Please don't resign. An open letter to Larry Craig.

[Bjorn Against]

Dear Senator Craig,

It seems you have run out of friends. Everyone is calling for your resignation, even the very people who stood by you through your many years in politics. I am not your friend either Senator, you are a Bush enabler. You are a person who has supported a war that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. You have torture, you have supported illegal wiretapping, and you have the supported bills that denied people just like you equal rights.

I never thought that I would see the day when there is a huge outcry for a fascist like you to resign and I find myself standing up to ask you to stay in office.

You see Mr. Craig, I am consistent in my view of justice and even though you are a hypocrite I do not think anything you did in that airport should be treated as a crime. Lewd behavior? I'm sorry but I never considered a person tapping their feet on the floor to be lewd behavior. Hell, I admit I had absolutely no clue what such a gesture meant before your ordeal and I certainly wouldn't have known what was going on had I entered that bathroom. But I wasn't in that bathroom Mr. Craig and I have yet to hear from anyone else who was. But the fact is that even if someone did walk in they would not be walking in on sex, they would be walking in on toe tapping and the vast majority of them would have no idea what it meant.

Despite this however we actually had an undercover cop patrolling our bathrooms for toe tappers. Now gay people flirting has become such threat to people's homophobic minds that we have undercover cops making sure that people don't flirt with others of the same sex. We don't have undercover cops out there to make sure that no heterosexual people flirt. If we did people would have to be very careful going to the bar and asking someone to dance, because that is in many cases a come on for sex every bit as much as toe tapping is. I don't think we have to worry about an undercover officer patrolling our dance floors looking for men flirting with women anytime soon though.

Let me be clear Senator, you are a hypocrite. You are a hypocrite who voted time and time again to restrict the rights of other people just like you. That is unforgivable and you should be deeply ashamed of yourself for that hypocrisy. But you should not be ashamed of your sexual orientation.

I don't want you to resign Senator. Instead I want you to pick up a microphone and tell the world who you are. I want you to stand up and tell them that you have feelings just like millions of other Americans, and those feelings are not feelings that should be criminalized. I want you to stand up and say you did nothing more than flirt with a man, you did not engage in any sexual activity with that man you merely flirted. And for that you are being prosecuted. I want you to ask out loud why we are prosecuting gay men for flirting, when it would be unimaginable to have an undercover cop patrolling for heterosexual flirting.

I know you won't take my advice though Senator. I know you will put in your resignation tomorrow because you are a coward and a hypocrite. You can not stand up for gay rights because you have spent your career voting for gay bashing legislation.

It is a great shame Senator, it is a shame that you are going to put in your resignation not because you committed a grave offense, but rather because you are a human who happens to be attracted to people of the same sex.

If you had an ounce of courage you would stand up and tell your party that you will not resign to please the homophobes. You would tell them that you are going to run for reelection and if they try to get you in the primary you would be sure to make their homophobia a national discussion. You would outline the contrast between how they are treating you and how they are treating David Vitter so everyone is reminded of just how intolerant they are.

You can still stand up for yourself Mr. Craig. You can, but you won't, and that is a true shame.

Sincerely,
A Citizen

[rateyes]

1. Good letter...

I hope you e-mailed it to him.

[Ediacara]

2. He wasn't flirting

[Bjorn Against]

5. What was he doing then?

I must say I have never heard of people getting arrested for tapping their feet before, and it bothers me that we have undercover officers actually patrolling bathrooms to make sure no one taps their feet.

Do you think they would ever arrest a heterosexual couple for doing a foot tapping routine in a public place? My guess is probably not.

I certainly can't defend Craig's hypocrisy, but I need to be consistent in my views of what justice is, and arresting people for tapping their feet is not justice. Honestly would you believe it was justice if one of your friends were arrested for tapping their feet? If we allow injustice for one person who we don't like that injustice becomes a precedent that can effect others.

[Ediacara]

11. He was cruising

Cruising and flirting are very distinct behaviors.

Additionally, it wasn't just foot tapping that makes it cruising.

