Keith Olbermann delivers.

I linked this in a previous thread, it's very funny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFC-I99K0pU

I think this is a case of social mores v. rights of privacy. Isn't the average Idahoan libertarian? Apparently not too much to be OK with the government telling you whom to sex up.

Aren't they concerned that the government is basically entering the sex lives of individuals—albeit in this case, he's a public figure.

Brilliant!

Now, I wonder which of his good Christian friends will carry out their religious instruction prescribed by their good book?

And whats the swiping hand thing all about?

Macro, it's a pubic bathroom at a busy airport, not a private bedroom in one's home or apartment.

Straight or gay or senator or striped or green, having sex in public bathrooms is against the law.

Yeah, this guy gets what he deserves. He is guilty of soliciting sex in a public bathroom and decades of political hypocrisy.

You ever notice that Democrats so rarely get caught doing the things the condem as wrong?

Thanks so much for linking my Craig limericks, Norm!

Reed,

You should Google Gov. McGreevey and Rep. William Jefferson. I doubt many Democrats actually condone adultery or taking bribes. There are plenty of scandals on both sides of the aisle.

Andy,

The one who has committed no sin himself.

Seth,

I understand what you mean. A few years back, I was in a sauna when this guy hit me up for a back massage. That made me uncomfortable—I left very quickly. But, really, if all he's doing is sending signals, signals that you probably understand if you're another gay guy, then for the libertarians there's little harm. The social mores trump privacy rights. I think it's the fact that he's gay that's upsetting to the Idahoans, even if they're libertarians, worried about the black helicopters.

I don't see it as Kicking him when he is down. If Craig had played this smart, come out with a straight "sorry", pled no-contest, told his family, or at the very least let the GOP leadership know a big shit-storm was coming their way.

If people were piling on Craig after he had apologized publicly, then that would be kicking him while he is down.

Senator Craig is digging his own hole in this mess.

I see all the smiles at another Republican, who probably calls Barney Frank a "Faggot" behind his back, being shown to be a complete hypocrite.

If Craig was a closeted man who had a wife, that is his business. However, his bizare approach to handling this is what is really getting the smiles. He seems to think he can take on the whole world and win. He acts like he thinks that he can tell the world his Bullshit is just chocolate pudding, and that they will smile and eat it.

Not gonna happen. The media will see a story that gets viewers, and sells advertising. They will dig deeper. More people will come forward alleging sexual advances/encounters with the senator. Some maybe even publicly.

I see a lot of republican anger over this being from the fact that they were blind sided by this. They read about it in the paper like everyone else. Craig didn't trust anyone to help him, or at the very least, help him make this go away. In the same week that Gonzales was run out of office, people are thinking about how George Bush did nothing to help New Orleans, he adds this mess on top of everything else. The only worse thing that could happen is if it comes out that Jenna Bush is pregnant, out of wedlock.

Craig is making this story that works against the republicans, through his own stubbornness/stupidity. Much like how Bush created the Cindy Sheehan story by not making a hard choice and meeting with a critic.

In short, Craig needs to realize he can't fight this one out, no one has his back, and go into damage control survival mode.

How about this: if a gay-awareness group or the ACLU or anyone else who is seen to have a "liberal bias" threw their weight behind the man's right to solicit sex from whoever he choses, (assuming he was going to leave the airport with his newly aquired partner) wouldn't he be bashed much much more by his own party? Would you, knowing this throw your support behind the man or try to ridicule him hoping the other side will try to shelter him under their wing?

It's a dangerous double bluff to be playing with the man's life, but once again, like Norm said, it's sad when thinking about what must be going through his family's minds.

it's a pubic bathroom at a busy airport

heh. a-heh heh heh. he said "pubic", dude.

“You should Google Gov. McGreevey and Rep. William Jefferson. I doubt many Democrats actually condone adultery or taking bribes. There are plenty of scandals on both sides of the aisle”.

It’s funny and so predictable! I was joking with a friend yesterday that with all the GOP scandals out there some fool will bring up McGreevey and Jefferson as if that evens the score.

Hey Syngas! Here’s a fun game: Google “Democratic scandal” (with the parentheses) you’ll get 2,190 results. Now try “Republican Scandal” how about 43,300 results! Now, I know you think; “there are plenty of scandals on both sides of the aisle” but if you made $2,190 a year and I made $43,300 a year, would it be accurate to say that we both make “plenty” of money?

Syngas - “You should Google Gov. McGreevey and Rep. William Jefferson. I doubt many Democrats actually condone adultery or taking bribes. There are plenty of scandals on both sides of the aisle”.

It’s funny and so predictable! I was joking with a friend yesterday that with all the GOP scandals out there some fool will bring up McGreevey and Jefferson as if that evens the score.

Hey Syngas! Here’s a fun game: Google “Democratic scandal” (with the parentheses) you’ll get 2,190 results. Now try “Republican Scandal” how about 43,300 results! Now, I know you think; “there are plenty of scandals on both sides of the aisle” but if you made $2,190 a year and I made $43,300 a year, would it be accurate to say that we both make “plenty” of money?

