NY Times, networks ignored Sen. Craig's record on gay and lesbian issues
SUMMARY: In reporting on Sen. Larry Craig's guilty plea on disorderly conduct charges, the nightly network news broadcasts and The New York Times all ignored Craig's positions on legislation concerning gay and lesbian rights, including voting against legislation to ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
In reporting on Sen. Larry Craig's (R-ID) August 8 guilty plea on misdemeanor disorderly conduct charges following his June 11 arrest during an investigation of "lewd conduct in the main men's public restroom" at a Minnesota airport, the nightly network news broadcasts and The New York Times all ignored Craig's record on legislation concerning gay and lesbian rights. Craig voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and, in 2006, voted to cut off debate on a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He also voted against a 1996 bill prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, which failed by one vote in the Senate.
Roll Call first reported Craig's arrest on August 27. According to the article: "On Aug. 8, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct in the Hennepin County District Court. He paid more than $500 in fines and fees, and a 10-day jail sentence was stayed. He also was given one year of probation with the court that began on Aug. 8." Roll Call also provided details of the arrest report:
According to the incident report, Sgt. Dave Karsnia was working as a plainclothes officer on June 11 investigating civilian complaints regarding sexual activity in the men's public restroom in which Craig was arrested.
Airport police previously had made numerous arrests in the men's restroom of the Northstar Crossing in the Lindbergh Terminal in connection with sexual activity.
Karsnia entered the bathroom at noon that day and about 13 minutes after taking a seat in a stall, he stated he could see "an older white male with grey hair standing outside my stall."
The man, who lingered in front of the stall for two minutes, was later identified as Craig.
"I could see Craig look through the crack in the door from his position. Craig would look down at his hands, 'fidget' with his fingers, and then look through the crack into my stall again. Craig would repeat this cycle for about two minutes," the report states.
Craig then entered the stall next to Karsnia's and placed his roller bag against the front of the stall door.
"My experience has shown that individuals engaging in lewd conduct use their bags to block the view from the front of their stall," Karsnia stated in his report. "From my seated position, I could observe the shoes and ankles of Craig seated to the left of me."
Craig was wearing dress pants with black dress shoes.
"At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moved his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. While this was occurring, the male in the stall to my right was still present. I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area," the report states.
Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times, and Karsnia noted in his report that "I could ... see Craig had a gold ring on his ring finger as his hand was on my side of the stall divider."
However, The New York Times did not note Craig's record on gay rights issues in its August 28 article on Craig's arrest. Similarly, Craig's anti-gay positions went unmentioned on the August 27 broadcasts of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson, NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams, and the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric.
By contrast, an August 28 CNN.com article noted his votes on gay and lesbian issues and reported that "Craig's voting record has earned him top ratings from social conservative groups." According to the article:
In recent years, Craig's voting record has earned him top ratings from social conservative groups such as the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council.
He has supported a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, telling his colleagues that it was "important for us to stand up now and protect traditional marriage, which is under attack by a few unelected judges and litigious activists."
In 1996, Craig also voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal recognition to same-sex marriages and prevents states from being forced to recognize the marriages of gay and lesbian couples legally performed in other states.
Craig also has opposed expanding the federal hate crimes law to cover offenses motivated by anti-gay bias and, in 1996, voted against a bill that would have outlawed employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, which failed by a single vote in the Senate.
The Los Angeles Times reported on August 28:
But the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force issued a statement calling attention to Craig's support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and his opposition to legislation that would expand the federal hate crime law to cover violent acts based on a victim's sex, sexual orientation, sexual identity or disability.
From the August 27 broadcast of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
KATE SNOW (guest anchor): We learned today that a Republican member of the Senate, Larry Craig of Idaho, was arrested back in June and has now pled guilty to a disorderly conduct charge. The newspaper Roll Call reports Craig was arrested at the Minneapolis airport and accused of lewd conduct. His office calls it a misunderstanding, and late today, Craig said he should not have pled guilty.
