Sen. Larry Craig
As Senator Larry Craig (Republican) performed homosexual acts, why didn’t the Democrats rally to his cause as they support everything else homosexual?
This letter has not been edited.
Yer right, so let me say...
I'm a Democrat and I support J.D. Moyers and will rally to his cause.
Posted by ThanksforPlaying on September 10, 2007 02:15 PMBecause he's a closeted, family-values kind of guy who chose to smear the sh*t right on himself!
Posted by mike h on September 10, 2007 02:43 PMThis wasn`t about homosexuality, it was about breaking the law, and being stupid in a public place.
If he stands up and says "I am gay" we will rally around him, until then, no thanks.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 10, 2007 03:29 PMFlying under that radar, at warp-speed, is Craig's violation of our national security laws. He was required by federal law to report his immediate arrest to the US Congress, DoD Secy Gates, and (DoD) Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). All 535 congressional "MT" suits and dresses hold top-secret military security clearances.
Posted by 40acresandmymuleandNAMvetbennies on September 10, 2007 03:52 PMDems wont rally to his cause because he isnt the right kind of gay,being Republican.
Posted by Get Real on September 10, 2007 03:53 PMBecause the Democrats are hipocrits of epic proportion as is Mr. Craig.
Where were they during the lynching of Alberto Gonzales? Oh thats right they were the ones destroying him personally and proffesionally, and why? Because he plays for the other team.
If either of these guys hade been a Democrat they'd both still be in there jobs and the outcry towards the republicans for coming after them and demanding their resignations would be absolutely deafening.
"If he stands up and says "I am gay" we will rally around him, until then, no thanks"
So only if he's gay in accordance with the lefts' standards will they defend his right to be gay.
Interesting. Do you also offer a course on how to be gay?
Posted by KW on September 10, 2007 04:35 PMLet's not forget that Craig is from the party of "Family Values", the party that has rammed their beliefs and holier than thou attitude on others for years now. The truth is, whether we are talking about Republicans or Democrats it is the hypocrisy that is disgusting. Think about Newt Gingrich who while he went after Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal was cheating on his wife. We cannot expect any human to be perfect. But we can expect them to walk the talk.
On another note, I wonder when our country and its leaders and citizens are going to stop labeling and denigrating others because they are Democrats or Republicans. We have leaders in both parties that are outstanding and those that let us down. The sad truth is we are in a crisis right now with the war without end, health care issues, housing foreclosures up remarkably, borders that are not yet secure, etc. Instead of driving the wedge deeper that divides our country let us work hard on trying to pick a new leader for our nation in 2008 that will begin to solve some of these gigantic problems. Read "Where Have All the Leaders Gone" by Lee Iacocca for a start.
KW, yes, only if he meets our standards. Say what you are, no hiding and no hypocrisy. No marrying an unsuspecting woman and having children with her, all the time getting interludes in men's rooms. No marrying a lady for a "cover" life.
Pretty simple to be our kind of gay.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 10, 2007 05:17 PMAnon 4:04,
I'll bet you were standing up fpr Clinton during his investigation regarding consensual sex between 2 adults huh? I'm sure you thought is was a waste of time didn't you? Or after he lied you wanted him nailed to the wall right? Because if you were no hypocrit you would have thought it was a waste of time. I mean millions spent, books written, investigations everywhere for sex between two adults. You thought it was a waste of time right?
Posted by Mike D. on September 10, 2007 05:20 PMYou ROCK Sharon!! you are my new hero!
Posted by KJ on September 10, 2007 05:46 PMPersonally I would prefer if no one, regardless of their sexual orientation, is having sex in a public restroom. Sounds like he knew all the 'signs' so I'm guessing he had done this before.
And yes, I was appalled at President Clinton's lack of morals and common sense and if he had been arrested trolling a public restroom for a bj, then I would have supported his ouster.
I fully support Senator Craig in pursuing a loving, committed relationship with another man. Just not in public.
Posted by Michael R on September 10, 2007 05:55 PMOoops, I meant just not in a public restroom.
