He could just be bisexual. I mean, it is an option, even if not a particularly popular one.

I think he should still be kicked out of the club for trying to use his card to get out of trouble (nevermind trouble this stupid), but that's a separate matter.

Gay, straight, Bi, whatever, he's an idiot.

Or his appetites are so out of control he can't stop to think of what his actions will do to his family, his career, etc, etc.

Or he's so full of himself he feels he's untouchable - if his flipping his card to the officer and saying "what do you think of that" is true I think that lends support to that theory.

Forget the gay thing for a minute and just look a politician who has put himself into this position* in the first place. Is this the kind of person who you'd want in Congress?

*by "position" I don't mean a crime and I don't mean sex in a bathroom. I'm talking creating a stupid scandal of any sort right before a contentious election year - an unforced error if ever there was one.

There was a time in our country when honesty meant something. People would often give an erring politician or anyone else some slack if they just came forth with an honest explanation and asked forgiveness. Today the "sinners' DO NOT confess, and the average citizen can't forgive because they do not know what sin is any more.
Senator Craig obviously has some serious problems. If he was in the closet that no longer is an option. If he were a DemocRAT the MSM would be using all kinds of psycho-babble to defend and excuse.
There is not a great deal of room for the Washington crowd to move around in. There are so many political whores and perverts in that town Father Confessors are a small minority or missing completely.

This still doesn't top the so-called "sex scandal" that gave Mr. Obama his Senate seat.

In 2004 the IL GOP elected Jack Ryan (no relation to the former IL Gov. Ryan) to be our nominee for the open Senate seat. Ryan had been married years earlier to the actress Jeri Ryan (known to Star Trek fans as "Seven of Nine"), and a Chicago newspaper got a court to unseal the divorce papers so they could look for juicy details. This they found in an allegation by the former Mrs. Ryan that Jack had taken her to a, shall we say, adult-interest club, and in a room with another couple, proposed that the two of them enjoy marital pursuits in the presence of the other couple (who, one supposes, would be similarly employed with each other). Jeri Ryan's statement is that she declined and so they went home. That's the allegation. Jack Ryan denies that this ever occurred. Note that if it did occur, it would not involve a violation of any of the ten commandments.

However, in the scandal following the revelation, Ryan lost support of the state GOP bigwigs, and dropped out of the race. The GOP drafted an out-of-state grandstander to run against Obama, and Obama cruised to an easy victory.

It was remarked at the time that this was the nation's first political sex scandal in which no sex was alleged to have occurred, and in which the principal parties were husband and wife at the time of the alleged events.

It is clear that I don not represent anybody but me, but I AM TIRED (as in sick--and-tired) of hearing about queers and their ins and outs.

I do no care what they do as long as I don't have to watch it or hear about it. And just to clear things up, I an just as tired of hearing about the ins and outs of people like Paris Hilton who qualifies as queer to my way of thinking.

"Queer" is strange, weird, attention getting.

"Gay" is happy, having a good time.

"I think it's becoming more and more clear that shame is a losing proposition."

Let me get this straight?

You think that if Craig came out and admitted that he's gay (or bisexual) everyone's disgust at the thought of their United States Senator blowing people in public restrooms would somehow vanish?

Because let's just get this out in the open: Gay men blow other men in public bathrooms. That particular sex act is part of gay culture. To most Americans, it's a disgusting part of gay culture that frankly, they don't want their 12 year old sons exposed to at the mall.

Let me posit an alternate situation, and then let's see how it plays out: What if, a couple of days ago, it was announced merely that Larry Craig had come out. What would have been the result?

I can guarantee you of one thing: The Idaho Statesman would have had to decide whether to publish the on-the-record interview with the person who claims to have had sex with Senator Craig in Union Station in Washington, D.C.

The Senator's sexual orientation is nobody's business; and nobody made it their business. It is the Senator's habit of "loitering" in public mens rooms that disqualifies him from being a public servant.

The GOP boxed themselves into a corner because they tout the "family values" line.

A socially conservative family does not countenance members who solicit sex in public. Such a thing is, in what is an apparently archaic word, "immodest" and impinges on the modesty of other people.