From the August 27 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:
BRIAN WILLIAMS (anchor): There is late world today that Senator Larry Craig, a Republican from Idaho, was arrested in June by a plainclothes police officer in Minnesota for what's being called lewd conduct in the presence of a plainclothes police officer in a men's room. That was at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call obtained the arrest report. The senator later pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct. He paid more than $500 in fines and was given one year of probation.
But a short time ago this evening, Senator Craig issued a statement saying, "At the time of this incident, I complained to the police that they were misconstruing my actions. I was not involved in any inappropriate conduct." Craig's statement goes on to say, quote, "I should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this matter. In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty." Close quote.
From the August 27 broadcast of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
KATIE COURIC (anchor): Meanwhile, there is word tonight that Republican Senator Larry Craig of Idaho pleaded guilty this month to disorderly conduct charges. The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call says Craig was arrested at the Minneapolis airport by police investigating complaints of lewd conduct. But tonight, the senator says he told the police his actions were misconstrued, and he denies doing anything wrong. Craig was fined $1,000.
Seems like an add omission, given that his harsh record with regards to Civil Rights is what makes this a story.
No, what makes this a story is a sitting Senator's public bathroom lewdness, and the fact that it happened months ago.
Along with the fact that he makes anti gay remarks and supports anti gay legislation.
How on earth can you possibly separate the two? Here's a man who stands for the rights supposedly moral high ground, who takes a stand against gays and lesbians, and is caught in a seedy homosexual situation. And you can separate this? How exactly?
It happened months ago? What does that have to do with anything?
Is there a statute of limitation on these stories?
If there is somebody better notify the outraged over haircuts brigade.
no... it's the neo-con "cover up" that has the left all ruffled up.
Craig is a slime ball. I'm glad he's outed himself so publicly. He says he's straight, but he likes sex with men. Guess he missed the Oprah episode on "the down low" ;-)
You're welcome to your opinion, but you're wrong again.
It's not much of a story when some idiot gets arrested for peeping into other stalls looking for sex. It's embarrassing.
What makes this a real political story is that Craig hates gay people, the very people he was looking to have sex with.
It's called hypocrisy. That's what makes this a story worthy of continued coverage.
What makes this a political story is because it involves a politician, that's simple, even for you to figure out.
If you want to inextricably link trolling for bathroom sex with gay people, then perhaps you'd better examine your motives?
Good work MMFA, find a way to get this salacious titilating story up on the website by hunting and cherry picking a few media outlets that ignored the possible hypocrisy of Sen. Craig.
Didn't take long.......
Nay Tommy if anything they are eager to expose the hypocrisy of a yet another US legislature who actually works tirelessly against equal rights are Gay and Lesbian citizens while simultaneously hustling up Gay sex in a public rest room. Titillation isn't the motivation in my opinion because there isn't anything titillating about a grandfatherly Senator getting his freak on in a public toilet. YUK!
And Tommy, I would also point out that hustling for gay sex in the bathroom isn't standard operating procedure for gays and lesbians. You have to be a real sick puppy to peer through the stall door to try to see another guy's twig and berries. It ranks right up there with hiding a camera in the woman's toilet to try to get a cheap look at the yummy place.
"Yummy place?" Dude, you're turnin' me on.
Good work MMFA, find a way to get this salacious titillating story up on the website by hunting and cherry picking a few media outlets that ignored the possible hypocrisy of Sen. Craig.
Tommy you seem to have a problem with Republican hypocrisy being exposed. Sen. Craig is the person who voted for the 1996 [link to www.senate.gov] color="#0000ff">Defense of Marriage Act and, in 2006, voted to cut off debate on a proposed [link to www.senate.gov] color="#0000ff">constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He also voted against a 1996 bill prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, which failed by [link to www.senate.gov] color="#0000ff">one vote in the Senate
One would think that for a man who is “supposed” to be so against “gay” anything to find him in a “public” restroom trolling for sex would be newsworthy. I would think that this pattern of "restroom" behavior by some Republicans would be a newsworthy (Rudy's guy in Florida). One would think that a US Senator who once arrested, visited the police department 2 weeks after his arrest requesting a report for his “attorney” to now cry that he did not seek counsel, a newsworthy story.