Posted by Michael R on September 10, 2007 05:57 PMI did not listen to the full tape until Sen. Craig started reconsidering his resignation. Only thing I could find he was guilty of was "arguing with a 29year old police sergeant who can tell if someone is soliciting sex by their fingers and tapping of toes. Especially in a public restroom". Now where and how did this Sgt. learn his "expertize" and is the the designated "gay" detector of Minneapolis Police Force? If so, we may have to avoid public restrooms in the future. With all this emphasis, hard to say what next police person (?) may believe to be gay or lesbian. At age 78, I restrict my travels, but usually travel in motorhome with my own restroom. Never know who may be "peeking from next stall"? By the way, I have no feelings for whether Sen. Craig should resign or remain. As a veteran and senior, I feel he is a lot more conservative than needed. But perhaps that is what Idaho wants. All of you who posted here, had better start thinking about your fingers and tapping toes. Or of arguing with a policeman who needs to make his quota. And JJ, I really don't care how Clinton had sex, I did care about his lying to grand jury, 2 judges in court under oath, on television when he assured all of us "I did not have sex with that woman", and especially for telling our young people that "oral sex is not sex". He certainly did not honor his mother, his wife, or any of the other women with whom he came in contact. And he as impeached by House who has absolute power over that action. Senate did not have gumption to "remove" him from office, because they did not want to contend with Al Gore. Who would? And I am unaffiliated voter who makes my own decisions.
Posted by Frank25 on September 10, 2007 06:01 PMFrank25 - I also read the transcript and can assure you that I have never even accidentally moved my foot into another stall and put it next to the other person's foot. I've never run my hand back and forth under a stall wall. I have never stood their looking into an obviously occupied stall for any period of time. (Most people would find a glance to be sufficient.)
If the airport was having trouble with men having sex in the restroom, they have every right to intervene. Most travelers I know would prefer to use sex-free restrooms.
Posted by Michael R on September 10, 2007 06:10 PMKJ, thank you.
I was thrilled when Monica had the dress. I was furious that she was labled a "nut or a slut" but she proved herself.
Wish every women could.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 10, 2007 07:18 PMWell, I'm a gay man and unlike so many others, including so many in his own party, I do give Craig the benefit of the doubt.
I think that the whole bathroom 'sting' wasn't just entrapment. It was extortion.
The cop tells him "you can just pay a fine and the whole thing will go away" - or, of course, if you believe you were innocent you can choose to fight the charges and fly back here, at your own expense, on the court's schedule and you can go in front of a judge and everyone else in court and respond to these humiliating charges.
I'm also the son of a retired cop and respect them mightily, but I also know that there are cops and entire police departments that abuse their authority.
Was this officer also patrolling the bars in the airport and arresting anyone who was buying drinks and flirting with total strangers?
Aren't those 'signals' of someone trying to get sex?
And what crime did Craig actually commit?
He didn't have sex. He didn't actually say anything..it was all alleged "signals'" that have been boiled down to the neat little term "indecent conduct".
Make no mistake, I have no sympathy for Craig and I doubt that he's learned anything from this experience.
Every action he took after being busted was ludicrous. From pleading guilty if he believes he was innocent to not reporting it as 40Acres as pointed to...to the waffling over resigning his office ..to his latest claim that he pled guilty because he felt pressured to do so because of an ongoing investigation by his hometown newspaper into other allegations about his sexuality.
Let's not forget the message he left on a wrong number voicemail talking about ways to manipulate the issue before the public.
All of his actions indicate a man with a complete lack of sound judgement. The senate is better off without him.
But I hope Craig does have an epiphany that opens his eyes to the prejudice that gay people face in America..now that he's been lumped in with us against his will.
Now he knows what it feels like to have people make assumptions about him based on nothing but allegations and hearsay.
Now he knows what its like to have your character attacked and be marginalized as a citizen because of things that people presume about you.
And the most insulting and infuriating of all...now he knows what its like to have other people tell him that they know better than he does what is in his heart.
