First and Foremost

Be amused as Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho) praises Mitt Romney on a variety of fronts, including -- at about 1:09 -- as a person who "first and foremost has very strong family values":

Laugher aside, it's also pretty sad. It seems likely, based on Mitt Romney's record of attacking Ted Kennedy as insufficiently pro-gay back in 1994 and running as a cultural moderate in 2002, that he knows on some level that there's nothing wrong with being gay and nothing right about persecuting people for being gay. And yet, in order to try to secure the Republican presidential nomination, he's been willing to come around on this and embrace the farce of conservative anti-gay politics, the very mass movement that's kept Craig in the closet and reduced to the sort of humiliating spectacle that it now appears will be his downfall.

Meanwhile, as best I can tell Craig didn't actually do anything wrong in Minneapolis (see Garance Franke-Ruta for more on this) and even if the cops did manage to enmesh him in some technical legal violation it's beyond my comprehension that they would consider this a reasonable use of police resources. But Craig is so invested in denial about who he is that he won't defend himself.

Comments

Yeah, except Garance's post was debunked by the very first commenter.

Posted by Steve | August 28, 2007 8:47 AM

You know, don't cops have better things to do than do stakeouts so that they can stop "lewd" behavior?

Posted by Nick Kaufman | August 28, 2007 8:57 AM

Yeah. Craig is alleged to have stood outside the guy's stall, and peered repeatedly through the crack in the door. That's certainly within the bounds of reasonable criminal prosecution.

This is kinda nice for me. I wasted a good bit of effort quasi-defending this shithead on the grounds that he had been arrested for being gay. Now it looks like there were grounds for arrest, and Craig is still a closeted piece of detritus who not only supports a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but voted against anti-discrimination statutes.

Posted by DivGuy | August 28, 2007 8:58 AM

Re DivGuy

Apparently, Mr. DivGuy hasn't heard of do as I say, not as I do.

Actually, there was a very good reason why Craig pleaded guilty. Had he pleaded innocent and the case gone to trial, there would have been 10 times the publicity the case is currently attracting. Further, the prosecution would have been able to put on evidence of Senator Craigs' prior activities as proof of a mode of conduct, which would have been even more embarrassing for the senator.

Posted by SLC | August 28, 2007 9:03 AM

Everyone is missing the real question here, which is: for what godforsaken reason did Larry Craig actually think he could pick up somebody? I mean look at the guy: he's absolutely hideous. I'd do Trent Lott (ick) before I'd do Larry. I don't even think the power thing would attract me. Physically, Craig is just repulsive.

Posted by beautiful boy | August 28, 2007 9:11 AM

Also, Craig's explanation that he has a "wide stance" when taking a dump is just disgusting. What was he trying to shit, watermelons?!

Posted by beautiful boy | August 28, 2007 9:35 AM

Matt, Matt, Matt... let's not go down the whole Scooter path again whereby the wingnuts attempt to make the issue whether (and what) actual crime was or was not committed. The story here is what he did, not whether it was a crime, and what he did was solicit sex in a men's room. That much is quite clear from reading the arrest report. Now, I think the police have much better things to do than prosecute this kind of stuff, and there very well could have been entrapment involved.

But Larry Craig has been a supporter of the gay marriage amendment, has voted against making anti-gay discrimination illegal, has voted against adding sexual orientation to the hate crimes statute, etc., etc. Once again, it is about a Republican hypocrite who is more than willing to whip up fear and hatred against gays -- most of us who, I promise, are not trolling around restrooms because we're not closeted like Craig -- while engaging in the very behavior he likes to condemn. Whether he actually committed a crime is wholly beside the point.

I expect Garance to miss the point, but not you, Matt.

Posted by Glenn | August 28, 2007 9:37 AM

If these bathrooms are being used routinely for gay sex, then it sounds like a perfectly reasonable use of police resources. The point isn't that its wrong to be gay, its that its wrong to solicit and perform sex in a public restroom.

Posted by Jim W | August 28, 2007 9:41 AM

This is what he did wrong: he tried to intimidate a police officer by handing the officer his business card and saying "What do think about that?" Clearly he was trying to use the power and influence of his office to get off.

Posted by Alec | August 28, 2007 9:44 AM

Perhaps the Minneapolis police were following the bright shining example of Officer Mancuso in 'A Confederacy of Dunces' whose bathroom stakeouts led to the busting of a sophisticated ring of porn distributors.

In case you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic.

