Video: Larry Craig – “I’m not gay!”

By Friday August 31, 2007



91 Comments
  1. Mister Mustard says:
    9/2/2007 at 11:47 am

    >>Also, please ask yourself if you think this situation would be playing
    >>out the same way if it had been straight sex.

    No, probably not. But very few politicians spend their entire career trying to implement a constitutional ban against heterosexual marriage, voting against a bill to make hate crimes against heterosexuals illegal, or denying their own sexual orientation. Although if Craig had his way, it would have “played out the same way” with Bill Clinton, even though he never did anything illegal with Monica (unless that cigar was illegally imported from Cuba).

    As I say, it’s the hypocrisy. If you want to suck dick, fine; just don’t spend your life and political career railing against the immorality of sucking dick.

    Reply
  2. Misanthropic Scott says:
    9/2/2007 at 12:21 pm

    MM,

    In any case, gay sex should be legal, and anyone who tries to legislate it into criminality while engaging in it on the sly should be illegal.

    Actually, I go one step further on this than you. I don’t care whether someone engages in gay sex on the sly. Denying one’s oath of office and legislating against the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should be illegal. The hypocrisy makes it worse. However, it’s bad even without the hypocrisy. The man is in violation of his oath as an elected official.

    Reply
  3. Mister Mustard says:
    9/2/2007 at 12:31 pm

    >>I don’t care whether someone engages in gay sex on the sly.

    I don’t care if they do either. As I said, it’s the hypocrisy of the neocon “family values” assholes that I object to.

    Other than that, I agree with you.

    Good riddance, Larry. I hope you can get “the cure”, like Ted Haggard.

    Reply
  4. Mr. Fusion says:
    9/2/2007 at 2:15 pm

    #77, MM

    Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick without any undies !!! Ya effen moran.

    Maybe if you took the time to read the police report (http://tinyurl.com/2ezr89), you would realize that this is what the undercover police officer reported that Craig said to him IN THE FUCKING BATHROOM, not during the post-arrest interrogation.

    From the CNN report.

    When the police interviewed him later, the senator said that “he has a wide stance when going to the bathroom” and that was why his foot may have touched the officer’s, the report said.

    That statement does not appear in the police report. What does appear is

    In a post Miranda interview, Craig stated the following:

    - He is a commuter

    He went into the bathroom

    He was standing outside the stall for 1-2 minutes waiting for the stall

    - He has a wide stance when going to the bathroom and that his foot may have touched mine

    He reached down … snip …

    …During the interview, Craig either disagreed with me or “didn’t recall” the events as they happened.

    Now read that carefully. Craig didn’t say it. THE COP SAID IT. The cop wrote down HIS INTERPRETATION of what Craig said during the interview. In fact the cop even admits Craig disagreed what the cop said. So what was said in the interview? Well pumpkin, either read the transcript (provided above) or listen to it, it is also provided on several sites so look it up yourself.

    Reply
  5. Mr. Fusion says:
    9/2/2007 at 2:19 pm

    #77, MM

    Guess what, Pumpkin, there are no rumors of my gayness.

    That post was directed at Lauren the Ghoti, not you. The statement about his “gayness” was exactly as it reads. A point. I neither know nor care about Lauren’s sexual orientation, that is his and his alone business. Although as I say that, I have no reason to question or claim to know one way or the other but I do reserve the right to think I do whenever he pisses me off.

    However, now that your rabid homophobia is out in the open, your vehement denial, your love of god and fellow man, your pseudomasculine moniker, …

    Anyone up on how Pastor Ted is getting along?

    Reply
  6. Mr. Fusion says:
    9/2/2007 at 2:28 pm

    #78, M&M

    OJ’s guilt? I don’t know. I don’t have all the facts any more than do all those yahoos screaming he got away with it. I do know there was sufficient evidence presented at trial that had been tampered with to seriously question the rest of the evidence.

    If you have no problem with convicting people on phony, fabricated, tainted, perjured, and or misleading evidence then sure, you must think he is guilty. Personally, however, I have a difficult time with that. And the jury in his trial agrees with my position.

    Reply
  7. Mister Mustard says:
    9/2/2007 at 3:01 pm

    >>As I posted above, some reporter wrote it.

    >>Now read that carefully. Craig didn’t say it. THE COP SAID IT.

    Gee, Fuster, you’re even more confused than Craig. I hope you at least know to call a lawyer if you’re arrested!

    >However, now that your rabid homophobia is out in the open

    Heh heh heh. Good one. I guess you have as much trouble reading and understanding posts on this blog as you do police reports.

    >>And the jury in his trial agrees with my position.

    Only one of the trials, Pumpkin. In the other one, the jury unanimously declared that Simpson was guilty of killing his wife and her “friend”, and ordered him to pay $8,500,000.00 in compensatory damages, and later to pay $25,000,000.00 in punitive damages to the families of his wife and “friend”. I guess they didn’t buy the “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit” defense theory.

