I can't believe I'm defending this man...

[FourScore]

What happened here? I don't get it. I'm trying to, but I just don't get it.

Vitter pays for hetero sex (with a stranger) and gets praised by his colleagues in the Senate. Craig, on the other hand, taps his foot in a public bathroom and gets arrested. Then he is shunned by his own party and forced to resign.

What law did Craig break anyway? Did the "thought police" get him? 'Cause no one was actually propositioned from what I can tell.

Who wanted this man gone and why? What happened here? This is the wierdest story I've heard in a long time.

And I'd like to add--

I never thought I'd see the day I would be defending a creep like Craig. And I guess, I'm not really defending him-- I'm defending gay rights; that fight is so much bigger than this weasel named Craig. But unfortunately, Senator Craig's put himself in a position that I must defend - even though I despise the man.

I find it deplorable that ANYONE would applaud this man losing his job because of the bogus charges brought against him. I can find a thousand other reasons - real reasons, political ones - to throw this man out on his ass. But, this...this footsy-tapping thing???

I understand that there are people out there who want to justify Craig losing his job because of his hypocricy. And yes, he is a hypocrit. But I think we DU'ers need to rise above that right now.

We need to be asking a very important question: Why is it okay to pay for heterosexual sex (like Vitter did), but not homosexual -- and remember, IT DIDN'T EVEN GET THAT FAR WITH THE CRAIG ARREST!!! The Republican party praised Vitter after his DC Madam escapades came to light. Craig taps his foot while on the toilet and gets run out of Dodge. This is just too wierd.

Can someone please explain to me why this man had to resign? And why does Vitter still have his job?

(BTW, The tinfoil-hat-toting side of me says that this Craig guy was set up...but why? Hmm...wierd. :tinfoilhat: )

[mondo joe]

1. The problem is not Craig's resignation, but Vitter's failure to resign.

I don't think you need to defend Craig being a peeping Tom.

[FourScore]

2. Peeping Tom?

I heard he tapped his foot and it made with the cops.

[mondo joe]

8. You might want to read the full account before defending him. NT

[FourScore]

11. I heard he peered throught the crack in a stall

Like no one has ever done that before...

But that's not the point.

My point is that I don't understand the crime that was committed.

[mondo joe]

12. Peered - for 2 minutes, with his eye to the opening.

If you've been doing that, I suggest you reconsider.

He was charged with disorderly conduct.

[FourScore]

16. 2 minutes? Oh.

The report I heard made it sound as if he glanced through the slit, like if your not sure it's occupied...

Still, I see a difference in people's perception regarding the gay sex, and that really pisses me off. Certainly, you won't deny that's the case.

[mondo joe]

17. There are numerous differences.

But - and I don't mean to be rude in saying so - I think you would be well served to learn more about it.

[FourScore]

18. You're not getting my point.

Which is merely this:

There seems to be more moral outrage regarding this Craig "solicitation" of gay sex than ACTUAL solicited hetero sex. Do you think I am wrong about that?

[TheWraith]

25. I don't agree.

Craig's behavior was nasty on a dozen different levels.

And Vitter should have resigned too. He also admitted committing a crime.

[mondo joe]

48. I think there are multipe differences.

Craig, for one, admitted guilt legally. Vitter did not.

I suspect trolling for sex in a public restroom will always seem more "icky" than using a paid private pro.

And sure there is homophobia. But it isn't the only factor.

[Tulum_Moon]

28. Two Minutes!

No way! No one would stand at a stall and stare in there for two minutes in a busy airport bathroom! This whole thing stinks. (no pun intended). I keep thinking , maybe the guy was out of toilet paper, and that was what he jestered for under the stall. LOL.. I think someone wants the old guy gone. I also think he has a history of this and they are playing to that. I am not sticking up for him. I am happy this happened. But the way it went down seems to be by his own party. JMHO.

[aquart]

73. Wow!. That's so....deliberately naive.

Maybe it's really different in ladies rooms, but when WE want paper from another stall, we SAY so, and nobody puts a hand out until the paper is pushed under the opening.

