RSS Feed
Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested in June at a Minnesota airport by a plainclothes police officer investigating lewd conduct complaints in a men’s public restroom, according to an arrest report obtained by Roll Call Monday afternoon.
Craig’s arrest occurred just after noon on June 11 at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. On Aug. 8, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct in the Hennepin County District Court. He paid more than $500 in fines and fees, and a 10-day jail sentence was stayed. He also was given one year of probation with the court that began on Aug. 8.A spokesman for Craig described the incident as a “he said/he said misunderstanding,” and said the office would release a fuller statement later Monday afternoon.
After he was arrested, Craig, who is married, was taken to the Airport Police Operations Center to be interviewed about the lewd conduct incident, according to the police report. At one point during the interview, Craig handed the plainclothes sergeant who arrested him a business card that identified him as a U.S. Senator and said, “What do you think about that?” the report states.
Craig was detained for approximately 45 minutes, interviewed, photographed, fingerprinted and released, and police prepared a formal complaint for interference with privacy and disorderly conduct.
Read the entire thing, it seems more than a “misunderstanding“…sounds like he was trying to get his freak on.
As Captain Ed says, like 2008 won’t be hard enough, now we gotta deal with this crap again.
I would like to point out that this is not about gay marriage at all, and it’s not about the Republican Party being anti-gay, because we’re not in the least. We don’t have a problem if someone is gay, that’s their business, not ours. We do have a problem when they try to foist their beliefs and lifestyle onto others, just as we would have the same problem with any other minority group that would attempt to do the same thing.
Gays certainly have the same rights as you or me, the problem is that they, like so many other minority groups, feel it’s not enough…they want more rights that you and I have, to “get even” with years and years of discrimination or whatever. While I have no problem with them forming civil unions, I do have a problem with them actually calling it a marriage. It’s an assault on traditional institutions, and we’ve seen what that kind of assault has done to this country over the last forty years, haven’t we?
As I said, we don’t have a problem with gays being gay…that’s their business, not ours. As long as they keep it that way, more power to ‘em. But we certainly have a problem with people who say one thing and do another. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case with most of the politicians we have in Washington.
Another thing that I think bears mentioning is that, technically, he didn’t do anything. He went through the motions, allegedly, of soliciting gay sex, but he didn’t actually engage in said sex. I think we’re getting pretty close to a “thought crime” here, in which people will say he’s guilty for just thinking of doing it.
This is what the left likes to do, by the way, with their little hate crimes legislation: try to determine the thoughts and motives behind the actual crime and punish them for that, in addition to punishing them for the actual crime itself. I mean, without his actually have committed a crime (engaging in gay sex in a public restroom), can they charge him at all? They obviously did, but I think he would challenge it (or could have, if he hadn’t plead guilty). It’d be like someone walking past a bank and thinking “gee, I wonder how hard it would be to rob that place?” and having the cops all over him for the mere thought of bank robbery. He didn’t actually rob the place, but he sure thought about it, and to liberals, that’s enough to get you arrested.
I would also note that they didn’t charge him with “lewd behavior”, but rather “disorderly conduct”…that could be because of his reaction when confronted, and not because of his behavior in the stall. The authorities probably realized they couldn’t charge him with “lewd behavior”, because there was none, other than maybe trying to find a sex partner in the restroom, so they went with the disorderly conduct charge, instead.
One thing is certain, as AllahPundit points out: you can expect his party affiliation to be prominently reported across the media for a loooong time, whereas when a Democrat does something, you have to dig for the information, because they sure as hell aren’t going to tell you up front.
In any case, I think it goes without saying that Craig should resign…he’s obviously got some personal issues to deal with (or soon will have), and he’s not going to be able to do his duty in the Senate. If he leaves now, they can appoint a decent replacement who, all things being equal, would stand a better chance to hang on to the seat next November.
Big exit question: how long until the left goes on their typical homophobic, hate-filled rants about this guy, like they did with Foley? Because they’re so “compassionate” about gays, they can do that, you know.
