumptions. I will let you tell me. Shall I, or shall I not, think that you have problems in (1) coming out to conservatives, and/or (2) keeping your cruising away from public restrooms?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — August 30, 2007 @ 1:11 am - August 30, 2007
I find it pretty funny that the Republicans, many of whom claim to hold christian values, do not extend the spirit of forgiveness that christians who are supposed to espouse. They are ready to give Craig the immediate boot via some kind of indignant morality. Meanwhile, as noted in other posts, supposedly godless, religion hating democrats have exercised forgiveness in returning some who have committed crimes back to office via their votes.
You have confused “forgiveness” with “deliberately overlooking criminal acts for political purposes”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 30, 2007 @ 2:01 am - August 30, 2007
NDT, ain’t it funny how libs who treat the Bible as garbage are always so quick to judge and lecture people they think aren’t living up to it. If nothing else in the Bible counts as moral authority, why should “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” matter to a leftist?
Hypocrisy abounds.
Comment by V the K — August 30, 2007 @ 5:34 am - August 30, 2007
Actually, Craig timed it back in June – that’s when it happened. Its now almost September, and V the K is absolutely that its awfully convenient for Shrillary that the press somehow missed the story for 3 months. Or were they sitting on it?
Comment by Will (American Elephant) — August 30, 2007 @ 5:43 am - August 30, 2007
Also, on the issue of the left’s complete idiocy on matters of faith, witness the Democrats’ ham-handed smear campaign against Bobby Jindal in Louisiana, where desperate Democrats are managing to alienate Protestants and Catholics alike because they just don’t get religion.
It failed, too. Jindal is still 30 points ahead in all the polls. I wonder when he’ll be president? 2013 or 2017?
Comment by V the K — August 30, 2007 @ 10:24 am - August 30, 2007
Wait, you were in a restroom at MSP when you read about the arrest?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 30, 2007 @ 12:38 pm - August 30, 2007
#32
What gets me is I still remember how, after the 04 elections, liberals carrying on incessantly about what big idiots Christians are. Now, we’re supposed to believe they give a damn? Please.
I suppose next they’ll be telling us that partial birth abortion is the eleventh commandment followed by “Thou shalt bugger thy page” as the twelfth.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — August 30, 2007 @ 12:44 pm - August 30, 2007
Democrats treat religion the same way that they do minorities; show token pain, pretend to care, and then prance off and do something totally contradictory.
The difference is that the religious are not as stupid as minorities.
Seriously. Look at the Democrats’ constitutency — an organization (the NAACP) trying to get someone off the hook for running a dog-fighting ring because he’s black, and an organization (NGLTF) arguing that putting police sting operations in public restrooms where there have been complaints about sexual activity is infringing on the gay right to have public sex.
You can understand why, then, Democrats think they’re just appealing to another group of dimbulbs.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — August 30, 2007 @ 2:35 pm - August 30, 2007
how is what he did breaking the law? Since when is it illegal to ask someone if they want to have sex with you? or is it only illegal if you’re gay?
David Vitter is still in office and he was caught being involved with a (straight) prostitution ring. no one asked him to resign.
The republican party is 100% anti-gay.
Comment by diego — September 1, 2007 @ 9:27 am - September 1, 2007
Since when is it illegal to ask someone if they want to have sex with you?
In a public restroom?
Do all Democrat gays support public lewdness and sex like you do?
David Vitter is still in office and he was caught being involved with a (straight) prostitution ring. no one asked him to resign.
When do you intend to ask prostitute ring OPERATOR Barney Frank to resign?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 1, 2007 @ 2:52 pm - September 1, 2007
#36 – “The republican [sic] party is 100% anti-gay.”
Care to back that up with facts, Carmen San Diego? Please show proof.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — September 1, 2007 @ 6:38 pm - September 1, 2007
All I can say is that more than 3 weeks after this story broke, with round the clock media, and not a single man has come forward with a claim to have had sex with Senator Craig.
And the 10 month investigation by his hometown newspaper came up with one source that they themselves called unrelliable.
So maybe it’s time to stop assuming that he intended to make communicative signals, maybe it was all unintentional – and maybe he really has been a faithful husband for two decades.
Because, absent solid proof, doesn’t he deserve some benefit of the doubt?
Comment by Amber W — September 22, 2007 @ 1:26 pm - September 22, 2007