Of course, a hand appearing out of nowhere could be groping for a purse on the floor... So maybe the rules are different for guys. Are they? Fellas, when you want toilet paper, do you grope or do you ask?

[NNadir]

3. I agree but...

the fact is that Craig is being forced to resign because it's gay sex he was trying to have.

[FourScore]

4. Exactly. n/t

[eridani]

38. Exactly--if Craig has to resign, why not Vitter the Shitter? n/t

[salin]

41. Vitter could be replaced by a democrat, Craig will not.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Craig was arrested and pled guilty to a crime, and then deliberately

refused to disclose this to the Senate and to his constituents, thereby violating his constituents' trust--and Senate ethics--TWICE! For that alone, he is unworthy of his office.

[CC]

6. Another big difference is that ID has

a repug governor that will fill his seat with a repug while LA has a Dem governor that would fill Vitter's seat with a Dem instead of a repug. That R on that seat in the senate is much more important to the repugs than the moral failings of the holder.

[rodeodance]

45. agreed. This factor played a BIG role.

[napi21]

7. There's a lot of things at play.

First, Vitter is from La. and they have a Dem. Gov. so she'd most likely name a Dem replacement. They sure can't have that now, could they?

Second, Craig was STUPID! It has nothing to do with gay rights or even what he did with his feet! The dumnb AH PLEAD GUILTY! Nobody deserves to be a Senator who can't even think far enough to say "I want to call my lawyer!"

Yes, I also think the gay issue is at play here. But if you are really trying to support gay rights, isn't it a bit silly to argue for Craig's right to do what ever he did or didn't do because he was the leader of the pack on fighting AGAINST any gay rights issue? I think at least with the Dems, his hypocracy is the biggest wrong he did.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. Craig's replacement is made by the Repo Gov. Vitter would be by a Dem Gov.

Craig is up for election in 08, Vitter isn't.

They both were law breakers, as soliciting sex in a public restroom is againbst the law and seeing a prostitute in LA is against the law.

The deciding factor wasn't ethics but politics.

[FourScore]

14. I'm not talking about the obvious political prudence of the republican party.

I question the "solicitation" charges. I question the "moral outrage" of this whole...affair.

[John Q. Citizen]

61. It's pure politics. If Craig held his seat, he would have been more vulnerable

in 08 and the Repos would have had another vulnerable seat to defend.

If Craig remained how could the Repos sell "value" as a political commodity?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

10. to deflect this possibly...

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/08/wholl-be-next-republican-hypocrite-to.html

[question everything]

13. Vitter came out and admitted his actions

Craig still denies his.

Personally, I think that what happens between consenting adults in the privacy of their own room is no one's business but if there is a law against sex, or sex solicitation in public bathrooms then he broke the law.

And, really, how would you like to enter a bathroom to use it for its "intended use" only to be faced with two individuals having sex? And occupying two stalls while others have to wait in line?

And, I suppose that, yes, gay sex would get more repulsion. This is how our society is still shaped, just as a generation ago bi-racial relations could result in a jail sentence, too.

[Smarmie Doofus]

39. This does not compute. Cop said there were empty stalls.

>>>And, really, how would you like to enter a bathroom to use it for its "intended use" only to be faced with two individuals having sex? And occupying two stalls while others have to wait in line?>>>

Senator insisted otherwise.

Should we believe Craig?

[aquart]

15. He wasn't set up. He ran into an honest cop.

Personally, I love it when a hypocrite gets gored with his own ox.

This is poetry in motion and I intend to enjoy every minute of it.

[Toasterlad]

62. The Cop Was There For the Purpose Of Catching Homosexual Cruisers.

In that respect, Craig was absolutely set up. I suggest you read the police report.

The man is guilty of breaking the law, but things would never have even gotten to the "toe-tapping", "hand-waving" stage if the other man hadn't been a cop giving Craig enough rope to hang himself.

[mondo joe]

63. Undercover ops ALWAYS give "enough rope". It's still a justified arrest. NT

[Toasterlad]

66. Never Said it Wasn't.

[aquart]

71. YOU read the report.

Yeah, the cop was there for that purpose. His job was to assure that public restrooms are available for their intended use. CRAIG went there to solicit sex. Which is not the intended use of the restroom.

