Larry Craig Apologists Point to Deeper GOP Problems
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the newsletter or RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
In the wake of the Senator Larry Craig scandal, I think it is appropriate to engage a meta-discussion about issues that go beyond the arrest, the cover-up, and the resignation fiasco. What has this episode uncovered about blind party loyalty, and is it acceptable to excuse misdeeds for political alliances?
Marty Trillhaase’s Post Register editorial today was the worst I have ever read. I have agreed and disagreed with various editorials, but this one was completely absurd. Trillhaase questions, “What crime was committed?” suggesting that since sex did not occur then no crime was actually committed. Trillhaase questions, “Where’s the proof that Craig - or other people caught up in this Minneapolis sting - intended to have sex in the restroom?”
It amazes me that this needs explaining; the proof was in the actions witnessed by the police officer. Perhaps Trillhaase supports always waiting for crimes to be committed, that obvious planning for the crime should be hands-off? If I collect the common household ingredients for a meth lab, does Trillhaase believe I should not be arrested until I am caught actually producing meth? If I stalk and threaten Trillhaase’s daughter, does Trillhaase believe I should not be charged until I cause her actual bodily harm? If I post plans online that I plan to storm the Post Register building, shoot everyone I see, and I am collecting weapons, does Trillhaase believe I should not be charged until I step in and actually fire the first shot?
Trillhaase questions the police officer’s training and integrity by saying, “[Officer] Karsnia isn’t just claiming to read intent. He’s reading minds. … How many hand signals did Karsnia conclude to be harmless? How many did he find to be criminal? How did he know the difference? That’s incredibly subjective and selective.”
Trillhaase apparently does not realize Officer Karsnia could know the difference because he has had police training, and he has had policing experience. Trillhaase should watch the film, Barry Cooper’s Never Get Caught Again, in which an ex-cop who was extremely successful at making drug busts explains what aroused his suspicions. Cooper said “I support law enforcement” stickers, college fraternity symbols, and marijuana leaf key rings were some of the things that aroused his suspicions. Sure those things were all individually legal and not cause for investigation, but the more of those individual things he saw together the more his suspicions were aroused and the more he investigated. Cooper was not successful at drug busts because he read minds, but because he could read intent. The signs can be subtle, but they are objective.
The point is that police are trained to watch for patterns of these individually innocent things. Recognizing patterns of these things is actually quite objective, not “incredibly subjective and selective” as Trillhaase claims. “How does he know the difference?” He knew the difference because that is his job, and until Trillhaase can prove how police should do it better then Trillhaase should stop questioning a law enforcement officer’s professional training and integrity.
Unfortunately, Trillhaase appears to be part of a group of people who are placing their own political priorities and blind party loyalties above their personal and societal senses of right and wrong. I cannot believe some of the apologists who came out of the woodwork and made all sorts of excuses for Larry Craig’s misdeeds.
Immediately next to Trillhaase’s nonsense appeared a shining ray of wisdom from Lenore Barrett, one of the most uber-conservative Idaho Republicans. Her piece was titled, “The GOP’s wounds are self-inflicted”, and puts forth many brutally honest and introspective observations that Republicans should consider if they want their party to survive.
Examples include “[Craig] is merely a scapegoat for a GOP that has lost its vision and its principles”, “The 1994 Republican Revolution placed principle above politics … [and] promptly abandoned [them] … self interest and re-election returned with a vengeance.” I hope Republicans take some time to think about her observations. Try to consider for a day what if Barrett is right, before immediately dismissing her as wrong. What does it mean for the Republican party?
Conservative-minded folks hold many admirable qualities. I personally share many conservative values, but I cannot be a Republican party member because the “blind party loyalty” quality completely disgusts me.
Loyalty is an admirable quality, but any quality can be soured if taken too far. Cut taxes too far and you can render the government ineffective. Allow too much freedom of speech and you have libel, slander, and panic set by people yelling “fire” in a theater. Allow too much freedom to bear arms and you have criminals and certifiably insane people endangering innocent people.
Cling to loyalty past the point that you turn a blind eye to obvious wrongs, and you trample on every other principle that you claimed to adhere to. Sure you will be seen as loyal, but you will also be seen as a sell-out, a person willing to prostitute your convictions for the sake of a good old buddy system. You will be seen as truly looking out for your own self interests rather than the larger goods you claimed. And you will be seen as the biggest hypocrite of all.
