Senator Restroom Incident

[dairygirl4u2c]

do you all think that idaho senator should resign for the restroom incident? i wans't sure, personally, even though i've read and heard much news on it. i was upset because they never went into the details of the event, and i could see many ways in which it could be skewed. so, i decided to go to a reputable source, NY Times, and this is what happened apparently.
all from a police officer too, apparently....

what do you take from the following?

[quote]He would not answer reporters’ questions, and he offered no detailed explanation for the events that began with his arrest in June by an undercover police officer in a men’s restroom at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

According to the police report, first obtained by Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper that disclosed the episode and the guilty plea on Monday, the incident began with Mr. Craig’s peering into the undercover officer’s stall several times through the crack in the door.

Then, Mr. Craig reportedly entered the stall to the left of the undercover officer “and placed his roller bag against the front of the stall door,” a move the officer said was intended to block the view from the front of the stall.

When he was seated, Mr. Craig tapped his right foot in a signal used by people wishing to engage in lewd conduct, the report said.

After the officer moved his own foot up and down, the report said, Mr. Craig moved his right foot so that it touched the side of the officer’s left foot under the stall divider. Mr. Craig also reportedly swiped his left hand under the stall three times before the officer held his police identification down by the floor so Mr. Craig could see it.

After his arrest, the senator denied any sexual intent.

On Aug. 8, Mr. Craig pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct.

A second charge, interference with privacy, was dismissed.

Mr. Craig was given a suspended 10-day jail sentence, was fined more than $500 and was placed on unsupervised probation for one year.[/quote]

[Anomaly]

Now that all the 'talking heads' have convicted Mr. Craig based on scant information 'reported' in the news, we are getting soundbites from the arrest interview.

I personally have never come close to 'touching feet' in a bathroom stall. I dismissed Mr. Craig as an unfaithful creep. Now that I've heard the tapes, I am reminded there are two sides to the stories. If Craig can be wrong and dishonest, so can the officer. Now I feel bad in dismissing Craig and have questions regarding the officer.

I think Craig should stay and let it play out in court. This is America, we're innocent untill proven guilty.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/30/craig.arrest/"]http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/30/craig.arrest/[/url]

there's the tape. i find it intersting he says "i don't recall" about how he put his hand under, instead of denying it. i tend to think he's acting as if he's playing the don't know game. can't usually go wrong with that.... usually.

and then he starts denying it toward the end after he starts to see the error of his way.

could be wrong.

what's the person who wants to be republican in everything suppose to believe about this? i mean if he did it, what are they to believe? i seriously don't know. i'd tend to think libertarian doesn't care, but that's not christian conservative necessarily what they'd believe. i guess a christian type conservative would think he shouldbe banned from the senate if he did it? i really don't know.
personally i'd think you have ot respect his lifestyle but, that's just me.

Edited September 1, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Mercy me]

I heard the audio and was horrified for a couple of reasons.
1. I once bumped someone in the next stall in a restroom at a airport when I was struggling to get out of a coat and not trip on my carry-on. (why are restrooms in airports so small?) I had no idea that this is considered lewd. Maybe it is only in the mens room, I hope.

2. I didn't hear anywhere on the tape were solicitation actually took place. How was intent conveyed?

3. If a bump and whatever he did with his hand are a crime then I suspect it might be easy to nab innocent people.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well if it's as cramped as you say maybe it's more realistic. then it becomes more a matter ofwhat he did with his hand.
he was still not denying the elaborate gestures of his handtht the officer accused him of. he just said he didn't know, at first. that still seems fishy.
but good point airport RRooms might be crowded.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Mercy me' post='1375400' date='Aug 31 2007, 10:52 PM']I heard the audio and was horrified for a couple of reasons.
1. I once bumped someone in the next stall in a restroom at a airport when I was struggling to get out of a coat and not trip on my carry-on. (why are restrooms in airports so small?) I had no idea that this is considered lewd. Maybe it is only in the mens room, I hope.

2. I didn't hear anywhere on the tape were solicitation actually took place. How was intent conveyed?

3. If a bump and whatever he did with his hand are a crime then I suspect it might be easy to nab innocent people.[/quote]
Yeah, you know, I don't think most people have touched the foot of the person next to them with their hand....

