And I'm Telling You I'm Not Going

David Weigel | September 5, 2007

You're going to love him:

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) intends to try and overturn his conviction in an airport sex sting and if he is cleared, serve out the rest of his term, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on Wednesday.

McConnell said he spoke with Craig by phone on Wednesday morning where Craig told him his plan. Craig announced last Saturday that he intends to resign from the Senate on September 30th.
...
“If he is able to get the case favorably disposed of, it would be his intention to come back to and to deal with the [Senate] Ethics Committee case he knows he will have and to finish out his term,” McConnell said.

Either McConnell is incapable of feeling rage or he's an Oscar-caliber actor. Because he's got to be furious about this.

Also, poor Torie Bosch. And poor Fred Barnes:

Within hours of the disclosure of his arrest, Republicans decided Craig must go. Rarely have Republican leaders acted so swiftly as they did in sending the matter to the Senate Ethics Committee and stripping Craig of his seniority and ranking position on committees.

That was accompanied by calls for his resignation by John McCain and Norm Coleman and the promise that more of their Senate colleagues would follow suit in drumbeat fashion. In an unprecedented move, the national committee was prepared to urge Craig's immediate ouster. The message was clear.

The White House got involved, too. Presidential aides checked with leaders of the Bush reelection campaign in Idaho in 2004 and with Republican officials. They found no support for Craig, only a strong feeling that he should resign his seat immediately. For Craig, the string had run out, in Idaho as well as Washington. Republicans are confident they can hold the Idaho seat in 2008.

The past tense: It's a tricky thing.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

crap-action-jackson|9.5.07 @ 4:07PM|#

Can this be done? He's already served his sentence (commuted by the judge), and paid his fine.

|9.5.07 @ 4:12PM|#

"And I'm Telling You I'm Not Going"

....to the bathroom. At least not on this side of the wall, wink wink.

|9.5.07 @ 4:15PM|#

Right. Maybe the Gov could pardon, but then the case is moot and he couldn't clear his name.

I think it's a case of another Republican thinking the law works differently for him.

Episiarch|9.5.07 @ 4:17PM|#

I have a question for Democrat boosters like joe.

Why, when Republicans get caught doing something illegal (let's not get into whether this act should have been illegal), they usually, even if it takes them a little while, turn on the offender.

However, the Democrats don't seem too keen on this--think of William Jefferson, or the page-lover prior to Mark Foley (I forget his name), or Feinstein's defense appropriations for her husband?

Now, there are points that could be made, such as Republicans getting busted for shit that repels the base (man-trolling in the airport, scamming on pages), so the leadership knows they have to go. But I would think defense appropriations or 90 grand in your freezer should repel the Democratic base.

This isn't snark; can anyone explain this seeming contradiction? Also, this is in no way a support of the Republicans--I'd just like to see if there is a logical difference here, and personally I'd like to see all politicians come down hard on their fellows (not gonna happen, I know).

|9.5.07 @ 4:18PM|#

The spin I'm seeing is "Boy, aren't those Democrats going to look bad for pushing him out the door, once he clears his name."

The problem being, it was Republicans pushing him out the door, and he's not going to clear his name.

But if he puts up a show of denying everything in public, he can still convince himself that he's not out.

Either McConnell is incapable of feeling rage or he's an Oscar-caliber actor.

There is a 3rd choice: Olympic-sized douchebag.

He's definite in the top ten reasons it's embarrassing to be from Kentucky.

|9.5.07 @ 4:20PM|#

You know this whole episode caused several memories of hand-waving and leg-grabbing to resurface from the cobwebs. I always wondered what the hell those guys were up to.

Of course, I had my ideas. I mean, what else would they be up to in there? But now I have to wonder, Was I tapping my foot? I'm a pretty fidgety guy so it isn't out of the question.

I could get rid of this guy, if America would only see fit to give me the power of. . .

THE CENSOR!

|9.5.07 @ 4:21PM|#

Episiarch,

Jefferson was stripped of his committee seat, and asked to resign upon his indictment.

The page scandal in 1980 involved both Republicans and Democrats.

Apporpriations sleaze is equally bipartisan.

The explainaiton for this "seeming" contradiction lies in the term "seeming." You imagine such a distinction is there, because you want it to be, but the facts don't back you up.

|9.5.07 @ 4:24PM|#

""Why, when Republicans get caught doing something illegal (let's not get into whether this act should have been illegal), they usually, even if it takes them a little while, turn on the offender."""

