Sen. Larry Craig: Idaho Statesman's 5 Month Investigation

McJoan at Daily Kos has the backstory to the Idaho Statesman investigation of Sen. Larry Craig.

The Statesman published the report of its five month investigation today.

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 paper says it didn't have enough corroborative evidence to run the story before yesterday's allegations surfaced.

The paper says it was tipped off by gay activist blogger Mike Rogers.

But Statesman editor Vicki Gowler would not rely on Rogers' anonymous sources. Instead, she decided to investigate the widespread rumors that date to 1982, when Craig pre-emptively denied involvement in a gay sex scandal involving congressmen and underage pages.

During its investigation, the Statesman interviewed 300 people, visited the ranch where Craig grew up, and made two trips to Washington, D.C.

The paper interviewed 41 of Craig's fraternity brothers and didn't come up with any corroboration. Craig denied to the paper that he was gay or had any gay affairs.

Stay tuned....

< U.N. Report Opium Production Up in Afghanistan | Brownstein on the Netroots and Matt Bai >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Apart from the lying about it... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Jeff in Texas on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:01:13 AM EST
    ...all this closeted, self-loathing homosexuality on the right does go a long way toward explaining their attitudes toward sex and other supposedly deviant behaviors.  Obviously, a lot of what is behind gay-baiting (and race-baiting, and other forms of demonizing an "other") is rank political manipulation, but I don't think you can discount that there are many on the right who really and sincerely believe the backwards nonsense they spew.  On the topic of gay marriage, I always used to wonder, do these people really think that if you legalize gay marriage that all the happily married hetero men out there are going to up and divorce their wives and go find themselves a man to marry?  Now I think, damn, maybe some of them DO think that.  If you live your life constantly (and totally unsuccessfully) fighting "evil" urges, maybe you genuinely think everyone else is doing the same, and that we need the law to save us from the hell of prostitution, drugs, gay sex, whatever.  It's like a recovered alcoholic who believes that anyone who has a beer is on the road to perdition, because that is what it is like for them.    

    You sure go to (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:42:10 PM EST
    the mat and go through some contortions for conservatives for someone who isnt one, ppj.

    Fascinating (1.00 / 3) (#1)
    by jarober on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:59:13 AM EST
    I find it interesting that the left has descended from being an advocate for gay rights into something that wants to out anyone it can as a tactic, and is willing to engage in shameless gay baiting.

    Apparently (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by aj12754 on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 06:48:31 AM EST
    you completely misread this post.   It's the hypocrisy. Catch up.

    Hypocrisy?? (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 08:01:04 AM EST
    I did not have sex with that woman.

    Too bad Craig was so quick to condemn (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 08:16:15 AM EST
    President Clinton, he wouldn't look so hypocritcal today.

    That was what you meant, wasn't it?


    First, let me remind (1.00 / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 09:04:24 AM EST
    you that I have commented time and again that I regarded Clinton having sex with a very much younger woman something between him and Hillary.

    I also understood that if he had been a senior person in every corporation or company that I knew about, he would surely have been dismissed for cause. But no, I didn't want him impeached for either his acts, or his lies. 99% of men would react the same.

    The Repubs jumped on him with glee. The Demos responded quite like I have here.

    Now we have this situation.

    And the Left is jumping on Craig with glee.

    That is hypocritical. See my response to Deconstructionist.


    Not exactly (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 09:52:45 AM EST
    Even with your reframing.

    All we are doing is pointing out the hypocrisy. With Glee admittedly.

    Your friends on the Republican side of the aisle were not complaining of President Clinton's hypocrisy. They were saying he was unfit for office becasue of his sexual conduct.

    That is quite different as to what's going on here. I don't think anyone cares who Craig chooses to have sex with (provided it is consenting adults). That is his and his spouse's business. Nobody here cares whether he is gay or straight.  I know I don't.

    Given that the GOP has raised scapegoating to an art, and have gone from overt race baiting (e.g. Harvey Gantt), to gay bashing to Muslim Bashing (e.g. reaction to Keith Ellison) to immigrant bashing, I, for one, enjoy watching the party squirm when they (Foley, Allen, Craig (?)) or their allies (Haggerty) are exposed (pun intended).

    Surely this isn't hard for you to understand?



    Reframe? (1.00 / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:49:24 AM EST
    Reframe?? Yes, you do. And I dislike nested commemts because they become like IM, confusing unless the whole nest is read..

    Oh well.

    Jarober pointed out the actions of the Left.

    aj points out the hypocrissy of Craig.