I think it is sad that in 2007 gay men have to be "closeted" and ashamed of who they are. Soliciting sex in a public bathroom probably occurs more often than not because gay people feel the need to keep it anonymous and hidden.

People who are piling it on Craig and saying he gets whatever he deserves are missing the bigger picture here.

People who are piling it on Craig and saying he gets whatever he deserves are missing the bigger picture here.

I don't think so. I think most people piling it on Craig are doing so because his political party and Craig as an individual have been actively exploiting the anti-gay atmosphere you've described. As that font of compassion, Richard Nixon, once said, let him "twist slowly, slowly in the wind." It is sad that his family has to watch the spectacle.

Sorry, it was John Ehrlichman who made the 'twist in the wind' comment.

BTW, consider the nearly infinitesimal chance that Craig really isn't gay. Except for the legal charges themselves, I think he would still deserve what he's getting - what better way for him to learn what he is all to willing to put gays through?

Jef,

I sincerely hope you do not use the number of results you find on Google to gauge the truth about anything.

I can only imagine the laughter I would cause if I suggested you should Google 'Origin of the Species' and 'Book of Genesis' to decide which one you should believe.

Clearly anyone would rather have $676,000 over $262,000 any day but then that's not really relevent is it?

Syngas, The "pox on both your houses" stance is really pretty lame right now. If a political party with a fraction of the scandals and corruption of another gets an equal amount of blame as the other one, then there's not much incentive for parties to try to reduce corruption. If Jefferson counts as much as Duke Cunningham and all the K Street web of corruption, then corrupt, debased parties can go on electing guys like Tom Delay, knowing that all they have to do is come up with one or two cases on the other side and they're off the hook, relatively speaking.

To refuse to make a judgment about which party is more corrupt is to perfer ignorance to the appearance of partisanship.

I agree with dende blogger. The GOP is simply clobbering the Dems when it comes to the sleaze factor more than 10 to 1. And what gets me is the hypocrisy. Repubs take a holier than thou attitude, as soon to resign Craig did in ’99 calling Clinton “a very bad, naughty boy”. They claim to be the party of ethics. When someone, anyone, takes such a self righteous attitude and then is caught contradicting their public persona then that is why people “pile on”, and they should.

Here’s Joe Scarborough, a Republican, weighing in on this issue:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/31/scarborough-talks-about-the-hypocrisy-of-the-gop-over-sex-scandals-and-a-dash-of-romney/

"Macro, it's a pubic bathroom at a busy airport, not a private bedroom in one's home or apartment."

Actually, it's a completely bogus charge that you're only jumping on to pick on an old man, because you don't like his political affiliation.

Tapping your foot in a mens' room gets you arrested? Guess nobody here ever listened to their iPod while taking a dump.

"what better way for him to learn what he is all to willing to put gays through?"

And what, exactly, is he 'putting gays through'?

What we're really seeing here is how far your type will go to slander anybody who disagrees with your political agenda.

Tapping your foot in a mens' room gets you arrested? Guess nobody here ever listened to their iPod while taking a dump.

You put your hand under the stall into someone else's when you take a shit also?

What we're really seeing here is how far your type will go to slander anybody who disagrees with your political agenda.

You're right Tea the cops are out to get anyone who doesn't agree with us. Get your tinfoil hat out they are coming for you next.

You put your hand under the stall into someone else's when you take a shit also?

When I'm out of paper, yes.

But that's not even what the officer claims happened. He claims Craig was tapping his foot, then moved his foot towards the officer's stall, at which point the officer slipped a card under the stall that said "I am a police officer", and arrested Craig. Why? Because evidently tapping your foot is a "signal" that you want to engage in homosexual bathroom sex. Sounds like a rock-solid case to me.

Besides there being no actual attempt to engage in sexual behavior of any kind, nor any witnesses, nor any verifiable proof, Craig immediately denied the accusations while being interrogated:

Craig denied that he had used foot and hand gestures to signal interest in a sexual encounter. “I’m not gay. I don’t do these kinds of things,” Craig told the officer. “You shouldn’t be out to entrap people.” Karsnia accused Craig of lying and grew exasperated with his denials. “Embarrassing, embarrassing. No wonder why we’re going down the tubes,” Karsnia said.

Now, I was under the apparent misapprehension that this occurred in the USA, where you are innocent until proven guilty; but apparently for you that only applies when you don't have a rabid, irrational hatred for a person's political affiliation.

"But what about the guilty plea?!?" I hear you smugly saying. Well, Craig plead guilty to a misdemeanor to avoid being charged with a sexual crime, undoubtedly hoping to keep the issue out of the papers.

What I find most humorous about this situation is you're ridiculing and decrying an individual because you think he's a homosexual. Now, even though I recognize that homosexuality is a perversion, even I don't advocate pushing someone out of his job just because he's into the back door shenanigans. What happened to "it's my personal decision"? Guess, again, that only applies to people you don't have your irrational reaction to. You Republiphobe.