It is time for the Republican party to prioritize their values, and loyalty needs to be taken down from the top tier. The blind party loyalty displayed by some Republicans lately reminds me more of communist party values than true American values.
If you truly believe that Craig was the victim of injustice, then blame the law and lobby the Minnesota legislature to reform the law. Rally to support all of the men who have been busted in these restroom stings, not just the most important person busted. Do not just attack the officer who did his job and carried out the law on the books.
What do you think?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Vote:
0 
0 Joe:
Your arguments are usually well-reasoned and thoughtful. I think you missed the boat on this one.
First, you may be the only person on the planet to accuse Marty of “blind loyalty” to anything, let alone the Republican Party. Marty’s editorial makes it clear that he doesn’t defend Craig’s actions after the arrest, and he reiterates the newspaper’s position that Craig should resign (the PR was the first newspaper in the state to call for Craig’s resignation). The Post Register can hardly be mistaken for a Craig or Republican apologist.
Next, the examples you cite don’t compare to what happened in the Minneapolis bathroom. Even if you interpret Craig’s actions as the police officer did, no one’s safety was ever put in jeopardy by him. Of course, pre-emptive action should be taken when there’s “probable cause” to suspect violence is imminent. That wasn’t the case here.
The question Marty and I want you to consider is how much power you want to give the police and others in power. Do you really want to put the police in the position of assuming what you have in mind based on toe taps and hand signs? Even if Craig was in that bathroom looking for sex (hardly a foregone conclusion), so what? What if he’d picked someone up and gone to a motel room? What if’d given the same signals in a gay bar? What if’d made a subtle move on a woman?How deeply do you want the government, in this case in the person of a police officer, looking into your private life? Of course, if someone engages in openly lewd conduct in public, that’s a different matter altogether. That’s not what happened here.
Craig handled this situation just about as badly as he could have and showed shockingly poor judgment, and should resign. But the underlying issue — the arrest in an airport bathroom — is dubious and should give us all pause.
It’s important to note that owning a shirt with a marijuana leaf silk-screened on it isn’t illegal. It might raise suspicions, but it’s not sufficient cause for arrest, even if, statistically, it makes it more likley that you’re a drug user.
My iPod includes everything from AC/DC to Tord Gustavson and Mozart. Should others assume that becase I listen to “Back in Black” that I’m a pervert, drug user or Satan-worshipper? And, if they do, does that give them the right to pre-emptively haul me away?
It occurs to me, Joe, that you might be exhibiting a degree of blind loyalty to the police here. You might want to reconsider the broader implications of that position.
Roger Plothow
Editor and Publisher
Post Register
Vote:
0 0 I try to take the position of respecting the police and their actions until very probable evidence is brought up that they did something wrong. I think I’ve demonstrated that before, especially with an article a short while ago that some saw as attacking the police.
I didn’t mention why I think Marty exhibited blind loyalty to Craig in the article. Marty has established himself very clearly as supporting Craig with supporting and pardoning illegal immigration. That was my basis.
You bring up a good distinction about imminent danger. However, there is a gray area there and not a fine line. Along those lines, does anyone support making cops wait until gay sex is occurring in a public restroom before anything can be done? If you walked in there with your son and heard or saw that, the damage would already be done. I support the preemptive arrest style.
“Do you really want to put the police in the position of assuming what you have in mind based on toe taps and hand signs?”
Again, here we have minimizing statements that appear to make excuses for Craig’s behavior. It was not just toe taps and hand signs, you conveniently left out the two minutes of Craig peeping into the officer’s stall and Craig’s foot coming over far enough to touch the officer’s foot. The two you mentioned may not have been enough objective criteria for the officer to arrest. The two I mention added to the two you mention is enough. I don’t see that distinction as prying into my private life.
I concede your point that the PR called on Craig to resign. However, then Marty made those statements that question the police officer’s integrity and professional methods. Those two don’t dovetail together.
Again, if you question the entire sting situation, then question the law and lobby for legislative change. Don’t backstab the police officer who was doing his job.
Any other police officers who would have made the arrest on the same observations?
And more to the larger point, what about this apologizing and excusing behavior? Mitt Romney was criticized for being so forceful in his condemnation of Craig, but I think he stuck to his principles of right and wrong.
Vote:
0 0 “I support the preemptive arrest style.”
Interesting hearing that coming from such an avid Bush basher.