They haven't turned on Vitter. Nor did they turn on Tom Delay. It depends on the crime, politicians only "turn on the offender" if the crime is against their moral belief, which commiting a crime, in general, is not. Many Republicans seem to have no problem being bullshitted by the AG. One might think that not being truthful when you swear to God you will be, would be of great concern for those who say they are Christian. You would be wrong.

|9.5.07 @ 4:27PM|#

Episiarch, Joe - The question is "Who's sleazier, repulicans or democrats?"

The answer is ... We'll be going into extra innings on this one.

|9.5.07 @ 4:31PM|#

J sub D,

I haven't made a statement about one party being sleazier than the other, or going easier on corrupt officials. I refuted one.

Episiarch|9.5.07 @ 4:33PM|#

You imagine such a distinction is there, because you want it to be, but the facts don't back you up.

Um, no, joe. I was pretty sure that the Republicans only turned on their own for things like TEH GEY, but I was hoping for a nice, detailed explanation from someone who knew some more details than I do, and could point out that both parties are equally corrupt.

I do admit to baiting (doh!) you slightly on that, but if you think that I think the Republicans are somehow more honest than the Democrats, you're crazy. The bait (doh!) was that you seem to think the Democrats are somehow more honest than the Republicans--and that's definitely crazy.

|9.5.07 @ 4:33PM|#

I haven't made a statement about one party being sleazier than the other, or going easier on corrupt officials. I refuted one.

Never?

|9.5.07 @ 4:38PM|#

"""The answer is ... We'll be going into extra innings on this one."""

We must be in the 1000th inning by now.

|9.5.07 @ 4:42PM|#

"""The bait (doh!) was that you seem to think the Democrats are somehow more honest than the Republicans--and that's definitely crazy."""

I can't recall any regular H&R poster to ever claim one was more honest than the other in my almost year of posting. Most politicians we wouldn't trust to take out the dirty cat litter.

Other Matt|9.5.07 @ 4:42PM|#

You know this whole episode caused several memories of hand-waving and leg-grabbing to resurface from the cobwebs. I always wondered what the hell those guys were up to.

I'm a 43yr old man who has never, ever, been foot tapped in public restroom. I couldn't tell you what my reaction would be if I saw some dude waving underneath the stall or playing footsie. Wouldn't be pretty, I know that.

Perhaps Craig can claim public service credit for educating us unfamiliar with the ways of stall sex?

|9.5.07 @ 4:43PM|#

The Censor will start off assuming that everyone in Congress is guilty and will force each member to prove his innocence or be removed forthwith and forthrightly. Ditto the other branches, of course.

Episiarch,

The facts on corruption scandals demonstrate that the Republicans, at least this generation, are committing corrupt acts more than Democrats. You just can't get around that; there have been a lot more Republicans arrested, indicted, and jailed for political corruption.

But on the specific question you asked about how the parties treat their straying figures when they get caught, the idea that Democrats go easier on them is laughable.

|9.5.07 @ 4:44PM|#

J sub D,

No, not "never," on this thread. I was discussing the conversation to date.

Interesting argument with regard to Article 1 Section 6 of the Constitution.

This from C-Span:
"Freedom from "arrest" has been interpreted to mean also from detention or delay during an attempt at civil law enforcement. One jurist wrote that a Member of Congress should be given the maximum leeway in protection from routine law enforcement efforts because "a Member has superior duties to perform in another place." The argument went on to cite that when a Member is detained, the people he/she represents lose their voice in debate and in votes cast.

Even today, a Member of the House must get authorization from the House to respond to a court summons, because a summons is considered a breach of the constitutional privilege under the arrest clause. House rules specifically do not allow one of its Members to appear in court, even voluntarily. A Member must apply for permission from the House to do so. Such applications are read aloud routinely on the House floor. If a Member wishes to assert the constitutional privilege against arrest, the Legal Counsel of the House is authorized to prepare an official House letter to the Court asserting the Constitution's protection for the Member under the arrest clause."

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd say the Senator could at least have played a card similar to diplomatic immunity by whipping out his Constitution instead of his...

Episiarch|9.5.07 @ 4:47PM|#

I can't recall any regular H&R poster to ever claim one was more honest than the other in my almost year of posting.

I guess you don't know joe then. Strange, considering how much he posts here.

The facts on corruption scandals demonstrate that the Republicans, at least this generation, are committing corrupt acts more than Democrats.