Posted by SMK | August 28, 2007 9:45 AM

Two things: One, these were airport cops. They have to do something while waiting for the terrorists to show up. Second, it sounds like there were, heh, 'civilian' complaints about the bathroom being used for sex. I'm not sure there are too many good ways to prevent that unobtrusively short of this sort of thing, but preventing it does seem in the public interest. If the policeman were just there on private business, and decided to arrest the guy next to him for hitting on him, I'd question whether the public good was being served, but this seems all right. It's not like it's a particularly serious crime. Now, the ritual humiliation, I'm not particularly fond of, but so it goes. That's the downside of being a public servant.

Posted by Boring Commenter | August 28, 2007 9:55 AM

You can also say that this isn't out-of-the-way cottaging, either. It's an airport toilet, and since MSP is a major transit hub for NorthWest, it may be the only bit of Minnesota that many Americans ever visit.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 28, 2007 9:57 AM

A US senator trolling public bathrooms for sex with ANYONE is simply not acceptable. This sort of risky and dangerous encounter indicates a serious lack of judgement. It has nothing to do with sexual persuasion or legality, as far as I'm concerned.

I will say Craig is an unqualified hypocrite based on his voting record.

Posted by magisterludi | August 28, 2007 10:08 AM

In a club, there might be an argument that everyone consents to this kind of thing in the bathrooms. At the airport, not so much. Keeping the restrooms in transportation hubs usable for folks uninterested in sex is an excellent use of the police power. It's eactly the kind of illegal activity that can be stopped by imposition of $100 fines. It's also not too muich of an imoposition on those who do want sex to find it somewhere less public. This is also a situation where "think of the children" is in fact a reasonable argument in favor of law enforcement (he said, recalling an especially unpleasant experience at a Port Authoirty restroom more than 30 years ago).

Posted by arthur | August 28, 2007 10:11 AM

arthur is absolutely right. This is one of those instances that make me question where other people are coming from. Anyone who thinks its fine and dandy to have two guys humping in the stall next to them at noon in an airport restroom is taking the "live and let live" idea a little too far.

Posted by Jim W | August 28, 2007 10:18 AM

Stings like this are fairly common. When I was an undergrad at GW a few years ago, the bathrooms in the Marvin Center and a few other buildings were apparently a very popular place for "cruising" (having sex in bathroom stalls with strangers). UPD caught something like 13 people soliciting in one sting.

Posted by BF | August 28, 2007 10:39 AM

Matt, why cite Garance as an authority on anything (Or is that your subtle signaling that everything you write following is a joke?)? After her first commenter debunks her (and lays out the details in the police report she said weren't there), her rebuttal is simply, "Um, yes. That does. Hadn’t seen that yet."

As for a reasonable use of police resources, all those short people you see walking around (curiously though rarely in bars), those are called "children". Most people would have a problem if a public restroom that a child (to use the singular form) could walk into, has cruising and sexual activity going on in the stalls.

Christ, if you put it to a vote, I can't think of a use of police resources that would garner more popular support.

Posted by beowulf | August 28, 2007 10:51 AM

Got to agree that the sting that netted Craig is exactly the sort of thing that airport police ought to be doing (when they’re not confiscating toothpaste, of course). This is just another Ted Haggard story, and I’m grateful for it. Eventually these things have got to amount to enough evidence for even the most evidence-averse people that the GOP is full of hypocrites and liars who, deep in the hearts, are not at all interested in saving heterosexual marriage or protecting family values. I suspect and hope that the days of the dependable GOP base are numbered.

Posted by tinisoli | August 28, 2007 10:55 AM

Anyone who thinks its fine and dandy to have two guys humping in the stall next to them at noon in an airport restroom is taking the "live and let live" idea a little too far.

Perhaps Matt has never experienced or heard about the sort of restrooms, highway rest stops, or public parks that become recurring hook-up joints. He seems to have this impression that somehow, if Senator Craig's advances were returned, the concept was for the two men to discreetly wander off and rent a hotel room together.

Posted by Steve | August 28, 2007 10:56 AM

Jim W,

First, I don't think anyone here is saying it's "fine and dandy" for people to be having sex in bathroom stalls, they're just questioning whether having a police officer spending his day sitting in a toilet waiting to trap someone doing it is really the best use of police resources.