If I recall, it was John Tower of Texas who first flipped the old conventional wisdom that Democrats had sex scandals and Republicans financial ones.

"The GOP boxed themselves into a corner because they tout the "family values" line."

No Janis ... it's not just a "line."

See, when Republicans tout family values ... they mean it. That's why they're kicking people like Senator Craig out of the Senate.

I would remind you that the Democrats have not done the same with Chris Dodd, who sexually assaulted a waitress with his pal Teddy Kennedy. You remember Mr. Kennedy. He committed manslaughter the night he killed Mary Jo Kopekne in a drunken stupor and spent the next 24 hours trying to cover it up.

Such are the scions of the Democratic Pary.

What bugs me about it is (a) anonymous sex solicited from strangers in a public place--I think that's pretty crazy already, it doesn't help a bit if that's part of gay culture--I see no reason to tolerate it even slightly, and (b) the Senator showing his senatorial ID card to try to get a leg up on the officer--oh come on, someone would pull that one sooner or later, ooh I did it again! (enough with the punning, Ed.)--that is corruption and should not be tolerated in a Senator.

Either way it's time for Craig to go.

molon labe, montani semper liberi, & para fides paternae patri

"Such are the scions of the Democratic Pary[sic]."

Scions? At this point they're the rotten roots.

Notgayneverhavebeengay:

I don't think that touting necessarily means that you don't believe in what you're speaking up for.

"when Republicans tout family values ... they mean it."

I think that premise sets them up for endless bouts of shame whenever stuff like this happens. And regardless of what anyone thinks of sexual indiscretion, human nature being what it is, it will continue to happen. What this means is that the Democrats will get a pass, and the Republicans will not. Will this work to the political advantage of the Republicans?

How many Americans are voting for the Republicans because they tout "family values" -- whether they mean it or not? No one likes a moral scold, and I think a large number of people vote against the GOP because of such political posturing. Countless others hold their nose and simply vote against the Democrats.

My problem is I loathe socialism.

That used to make me right wing, but I never know what to call myself these days.

I think you're missing one real possibility: that Craig may be telling the truth. It's hardly unknown for police to entrap someone, especially when they're trolling for perverts. We don't have any point at which Craig offered sex, discussed sex, even hinted at sex --- just a my-word-against-yours from a policeman who just "knew" that brushing his hand in a physically-impossible fashion under the edge of the stall was a proposition. And now we've got a policeman calling him a liar, threatening to arrest him for something rather more than "disorderly conduct" --- and Craig knowing that if someone has to bail him out it will be pretty awful --- and then the officer offers to let him off with disorderly, and no one will ever have to know. I don't find it all that difficult to imagine him, in a moment of weakness or cowardice, deciding the "smart" thing to do is get it over with. Who knows if Mike Nifong is the prosecutor? So let's be straight about this (heh): it is less than clear that Craig committed any crime. But, given what we're seeing now, would have have been wrong to think that the accusation would have destroyed his life? Was he in any position to fight?

Another possibility: Craig is straight, but like a number of heterosexual men I've known over a great many years, he was raised into the notion that ALL sex, if it's to be enjoyed, has to be nasty and perverted.
The straight UPS driver who stops at Del Paso Park or 'Land Park in Sacramento for a quickie, or in years past the California State Senator who visited the Greyhound Bus Depot across from the Capitol Building, were all STRAIGHT men who just wanted to get off with no strings attached.
Come on you Republicans, admit it - men are men. (Or as my sainted mother would say: they're all pigs!)

I'm with you Charlie:

what's worse is a forced resignation from office without any real misconduct. Merely its appearance.

See, when Republicans tout family values ... they mean it. That's why they're kicking people like Senator Craig out of the Senate.

Er, right. That's why Vitter's still in the Senate. That's why they looked the other way with Foley for years, then tried to cover it up.

BTW, do you guys really believe that Craig had never done this before? No. It is about "actual" sex. Stop whining about it and take your medicine.

"If I were the American people, I'd be totally sick of sexless Republican sex scandals by now.

The GOP needs to shape up."

