Republican Senator pleads guilty to lewd conduct in a men's room

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
I heard it reported that he said he touched the guy's foot because he has a "wide stance" in the bathroom. Naturally, I assumed he was at a urinal. I never heard of a wide stance for #2. I usually sit myself

[/ QUOTE ]

To keep you pants from touching that nasty floor.....a wider stance will keep your pants from touching the floor.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Much as it pains me, I have to agree with my friend Peter here. Let's say the guy was indeed trying to solicit sex with another man. So what? And if Peter thinks that's OK, who wouldn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

I usually don't have a whole lot of use for Jonah Goldberg and his commentary, but I thought he made a blog post yesterday that was spot on:

National Review: The Corner

"The left doesn’t – as a matter of passion or strong principle – really mind gay cruising, they mind people who really disapprove of gay cruising. If Craig’s personal conduct really offended liberals, Jim McGreevey – a seedier man personally than Craig by any conventional standard – wouldn’t be a hero. But, no, it’s Craig’s political conduct, not his personal conduct, that offends the left."

Exactly. Count me as a leftist who fits the description Goldberg lays out: I don't give a whit if Craig wants to have an anonymous tryst with the guy in the next stall. It's not Craig's personal conduct that offends me. It's his long-time membership in the holier-than-thou-moralizing-windbag party, that demonstrates time and time again its leaderships' rhetoric about respecting family values is nothing more than a bunch hot air meant to exploit the Christian right.

So despite the claims of adios about what he hears on Air America, I think this is the vast majority of criticism Craig has faced from the left: it's not that he wants to hookup with random guys in the bathroom -- most leftists I know are more than happy to let Craig have at it, sans judgment, if he wants. I mean, I think most people, even the very liberal, might question the prudence of trolling the shitter next to you for action, but I don't think most on the left really care all that much about that, either.

No, the critics chide the fact that Craig spends his day job riding the moral high horse, exploiting his conservative Christian constituents and touting "traditional family values", which most everyone correctly notes is nothing more than right-wing code for "we don't like gays, single mothers, or sex education in public schools!", while simultaneously engaging in behavior he so ardently claims to oppose.

The head-scratching from the right about why Democrats don't face the same lasting disparagements in the popular culture as Republicans is laughable: if the Vitters and Craigs of the world didn't spend so much time lauding the importance, necessity, and sanctity of traditional heterosexual relationships, the level of schadenfraude when said gasbags get caught with prostitutes, or get arrested cruising for gay sex in airport bathrooms wouldn't be nearly as high.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. Count me as a leftist who fits the description Goldberg lays out: I don't give a whit if Craig wants to have an anonymous tryst with the guy in the next stall. It's not Craig's personal conduct that offends me. It's his long-time membership in the holier-than-thou-moralizing-windbag party, that demonstrates time and time again its leaderships' rhetoric about respecting family values is nothing more than a bunch hot air meant to exploit the Christian right.

So despite the claims of adios about what he hears on Air America, I think this is the vast majority of criticism Craig has faced from the left: it's not that he wants to hookup with random guys in the bathroom -- most leftists I know are more than happy to let Craig have at it, sans judgment, if he wants.

No, the critics chide the fact that Craig spends his day job riding the moral high horse, exploiting his conservative Christian constituents and touting "traditional family values", which most everyone correctly notes is nothing more than right-wing code for "we don't like gays, single mothers, or sex education in public schools!", while simultaneously engaging in behavior he so ardently claims to oppose.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the issue is denouncing politicians that are hypocrits, then I'm all for it. I think we should all agree that one's private actions and public positions should match. However, where are you DVaut (and your friends in the MSM) on liberals who don't always practice what they preach?

For instance, polliticans who moralize on issues like the environment, while blocking wind mills that might interfere with their view of the ocean? Or those who drive SUV's, fly private planes, and live in mansions that require a lot of energy to heat/air condition, while lecturing me about energy conservation?

I hear Democrats moralize on issues like poverty, and how they care so much more about the poor than the Republicans. Then you see tax returns on some of these people and their charitable contributions are very modest. Isn't there some hypocrisy there?

And my favorite, the issue of public schools. I hear politicians moralize all the time on how horrible school choice programs are, and how we must support the public schools. And where do a lot of these politicians send their kids? To the public schools that they champion? Um no. They send them to private schools.

If a family values politicians engages in lewd behavior, then nail them to the wall on hypocrisy charges. I am with you DVaut. But if you have any consistency, you will join me in condemning liberal politicians whose private actions don't always match their public policy positions on certain issues.

[monkeyfightclub]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm wrong but Craig is being villified for not coming out of the closet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the married Senator is being vilified for consistently trumpeting "family values" while cruising public bathrooms for anonymous sexual encounters.

Hard for me to shed a tear when a married Senator trying to pick up the guy in the next stall for a quicky gets caught in a questionable sting by law enforcement while his political and ideological allies simultaneously make careers out of demonizing homosexuals for political gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you been listening to Air America the last few days? He's being derided not only for being a hypocrit about his voting stances but he's also being derided for not being able to come out of the closet. The former seems to be legitimate, the latter seems very hateful to me. Maybe the latter is confined to Air America broadcasts only but I'm fairly certain it isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see what Air America has to do with the Craig issue? Air America is not what I'd call "mainstream" by any stretch.

[andyfox]

I never thought I'd be having this discussion, but . . . I think you can only spread your legs so far and your pants won't give any more. But I'll give it a try next time.

