Talk:Larry Craig

$1000 fine

I removed the $1000 fine figure in lieu of the values stated in the news sources. Yahoo! News reported $575 in fines and fees and CNN reported $500 in fines. Presumably, it was $500 in fines and $75 in fees, but I thought that might be somewhere between WP:OR and WP:SYN, so I just went with the Yahoo! News version. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The article states that "Craig's" children are actually his wifes from a previous marrige, and it cites an online AP story as its source. However i clicked on the link and it apears to be dead. I have no doubt it's true, but if i were a jornalist i'd want some confermation on that, As Left-wing and biased as i am about right wing freaks like this guy, I want to stick to the facts. Anyway with the recent scandal just breaking i'm sure more details about his family life will come out in the papers, and thus could be used as replacement sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.205.178.37 (talk) 15:51, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

If he adopted them, they're his children legally, they're not stepchildren.--69.219.4.5 07:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Gay-Bashing Gays?

An illustration of hypocrisy: Idaho Senator Larry Craig opposes gay civil liberties having voted against antidiscrimination bills that include sexual orientation, he voted for the so called Defense of Marriage Act which defines marriage exclusively as a union of one man and one woman, and he opposes the enlistment of gays in the U.S. military. Craig pled guilty to disorderly conduct after his arrest for lewd behavior in a Minneapolis men's room. Larry, you're the man!— Preceding unsigned comment added by GearedBull (talk • contribs)

Is there some Wikipedia list of gay bashing congressmen or other influential policy makers who actively promote homophobia and are later found out themselves to be gay eg Mark Foley and the article's subject? If so, this article might merit a link or two regarding that. And what is the psychology behind this kind of behavior? It seems so widespread in the USA currently. It deserves a syndrome name all its own, if it doesnt already have one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.191.250.81 (talk) 18:26, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

We don't know that the subject is gay, and won't be able to designate him that way until he makes a statement to that effect. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Or until some video surfaces. Speciate 05:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a very good list of sex scandals, although it is "Republican sex scandals". One would have to pull out the appropriate details that you're looking for. Somewhere there is a list of people from both parties; the Republicans on the list out-number the Democrats on the list.

[2] Arbol25 07:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Another related list that is of just as great interest: [3] Arbol25 13:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet another link, about a conservative Christian New Mexico pastor who sought sex in parks: [4] Lead for this source: Bubba Brazile comment on [5] -under "Republican Sex Offenders" by Mike Pappantonio. Arbol25 22:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Dan_Popkey , Idaho_Statesman ,

seem to be relevant.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[ %c2%a1 ]] [[ %c2%bf ]] [[ %7e%7e ]] ~~ -]] 22:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No reason to think Craig is "gay"

The Senator has himself said he is not gay, and there is no reason to assume that he is. He may be homosexual, but that is not the same as being gay. "Gay" homosexuals are just one type of a range of homosexualities, one that generally entails an urban, liberal culture concentrated in certain cities. Many non-"gay" homosexualities have and do existed, from the pederasitc-based form of classical Greece to the "Down Low" of contemporary African Americans. Senator Craig may be a homosexual with conservative values and a low-key existence (this was portrayed in the film "Brokeback Mountain). To call him "gay" simply because he has sex with other men is unwarranted. [RLC 29 Aug:04 pm] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.215.143 (talk) 16:06, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

"Gay" is generally construed to mean homosexual, or at least male homosexual. It does not imply openness, self-acceptance, good grooming or an affection for Judy Garland. For purposes of this article and discussion, gay is synonymous with homosexual. Check the dictionary or the Wikipedia entry for "gay". Now, if you mean "gay" as in "happy", I'm pretty sure he's not that at this moment in time. And please sign your posts. Ninquerinquar 00:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish, gay is not restricted to urban liberals. Having said that, since he has kids I think it is safe to assume that he is bi, and not gay. Sad mouse 20:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't safe to assume whatsoever. He married a woman that already had three kids; None of them (or his grandchildren) are biologically his. This point is already made in the article and pretty hard to miss.Kazra 20:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would claim that they have evidence that Craig is not sexually attracted to women. That would be quite difficult to prove. Obviously he is attracted to men, so he is either gay or bi. This doesn't matter in the slightest anyway, the scandal is his hypocrisy and documented lying (either he lied under oath when he plead guilty or he is repeatedly lying now, probably the latter). Sad mouse 23:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

See also: Men who have sex with men. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sense of Proportion

Just a comment. This guy is the second longest serving member of the Congress from Idaho. As much as it may warm the cockles of the hearts of those seeking to uncover hypocrisy, should this bathroom incident really get this much space in the article? In 10 years, will this be 50% of the important and notable things he's done. He didn't plead guilty to anything sexual. He pleaded guilty to a non-sexual trivial charge and got a $500 fine.

