Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID). Not exactly George Michael.
The hypocritical Republican meltdown continues. This time it’s the revelation that Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) was arrested on a lewd conduct charge in an airport bathroom.
Craig is a 62-year-old married man and allegedly, despite efforts to keep the arrest report secret, indicated in code to another man (a policeman–dontcha just hate it when that happens?) in the next stall that he wanted to engage in “lewd conduct.” Craig, a senator with a 100% favorable rating from the Christian Coalition, quietly plead guilty.
Senator Pleads to Disorderly Conduct
Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, which first reported the case, said on its Web site Monday that Craig was arrested June 11 by a plainclothes officer investigating complaints of lewd conduct in a men’s restroom at the airport. [For there to be complaints, plural, means this was something that bothered more than one person, and long enough to get an undercover cop in here to catch him–T]
Craig said in a statement issued by his office that he was not involved in any inappropriate conduct.
“At the time of this incident, I complained to the police that they were misconstruing my actions,” he said. “I should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this matter. In hindsight, I should not have plead guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously.” [Yeah, I always plead guilty to something I’m not guilty of just to make it go away especially when I’m a US Senator, but I’m not gay and it involves gay sex.–T]
Roll Call, citing the report, said Sgt. Dave Karsnia made the arrest after an encounter in which he was seated in a stall next to a stall occupied by Craig. Karsnia described Craig tapping his foot, which Karsnia said he “recognized as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct.”
Roll Call quoted the Aug. 8 police report as saying that Craig had handed the arresting officer a business card that identified him as a member of the Senate.
“What do you think about that?” Craig is alleged to have said, according to the report.
Last fall, Craig called allegations from a gay-rights activist that he’s had homosexual relationships “completely ridiculous.”
Well, not so ridiculous apparently. A blogger named Mike Rogers notes that he’s the one who “outed” Craig last year, and has followed up ever since. Rogers has another link to a Roll Call story with more details and where Craig sloppily attempts to explain how such a “misunderstanding” could have happened. Apparently it has something to do with a “wide stance” when relieving one’s self. For crying out loud.
Kevin Naff, editor of the Washington Blade, a gay newspaper, made an excellent point in a commentary about the situation:
The hypocrisy of a closeted conservative politician voting against the interests of the gay community while engaging in some of the most stereotypically harmful behavior attributed to gays is maddening. We will now have to endure breathless reporting about tawdry toilet sex on CNN, thanks to Craig.
Naff then goes on to note that Craig can help make things better by voting for hate crimes legislation. Well, not only are not all gay men engaging in tawdry bathroom sex with strangers, not all gay people think “hate crimes” legislation is good idea, either. Some of us would rather not become the establishment Thought Police, with laws that position some people as more equal, more important, than others. But that’s another subject for another time. [Many of you do know I’ve written extensively about the problem of “hate crime” legislation in my book The New Thought Police, and in various columns].
At any rate, Craig also has a statement about the incident on his senate webpage, which for the most part says he plead guilty for no good reason. Yeah.
Hate crime is thought crime. It isn’t good for anybody, despite the emotional appeal.
Flush them all Tammy! Scum bags. Although I must say that Mr. Rogers and his ilk make me just ask sick with their intense need to ‘out’ people; but that is for another time. Who knows maybe Craig was tapping a tune? What tune, well,..hmmm, that is for someone else to answer! LOL! The one thing that got me angry is the whipping out of his Senate business card, “What do you think about that?” Thank goodness this policeman remembered that a Senator is nothing more than a windbag and in some cases so much more.
For some reason, that song ‘Bring on the Clowns’ is again replaying on my mind. LOL
He was just conducting research into how the gay agenda works. This was done for the Republican Senatorial Election Committee so they’d have the talking points they need for the next election!
Yeah! That’s it…!
Two rules to live by:
(1) Never believe a cop; and
(2) Never plead guilty.
If you violate (1), you are probably going to violate (2).
If you violate (2), you take the cop’s credibility off the table and never have a chance to follow (1).
Perhaps Senator Craig mistook the undercover policeman for an illegal alien and was only trying to comply with George Bush’s policy of extreme accomodation to our good neighbors to the south. He probably figured “hey, we got the whole country kissing their butts, I’ll go em’ one better! I’m a U.S. Senator! I am expected to do better and try a little harder than the hoi polloi.”
If all the stalls at Hartsfield-Atlanta Airport are full, one of the most popular alternatives to consider is the Home Depot in Midtown. Not kidding. (You can write your own one-liners about tools! I wouldn’t touch it with a… oh forget it…) J
ST THOR:
You are spot on. If you are being questioned, just say you want to remain silent, get a lawyer. The cops want you to “cooperate” without council so they can ask a barage of questions to catch you “lying to investigators” so they then have something to hang you on, even if they have no case. Once they drop the charges the lawyer can offer to let them pay his fees and end it there, or sue for millions and settle for hundreds of thousands.
“…which for the most part says he plead guilty for no good reason.”
The reports I’ve read do all say he plead guilty, but non-legal sources have a tendency to describe pleading no contest as “pleading guilty” for the sake of not having to explain a difference to their readers that they themselves probably don’t understand. Does anyone know whether Craig actually plead guilty or no contest? If he did plead guilty, then by now saying he did so for no reason, he may be admitting to having committed perjury at his plea hearing, since he would have been admitting a factual basis for the charge under oath, unlike if he plead nolo.
“Two rules to live by:
(1) Never believe a cop;”
Since I’m a prosecutor, it would be rather difficult, i.e., impossible, for me to live by that rule. Moreover, I think it’s pretty outrageous to suggest ALL police are liars. Yes, there are dirty cops, and they deserve all the punishment they can get for it. But most police are out there day in and day out putting their lives on the line for the safety of the public. I work with these people: none are perfect, but they are all colleagues, and some are friends. I’m sorry if this gets me emotional, but I live in a jurisdiction that just buried a very good cop who was murdered in the line of duty.
“(2) Never plead guilty.”
Not even if you did it, the evidence is overwhelming and you have no legal defenses? I know plenty of otherwise quite pro-defense judges who’d slam a defendant in sentencing for wasting the court’s time with a trial on a case like that, especially if you also didn’t waive jury trial and put a panel of your fellow citizens through it as well.