They manipulated your patriotism, your morals, and your faith…

Gotta feel pretty stupid if you voted for them based on those things, huh?

Senator, Arrested at Airport, Pleads Guilty

Published: August 28, 2007

WASHINGTON, Aug. 27 — Senator Larry E. Craig, Republican of Idaho, was arrested in June by an undercover police officer in a men’s bathroom at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, and pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in the case three weeks ago.

Mr. Craig, 62, was fined more than $500 and placed on unsupervised probation for a year. A 10-day jail sentence was suspended, according to a copy of a court document in the case. A second charge, interference with privacy, was dismissed.

According to a police report obtained by the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, which disclosed the episode and the guilty plea Monday, a plainclothes police officer investigating complaints of sexual activity in the bathroom arrested the senator on June 11 after what the officer described as sexual advances made by Mr. Craig from an adjoining stall.

By Roll Call’s account, the officer said Mr. Craig had tapped his foot, in what the officer called a known signal to engage in lewd conduct, and had also brushed his foot against the investigator’s and waved his hand under the stall divider several times before the officer showed him his badge. After the arrest the senator denied any sexual intent, and in a statement issued Monday afternoon he attributed the matter to a misunderstanding.

“At the time of this incident, I complained to the police that they were misconstruing my actions,” Mr. Craig said in the statement. “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.””

Who wants to bet me that he’ll try to say he just needed some toilet paper? Click the article title to read it all.


—–Original Message—–

From: BreakingNews@MAIL.CNN.COM [mailto:BreakingNews@MAIL.CNN.COM]

Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 4:45 PM


Subject: CNN Breaking News

— Sen. Larry Craig, who was arrested on misdemeanor disorderly conduct in a bathroom, denies he is gay and accuses a newspaper of a witchhunt.

Responds one YoBimbo reader:

“I KNEW Roll Call had an agenda other than reporting on the goings-on of Capitol Hill!

'I am not gay'

Senator arrested in bathroom: ‘I am not gay’

(This headline and photo from CNN cracked me up. LOL!)


31 responses

  1. The next time I need to use the public bathroom, I’ll surely keep in mind not to tap my foot, for fear that either Craig or Allen will show up.

    It never ceases to amaze me as to how these men can claim morality, and then seek BJs in bathrooms, out of all places.

    BJs are freaking great, but they’re better if they’re from your girlfriend, and in the comfort of your own car …errr …bedroom.

    Christ! What’s next, Cheney hitting on a Secret Service Agent?

    August 28, 2007 at 9:58 am

  2. I just read in my recent issue of Mental Floss that LBJ “relieved himself” on a Secret Service agent who was shielding him from view. Does that count?

    And don’t forget… Cheney has already gotten away with shooting someone… outing a CIA agent… removing himself from the Executive Branch… (nice try, buddy).

    August 28, 2007 at 10:01 am

  3. NS

    I was under the impression that he tapped his foot, then moved his foot closer to the officer in question. Seems like this is less an example of hypocrisy than it is an all-too-common example of overzealous and bigoted policing.

    August 28, 2007 at 10:26 pm

  4. Maybe, maybe not. I’m inclined to think it’s most likely that it’s not. Did you read the incident report?

    How often do you find yourself in a bathroom stall, innocently tapping your foot and then moving it to touch the foot of the person in the stall next to you?

    There was more than just the foot thing. I know why you’re skeptical. I’m sure it’s clear why I want to believe it.

    It’s not the first time he’s been accused of inappropriate behavior. I’d say the odds are against his story.

    August 28, 2007 at 10:52 pm

  5. NS

    Not that I’m a fan of the guy or anything, but my point is that the proper focus and outrage might be more efficiently directed against a police force and prosecution that prosecutes people for this kind of behavior. If he did mean to solicit a consensual sexual encounter, then fine — he’s a hypocrite, nothing new. I find it more remarkable that “signaling” that he wants to get it on with another willing man is a statutory crime, misdemeanor or no.

    Imagine if a straight man were accused of the exact same behavior, this time with a female in the next (uhh, unisex) stall. Would arrest be appropriate?