[Jaime]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1374754' date='Aug 31 2007, 09:51 AM']Now that all the 'talking heads' have convicted Mr. Craig based on scant information 'reported' in the news, we are getting soundbites from the arrest interview.

I personally have never come close to 'touching feet' in a bathroom stall. I dismissed Mr. Craig as an unfaithful creep. Now that I've heard the tapes, I am reminded there are two sides to the stories. If Craig can be wrong and dishonest, so can the officer. Now I feel bad in dismissing Craig and have questions regarding the officer.

I think Craig should stay and let it play out in court. This is America, we're innocent untill proven guilty.[/quote]

Play what out in court? He pled guilty. Its done

[Anomaly]

From what I heard on the news, he can refute his plea if he provides evidence that he had bad legal council or had new evidence. Apparantly, he atttempted to do the former which is how this blew back up. I may be wrong, because the news never gives the whole story, and I may have misunderstood.

I think only a court hearing would allow both parties to expound on their side of the story. Personally, I never kicked another's foot while in a stall. I once changed clothes in a bathroom on a train (only slightly bigger than a planes), and believe me, I wasn't touching ANYTHING I could humanly avoid and was pretty successful. When I heard the tapes, it raised more questions in my mind. By the way, I've heard that the officer involved is a very solid law enforcement officer with a good reputation. I don't think that it was some type of organized entrapment conspiracy.

How would this have played out if it was Barney Frank? Would it be such a media story?
Should the penalty be worse if the offense is more hypocritical of their professed personal principles to the extent he has to quit?
For example, let's say it was Frank. We know he's gay, he plead to disorderly conduct, it's a misdemeanor. Does the public say he can stay in office because we knew he's gay and soliciting sex in a bathroom (allegedly) is okay because the creepy standard for a gay person is lower?
Or with Craig, because he voted for the "hetero" Marriage Act and the (alleged) hypcrasy is so heinous the public should demand his resignation. And 'which' segment of public? Should it be up to his constituents only, the ones who elected him? Mind you, Craing plead guilty to a conduct charge, not solicitation. Talking heads (and public opinion) seem to have him tried and convicted for a 'sexual solicitation/attempted encounter'.

Edited September 1, 2007 by Anomaly

[homeschoolmom]

Those are interesting questions, Anomaly....

[Jaime]

Except its not the media that is calling for his resignation and its not the democrats. It is his own party that is forcing him to step down.

So the whole Barney Frank comparison has no point.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1375502' date='Sep 1 2007, 10:46 AM']Except its not the media that is calling for his resignation and its not the democrats. It is his own party that is forcing him to step down.

So the whole Barney Frank comparison has no point.[/quote]
Why is his own party forcing him to step down? Because his party maintains high standards or because of negative public opinion fed by widespread media attention.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1375505' date='Sep 1 2007, 09:58 AM']Why is his own party forcing him to step down? Because his party maintains high standards or because of negative public opinion fed by widespread media attention.[/quote]

The point is you can't paint Craig as a victim of anything else than his own party. Which is why the Barney Frank example has no bearing. "Oooh if Barney Frank had done this, would anyone call for his resignation?"

Yes, the Republicans

[Anomaly]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1375509' date='Sep 1 2007, 11:07 AM']The point is you can't paint Craig as a victim of anything else than his own party. Which is why the Barney Frank example has no bearing. "Oooh if Barney Frank had done this, would anyone call for his resignation?"

Yes, the Republicans[/quote]I'm not claiming Craig is a victim, I'm asking questions.
So you're saying that the Republicans are calling for Craig's resignation because of their higher standards, or because it's politically expedient? You also think that no Democrats are calling for Craig to resign?

Are you saying that IF it was Frank, it would be only the Reps, not the Dems, calling for Frank to resign? Is that a good thing or bad thing?

[Jaime]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1375511' date='Sep 1 2007, 10:13 AM']I'm not claiming Craig is a victim, I'm asking questions.
So you're saying that the Republicans are calling for Craig's resignation because of their higher standards, or because it's politically expedient? You also think that no Democrats are calling for Craig to resign?