While you may find MMFA using this story to “get this titillating” story out I think it is equally important to expose the Republican party for the hypocrites that they are. Some Republicans make such a big deal out of the “bible” and what God says about gay sex but love to engage in gay sex. Why should the media not expose the Republican hypocrisy? Impeachment was leveled against a President for something that many in the Republican party were doing themselves(Newt and Vitter for example). An amendment to our constitution was requested by Republicans for something that many in the Republican party were engaging in(Foley for example). This same party has had a strong hold on government for the last 6 years love touting how much better they are than other cause they don't "engage" in certain immoral behavior. Republicans claim that they are "Christians" and they are the "moral example" of what America's family should be. They are exposed as the hypocrites that they are and somehow you think the media is out trolling for smut.
And seriously if you were a US senator with a record like Craig would you plead guilty for something you did not do? I don't think so.
Pearl on a roll! Go girl!
I'm personally surprised that I have yet to hear one of these sycophants try the "I had to prove to myself that this is wrong" excuse.
In order to claim MORAL SUPERIORITY one must have SUPERIOR MORALITY.
I would offer that 99.9% of the Family Values crowd would fail the above test.
Perhaps if they stopped preaching to the rest of us as to how we should live our lives they could finally take care of their own lives.
This isn't just about Gay Sex, this is about PERVERSION. Craig is a sick puppy and he is in denial and I bet there will be more stories coming out of the closet soon.
In order to claim MORAL SUPERIORITY one must have SUPERIOR MORALITY.
We should have spotted this guy a while ago then, because "superior morality" wouldn't involve trying to deny fellow citizens their civil rights just because they like to have sex the same way you do.
I see this as veiled homophobism. This is a story, if true, about a sleazy encounter in a public restroom by an elected official. This is not a gay or lesbian issue at all. To make the connection is linking the two and I find that offensive.
I agree this isn't a Gay or Lesbian issue it is yet another example of the hypocrisy of many who want to deny equal rights to Gay citizens and feign some moral superiority. It certainly isn't about being Gay because I would imagine that most Gay people prefer to have sex some place clean and private just like most heterosexuals
Tommy,
Did you just invent a new word? Homophobism :)
Tommy,
What's your take on this arrest? I read the officer's report and while It's pretty obvious that Craig was signaling to the officer in the stall (bad move) - did he actually do anything illegal?
The officer talks about Craig's "intentions" and what he identified as behavior consistent with people who engage in public sex - but Craig didn't expose himself, he didn't ask the officer for sex. I'm having trouble understanding what law he broke. What's your take?
Maybe that was his favorite stall and he wanted the cop out of there. Then why plead guilty to anything if he broke no law????
RJC,
I am inclined to agree with you. What Craig did was sleazy, but I cannot see where he broke the law anymore than if a man walked up to a woman in a public park and "solicited" her for sex alone, no money involved.
There was no act that Craig did that was illegal, this is punishing a possible intention, or thought. Scary.
And I maintain this is not a gay issue at all, it is about a sitting Senator and his actions in a public restroom.
