Sen. Larry Craig Expected to Resign, Possibly Today

CNN reports Sen. Larry Craig may resign today.

Fox News reports:

The Republican National Committee has warned Sen. Larry Craig privately that if he does not resign, the party will not provide him financial support in the upcoming election and it will recruit a Republican opponent to run against him.

< Petraeus Proving To Be A Political Hack | Tony Snow to Leave September 14, Perino to Replace Him >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Our newspaper is usually (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 01:34:02 PM EST
    relatively uninformative, but today they did a story about Craig's arrest in which they discuss one of the first academic studies on the tearoom trade.  It was a dissertation published in 1970 and was, apparently, considered goundbreaking at the time.  Of course the author paid a price for choosing his topic:

    When Humphreys published his findings, the Washington University chancellor was outraged -- he felt Humphreys had committed a felony by witnessing a felony and not reporting it. The school threatened to withhold Humphreys' doctorate. He was forced to leave. He taught briefly at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. He finished his career at Pitzer College in California.

    Anyway it goes into all the toe tapping signals.

    Wow. (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 01:39:29 PM EST
    Humphreys coined the term... (none / 0) (#24)
    by desertswine on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 02:18:24 PM EST
    "Humphreys coined the term "breastplate of righteousness" to describe men who used the cloak of social and political conservatism to conceal their deviant behavior."

    First time I heard that.


    Bu-bye (none / 0) (#1)
    by judyo on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 11:42:55 AM EST
    Probably today, it's Friday and this is a "dump"

    Looks like the RNC..... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 11:51:52 AM EST
    and the NFL have something in common.  One of theirs makes a mistake and brings bad p.r. and gets banned for life.

    To err is human, to forgive is divine...I always liked that line.  Will future generations remember that one, or will our increasingly vindictive punishment society send that piece of wisdom to the scrap heap of history?

    Re; Lavatory Larry... (none / 0) (#5)
    by desertswine on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 12:11:03 PM EST
    "With only three weeks left in his race against Barry Goldwater, his personal lawyer, Abe Fortas, calls to report that the president's longest-serving aide, Walter Jenkins, has been arrested for performing oral sex on another man in the basement pay toilet of a Washington Y.M.C.A."

    But Goldwater refused to exploit it, and actually was concerned for the man's family.

    Times have certainly changed.


    Goldwater..... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 12:20:05 PM EST
    was a stand up guy...not many like him left in the politics racket.

    That's true. (none / 0) (#8)
    by desertswine on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 12:31:49 PM EST
    still blackmailing homos (none / 0) (#3)
    by davecullen on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 11:59:43 AM EST
    while i was thrilled to see another self-loathing traitor-to-his-own kind hypocrite taken down, i'm increasingly appalled by the police still rounding up homos.

    i was kind of stunned to read the arrest report and see how little the senator actually did. you can arrest someone for tapping his foot, making shoe-to-shoe contact and swiping his hand?

    i have no doubt that craig was signalling he wanted sex, but that's the whole point of inuendo and suggestion, right? you can suggest your thoughts without actually expressing them, so you can find other people interested in the love that dare not speak its name without actually speaking its name.

    and i'm finding it more and more funny/insane that craig didn't just tell the judge, "yeah, i was thinking about having sex with the guy in that stall. but i didn't. i'm pretty sure it's not illegal to think about having sex."

    of course he couldn't do that: it would be admitting his gayness--much scarier for him than admitting to a misdemeanor. what's so disturbing  is that the cops were apparently counting on that intimidation not just for a rare case where they would entrap a senator, but that it would work on nearly all the desperate closet cases they trapped in that bathroom.

    the fact that the cop proceeded to arrest with no evidence, just inuendo, is stunning. i don't think this is the cops' first try at this, so they know what works and what doesn't. they know that all they have to wait for are a few obvious suggestions, and even though they would be laughed out of court with this "evidence," it's more than enough to bully most of the closet cases into confessing to keep it quiet. "just sign this confession, and it will all go away" the cop kept suggesting, in almost so many words.

    that is vile. they know these guys are married and/or putting up a big straight front, and they could get them to admit to espionage before the sucker would allow a public court case exposing himself as a homo.

    wow. 21st century, and the cops are still blackmailing homos with their sexuality. and in an urban center of a liberal state, no less. gross.

    Couldn't Agree More (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 12:07:41 PM EST
    digby puts it in a similar perspective in the context of Tucker Carlson's ugly response to the Craig affair:

    There is evidently a very deliberate and complex signaling that goes on that someone who wasn't clued in would never get, much less be offended by, because it requires that the target respond in a certain way before it goes to the next step (as the cop in the case did.If someone does feel weird about these signals they are easy enough to repel. Obviously, the reason they are so tentative and obscure is in order not to cause a disturbance.