Now, even though I recognize that homosexuality is a perversion

Thank you doctor. As always I appreciate your contributions here at OGM. A jester is always welcomed to embarrass himself for our entertainment.

As for your "when I'm out of paper" argument, here's a little wake-up call:

Senator Craig Police Audio Tape

And what, exactly, is he 'putting gays through'?... What we're really seeing here is how far your type will go to slander anybody who disagrees with your political agenda.

What we are really seeing is the humiliation of a sad closeted hypocrite who championed an anti-gay agenda after making a cynical and cowardly calculation that there were more votes to be had from your type of bigoted homophobe.

"But what about the guilty plea?!?" I hear you smugly saying. Well, Craig plead guilty to a misdemeanor to avoid being charged with a sexual crime, undoubtedly hoping to keep the issue out of the papers.

...and what we are seeing here are the silly rationalizations of a bigoted homophobe.

What I find most humorous about this situation is you're ridiculing and decrying an individual because you think he's a homosexual.

..and what we are seeing here is a deliberate and pitiful attempt to misrepresent the reason that Craig is being ridiculed: he's a hypocrite who has built part of his political resume on a platform of withholding rights from his non-closeted counterparts. I think Barney Frank is an excellent Congressman and have problem with him being gay.

...have no problem with him being gay.

I’m still on the Syngas comment “there are plenty of scandals on both sides of the aisle”. Here’s a list of the GOP scandals just for 2007 (no Duke Cunningham, no Tom Delay, etc)

http://senate2008guru.blogspot.com/2007/08/republican-culture-of-corruption-2007.html

Syngas, if you can come up with a list of half as many Democratic scandals from 2007, I’ll do your dishes for week.

Nah, it wouldn't change your mind. Besides, I really don't want you in my house.

What I find most humorous about this situation is you're ridiculing and decrying an individual because you think he's a homosexual.

You are wrong, as usual. What people ridicule is his incredible hypocrisy which seems to define conservatives.

This Craig guy didn’t quit because of the Democrats; he just knew that his own party of self-righteous bible-thumpers wouldn’t welcome him much longer. I couldn’t care less about whether or not he is looking to smoke some stranger’s pole in a public bathroom. I certainly didn’t care about Clinton getting blown by a consenting adult, but I’m sure the TeaBaggers of the country lost their collective minds over that “scandal.”

P.S. Anyone who announces in a press conference that they aren’t gay is as gay as it gets. “I am not a crook.” Remember that denial? Same thing. On the other hand, I believe Clinton when he said that he did not have sexual relations with that woman. If I asked a friend if he had sex with a girl last night and he replied, “Naw, I got a blow job,” I wouldn’t think that he was a liar.

P.P.S. I saw a headline on this story that identified Craig as "Toilet Arrest Senator." I think we should forget about his Christian name and just call him that from now on.

Oh, c’mon Syngas. Bring it on! I promise I won’t do your dishes. I provided you a list of 43 Republican scandals for ’07. Please enlighten us with your list of “plenty” of Democratic scandals. Otherwise it would be pretty easy to conclude that you got nothing. Nancy Pelosi Visits Syria and Lebanon (after Republican congressman) hardly counts.

Leftbanker, I agree with you about your Clinton comment. I’ll get even more specific. Righties like to refer to the “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” quote and call it a lie. I recall at the time, Clinton and his lawyers asked Kenneth Starr to provide a list of sexual acts included in their definition of “sexual relations” which, they said included “intercourse”, which, even Monica admitted, never occurred. So, Clinton, knowing that he did not engage in the acts that he was accused of, released that statement with confidence. Was he parsing words? Sure. Was he lying? By definition and by facts, no.

Here was one of my favorites:

'Republican former Jefferson County, Colorado, Treasurer Mark Paschall indicted on two felony charges "in connection with an allegation that Paschall solicited a kickback from a bonus he awarded one of his employees"'

A county treasurer? Are you serious?

Most of your citations involve very low level public servants or private citizens. I'm impressed someone has time to dig through every city's newspaper to find these little nuggets. I don't have time for it and as I said before, even if I did, it wouldn't change your mind.

You can keep wearing your blinders if it makes you feel good. I'll just keep knowing that money and power can compromise people from any political persuasion.

Now, even though I recognize that homosexuality is a perversion...
-- TeaForTheTillerman

Does your nightmares involve running in molasses while being chased by Richard Simmons?

That’s funny, Syngas, I challenge you to show me corrupt Democrats to substantiate your argument and you quote a corrupt Republican!

Syngas, you can come to OGM and say anything you want. It is still a free country. But when you make comments like:

“there are plenty of scandals on both sides of the aisle” and

“I'll just keep knowing that money and power can compromise people from any political persuasion”

But you offer NO examples of FACTS to help verify your delusion. You say you “don’t have time” to find us any examples and yet you “know” that there are just as many corrupt Democrats. Now, I’m a very busy guy, too, but I have just enough time to conclude that you’re idiot.

No genius, I was quoting your source which you clearly did not read or you would have known.

You say 'Jump' I say 'How high' right? That's your game isn't it? An 'idiot' would be the guy that follows your commands.