The cop did his job. Had Craig NOT been in the restroom to solicit sex, he would not have performed the ritual gestures. Putting this on the cop is ridiculous.

What you are saying is that soliciting sex in public bathrooms is acceptable behavior to you, and no one should complain about it or attempt to stop it. Fine. That's your opinion but it is not the law. The cop was honestly and correctly doing the job he was sent to do: enforce the law. Which was my point.

[Toasterlad]

74. That Is Not At All What I'm Saying.

I never once "put this on the cop". Whatever my feelings about sting operations, they are legal, and the cop was obeying the law, just as Craig was breaking the law. My point is that it takes two to tango, as they say, and if the cop had not danced his dance, Craig would not have danced HIS. That does not make Craig's actions any less illegal, and I never suggested otherwise.

[pop goes the weasel]

19. take a look at the Slate re-enactment

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid988092926/bctid1155290759

It's based on the police report. Of course, now someone needs to do a re-enactment based on Craig's version of events.

(oh, I should warn that there is an ad at the beginning.)

[FourScore]

24. That was informative.

Thanks for the link.

[yardwork]

20. I appreciate your points regarding the double standard for gay vs. hetero sex

I also think that Craig is being thrown under the bus by his own party because his seat is vulnerable, while Vitter was protected by his party because he's not up for reelection for some years.

Also, beyond people's prejudice against gay people, there is a strong "ick" factor with the public bathroom setting, and Craig's pleading guilty to it is an absolute admission of guilt in most people's minds. The guilty plea is a deciding factor.

If Vitter is proven to enjoy diaper sex or whatever it's called, I think that the "ick" factor will come into play with him as well, and the party may well dump him. That's where I admit I'm counting on Flynt and others to bring more evidence into the open.

[FourScore]

22. I think you are absolutely right about the bathroom setting.

It is gross.

I forgot about the diapers thing. That's pretty icky too isn't it?

[EST]

21. There are at least a hundred threads,explaining in vivid

detail why it is legal, why it happened, why it has little or nothing to do with homo or hetero sex, why it has to do with Craig's being a predator, and why the political ramifications are as they are.

There are thousands of thoughtful blogs which have dissected this bs down to the nub and pretty much every conceivable question has been asked and answered.

If you do a few minutes' casting around and reading, you will not only have to defend no one, but you will be an instant expert, ready to answer anyone else's questions at the drop of a pixel.

[FourScore]

23. I'm sure you're right about that.

Quite frankly, this is turning into one of those late-night posts I wish I'd never started, and I really ought to go to bed..

My point, though perhaps poorly articulated, is that I see a different standard for gay vs. hetero. That irks me.

[yardwork]

26. As a lesbian, I appreciate your OP.

I usually ignore snarky responses unless I'm in the mood to taunt back.

[FourScore]

27. Thanks, yardwork.

I think I'll go to bed now.

[Laurier]

29. You are right to defend against the action, never mind the individual.

It is obvious that no actual crime was committed and obvious that the entire operation was designed and executed as an improper 'sting' against gay men.

Never mind the identity of this particular man who happened to be caught up in it. The reality is that there had to be dozens of other gay or bisexual men who were also tagged by this discriminatory tactic who just don't happen to be "newsworthy" enough to come to public attention. As progressives, we do not do ourselves any favors by jumping all over this particular victim of a wrongful police tactic because we happen to dislike his politics, when it means pretending (or ignoring the fact) that there aren't dozens of other victims whose politics we probably agree with. By doing so, we turn our backs on gays who are not "newsworthy" and we send the message that it's somehow okay to discriminate against gays as long as they're not Democrats, and that is just not right.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. When I Go Into A Closed Bathroom Stall To Take A Dump I Expect Privacy

Senator Craig arrogated to himself the right to peer through cracks in closed bathroom stores to evaluate, peruse, check out, scope, audit every person in the restroom who went into a bathroom stall and closed the door, presumably to pee or poop, in his attempt to find one ready, willing, and able sexual partner and when he did he stared at that person for one to two minutes... He violated the rights of every person in that restroom before he found one he liked...