Vote:
0 0 Bam, great point! I guess I’ll have to rethink that part of it.
For this though, I guess I should say “I support the preemptive arrest style when there is reasonably objective cause.”
Vote:
0 0 Relax everyone, I’m sure Marty will be back on his meds before his next column :o). I read that there had been complaints of gay solicitation actions to the airport police so they ran their “Sting”. Since most of the national media had to look on a map to see where Idaho is in the first place I’m sure the arresting officer had no idea who Limp Larry was when he was eye balling the officer in the stall. I expected some of the Idaho Right wingnuts to question the oficer’s intenions but thats a common “Cop Out” (sorry had to say it) when somebody gets caughts with their pants down while doing the wide stance. If you listened to the taped interview with Limp by the officer and read the arrest repeort, you’ll see the officer goes into great detail on Limp’s actions but Limp muddled through his version of events in such a manly way I think you can see how Limp was trying to cover the his rear of his wide stance. On the bright side the drama in the stalls put Idaho in the national spot light for more than fifteen minutes, the Village Idiot got thirty seconds of national face time, and we heard Limp go bump, bump, bump, as the bus ran over his wide stance (the bumps were Limp’s head as he kept trying to rise up) and there was the ever clear clear if not muffled this time, claim “I’m Not Gay”.
Vote:
0 0 Running this website, I get my fair share of complaints and accusations. Sometimes I try to think about “what if I were wrong and this person were right?” and think about it from their point of view. It helps me to understand why some people think the way they do. Sometimes I realize I was wrong, and I would not have gotten to that realization if I had not put my ego on the backburner. Other times I still disagree with them, but I think it helps to suspend your conviction for awhile and consider if they were right.
My point in this article was that I hope some Idaho Republicans will try to suspend their belief for awhile, and consider “what if what people are saying about Craig is true, and he has lied and duped his supporters?”
or the bigger
“what if what people are saying about the Republican party losing its way is right?”
Vote:
0 0 Anyone who thinks republicans have some sort of moral superiority needs to put down the Kool Aid.
There are moral and immoral people in both parties. Neither party is immune from the immoral antics of some of its members and neither party has a leg up on morals. Yet somehow the republicans have been portrayed as the banner carrier of morals (interesting how that happened in the so called liberal media).
Lets consider:
1) The late Helen Chenoweth defeated Larry Larocco because he admitted to infedility. Never mind her liasons with a married man.
2) Mark Foley and pages.
3) Larry Craig and bathroom adventures.
4) Newt Gingrich and his affairs.
5) That guy who was speaker (sorry I forget his name) of the house and stepped down when his affairs were revealed.
6) Ted Haggerdy.
Etc, etc. Now of course you could also list a prominent list of democrats, starting with Bill Clinton, who have done similar and that is my point. Neither party has a leg up. Republicans are just bigger hypocrites because they seem to think their **** doesn’t stink.
Vote:
0 0 Guest-the Speaker of the House that you are referring to is Bob Livingston. Interestingly enough, he resigned and was succeeded by…David Vitter!
Vote:
0 0 Livingston was suceeded by Denny Hastert
Vote:
0 0 PAH, I was referring to David Vitter succeeding Livingston’s House of Representatives seat in Louisiana, not as the Speaker of the House.
Vote:
0 0 The police officer did not do his job because if his purpose was to stop solicitation, you have to obtain solicitation. The officer was lazy and didn’t get the requisite facts on Craig. Karnsia was in too big a hurry to bust a “pervert” and move onto the next one. There was no solicitation in this example. What was present was bad judgment from all parties anyway you slice it.
Like many other posters, I found it amazing that Joe would compromise his principles and advocate arrest based on hunches or suspicions vs. facts. What this tells me is that in an attempt to bad mouth the Republican Party Joe will use whatever is convenient and forget the truth.
Seriously, Lenore Barrett as an objective source? She shouldn’t even call herself Republican. She belongs with that whack job Ron Paul in the Libertarian camp. If SHE were intellectually honest she would put an “L” after her name. She is an angry woman with very biased agenda. You might say she is a female Larry Lyon type.
I also have to agree that if Joe thinks Marty Trillhase is a Craig supporter he has been drinking too much kool aid as well. I don’t normally agree with Marty but I will say this: He uses rock solid principles to approach points of discussion. We may not agree on the results of those points, but at least he is consistent. I appreciate that. At least you know what you get everytime. Now if only our politicians were the same way!
