Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Hot Senator Sex

So Idaho Sen. Larry Craig has his proverbial tit in the ringer over this recent scandal of him allegedly attempting to engage in lewd acts in a public bathroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

I was watching this story vaguely here at work and frankly it didnt much seem to register enough to blog about it. Normally, the things in the news that make me want to blog either have to do with out-and-out outrage I feel over the issue or a high level of hypocrisy. At the beginning this story registered neither until I started reading more AP articles about the situation.

Sen. Larry Craig is a Republican, and while I tend to think they are all two-faced lying scum bags sucking the soul out of America - I normally like to give them the benefit of the doubt before I say that they are two faced lying scum bags sucking the soul out of America.

Senator Larry Craig's record:
  • Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
  • Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
  • Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
  • Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
  • Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
  • Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
  • Rated 25% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
  • Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
Oh and he liked chemical weapons so much he voted to keep them (not that that relates to this post) AND he did it before it was cool, way back in 1997.

At any rate his track record and party affiliation seems very anti-LGBT equality, which I'm sure helps this rank higher in the news (and on my radar for my blog).

Anyway it turns out that there have been questions about this Senator's sexuality since the 1980's and while I know there are openly gay senators (well one) and other gay senators still in various degrees of the closest - I feel sort of bad for old Senator Larry Craig. He must really be struggling with this sexual identification and at this age, he's probably been struggling for a very long time. And when different parts of your life are in conflict it can be a very difficult time.

I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, because I am not yet so jaded to think that 100% of the people who run for public office are no-good money grubbers. But then him and his office started offering explanations about how the cop was mistaken.
  • Police Officer: "The senator blocked his stall entrance with his bags and then tapped his right foot ..." (a signal from the other bathroom stall he might want sex)
  • Craig's Response: "At the time of this incident, I complained to the police that they were misconstruing my actions ..."
  • Police Officer: "The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area ..."
  • Craig's Response: "he (Sen. Craig) has a wide stance when going to the bathroom" and that was why his foot may have touched the officer's (foot).
  • Police Officer: " Craig's blue eyes were clearly visible through the crack in the door, Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport police Sgt. Dave Karsnia wrote in the report he filed on the June 11 incident. "Craig would look down at his hands, 'fidget' with his fingers, and then look through the crack into my stall again,"
  • Craig's Response: "I dont recall these things happening ..."
  • Police Officer: "After Craig ran his hand underneath the partition wall three times, Karsnia held his police identification down by the floor so the senator could see it, the report said."With my left hand near the floor, I pointed towards the exit. Craig responded, 'No!' "I again pointed towards the exit. Craig exited the stall with his roller bags without flushing the toilet,"
  • Craig's Response: "(I) reached down to the floor to pick up a piece of paper"
  • Craig's Initial Response: "Guilty as charged."
  • Craig's New Response: "The cops were wrong and I'm innocent."
Also Senator Craig showed the officer his business card and said, "... what do you think about that?". Which I would take he meant to imply I'm a US Senator and way above your pay grade for arresting - although I will still very much like to have hot man sex with you in this public bathroom.

I just cant get over the audacity some of these people have, the out-and-out bold faced lying. And while you can argue, as some of you I'm sure will, that we should give him the benefit of the doubt still, I say that in the court of public opinion he's all washed up.

Rack another big scandal up to the GOP. At this rate the democrats wont even have to show up and they'll probably win by a landslide.


  1. Man. I read that article earlier yesterday, and it explains so much about why my public bathroom experiences are so weird. Who knew I was soliciting gay sex?

  2. What kind of bathroom has a conveniently positioned adjacent crapper crack? Where was I when this snuck into the construction specs? Here I have been peeking over or under the wall to ogle at my neighboring deuce dropper. No wonder why I can't get any action. CRAP!

  3. hmm..this could make a great pron flick. im thinking "The Bathroom Ultimatum" or "Tush Hour 3" or "I Now Pronounce You Dick and Harry". Discuss.

  4. ASTAIRE: A subtle toe-tap that is used to alert potential turd burglars that youare occupying a stall. This will remove all doubt that the stall is occupied. If you hear an Astaire, leave the bathroom immediately so that the pooper may poop in peace.

  5. TURD BURGLAR: Someone who does not realize that you are in the stall and tries to force the door open. This is one of the most shocking and vulnerable moments that can occur while taking a poop at work. If this occurs, remain in the stall until the turd burglar leaves. This way you will avoid all uncomfortable eye contact.

    UNCLE TED: A bathroom user who seems to linger around forever. Could spend entire length of time in front of the mirror or sitting on the pot. An Uncle Ted makes it difficult to relax while on the crapper, as you should always wait to poop when the bathroom is empty. This benefits you as well as the other bathroom attendees.

    WATERMELON: A poop that creates a loud splash when hitting the toilet wter. This is also an embarrassing incident. If you feel a Watermelon coming on, create a diversion, See CAMO-COUGH

    CAMO-COUGH: A phony cough that alerts all new entrants into the bathroom that you are in the stall. This can be used to cover up a WATERMELON, or to alert potential turd burglars. Very effective when used in conjunction with an ASTAIRE

    ROFL - Man I love these.

  6. Do yourself a favor and listen to the conversation he had with the police officer during questioning. The evidence is not there. The cop should have let him do something more before trying to bust him on soliciting. Would a copy on a prostitution sting bust a guy for just talking to them? No way - the person has to specifically say they are interested in having sex.