    The reason the police were in that bathroom wasn't because Craig and his ilk were preying on innocent straight teenagers but because they were meeting up with mutually interested gay men for a casual sexual encounter --- which may be icky, but it's not the same thing as deliberately "bothering" straight high school boys. Carlson made it sound like lots of gay men make a habit of doing that. It's not true.


    Amen brother.... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 12:18:03 PM EST
    It boggles the mind.  We're in worse shape than I thought if we have undercover cops in bathrooms enforcing this nonsense.



    As a huge privacy advocate (none / 0) (#10)
    by glanton on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 12:45:29 PM EST
    I still don't understand what is objectionable about preventing sex in public restrooms.  This was an airport bathroom.  If an airport bathroom gets a reputation for being a site where people are screwing each other, then it oughtn't surprise anybody that the cops are going to go after it.

    Believe me, I totally get the point about the cops blackmailing people to sign confessions with the whole "gay" thing.  And I agree 100% that this, like many of the tactics on the "Law and Order" side of the coin, is disgusting.

    But again, much of the responsibility for the anti-gay fervor that these cops exploit has to be laid at the feet of the politicians who keep stoking the fires over it, every two years.  I mean, check out the recent press conference: all he really seems to care about is we believe him when he swears he's not gay.  This hysterical defensiveness itself emblemizes his own role as a hate monger.  

    It also emblemizes the poetic justice of his dillema.

    Will homophobic bigotry ever go away, even if all the Larry Craigs of the world finally, mercifully, shut up about it?  Of course not.

    But I do take heart in this.  Western civilization has improved over time in its approach to the whole subject, no matter how loud the Republicans may still be screaming about it.

    Finally, let it not be forgotten that Republicans hate gay persons.


    that having sex on a public thunder mug is illegal, I do find it surprising that not having sex on a public thunder mug is also illegal.

    How long (none / 0) (#14)
    by glanton on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 01:21:51 PM EST
    Has the delightful term, "thunder mug," been part of the popular lexicon enyway?

    As to your legal point:



    thread. I couldn't wait to use it.

    Let's turn it into a verb (none / 0) (#20)
    by glanton on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 01:35:39 PM EST
    To be used everywhere of course, but most especially in bars, at fraternity parties, and at Wall Street martini luncheons!.

    I think sex in public restrooms..... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 01:19:35 PM EST
    can be prevented without having cops stationed in the stalls playing footsie. Airport security can wait for a complaint about sex in the bathroom and deal with it by ejecting the offenders or getting the law to prosecute for indecent exposure.

    Besides, Craig didn't have sex, he allegedly made a pass in the way people of his (again alleged) sexual preferences make passes.  It's a far cry from being caught in a sex act.

    I'm still in shock there are "cruising" laws still on the books.  If you're a guy cruising for the ladies you're as American as apple pie, cruising for another dude and you're a criminal.  I had hoped we were past these hang-ups as a society.  

    I agree with you that republican politicians and social conservative groups are a big part of why we still have these hang-ups.


    K-Dog (none / 0) (#19)
    by glanton on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 01:34:22 PM EST
    Weren't the cops there because the bathroom was a well-known spot for sexual activity?

    It's only common sense that a "hot spot" is going to eventually be monitored as such?

    Besides, Craig didn't have sex, he allegedly made a pass in the way people of his (again alleged) sexual preferences make passes.  It's a far cry from being caught in a sex act.

    This is certainly true.  But then you're speaking to the absolute core of police practices.  When you're perceived to be about to do something illegal you get arrested for it.  Money changes hands between a client and a prostitute in a place where prostitution is illegal: cops arrest.  Get busted with more than a minimum amount of pot (or with pot broken into separate baggies, etc.), get charged with intent to sell.  Etc.

    I know you have big problems with both of these examples.  As do I, I'm a legalize personal no harm "vices" guy.  

    But kdog all of this points up the poetic justice of the situation.  Sen. Craig's politics staunchly support all the hypotheticals I name and then some.  He is a lawmaker.  And it's only fair if every now and then we get to see the Rulers personally reap the garbage they so fervently sow.

    Now, imagine Craig's response to all of this was, Geez, I've been isolated watching my hedge funds pandering to bigotry and sending soliders off to kill and die for no reason--but now I see that this draconian stuff I support is bad!

    Well then, we could at least say he has grown, and we could hold out hope that there is yet a modicum hope in the political system.