Vote:
0 0 Ummm okay. I stated what Trillhaase asked about where’s the proof, and I said the proof was in what the officer witnessed, then I raised three other scenarios where police arrest pre-emptively.
Trillhaase questioned how the police could know such things, suggesting they are “reading minds”. I pointed out the training police go through to spot subtle patterns, and pointed out one drug cop’s methods as an example.
I realize Trillhaase is not likely a registered Republican, but should we dig through his editorials this past year and count the number of times that he supported Craig in excusing illegal immigration? Regular PR readers are well aware of Trillhaase’s position on this, and that he firmly supported Craig and opposed Crapo, Simpson, and Sali for not being on board with Craig.
I then reasoned out why I think the GOP has some deeper problems. I thought this fairly well reasoned out. I also acknowledged I was not clear on why and when I do support police actions, and cleared up the distinction.
I don’t see how I missed the boat or compromised my principles here. I might be wrong on this, but I’ve presented some valid points to consider. But okay, go ahead and revert to calling me crazy (i’m beginning to think republicans all own kool aid stock) rather than answer to the issues raised.
If the cop did a bad job, I think we would hear a lot more about the bad job he did from cops nationwide. We have only heard from a few Craig apologists that the cop did a bad job.
I wonder why?
Vote:
0 0 I think the public doesn’t grasp the element of a crime needing to be proven before a conviction can be had. Even around here, police can arrest but many times prosecutors have to dismiss the charges later because of lack of evidence. For example, take the case of Idaho Falls dentist Lorin Dixon. In 6/99, he was arrested for Obscene Conduct supposedly soliciting an undercover cop for sex at War Mother’s Memorial Park. Everybody knows this is a hangout for perverts. I don’t have the report, but what I do know is the charge was amended to Disturbing the Peace. Disturbing the Peace is a far cry from obscene conduct. If I goto the public park and yell and scream at the top of my lungs and disturb people I could get charged with that.
I am a supporter of the police, but I also know some cops that are lazy and don’t take enough time or care to get all the evidence and they give the defendant qiggle room. If the officer had taken a few extra minutes and got a proposition from Craig then Larry wouldn’t have any room to wiggle out of this (or at least try to) and he could have been disgraced and put out to pasture lickety split.
Overall, I don’t think you see blind party loyalty in the Craig case. So what if Arlen Specter might support him? Arlen is closer to being a Democrat anyway. If anything, this shows that the GOP is ready to jettison their members who misbehave. Robert Livingston immediately resigned. Foley resigned. I don’t see Democrat Congressmen Jefferson resigning when he gets nailed in possession of $90,000 in marked FBI money from a sting operation. I didn’t see Democratic Congressmen Jerry Studds resign after being caught having sex with a 17 year old male Congressional Page. I also didn’t see anyone from the Democratic National Committee suggest these guys resign. In fact, Sen. Ted Kennedy praised Studds as a hard working Congressman. So, who has the blind party allegiance now? If anything, this election cycle will demonstrate blind party loyalty has gone to the far left of the Democratic Party. Center or Left Center voters will wonder what happened to their party and rightfully so.
Vote:
0 0 So Joe, because Marty Trillhasse supports the kind of immigration reform Larry Craig supported, you’re calling him a blind loyalist, even after the PR called for Craig to resign? I don’t get it.
I, myself, am a very poor landscape painter. Does that mean I support everything Hitler stands for?
Vote:
0 0 Mike, why did you feel the need to mention this gentlemans name in your post? You could have made your point without naming names.
Vote:
0 0 Was the case that Mike mentioned a matter of public record? If so, what difference if he named the person?
Vote:
0 0 Don’t think Marty is the big Craig supporter but that Sunday piece was bad. Accuse the cop of mind reading, asking how he knew these things? Why not accuse him of being a witch? Does anyone proof Martys pieces before publish?
Vote:
0 0 I realized last night that Governor Otter had not appointed a replacement for Senator Craig, and figured Otter knew Craig was not resigning yet.
That was confirmed this morning by the PR. Craig is reneging on his word and will not resign until at least this court farce plays out in Minnesota, which could be another week or two.
The Republican Lemmings have dutifully buried their values for loyalty again, publicly supporting Craig in his efforts to embarrass himself and Idaho even more.