    August 29, 2007 at 8:27 am

  6. I understand what you’re saying, now. I really couldn’t care less if they’re having orgies in the bathrooms… okay, I actually DO care, because I don’t want to pee in the midst of that, and it’s unsafe. My point of view here, though, is purely political.

    And as for your example, I do believe that they would be arrested for lewd behavior as well. It just wouldn’t make the papers. Well, then again, it MIGHT, if the man were Barney Frank. ;)

    August 29, 2007 at 9:47 am

  7. And, I happen to think that arrest is appropriate for people having sexual encounters in public restrooms. While I think that whatever people do with each other consensually is their own business, I don’t need it to be MY business when I go to the restroom to do my business.

    August 29, 2007 at 9:49 am

  8. NS

    Then make it a civil penalty. Fine ’em. But criminal charges? Ridiculous. And I do not believe that straight people engaging in this “lewd” conduct are prosecuted anywhere near as often as homosexuals. The law may be worded so as to make them equally culpable, but is selectively enforced.

    August 29, 2007 at 10:12 am

  9. NS


    August 29, 2007 at 10:18 am

  10. NS

    If you need more cites not available on Google, just ask. ;)

    August 29, 2007 at 10:23 am

  11. Nope. Don’t need any more cites, because your issue is not the same as my issue.

    It’s interesting that you’ve moved from not being so sure he did anything wrong to arguing that the penalty is too severe and is applied more heavily against homosexuals.

    I, personally, do not want to walk into a bathroom with people engaged in sexual activity. Period. And, having been involved lately in dealing with the issues of hazardous body substances and infection control at work, I’m even less inclined to agree with you on the civil penalty option due to the public health aspect.

    That being said, there’s plenty of room for “proper focus and outrage” on all sides. For me, I choose to be outraged by yet another influential politician who has placed himself morally above me because he’s hetero and I’m homo, thereby setting an example of hate and intolerance that others follow with their votes.

    I think it was in Freakonomics where they wrote about an experiment about right/wrong and authority figures. They had a guy dressed as a homeless person step off from the curb to jaywalk. Nobody followed him – they knew it was wrong, and they didn’t trust him. Then, they had the same guy step off and jaywalk, but dressed in a suit and well-groomed. The other people stepped off and followed.

    August 29, 2007 at 12:28 pm

  12. NotGay

    Larry Craig: “I am not gay, dammit! I was only pooping and when I poop I like to tap my feet, tap tap tap, like I’m dancing a poopie dance. To properly tap-poop I find it helpful to have a really, and I mean REALLY wide stance. So wide, in fact, that a little footsie with my stall neighbor might happen, accidentally, and without meaning. Also, I might be so into this bathroom breakin’ boogaloo that I just might see an imaginary paper on the floor and attempt to pick it up, this should not be mistaken for a waving of the hand in any way, it is me trying to pick up paper that isn’t there. Now isn’t there some anti-gay rights bill I can sign, get me Fred Phelps on the line…”

    August 29, 2007 at 12:42 pm

  13. NS

    Hmm. I am not moving from issue to issue — I still don’t believe he did anything “wrong” by choosing (if this is what he did) to hit on another man, even if it was – god forbid – a public place. Of course, if he was actually trying to start something sexy-like, then sure, he’s a hypocrite, and boo to that. One can argue two issues at once, and have neither contradict the other. Issue 1 – he’s either gay and a hypocrite, or he’s straight and innocent (still an ass, though). Issue 2: the law imposed against him (regardless of who he is) was arbitrary, illogical, and unfair as commonly enforced.

    I do take issue with your idea that because of a “public health aspect” a criminal rather than civil penalty should be imposed. How, exactly, does homosexual activity, even in public spaces, present a “public health” threat? Not trying to be combative, just curious; I don’t quite understand this line of reasoning. How would a criminal conviction, with all the attendant stigma — in addition to the fact that gays are more likely to receive such a stigma — anything less than legislative homophobia?

    I provided the cite in response to your comment that you believed straight people would be arrested for lewd behavior as well to show that they *may* be arrested but more frequently are not. Apologies if we were already in agreement on this issue; I was under the impression that you were arguing that gays and straights are prosecuted in equal ratios under the “lewd behavior” statute. I am reminded of the anti-loitering laws used against former slaves in southern states to legislatively justify continuing institutional racism.