He was looking into the cop's stall wringing his hands for two minutes, he was tapping his foot, he touched the cop's foot with his own, and he moved his hand under the partition of the stall. All of this behavior is consistent with cruising, and none of it is consistent with flirting. He was looking to have sexual relations with that cop in that bathroom. Period.

[Bjorn Against]

12. Maybe he was looking for sex, but he wasn't getting sex

Honestly people go cruising for sex all the time, but I sure do not hear of heterosexuals getting arrested for tapping their foot on the ground.

If he had actually started a sex act in the stall that would be a different story but he did not do that.

I don't like the idea of people getting arrested for advances on a person who certainly is acting like he is a willing participant (after all all indications are that the cop played along).

[Ediacara]

13. IT WASN'T JUST FOR TAPPING HIS FOOT

Why do you keep claiming that it was just foot tapping? Jesus tap-dancing Christ!

[Bjorn Against]

15. Settle down

Honestly the point here is that no sex took place, no unwanted advances took place, because the cop was playing along it seemed consensual. You don't see heterosexual people being arrested in similar situations.

I just want consistancy in the law, and there may have been a slight bit more than toe tapping but not a lot more. We don't have undercover cops chasing down heterosexuals for similar behavior, I don't like seeing them treat gays differently.

[Ediacara]

16. I can't even believe I'm having this conversation

Craig's actions indicate that he wanted and expected sex in a bathroom at an airport. It doesn't fucking matter that sex didn't happen, what he was doing indicated that he was expecting it to happen in that bathroom.

You can play your "fakey I'm so PC everything is a gay double standard" all you want, but I have to ask you what the hell you think would happen if a man went into the lady's room looking for a quick hookup? Do you think that the guy wouldn't be arrested?

Unreal.

[uppityperson]

17. What if a man shot someone in the bathroom? Wouldn't you want him arrested?

As long as you're playing "what if...another situation" I thought I'd join in.

[Bjorn Against]

25. If a man went into a lady's room it would be a totally different situation

Men are not allowed in ladies rooms, so just by entering the room he could be in trouble. That is not a comparable situation.

If we are only having undercover cops patrolling for sexual advances in mens bathrooms and nowhere else that is clearly targeting gay men. We don't see undercover cops patrolling bars looking for people making sexual advances, but sexual advances happen all the time in bars.

And by the way how do you know he expected it to happen IN the bathroom? Is it not possible he intended to bring the man to a more private location? If a sex act had actually taken place I would have no problem with his arrest, but as it stands I can not in good consistency with my values say he should have been arrested.

[Ediacara]

40. It's the only possible analogy without coed bathrooms

You know that to be true.

And yes, the whole point is that Craig wanted the cop to go into his stall and do stuff. That's as private as you can get in a freaking airport. He wasn't looking for a date, he was looking for a blowjob.

It isn't about flirting, it isn't about one night stands, it isn't about casual sex in a private place. It's about screwing around in a public bathroom.

Quite frankly, your right to fuck around in a toilet ends when it interferes with my right to take a shit in peace.

[Bjorn Against]

44. Why can't you think outside of bathrooms?

Sexual advances happen other places besides bathrooms, and we need to look at the big picture.

I have said numerous times that if Craig had been engaged in sex it would have been appropriate to arrest him. But as it stands that did not happen. It is not justice to arrest someone for something that did not happen. If he would have invited the other man into his stall it would have been a different story, but two men flirting through a divider is not the same thing as sex no matter what their ultimate goal may be.

[Ediacara]

50. What Craig was doing IS an invitation

It isn't flirting. Why is that so damn hard to understand?

[Bjorn Against]

51. Here is my response to end this discussion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1714906&mesg_id=1714906

[liberaldemocrat7]

24. Well coed bathrooms don't usually exist.

It appears difficult without coed bathrooms for a female police officer to sit in a stall next to a man and wait for the man to do his tap dance. LOL

[Bjorn Against]

27. Exactly my point, so why are they only targetting bathrooms?

We don't have uncover cops patrolling areas where both sexes mingle together, by targeting men's bathrooms they are clearly targeting gay men. How often do you hear of undercover cops patrolling bars trying to get people to make advances at them so they can have them arrested? I have never heard of such a thing, and the fact that they would choose to target a place where only men are allowed and not target places where men are known to make advances on women or vice versa says a great deal.