Craig broke the law, engaged in immoral behavior, exposed himself as a lifetime hypocrite, is playing the fool in claiming he did not understand what he was doing, and has hired a full Hollywood-style spin team to spread lies and misinformation about the circumstance that Craig put himself in. It is difficult to imagine how Idaho conservatives condemn Clinton and defend Craig for the same action sequence.
The people of Minnesota must think Idahoans are a bunch of idiots to not push Craig out. How much longer will Idaho’s national reputation and pride sink for the sake of loyalty to an old gay hypocrite?
The prosecutor gave the clearest interpretation of Craig’s foolishness by noting that he is college educated and has spent thirty years in politics, so he should have been able to decide his course of action in pleading guilty. How can Idaho Republicans gloss over this fact?
Plus the statement that Craig did not feel he was victimized in this until he was hurt by the negative publicity tells a hard truth.
When will Idaho conservatives admit the fallacy of Craig’s situation and their error in their core values to display blind loyalty?
Vote:
0 0 Please tell me exactly what kind of immoral behavior he engaged in? By tappy tap tappin his foot. OH MY!! By picking up some toilet paper that fell on the floor? GASP! By accidentally kicking the guys foot in the other stall because he has a wide stance and didn’t want his pants to get on the floor and get dirty? SAY IT ISN’T SO!!! Anyone who dresses in business attire for work, knows that slacks, unlike jeans, will fall all the way down to the floor if you don’t spread your legs wide to keep them from falling. And we all know how nasty those airport bathrooms are, let alone public bathrooms in general. This was a witch hunt from the getgo and for his actions to be called “immoral”….well, I just don’t think so.
Idiotic yes….immoral, not so much.
Vote:
0 0 “Please tell me exactly what kind of immoral behavior he engaged in?”
Do you suppose that those girls in hooker clothes standing in parking lots are not committing any crimes? The point is that we know what they are up to, and the activity degrades our society. Here we have a perfect example of apologetic, excusing behavior. This has become very stereotypical for Republicans: reduce the case to foot tapping and ignore the numerous other circumstances that caused the police officer to make the arrest. Your comment is precisely the problem with GOP apologists that we are trying to point out.
In one part you say the bathroom floors are nasty and in the other you claim to buy Craig’s excuse that he was picking up paper from the floor (notwithstanding that the officer said there was no paper). Who picks up paper from the restroom floor?
I realized I forgot to add “inappropriate abuse of power” to Craig’s list of misdeeds. When Craig was asked for identification, he offered his senate card and said “What do you think of that?” Do we elect leadership to represent us or to use their positions to get them out of jams? I have heard no excuses for this action yet, what have you got?
Vote:
0 0 As stated in another thread about Craig. He never officially resigned. He said “I intend to resign. . .”. He never said he was going to resign. I’m sure Otter was aware of this also, since he didn’t appear to be making any real moves for a transition to take place.
I have never been a fan of Craig, I have never voted for him, but I think it is a shame when people who obviously was in favor of Craig and the way he conducted himself and voted for him for the almost 30 years that he was in office suddenly turn on him for what happened in Minnesota. The only thing I have against the whole episode was the apparent hyprocisy exhibited by Craig after his voting record.
What would the public opinion be if a male was trying to “pick up” a female in a public place? And we all know this happens all the time — in bars, restaurants, offices, about any place imaginable. They get a nod, a wink, and a go for it attitude. The only reason that it doesn’t happen in restrooms is because they don’t use the same one.
I agree, Craig did not handle the whole ordeal in the best way and should never have pled guilty. But I think I can understand why he acted as he did. He only wanted the whole thing to go away.
Is it illegal to be gay? I don’t think so.
Vote:
0 0 Hey HomeSlice, you say that Senator Craig is being railroaded for seemingly harmless things like foot tapping, picking up paper off the floor, etc. Then you go on to say how nasty the airport bathrooms are. I think you are referring to the cleanliness, or lack thereof. So answer me this, who in their right mind would pick up a piece of toilet paper off a public restroom floor? Not me.
Vote:
0 0 Good response, Idaho Native, Larry didn’t commit any lewd act or immoral behavior by tapping his foot and running his hand under the stall partition. Our gay senator pled guilty in order to avoid the embarrassment this incident would surely cause were it to be made public, especially in conservative Idaho. The ACLU got it right, freedom of speech allows one to wink, tap one’s foot, or make similar gestures to encourage a response from a potential liaison whether in a bathroom stall, at the local bar or in a public library.