That Craig has turned out to be gay after all in and of itself doesn’t bother me from a legislative perspective, because you can be gay and vote in favor of things like the DOMA, just like you can be black and vote against affirmative action, and just like you can be a woman and vote against abortion - unlike the left, who believes that minorities who don’t vote the way “they’re supposed to” are traitors to their very beings. It’s the personal aspect of this that is bothersome - the deception, the lies, the adultery, the criminal nature of what he was arrested for back in June (is that the tip of the iceberg on Craig’s adulterous behavior?). He’s married. He’s broken his vows of marriage. He hasn’t been practicing what he preaches. He’s deceived his constituency. That’s what’s bothersome.
Others commenting:
Power Line
Wizbang
PoliPundit
Michelle Malkin
Blue Crab Boulevard
Patrick Ruffini
Gay Patriot
Gateway Pundit
The Jawa Report
Race42008
A Blog For All
Ankle Biting Pundits
Update: Cruising (pardon the pun) through the liberal sites, looking for the inevitable hate-speech (which, so far, has been limited to the comment sections of said sites), I found this comment, in all places, at Shakespeare’s Sister:
If anyone — male or female or intersex, straight or gay or bisexual — comes up to me tomorrow and offers to have anonymous sex with me, I won’t be offended. Oh, I’ll almost certainly turn them down regardless; I generally am not a fan of anonymous sex. And if you’re male, your odds are significantly lower. Nothing personal, I’m just a fan of an XX genotype.
But I won’t be offended by it. Nonplussed? Possibly. Flattered? Probably. Offended? Why? I don’t have to have sex just because it’s offered.
And therein lies the rub. Had Larry Craig propositioned me in a Humphrey Terminal bathroom, I would probably have missed the sign. Had I somehow caught it, I would have politely turned him down. Had somebody suggested what he just did was lewd, I would have laughed, because you shouldn’t get arrested just for asking someone on a date, even if that date involves sex.
I don’t often say this to liberal bloggers, but I certainly will this time, as I made the exact same point earlier: you, sir, are exactly right. There was no crime here, nothing was actually done. Had the officer waited until he had committed the crime (if that was indeed his intention), it’d be a different story completely. But the mere thought of the crime was enough to get him arrested, and Americans everywhere should sit up and take notice. If they can arrest a Senator for “thinking bad thoughts”, they sure as hell can arrest you or me.
Post has been edited for clarity.
Update: Front and center with Craig’s party affiliation, the AP neglects to mention which side CREW is on. But noooo, the media isn’t biased. Nope, not one bit (puh-lease!).
Oh, and this clip shows just how much the media is looooving this. As Ace notes, I don’t seem to recall them doing this over Clinton’s sexual escapades.
Popularity: 22% [?]
When you lie about stuff like this, odds are that you are going to get caught…
Mr Fecke did take a distinction between Mr Craig looking for a quickie and actually getting lucky in the bathroom; he got rather unlucky it seems to me.
……
August 28th, 2007 at 10:43 amBrian, I am a left-leaning moderate and I think you are absolutely right about the stupidity of the law that got Craig arrested. However, you need to acknowledge that it is a Republican-sponsored police agenda. Bob Allen, the florida state senator that claimed he was so scared of black folk that it caused him to sink to his knees, whip out a twenty and try to get a mouthful of black penis (wow, I hope I’m never THAT scared in my life), tried to push through just such laws. These came into being during the Moral Majority’s high point in the 80s after several exposes regarding gay sex at rest stops. However, people just kept pushing and pushing, until Republicans finally, in rejection of the very principles of the party, pushed through laws that make soliciting sex in public places (money or not) illegal…and then railed against sheriffs and police chiefs when they thought it was not being enforced.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:49 amThe media always blares the party, R or D. Associated Press style book says that the first reference to a politician must include a party reference unless they are publicly so well known (like Bush or hillary clinton) that it is not necessary.
It shouldn’t be illegal to ask someone for sex (unless they are underage), but it is…because Republicans wanted it that way.
I’ll have to remember that when I go to my next city council meeting. Dems have been in control here for the last 30 years, and it’s ALWAYS been illegal to solicit or engage in sex (gay or otherwise) in public places.
Nice try, though.
As for the AP mentioning party affiliation, perhaps you haven’t been paying attention. Remember a few weeks ago when a Democrat got arrested for assault in an airport terminal? Yeah, they never did mention his affiliation. You had to go look it up. That’s just the latest example in a loooong line of media covering up for the left.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:07 amNormally I would just read the post and move on, but you really got my back up with this statement:
“Gays certainly have the same rights as you or me, the problem is that they, like so many other minority groups, feel it’s not enough…they want more rights that you and I have, to “get even” with years and years of discrimination or whatever.”