[IronLionZion]

41. because gay bars are a figment of our imagination

and it is against the laws of the united states to be gay. Being gay can get you arrested. And gays have no personal ads or social groups or any ways to meet other than the shitter.

:wtf: are you smoking and where can I get some?

Why are you comparing public airport bathrooms to singles bars? Why are you saying it's just for tapping his foot? Why are you pretending like it's OK for straight people to have sex in public areas? Why are you doing this?

You are spreading false information. Please tell us why you are doing this and what you hope to accomplish.

Please tell me of just one documented case where undercover cops have patrolled gay bars (within the last few years) and arrested someone just for being gay.

[Bjorn Against]

42. I never said any such thing, quit making crap up.

"Why are you pretending like it's OK for straight people to have sex in public areas?"

Where did I say any such thing? You completely pulled that out of your ass.

The fact is Craig was NOT engaged in sex. That is why I compared it to a bar situation. He may have been making sexual advances, but he was not engaged in sex. I have said numerous times on this thread that it would have been wrong had he been engaged in sex.

Now stop making crap up and making it sound like I believe it is ok to have sex in public because I never said any such thing.

[IronLionZion]

45. so there are no gay bar situtations?

bathrooms are the only way for gays?

[Bjorn Against]

47. I never said that either

You sure do like to put words in my mouth don't you.

[toughboy]

19. Can you explain how that would happen?

Would he go into the next stall? Crawl under the divider? If two people were having sex in a bathroom stall next to you how would it impact your life? How would you feel if a woman walked into the men's room looking to have sex? Would she be arrested? Highly doubtful. What if there were children in the bathroom? Is it okay for a police officer to be encouraging what you call sex? How do you deal with same sex bathrooms?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. Heres's How It Impacts My Life

Senator Craig arrogated to himself the right to peer through cracks in closed bathroom stalls to evaluate, peruse, check out, scope, audit every person in the restroom who went into a bathroom stall and closed the door, presumably to pee or poop, in his attempt to find one ready, willing, and able sexual partner and when he did he stared at that person for one to two minutes... He violated the rights of every person in that restroom before he found one he liked...




When I go to a public bathroom and close the door to move my bowels I don't want anybody looking at me; not even for a second, be that person Brad Pitt, Salma Hayek, or Abe Vigoda...

I have yet to hear one person who has defended Craig articulate why they have a right to see somebody move their bowels or empty their bladder without their permission...

[Puregonzo1188]

3. I agree with your letter 100%, even though I don't like Senator Craig

I don't really see where he did anything illegal and in all honesty if someone else was arrested for toe tapping who wasn't a Republican Senator I can bet you a lot of people on DU would be outraged. Unlike Senator Craig, I am not a hypocrite and thus apply the same standards to everyone.

[phillysuse]

4. Great letter - I completely agree

To quote Rick in Casablanca,
Senator Craig, "It seems that destiny has taken a hand".
You have a choice to make - to slink away and remain a laughing stock postscript or to seize the moment, look yourself in the mirror and announce tomorrow that you are, like Governor McGreevy, "A Gay American" and that you will stay in the Senate and fight for the rights of ALL Americans.

That you have broken down the jailhouse door of the closet you were in and that you possess an understanding of how homophobia victimizes so many people. That you will spend your remaining time in the Senate working for justice for all.

If you do that, you will get a MANDATE for change (and maybe even a MAN DATE or two)

[nancyr]

9. I agree totally.

My feelings exactly. I've never been a fan of Senator Craig, but somehow this entire matter is beyond absurd. Granted, I am dense about matters of public restroom etiquette, but with all the truly awful things happening, this toe tapping crap is repulsive. Which is worse: killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of Iraqui's, robbing our country blind, destroying our Constituion, etc....or being on the prowl for some illicit sex act? How about some perspective? While we're all fixated on this sideshow, they are free to carry on....business as usual.

[mitchtv]

6. I want him around for a different reason

Since Gonzo left, we need a new Pinata

[uppityperson]

7. I agree with 1 change, I want him to start passing legislation for equal rights, regardless of

orientation, regardless of color, regardless of economics, equal rights for all. Barring that, I want him to resign and give his spot to someone who will.