I have never voted for Craig mostly because of his dismal voting record on environmental issues but it seems to me that Joe is spending a lot of time criticizing Larry simply because he is gay and apparently Joe finds that to be “immoral”.
There are plenty of reasons to want to see Larry out of the U.S. Senate, his being gay should not be one of them.
Vote:
0 0 Hey Frank, Joe and others….Is it a crime to pick up toilet paper off the floor?? I seriously doubt it. Is it a crime to tap your foot on the floor? A resounding no! Is it a crime to be an idiot? Not the last time I checked. He merely plead guilty to make something that’s humiliating and degrading go away. The officer told him, to plead guilty and he’d pay a fine and be on his way. That’s all he thought he was doing. Who cares if he picked up toilet paper off a nasty restroom floor! The last time I checked, that wasn’t an illegal activity! And neither is tap tap tappin your foot on the floor. This punk cop was out to get him and he did just that. Just as he’s railroaded others throughout his career.
All of you act like you’ve never made an idiotic decision in your life! Granted, I wouldn’t be picking up tp from the floor either or tappy tap tappin my foot on the bathroom floor, but since when is that a crime???? Please….somebody answer that quesiton? It’s been asked over and over in this post, and nobody has bothered to answer it!
Vote:
0 0 I don’t care that Craig is gay. I care that he was trolling for gay sex in a public restroom where anyone could have taken their kid, that is the immoral behavior. I care that Craig is obviously more concerned with staying in power than in doing what is right. I care that he has hired a spin team to make excuses and nitpick what should be common sense.
And I care that Idaho conservatives are making excuses for Craig, after my lifetime of hearing them stick to their “values”.
Vote:
0 0 As I said….show me a law that’s currently on the books that shows ANY of his actions being illegal. You can’t because their aren’t any laws against ANYTHING he did.
Vote:
0 0 I agree with Homeslice (see post 14). Craig did nothing illegal up to the point the police arrested him. They should have let him take his trolling like behavior a wee further and busted him outright. It was laziness that caused the police to arrest when they did.
However, Craig has tarnished his reputation and that of this State. He has and will be ineffectual at influencing legislation beneficial to Idaho. He also lied about his arrest by not reporting it as he is required to do in order to keep a security clearance. If another government employee with a clearance pulled this stunt they would lose their clearance, and lose their ablity to work on projects. Alah, they would lose their job too!
The issue here should not be about suspected behavior or values surrounding the suspected trolling for sex—it should be about telling the truth and the ability to legislate. This requires the ability to work with colleagues. He has lost alot of support in DC…can you imagine losing respect in DC? Not many of the pols are saying much. Why? Beacuse they have engaged in conduct that probably pales in comparison.
We are left with Larry Craig. He let himself get caught in a trap. Whether he would have sprung the trap by actually soliciting sex we will never know. However, what we do know is that Craig had no intention of telling his family, other Senators, and the people of Idaho who elected him that he was charged with and plead guilty to a crime. In the end analysis, his credibility is gone. His moral authority is gone and he should be gone as well.
Vote:
0 0 I agree! Craig is behaving like every other scandal. Craig is not sorry that he plead guilty or might have been doing something wrong, he’s sorry that he got caught and publicly embarrassed. The lack of taking personal and professional responsibility is astounding.
Vote:
0 0 To me, the issue is not whether or not Senator Craig broke any law, technicality or not. My own intuition is telling me that he is lying. I don’t believe he was “picking up a piece of toilet paper from the floor” and I doubt that anyone could convince me otherwise. I also don’t believe he could play footsie with the person in the next stall and not be aware of it. I don’t personally care if he is gay or whether he broke a law. He has lost all credibility with me.
Vote:
0 0 That fact is: He still did not break ANY law! end of discussion!
This is the ONLY thing that matters. Not whether or not anybody believes him or whether or not he’s gay, or whether or not he’s a lying old fart, or whether you or anybody else likes him. The fact is, no law was broken.
Vote:
0 0 It is not the only thing that matters, and I think that is the disconnect.
Supporters/apologists are minimizing it down to toe-tapping or picking up paper, ignoring the larger issues of him peeking into the stall, offering his senate card when asked for identification, saying he would quit and not quitting, etc.