I am really surprised at you on this Tommy. I thought you were one of those law and order guys who believes in obeying the law and following the rules of conduct. If anyone here believes they have the right to have sex in a public rest-room and force others including the children that use public restrooms to see or listen to them having sex, well they need to check the laws in their state and their conscious. YOU DON"T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THIS, and it anyone is I think you’d better knock it off before you get arrested. The officer that arrested Craig was surveilling this bathroom because this is exactly the kind of behavior that was occurring in this. And if Craig wasn’t guilty why did he plead guilty? For all those – all two of you so hell bent on doing somersaults trying to make this about this being Gay you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Nobody has the right to violate the law and public sex is against the law. The Gay thing only comes in because Craig is a HIPOCRITE of the worse kind. Bashing and making laws to suppress the rights of people for doing activity he proclaims bad while engaging ion worse activity. Most adults follow the rules and perform whatever sex act they enjoy in private, if you enjoy having sex in the bathroom do it in the bathroom of your home or a hotel whatever, you have no right to use the one in Wendy’s.
Lynn,
You didn't address my analogy at all. Why is what Craig did any different than the park scenario I laid out? Please explain.
You’re analogy is ridiculous, and it completely ignores context which you love to do. Craig wasn't picking up a guy in the bar to take back to his hotel room for sex he was hanging out in a public bathroom where public lewd behavior had become a huge problem so much so that this particular bathroom was being surveilled for illegal lewd public activity since people were using it as a place to perform sex acts in public. Obviously we've learned there is a whole set of signals and rituals associated with this and SEN CRAIG was using them to solicit a partner to engage in a public sex act. Furthermore the good senator from ID being an educated man of sound mind PLEAD GUILTY to the offense he was charged with and that settles his guilt. Tommy I know it’s difficult for you to accept but the current crop of DC Republicans are in real trouble not only for the failure of their policies to achieve the goals they claimed they would but people are sick of example after example of the duplicitous nature of these hypocritical phonies.
Lynn,
If all you want to do is accuse me of supporting Republicans, then forget it. Your knee jerk reaction to his political party is irrelevant to me, I could care less if he were a Republican, a Democrat or a Whig.
Never mind, the analogy I gave you was perfectly apt. Craig did not expose himself in this bathroom, what he did was sleazy and gross yes, ......but I cannot see where he broke the law anymore than if this happened between two heterosexuals in a public park.
But if you want to make this a partisan issue, go ahead. I am not interested.
Tommy,
Then why did he plead guilty to lewd and indecent behavior??
I believe he pled guilty to disorderly conduct, which gives authorities wide latitiude.
Look, I am hardly excusing this slimeball's behavior, and now he is lying about it and dragging his wife through it, he is pig. And I am not a lawyer, but I just don't see where he broke the law by tapping his foot, or wagging his finger. He was not obscene or abusive....even the arresting officer tapped his foot back.
What Craig did was invite another adult to engage in sex in a public place, I don't see that as a violation of any law........as I said no different than if a man walks up to a woman in a public park and invites the same thing.
"engage in sex in a public place,"
Tommy having sex in a public place is against the law.
Lynn, He didn't have sex, that is the point.
He was soliciting sex with the intent by his signals to have sex in the restroom as was the practice of those soliciting sex in this particular rest room. Now if he had plead innocent he may have even won the case. But a smart guy like a Senator pleads guilty to something he didn't do. I'm not buying it because that is completely irrational to me.
How do you know he wanted to have sex in the restroom? Perhaps he would have made the connection and then went elsewhere, more private. Much like the man and woman in the park. Now if they're caught in the stall, that's a completely different matter.
Are you punishing him legally for something you think he wanted to do?
What Craig did was invite another adult to engage in sex in a public place, I don't see that as a violation of any law........as
Well inviting a undercover police officer sworn to up hold the law that say you cannot solicit sex in a public restroom might be a little different.
See the craft of Tommy's coment. I see 100 posts easily circling arround it. And going nowhere.
Exactly, once again, Tommy raises an issue that wasn't being discussed so that he can decry anyone discussing it.
Tommy, nobody mentioned homophobia. The guy is a HYPOCRITE. The words start with the same letter, so maybe that's where you got confused. But please, in the future, try and keep up.
The story does ring of homphobia, only gay people have sex in bathrooms?