And there you have it!

|9.5.07 @ 4:47PM|#

Gerry Studs was the Democrat involved in a page scandal. He was elected over, and over, and over, and, I think, three more overs. Also on the list would be Jesse Jackson, Mel Reynolds, and Dan Rostenkowski. The athiest party seems to be more forgiving on these matters than the Jesus party.

Episiarch|9.5.07 @ 4:49PM|#

And joe, I specifically stated that I was in no way supporting the Republicans, yet you took my question that way. It just seems that in your partisan view, any attack on the Dems is support of the GOP. You should know by now that that is not always the case.

|9.5.07 @ 4:49PM|#

"Perhaps Craig can claim public service credit for educating us unfamiliar with the ways of stall sex?"

Are you crazy? After all this attention those folks who are so inclined will have to develop new signals. Even my eleven year old now knows that if someone starts tapping his foot and waving under the stall that this is a signal and he has my pre-granted permission to pee on both.

PhoneIn|9.5.07 @ 4:52PM|#

It depends on the crime, politicians only "turn on the offender" if the crime is against their moral belief

It certainly depends on the crime. Moral beliefs probably play a role to an extent, but more important is the extent to which the 'crime' is a political liability for the whichever political party is involved.

The Craig incident is bad for Republicans, particularly to the Republican base. He's a liability that doesn't need to be hanging around next summer during full-fledged election season.

|9.5.07 @ 4:53PM|#

Part of section 6

""They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.""

Is disorderly conduct breaching the peace? Did his arrest prevent him from attending a session or debate?

|9.5.07 @ 4:54PM|#

Well, as you ackowledge, Episiarch, you deliberately set up your question in a partisan manner.

|9.5.07 @ 4:56PM|#

I heard snippets of the tape made during the interview of the Senator with the police officer. If a police officer wants directions to the bathroom, he's going to have to ask my lawyer. As for the whole foot tapping thing, how freakin' hard is it to say, "Your foot is in my stall." Do we really need police enforcing public bathrooms for unwarranted intrusions of penny loafers? I don't see much difference in what Craig did and some drunk guy resting his hand on the shoulder of a woman and asking her, "Hey, baby, do you believe in love at first sight or should I walk by again?"

|9.5.07 @ 5:01PM|#

""I guess you don't know joe then.""

I doubt you do either, what's the point?

I've been reading his posts for awhile. I have the impression that he thinks a scumbag is a scumbag, party affiliation is irrelevent.

Not that joe needs my defense.

|9.5.07 @ 5:03PM|#

Jose, if you dropped a piece of toliet paper on the floor of a public bathroom, would you reach down to pick it up or get a new one?

|9.5.07 @ 5:06PM|#

Episiarch,

We have a two party system. Democratic partisans have an interest in believing that the Democrats are superior, and so are in danger of denying truths that suggest they are not.

Republican partisans have an interest in believing that the Republicans are superior, and so are in danger of denying truths that suggest that they are not.

And then we have partisans of third parties, or of "nonpartisanship." Like Ralph Nader, for example. These people have an interest in believing that both parties are equally bad, and are in danger of denying truths that make one or the other party look better.

The first two types of partisanship are fairly well known, and so those partisans know what to look out for. But because we are a two party system, and partisan issues are discussed in terms of the two parties, the third sort doesn't get as much coverage, and its adherents regularly fall into the trap of assuming equivalencies where none exist.

A good example of this is the Washington Post, which constantly pats itself on the back for striking a "pox on both their houses," "he-said-she-said" pose on every issue, regardless of whether the facts support one or the other side.

I'm sure I could come up with more examples of people mistaking their partisan blinders for virtuous clarity in this manner, if you give me a minute.

edna|9.5.07 @ 5:07PM|#

epi, i'll see your jefferson and raise you a condit.

|9.5.07 @ 5:08PM|#

Wheel of morality, turn turn turn, tell us the lesson that we should learn.

And the moral of today's story is:

If you're in the GOP, screw hookers and taxpayers, not other men.

Jose,

If a guy hit on a woman like that in a public restroom, damn straight he'd get arrested. Especially if people had been complaining about straight couples having sex in the stalls of that particular rest room.

You know, if I had sex with my wife in the park instead of (purely theoretical here) in the house, we'd get arrested. There's a time and a place for everything.

Episiarch|9.5.07 @ 5:11PM|#

Jose, if you dropped a piece of toliet paper on the floor of a public bathroom, would you reach down to pick it up or get a new one?