[Kurovski]

14. My vote goes with you on this one.

So I guess it's goodbye to the foot-tapping romancer.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

8. GOP Hypocrisy: They Let Vetter Off When He Hires a Prostitute

......but a not a good c*cksucker.

Couldn't possibly be because one state has a Republican governor appointing his replacement and the other has a Democratic governor appointing his replacement.

Such is the hypocrisy of the GOP.

[HughMoran]

10. Excellent letter - I agree

He really should take your advice and stand up for who he is - make up for all the lying and hypocritical actions he has done over the years.

[RufusTFirefly]

18. I agree, too.

And I'm troubled that an incident that happened in June was leaked in August.
Something smells funny.

If the Bill of Rights teaches us nothing else, it is to beware of the so-called "tyranny of the majority." It's easy to defend free expression you agree with or to love friends instead of enemies. What's much more difficult is to apply these rules universally -- to support expression that offends you or to love those it would be easy to hate.

Craig is undoubtedly a major hypocrite. And his hypocrisy has done a lot of damage, just as Karl Rove's support of homophobic legislation harmed the openly gay stepfather he loved.

These Republicans are clearly in a very bad place. It's far too easy to feel hate or contempt for them. I feel sympathy for those in such a deep state of denial that they could do so much damage to themselves and to people they love.

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. I want him to stay because he's creepy. Brand X needs more highly visible creepy types.

I'd be ecstatic if every single (R) nationwide elected offical (all four of them) made everyone's skin crawl.

[TorchTheWitch]

21. So you think being a peeping tom is ok?

Nothing the least bit offensive or illegal about that? You believe it's perfectly justifiable that Craig stared at a stranger in a private bathroom stall through the crack for 2 minutes and then invaded that stranger's stall with his bodily parts touching the stranger in that private stall? You REALLY find that this behavior is the least bit acceptable??? You really believe that it's the duty of the VICTIM in that stall whose private space is invaded by a stranger while in a very vulnerable position (sitting on a toilet) to complain and if they don't complain it's the VICTIM'S FAULT and everything the perpetrator did is perfectly acceptable???

SICK SICK SICK

[Bjorn Against]

28. No, but I do not believe the case played out the way you suggest it did

I don't believe this cop was a victim in any way. Why? Because from all indications he was in that stall to try and get people to behave in this type of way. The evidence suggests that he was very intentionally sending signals to Craig.

I have been in hundreds of men's rooms in my life and I have NEVER had anyone make an advance on me. In order for this cop to get people to make advances on him so that he could arrest them, then you would have to suspect that he probably wasn't just sitting in that stall acting like an unwilling participant.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. Why Did He Look In The Stall In The First Place?

That's where the violation comes from...

Nobody who has defended Senator Craig can articulate a right to peer at somebody who has went into a bathroom stall and closed the door, presumably to pee or poop...

As for your assertion that it never happens, when I was a thirteen year old boy an old bald man stood in the urinal next to me as I was peeing and said "do you want to feel the juices?"

Also, I once saw two men exiting a bathroom stall and one man was wiping his lips...

This has nothing to with gender or orientation and everything to do with respecting boundaries and respecting the rights of others... I can't go to my local Nordstroms and spy on women as they try on bathing suits...

[Bjorn Against]

30. I never said it "never happens"

I said it has never happened to me. Big difference.

The cases you bring up are very different, and cases like that should be crimes. But the Craig case is different because he did not have sex in the restroom, and there is certainly no evidence that he made a pass at a thirteen year old boy. If there was evidence of such a thing I would be the first person calling on him to go to jail.

As far as the peeping goes, I would agree that it is wrong to peer into other people's stalls in most situations but the fact is that cop was probably making come-ons to encourage this sort of behavior. There is no evidence that Craig simply walked into the bathroom and randomly chose a stall to peer into. If that were the case my position would be different, but I suspect the cop was doing something to encourage his behavior.

That is where my problem comes in, we cops that are patrolling bathrooms specifically to look for gay men yet we do not have cops patrolling bars looking for heterosexual couples. We could not even imagine a female undercover cop flirting with men in the bars hoping that they will make an advance, and then arresting them for making that advance.