    In any case, WIde Stance admitted his guilt, thinking the conviction could be swept under the rug. Bad choice, Lar. Just like trying to go for a quick gay blow job between flights, after spending a life bashing gays and their lifestyle.

    Reply
  8. Mr. Fusion says:
    9/2/2007 at 8:43 pm

    #87, M&M,

    Still playing stupid. Please, read this slowly. I wrote it very slowly just for you.

    The cop wrote the report. He wrote it from memory.

    The cop didn’t quote Craig, he summarized the interview in his own words, including the “wide stance”.

    The reporter wrote that Craig actually said “he has a wide stance”.

    Nowhere in the interview transcript does the term “wide stance” come up.

    You still want to claim that “wide stance” bit was actually said by Craig.

    If you have any evidence that Craig is gay then please, present it. Otherwise, just shut the fuck up. Evidence does not include rumor, innuendo, or wishful thinking. Since this story broke a week ago, not one person has come forward to say he has had a gay encounter with Craig.

    You are still an effen moran. I apologize to all the other effen morani out there that I have inadvertently grouped in with M&M.

    *

    OJ Simpson was found not guilty by ONE jury. The one jury that counted. That other trial? His guilt wasn’t at issue there. It was a civil trial, not a criminal trial. Was that trial a travesty? Probably. That, however, is a whole other topic.

    *

    M&M, where do you get these wild fanciful ideas? You know they are bullshit but keep harping on them. Do yourself a favor and give it up. So far you have picked niggling little arguments with most of the regulars at DU. For the life of me, I just don’t understand how you can insist you are right when cited facts are put right in front of you repeatedly.

    Reply
  9. Greg Allen says:
    9/2/2007 at 9:39 pm

    BobH wrote >> You’ve led a sheltered life. Add some spice: try “under the boardwalk”… or did you think they were singing about another matter? That’s odd, the rest of us understood the lyric so well it made the top 10 in 1964.

    I guess I did think that song was more about making-out than actual sex but I haven’t really given it much thought. I did a quick check of the lyrics and it does say “on a blanket… falling in love” rather than “under a blanket making love.”

    Sheltered or not … I strongly believe that a 7 year old boy should not have to see Republicans giving each other blow jobs when he has to use the bathroom.

    I take if from your posts that you’ve probably had a blow job or two in a men’s room. So, I have to ask.. .why in a public place? Why not “get a room” as someone else here suggested? Or at least a very out-of-the way place?

    I, personally, find anonymous sex unappealing but I don’t think it should be illegal or anything like that.

    But why do you support doing it where children (or me, for that matter) can run into it and distress them?

    Reply
  10. Mister Mustard says:
    9/2/2007 at 10:00 pm

    >>You still want to claim that “wide stance” bit was actually
    >>said by Craig.

    Sure I do, because the cop SAID he did, in his bulleted list of claims provided in his report.

    >>Since this story broke a week ago, not one person has come
    >>forward to say he has had a gay encounter with Craig.

    A number of people came forward even BEFORE the gay-sex airport bust and said they had had “gay encounters” with Craig. I guess he got smarter in his old age; anonymous sex is, by definition, anonymous. The participants don’t typically exchange business cards. And it’s not like the average out-of-state gay cruiser would know who Craig was just by looking at him (or looking at his dick).

    >>OJ Simpson was found not guilty by ONE jury. The one
    >>jury that counted.

    Oooh, you free-thinking, bohemian, nonconformist maverick, you! You’re probably the only person in the Western world who believes that OJ didn’t kill his wife and her “friend”. (Not whether there were technical fuckups during the trial, or if Mark Fuhrman was an asshole or not, but if he actually killed her). Congrats!

    >>Do yourself a favor and give it up. So far you have picked
    >>niggling little arguments with most of the regulars at DU.

    For the most part, the ones I have “niggling little arguments” with are the assholes.

    Take that for what it’s worth.

    Reply
  11. Misanthropic Scott says:
    9/3/2007 at 6:52 am

    #89 – Greg Allen,

    Sheltered or not … I strongly believe that a 7 year old boy should not have to see Republicans giving each other blow jobs when he has to use the bathroom.

    That could be corrected with real walls and doors for our stalls, like the civilized world has.

    Personally, I would have shortened your sentence though. I’d have left it as:

    I strongly believe that a 7 year old boy should not have to see Republicans.

    They’re just sooooo repulsive!! I couldn’t resist. Actually, I think that among the constituency, many are just horribly misguided. Among the actual politicians though, they have long since thrown away any semblance of the old Republican ideals. I’m not really for those ideals either. But, they were never as repugnant as the current Republican platform. Back then, they just wanted small government and unbridled capitalism so that the rich could get richer at the expense of the poor. They still like that, but have added much that is even worse.

    Reply

« Older Comments

Leave a Response


Bad Behavior has blocked 23824 access attempts in the last 7 days.