Vic, if you dropped a piece of napkin on which you had written down the hot chick at the bar's phone number, and you (obviously) reached down to pick it up, and a cop arrested you, what would you say?

I obviously don't think that was what Craig was doing--but the point is, arresting people for tapping their feet and picking up paper is bullshit.

|9.5.07 @ 5:13PM|#

I'll go with Joe in that Episiarch framed the question poorly. Violations of the law or morality are seen through partisan filters by both parties. This is why David Vitter can get essentially a free pass for tapping prostitutes while Larry Craig goes down in flames for tapping toes. The Republicans have this "boys will be boys (but not do boys)" thing and the always convenient location of Jesus after backsliding. The Democrats don't mind a little man-on-man action, but they don't know quite what to do when one of the favored victim groups behaves badly. This is why they had trouble finding a voice when the cops found cold hard cash in the freezer of William Jefferson and why the feminist groups stayed largely quiet during the intern tapping aftermath of William Jefferson Clinton.

In the end, both parties are willing to sacrifice the wounded for the good of the herd. If the Republicans needed Craig (as in his seat was seriously in play), they would find him Jesus. They don't, so it's time to cut the losses.

As for the questions, I wouldn't touch anything on the floor of a public restroom without a full biohazard suit. As for restroom flirtation, I call BS, Joe. You are an urban planner so you must have gone to college. Carnal knowledge in a public restroom was a minor at my university. In my experience, cops don't bust men or women for hitting on women or men (respectively). It's generally the gays that get targeted.

|9.5.07 @ 5:14PM|#

Now I wish he'd simply been caught blowing somebody, to spare us all this drama. I mean, there's Lindsay Lohan news that's being bumped for this nonsense.

Garth|9.5.07 @ 5:16PM|#

Joe,

I used to work with a Joe Boyle. Are you English by any chance?

Jerry|9.5.07 @ 5:23PM|#

Let me guess, the Republicans need the vote of Craig in upcoming congressional votes. Them pesty scoundrels really do not have any moral standards.

|9.5.07 @ 5:32PM|#

I don't think that Larry Craig did anything that should be illegal, and the misdemeanor law that he violated is what is wrong here.

If Craig did what was alleged, it seems kinda gross to me cuz of my non-Gay sexual orientation and also, a bathroom stall seems a distinctly unappetizing place for sexual/romantic overtures. But of course, folks should still have the right to do stuff that grosses some of us out as long that stuff doesn't involve the initiation of force or fraud.

I'll make a few exceptions to that requirement for making things illegal (public copulation/nudity comes to mind) but damn few and in this case, Larry Craig is the victim of an unjust law.

Brian Sorgatz|9.5.07 @ 5:42PM|#

Craig's tenacity in this situation makes me wonder if he's honestly not gay (or even bi-curious) after all. Over and over again, Radley Balko shows us how paternalistically overzealous police departments get.

But even if I'm right, I don't feel too sorry for Craig. It still looks like karma for his hypocritical restrictions on the love lives of consenting adults.

|9.5.07 @ 5:54PM|#

The reports I heard on NPR last week were that while the party establishment and a couple of "family values" groups were condemning him regular people in Idaho tended to either sympathize or not care.

Don't know exactly what to make of this but I'm felling a little bit of a "I'm hearing the voice of the people" vibe.

But then NPR migh be full of it.

As for "...hypocritical restrictions on the love lives of consenting adults", exactly what besides DOMA (which every member of Congress except the bluest of blue Democrats from the bluest districts in the bluest States voted for*) has Craig done that makes him any more reprehensible in this regard than anyone else?

*Not to mention that it was signed into law by a blue Preznit who could've vetoed it.

|9.5.07 @ 6:00PM|#

I'm sure this has been said before, but he is being asked to resign for "gay acts", right? Are Republicans even pretending otherwise?

Why would a Senator need to resign for "disorderly conduct?"

Don't get me wrong, I'd like close to 100 Senators to resign for one reason or another but is touching another mans leg under a bathroom stall really that serious an offense?

So basically this is because Republicans want to outlaw the existence of homosexuals, right?

Rhywun|9.5.07 @ 6:02PM|#

a blue Preznit

For a Democrat, Clinton wasn't particularly liberal on either social or economic issues. Vetoing DOMA would have been very much out-of-character.

So basically this is because Republicans want to outlaw the existence of homosexuals, right?

No, just homosexual behavior...