If Senator Craig admitted to being diapered by a male prostitte I would argue against his resignation. In my humble opinion, prostitution is largely a victimless crime...Going into a public restroom and inspecting all the occupants who have a right to privacy after they go into the stall and close the door is not a victimless crime...The person has grossly invaded the rights of others....What Vitter did ,solicit a hooker is malum prohibitum, bad because society says so...What Craig did , look at people performing intimate acts without their permission is malum in se, bad in and of itself...


When I go to a public bathroom and close the door to move my bowels I don't want anybody looking at me; not even for a second, be that person Brad Pitt, Salma Hayek, or Abe Vigoda...

I have yet to hear one person who has defended Craig articulate why they have a right to see somebody perform an intimate act without their permission...

[closeupready]

30. What I don't get is people keep insisting "he had sex in the bathroom"

He did not, and he did not solicit sex, from my reading of what transpired. He behaved in a lewd way by peeping into the next stall, but that's it.

[XtraProudDem]

35. This stuff is real

Just because you've never heard of these "signals" that are used in men's rooms for the purpose of soliciting sex doesn't mean they are not true. The "foot tapping" and "reaching under the stall" are well known signals in this kind of activity. I'm sorry I know this, but I do, and it's real. And the officer had been trained to look for this behavior. These signals are code, known and used my men, for whatever reason, to find partners for sex. Not very many people know about this, but it's real.

It's not some random series of coincidental body movements.

[closeupready]

50. So what? Maybe he just wanted to get off. That is not a crime, thinking of sex while in the bathro

bathroom. That's what I'm saying. If thinking about sex in a public bathroom was a crime, probably every single man on earth would be a criminal. Why is talking to another man in a bathroom a crime???

He engaged in lewd behavior, and pled guilty. That is true.

But claiming that he actually had intercourse with another man in the bathroom is, at best, incorrect, IMO.

[mondo joe]

51. No, but being a peeping tom and invading the privacy of other stalls is a crime. NT

[closeupready]

52. Yes, that is true -

no way out of that.

[dailykoff]

31. Well said. My guess as to why

he got the public execution is because he wasn't falling into line re. Iran, or maybe he was doing his job on his military contracting subcommittee and ordered up an audit.

[Swamp Rat]

32. Why defend ANY of them?

After all, they'd feed you to the wolves.

[EST]

33. Jeeezus! Swamp,

what the hell are they really doing in that pic? It looks like you've illustrated the reason behind bush's fetish with the tops of men's heads, especially bald ones.

[Bryn]

34. Oh, Pleeeezzzzeeeee

:eyes:

[JDPriestly]

36. The police officer knew based on experience that Craig

was not trying to pick up a guy with whom to have coffee with or go to a hotel. Craig went through the routine that men go through in that bathroom when they are seeking a sex partner for "activity" in the bathroom. He committed overt actions that indicated that he was seeking sexual "activity."

Had Craig fought the charge in court, he might have been able to establish that there was a reasonable doubt as to whether the police officer accurately reported the facts and Craig could have raised appropriate defenses. He did not choose to defend himself because he thought he would attract less attention by just pleading guilty to a lesser charge. He took a gamble. He lost.

This is not about homosexuality.

It is about performing acts in a public restroom that should only be performed in private. Assuming that the police officer told the truth, it is highly unlikely that Craig would have done the things he did for any reason other than to solicit sex in a public bathroom. Whether it is two men or a man and a woman, having sex in a public bathroom is lewd conduct. Don't do it unless you want to risk getting arrested. If you happen to fall in love at first sight in a public restroom, ask the guy/girl to coffee. Please.

[donheld]

37. Some people don't get it

because they don't want to get it.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. Solicit sex from another willing adult.

The whole point of the ritual is to identify another willing partner. Craig was not going to hit on any of the stallophobics here, nor was he going to spend two minutes watching the stallophobics take a dump. The cop responded affirmatively to Craig's signalling, that is why Craig continued to approach him.

The stallophobics simply have to not respond, or respond negatively, to the initial approach and in almost all cases the scary gay man will move on.