I really don't understand why this is the top national news story right now. Did we secretly leave Iraq last night and fix the mortgage crisis? Hermitian 22:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

“ The fact is, yes, the Republicans do think [homosexuality] should be a crime. And I think there’s a right to privacy. But the right to privacy should not be a right to hypocrisy ... people who want to demonize other people shouldn't then be able to go home and close the door, and do it themselves. ”

- Senator Barney Frank (70.128.143.99 03:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC))

Seriously? Barney Frank sez Republicans think homosexuality should be illegal (yeah, right--and I'm sure even he doesn't really believe that), so that's your argument?! I'm sure most people (even Republicans!) happen to agree this sordid incident warrants inclusion, but it isn't because "Republicans think homosexuality should be a crime." LOL! Please don't troll Wikipedia, mmkay? --Beth C. 05:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. On another note, this event merits its heavy inclusion in the article-- it will most likely end his political career and is why most people outside of Idaho have heard of him.--69.219.4.5 07:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't be allowed to dwarf the rest of the article and agree with Hermitian that the media's priorities are out of whack, but also that it should be included in this article and fully addressed. I don't know the context of Frank's comment, but see e.g. Lawrence_v._Texas#Dissents. Шизомби 11:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of comments by citizens on the police tactics back in June when the arrests happened. Arresting 20 people seems a pretty hefty number, and people unrelated to the Senator are alleging that the cops would sit in a stall, tap their feet, bang on the partition, put their feet on yours, and then arrest you when you looked underneath to see WTF was going on. If this turns out to be a case of overzealous policing, and the Senator manages to salvage his career, toning down the amount of space in the article devoted to this incident may very well be warranted. Hermitian 15:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You'd think the Senator himself would be pointing that out instead of just saying there was a misunderstanding. Also, if you have a link to that story (about the comments by citizens), it might help the talk pages, at least. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This charge is very likely a career ending event for the Senator, I think the attention it gets in the article is appropriate. 134.53.176.203 04:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

CNN just posted the police interview. The Senator certainly doesn't come across as a person seeking gay sex in the bathroom, and the cop is clearly trying to intimidate him. Hermitian 01:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Mike Rogers

Mike Rogers is a gay-outing blogger and does not have a Wikipedia article of his own. The name "Mike Rogers" links to others. Please correct. Best, --75.45.12.177 22:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've started a stub Mike Rogers (activist)... those who know the subject better, please fill out--Natcase 06:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Referenced Wall Street Journal Editorial

The inclusion of the Wall Street Journal article makes this entry biased. It is unneccessary and does nothing to further our understanding of the facts and details surrounding his arrest. I think it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.131.171 (talk) 00:27, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. Can this be removed posthaste?--67.164.145.60 03:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Fireplace 03:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I restored this commentary, clearly labeled as such, for balance. --Justmeherenow 18:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Please abide by NPOV in screening appropriate commentary...such as condemnations AND claimed "understanding"? I mean, really!: if McCain's condemnation of Craig's behavior is "noteworthy" because he's running for president (duh) and Log Cabin Republicans' condemnation of Craig's alleged hypocracy is "noteworthy" due their being conservative, homosexual advocates (double duh)--well, the Wall Street Journal editorial page commentatary (urging "understanding" and arguing that Craig's alleged weakness in actions would not necessarily entail inconsistency in his personal beliefs) is noteworthy because they're the Wall Street Journal editorial page (um, duh!: by exponential factor, the largest circulation Conservative rag in the U.S.) --Justmeherenow 04:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Although the WSJ's news coverage remains widely read, imho its editorials went loopy and fell off the deep end years ago. IF the WP article should venture beyond factual reporting and into commentary (a big "IF"), then Matt Foreman's comment on MSNBC is much more illuminating: "It’s the tragedy of homophobia. People create these walls that separate themselves from who they really are." [6] One might also mention the movie Brokeback Mountain. The one way in which the WSJ editorial does contribute though (credit where it's due), it finally answers the question of who could possibly believe that same-sex marriage somehow threatens opposite-sex marriage: in order to believe that, you'd have to believe that what married men and women really want is to leave their spouses and marry someone of their own sex - and if the WSJ is correct then Sen. Craig is a believer.TVC 15 04:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting commentary, TVC 15. (I've only worked on one other Wikipedia article--but, as a tie breaker (and to get a feel for commentary about hypocracrites), I peeked at Jimmy Swaggart's article to see what commentary might be included. Which--since Jimmy's swaggin' of hookers was before Wikipedia took off--is bare bones so I'll lay off!) <smiles> Justmeherenow 05:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC) On second thought, the Log Cabiners are no more needed to be cited than leftist gay advocates, opening up Wikipedia editors to the impression of cherry picking. Really, it's Wikipedia policy under NPOV to encourage inclusion of more notable voices from all sides to be at least minimally referenced. Justmeherenow 13:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be just fine with the removal of the Romney and Coleman reactions. The others are notable because they chart the progress of the fallout, and Log Cabin occupies a unique place in GOP politics, but those two politicians statements are just filler IMHO. Pairadox 05:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Romney's response is relevant insofar as Craig was a prominent support of Romney and held a leadership role in his presidential campaign. Fireplace 05:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point; I'm going to move the Romney quote to where it talks about the Romney campaign. Or the campaign stuff down, since that could really be considered "fallout." Pairadox 05:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to restate the point, as Justmeherenow has started reinserting the lengthy WSJ editorial quote again despite the above discussion, there's nothing notable about that particular editorial to warrant including it over, say, something from the dailyKos or Andrew Sullivan or the National Review or (etc.). The other commentary has been included because the commentary is itself notable. If you want to include information on the state of the public debate, there are probably newspaper articles that give a survey of the public reaction. Fireplace 14:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If sourced material is good then better-sourced material is gooder! So, yeah, go and do the keyboard tapping to find better stuff and replace or supplement my inferior attempt at balance (while of course being wary of edit-warring thru removal of good faith edits?) Thx :^) Justmeherenow 14:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between a news report that quotes individuals and an opinion piece, Justmeherenow, especially when that opinion has been selectively snipped for this article. I appreciate your goal of presenting a NPOV account, but not the sources you use to do it. Pairadox 16:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Protectected?