    August 29, 2007 at 1:28 pm

  14. NS

    err, I got excited and left some verbs out. Whoops. Ha ha.

    August 29, 2007 at 1:36 pm

  15. “How, exactly, does homosexual activity, even in public spaces, present a “public health” threat? Not trying to be combative, just curious; I don’t quite understand this line of reasoning. How would a criminal conviction, with all the attendant stigma — in addition to the fact that gays are more likely to receive such a stigma — anything less than legislative homophobia?”

    Where did I restrict it to GAY sex? Oh – is it because of the men’s room vs. women’s room thing? Haha! That never crossed my mind, actually. I just said “sexual activity.” I’ve certainly seen men in the women’s room before. Haven’t you?

    And again – my post isn’t about the criminal justice system. I’ve been a victim of THAT system only once, and don’t know enough about it to comment.

    Yes, it’s shitty that more homosexuals are busted for bathroom sex than heteros. Perhaps that’s partly because of the example set by hypocrites like Craig. It’s OK to pick on queers. It’s OK to deny them their rights. It’s OK to treat homos like second-class citizens. It’s OK to arrest gays more than straights because the SENATOR makes it OK by making sure everyone knows that he believes gay people aren’t entitled to the same rights as straight people.

    By the way, did anyone see Mit Romney throw Craig under the bus? McCain did too, but it was just a little shove.

    August 29, 2007 at 1:48 pm

  16. NS

    Ok, then, *any* kind of sex. What is the public health threat?

    And we agree that gays are getting fucked (not in the fun way) by assholes like Sexy Craig. So there!

    I understand your post was not about the criminal justice system — my initial comments expressed some disbelief that amidst all the scandal, no one seems to think “hey, what a fucked up law, man!” It’s sad, somehow. It is perfectly fine to tear down politicians (and I agree that sometimes this can be warranted) but we don’t really actively question the context in which those same politicans have floundered and failed us. Whether the context is an unsound law, or a law that is selectively enforced, or, I don’t know, the sad fact that so many gay men are forced to seek out sexual release in a smelly bathroom — all that gets ignored in attacking (again, sometimes rightfully) the politician.

    August 29, 2007 at 1:55 pm

  17. Public health issue… Yeah, well, I’ve been doing a lot of work on infectious body substances and infection control here at work, and I’m hyper-sensitive about it right now, I’ll admit. How about a nice smear of HBV on the door handle?

    HBV can also be transmitted between family members within households, possibly by contact of nonintact skin or mucous membrane with secretions or saliva containing HBV.

    August 29, 2007 at 2:03 pm

  18. NS

    Mmm, schmear.

    August 29, 2007 at 2:06 pm

  19. LOL

    August 29, 2007 at 2:07 pm

  20. NS

    They should criminalize sweaty people in the train. I could catch something.

    hee hee

    August 29, 2007 at 2:10 pm

  21. Don’t you have studying to do, or something?

    August 29, 2007 at 2:13 pm

  22. NS

    Don’t you have a job?

    August 29, 2007 at 2:18 pm

  23. Yeah, and I was doing it, too, until you started getting combative and shit.

    August 29, 2007 at 2:19 pm

  24. NS

    I believe I was focusing my ire on the prosecution, police, and legislature, not you. And shit.

    August 29, 2007 at 2:23 pm

  25. Well, that’ll get you far.

    August 29, 2007 at 2:29 pm

  26. NS

    About as far as blogging will. Well, maybe farther.

    August 29, 2007 at 2:40 pm

  27. That was fun to read, youse guys! Thanks…

    And, NOTGAY…damned funny. Poop-tap. Awesome!

