How Did News Outlets Miss Senator's Arrest for Nearly 3Months?*liberal media alert*

How Did News Outlets Miss Senator's Arrest for Nearly Three Months?

By Joe Strupp

Published: August 28, 2007 1:38 PM ET

NEW YORK The revelation late Monday that Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested nearly three months ago for allegedly making sexual advances in a men's room raises the issue of how such an action could occur without the press reporting it.

Even Roll Call reporter John McArdle, who broke the story late Monday, admits he only received word of the arrest and subsequent guilty plea via a tip last week.



http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003632075


Typical liberal media bias. How come it's the Republicans who're allways the gay ones? With all the gays they have serving on capitol hill, they should court the gay vote.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Don't think he's gay, just more imaginative or experimental.

Sad though, he's old enough to do what he wants with a consenting adult.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He shouldn't have pled guilty. It doesn't seem like they have a case against him, just some shuffling around which could be interpreted many ways.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He's already pleaded guilty to the charge. He's another Ted Haggard, his fire & brimestone speaches against gays were merely a diversion.

 

Apparently that was on ongoing problem at that particular facility. That's why they had the plain clothes officer there in the first place. Public restrooms are becomming increasingly popular amongst gay males. Mostly those who're trying to hide that they're gay in the first place.

 

I know but there wasn't any copulation going on. Don't you find it disturbing that someone could get arrested for that?

 

I can understand where you're comming from. What law did he actually break?

 

I'm guessing, of course, but I have to think that it would be "solicitation" ...which is illegal in most states.

Baron Max

 

Yeah, and to think that they want the us to allow gays to marry and to adopt children!!

Baron Max

 

Yeah, I was wondering "Maybe he was just trying to get tp from the guy in the next stall." But since he pled guilty....

And he does have a history of behavior like this.

 

I just don't get these closet cases. I mean, the guy chose to plead guilty in order to avert scandal? That's not exactly logical. Then again, such seemingly warped logic may well be symptomatic of being in the closet. Hiding something like being gay brings enormous, often devastating pressures.

And if he really is gay, I can only imagine what it must be like trying to be homophobic at the same time. Talk about self-loathing ....

 

I have no way of knowing this for certain, but I'm willing to bet he probably plead guilty because someone told him it would never come out, and as a first offender the conviction could likely be expunged from his record (making it almost impossible for journalists to track down). Alas, not it's come out and the whole world knows.

I'm amazed Spider is actually preaching restraint here. I reckoned he would be dancing with glee. Regardless, Spider's argument is compelling, but ultimately, I'm forced to reject it. The cop was obviously looking for specific signs that signal specific intent and it appears the Senator gave them...

 

I haven't been through the Idaho expungement statutes, but either way, he should fire whoever gave him that advice.

 

How many gay Republican congressman is that now?

 

I agree, but it happens more often than you think. Local politicians, especially ones with clout, can keep something like that from getting out. Think of how few people know: The arresting officer, a few superiors, a DA or two. If they don't talk to the press and it goes to a judge and convicts and gives probation, in my state the record can be expunged for most misdemeanors, making it hard to run down. I speak from personal experience on this. I helped vet several candidates in a recent election here. It's a tough thing to do.

 

The arrest was in Minnesota, far from his home. No one advised him to plead to a lesser charge - he knew about that on his own. And it did work, for months.

The charges he faced were more serious, had he not pled.

If he didn't already have a history of attracting rumors and innuendo about his past behaviors, he might not have been outed - his name came up last fall, if not earlier, on the short list of gay-bashing Washington conservatives whose professed values seemed at odds with their temptations and proclivities.

I don't like undercover sting operations, on principle - they need very solid justification, to make up for the inevitable entrapments and absence of victim, and they seem to be a symptom or side effect of bad law. But it's people like Craig who have set up a society in which gay men of his generation - unfamilliar with the internet, apparently - resort to furtive meetings in bathrooms, and are targets of the law rather than citizens protected by it.

The rumor in Minneapolis is that the real reason some public restrooms near the upcoming Convention center are scheduled to be closed during the Convention is not "security" in the usual sense - which makes little sense -but to head off scandal.

 

I am confused. I thought it was just about sex? What's the big deal?

 

At what point? As near as I can tell, the charge seems to reflect an alleged offer to give, or request to receive a hand job in a public restroom. Had Craig chosen to contest the issue, he could have tried to laugh his way to an acquittal, and the jury may or may not have gone along; folks in Minneapolis are pretty cool.

Even though Craig, at the time of his arrest, made a point of who he was (apparently thinking the cops would say, "Oh, he's a federal politician, a celebrity of sorts, so we shouldn't arrest him"), the story stayed out of the news entirely until someone tipped off a reporter at his home state's foremost newspaper. This last point only makes the story seem even stranger.

On the other hand, if hitting on someone is an offense worthy of arrest, women need to make their voices heard; they regularly endure advances even more crude and aggressive.

 

Good point! This is why I'm not condeminng him for the act per say. I'm only outraged due to the hypocrisy of his actions. Back to your original point, I totally agree. Men are a 1000 times worst in this regard, that's why I'm confused as to why it's a crime.

 

There is a difference in "hitting on someone" and soliciting for an illegal sexual act in a public place, soliciting with the obvious intent to practice that act in said public place...