Craig was not arrested for having sex in a public bathroom. You can jump to the conclusion that he would have had he had the opportunity, but that was not what he was arrested for. He was arrested for trying to identify a willing sex partner. While I find restroom cruising rude, I do not think it ought to be criminal. If we are going to arrest people for this stuff those arrests ought to be for actual sex in public, not for simply cruising.

As has been pointed out here repeatedly, bathroom sex, the hetero version, is the subject of much celebration and bragging, is routinely depicted by hollywood as studly behavior, and appears to be common in dance clubs and singles bars, and although it is probably in the realm of myth, on airplanes. There is more than a whiff of homophobia in many of these stallophobic threads.

[mondo joe]

49. The "screening process" itself is a violation of others' privacy.

And don't conflate sex in an adults only night time bar with the airport bathroom.

[Warren Stupidity]

53. Craig was not arrested for having sex in public.

Had he been arrested for actually having sex in a bathroom I would not by typing this.

The screening process occurs in public areas among hetero and homo sexuals all the time. Where and when should this be criminalized and what exactly should be criminalized and why?

[mondo joe]

54. I never said he was. The "screening process" in public does not violate the

reasonable assumption of privacy one has in a bathroom stall.

[Warren Stupidity]

56. And you know for a fact that Craig violated somebody's

assumption of privacy? I don't think that is established at all. What I think happened is that the cop in the stall played the dance with Craig. He invited Craig to not just glance in the stall, but to continue to stare in and watch him, to initiate more contact. That is the way the game works. If you don't respond to the mildest of approaches the person moves on.

So what exactly ought to be criminalized?

[mondo joe]

57. He peered into the stall, he put his foot and then his hand into the stall.

I have zero problem with that being criminal.

You IMAGINE the cop "invited" Craig - but neither eyewitness says that.

You are just making shit up.

And I know a fuck lot more about how the game works than you do.

[Toasterlad]

65. "I know a fuck lot more about how the game works than you do."

If that's true, than you should know that Warren is absolutely right. The cop was in the restroom for the sole purpose of catching gay cruisers like Craig. Consequently, he played along with Craig's manuevering until he felt he had enough evidence to bust him. A man of Craig's presumable experience would not have spent two minutes peering through the crack at an unwilling participant. The cop encouraged the staring, and was HOPING for the toe-tapping and hand-waving, because that was the nature of the sting.

Craig is guilty of breaking the law, but he is NOT the "predator" that some are making him out to be, and the cop was not a "victim". He was doing his job, and if he HADN'T been doing his job, Craig would not be guilty of a thing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. Craig Broke The Law The Second He Peeked Into A Closed Stall

That's troublesome...

A poster suggested you're a "stallaphobic" if you don't want somebody peeking at you while you do your business... I have seen my girlfriend in all stages of nakedness but I'm not going to watch her relieve herself, especially without her permission...

I don't want anybody peeking at me when I'm on the can... That's my right... I don't see how anybody can find a right that supersedes that...

[mondo joe]

68. The "game" to which I refer is the "screening" for willing participants.

Certainly t room cruisers are not looking for, or about to, sexually assault unwilling participants. They are looking for willing partners.

My point is that the "screening" itself is and should be illegal because it necessarily involves the invasion into a private setting for those who are not willing.

I've written elsewhere about my teen experience with public restrooms used for this purpose. No one ever assaulted me - but I shouldn't have been made to feel I had to be that mindful in a restroom, and neither should anyone else.

You can speculate that the officer encouraged Craig - but it is only speculation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. That's The Point Some Folks Are Deliberately Ignoring

"My point is that the "screening" itself is and should be illegal because it necessarily involves the invasion into a private setting for those who are not willing."

Simple logic...In order to find a willing participant in this scenario you most likely have to eliminate unwilling participants and there is no way to do that without grossly invading the privacy of unwilling participants.

Unless somebody has "radar" that immediately leads them to the rigth person ...

I don't think somebody can misunderstand it without trying..

[Toasterlad]

76. I Don't Disagree With You.

You absolutely SHOULD be able to go to a public restroom and enter a stall with a certain expectation of privacy. The problem I have with the way people are arguing about this injustice of which Craig is guilty is the over-the-top reaction.

