What Should Sen. Larry Craig Have Done?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AAAintheBeltway, Sep 4, 2007.

  1. minmike

    minmike

    Your forgetting the part about The Senator looking through the crack. That is certainly invading someones privacy. If some guy stopped to look at me through the crack I would be certainly hope that he would get arrested.

    Oh yeah. ~40 other people were arrested in the "sting." That certainly doesn't sound like he was targeted by anyone.
     
    #11     Sep 5, 2007
  2. kut2k2

    kut2k2

    "First off, there are groups that try to embarrass closeted homo politicians, particularly if they are conservative republicans."

    The Barney Frank Rule: "it is acceptable to out a closeted gay person, if that person uses their power or notoriety to hurt gay people."
    http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/the-outing/1322/

    "Second, when I heard about the Minneapolis Airport incident, I wondered if it was possible he had been set up by Soros-funded crazies or homosexual activists."

    I don't know where this myth of Soros funding everything on the left comes from. If Soros spent even half the money on the left that Richard Mellon Scaife spends on the right, you'd be pulling your hair out by the roots. Rich liberals are bigger tightwads than rich conservatives. If Soros was funding Air America, it never would have had financial troubles. Aside from Soros, it's still pretty extreme to think that gay radicals could have orchestrated this incident.

    "Remember, this was an incident with no witnesses other than the cop, no recording, no video. The things he was charged with doing, eg putting his suitcase in front of the stall, tapping his foot, having a wide stance, seemed at worst ambiguous. As an article i read confirmed, virtually all bathroom sex busts involve actual sexual activity, touching private areas or at least lewd behavior such as waving the equipment around suggestively. He was not accused of anything like that."

    The things he was charged with doing included peering into the cop's stall, sliding his foot into the cop's stall ("having a wide stance" is Craig's excuse, not something the cop said), running his hand below the divider. The bust didn't include actual sexual activity because it was with a cop! Just like when a guy picks up a hooker on a street corner and she turns out to be an undercover vicecop, there is no actual sex but he is still busted for solicitation.

    Finally there is no such thing as a libertarian-oriented conservative. You can be a libertarian or a conservative but you can't be both. Libertarians by definition are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Conservatives are socially conservative.

    BTW Ron Paul is not a real libertarian; real libertarians are pro-choice.

    He can call himself a rutabaga but that doesn't make him a rutabaga.
     
    #12     Sep 5, 2007
  3. Solicitation for prostitution is illegal because prostitution is illegal. Homosexual sex is not illegal. Doing it in a public restroom is, so maybe there is a case for soliticitation to have sex in a restroom, but that is not what he was charged with. As I said earlier, most restroom sex busts involve actual sex or lewd conduct. Everything that happened here could be innocent. I'm not saying it was in this case, only that it was ambiguous.
     
    #13     Sep 5, 2007
  4. I wasn't aware that 40 other people had been arrested. That certainly seems to rebut any suspicion that he was targeted or set up.

    About looking through the crack. Even that could be innocuous. Sometimes the stall door is ajar and you can't tell if someone is in there or not. Did he put his face up against the door or just glance through the cracxk? I don't know, and it seems to me that again, this is conduct that is at best ambiguous.

    I don't want to be misunderstood. I am not defending Craig. His actions to me strongly suggest guilt, which is no doubt why Romney dropped him like a bad habit. I am concerned about what appears to me to be overly aggressive police activity. I understand they need to do something about restroom sex, but this kind of charge of so devastating to the accused that I think they should have far stronger grounds than they did in this case.
     
    #14     Sep 5, 2007
  5. minmike

    minmike

    He looked through long enough for the detective to see that he had blue eyes. You can be the judge if that is to long or not.
     
    #15     Sep 5, 2007
  6. Maybe he was simply hiding something else more destructive, something more reminiscent of the cold war antics.

    Think about it, a possible briefcase exchange in an airport bathroom, he confused his left with his right and the policeman just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

    Just a thought for the conspiracy theos!
     
    #16     Sep 5, 2007
  7. Mr. Ideology. You are completely amazing or (as I can't help but suspect) an incredibly subtle spoof of the modern Republican.

    If this was a democrat it would be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT in your eyes. Don't say it wouldn't be. You've proved this over and over again. All that counts is that your side "wins". It is ALL ideology.

    Like your fellow Republican travelers...no integrity, no character, nothing but the disgusting and shamefull will to suck up to power.

    Gad.

    bt

     
    #17     Sep 5, 2007
  8. Turok

    Turok

    AAA:
    >Solicitation for prostitution is illegal because prostitution
    >is illegal.

    Agreed.

    >Homosexual sex is not illegal.

    Well, DUH!!! That statement is true, but completely irrelevent. This case is about *solicitation*, and not about sex.

    >Doing it in a public restroom is, so maybe there is
    >a case for soliticitation to have sex in a restroom,
    >but that is not what he was charged with.

    C'mon AAA, you're not this dumb -- He was *arrested* on a solicitation charge. He ended up pleading to a lesser charge. That was a *negotiation* ... it is most likely that he WOULD have been charged with solicitation had he not agreed to end the whole sorid episode with a lesser plea.

    >As I said earlier, most restroom sex busts involve
    >actual sex or lewd conduct.

    I'm gonna just go out on a limb here and suggest that you just made that up. I figure since neither you nor I are normally involved in restroom sex scandals (at least I assume you are not) that you don't have the knowledge to accurately make any such statement.

    >Everything that happened here could be
    >innocent. I'm not saying it was in this case,
    >only that it was ambiguous.

    Yes it could, and I'm comfortable that our system's method of sorting it out (however flawed), it one of the best.

    JB
     
    #18     Sep 5, 2007
  9. [​IMG]
     
    #19     Sep 5, 2007
  10. I read a newspaper article that said something to that effect. They had statistics from Atlanta airport that supported it.
     
    #20     Sep 5, 2007