Are you saying that IF it was Frank, it would be only the Reps, not the Dems, calling for Frank to resign? Is that a good thing or bad thing?[/quote]

Frank had a male prostitute taking clients to his home in 89. From Time

[quote]While the House could censure Frank or reprimand him, colleagues and constituents so far have been generally sympathetic. The scandal does not involve seducing a minor, as it does with Lukens, or adultery, since Frank is single. It is an incident from a past secret life that has come back to haunt a legislator who is widely respected. Frank can debate and speak extemporaneously better than almost anyone else in the House, and he tackles some of its more complex problems like immigration and housing. Back home, he makes sure constituents get help from 18 staffers who track down Social Security checks and Medicaid benefits. Though he freely disclosed in 1987 that he was a homosexual, his district, which encompasses the liberal campuses of Boston and nearby blue-collar mill towns, re-elected him overwhelmingly in 1988 with 70% of the vote.

[b]Massachusetts Republicans have jumped on the Frank affair, and the latest poll shows that only 45% of the Congressman's constituents still look on him favorably -- a blow but not necessarily a defeat, since 61% want him to run for office again next year. Alexander Tennant, Massachusetts G.O.P. state committee director, says the political issue is "not Barney Frank's sex life but whether the Congressman broke the law." Gobie says he did, by abusing congressional immunity to avoid paying Gobie's parking tickets, a charge Frank denies.[/b][/quote]

So yes it would be the Republicans. Its their prerogative to do so.

Craig was one of the very vocal people who wanted Clinton impeached because Clinton was (and this is a quote) "A very naughty boy". So I would guess that the Republicans (who are the ones who keep this in the news) are more about getting rid of hypocrites in their party.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1375522' date='Sep 1 2007, 11:39 AM']Frank had a male prostitute taking clients to his home in 89. From Time
So yes it would be the Republicans. Its their prerogative to do so.

Craig was one of the very vocal people who wanted Clinton impeached because Clinton was (and this is a quote) "A very naughty boy". So I would guess that the Republicans (who are the ones who keep this in the news) are more about getting rid of hypocrites in their party.[/quote]So which is better? The Reps dumping Craig, or the Dems keeping Frank?

[bonoducchi]

The Republicans want Larry Craig gone because they have an election on 15 months and don't need and cannot afford the PR damage he will cause, guilty or not. He has been campaigning for several GOP candidates, including Mitt Rommney, and those candidates want a Grand Canyon between their names now. To have someone whose moral fiber has been questioned so publicly, regardless of the truth (and I happen to believe he's guilty), will only damage the GOP in an already challenging presidential and congressional elections.

[Jaime]

If the measuring stick is hypocrisy then I'd say its even.

The bottom line is there is no way that the Craig story can be spun into a dem bashing session

[Jaime]

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1375534' date='Sep 1 2007, 10:51 AM']The Republicans want Larry Craig gone because they have an election on 15 months and don't need and cannot afford the PR damage he will cause, guilty or not. He has been campaigning for several GOP candidates, including Mitt Rommney, and those candidates want a Grand Canyon between their names now. To have someone whose moral fiber has been questioned so publicly, regardless of the truth (and I happen to believe he's guilty), will only damage the GOP in an already challenging presidential and congressional elections.[/quote]

He is guilty. He pled guilty. He can say anything that he wants now. He can go and try to get the decision reversed. But he publicly declared himself guilty. He paid his fine.

[bonoducchi]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1375538' date='Sep 1 2007, 10:54 AM']He is guilty. He pled guilty. He can say anything that he wants now. He can go and try to get the decision reversed. But he publicly declared himself guilty. He paid his fine.[/quote]

I meant guilty in fact, not guilty in court. He seems to be denying that he actually did something wrong now, but of course pleading guilty isn't a good way to do that...

[dairygirl4u2c]

i may be mistaken, but i don't think anamoly is trying to turn it into dem bashing. maybe subconsciously he is bringing up the issue of hypocrasy and comparing it to dems, which is deflecting attention from repubs. but his questions are not that for sure without reading into them yourself.

i think it's worse to be against something, and then be a hypocrite about it later. so, for me, i'd be quicker to jump on craig than barney, in this situation. of course it depends on the crime. if it's inherently wrong, like killing or stealing, i'd jump on any. if it's something petty like bathroom anctics, i'd think twice. infidelity is a relevant factor to character and such, but overall it's their own private life and not something inherently serious.
so, yeah, even though on principle his mistake isn't that big in my eyes in itself, but when coupled with his past rallying against gay lifestyles, i find reason for retribution.