I'm confused: Are you arguing for less compromising behavior, or for republicans to "man up" and screw someone already?

Just kidding. The business of pleading guilty and trying to get out by showing his Senate business card signal that it's time for him to "spend more time with his family."

Of course the "they" includes your side too. Just like Iraq, you don't care about the victims past and future as long as you get a political advantage. And at least we don't re-elect our scumbags when we find out about them (Kennedy (Ted and Patrick), Studds, Barney Frank, etc.).

Uh, I do realize you're trying to be "ironic" and "funny" but you do realize this post is completely wrong, right? I mean, obviously Craig has had sex gay sex. He's been accused of it numerous times. Numerous! Over tons of years. And then he gets caught soliciting sex. What, you don't think he ever had? What do you expect? And Vitter - uh, he did too. Why do you think his name might be in the book? Had he been prank calling from his congressial office with staffers and hanging up the phone in uncontrollable giggling fits? As for Foley, there's plenty of evidence to suggest he'd had actual intercourse also. How do you think sex scandals normally break? New York Times reporters kick in a motel door and catch Republican Bible thumpers in a drunken gay orgy?

And at least we don't re-elect our scumbags when we find out about them (Kennedy (Ted and Patrick), Studds, Barney Frank, etc.).
It's a big mistake. We on the right should hold on to our scumbags with a vengence until the media gets religion about the Kennedys, Studds, Franks, etc.
Think about it. If we have the drone of Dem party affiliates at the New York Times setting out moral guidelines which none of the Dem constituents can live with merely to tarnish Republicans, two things will happen.
First the Media loses some portion of the faithful democrat readership, and second Democrats will lose their strangle hold on big city voters.

No one is bothered to point of wanting his removal by Craig's use of his Senatorial ID to try to get out of this?

For all of you it's really about the sex?

FWIW, I'm disappointed.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

Tom

If you were arrested for solicitation of a prostitute and you pulled a Senate membership card, that would be criminal and a lie.

When Larry Craig shows his Senate card it's called identifying himself to an ashole cop, running an extortion ring.

/ admittedly the extortion ring stuff is just a hunch.
// the ashole cop part I got evidence to support.

"When Larry Craig shows his Senate card it's called identifying himself to an ashole cop, running an extortion ring."

His doing that was accompanied with his needlessly stating the phrase, "What do you think about that?"

A curious wording, and one clearly intended to use his position as a Senator to intimidate the officer.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

Senator Craig pled guilty to a crime that he probably didn't commit (even though he may have wanted and intended to commit public indecency).

Senator David Vitter admitted to "serious sin" after he was reported to be connected to madams in Washington and New Orleans. This at least strongly implies that he engaged in unlawful conduct (albeit uncharged conduct).

I wonder, what would his fellow Roman Catholic Republicans be saying now if Vitter had admitted using a condom while whoremongering?

http://cheapairlinetickets.host4free.ca/index.html airline tickets to chicago

http://cheapairlinetickets.host4free.ca/index.html european airline travel

In all your analysis, you missed one possibility -- that the cop was corrupt. Did you not even read the transcript of the officer's plea bargain? For shame.

In the transcript, it is CLEAR that the officer is pushing Crag -- absolutely, blindingly clear.

Let's think about this for a second, ok?

1) The first thing Craig says is that he wants to make his flight.
2) Then he says he wants to stay out of jail.
3) He agrees to a guilty plea to "disorderly conduct" (not "lewd & lascivious behavior") in order to make his flight.
4) The cop states that Craig's LEFT HAND was underneath the stall. Craig is RIGHT-HANDED. You're telling me that he reached with his opposite hand under the stall?
5) If Craig has been accused of gay sex, where is the EVIDENCE? I demand EVIDENCE, not just "he said, he said" schoolyard choruses. Where are the men willing to go on record? Even Clinton's bimbos went on the record against him. If you want to convict someone in the court of public opinion, you're going to need more than accusation, rumor, and slander to build your case.

This whole thing sickens me, because it shows just how easily Republicans will swallow the most outrageous and concocted stories if the accused crime is egregious enough. That bodes ill for our own survival.