    This whole thing is a joke. What kind of cop sits and argues with someone he is taking a statement from? If he wants to lie, let him lie, and let him defend himself in court.

    You can go around all day long about the evidence (or lack thereof) and past accusations and his history and blah blah blah. But he has to go through the legal system like anyone else. Judging from the video, it's clear why he pled guilty, he just wanted out of it. The cop all but told him he should so he could make his flight and the whole thing wouldn't be out in the open. What would you do? Sad part is even if he didn't do it he will never be looked at the same again.

  7. This audio?

    The guy is lying big time. This cop is actually a little more dialed back then most cops I've heard talk to people they've arrested or even when I've talked to them regarding things during my life.

    The stuff only discussed in the audio recording (which is a portion of the whole event) is way more evidence than what cops bust people for on that "To Catch a Predator" show.

    I think the Senator should explain why he's using a public bathroom being a US Senator and not the one in the vip lounge where he would be waiting for his flight. It's his right to use whatever bathroom he wants, but it just so happens he's in the same airport bathroom (which he admits to visiting frequently) that is also so plagued by men looking for sex that they've posted a police officer there? C'mon.

  8. None of that matters. He didn't do anything illegal. The whole case is built upon a huge assumption. It's ridiculous.

    And in case you haven't watched it lately, the dateline show reads entire conversations back to the people they catch where they, many times in extensive detail, explain what they want to do with the child they are planning to meet with. There is no comparison to this case.

    I honestly think there is a good chance he was planning to do it, and I agree with your questions as to why he was there, but what I'm saying from the recording is the actions he performed were NOT illegal, any more than winking at someone or making a crude remark is illegal. This whole thing has been blown way out of proportions, and it's this sort of crap where a person's reputation has been crushed over hearsay is just sad.

  9. The one big similarity here is that there was no victim in his crime, nor in the crimes of the people on the dateline show.

    While this is taking the conversation in a whole other direction - the problem I have with that show is that there never was a 14 year old girl the guys were talking to. Just because they may have thought the other person was a 14 year old girl doesnt make it illegal.

    In the Senator's case I guess you could argue that there was no victim either, unless someone walked in and saw this going on and was so terribly shocked their head fell off. But I will only accept that argument if their head actually came fully detached. None of that barely-hanging-there crap.

  10. No the big difference is there is no clear indication of his intentions, and there is no hard evidence other than the word of the police officer, which is still not proof that he was going to do anything indecent. Listen to the recording - the accusations included bumping feet and putting his hand on the edge of the bathroom stall? Give me a break...

    And you can't tell me if the people caught on the Dateline show were talking to an actual child that they wouldn't have done the same thing but likely gone through with violating a child. It's silly to use the whole 'you never know what they might do' scenario when the person has spelled out their intentions. That is why you can't call someone and tell them you're going to kill them or blow up their building.

    Lets assume his intentions were to get some man on man action going... You can flirt with another guy and not get arrested, so why can't you play footsy with him in a bathroom stall? Assuming he really did what he is accused of = he didn't actually do anything 'publicly indecent', even if the message he was putting across may have indicated he would like to. All it would have taken to make a more legitimate arrest would be to let him state his intentions and catch them on tape. How friggin hard would that be? I don't get it...

    What's next? Arrest a guy for sexual assault because he winked at a girl in a grocery store? Maybe he was thinking about raping her... ?

  11. People everyday get arrested for a lot less legitamate reasons everyday, including a lot of innocent gay people who are also trapped by these same scenarios.

    The thing with the Senator, he went into a bathroom that is well known for gay cruising, he went into the stall (and didnt actually use the facility) and gave a signal to another man in an adjoining stall for sex.

    This is a very different from winking at a girl, ect. This would be more like looking at a girl in the supermarket and pointing at her and making a cock sucking motion with your hand (dont forget to cup the balls). And that could also get you arrested.

  12. Sssso you're basically rationalizing it by saying people have gotten arrested for less?

    Nothing you just described is illegal , and the 'signals' are very vague, not like the other example you gave, which I find to actually be a great pickup signal for old chicks at maxi-mart. All it would have taken was a verbal, unmistakable, undeniable "Hey there captain poopie pants, let's get it on", and I would be ok with the whole thing. But from where I stand there isn't much evidence for this case to stand on, other than a public official trying to avoid the publicity and get on with his life by pleading guilty.

    Again, what would you do? Take the chance of brushing it under the rug by pleading guilty and paying the price or fight it an face a certain public eye that will paint you as a pervert no matter how the case ends up?

  13. I'm not rationalizing, I'm just saying people get arrested for this stuff all the time under lewd and indecency laws.

    If I was guilty, I would plead guilty. If I was not guilty I would plead not guilty.

    He plead guilty and if he did it only to sweep this under the rug, that shows another horrible choice of judgment and another good reason not to have him in the Senate.

  14. What is lewd and indecent about bumping feet and grabbing the side of a stall? That is the problem I have with this whole thing.

    Irregardless if those are 'signals' used by some people to solicit sex, they are by themselves far from illegal. You don't really want to support the idea of creating laws to criminalize things that appear to indicate the potential for doing something indecent do you? Does that not sound horrifying?

    Warning: Slippery Slope Ahead.

    This whole conversation is really giving me an urge to play footsy. Is that wrong? Are we going for another comment record?