Craig is getting a taste of what it is like to be gay in America and its a big fat does of the bitter medicine that he's been spooning up for years as one of the more virulent opponents of equalify for gays.
So, Michael R...I do feel that Craig is being railroaded and that's a pity..but I also believe in karma...and it's biting him in his butt.
Senator Craig thinks he is above the law. That was his mistake. I don't think he should be forced to leave the Senate. I think he should be the posterboy for Republican "family values."
Posted by on September 10, 2007 10:02 PMSudden Gay Selective memory...
Your kind of gay???
You forgot to add the kind of gay that sees the need for bathhouses, arcades (several of both right here in Denver) and exactly what he was busted for bathroom hijinks which is well documented as what goes on out DIA. But hey that's all covered by your "Freedom of choice".
Looks like he is your type of gay after all.
Posted by on September 11, 2007 10:52 AM10:52 AM, anonymous,
One may take it then that the females trolling Colfax, and the hot-sheet motels along the street, as well as the lap-dancers in the local clubs, etc., are preferable - or perhaps even perfectly acceptable - since they are of YOUR particular orgasm-preference orietation?
Thanks for enlightening us on the subject.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 11, 2007 11:06 AM---since they are of YOUR particular orgasm-preference orietation?--
There's a brain surgeon for ya.
I never intimated anything of the sort. Merely pointing out that the exact behavior the Senator exhibited, is fully accepted and tolerated by my gay brothers and sisters. But they that's practicing Freedom of Choice...
There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around. Not to mention the scores of gay men and women that live and lived the straight life style for years and years and still do. Yet they criticize this guy because he's a "republican". You don't know his issues, you don't know the man and what he's going through. There's just as much hate and "intolerance" in gay circles as there is from the "outside" in. Yet we "accept" all. Please...
Clean up your own mess before you expect someone else to clean up theirs.
As for the females trolling Colfax comment, not preferable or acceptable...
Posted by on September 11, 2007 11:40 AMFlaming heterosexuals keep the World wide sex trade going.
The wanna be Hugh Heffners of the world are A-okay with folks.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 11, 2007 11:50 AMSharon B:
"KW, yes, only if he meets our standards. Say what you are, no hiding and no hypocrisy. No marrying an unsuspecting woman and having children with her, all the time getting interludes in men's rooms. No marrying a lady for a "cover" life."
According to many posters here, Sharon included, outing Craig was done in order to nail a "hypocritical" Republican foe of gay rights. For this reason they cannot find within their hearts the same compassion they have towards openly gay people.
But there is nothing hypocritical about someone who is homosexual, believes homosexuality is wrong, and keeps his homosexuality under wraps. More to the contrary, he is acting consistent with his beliefs. If he has a sexual encounter in a men's rooms, that is an act of weakness, not hypocrisy.
Posted by KW on September 11, 2007 12:52 PMKW,
Within the context of beliefs and personal practice of someone admittedly homosexual, you are correct. Such a life would be a psychological nightmare; but it would be one without other reporach.
However, when that same individual openly portrays himesl to be in favor of any and all forms of anti-gay legislation, discrimination, and prejudice - on the basis of his own adherance to "heterosexual values", while at one and the same time protesting that he IS NOT GAY himself - that IS HYPOCRICY!
Compassion is one thing. Indeed, it is something that might be applicable to both sides, from a purely religious standpoint. But, turning a completely "blind eye" to hypocricy is something else. Something that should not be done when the hypocrite basks in the approval and acceptance of "public eye", by way of public office.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 11, 2007 02:08 PMKW, I don`t know why or by whom he was outed. But he was outed as a hypocrite and foe of gay rights, who apparently wants the right to have sex in public bathrooms.
He is sad, but if he stops this "I am not gay" business, then he gets all my sympathy. So far that goes to the family he is still trying to deceive.
I once worked for a lady who tried to get custody of her grandchildren because the mother smoked pot and drank. One of the children, the baby, they thought had fetal alcohol damage (she didn`t) .
This lady hated all drug use, yet she gave the baby phenobarbital, proscribed before they knew the baby did not need it, to take the baby into court.