I simply don't think gays should have to face more scrutiny from law enforcement than other groups do, and that is where I have a serious problem with this case.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. The Police Officer Could Not Have Encouraged Him If He Didn't Look Into The Stall

"As far as the peeping goes, I would agree that it is wrong to peer into other people's stalls in most situations but the fact is that cop was probably making come-ons to encourage this sort of behavior. "


The cops were there because they were responding to complaints about just that activity...

Again... A person's right to look at me doesn't supersede my right to go into a bathroom stall, close the door, and pee or poop, free from tthe gaze of leering eyes...

I can't go to the mall, enter the woman's restroom, peer through cracks in closed stalls until I find a woman I like and who likes me...

[Bjorn Against]

32. You are using a situation which is not comparable again

No you can't go into a women's restroom and peer into the stalls until you find someone who likes you, in fact you can not go into the women's restroom at all considering that you are a man.

Again there is no evidence that Craig was randomly peering through cracks in the closed stalls until he found a man he liked. If that were the case then I would fully support his arrest.

The fact is that the only person that Craig has been accused of peering into the stall of was a man who was in that stall TRYING to get people to peer at him so he could make an arrest.

I find myself in a very odd position defending Craig, as he is certainly not the type of person I would normally defend. But the fact is if we are to get equality in this country then we need to get equality for all, even if that person is a vile Republican Senator.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. How Did Craig Know The Man Was Enticing Him Without Looking Into The Stall First

eom

[Bjorn Against]

34. The toe tapping could have been part of it

It is hard for me to say what else may have played a factor considering that I was not there to witness the event. I don't think that a cop would have too much luck making arrests from a bathroom stall though unless he was doing something to encourage people to make advances at him.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. The Toe Tapping Was Subsequent To The One To Two Minutes Craig Admitted To Watching Him In The Stall

Next

[Bjorn Against]

36. I wasn't there and neither were you.

Don't pretend that you know the details of exactly what happened because you don't. Neither do I.

But I do know that Craig has not been accused of peering into the stalls of anyone besides this one cop.

What are the chances that Craig just happened to randomly choose the stall of an undercover cop to peer into, when there is absolutely no evidence that he has just randomly seeked out bathroom stalls to peer into in the past?

If you can provide evidence that Craig chose the stall randomly then I will say he should be arrested, but with the evidence I have seen I have a hard time believing it was random. This cop wanted to make arrests, he it appears that he was TRYING to get people to make advances on him.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. Craig Pled Guilty

Therefore we have the right to accept everything in the police report as fact... That's the way we roll in America... We can debate alternate scenarios but all we have to go by is the record; not what you or I thought happened or wished had happened...

And Craig has a history of this behavior (bathroom sex)... Those that have studied this phenomenon will tell you they have learned that it is not unusual for persons to peer into several stalls until they find a willing sexual partner...


And you are ignoring the point that police were patrolling that restroom in response to public complaints...

And if this was a Democrat or my own kin I would feel no different...There is no excuse to violate the rights of others...

[Bjorn Against]

39. No there is no excuse to violate the rights of others...

I just have yet to see any evidence that Craig did violate the rights of others.

If you can find evidence that Craig peered into several stalls looking for a partner that would be wrong, but I have not seen any evidence of that. I am going off the scenario of what we know from the police record, you are the one that is deviating from what the police record says because the police record says nothing about him peeping into multiple stalls. You are accusing him of doing something that the police are not accusing him of. And don't tell me about the "phenomenon" you have studied, because I can assure you that not every case follows that "phenomenon".

Yes Craig pled guilty, and no it does not appear he has been completely honest about what happened. My problem is that the law seems to be targeting gay men. Sure there were public complaints, but I doubt those complaints were about Craig because considering he is from Idaho he probably is not in the Minneapolis airport that often.

My ultimate point is this though. If there is sex going on in the bathrooms at the airport that is certainly wrong, and I have no problem with them arresting people for that. What I do have a problem with is having undercover cops trying to turn gay men on and then proceeding to arrest those gay men. We do not do anything of this nature to stop heterosexuals from seeking out sex.

