Classical Values :: Public foot tapping at the public trough?

August 28, 2007

Public foot tapping at the public trough?

Noting the reaction of a gay activist group to the arrest of Idaho senator Larry Craig, Clayton Cramer criticizes this statement from the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force:

"There is sad irony that a United States senator from Idaho has been caught up in the same kind of thing that destroyed the lives of dozens of men in Boise in the 1950s, so tragically chronicled in "Boys of Boise."

"And by the way, why are Minneapolis tax dollars being used to have plainclothes police officers lurking idly in airport restroom stalls?"

I don't defend sex in public places, and I think it's appalling that anyone would.

However, the facts are that Craig was not arrested for actually engaging in either public sex or indecent exposure, but for public foot-tapping:

"My experience has shown that individuals engaging in lewd conduct use their bags to block the view from the front of their stall," Karsnia stated in his report. "From my seated position, I could observe the shoes and ankles of Craig seated to the left of me."

Craig was wearing dress pants with black dress shoes.

"At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. While this was occurring, the male in the stall to my right was still present. I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area," the report states.

Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times, and Karsnia noted in his report that "I could ... see Craig had a gold ring on his ring finger as his hand was on my side of the stall divider."

Karsnia then held his police identification down by the floor so that Craig could see it.

Whether this constituted an attempt to engage in public sex would, if the case went to trial, be a question for a jury. I think that under these facts, Craig could probably have beaten the charges, because of the reasonable doubt standard and the burden of proof in criminal cases. It certainly would appear to most reasonable observers, though, that there was an intent to solicit sex of some sort. Whether the sex would have occurred there in public, who knows? I don't know exactly what the Minnesota criminal code prohibits, but solicitation to have sex is a different matter from actual sex.

This has renewed speculation over whether Craig is gay, and of course whether he is a hypocrite, and various bloggers are calling for his resignation. (Pajamas Media links Captain Ed and Hugh Hewitt.)

If the man is gay, I wonder what's up with his apparent resort to a public restroom. Would that be what turns him on? Or might it be grounded in an inability to acknowledge that he's gay? I mean, there are plenty of gay bars, personal ads, and ordinary cruising in the street. Why the furtive nature of the men's room?

In another post, Cramer compares Craig to New Jersey Governor McGreevey, who covered up his homosexuality until he became embroiled in a serious corruption scandal, which he managed to obscure by using his public "coming out" as a coverup.

In Craig's case (assuming the speculation is accurate) the coverup seems to be built into the furtive nature of the alleged sex.

Unlike McGreevey's sordid matter, there's no financial scandal, and I'm seeing nothing by way of an actual sexual "affair," although the Idaho Statesman interviewed a man who claims to have had sex with Craig in another restroom:

In an interview on May 14, Craig told the Idaho Statesman he'd never engaged in sex with a man or solicited sex with a man. The Craig interview was the culmination of a Statesman investigation that began after a blogger accused Craig of homosexual sex in October. Over five months, the Statesman examined rumors about Craig dating to his college days and his 1982 pre-emptive denial that he had sex with underage congressional pages.

The most serious finding by the Statesman was the report by a professional man with close ties to Republican officials. The 40-year-old man reported having oral sex with Craig at Washington's Union Station, probably in 2004. The Statesman also spoke with a man who said Craig made a sexual advance toward him at the University of Idaho in 1967 and a man who said Craig "cruised" him for sex in 1994 at the REI store in Boise. The Statesman also explored dozens of allegations that proved untrue, unclear or unverifiable.

The problem with this is that anyone can say that anyone had sex with anyone. If someone claimed to have had a three-way with Hillary Clinton and Newt Gingrich in the mid-1990s, would anyone believe it? Probably not, but if it's said it about Craig, they might. What is the standard of proof where it comes to sexual rumors?

From a political standpoint, the most telling aspect of this latest incident is that Craig copped a plea. It makes his denial lack credibility, and in short, he appears dishonest.

Dishonesty in an elected official ought to be of more concern to the voters than the particular details of whatever turns him on.

Of course, in the case of Bill Clinton, the dishonesty was said to have been subsumed within the sex scandal. At the time, I thought the dishonesty was worse than the sex, but it would appear that millions of people disagreed. And still disagree.

Maybe Craig should have offered the officer a cigar.

UPDATE: Ann Althouse disapproves of the public sex aspect of Craig's behavior, but thinks the abuse of power aspect is worse:

Worst of all, to my mind, is the proffering of the business card and the "What do you think about that?"

She also notes that Glenn Greenwald sees this as an occasion to attack her and (of course) Glenn Reynolds, who is accused of "hysterical outrage."

What I think is a hysterical outrage is Greenwald's apparent inability to distinguish between an unverified allegation and a guilty plea.

MORE: Glenn Reynolds asks, "what is it with these guys?" (meaning Republicans in sex scandals) and follows up with a later question:

...either they're more likely to do that stuff, or more likely to get caught in ways that become public. Which is it?