Vote:
0 0 Again Joe….NONE of that is against the law! You’re missing the big picture here. Who cares if he offered his “senate” card. I bet you would have done the same if you spent as many years in the senate as he has. Once again, you can’t try to walk in another mans shoes unless you’ve actually been where he’s been and done what he’s done. The bottom line is, no law was broken. Sure he’s an idiot, but that’s not against the law the last I heard. And so what if he backed out of stepping down? He’s got a cushy job and doesn’t wanna lose it. You can’t blame him for that. And AGAIN….that’s not against the law. All you people are out to get him for what? Because you’re upset with his “actions” and his “flip-flopping”. That’s got nothing to do with the fact that once again….like a broken record….he broke NO LAWS! Get over it already and leave the man alone. If you don’t want him in the position he’s in, then vote him out come next election. It’s that simple!
Vote:
0 0 I think it would be interesting to know how the IFPD would handle complaints about gay guys picking up each other at the public bathrooms in the IF Airport, or restrooms in Tautphaus Park.
Should the police respond to the complaints by setting up a sting operation, or should they tell the public “they’re not breaking any laws, folks!”
Vote:
0 0 Joe, you say that you care that Larry was trolling for sex in men’s rooms. I see a big distinction between trolling for sex in the restroom and actually having sex in the restroom. Before you were married, where did you do your trolling…bars?…Pool halls?…Albertsons?…Discoteques?…Church? Did you try to engage in sex at these locations or perhaps select a more appropriate site? Gays probably find same sex restrooms to be likely pick-up sites. It would certainly appear so. Unless we’re willing to go back several decades and outlaw homosexual behavior again then we have to expect them to be just as solicitous in their quest for sexual gratification as we are. But for the sake of all of us, it had better be something much more overt than toe tapping and hand signals to justify and arrest for lewd behavior or public indecency.
Vote:
0 0 If this were to happen to me or most guys I know, I’d personally go over to the next stall open up the door and punch the guy out. The stick his head in the toilet and flush it. Problem solved. You think he’ll pull that stunt in a public restroom again?? I doubt it.
As for oooh childs remark….until they pass a law that says tappin your toes while sitting on the comode is against the law, there’s not much you can do about it. Craig didn’t proposition anyone. Granted he may have been a pervert, but that’s not a crime either. Cops should have waited for him to make a move.
Vote:
0 0 Yep, the police blew this case big time. They should have let it carry out a little bit more. In fact, maybe they should have been tape recording the incident for verbal clues of the solicitation.
Overall, the majority of people here think Craig should go–and not because they think he is a pervert or gay, but because he lied to everyone and tried to cover it up. That is illegal in my book. The other issues are not as relevant, IMO, as his credibility and lack of poor judgment in pleading guilty in order to hush the situation up and move along like nothing happened.
I find it interesting that Chickenhawk thinks Craig broke no laws and as such thinks Craig should stick around. Chickenhawk seems to think Craig is an idiot. Craig is not an idiot–he got caught in a trap that he couldn’t get out of. He couldn’t buy his way out or threaten his way out like many pols do. The only avenue left was to quietly plead out and hope it went away. Craig was wrong on that account. Craig lied to the all the people of Idaho, including Chickenhawk. It was intentional and willful and not the mark of an idiot. It was the mark of a liar and a fake that has embarrassed Idaho and will hurt the State’s ability to capture federal dollars for projects. We need effective and credible leadership from our US Senators. Craig has demonstrated that he now has neither and needs to go.
Vote:
0 0 “[T]he State’s ability to capture federal dollars for projects…”
Isn’t that also referred to as “earmarks” or “pork”, when it comes to other states?
Vote:
0 0 Yes it is. Idaho vies for federal projects just like anyone else. For example, Idaho is trying right now to bring federal dollars to the area for Nuclear Energy Partnership Reactor Development and Waste Disposal. It would bring millions of dollars into our local economy and thousands of new jobs. Nothing wrong with that….unless we plan on building a bridge in the desert to no where.
Vote:
0 0 I listened to a snippet of the Neal Larson show yesterday (first time in ages), and it was nice to hear that many hard-core conservatives are coming around to believing Larry Craig should go.
The point of this article was to point out that Idaho’s conservatives are facing an inconsistency in their values. Do they stick with their loyalty value and abandon just about every other conservative value, or do they stick to all those other values and abandon loyalty in this case?