Gay cruisers do not stare for two minutes at unwilling participants. A frown or a word from the cop would have stopped Craig's "staring" after a few furtive glances. Are a few furtive glances an invasion of your privacy? Absolutely. But I'd like to believe that normal, DECENT people would realize that this crime rates fairly low on the outrage scale. Would you rather Craig stole your wallet? Punched you in the eye? Voted against same-sex marriage? In the words of Rizzo: "There are worse things I could do." What Craig did was illegal, but it's not worth all this moral prostelitizing.

Members of Congress - gay and straight, Republican and Democrat - perform worse acts than this EVERY DAY, without once going to a restroom. Focus on the hypocrisy of what Craig has stood for as a public servant, which is what he deserves to fry for. That's much more important than a few minutes of illicit peeping.

I'm curious what the reaction of DUers would be if Craig hadn't been caught peeping, but instead had been seen having oral sex with a willing participant.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

78. Private Consensual Sex-No Biggie...

"I'm curious what the reaction of DUers would be if Craig hadn't been caught peeping, but instead had been seen having oral sex with a willing participant."

If he did it behind closed doors it's his business...I do wonder how the GOP would have handled it...

[aquart]

75. Incredibly disingenuous.

[Toasterlad]

77. What a Bold Statement You Make, Backed Up With a Well-Crafted Counter-Argument.

I salute you. :thumbsdown:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. When I Go To A Bar I Don't Get To Screen Men Or Women Without Their Clothes On

eom

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. I Have Been In Many Straight And Gay Bars

The only time I have seen restroom sex, surprisingly enough was in department store restrooms...

[LanternWaste]

72. Is a "stallophobic"

Is a "stallophobic" someone who simply wants to do their business in a public restroom without having sex or being on display? :shrug:

[Warren Stupidity]

85. No.

[JDPriestly]

86. If a police officer sees you walk into a bank, pull out a gun, grab the guy next

to you by the shoulder and walk up to the teller's counter, the officer will arrest you. When a prostitute solicits an officer, the officer arrests the prostitute. The officer does not wait until the prostitute does whatever she is going to do. Apparently from what I have learned since this Craig arrest was made public, the conduct he displayed is a pretty clear invitation to a sexual encounter in the public restroom. That is gross. If the charges had been that weak, Craig would have defended himself against them.

[chknltl]

40. I can go along with the "Craig was set up" part

Is it me or was the release of the Craig thing fortuitous?
The Progressive Radio Hosts have spent an incredible amount of time on this story...excluding something else by and large: The Gonzo story...(remember that?). Worse I have a hunch that bush may be hiding his dance to war with Iran behind this smokescreen as well!

NOT OFF TOPIC: With our land military so depleted, how exactly can we fight a war with Iran? Do you suppose bush might try to use our naval air might poised nearby, perhaps with a few well placed tactical nukes as a bigger and better version of "Shock and Awe" on Iran?

Doesn't Iran sell most of it's oil to Russia and China? Doesn't most of the world think that bush invaded Iraq in order to steal Iraqi oil? Do you suppose that Russia and China might get a bit antsy about our military trying to steal "their" oil from Iran? Hasn't Russia started flying their ARMED bombers around again like they did back during the Cold War? (Yeah, I know, they are supposedly angry about us wantin to stick that mythical Star Wars Tech over in Eastern Europe).

So why would bush want to invade Iran???? May i suggest that bush is losing his fiasco over in Iraq, not only on the ground but with the Iraqi government...they smell the turdblossems just as we do...they are turning to their neighbors for help in spite of bush's wishes! If they stay with bush, they fail with him and likely die...if they turn against bush and ask for aid from Iran they may live, after all there is all that oil as a bargaining chip. If bush is forced out, the Iraqi government can sell it's oil to whom they wish and with Iran's help, I suspect that oil will wind up in Chinese and Russian motors....!!! (Oil or WWIII???? Do you think those psychopaths in the White House care how We The People would vote if given that choice?)

bush is also losing this war here at home with the minds and hearts of the American people. So if bush is forced out of Iraq, his puppeteers will lose out on Iraqi oil. They have spent too much of their efforts at this point on this...I can not see them losing the Gold Medal here. If they invade Iran, they may buy enough time to bully the Iraqi government into signing away the Iraqi oil. Hell they may even wind up with Iran's oil as part of the loot too! Well that's what I think the bushies are thinkin. Their choices are: get kicked out of Iraq, (is there any doubts that this is happening?), or try something dramatic in order NOT to lose that Iraqi oil they have been after all along.

