Open discussion: The Senator Larry Craig story

Why do gay men need to do this in public restrooms? Does this go on in the women's restrooms with lesbians?

Gay men who are open do it on satin sheets. With candles, and old Peggy Lee records.

It's those closet cases that have to sneak it somewhere.

I have no answers for you, Gary, but I would think a map of plainclothes sting operations would tell us a lot about human behavior. Hmmm...

Sen. Craig is asserting that he isn't gay, Peter, which may or may not support your comment.

Bob Collins made an interesting point in Polinaut:

"But here's what's odd. In a 'sting' operation, isn't the idea to get the stingee to actually commit some unmistakable crime or proposal? Tapping toes, moving feet, and putting your suitcase in the stall with you -- while odd -- isn't exactly unmistakable."

A question to ask would be have these "sting" operations and past arrests held up in court?

Well, obviously, some have and some haven't. Craig's decision to plead guilty -- while stupid -- had some merit to it. As a sitting senator, one who depends heavily on the morality vote, he could be found NOT guilty and still be toxic. His best chance to survive his "ordeal" was to keep it quiet. Which he did until someone -- and isn't this an interesting observation -- decided to leak it.

They didn't leak it to the Strib, or the PiPress, or MPR or anybody else in Minnesota. They didn't leak it to the Idaho Statesman. They leaked it to the official newspaper of Washington.

That tells me it was someone who knows Washington pretty well, quite possibly someone who knows Washington a lot better than Idaho or Minnesota.

So while Craig was going bonkers against the Idaho Statesman last week, he was missing the real target by about 1,200 miles.

Bob's point is dead on. I'd have to ask anyone what they'd do in that situation - guilty or not.

Choice A) Gamble on the silence
Keeping in mind the voting public makes snap decisions about guilt no matter what happens... Try to keep it as quiet and painless as possible, even if that means pleading guilty to an act for sake of expediency. Blow on the dice and hope it doesn't surface in the news.

Choice B) Take the very public high road
Rise up, roaring, about this as a mistake. Immediately suffer public reaction. You may or may not recover, you may or may not experience a backlash. Hope your career survives the scandal. Remember - this is politics and voters not only hold a higher standard on their politicians, they also love to watch them fall.

I'm opening to hearing any ideas on what could have been Choice C)

Okay, he's not gay - then he's bi.

That's always a problem when you've also made the choice to have the wife and kids straight life.

Sex CAN be complicated. He made it even more complicated by being a Republican (who want to make it seem good and bad simple)

"I think a choice C would have been to look to the public for sympathy, privacy and respect. Clearly, this will not happen." - M M

Yeah, it might have been worth an attempt. Is it too late to ask? Looks like it doesn't really matter what people think, since fellow politicians (like Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., Arizona Sen. John McCain, and Minnesota's Sen. Norm Coleman) are calling for Craig's ouster from the Senate.

Bob Collins (again in Polinaut, the entry is Norm weighs in) shared this point:

A caller or two to the newsroom brings up an interesting question. Why didn't Coleman call for the resignation of David Vitter, who is alleged to have sought the company of a prostitute (but only the Washington kind! Not those New Orleans hookers, mind you!).

The thought that this may be due to the sexuality question wearies me.

A few comments: imo, Craig intended to continue with his behavior and because of that, he chose to keep things quiet. If it really was a miscontrued mistake, then I think he'd best serve his needs by going immediately public.

I could grant him privacy and respect in the matter, but not sympathy. What he chooses to do in his private life is his business. But that he accuses others of immoral behavior and that he seeks to infringe on others' privacy trumps any sympathy I might have summoned for him.

I find it difficult to muster much sympathy for hypocrites, but considering both his age and home state it's not surprising that Craig has been in the closet for decades. "I'm not gay" has a mighty hollow ring coming from a guy who has been caught soliciting anonymous sex from another man in a public place. I don't believe for a minute that this was a "one time mistake", either. Only someone quite familiar with the underground gay sex scene would even know how to communicate his intentions in that scenario. The vice cops know exactly what they're looking for. I read about the vice sweeps at the MPLS airport some time ago. Too bad Mr. Craig didn't.

As for the people (mainly gay males) who say "leave them alone, they're not hurting anybody, go arrest some real criminals", I would have to disagree. I would really hate to enter a public restroom for the intended purpose with children in tow, only to discover people engaged in sexual activity. I certainly have never seen it in a women's restroom! While some heterosexuals are also known to engage in "thrill sex" in public places, it's usually with a partner they know, not an anonymous encounter with a complete stranger. He could be bisexual, but I doubt he'd admit to that, either. Senator Craig probably doesn't identify himself as "gay" because he simply can't reconcile the idea of himself being one of those people. even though he is clearly attracted to and sexually active with men. He appears to be a self-loathing closet dweller with a real knack for managing cognitive dissonance.

It's hard to stifle the feelings of schadenfreude when the guy caught with his pants down is one of the big "family values" crowd, who has worked against every gay rights initiative he's ever faced.

BTW, did you get a look at the officer involved? What an attractive, fresh-faced young lad - clearly a perfect candidate for the job. It occurs to me to wonder how his superiors approached him for this kind of job, and how he feels about being assigned the role of jail bait for closeted homosexuals seeking out anonymous sex in public restrooms.

I have had an interesting front row seat to this whole ordeal. The day Mr. Craig was arrested was the day that I lost my job in the Twin Cities. The day all this was brought to light was the day that I started working in Boise. I almost got up yesterday morning to go to the press conference (which I regret not doing) which was just a quick bike ride from my apartment. Instead I watched it on TV.

The most interesting part for me has been 2 parts. Part one, Craig was put into a damned if you do, damned if you don't position. If he pleads guilty, he can hope it would be swept under the rug (and it made it almost 3 weeks) and everyone will forget about it or he can plead not guilty and then the whole thing does get played out in the public forum because he would have to make at least 2 more trips to Minnesota to fight it. The second part that is amazing to me is that he is/was part of this "moral" sector of Christian Politicians and the reaction that group had to him. I too am a Christian (a liberal one at that) but I was amazed at how quickly they threw the lesson of forgiveness out the window. They were quick to condemn, but nobody talked about forgiveness, nobody seemed to reach out to him other than Governor Otter. I think this is symptomatic of what happens in situations like these. Regardless of whether Craig is gay or not, he needs support. If he was soliciting sex in a bathroom, he definitely needs counseling, because sex in an airport bathroom is not only inappropriate it is also an action that is also a cry for help. He needs to know that if he is gay it is ok and if he is not gay, that is also ok. Conservative Christians have turned the Bible from its purpose into a weapon that is used to condemn and hurt people rather than to preach forgiveness and grace. I could ramble on for hours about this, but I think you all get the point. But needless to say this is pretty much the only news story out here right now.

Peter, the wife is his, the kids are not. They are hers from a previous marriage. He married her shortly after his name came up in a homosexual sex with underage interns back in the 1980s.

Honestly, I could not come to the conclusion that Craig is gay because of his bathroom behavior. From what Chris W has reported, I'm inclined to believe that Craig might be homosexual, but the bathroom behavior was deviant, inappropriate behavior. That does not automatically mark him as gay.

Well, I'm sure there are many who will disagree, but imo, gay love, just like straight love, is characterized by commitment and honesty, not perversion and deception.