Vote:
0 0 Mike….if that’s your only reason….because he lied….then we need to get rid of every single politician in all local, state & federal governments. c’mon….lets not be that naive’. He screwed up, so what. Many others have done much worse throughout the years and are still in office. I mean….look at the Kennedy’s….for one example.
You and many others on this board are blowing it way out of proportion and we should focus one more important issues.
Vote:
0 0 What do you want to focus on in Craig’s case?
Do we ignore the obvious?
I have no doubt other pols have done worse than Craig. However, we are not comparing apples and oranges. We need not look at others behavior to know what Craig did was wrong and makes him ineffective as a Senator. He did more than “screw up”. He lied and lost credibility. Do we simply excuse that and sweep it under the rug like he wanted to do?
Vote:
0 0 Its irrelevant at this point as to what Craig did or didn’t do. He has no credibility left and his continued presence in the senate makes he and by proxy Idaho a laughing stock. He needs to go so Idaho can move on. Craig is blacklisted even in his own party now and can’t accomplish anything for Idaho anymore. Not even if he gets his verdict overturned because thats not going to change public perception or change how he lost all his power in the Senate.
Vote:
0 0 Realizing this doesn’t help Joe ‘rerail’ his desired topic: will Republicans admit there are deep problems within their party… step back a bit:
A major international airport learns that a certain bathroom has become a gay ‘meetup’ spot. Like with giving beggars a hot meal and a ride to the county line, cops generally aren’t interested in finding a high profile case to win: they want to solve the problem at hand. In this case, that’d mean making the problem quietly go away.
So, an officer is trained in the pickup protocols and cues. Making eye contact, tapping feet, waving (palm up, which usually means using a left hand on a right railing, hardly a common gesture for a right-handed man to pick up a nonexistent piece of paper), a bit of footsie. Nobody does all of these things.
And most importantly, anyone caught at this stage can save their career and reputation, while being scared away from EVER darkening that ‘pickup’ place again. Let things go further, and there’ll be suicides and divorces and collateral damage.
Any talk about entrapment, this being a conspiracy and etc misses the boat so completely I won’t dignify it with a response.
And I’m a bit speechless that Roger Plothrow speaks in terms of threat and danger: indecent acts aren’t threatening per se, they’re just deemed unacceptable-in-public. Anyone that begins to negotiate toward an act of public indecency in ways that can’t be explained otherwise is as guilty of that crime as a man offering an ostensible hooker he’ll ‘take care of her’ is guilty of soliciting or an unlicensed guy carrying a shotgun thru a cornfield during hunting season guilty of hunting without a license. The courts understand that each illegal dance has certain indefensible moves and Larry executed several steps of his dance flawlessly. He *so* deserved arrest.
Larry Craig knew the process. He engaged in the same preliminaries as others that use that restroom for sex. He was written a ticket commensurate with that act and given a chance to plea out to a lesser (and I’d bet intentionally ambiguous) misdemeanor.
Go back to the local police’s goals: they weren’t trying to entrap a senator. They were trying to make ‘pickups’ stop happening at their airport bathroom. It was a good sting and was accomplishing what was needed. Larry just wandered into it and changed the equation dramatically.
Oh, and he pled guilty, [edited for name-calling]. That means a crime was committed. Innocent until proven guilty doesn’t have a ‘do overs’ clause.
Vote:
0 0 [edited]? Nice of you to lump as conspiracy theorists and entrapment apologists. None of that is true. I don’t think anybody here is arguing entrapment or conspiracy theory. That is your take on the commentary here and I think it is off base. While we might agree in many respects, I think your approach here is not conducive to discussion and I would urge you to take a step back, take a deep breath and debate the issue without name calling.
[editing here is not Mike's fault, he was responding to a name-calling in previous comment before i was able to edit it. previous comment had valid remarks but name-calling was inappropriate]
Vote:
0 0 Mike, you’ll note homeslice called this a witch hunt above. Also everyone from Trillhase (not here) to his publisher (Plothrow, here) to you and others have said the arrest was bad.
Laws on the book != case law, homeslice. And unless you’re an attorney specializing in this area, saying something isn’t illegal is just your opinion.
Misdemeanors typically don’t require the level of proof or a requirement of
Vote:
Before someone says it, yes I agree the Democratic party is equally bad in their own way. If Idaho had enough Democrats, I am positive that they would have their own scandal big enough to for us to discuss.