LarryA|9.5.07 @ 6:17PM|#

Jose, if you dropped a piece of toilet paper on the floor of a public bathroom, would you reach down to pick it up or get a new one?

Both. Use the new one and throw the old one away. My parents raised me to clean up my own messes. It's easy to pick up a piece of toilet paper without touching the floor.

If a guy hit on a woman like that in a public restroom, damn straight he'd get arrested.

Really? I think that would be true only if he was in a womens' restroom, and/or offering to pay. If the restroom was unisex, what's the difference between that and a bar? If the woman was in the wrong room I think she'd be liable, regardless of who initiated contact.

I couldn't tell you what my reaction would be if I saw some dude waving underneath the stall or playing footsie. Wouldn't be pretty, I know that.

A simple "no thank you" is sufficient. Gay isn't contagious. Life is too short to get in a bunch over a proposition. Particularly when you might be pissing on a Member of Congress.

|9.5.07 @ 6:18PM|#

Rhywun

That was generally my point.

My question was, why is Craig being held to a higher standard on this than anyone else?

To my knowledge other than this bill he has not voted on gay issues in any way that sets him apart from nearly every othe politician in the country. It's not like gay issues are voted on that often in the FedGov remember.

Remember also that it was Craig who led the fight against a permanent PATRIOT ACT. He may not have gone as far as we would have liked him to but it would have been a lot worse without him.

As in all things I am willing to be corrected. Craig may have a long record of antigay statements and votes. But, sorry, DOMA doesn't really count as one.

|9.5.07 @ 6:25PM|#

Last sentence should read:

"As in all things I am willing to be corrected. Craig may have a long record of antigay statements and votes but I have not heard of any. Sorry, DOMA doesn't really count as one."

|9.5.07 @ 7:13PM|#

Craig's tenacity in this situation makes me wonder if he's honestly not gay (or even bi-curious) after all. Over and over again, Radley Balko shows us how paternalistically overzealous police departments get.

Brian, good point about overzealous police, but reality check -- if you were a doubleplusungay conservative Republican member of Congress, and you were tapping your foot in a toilet stall in time to a tune you were humming, and you dropped something and went to pick it up, and you were totally NOT propositioning a police officer, would you plead guilty when the overzealous officer mistakenly charged you with gay solicitation, or would you indignantly deny the false allegation, and say you had no idea what the mating habits of homosexuals were?

Of course you wouldn't plead guilty if you weren't.

Paul|9.5.07 @ 7:18PM|#

The explainaiton for this "seeming" contradiction lies in the term "seeming." You imagine such a distinction is there, because you want it to be, but the facts don't back you up.

Mmm, I'm not sure. I remember an editorial quip on NPR about how Repubicans tended to "eat their own". Sure, there's room for interpretation, but I interpreted as Republicans don't stand behind their own party members when the heat is on, but Dems do.

How true that is, I'll let the rest of you debate because I'm no longer committed to the whole "hey, why is the media unfair to 'x' party".

Paul|9.5.07 @ 7:22PM|#

NOT propositioning a police officer, would you plead guilty when the overzealous officer mistakenly charged you with gay solicitation, or would you indignantly deny the false allegation, and say you had no idea what the mating habits of homosexuals were

Prolefeed, thank you for finally making this succinct point.

When this story broke, a friend and I were making the point that gay or not, if you're sitting in a stall, minding your own bidness, and the next thing you know, Officer Leroy Jenkins is feeling you up while screaming "You are under a-rest! Do not move, respect my authoritah!". When you found yourself standing tall before the man, you don't plead guilty to make the thing go away quietly. You aggressively deny the charges, have the officer's job, and use the incident to demagogue your latest pet project.

"It's still business as usual down at Unpainted Arizona!"

|9.5.07 @ 7:25PM|#

The facts on corruption scandals demonstrate that the Republicans, at least this generation, are committing corrupt acts more than Democrats.

joe, the Republicans pwned the legislative and executive branches in DC for a while there. Not a startling revelation that if you have a lock on power and thus more opportunities to be corrupt, you will be corrupt. In Hawaii, the Democrats have pwned the legislative, executive, and judicial branches for decades, and guess which party has racked up a lopsided lead in arrests and indictments and jail terms for corruption?

(Hint: Starts with a "D", ends with "crats".)

|9.5.07 @ 8:12PM|#

Is Mitch McConnell really the point man that the Grand Old Pervert party wants on this topic?