On what planet do you live on that you think gays have the same rights as everyone else? Man, you really show your ignorance with that one. There are over 1000 federal rights that gay people don’t have that heterosexual people do have. And that’s before you even start to talk about rights on state level, which is even worse. God help you if you’re gay and live in a red state, where you have ZERO rights.
Hell, in most red states in the country it’s perfectly legal to kick someone out of a restaurant, refuse them service, or evict them from an apartment ONLY because they are gay. That’s the same rights heterosexuals have?? You really sound clueless,
August 28th, 2007 at 5:37 pmVirtually every state has that policy, it’s called refusal of service (you go in, you see the sign that says “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”), so yes..that’s the exact same right heterosexuals have. If you have a link proving the “1000 rights we have that they don’t”, let’s have it. I’m sure I can shoot down each and every one of them.
For example:
They’re free to marry people of the opposite sex, the same as I am, true? But they want an additional right, the right to marry someone of their own sex.
They’re covered by the same anti-discrimination laws as I am, but they want an additional right, not to be discriminated against because of sexual orientation. Sorry, I don’t have that right, why should they? If they’re going to pass a law, better include straight people in there, too.
You see where I’m going? They have all the same rights that straight people have, but because they’re a special-interest group and a minority, we’re supposed to bend over backwards and accomodate them, just as we’re supposed to do the same for other minority groups. I think that’s wrong. You either treat everyone the same, or you walk down a never-ending path of political correctness.
Like I said, I’m more than ok with them forming civil unions, but actual marriage and the right to call it an actual marriage? No, that’s going too far. Sorry if that offends you, but it offends me just as much to have my marriage cheapened in this way.
August 28th, 2007 at 6:22 pmCraig Shows Lack of Restroom Restraint…
Do I care whether Sen. Craig swings one way or the other? Should you? Should anyone? That’s not what is upsetting about this incident. The overt attempts to avoid any kind of legal entanglements by using his Senatorial position is. He was abusing his….
August 28th, 2007 at 7:05 pmMan, you really are clueless. If I am renting a home I own and I tell you I refuse to rent to you because you’re a christian that’s illegal. If I sell insurance and refuse to sell it to you because you’re a female, that’s illegal. If I own a diner and refuse to serve you because you’re black, that is illegal. If you’re married and your spouse is in the hospital and I refuse to allow you to discuss healthcare options with her that is illegal. None of that is illegal against gay people in many states in this country.
And that’s not even getting into the marriage issue. I have no right to my partners social security benefits, pensions, or property should they die. And if I do have a legal agreement to cover property that is not required by married people I still have to pay taxes that a legal spouse would not have to pay.
Hell, in Texas and Florida they aren’t even allowed to adopt their own children conceived through artifical insemination. Clueless.
You, on the other hand, are free to marry the person who meets your sexual orientation, while I am not.
And I’ve only touched on about 5 of the more than 1000 rights heterosexuals have that gay people do not. As I said previously, you are totally clueless.
Lastly, my marriage has as much to do with you as Brittney Spears 48 hr marriage has to do with you. So I don’t understand why you care what it’s called. The problem with calling it something else is that term “marriage” is written into the laws. It’s just so darn sweet that you’re “okay” with calling it civil unions, but the bottom line is that MY marriage really shouldn’t be any of your damn business.
What you’re really saying is that heterosexuals deserve special rights, just like for years people thought white males deserved special rights that women and blacks did not have.
You’re allowed to have that opinion, as onerous and disgusting as it is. But let’s just be clear, you’re displaying extreme ignorance when you declare that gay people have the same rights as heterosexuals.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:17 pmWould you have a problem with it if it was discriminating against people because they’re straight? Somehow I doubt it. Again, if you want to pass legislation on this, you’d better include straight people, too. That would be fair. Otherwise, you’re asking for additional protections and additional rights that others don’t have.
I have no problem with that. You shouldn’t have any claim on that stuff unless, if we’re talking about real estate or something, you had a stake in it. Again, you’re asking for a right that we don’t have, the right to marry someone of your own gender and leave them whatever you want with the tax and financial benefits that comes with being able to call it a real marriage.