    I pointed out the hypocrissy of Clinton, and by association the actions of the Demos and Repubs..jarober having brought the actions of the Demos in...

    Deconstructionist challenges my classification of Clinton's..

    I note the definition... Decon responds and I rspond by noting Clinton's actions..again..

    In the middle of this you make some off the wall comment claiming something... basically a snark, but who keeps score??

    I answered by restating my position re his BJ, and noting that the Demos defended him and the Repubs
    attacked him.

    And that Demos/Left are now attacking Craig.

    So we started off with jarober complaining about "the Left" and their actions re Craig, aj wanting to limit the comment to Craig's actions, my noting Clinton's actions and my returning to the actions of both sides.

    If that is reframing, please display it properly..


    Having lost the debate on its (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:31:15 PM EST
    original terms, you try to re-define the debate. You do it all the time. Its not like noone notices.

    Democrats are laughing at hypocritical Craig getting caught with his pants down. Republicans weren't laughing when they attemped coup by impeachment. They were deadly serious. They didn't just call President Clinton a hypocrite. They called for his impeachment. You DO understand the difference, I trust.

    You cannot show demands by a majority of  "Democrats" that Craig step down. Can you even show more than 10? How about 1 Democrat calling for his resignation?

    I note some of the liberal/lefties on this blog were somewhat sympathetic to his plight given the arresting officers report.

    Your point was pointless. Stop squirming and put a brave face on it and give it up man! You play into the sputtering sterotype "but but CLINTON DID IT!"


    Wrong (1.00 / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 01:28:12 PM EST
    Having declared victory, Molly leaves the battle.

    Shorter. Molly wants a echo chamber.


    Molly writes: (1.00 / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 02:45:06 PM EST
    I don't think anyone cares who Craig chooses to have sex with (provided it is consenting adults).

    Oh, really??

    The Statesman  published the report of its five month investigation today....

    During its investigation, the Statesman interviewed 300 people, visited the ranch where Craig grew up, and made two trips to Washington, D.C.

    Above from the post.


    If it will help you save face (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:28:40 PM EST
    I will cope to overstatement. Its the hypocrsiy, not the sex. Most people don't care who Larry Craig sleeps with.

    There you got smigeon right. Feel better?


    Well now you are reframing.... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 09:09:34 AM EST
      is it hypocritical to pounce upon sexual conduct of opponents after previously saying sexual conduct of allies is a private matter?

     Obviously, but I thought we were talking about the hypocricy of the politicans and not their opponents and supporters.


    But isn't reframing what Jim does? (4.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 09:38:11 AM EST
    Tries. (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:42:34 AM EST
    Heh! (to quote someone) (none / 0) (#28)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:18:50 PM EST
    Do you really not understand, or is this a troll? (none / 0) (#11)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 09:42:09 AM EST
    The difference is that Clinton was not going around trying to outlaw and/or criminalize the very actions that he was engaged in.

    Craig on the other hand is part of the group that supports Constitutional Amendments to "protect the sanctity of marriage."  I.e., he's attempting to impose his world view on us, all while acting contrary to the very will he's trying to impose on us.  Craig is opposed to, e.g., civil rights protections for gays, and so forth.  Clinton did nothing of the sort.

    If Craig supported gay rights, opposed Constitutional Amendments on the issues, etc., the Left would not be jumping with glee.

    Do you really not understand that?


    Yet you bring it up (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:17:27 PM EST
    time and again.

    Refresh my memory: when did Clinton go out of his way to appeal to a faction that said philanderers were all destined to burn in Hell?

    Take a lesson from Clinton. If you're going to a hypocrite be a smart one. If that's possible.


    That's dishonesty... (4.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 08:07:35 AM EST
      Also not a good thing but different than hypocricy. One can be dishonest without being a hypocrite. If Clinton had spoken about the evils of adultery while engaging in it then he would be a hypocrite. If he didn't, he's merely a lying cheating adulterer. Not necessarily what you want on your tombstone, but....

    Normally wouldn't (1.00 / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 08:53:07 AM EST
    disagree over the meaning of a word with you, but:


    a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
    - hypocrite adjective


    conformity to a standard of right : MORALITY b : a particular moral excellence
    a beneficial quality or power of a thing
    4 : manly strength or courage : VALOR
    5 : a commendable quality or trait : MERIT
    6 : a capacity to act : POTENCY
    7 : chastity especially in a woman

    I know the meaning (none / 0) (#8)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 09:06:15 AM EST
     but when did Bill Clinton ever put on even  the appearance of virtue?  Not bragging about one's lack of virtue, or even denying conduct that might prove lack of virtue is not the same as pretending to be virtuous.  He said "I did not have sexual relations  with THAT woman." One can lack virtue and without having had sex with THAT woman.

    heh (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:05:37 AM EST
    I'm tempted to yield to you just because your comment is so funny...