I will go further, though, and say that I do feel there's likely a bit of homophobia motivating such operations. Now I am not saying -- before I get accused of it -- that toilet sex is a gay rights issue. It's not. But when this stuff goes on, most guys would be unaware it's even happening. So devoting police resources to combat this "problem" to me, smacks a little of trying to humiliate gay men. That the police have been known to have antigay attitudes pretty routinely just furthers my suspicion.

I'm further quite skeptical that, if we lived in society where segregated toilet facilities weren't the norm, the police would be spending their time cracking down on straight sex in the stalls. I rather imagine it would be treated with a wink and a nod. I can't prove this, of course, although I will note that such sure seems to be the popular attitude towards sex in airplane lavatories -- the "Mile High Club" and all that.

BTW, none of this is meant to accuse you, Jim, of being anti-gay with your comments. I don't think that at all.

Posted by Glenn | August 28, 2007 10:58 AM

This is what I've never understood about liberals. When a 73 year old woman gets arrested for growing a pot plant in her yard (and having- gasp~!-gardening tools), there is little or no comment in Left Bloggerstan.

But when a rabid rightwinger gets arrested for playing footsie with a stranger in a public restroom, Matt and GFR spring to the defense.

The only way I can interpret this that has any internal logic is that it's a matter of class and caste, and Matt and GFR identify with the Senatorial class, inherently suspicious and dismissive of those who belong to the airport security class.

In real life, straight guys who don't want to be hit on by other guys keep their hands and feet inside the window at all times.

And I'm pretty sure that in real life US Senators don't pick up pieces of paper from restroom floors.

Posted by serial catowner | August 28, 2007 10:58 AM

All you have to do is to look at his voting record to know Craig totally sucks.

Posted by Encolpius | August 28, 2007 11:43 AM

Glenn - First, I don't think anyone here is saying it's "fine and dandy" for people to be having sex in bathroom stalls, they're just questioning whether having a police officer spending his day sitting in a toilet waiting to trap someone doing it is really the best use of police resources.

It is a great use. The public appreciates rousting the sex creeps, hetero prostitutes, drug dealers, panhandlers and other scum from the public spaces.

It is also a great use of police resources in the sense that assigning a cop who fucked up to 2 weeks of "gay sex crapper patrol" is a strong inducement to others to elevate their professionalism and not to show up 3X late for work and with gravy stains on your uniform.

Glenn - I will go further, though, and say that I do feel there's likely a bit of homophobia motivating such operations. Now I am not saying -- before I get accused of it -- that toilet sex is a gay rights issue. It's not. But when this stuff goes on, most guys would be unaware it's even happening.

The public is hardly unaware of the scum. They complain.

Glenn - So devoting police resources to combat this "problem" to me, smacks a little of trying to humiliate gay men. That the police have been known to have antigay attitudes pretty routinely just furthers my suspicion.

Cops tend to have anti-whore, anti-drug dealer attitudes as well, or similar for other law-breakers. And, now humiliated, what are the chances Sen Craig will be back trolling Minneapolis restrooms?
Zero, I'd say.

Glenn - I'm further quite skeptical that, if we lived in society where segregated toilet facilities weren't the norm, the police would be spending their time cracking down on straight sex in the stalls. I rather imagine it would be treated with a wink and a nod.

They would be no different then than other "unisex" public places like parks, rest stops - where gay cruisers, drug dealers, whores, aggressive panhandlers can become a problem and need to be arrested, humiliated, and rousted out of congregating and troubling the general public.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 28, 2007 11:56 AM

There is a long and ignoble history of homophobic police departments raiding various venues where gay men congregate and arresting them on trumped up charges, as well as of entraping closeted gay men through vice stings whose ultimate goals were to expose and humilate gays, rather than preserve public safety.

Ever hear of a little thing called the Stonewall Rebellion? If it weren't for overly aggressive police targeting gay men, the whole gay rights movement might not have sprung into being at the time it did and homosexuality might have been considered a mental disorder, and also worthy of criminal prosecution, for many more years than it was. The gay rights movement began as a rebellion against police charging gay and transgender people with indecency for congregating together. People may not like that fact, but that is the history. And even before Stonewall, the Mattachine Society was fighting the NYPD's entrapment efforts in the mid-60s, and the Mattachine Foundation banded people together into the Citizen's Committee to Outlaw Entrapment in 1950s San Francisco.

I agree that public restrooms are inappropriate places for sexual activity -- and that people who seek sex there are kind of pathetic, besides -- but we really need to consider the political history of these kinds of police efforts. They were originally designed to do exactly what they have done in Craig's case: humiliate, publicly, a man who is attracted to other men, and force him to face the negative consequences of a homophobic society.