I don't see where you get homopobia out of this. Nobody is saying only gay people have sex in bathrooms. The point is if you are trolling for sex in a public restroom then you are obviously trolling for sex with someone of the same sex because that is who is in a public restroom. This man is one of many gay bashers in the republican party who obviously engages in gay sex...makes sense that people would be pointing to the proof of his hypocracy.
I do not disagree with you about the Republicans. The issue I see is it makes Gay people look like "deviants". It is the number one problem with closeted people like this , they smear an entire community .
I think you're hitting on the exact reason why the media should bring up the homosexual aspect of this story. It is because of the oppression and osticization (is that a word?) of homosexuals and homosexuality in our society, led proudly by the republican party, that people end up in these rediculous circumstances. The media needs to highlight this angle so that we might actually be able to have an honest, intellegent national discussion of this issue that is repeatedly coming up thanks to our hypocritical friends in the GOP.
"ostracization". It is a word, I just spelled it wrong.
I do not disagree with you, the story should be told, it is sad that in the year 2007 homosexuals are treated this way. What was sad to me is that there are many gay people treated poorly in this country becuase of Craigs way of thinking.
What did I say about grossly homophobic people, y'all?
In a news conference Senator Craig said:
I AM NOT GAY! And he is gay.
President Richard M. Nixon said:
I AM NOT A CROOK! And he was.
And Clinton said:
I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN!
Senator Craig being gay doesn't bother me at all, but I do have serious problems because of his passing laws against gays and pretending to be against his own sexual preferences. Pretending to be a family values Republican who votes against others rights. A Hipocrite of the highest order.
In my book Senator Craig is toast.
The list of Republican legislators to bite the dust is huge and still growing. Will it ever stop? What has gone wrong with the party of values, principles and religion. That's why I re-named them Republican'ts.
They Can't live up to their own values and demands on others.
In my book Senator Craig is toast.
Oh, I dunno. I suspect the fine Republicans of Idaho will be quite understanding the next time they go into a polling place.
Yes, his constituents might forgive and forget.
BUT:
Craig will be forced out by his fellow Republican legislators who have a fresh burning memory of losing control of the house and senate. A number of Republican senators have already asked him to resign.
I expect he will be making a farewell announcement soon, and voters will most likely install a new Republican gay man.
I'm kidding of course.
But if a senator is gay, I have absolutely no problem with that. Except for one thing. I'd want him or her to be from any political party other than RepubliCan't.
Because those RepubliCan'ts Can't seem to keep their feet in their own bathroom stalls.
Interestingly for someone who claimed he should have consulted an attorney, Craig pulled a play from the legal disavowal book by paying the fine and shutting the case. No open case, no more official investigation. That's called primo damage control, folks. Now he is free to control the story with little threat of further information coming out. Hey, he just made an honest mistake by pleading to something he didn't do!? Is that so hard to understand? Makes me feel sorry for his self-hating homophobic butt...hah!
FOX GAVE CRAIG ALOT OF COVERAGE TODAY TUES AUG 28TH .THE FACTOR/ HANNITY AND COLMES /GRETA /BUT ACTUALLY A YOUNG BEAUTY CONTESTANT GOT THE MOST COVERAGE ON THIS DAY FOR HER NERVOUS DISTORTED ANSWER TO A QUES THE POOR GIRL WAS OVERWHELMED BY.
Well it was an extremely tough question asked under stressful circumstance, I mean bright lights, high heels.
This just in: Craig is Fred Thompson's angry girlfriend.*
*apologies for bogus rumor
When will the madness stop?
Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) contends that, because he did not consult with a lawyer, he mistakenly pled guilty to a criminal charge of disorderly conduct that arose out of lewd conduct with an undercover police officer in a public men's restroom. Without the benefit of legal counsel, Sen. Craig obviously did not know his Miranda rights.
As a closeted gay Republican, Sen. Craig certainly was entitled to know that he had the right to impersonate Carmen Miranda.