    However, I do remember Clinton carrying a very large Bible to church... and an interview in which his past sins were supposedly his past sins...


    Pretending to be religious (1.00 / 0) (#19)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:24:12 AM EST
     is also not pretending to be virtuous. Many religious people are open about their lack of virtue and in fact say they depend upon God to save them from their lack of virtue.

      I don't recall Clinton saying he would not sin again, but assuming he did he might have meant it when he said it even if he couldn't walk the walk.

      As you well know,  I am not an admirer or defender of Bill Clinton. I wouldn't waste a breath trying to deny his many flaws. I'm just joining the chorus here (and you know that is rare for me) in pointing out why real distinctions can be drawn between  Clinton's bad behavior and this bad behavior. they are both bad but they are different. Bill Clinton is a lying, cheating, unprincipled, self-centered, cheap slut with seriously impaired judgment and impulse control-- not qualities I prefer in my Presidents and I don't have to pretend to find redeeming qualities in him to oppose people like Craig.

      To the extent, you tried to argue that with Clinton it was not the sex itself that shows the disqualifying character traits but the lengths to which he would go to evade responsibility you might have a come back to those here who say that with Craig it is not the sex itself but what it reveals given his public record you might have a point, but trying to paint Clinton with the moralistic hypocrite brush seems ill advised.


    You fishing for walleye, Decon? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by scribe on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:37:04 AM EST
    Because you're surely trolling deep.

    Go see TL's comment, here.


    Decon (1.00 / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:54:01 AM EST
    The boss lady has asked we not talk about Clinton..

    Let's wait for an open thread..


    Silly... (none / 0) (#32)
    by aj12754 on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    that was flat out lying.

    One thing that can be said about you -- completely predictable.


    It's more than hypocrisy (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 09:51:13 AM EST
    Craig has been an ardent opponent to gay rights all the while (it now appears) craving gay sex.

    There is a dynamic here which is prevalent throughout the current Republican Party. When one is so publicly opposed to something that is such an integral part of one's personal life, it necessitates an unhealthy dissociation which colors one's relation to the world. This sociopathology is just what allows men who claim to support the Constitution to allow an administration to have kidnapping and torture as part of its core values. After all, the "good" Senator was trying to anhilate something "bad" inside him, and publicly proclaimed that being gay is bad and wrong even though he himself is gay. It must be personally painful, so using pain to anhilate "evil" must seem to be okay. The relationship between hidden homosexuality and public macho displays is the dynamo in the Republican Party that has fueled the pyschosexual excesses of our CIA, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and the activities in public men's rooms throughout our nation.

    But the darkest, cruelest closet is in the White House. The strutting flyboy, the Jeff Gannons, the Drudges, the harpy Ann Coulters. It's all play-acting to hide the reality.

    To paraphrase James Wolcott, every time a Republican lawmaker goes into a public restroom a Joe Orton play breaks out.

    That's why it's more than hypocrisy. When Craig and other Republicans lie to themselves other people die.


    I'm willing to consider (none / 0) (#14)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 10:00:17 AM EST
      the theory that the desire to repress or deny  sexual tendencies of which one is ashamed might cause one to project an image diametrically opposed to the tendencies (or to choose a position in life where such tendencies are reviled, as with clergy) but the leap to latent (or not so latent) homosexuality driving military policy seems just a tad farfetched.

      That some hawks are closeted gays does not tend to prove that being a closeted gay compels one to advocate the use of force.


    Sexual predation on minors and No Means No (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Ellie on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 10:10:56 AM EST
    The crime here isn't whether Craig was after sex with males but the issues of predation and consent  (and invasive solicitation.)

    Criminal issues that negate consent exist well outside a reasonable definition of what constitutes in/out same sex partners engaging in consensual sex -- unless you consider harassment and possibly rape a part of gay sex. No means no everywhere.

    There's nothing about the Craig investigation that remotely resembles the unjustified, hysterical right wing witch hunt that spent millions and years persecuting brief extramarital relations between consenting adults. (If that standard were applied to Republicans the government would screech to halt, perhaps for all time.)

    Pretending that Craig's investigation and exposure was because of gay sex is idiotic.

    It's as boneheaded as frankly deluded right wing wagon circling and pretention about Jeff Gannon being "persecuted" for being a Christian because he was exposed as a self-advertising prostitute. Here's a web escort masquerading as a reporter who got inexplicable security clearance -- during a time of WAR -- by a corrupt Executive who may also have used him to extort silence or complicity from media and political figures.