It appears this article was protected from editing on 2007 August 27, but without a template added, and has been edited while protected, dozens of times. Am I correct in that, or am I reading the logs and history wrong? And can we get some discussion here of how much longer it should stay protected? I'm sure it's on many watchlists, especially now. Jonathunder 01:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected, not fully protected, which means that only anon IPs and new accounts (more recent than 4 days) are prohibited from editing. Jeffpw 08:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation section

Why do all of the allegations have Craig's response immediately afterward? The allegations should stand alone, and a blanket repudiation from Craig can follow them. Mkilly 17:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is there an entire SECTION labeled sexual orientation? Is this what the wikipedia is for? If the person was a homosexual and had a heterosexual experience would the wikipedia be obliged to report this? Why not leave the salacious filth to tmx.com or perez hilton rather than make the wikipedia a garbage can. I am not saying it shouldn't be mentioned but an entire section with heading just for sexual orientation? Wikimike 18:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Police report

We have the written version. Maybe we should post this for the visually impaired?????? :-) Jeffpw 18:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nolo plea?

Is it permissible to plead nolo contendere for the incident at the airport? This is related his statement of wanting to deal with this incident quickly. F 21:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Nolo is basically a guilty plea. You're letting the prosecutor have his way. The only thing it does for a defendant is protect them from a civil lawsuit. (Plead guilty, you admit you did something that you might be sued for, plead nolo, you are still found guilty, but you aren't admitting anything.) I guess for a politician, such a plea could have some other benefit. - Crockspot 22:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Cherry picking commentary

Fellow ed.s: Caution! It is hard to cherry pick commentary especially on the talk page (by summarily deleting the most tangential of posts in general becoming more-and-more tangential) w/o violating neutral spirit of Wikipedia Justmeherenow 13:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and I speak as the one who added the Log Cabin Republican statement to the article. When I did so, I thought it particularly poignant considering the perspective of that group. Larry insists "I'm not gay", and then the LCR folks announce that they think he has other problems, "gay" not being one of them. Can anyone find quotes from GLBT groups that support or endorse/encourage Larry Craig now that he's cruising? I'd love to see some contrast here. Luno 00:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The blocking of Larry Craig

Please unblock the Larry Craig page. I've came up with good ideas to edit it with more great information from a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwjs (talk • contribs) 19:08, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

You should put your ideas here. Wikipedia doesn't trust you yet ;) Sad mouse 20:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

BWJS, please read the page on wikipedia's semi-protection policy. Basically, this article has been protected against editing by anonymous users or those with brand new accounts (less than 3 days old I think). This is to protect certain articles which are targets of persistent vandalism, especially biographical articles. Until your account is able to edit directly, you can post your changes here on the talk page for consideration! MOXFYRE (contrib) 20:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

PC

Ol wright, our gay activist friend (who I support) Rogers outed Craig. Fine.

Yet...sourced, modest criticism of "outings" are summarily deleted by a three-times-within-24-hours single editor: see here, here, and here--whereas Log Cabin criticism stays along with "cottaging" commentary in the LA Times, et cetera? C'mon people. Don't stifle sourced debate. Justmeherenow 22:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at that particular quote, I am not sure if it belongs here. After all it is also an attack on Craig, just with a different word (weak rather than hypocrite). Since it is not a defence of Craig it doesn't really add much here, but I think it would significantly add something to the article on Rogers. It may not be fair to assume that Rogers is hoping for anti-gay sentiment by outing Craig (he could equally be hoping to reduce anti-gay sentiment by outing conservatives), but it seems to be a valid high-profile criticism that should be included in Roger's article. Oh, and using PC as an insult is petty. Sad mouse 23:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)