    But instead his response is to scream, like Mr. Garrison from the mountaintop in that classic South Park episode, "I'm not gay!!"  I therefore shed no tear, feel no sympathy for the man. He's getting what he very richly deserves.    


    Points taken..... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 01:56:11 PM EST
    But I don't care if this particular restroom was a gay porn convention....I will never support undercovers in the stalls trying to entrap people into violating "cruising" laws.  What's wrong, if it really is an out of control hot-spot, with putting a cop outside the bathroom ready to investigate if and when someone complains.

    I agree he is reaping what he helped sow, and it is important for the tyrants to get a taste of their medicine once in awhile.  That being said....I still feel sorry for him, if it's all true.  Here's an old man who has probably never been honest with himself a day in his life.  A man lost in his own skin.  Thats sad...all politics aside.


    In my opinion, because children use (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 02:06:50 PM EST
    public restrooms, sometimes w/o a adult supervision, law enforcement presence w/i the restroom following reports of unlawful activity is justified. The senator is welcome to search for like-minded adults, just not there.

    Not if the only "unlawful activity".... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 02:24:42 PM EST
    being reported is foot placement and hand signals.  

    If you're talking about actual indecent exposure, then I agree.


    Don't forget about the incriminating placement (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 02:34:28 PM EST
    of that roller bag. Anyhow, if I had sons, I wouldn't be really keen on an adult male standing outside the stall staring at my child.

    I don't get it (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jen M on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 03:32:56 PM EST
    just where is one supposed to leave one's rollerbag?

    that's the attitude that gets kind of gross (none / 0) (#32)
    by davecullen on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 03:49:17 PM EST
    closet cases looking for sex in the bathroom because they can't admit the truth at home are looking for sex, and are terrified of getting caught--hence the many layers of signals before advancing, and the suitcase to keep from getting seen.

    they are looking for interested partners wanting to have sex, not seducing your straight sons.

    nobody is getting seduced here.

    i am also frustrated by the gist of the reporting of this by the straight media--and a lot of reactions by straight people, that this kind of activity is reprehnsible.

    look, you probably had no hand in it personally, but collectively, straight society has marginalized gay people for centuries, and shamed these guys into the closet. craig grew up in idaho in the 1940s. what options did he have? admiting who he was was admitting to a moral sin. later, it would have ended his career.

    the same is true for many of the people doing this. straight culture has cornered them and boxed them into those bathroom stalls. do you think it's pleasant getting your only glimpse of meaningful human physical contact in a bathroom, groping under a stall divider with someone you can't see?

    yes, they all have choices, but none of the choices are good. they are not in that bathroom because they want to be there. how about some responsibility for beating them in there.

    and let me ask: what is the price you're paying if you're in the bathroom and overhear something that sounds like it might be sex once every few years? it's definitely a price--it's gross. but please evaluate it alongside the price these men are paying. who do you think is getting the worse end of that deal?


    Apparently there are avenues to find (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 04:20:11 PM EST
    willing adult partners now; it would be better if the men of Craig's generation used them.

    All right (none / 0) (#26)
    by glanton on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 02:20:49 PM EST
    I will never support undercovers in the stalls trying to entrap people into violating "cruising" laws

    Me neither.  I didn't say it was wonderdul that an undercover cop was trolling the bathroom.  I said I'm not surprised by it given the rep of these THUNDER MUGS, and neither, I take it, are you.

    Our argument here is for the most part pretty minor.  We share each other's concerns.  More a matter of what we would each like to see emphasized about it.  Right now, what I personally think merits emphasis (enemy of civil rights, proponent of police-state measures reaping the fruits of his own rhetoric and actions) is getting a lot more play than what you think the bigger story is ( police state concerns).  

    The reason I hold my position is that I hope that from this deluge of exposes the American people will eventually lose its appeitite for the type of garbage that sealed the deal for the GOP in 2004.  

    Maybe, kdog, one day a Republican aspirant for higher office will stand in front of a podium trying to get exploit hatred for transgressors of the Father Knows Best myth, only to stop speaking and be greeted by eerie silence.  Until finally someone in the audience raises their hand.  Perhaps a miner from Utah or a displaced person from New Orleans or a signle mother with no health care or a family member of a soldier sacrificed in vain or the mother of a man doing a life sentence for marijuana possession.  And when called on that person might say, enough pandering you indecent, disingenuous, smug blight of human skin. Enough already.  Enough of the arsinic laced Apple Pie.  We're tired of it all.  Say something that matters.  