    Gannon illegally offered to sodomize men at a going rate of $200/hr. -- even provided pictures of his equipment and testimonials from satisfied clientele. This solid model of right wing Christian values was a propaganda plant by the President's communications team, came and went from the White House without setting off red flags, and was on a first name basis with the President. Where were the right wing cries for an explanation of this, or the stock theater fainting spells before Congress about a disgrace occuring in the Oval Office?

    Craig's the hypocrite. Oh, and you.


    Stranger and stranger (1.00 / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 03:39:26 PM EST
    But Statesman editor Vicki Gowler would not rely on Rogers' anonymous sources.

    Her previous job was at the St Paul Pioneer Press..
    That's St Paul as in Minneapolis St Paul.

    Meaning what? (none / 0) (#43)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:22:32 PM EST
    If it were Alabama Craig would still be a queer-baitin', God fearin' he-ro?

    Huh??? (1.00 / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:26:23 PM EST
    What a nasty person you are.

    Oh well, we knew that.

    And you can't figure out what "stranger and stranger" means??

    Okay. You can't.


    And what a chronically (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:37:24 PM EST
    disengenuous one you are.

    Maybe you could clarify why it's "stranger and stranger"-- without mentioning Bill Clinton, the WOT, or, the radical Left stabbing America in the back.


    Seeing as how (1.00 / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 10:19:11 PM EST
    I wouldn't pass you the sugar if we were setting side by side in a diner, why should tell you anything?

    Toddle off and try to bother someone else.


    "Pass you the sugar"? (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:04:38 AM EST
    That wouldnt be another Republican mens room code-phrase, would it?

    It starts with the hypocrisy (none / 0) (#16)
    by scribe on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:00:30 AM EST
    and goes from there.

    Other commenters have addressed the hypocrisy issue (and a big one it is) very well, even allowing for the trolls' attempt to redirect us to go after Clinton.  I'll look at some other issues:
    Craig said, in his interview with the Idaho Statesman:
     "...I am not gay, and I never have been."
    That line sounded very reminiscent of one  uttered by the Roy Cohn character (masterfully played by Al Pacino on HBO, BTW) in Angels in America:  "I am not gay.  I'm a heterosexual man who has sex with men."
    In thinking back to that play, one is compelled to remember that Cohn's justification for that attitude was along the lines of "gays have no power;  all power belongs to heterosexuals".  So, FWIW, Craig can never admit to being a homosexual....

    Next issue:  pleading guilty, allegedly without advice of counsel.
    The argument Craig attempts to make on this is just plain twaddle.  
    If one reads the police report, one notes that while being arrested Craig had presence of mind enough to slap down his business card "Larry Craig, United States Senator" and ask the cop what he thought of that.  (To the cop's credit, it meant Craig had not produced his driver's license, and repeated his request for that.)  Craig knew who and what he was/is, and has been in public life (and elective office) for thirty years or so.  He knew what pleading guilty would mean.  If one says otherwise, one is arguing

    Claiming his plea was uncounseled does not necessarily make it so.  MSNBC reported last night he called the court/police some time after the arrest and before the plea to get contact information for his attorneys.  So the whole "no lawyer" business just doesn't wash.

    No, he got caught, recognized it and tried to bury the story.  Almost got away with it, too.

    This thread is about Craig (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:32:01 AM EST
    not Clinton, so please stay on topic.

    Well if we are going to focus on Craig here (none / 0) (#24)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:52:42 AM EST
     we probably should also steer clear of Roy Cohn, Jeff Gannon, NC elections and broad non-specific accusations  about  GOP self-loathing homosexuals starting wars to prove their masculinity.

    The RW machine and hypocrisy (none / 0) (#26)
    by A DC Wonk on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:56:19 AM EST
    Glenn Greenwald has a great article about it today -- what RWers were saying back in October (when bloggers noted the gay-rumors) vs what they are saying now.  See http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/28/craig/index.html

    great article - (none / 0) (#29)
    by scribe on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:26:09 PM EST
    and it puts up exemplars of all the illogic the wingnuts here would give us, saving them the effort....

    Apparently The Statesman investigation (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:06:15 PM EST
    found nothing to report from the ranch.  That's a relief.

    It seems the important questions (none / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:46:27 PM EST

    1. Will he run for a 4th term in '08?
    2. Can he, or another Rep candidate, beat likely challenger Dem. Larry LaRocco?