I am not gay, and even if I was gay the last place I would want to go seeking sex is in a bathroom.

But no matter what my orientation I do support equal protection under the law, and I am seeing the law applied against gays differently than it is being applied against heterosexuals. That is my problem.

On edit: To be clear when I said there is no evidence Craig violated the rights of others I was referring specifically to the restroom incident. If you look at his career in the Senate you could find numerous examples of him violating the rights of others.

[jayctravis]

46. I thought I read that the cop was there looking for baggage thieves.

So likely...he had been staked out in that stall a while while not doing any of the "typical" bathroom behaviors.

Now I know in a public restroom, people usually do their business as efficiently as possible and get out of there.

I'm guessing that Craig figured out the guy was sitting there for a long time, and misinterpreted it as he was looking to hook up.

[TorchTheWitch]

52. It doesn't MATTER what he was doing in the stall

He could have been in there beating off or applying lipstick or doing any number of things. Craig became a Peeping Tom the moment he put his eye to the crack to check out the person in the stall with the sole intention of determining whether or not he was interested sexually in that person, and according to his later actions, he WAS interested in the person in the stall sexually. It was just Craig's bad luck that the person in the stall happened to be an undercover cop. It doesn't matter what the cop was doing in there in PRIVATE, and Craig would not have known what he was doing in there had he not taken it upon himself to become a PEEPING TOM.

WHY are people making excuses for a stinking Peeping Tom??? WHY are people making excuses for perverts trying to make pick ups in a public toilet???

And your personal experiences in public bathrooms means SQUAT. The cop was in there because this particular bathroom was a known place for this sort of sexual activity and had received numorous complaints. The cop didn't happen to stroll in there on his own, this was an arranged sting at a place that was a known problem for this type of activity. Just as cops chose where to set up a sting at particular hotels or nightclubs or street corners... because certain illegal behavior in these places was a problem and there had been numorous complaints about those places.

I really resent this assumption that the cop did anything wrong at all or even somehow "coerced" Craig to PEEP at him in a PRIVATE bathroom stall. The very moment Craig put his eye to the crack of that stall he broke the law, and it makes no difference who was in that stall or what they were doing in it. When someone closes themselves into a bathroom stall they deserve and legally have the expectation of privacy which Craig willingly violated. Too bad for him that the person he chose to peep at and invade the occupied stall with his body parts even touching the person in the occupied stall happened to be a cop. How many innocent men had Craig already violated in this way who were just there innocently trying to crap in private which they had every right to do? I'm GLAD that the cops to the complaints about this bathroom seriously and set up a sting there, and I'm GLAD that Craig by his own perverse actions got CAUGHT VIOLATING THE LAW.

[Philosoraptor]

22. I can't WAIT for today's press conference!!!!111

[PCIntern]

26. Larry's gonna be late for his presser

b/c he's reading liberal blogs to figure out what he should do.

:rofl:

Seriesly (sic) however...

Great letter...I write these too hoping against hope...that I'LL FEEL BETTER.

Sometimes I do...sometimes I don't. Just remember, he knows what OTHER 'sins' he's guilty of and is hiding them as well. It's not just about this any more than Watergate was just about a 3rd rate burglary and the cover-up. It went a whole lot deeper and we'll probably never know the whole story about the Nixon regime.

:hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. He Broke The Law In A Manner Unbecoming Of A Senator. He Should Absolutely Resign.

End of story, in my opinion.

[Left Is Write]

43. As a citizen of Idaho, I want him to resign. I'm glad he resigned.

Good fucking riddance.

The only problem with his resignation is that Butch Otter gets to name his replacement, and Butch Otter is almost more loathsome to me than the Chimperor.

[Cha]

48. If he were my senator I would

not want him representing my state, ANY LONGER, either. The only thing about butch otter(is that really his name?) replacing him is that should be a reminder that the repuke gov had to replace a disgraced,hypocritcal repuke(but I repeat myself)senator with another repuke.

Hope ol' craig's legacy stays alive for a long time.

[Left Is Write]

49. Yes, that's really his name.

Butch is a nickname, but his last name really is Otter.