Well that's how i do the math. Then there was that well publicized arresting the Iranian diplomats thingy over in Iraq the other day... I am sure the Iranians were impressed!...and we inexplicably have a naval commander overseeing the Iraqi war and those aircraft carriers over there and a whole lot of saber rattling against Iran being ramped up as of late out of the bfee... General Petrayus has been pre-discredited with his "surge" report...(not that I trusted him anyway)... and whats this I hear about an anti missile defense unit being summoned to duty in Washington DC the other day...

If the Progressive radio hosts were screaming bloody murder about this right now.... if we Progressives here in the on-line blogs and forums were scared witless about this right now... if John Stewert and Stephen Colbert were around to hint about this right now... If Keith Olberman was talking about this right now...well I suppose we might be rioting outside our Congresscritters homes trying to stop bush... those of us who weren't thinking about our Labor Day weekend plans that is... Doesn't it seem marvelous how we who could be raising the alarm (including our Progressive Radio and TV folks) are either on vacation or are distracted by Britney Craig and Anna Nicole Vitter? (See, I told you it wasn't off topic!)

I suppose i should add a tinfoil hat here but then I look at all the Vitter/Craig items listed in DU and I think to myself: Nah...I wonder if it is too late to learn to play a fiddle cause I sense some flames a comin from my fellow Duers...hopefully that is the only flames I see

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. HERE WE GO AGAIN

Senator Craig arrogated to himself the right to peer through cracks in closed bathroom stores to evaluate, peruse, check out, scope, audit every person in the restroom who went into a bathroom stall and closed the door, presumably to pee or poop, in his attempt to find one ready, willing, and able sexual partner and when he did he stared at that person for one to two minutes... He violated the rights of every person in that restroom before he found one he liked...


If Senator Craig admitted to being diapered by a male prostitte I would argue against his resignation. In my humble opinion, prostitution is largely a victimless crime...Going into a public restroom and inspecting all the occupants who have a right to privacy after they go into the stall and close the door is not a victimless crime...The person has grossly invaded the rights of others....What Vitter did ,solicit a hooker is malum prohibitum, bad because society says so...What Craig did , look at people performing intimate acts without their permission is malum in se, bad in and of itself...


When I go to a public bathroom and close the door to move my bowels I don't want anybody looking at me; not even for a second, be that person Brad Pitt, Salma Hayek, or Abe Vigoda...

I have yet to hear one person who has defended Craig articulate why they have a right to see somebody perform an intimate act without their permission...

[rodeodance]

46. Yes, we should all have the expectation that if we (familiy, kids) use public bathrooms,

they well be safe----and safe means not be solicited or peeped upon!

[donheld]

47. I can't believe it either -- Stop it

Craig did A LOT more than tap his foot. He with his hand motions asked the officer to engage in a sex act in a public airport. Craig did his best to cover up his arrest and activity. He fought gays very hard. Vitter, to my knowledge, has never fought heteros. No, DUers do not need to rise above the hypocrisy at all. DUers need to focus squarely on that. DUer's need to let it be known to other hypocrites that if found out they too will suffer the same fate. Besides it was the republicans who demanded his resignation. He had to resign because he, before this, had 100% approval of the family values crowd. After this he had 0% of their approval. Because, once this crime was made known, anyone who knows Idaho knows he'd lose his seat. He wasn't set up at all.

Save your tin foil for another day.

[Beelzebud]

55. So then you won't mind if someone watched you use a public bathroom then?

[dansolo]

58. They probably already knew he was gay

The unspoken rule for the GOP is that they will allow gay members as long as they stay in the closet. Once they are outed, they will no longer be supported. It isn't the illicit sex that is the problem, it's the illicit gay sex. We are talking about the Republicans here.