    Getting our knickers in a bunch (none / 0) (#33)
    by Roger Mexico on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 01:23:54 PM EST
    Most of the comments on this thread throw a harsh light on how important expectations and symbolism are to our understanding of politics. The "hypocrisy" meme is quite popular in politics. If Craig really is someone who cruises for sex in public restrooms (which, by the way, would not necessarily make him "gay," but would at least be an indication that he has bisexual proclivities), then his past stance on gay marriage, rights, etc. is certainly fair game.

    As a community we should be careful about this, however. Just look at the police report (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/craig-arrest-doc/) of his arrest. As Josh Marshall asks quite cogently over at TPM (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/051749.php), do we really want to be crowing about catching a hypocrite with this kind of weird surveillance and police-state paranoia? Is the benefit worth the cost? Just a question.

    The answer my friend (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 01:33:29 PM EST
    is blowing in the wind...

    And it spells, yes.

    In the meantime, heaven forbid we listen in on suspected terrorists without a warrant....


    Look over there folks: (none / 0) (#40)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:07:33 PM EST
    1. Bill Clinton, who, btw, never appealed to a faction who said that those who engaged in extramarital affairs, or mmarried those who engaged in extramrital affairs, were hated by the Lord.

    2. Warrentless wiretapping

    Nice try, Uncle Troll.

    Jondee (1.00 / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:23:45 PM EST
    What can't you understand about Jeralyn saying to not discuss Clinton??

    Do you read before attacking?


    Dont make me laugh (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 05:28:27 PM EST
    Who brought up Clinton for the thousandth time?

    Keep fishin', Uncle Troll.


    Jondee (1.00 / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 10:15:28 PM EST
    Irrespectibe of that, the fact that you can't follow a request by the owner of the blog tells us a great deal about you. For starters, the rules don't apply, eh??

    What? (none / 0) (#39)
    by 1980Ford on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:06:41 PM EST
    Who supports the police with a blind eye? Who favors the police in appeals? Who thinks the solutions to all life's problems is more police power rather than those bleeding heart liberal programs? Again, the Right reaps what it sows.

    While on the subject, what appeals court would give a hoot about a defendant who knowingly and intelligently waives counsel and pleads guilty? That argument wouldn't survive the plain error test, another gift from the right.

    There is far more hypocrisy here that the sexual angle.


    my understanding is that people were complaining (none / 0) (#49)
    by chicago dyke on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 06:31:28 PM EST
    about cruising in the bathrooms and thus the investigation. as a woman, i'm perfectly comfortable with police investigating potential rapists and stalkers who have already shown icky behavior that suggests they're on the verge of doing worse. i'm not saying craig was the source of the original complaints, but apparently he knew what other people were already talking about- creepy stuff in the john. i'm queer and i find the whole 'public sex with strangers in inappropriate places' yucky and a public nuisance.

    Hollier than thou (none / 0) (#53)
    by 1980Ford on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 12:29:11 PM EST
    So you're queer and not a fag like Craig? Take out your "i'm queer" concession and any wing-nut pundit could phrase it exactly the same way.

    rapists and stalkers = icky and/or yucky, therefore Craig is a potential rapist or stalker.

    That is the implication. Why else use those words?

    Such is the logic of the entire "tough on crime" rhetoric. A = B = C, lock them all up and throw away the key. Such is is stuff of our Minority Report, preventative state. Many on both the Left and the Right agree on this.

    Yes, it's "yucky." Yes, someone complained (maybe, see below). Yes, it was a good idea to do something about it, for their own good.

    No liberal answers would do, however. Only more and more police state can fix anything. Reality is not so simple.

    Nor is there, in your "I'm queer, not a fag like Craig" post any mention of any social dynamics that could play a part or have their own solutions. No, only the policeMAN can stop these yucky rapists and stalkers.

    You sound like a Nancy Grace liberal, if a liberal at all, and it's no wonder Nancy Grace and Glen Beck can have a hug fest.

    What about this?

    For the men who cruise the 10th Street levee, the reward might be consensual sex, but the risk is being targeted for arrest. Attorneys say it's really entrapment and discrimination.

    When the data came back, she said, leaning forward in her office chair, she was slightly surprised at the overwhelming percentage of gay, male sex arrests: all but five out of 180-plus cases. That meant, she said, that all the arrests for consensual sex were for men having sex with men. But she said the figure that made her decide to pursue her motion was the number of documented complaints the police recorded during the same period.

    Flynn held up her left hand and touched her forefinger to her thumb, making a "0."

    "None. They couldn't produce a single complaint," she said. Flynn claims that the police are deliberately targeting men who have sex with men. "It's offensive," she said.