I’ve known my best friend longer than my wife, and in many ways we’re closer to each other than we are to our spouses. But doest that mean I should be able to leave him my social security benefits and pension if I choose? Of course not.
As well they shouldn’t.
I care what it’s called because we’ve seen the attack on traditional institutions for the last 40 years, courtesy of liberalism, and I’ll be damned before we give another inch of ground on anything, be it gay marriage or saying “Seasons Greetings” instead of “Merry Christmas”.
Virtually EVERY problem in this country right now — poverty, crime, etc. — stems from that era and from the liberal ideal that “hey, if it feels right to you, then do it.” I’m sorry, but I’m tired of that nonsense.
I’m not displaying ignorance, I’m displaying facts. There is no right — not a single one — that you don’t I have that I do. You can marry a woman if marriage is your goal. You can have or adopt children with her if you want kids. You can leave everything to her and enjoy the same tax benefits as I do. But I understand because you’re gay, you won’t do that. That’s fine, but in the end, that’s your choice, not mine. You have the same opportunities to enjoy these rights as I do, you just choose not to. But you’re asking for rights above and beyond what I have, and I don’t accept that.
I don’t care if someone is gay, that’s their business, not mine. But when you go trying to change the laws and institutions of this country, that’s when it becomes my business.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:42 pmLOL! Man, the ignorance is amazing. So what you’re saying is that IF I was straight I WOULD have the same rights you do. So therefore I DO have the same rights as you do. Only a con could come up with such an illogical argument.
That’s like saying to a black man if you were white, you would have had the same right to be free as the white man did back in the days of slavery. Brilliant logic.
What you really want is the “special right” to legislate your beliefs so you can force them on to me. You enjoy the special rights you have as a heterosexual, and for some reason you believe that it’s your business do decide what my rights should be or who I should marry.
You can’t explain how it effects you or why it’s your business if I marry a same sex partner, have the same legal rights to property inheritance from a spouse, have the right to be involved in the healthcare decisions of my partner, or any of the rest.
Do you also think Christians should be able to outlaw Jewish temples, and demand they be Christians. Do you think you have the right to say that a black person can’t marry a white person? Do you think you have the right to decide that only Christians can adopt children?
Such thoughts probably never entered your head. But you think you have the special right to decide what rights gays should have.
In reality, you just don’t like “homos” so you make up a bunch of BS stating that gays having the same rights as you have are “special rights.” What’s special about them since they are the same rights you think you’re entitled to?
Why do you bother with all that? Why don’t you just say “I’m a bigot, and I’m a conservative, so I get to make personal decisions for other people?”
August 28th, 2007 at 8:03 pmNo I’m saying that straight or gay, you already DO have the same rights I do. Period. It’s quite diffent than actual racism, and I think you really should know better than to try and play that card here with me. I’m not about to sit here and defend myself against meaningless charges like that.
You think I hate gays or blacks or whatever? You don’t know me from Adam, and if you’ve read any of my other work, you’d know that’s not even close to being the truth. But by all means, let’s fall back on the liberal stereotyping of conservatives, that we hate everybody that’s not like us. That’ll show me!
I’ll say it again, whether you are gay makes no difference to me. You have the exact same rights as I do, given to you from birth by God and the Constitution. But that’s not enough, is it? You want more than me, and that’s something I will never accept.
I’m all for equal rights, be you gay or straight, male or female, black or white, but I will never subscribe to the notion that a minority group deserves more rights than everyone else because they’ve been “kept down” for so long.
August 28th, 2007 at 8:14 pmYou can CLAIM gays have the same rights as heterosexuals but that’s objectively false. It’s not a matter of opinion — it’s just objectively false. They do not, as I have pointed out to you.
Clearly your opinion is grounded in the idea that you think gay people can simply choose to be heterosexual. Again, that’s objectively false. It’s as false as the notion that you choose to be heterosexual. You didn’t consciously choose it, you just are heterosexual. Just like black people can’t choose to be white, or latino, etc. And a woman can’t choose to be born a man.
Interestingly enough, most conservatives DO think people deserve special rights based on their CHOSEN religious beliefs. If those religious beliefs happen to be Christian, of course. And not only that, they think those special rights entitle them to make personal decisions for other people, like who they can marry, and whether they can adopt children, and what they can do with their own bodies if they are pregnant.