The judge rightly threw the peeping Tom charge against Craig out, because it was a very, very weak case against Craig on those grounds.

Craig, a married man, can and ought to be chastised for his hypocrisy, his apparent attempted infidelity, and his execrable legislative record, especially on gay rights questions. But let's not cheer a police department for entraping someone without considering the more than half-century-long fight of gay rights groups against police department entrapment efforts.

Posted by Garance Franke-Ruta | August 28, 2007 11:57 AM

It sounds like the cop "shot his load" a little too early. Why he didn't wait until Craig verbally propositioned him, I don't know.

Posted by Jim W | August 28, 2007 12:06 PM

Garance,

You're comparing this to Stonewall? What your argument (or statement) says to me is that the just struggle against the criminalization of simply being gay (and subsequent police harassment) is the same as the less just struggle to be able to have sex in a public bathroom.

Craig's story does indicate how alienated and desperate a closeted gay man can become because of pervasive homophobia in this country, but it does not follow that police departments should allow him have sex in public places. Just because this evokes he homophobic police oppression doesn't mean it is.

Also, this doesn't fit the legal definition of entrapment and what he did certainly sounded like peeping (looking through the stall).

Posted by BF | August 28, 2007 12:22 PM

Well, the judge in the case clearly disagreed, and dismissed the charge.

The first gay rights groups were all deeply, deeply involved in anti-police entrapment work. Read about Dale Jennings:

DALE JENNINGS - A founding member of the Mattachine Society, Dale was thrust into the spotlight when he was entrapped by Los Angeles police in a late night park arrest in Los Angeles in 1951. While most homosexuals entrapped by police in the 50s quietly pled guilty and paid the fine, Jennings and Harry Hay rallied the Mattachine Society to mount a defense in court. Jennings' defense attorney caught the police officer in a lie, found evidence of jury tampering, and the case was thrown out, giving Mattachine and Jennings a triumphant victory.

There is something about this whole Craig case that is depressingly pre-Stonewall, on all sides.

Posted by Garance Franke-Ruta | August 28, 2007 12:37 PM

Where are you getting that the judge threw out the charge because he was entrapped? There could have been lots of other reasons.

I'm not arguing that entrapment isn't bad. I just don't understand what you're recommending. Should police not intervene when a public restroom becomes a popular place for cruising? What's the proper policy?

Posted by BF | August 28, 2007 12:54 PM

Where is anyone getting that the judge threw out any charges? I haven't seen that in the reports.

Posted by Glenn | August 28, 2007 1:33 PM

BF:

How about reacting to it the way the police usually react to "public disturbance" type complaints -- assign officers to periodically patrol the area, and if they hear a repeat of the disturbance, run off or arrest the perpetrators.

If there were "civilian" complaints, how hard would it be for an officer to head over to the bathroom when a complaint is received and arrest the people actually being lewd in public? How hard would it be for an officer to poke his head in from time to time to see if there's a disturbance?

Posted by Clint | August 28, 2007 2:15 PM

After I read all this, and for unrelated reasons, I went off to the office men's room. While sitting in the stall, I thought about Craig's "wide stance" comments. In the spirit of scientific experimentation, I began to spread my legs, only to be stopped rather quickly by the trousers pooled around my ankles.
I don't know if Craig is tall, but he certainly isn't fat. Any pair of pants in a normal size range pooled around his ankles would stop him from spreading his feet well before hitting the edges of the stall. Was he sitting on a toilet seat with his pants around his waist? Did he have his pants off? Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by CJColucci | August 28, 2007 2:47 PM

Well, trust GFR to take the inanity to a new level.

Here's a newsflash, GFR- people who are really gay don't make pickups in restrooms. And by and large they never did.

The tearoom trade was big when condoms were illegal and Catholic wives wouldn't let their husbands have sex with them. And that, incidentally, is why municipal governments closed down the public restrooms. The problem never was about gay men, it was and is about almost straight men who don't want their private lives invaded by their own behaviors. So they do it in public and make the rest of us pay for the problems they don't want to take into their own homes.

Sheesh.

Posted by serial catowner | August 28, 2007 7:13 PM

A point to note here is that, back in the bad old days, one reason you might find a gay person in a public restroom was because the cops targeted the gay bars, where they could reliably extort money, and ignored the tearoom trade, which was mainly blue-collar Catholics, just like the cops.

Posted by serial catowner | August 28, 2007 7:49 PM