On the other hand, which I didn’t personally get out of the article but the Dr. mentions above in a subsequen tpost, I can well see the argument as quite valid that gays and his constituents specifically and by extension the general public are owed such for his hypocrisy, and that was exactly my argument that that’s not the same as apologizing for cruising – it’s apologizng for being a hypocrite. Valid argument. So I agree with the Dr. up above re that count, at least in some portion, I have mixed feelings on what details one can or should “expect” morally (as opposed to politically).

Although I would posit something that I feel should be considered – he may not be a hypocrite whatsoever. He may well feel that the laws he espouses SHOULD be applied to him, that his bisexual or homosexual or whatever tendencies he knows are “wrong” and he wants these laws because he wants himself and all like him to be “stopped.” I think there’s more people living that life, either for self-hating or even (certainly rarely) non-self-hating reasons, than we probably realize. In general, lots of people support laws because they know without them they’d break them themselves or they simply do already and hope that the laws dissuade others – addicts, speeders (as in fast drivers), etc. I don’t feel that way in most scenarios, being generally more libertarian. But it isn’t inherently hypocritical of a person who speeds to believe that there should be speeding limits, or, rather, to the extent it is I’m not sure I’d feel comfortable in judging them that way, to put it a bit differently (and this is not from my experience – I don’t even drive despite being middle-aged!).

Anyway, the whole thing strikes me as amazingly naive (best case) or desperate and stupid panic (more likely IMHO) on his part, whereas although Dr. Estes points out maybe he has gotten away with this before (good thought!), the thing was on public record, however buried. The part that gets me here, to be specific, is that he knows that legal counsel is more likely, even, to honor their commitments of confidentiality, he knows how to get a hold of a lawyer, obviously, and at the least you’d think he’d have contacted one to see if he could get the records sealed or whatever else, SOME sort of defense.

You know what they say – sometimes criminals want to be caught, and sometimes people want to be outted. Maybe part of him wanted the exposure, perhaps in his case for the punishment as opposed to really coming out. Not all such folk are like Robert Bauman and accept their lives once outted.

Ah well now I’m on a tangent.

There is an interesting op-ed piece in the NYT, which mentions “the breastplate of righteousness” that some closeted gay men use to protect themselves.

I also couldn’t care less about the sexual proclivities of my government officials, other than it is between consenting adults.

But Craig acquired/kept his power by actively working to inhibit the rights of some Americans because of their sexual practices, all the while evidently partaking of them, himself. So, blah.

Also curious is all the criticism that John Edwards gets from the Right for his $$ foofey haircut & alleged mincing ways.

Re Statesman: It’s antiquated Tammany Hall politics, that idea of caroming blame onto another in order to gain time to ‘fix’ one’s own position—and to garner support from those who dislike the caromee.

I wondered what others thought of this?
I did listen to the audio of the Sergeant interviewing the Senator, and asked one of my PI colleagues to listen too. We both noted the interrogating officer said he wasn’t the kind to turn such matters over to the media.

That the audio was released instead of sealed, may indicate that despite Senator’s status, he didn’t have a legal friend in their world to call upon… or else inflated beyond the beyond, thought this incident so trivial it didn’t matter… or else, has been in this situ with the law before and has managed to ‘buy it/ seal it away,’ and it had not yet come back to the surface….?

Cosmoetica: You asked if anything other than, would be expected. Not sure I’d ‘expect,’ but I hold out for the possibility that a politico will shed the self-flattening armor. Perhaps in this case, the subject was born without affect. But probably not; it appears invented.

Jilly, my word, Caw! indeed. Says it all.

zornwill: I agree with you that apology to wife/inner circle’s not public. To me, it’s not whether Senator is gay, bisexual or other. But, it’s related to this: He’s voted vociferously against gays enjoining the same rights he enjoys. Reflecting on that division/ harm, is missing. Instead, he offers “dog ate my homework,” equivalency. I’m sympathetic to Craig’s angst to protect. But, the way out, is not the way back in.
dr.e.

Also, whether briefly or not, he did attempt to use his position as a US Senator to get out of the arrest .US taxpayers have a right to expect more out of our public servants than someone who prowls for anonymous gay sex in a public restroom, lies to the officer about his conduct, attempts to use his position to avoid charges, covers up the incident by quietly pleading guilty and saying nothing to Idahoans about it, and then blatantly lies about it when the story airs. Even worse was his attempt to deflect blame to the Statesman. I guess blaming the liberal, biased MSM has now become a standard tactic for Republicans caught up in various scandals.

The airport sting caught 41 people, and I’m sure none of them had the resources available to Craig. For once, justice was equal under the law.