I don't know, but we live in a country which considers assault and battery a more serious crime than foot-tapping in a restroom. Which it is.

Or is it?

Is Republican foot tapping worse than Democratic assault and battery?

I honestly don't know. The crime of assault and battery is certainly more serious than the crime of foot-tapping, even when the latter is a furtive sexual come-on. But the law and morality -- especially political morality -- may be at odds here. It is not my desire to play name the party games, but I thought that maybe a bipartisan bathroom versus battery poll was called for.

Now I'll add a political dimension:

UPDATE: Senator Craig made a public statement in this video (the text of which appears at his website), in which he says he is not gay, and apologizes for pleading guilty -- "to make it go away":

"In June, I overreacted and made a poor decision. While I was not involved in any inappropriate conduct at the Minneapolis airport or anywhere else, I chose to plead guilty to a lesser charge in the hope of making it go away. I did not seek any counsel, either from an attorney, staff, friends, or family. That was a mistake, and I deeply regret it."

Go figure.

Whether he did it or not, whether he's gay or not, pleading guilty is hardly the best way to cover something up ("make it go away").

I am a champion of privacy, but like it or not, there are political realities involved here, and this man is a public figure. What in the world was he smoking?

I think that no matter what happened, at a minimum, the Senator's judgment is erratic.

UPDATE: Clayton Cramer (who links this post, thanks!) argues that CNN is overdoing it in terms of coverage.

It's called a media feeding frenzy.

In this video, CBS's "Chris and Jeff" are even reenacting what happened.

Tell me they aren't loving it!

MORE: Joining in the fun, Drudge posts a picture of the cop next to Craig:

I can't help thinking that had Craig been a Democrat,* people wouldn't be having as much fun. But the rule is, bleeding Republicans expect no quarter from the Democrats, nor do they get any from their colleagues. (They'll even join in the bloodsport.)

So welcome to the arena!

* I suppose he could switch parties, and really add to the drama. (The Democrats would probably welcome him with open arms, because they're nice and tolerant, while the Red State Republicans beat homos to death with tire irons! It was in the movie, wasn't it?)

UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for linking this post, and a warm welcome to all!

It occurs to me that it might not be fun to be sitting on a toilet and have an undercover police officer enter the stall next door. I have some thoughts on that unsettling subject here, along with a more detailed examination of the law.

And DON'T MISS Varifrank's humorous and insightful analysis (with which I agree).

posted by Eric on 08.28.07 at 12:26 PM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/5447

Comments

Cynthia McKinney lost her seat after punching a Capital Hill guard. It was taken away by Democratic primary voters, which is what should happen to Craig if he chooses not to resign.

Ideally, McKinney should have gone to jail whereas Craig should not.

tim maguire · August 28, 2007 04:30 PM

I had no idea foot tapping was a secret signal.

What ever happened to the secret handshake?

This is just craziness. Initially I thought he was going up to people and putting the moves on them.

And the idea of a foot tapping patrol is nuts.

I suppose he will be accused of aggressive foot tapping.

Don't these people know there is a war on?

M. Simon · August 28, 2007 05:54 PM

Well, Glenn Greenwald did try to warn us about the foot tappers in our midst!

(One of these days I'll start taking politics more seriously.)

Eric Scheie · August 28, 2007 06:10 PM

We need to remember that Senator Craig is not poor or friendless. When a really poor person pleads guilty to a reduced charge, it could be that he was innocent but felt that he had no choice because he couldn't afford a lawyer, but when a well-off and well-connected Senator pleads guilty, people have a right to assume that he really is guilty.

Chocolatier · August 28, 2007 07:26 PM

If you communicate to an undercover cop that you'll pay 10k if he kills your wife, you'll go to jail for attempted murder.

This guy conveyed, to an undercover cop, that he wanted to have sex in a public bathroom. To top it off, he admitted that's what he was doing. Screw him. The same laws apply to him as everybody else. In this day and age there's no excuse for bathroom sex.

Harkonnendog · August 28, 2007 07:39 PM

Once again "I don't defend sex in public places, and I think it's appalling that anyone would."

The circumstances remind me more of a female officer posing as a John than anything else.

Eric Scheie · August 28, 2007 08:11 PM

Sorry Eric, I didn't mean to imply you did defend sex in public places. I don't for a second think you do... I'm reading about this all over the net, and I was thinking of some of those posts.

Btw, I'm not against people having sex in SOME public places... I mean there are places on Kauai where people meet for such purposes, but they are not frequented by children, and not likely at all to be happened upon by children.

The circumstances here remind me of the time I walked in on a three way, involving three different stalls, and no closed doors... at the mall where I work. Kids walked into that bathroom all the time. It was on of the two main bathrooms at a huge mall on the island.

At least with prostitution it is private and consensual. What he was trying to do, by definition I think, is a public act. I suppose you could argue a closed stall assumes privacy, but...

Anyway, again, sorry for implying that.