She drugged the baby for her own convenience not at the times she was supposed to, at bed time.
She and Craig have a problem with reality. With short term wants and long term needs.
KW,
If Sen. Craig is married, and tries to solicit, or succeeds in soliciting, sex in a men's room, that is adultery and a criminal offense. Since Sen. Craig has publicly espoused "family values", and since fidelity in marriage is a "family value" or at least it should be, it may be an act of weakness, but he's still a hypocrite. Also, bleating "I am not gay" attempts to make the public equate sex in men's rooms with being gay. So he's a hypcrite who publicly continues to try to portray gay men as perverts while at the same time attempting such acts himself, if the police are to be believed. So he's scum.
We all have our weaknesses, and you are free to argue for mercy for him, but he's still scum.
"There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around. Not to mention the scores of gay men and women that live and lived the straight life style for years and years and still do. Yet they criticize this guy because he's a "republican"."
Get it right.
They're not criticizing him because he's a republican.
They're criticizing him because he has been a vehement opponent of equal rights for gay Americans.
Giuliani is a republican and plenty of gay people in NYC loved and supported him because he supported them. Same with Bloomberg.
The late Barry Goldwater was a republican who was an eloquent supporter of gay equality and not just because he had a gay grandson. He was part of now almost extinct breed of republican..the ones who believed thatcitizens should be more involved in the running of government and that the government should be less involved in the lives of it's citizens.
If Craig is latently homosexual, he probably suffers from serious self-loathing and I do feel empathy for that. But he's not a stupid man.
That voicemail he left on the wrong phone number were the words of a savvy politico who was scheming about ways to manipulate this issue and the press to try to minimize the damage to his political career.
They weren't the words of a man who was drowning in the fear of his secrets being exposed or worried about how all of this would affect his family or supporters.
But get it right...why should any gay person come to Craig's defense when he has helped build his political career by trying to deny them equality?
I would pee on him if he were on fire, but that's all the "defense" that Larry Craig has earned from me.
Posted by Thomas on September 11, 2007 02:48 PMI got it right.
Your compassion is underwhelming. Not shocking and not surprising. This is nothing but pure politics at play. And yes it's because he's Republican. Funny how it happened 3 months ago and we just heard about it. Took that long to dig up? Not likely, public record once the plea was filed. Politics...
So using your rational, since Bill Clinton signed the defense of marriage act, he's anti-gay too, rather than fighting and saying it's wrong. Which I might add passed by a 85-14 vote. Gotta love all those "gay" friendly votes there...
I'd much rather have a person tell me to my face where they stand than to lie and go the other way behind my back. You've got a better chance convincing the former that their rational is wrong, than the latter who chose to lie to you.
I'm sure he'd be comforted in knowing you'd at least pee on him if he was on fire. Hopefully one would be more apt to do more should you find yourself in the same situation.
You're a true pillar of society...
Posted by on September 11, 2007 03:22 PMInteresting responses from all. Thank you.
But even if my take on this is wrong, what about the liberal view of homosexuality?
Common words from them is that sexual orientation is inborn, a trait over which one has no control. If this is true, why then would a gay person be caught in such a state of denial?
To most liberals, the reasoning would be that he is a deeply tragic figure, an abject victim of society's prejudices which has him caught between being who he is and who he'd rather be, would it not?
And if this is even remotely true, then "outing" him seems an act of grave and inhumane cruelty, not to mention hypocrisy if these same people also claim to believe in rights for gays and especially, the right to privacy.
I was unaware of any reports of Craig performing homosexual acts. Moyers apparently knows him better than the rest of us.
Posted by on September 11, 2007 03:47 PMEvidently he gave more hand and foot signals than Rockies Manager Clint Hurdle would to a runner to steal second base. Not exactly caught with his pants down...
Posted by on September 11, 2007 03:54 PMKW,
Having shrunk heads for something over 45 years, I do wonder why you think that the matter of sexual preference being inborn is only a "liberab view". It is a scientific view, early propounded by Freud, Jung, and many of the other founders of Psychoanalysis, and Therapy.