[Jack Rabbit]

64. Well, if you think it's the right thing to do, good for you

Craig solicited for sex in public. That's against the law in most places. Call me a prude, but it should be. I don't think the average citizen would want to be propositioned by a stranger while he's minding his own business.

Perhaps you've got a point about the double standard between Craig and Vitter. However, Craig actually entered a guilty plea to charges brought against him, while Vitter has had no charges brought against him, yet. Although there's obviously more to it than a name popping up on a phone list, the Vitter matter is tied up with the investigation into the DC Madam's case. Remember, the DC Madam denies she is running a prostitution ring; if she really isn't, then it will be difficult to bring charges against Vitter.

Don't be afraid to speak up. There's no rule that says any one has to agree with you. Even if no one agrees with with you, it doesn't mean you're wrong.

[DS1]

70. If people would read 5 minutes, they'd stop asking which laws were broken

[peacetheonlyway]

79. Craig is a sex addict, has nothing to do with gay rights

he is anti gay because his need to get his rocks off has no care who does it (male or female). Dig deeper and we'll see Craig has a history of forcing or begging for sex because that's what addictions like alcoholism does to people, makes them lower than human.

here's the deal, he should actually be in jail if we had stiffer sex violation laws but the judges and lawmakers are themselves uptight sex addicts so the laws never get passed.

if you were the man in the stall next to him, at what point would Craig's advances been THREATENING TO YOU, at what point would you feel like calling the cops on this man????

it's about self defence and getting sex addicts out of public places like bathrooms where kids and children are easy prey.

we don't know what levels this man will go to satisfy his addiction but I can bet if you ask his kids they probably have stories to tell.

stop defending him. you don't know the whole story do you?

[mitchum]

80. To hell with Craig...he KNEW the nature of the dogs he chose to lie down with

edit: typo

[bridgit]

81. It's control of message; republican leadership wanted him the hell out of the way...

so they'll be able to talk about Hillary's negatives, and not the negatives of either bush's various failed, pernicious wars & escapades, or the negatives associated with their own STD addled brains...

So he had to go: Now!

What a day, the other day, for them to roll out Hillary's specious 'Chinese' donor base, Rove's frat boy departure from DC, and some ill conceived remedies for keeping sub-prime people beneath the whims of predatory lending, GonzoGate, and how lovely the economy really is, no...

Craig had to go for high risk behaviors and so he has

The ongoing operation that yielded Craig, logged at that location I thought it was some 41 folks already. It's not just gay 'peeka boo' time. Similar operations are conducted all across America that sadly identify resultants such as: robbery, theft, assault, murder, kidnapping, pedophilia, illegal drug/substance trade, etc; only a component of which being voyeurism & illicit or unsolicited sex acts

Feel sorry for him if you feel you need to, it would seem you're not alone here at DU :)

[Paladin]

82. WHY Do "DU'ers Need To Rise Above That Right Now"???

Tell me why we Democrats need to play nice with an evil old hypocrite like Larry Craig. Why is it that we are always urged to "rise above" the level of our enemies, to pull our punches, and act like a bunch of wusses? Believe me, the right wing depends upon and exploits such weak-kneed attitudes from us. And the Democratic Party didn't start effectively getting back at the dark forces in this country until a whole bunch of us started getting angry and making it clear that we were ready to fight. Who do you think is a more effective spokesman for our side: Alan Colmes or Keith Olbermann?

We have a right to be outraged by what has happened to our country, and a right to feel satisfaction when one of our enemies is publicly humiliated. As far as I'm concerned, Larry Craig can seek out the closest bathroom stall and fuck himself there.....

[dailykoff]

83. Who appoints his successor, anybody know?

nt

[dailykoff]

84. Okay replacement: Jim Risch, GOP, according to this article:

NBC has reported that Larry Craig will resign tomorrow in the midst of his sex scandal. The resignation will be effective September 30th according to reports from GOP officials from Idaho. Lieutenant Gov. Jim Risch is said to be appointed to the Senate by Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter.

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/2647