Harkonnendog · August 28, 2007 09:35 PM

About 100 years ago, Beatrice Campbell, a famous English actress, said: "It doesn't make any difference what you do in the bedroom as long as you don't do it in the street and frighten the horses."

Chocolatier · August 28, 2007 11:00 PM

OK. I get it. Tapping the other guy's foot.

Which makes me think.

Perhaps to avoid this sort of thing in the future gays should learn Morse Code.

M. Simon · August 29, 2007 01:37 AM

I don't defend sex in public places, and I think it's appalling that anyone would.

OK. While I am not going to defend sex in public places, my few random encounters with it over the years have not scarred me, either. As long as it is discrete enough that your average child is not going to know what is going on, I'm pretty untroubled by it. Put it this way: Littering offends me much more.

There. I'm at the end of the limb. Start sawing.

TigerHawk · August 29, 2007 08:42 AM

While i will not defend sex in public places either, I have to agree with TigerHawk. As long as it's discrete enough that a true innocent won't know what's going on, I fail to see it as a crime that warrants the assignment of officers trolling (ahem) around to determine if anyone is attempting to commit it.
Public sex can be many things, from lewd to stupid but I fail to see where it's any of my business. I'm not sure public littering bugs me more, but turning without signaling does.

Perhaps it's a sad consequence of my being a Libertarian, but my reaction to this is "Oh, my Lord, who CARES about this stuff?"

It disturbs me that an elected representative seems at best beffudled and at worse painfully stupid. He is, undoubtedly, truly bad at covering his tracks. But it disturbs me more that people are so interested in other people's sex lives.

As for governor McSlime of New Jersey, what turned my stomach was not what he was doing in bed -- even in his wife's bed. The breach of promise implicit in adultery disturbed me some, as did the fact he had kids who were being exposed to the unfolding of this nonsense. but what truly got to me and made me need dramamine was his expert handling of political correctness shibolleths and the implicit pass these gave him.

"Gay American." Urk. Ack.

P. -- a Tired American in need of coffee.

Portia · August 29, 2007 11:15 AM

"It certainly would appear to most reasonable observers, though, that there was an intent to solicit sex of some sort. Whether the sex would have occurred there in public, who knows?"

Hmmmm, let me think. Is it reasonable to assume that one airport traveller, apparently during a layover, will approach another airport traveller, also apparently during a layover, and solicit him for sex with the intention of leaving the airport for some private place? Hell, no. The reasonable assumption is that the first traveller is looking for some quick action before he gets on his connection.

submandave · August 29, 2007 01:12 PM

You are probably right that a Democrat wouldn't face this kind of uproar were he in Craig's shoes. However, it's worth pointing out that there's a difference between a politician who has consistently maintained an anti-gay stance discovered to have engaged in homosexual acts and a politician who has not maintained and anti-gay stance discovered to have engaged in homosexual acts. (I know not all Dems are great on the issue of gay rights. I'd like to believe that an anti-gay Democrat would face a pretty similar uproar.)

visitor · August 29, 2007 03:32 PM

Well I just had a semi argument with my Bible Belt Baptist boyfriend about this. He is so conservative, I don't really consider myself liberal, but okay..I have several "gay friends" and have never been aware of the secret code, I should of kept my decoder ring from my cracker jack box. Would the signals between 2 men, be that very different than 2 hetro's hitting on each other?? Really if you tap 3 times you want to get laid? Just when I thought my gaydar worked! I am so confused..To Mr. Craig if your gay be gay...

Susan · August 29, 2007 04:07 PM

The supposition that a GOP Senator could have just lawyered up and fought a solicitation for gay prostitution charge, is so naive.
Ask the world famous figures who have sucessfully fought off sex charges in the past.
You people who are ready to toss Senator Craig under the bus are pathetic.

Papertiger · August 29, 2007 05:37 PM

I sure hope the bottom of my foot never starts itching the next time I have to use the public john...

Carl · August 29, 2007 09:55 PM

Craig did not have sex in public. According to the scenario laid out int the plice report, he disreetly approached a consenting adult, sho was asking for it -- "moving my foot slowly up and down..." oh c'mon. He did not offend anyone. Maybe he wanted titillation and to eschange phone numbers. He committed no crime besides flirting with a consensual adult, disreetly where no one else was privy to it. What a sad ay in America where we arrest people for this.

frank burns · September 1, 2007 10:01 PM

He tried to have sex in public, and was charged with and plead guilty to public indecency--whatever the law is, that makes sense as far as it goes--proposing to have sex in public is indecent.

What I have not heard Classicalvalues address in his defense is the plausibility that Craig's use of his Senatorial ID card in conjunction with speaking the phrase, "What do you think about that?", was an attempt to use his position to escape the situation.

That is corruption, abuse of power. Why am I getting the perception Craig's defenders here are all right with that?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

Tom Perkins · September 2, 2007 07:38 AM

hes a homo.

ryfarr · September 14, 2007 12:05 AM