The reasons for suppression and repression of one's own instincts and responses are as numerous as the ways in which culture demands conformity. Religious conformity is one of the strongest forces that can be applied to traumatize the individual; and growing up in the anti-gay environment of Westerrn religion is a source for many teen-age suicides, when their hormones and responses conflict with what their Preacher, or Priest, tells them if "God's will, or God's law".
Yes, "outing" a person with deep suppression and repression is an act of grave and inhumane cruelty. You've got that right.
On the other hand, when someone "outs" himself - by actions - and then tries to run back in the closet and hide, by denial, there is an element of desire for some kind of "punishment" - however unconscious at root - that is present.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 11, 2007 08:11 PMAnonymous 3:22pm
Think about what you're saying...
Gays picking on a guy because he's a republican wouldn't merit an inch of column space in any newspaper.
If Craig was coming out of the closet and not only admitting he was gay but admitting that he had voted against gay equality legislation in an effort to conceal his sexuality, there would undoubtedly be some resentment but there would also be accpetance and forgiveness.
But that's not what Craig has done.
If he truly is gay or just like clandestine homosexual encounters....yet keeps voting against legislation that promote equality for gays in America..then he's a big, fat hypocrite and he deserves whatever he gets.
As to your reference to Clinton and DOMA.
Don't think we have forgiven him for that or "don't ask, don't tell".
When the going got tough, we got thrown under the bus.
Hillary Clinton has admitted that "DA,DT" was meant to be "transitional" which is a slap in the face to all the gay veterans and active service members who have served or given life or limb for this country.
We do recognize that Clinton, however, was the first president to acknowledge us as fellow citizens and although he had to bow to political pressure, we believe that he and Sen. Clinton do recognize us as equals.
(That doesn't mean I'm voting for her though).
KW: "Common words from them is that sexual orientation is inborn, a trait over which one has no control. If this is true, why then would a gay person be caught in such a state of denial?"
Is KW seriously or just trying to be weird? Why would a gay person hide his homosexuality? He doesn't know? Come out from under that rock, KW, and brush up on attitudes toward homosexuals.
Posted by Truth on September 12, 2007 08:01 AMJD Moyers:
First, I wouldn't be talking about the Dems preferring everything homosexual when you repubs seem to be the ones who cannot seem to keep your hands off male congressional pages and gay escorts.
Second, what Larry Craig did has nothing to do with homosexuality; neither does it resemble Vitter's transgression. What Vitter did was unethical, but at least it was behind closed doors. People who solicit sex in public restrooms share a perennial name –that of ‘pervert.’ It gives new meaning to the phrase, "get a room."
The point is, JD, that parents should not have to think twice about sending their 10-year-old son into a public restroom for fear that he'll witness perverts having sex in there. People like Craig who engage in this type of activity are not homosexuals, they are quite simply degenerates and menaces to society.
This brings to mind the issue of the mayor of Ft. Lauder, FL who wants the city to spend a quarter of a million dollars to reoutfit beach bathrooms because he believes that there is rampant sex going on in them...despite the fact that the police department denies there is a problem and there have only been 4 arrests for the last 2 years related to sex in bathrooms.
The "robo-john" door, which Mayor Naugle wants to install in bathrooms, automatically opens after a specifc amount of time, whether the occupant is finished or not.
What's ironic is the Ft. Lauderdale is a notorious spring break destination and anyone who has been there at that time of year can bear witness to heterosexual young people having sex on the beach, in hotel hallways and swimming pools, in restaurant bathroom...even in the street.
I was there a few years ago for business and was in a hotel where the elevator was always tied up. So, I took the stairs and a couple flights down from my floor I came up on a girl performing oral sex on two guys.
I saw several couples having sex on the beach under blankets but in full view of everyone else.
Mayor Naugle obviously isn't offended by heterosexuals having sex in public places.
Can you spell D-U-P-L-I-C-I-T-Y?
Do as we say, not as we do.