You’re certainly entitled to your own set of opinions, but not your own set of facts. The problem is that people in their 20’s and 30’s reject those beliefs by a wide margin, so you only have a few more glory years left to insist via legislation that gay people are discriminated against.
August 28th, 2007 at 8:33 pmI think I made it abundantly clear that it isn’t a choice to be gay.
Now who’s being the moron?
As for the people in their 20s and 30s comment? I think I don’t have anything to worry about. As people get older, they become more conservative (a result of living in the real world). And secondly, we’ve seen, quite a few times, how the left REALLY feels about gays and blacks. These guys claim we’re the racists and all that, but the things they say and the things they do show that they’re liars and phonies on the issue.
It’s clear we’re not going to agree on this. You clearly feel you’re being oppressed because of your sexual orientation, and I clearly think you’re not. I’ve said you have the same rights as I do, and you do. You take issue with the fact that you don’t have additional rights to suit your needs. Well, life sucks…buy a helmet.
There’s a lot of things I’d like to suit my personal needs, but I know it’s not going to happen nor do I expect them to. I wouldn’t want a law passed for my benefit if it had even the slightest chance of undermining this nation. And yet, that’s exactly what you are asking for, in my opinion.
Now, I’m heading to bed.
August 28th, 2007 at 8:42 pmThat settles it — you can’t think your way out of a paper bag. Let’s sum up:
You believe being gay is an immutable characteristic — meaning it’s not a choice.
You declare that gay people WOULD have the same rights as you do IF they weren’t gay.
So even though they can’t choose to be straight it’s not discrimination. Because IF they were straight….I don’t know why they didn’t just use that argument with blacks and women and be done with. Gee, if you were a MAN you could vote, so you have the same rights I do. Typical illogical conservative BS.
But guess what? Gay people AREN’T straight, and as a result they are discriminated against. And you know, you can say the sky is the color green 1000x but that ain’t gonna make the sky green. Much to your surprise I’m sure.
People might get more conservative as they grow older, about social security, foreign policy, etc. But they don’t magically turn into homophobes if they weren’t one before. The times, they are a changing, and your glory days of oppressing people for their sexual orientation will be gone within the next 20 years. And posts like yours will be about as well received by decent people as if you had said Black people should still be slaves. Deal with it.
August 28th, 2007 at 8:57 pmBy the way, how ironic that you call yourself “Liberty Pundit.” The subtitle should be “Liberty for Me, but not for Thee.”
August 28th, 2007 at 9:03 pmNo, I’m saying they DO have the same rights as me, despite the fact that they’re gay. What aren’t you getting about that?
I’ve said I’m not in favor of granting ANY group more rights based on their minority status. I’m ok with anti-discrimination for housing and things like that, but any such legislation should cover BOTH gays and straights, or we’ll see the same thing happen to the housing industry as we’ve seen with affirmative action: reverse discrimination. In order to avoid even the possibility of a lawsuit, straights will be discriminated against in favor of gays when it comes to buying or renting a house. As with affirmative action, the house should go to the person willing to pay the most for it, i.e., the most qualified.
The way affirmative action goes right now, though, whites are discriminated against in favor of blacks who are lesser qualified for the job, because they have some quota to fill or they don’t want to be sued for discrimination or what have you. The job SHOULD go to the best candidate for the position, period. The same thing will happen here if we pass laws like the one you’re suggesting.
And thanks for calling me a homophobe. I’m sure my gay friends will disagree with you on that one.
I’m going to close the comments here, because I’m not about to tolerate you (or anyone else, for that matter) calling me a racist or whatever other smear you have up your sleeve. I’ve told you what I think, and I’ve backed it up. You, on the other hand, keep in with the personal attacks.
If what I’ve said offends you so much, then by all means, close your browser window and don’t return. It’s a free country you have the right to ignore stuff you don’t like. Or do you think that’s another right we’ve not given you?
August 28th, 2007 at 9:03 pm[...] posting on this topic: JunkYardBlog / Bill’s Bites / Liberty Pundit / Outside The Beltway | OTB / Say Goodbye Larry / The Purple Nation / Texas Hold ‘Em Blogger / [...]
August 29th, 2007 at 12:03 pm