    August 29, 2007 at 6:05 pm

  28. Peter

    Living in New York and Los Angeles has spoiled me. I just saw a great documentary called _Small Town Gay Bar_ by Malcolm Ingram. Not to imply for a second that inhuman discrimination towards LGBTQs still doesn’t occur even in our cosmo of metropolises, but I always have to remind myself that a) most communities in the country still don’t have public spaces where people of any non-mainstream stripe can safely congregate and b) that the closet is still alive and kicking.
    My friend Karl, who’s now the leftiest of lefties used to pose for pictures w/ Gingrich and W before he (Karl) came out. Self deception messes w/ your head. Not that I’m forgiving hypocritical douchebag politicians…
    Selective prosecution sucks and still occurs. I tend to think that we Dems – giddy as we are to point out that the senator’s nekkid – tend to learn the wrong lessons from these all too frequent occurances. We immediately jump to fingerpointing and name calling and forget that were we not talking about Sen. Craig and instead talking about some normal middle-aged guy in North Dakota who was terrified of coming out to his neighbors we would be more apt to decry what is prolly the result of some trigger happy D.A. trying to get “tough” on deviants and perverts.
    While of course I don’t condone anybody (‘specially the ugly) getting it on in public spaces, I’ve seen enough used condoms on our fair sidewalks to believe that it’s safe to touch *anything* without getting more crudded up then than Outbreak monkey. I think the public health aspect is herring with a curiously reddish hue. This is about draping homophobia with the judicial ermine so that Scalia can say that laws of “general applicability” can never be discriminatory b/c after all if any heteros were caught getting in on in the men’s room, they’d be busted too…

    August 29, 2007 at 11:45 pm

  29. I disagree that the public health issue is a red herring. Take a look at the CDC’s web page on emerging infectious diseases. I’ve used a men’s room before, and I actually wiped my feet AFTER I left. I’m not budging on that point.

    And, I’m from the Midwest and know how it is not to have a place to safely congregate. I remember the first time I went to SF, I was amazed that the gay bars had WINDOWS.

    The point is, the Senator was not looking for a place to safely congregate. He wouldn’t have GONE to a place to safely congregate, because the restroom offered him the anonymity he needed to hide his hypocrisy. If he had gone to a gay bar, he would have had more trouble than he’s having right now denying that he IS gay.

    And, the other point is, we ARE finger-pointing and name-calling this guy because HE has made a living out of nurturing and promoting the very stigma you’re talking about, and setting an example to his constituents that it IS okay to ostracize people just because we’re “non-mainstream.”

    August 30, 2007 at 10:10 am

  30. NS

    “I disagree that the public health issue is a red herring. Take a look at the CDC’s web page on emerging infectious diseases. I’ve used a men’s room before, and I actually wiped my feet AFTER I left. I’m not budging on that point.”

    What point are you not budging on precisely? I am confused.

    Is it that diseases *exist* in public spaces? Then we agree. However, I believe the public health issue is often used as a scare tactic, rather like terrorism. Does terrorism exist? Sure it does. Has it been blown all the way out of proportion in order to scare the general public into aligning itself with an insane administration? Yep. I feel the same way about arguments about public health.

    But what, exactly, is the link between public health, emerging infectious diseases, and consensual sexual conduct in public restrooms? The majority of the emerging infectious diseases listed by the CDC are transmitted in a variety of ways, not necessarily even requiring sexual activity of any kind.

    If you are proposing that criminal penalties should be imposed on those who spread such diseases knowingly and purposefully, then that’s a whole ‘nother debate, and I might agree with you on certain of those points.

    However, to impose criminal sanctions for having sex in the bathroom under a pretext of public health and selectively enforce those laws against homosexuals renders that pretext invalid. Public health may be a justification, but under the rubric of the CDC’s justified concerns about the panoply of potential diseases, *all* public spaces should be quarantined — not just select bathrooms known as cruising spots.

    Your points about what a jerk the senator is are not, I think, debated by either Peter or myself. He is, because he’s a conservative fool who actively attempts to hamper the gay civil rights movement. That doesn’t mean that the law enforced against him was a good one.

    August 30, 2007 at 1:12 pm

  31. MH

    So . . . according to Republican morality, one known instance of anonymous, consensual (homosexual) sex is unforgivable and deserves public punishment, but repeatedly paying a prostitute for (heterosexual) sex is something private that’s just between a man, his God, and his wife? Hypocritical assholes.

    August 30, 2007 at 3:05 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s