Anyway, let's give him that one. But what about standing in front of the stall and peaking in through the crack (pun intended)? Checking to see if the guy fell in? And what about swiping his hand under the stall divider several times? Maybe there was no toilet paper and he was cleaning it off? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I realize this is a human being who might well be struggling with tough issues, but this sure does lend itself beautifully to comedy.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
I never thought I'd be having this discussion, but . . . I think you can only spread your legs so far and your pants won't give any more. But I'll give it a try next time.

Anyway, let's give him that one. But what about standing in front of the stall and peaking in through the crack (pun intended)? Checking to see if the guy fell in? And what about swiping his hand under the stall divider several times? Maybe there was no toilet paper and he was cleaning it off?

I realize this is a human being who might well be struggling with tough issues, but this sure does lend itself beautifully to comedy.


[/ QUOTE ]

I just heard the audio tape of Craig and the arresting officer. The officer said Craig reached under the stall with his left hand, because that is the hand his wedding ring was on. Since Craig was on the stall to this guy's left, he almost certainly wouldn't reach under the stall to his right with his left hand if he was simply trying to pick up a piece of toilet paper, as Craig claims.

I am still not sure why this is a criminal act, but Craig was clearly trying to send some signal in this incident. Does anybody know if using your left hand is the secret gay signal? I am not sure what the other explaination could be as to why he would reach under the stall with his left hand.

On a side note, can you imagine how unlucky this policeman was to draw this assignment? To spend the whole day in the men's room at the airport sitting on the toilet, waiting for gay men to use subtle and not to subtle signals to ask you for sex. This guy must have really drawn the short straw.

On another side note, I saw a story on CNN tonight about the airport in Atlanta. They have charged 40 men recently for lewd conduct there. Apparently airport bathrooms are the hot places to meet people for sex. Considering all the internet sites devoted to meeting people for sex, I am not sure why patronizing an airport bathroom for such purposes is necessary.

[niss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. Count me as a leftist who fits the description Goldberg lays out: I don't give a whit if Craig wants to have an anonymous tryst with the guy in the next stall. It's not Craig's personal conduct that offends me. It's his long-time membership in the holier-than-thou-moralizing-windbag party, that demonstrates time and time again its leaderships' rhetoric about respecting family values is nothing more than a bunch hot air meant to exploit the Christian right.

So despite the claims of adios about what he hears on Air America, I think this is the vast majority of criticism Craig has faced from the left: it's not that he wants to hookup with random guys in the bathroom -- most leftists I know are more than happy to let Craig have at it, sans judgment, if he wants.

No, the critics chide the fact that Craig spends his day job riding the moral high horse, exploiting his conservative Christian constituents and touting "traditional family values", which most everyone correctly notes is nothing more than right-wing code for "we don't like gays, single mothers, or sex education in public schools!", while simultaneously engaging in behavior he so ardently claims to oppose.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the issue is denouncing politicians that are hypocrits, then I'm all for it. I think we should all agree that one's private actions and public positions should match. However, where are you DVaut (and your friends in the MSM) on liberals who don't always practice what they preach?

For instance, polliticans who moralize on issues like the environment, while blocking wind mills that might interfere with their view of the ocean? Or those who drive SUV's, fly private planes, and live in mansions that require a lot of energy to heat/air condition, while lecturing me about energy conservation?

I hear Democrats moralize on issues like poverty, and how they care so much more about the poor than the Republicans. Then you see tax returns on some of these people and their charitable contributions are very modest. Isn't there some hypocrisy there?

And my favorite, the issue of public schools. I hear politicians moralize all the time on how horrible school choice programs are, and how we must support the public schools. And where do a lot of these politicians send their kids? To the public schools that they champion? Um no. They send them to private schools.

If a family values politicians engages in lewd behavior, then nail them to the wall on hypocrisy charges. I am with you DVaut. But if you have any consistency, you will join me in condemning liberal politicians whose private actions don't always match their public policy positions on certain issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL at comparing the hypocrisy of jackasses who claim moral superiority and who seek to deprive average Americans of their freedoms to someone driving an SUV or opposing a windmill project.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL at comparing the hypocrisy of jackasses who claim moral superiority and who seek to deprive average Americans of their freedoms to someone driving and SUV or opposing a windmill project.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok..i'll bite. Why LOL. You don't think it is hypocritical to support energy conservation, and claim moral superiority on the issue, while driving an SUV and living in a mansion? If not, why not? Seems hypocritical to me.

If my examples weren't hypocrisy, can you please give me an example of how a liberal politician could be a hypocrit?

[andyfox]

The guy's been rumored to have had or solicited public sex for decades. And, as Tucker Carlson points out, now he gets arrested for the same thing. That's one hell of a coincidence.

And, I don't know about you, but when a piece of toilet paper falls on the floor in a public restroom, I let it escape.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
The guy's been rumored to have had or solicited public sex for decades. And, as Tucker Carlson points out, now he gets arrested for the same thing. That's one hell of a coincidence.

And, I don't know about you, but when a piece of toilet paper falls on the floor in a public restroom, I let it escape.


[/ QUOTE ]

I know the Idaho Statesman has been on this story for a while. Apparently they have several men on record who claimed to sexual encounters with Sen. Craig. I also saw an interesing clip of Craig from 1982 denying any involvment in the Page program sex controversy, despite the fact that his name wasn't even mentioned. He doth protest too much.

I noticed in his denial, he kept saying he wasn't gay. As far as I remember from watching a clip of that statement, he never said he had never engaged in any gay sex acts. I guess it is possible to have engaged in occasional gay sex and think you aren't gay. Either way, he clearly has personal conflicts he needs to resolve.