Idaho Senator arrested in men's room

He doesn't enjoy railroading and there's no reason to believe he does.

 

I'm saying, I'm not sure what he did, other than tap his feet and pick up a piece of toilet paper. And unless you were in that stall with him, you don't either.

Further, unless he exposed himself to the cop, I'm having a hard time understanding what crime he committed.

And the man has been disgraced, no matter what the actual truth is, and his only choice is to retreat for the good of everyone involved.

Have you ever known anyone who was publicly falsely accused of something and chose to walk away rather than fight for the good of protecting or shielding his family?

This is a fight at this point he cannot win and no matter what he says it will only be dragged through the mud. The best approach he can take is to retreat for a while, let this all die down and then try to move forward.

 

Yeah -- three "annonymous" people citing rumors and a story kept alive by a gay activist blogger -- yeah, no agenda there -- that's stellar reporting there. Real Woodward and Bernstein stuff.

And we wonder why our business is dying. Is there any on the record, named people, not people citing rumors, named so that we can judge their credibility quoted anywhere?

Didn't think so.

 

So if you are sitting in the area waiting for your airplane and an attractive female sits next to you or you are sitting at a bus stop, it is against the law for you to initiate a conversation in order to try and pick her up because it is a public area?

 

Actually, I don't. I'm not saying that doesn't happen, because I'm sure it does, but this man is a U.S. Senator. Think of all the resources available to him.
If he really is the person he claims to be, he should stand on those principals and fight. He should privately explain to his party that he really is innocent and he plans to prove it.
But he's not doing that. His party is turning on him for two reason -- yes, one is political, but the other is that they know the truth.
They know it either because of his history or they just see the evidence that you're still ignoring.
I don't see any reason to think all of the evidence that comes together perfectly is all coincidental. You apparently do.
That's fine. You are welcome to your opinion, but I'll bet you are in an incredibly small minority at this point.
And I'll tell you this -- I would NEVER allow such a public humiliation to just happen because of a misunderstanding. I'd prove the truth or die trying. And the lesson I'd be teaching my family is that you do what is right, even when it costs you.

 

Apples and oranges, unless you bend her over right then and there.
The men the police officer was after (and we'll drop for a second the argument about whether Craig was one of them) actually have sex in the bathroom.
They don't meet and then go back to a hotel.
That's why they block the front of the stall. That's why we've heard about the trick with shopping bags used to hide their feet.
That's why they use this bizarre tapping ritual instead of a simple, "Can we go talk in private?"

 

I'm not ignoring any evidence.

Again, I'll go back to my original point -- from what I can tell the guy is guilty of no crime. What did he do? Tap his feet and pick up toilet paper.

Is there any evidence that he did anything more than that? Did he try to grab the cop's goods? Did he flash his? Did he stick his backside under the stall and asked to be popped?

No, he didn't, and unfortunately his standing as a conservative senator in a party full of uptight hypocrites would lead me to believe the truth doesn't matter.

 

First of all, I'll say it again -- I must live in a vacuum because I have never heard of any of this kind of wierdo stuff in bathrooms before. The shopping bag and tapping thing is way out there. I've heard of -- well I watched Something about Mary -- gay dudes in the woods at rest stops, but this is all very strange to me.

That being said -- there is no evidence he did anything sexual or lewd. All he did, if he indeed did it, was try to make a connection -- which is why it is not apples and oranges.

 

He did not pick up toilet paper, unless the cop is lying about that. In fact, there was no toilet paper on the floor.
And he didn't merely tap his feet. He did it in a way consistent with what is common for men looking for sex in that exact bathroom (where he admits he was a regular). And he showed the cop his wedding ring, another of those gestures. And he passed up an open stall to take the one next to the cop, who he clearly thought was interested. And he used his suitcase to block the view. And he didn't flush, which indicates that he didn't actually use the bathroom (he just sat down and started tap dancing, huh?).
And you can discount the rumors that date back at least 25 years all you want, but the coincidence of them and then this incident are just astronomical.
Based on your logic, I guess we can't arrest guys trying to pick up hookers until they actually penetrate the hooker, because until then, how do we know what they intend to do? Maybe they want to take her back to their place for a game of Scrabble.
Really, Joel, the evidence is just overwhelming. You really haven't read these stories, or you are choosing to ignore it.

 

That proves my point. You haven't read up on this.
I'm not trying to be rude, but read these and then tell me you still don't understand why he would be accused of soliciting sex.

http://www.slate.com/id/2173033/
http://www.idahostatesman.com/larrycraig/story/147468.html

 

I read the Slate article and frankly think it is quite ridiculous. And I've also read the Statesman article and it is a house of cards based on a few annonymous sources of a gay activist blogger, a guy who clearly has an agenda. I'm sorry, there are serious credibility issues with that story and the motivation behind it. If you are going to raise these kinds of questions based on nothing more than rumors, you better damn well have somoene with a name on the record, otherwise, the credibility of it is indeed something that needs to be called into question.

And my comments about not knowing about any of this wierdo stuff -- I meant before this story broke. Are you telling me you really knew or heard about the shopping bag trick you describe before this story became public, because I never have.

 

No. I hadn't heard of any of this. Does that prove anything?
And why is the Slate story ridiculous?