    The way you close your post I find noble, and here replicate for its literary and spiritual value.

    I still feel sorry for him, if it's all true.  Here's an old man who has probably never been honest with himself a day in his life.  A man lost in his own skin.  Thats sad...all politics aside.

    I would be happy to share your beautiful sentiment were Craig to show any signs of growth, or reflection on the damage his hate has caused.  Maybe one day he will.  But I doubt it.  Like all GOP Leadership, if given half the chance he'd have Lawrence v Texas overturned today.


    Tea Rooms have always been AYOR (none / 0) (#9)
    by tnthorpe on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 12:44:38 PM EST
    While the compassion for Craig is a good thing, his case isn't exactly Bowers vs Hardwick.

    Not so fast on the resignation, folks (none / 0) (#11)
    by scribe on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 01:17:14 PM EST
    His aide came out an hour or so ago (as I write this) saying the press reports were incorrect and he had no intention to resign in the immediate future, that, if this should change, the press would be notified.

    What a wonderful gift, a little fortitude in the face of screaming Republicans!  Would that Reid and Pelosi had half the spine Craig has.

    Maybe he has the (none / 0) (#15)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 01:23:07 PM EST
    same spokesman as Gonzales.

    It's not outside.... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 01:23:55 PM EST
    the realm of possibility that Craig is telling the truth.  

    One thing is for sure, I'm gonna be aware of where my feet are positioned in the future...and be careful not to drop anything when in a stall.


    no way (none / 0) (#25)
    by davecullen on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 02:19:57 PM EST
    if you look at the police report, you'll notice the times logged and see that this continued for several minutes. it was not a few quick taps and a shuffling of feet.

    the feet, maybe, but who has ever absent-mindedly reached their hand under a bathroom stall and stroked the bottom of the divider wall? would you even want to touch that filthy wall, much less invade the next guy's stall?

    once is hard to imagine, but he repeated the manuever several times. no way.

    his excuse was picking up a paper that was not there. and he insisted he used his right hand--which would make sense--but the cop saw his wedding ring, meaning he turned sideways to use his opposite arm to get the imaginary paper, and missed the floor and stroked the divider instead, and when that failed to grasp the curious phantom, he kept stroking. yes, sounds like coincidence.

    the whole purpose of a series of signals and repetition is that you rule out coincidence. guys doing this have to be sure they're not approaching some straightguy, and the system has been vetted by experience through the ages.

    really, any one of the steps alone is not decisive, but a very good bet. i have never come on to a guy in a straight bathroom, but i have definitely used the foot manuever and the thigh manuever in many a bar to see if the guy is gay, and/or interested. you just slide your shoe or your thigh up to meet his, and just about everyone in the world will immediately recoil if they were not actually flirting already. it's just instinct.

    the person doing the inadvertant bump will nearly always do the same. (the exception being crowded airline seats where you're fighting for armrest teritory. can happen in a movie theater seat, too.) if the receiver keeps his appendage in place against yours--or better, pushly gently back--you've got about a 99% chance it's a go. if he pulls back, you do the same, and it all happens in an instant where you just appear to have bumped, and go on with the conversation. people have been doing this forever.

    if, for some reason, one party was so innocent and unusual that they did not recoil at the bump, you're into the 1% territory, so you try a different manuever to check that. if they still return it, you're down to 1% of 1%, but really much smaller, because now the other person's antenae is up that something is a little odd, and they're going to know not to reciprocate.

    in this case, if craig had made physical contact with another person while taking a dump, you can be sure he would have noticed, been a little freaked out about it, and if ever there would have been a moment in his life to start caressing a filthy bathroom divider and gesturing into another occupied stall, that would not be it.


    Well,,, (none / 0) (#29)
    by desertswine on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 02:44:50 PM EST
    Warner is retiring, if not Larry.

    Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia, one of the most authoritative voices in Congress on the military and a key figure in the debate over Iraq, said Friday he will not seek a sixth term in 2008.

    If they are trying to entertain us they better (none / 0) (#30)
    by JSN on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 03:07:20 PM EST
    think again.

    Saturday... (none / 0) (#34)
    by desertswine on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 04:40:22 PM EST
    BOISE, Idaho (AP) - Idaho Sen. Larry Craig will announce his future plans Saturday after widespread calls from fellow Republicans to resign over a men's room sex sting, his spokesman said Friday.

    Dan Whiting, Craig's spokesman, said there would be an announcement Saturday but would not say whether Craig will step down. Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter already appears to have settled on a successor: Lt. Gov. Jim Risch, according to several Republicans familiar with internal deliberations.