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp08302007.html

Daniel DiRito|9.5.07 @ 8:18PM|#

See a tongue-in-cheek visual of Senator Craig taking a new stance...here:

www.thoughttheater.com

|9.5.07 @ 8:36PM|#

From a libertarian perspective, I think Larry Craig must stay. First, the more the public thinks Congress is made of of wide stance sexual deviants, the better chance we will have of convincing them to look skeptically upon the laws said politicans pass. Second, Craig was one of the few Republican Senators to raise a fuss about the Patriot Act. Furthermore, his interaction with the Minn. State Police should inspire him to look even less favorably upon expanded state powers in the future. And if the National GOP throws its weight against him in a primary fight, and turns him in to a quasi-independent, better still. All in all, Larry Craig is fast becoming my favorite man in Washington.

|9.5.07 @ 8:46PM|#

Craig needs to just come out and say he's been a repressed bisexual for years and apologize for his nearly less than misdemeanor criminal behavior.

Saves face for the wife and lets him keep his seat by declaring any Repubs who try to force him out are bigots or homophobes. They'd back away in a microsecond.

Of course, the internal conflict this would create for his psyche - given his past public stances - would force his head to explode like in that movie "Scanners"

AR Sturzon|9.5.07 @ 8:52PM|#

There are several reasons why we should not lynch
Sen. Craig.

Pastafarian Pirate|9.5.07 @ 8:59PM|#

"Second, Craig was one of the few Republican Senators to raise a fuss about the Patriot Act."

Could this be the true reason why Republicans want him gone? His bathroom break being just an excuse?

|9.5.07 @ 9:29PM|#

"""Vic, if you dropped a piece of napkin on which you had written down the hot chick at the bar's phone number, and you (obviously) reached down to pick it up, and a cop arrested you, what would you say?"""

That's easy, I'd say it's a hot chick's phone number, pass it back, and the cop would say lucky you and probably keep it. I wouldn't reach over into his stall to get it. I think there is an unwritten guy rule that you don't reach into an occupied stall.

But what does that have to do with Craig? That wasn't written on his piece of paper.

|9.5.07 @ 9:35PM|#

Jose,

This wasn't a dorm room's bathroom. It was a bathroom in an airport.

Garth,

No, it's a surprisingly common name.

Rick Barton, LarryA,

I'm not sure if you know how this works, but the problem wasn't men meeting up with each other and going to hotel rooms or secluded spots in cars. The comparison to hitting on a girl in a bar doesn't really fit.

prolefeed, that's a fair point. I'm not commenting on why the Republicans are getting up to more shennanigans than the Dems at this point, just noting that they are.

|9.5.07 @ 9:39PM|#

"""I obviously don't think that was what Craig was doing--but the point is, arresting people for tapping their feet and picking up paper is bullshit."""

He knew what the deal was, and he plead guilty. Since when do we not believe people when they plead guilty on their own freewill? He knows more than anyone what he did.

|9.6.07 @ 1:18AM|#

joe:

I'm not sure if you know how this works

Ok, I'm hep now. Thanks. I didn't know that couples were actually making it in the stalls in this airport. That's gross and inconsiderate. But I still don't think that Craig did anything that should be illegal when/if he got caught coming on. The undercover cop shoulda obtained an affirmative response from him to the question: "Do you wanna have sex right here" for Craig to have committed a crime.

If a guy hit on a woman like that in a public restroom, damn straight he'd get arrested.

Then that law should be abolished.

Especially if people had been complaining about straight couples having sex in the stalls of that particular rest room.

That's what should be illegal and that's when they should be arrested-Folks of any gender combination copulating in a public place-not just hitting on each other.

|9.6.07 @ 1:35AM|#

...In college in the 70's, I remember couples going into bathrooms together in bars and locking the door. That shouldn't be illegal-Maybe against the bar's rules cuz of time considerations.

|9.6.07 @ 3:51AM|#

And the moral of today's story is:
If you're in the GOP, screw hookers and taxpayers, not other men.

But the Dems are the masters at screwing the taxpayers.

|9.6.07 @ 8:51AM|#

Episiarch,

If tapping your foot and reaching for a scrap of toilet paper was the pre-arranged signal you set up with Fat Louie to shoot somebody, would you write "arresting people for tapping their feet and picking up paper is bullshit?"

Now, I don't think that's what Craig was doing, but let's cut the bullshit. He was arrested for tapping his feet and reaching for paper. He was arrested for trying to have sex with somebody in an airport men's room.

|9.6.07 @ 10:39AM|#

Hitchens has an amusing article.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements