The police and the prosecutor charged him with two crimes. His second crime, that which he plead to, was a disturbing the peace generic admission. It was not an admission of homosexuality, homosexual intent and so forth. The recording of the interaction between the officer and Senator Craig bear that out.
Senator Craig was under the gun by his local paper—the editor of which was a liberal type who previously worked at the St. Paul Paper. They were looking for evidence he was a homosexual and had rumors only. Of course, if he was charged with the same, he was finished as viable Senate candidate.
The officer claimed Senator Craig would remain anonymous since he would not contact the press. Those that are so smart to second guess Senator Craig and counsel might also tell us who called the Washington DC blogger that broke this story.
Conservatives, IMHO, are far too quick to demand resignation or worse for those who have or look like they have participated or want to participate in some homosexual act. Since male homosexuality (point prevalence) is 4%, this means about 1 in 20 are open to Republican scorn and punishment.
Thus far, when the RATS want to dispose of a Republican office holder they either charge racism or sexual impropriety. We do the rest.
In the meantime, the RATS have unequivocal homosexual Congressmen. They also have a former President who solicited fellatio from a 21 year old female intern. In both instances public opinion remained unchanged or actually (in Clinton’s case) soared.
If you truly believe that you do not want homosexuals to serve in Congress—simply include such a prohibition in the Party Platform.
Your list of technicalities aside, which of the following do you dispute, or disagree with?
a) Larry Craig is a homosexual
b) Larry Craig wishes to deceive the conservative (putatively, anti-homosexual) voters who elected him, by hiding (and denying) his homosexuality
c) Larry Craig did, in fact, engage in the behavior documented by a police officer in Craig's arrest report
d) Sen. Craig engaged in this behavior because he was, in fact, soliciting gay sex from a total stranger in a public place, namely, a men's room
e) Citizens have an expectation of entering a men's room to relieve themselves without being solicited for gay sex by a pervert; therefore, it is reasonable to make and enforce laws against such behavior
f) Whether or not it's illegal, soliciting gay sex from strangers in a men's room is not acceptable behavior from a senator, whether said senator is openly gay or not
g) Senator Craig, as a lawmaker, is well versed in matters of law and is of normal or above average intelligence
h) Senator Craig was caught in an offense, arrested for it, arraigned, and voluntarily pled guilty
Since male homosexuality (point prevalence) is 4%, this means about 1 in 20 are open to Republican scorn and punishment.
Games with statistics. I find that as a profession, psychs have always played fast and loose with stats... it's all they have, really. First of all, you state matter-of-factly that 4% of males are homosexual; I don't agree and neither does this source, which can only put the number at somewhere between 1% and 10% with the caveat that "Measuring the prevalence of homosexuality is difficult because there is a lack of reliable data".
Even so, suppose for the sake of argument we use your 4%; that's not "about 1 in 20", as you say, but exactly 1 in 25! Why did you feel the need to use an egregious math error to overstate even your already overstated percentage by another 20%?
Makes me wonder who you're carrying water for, and why.
Your list of technicalities aside, which of the following do you dispute, or disagree with?
a) Larry Craig is a homosexual
b) Larry Craig wishes to deceive the conservative (putatively, anti-homosexual) voters who elected him, by hiding (and denying) his homosexuality
c) Larry Craig did, in fact, engage in the behavior documented by a police officer in Craig's arrest report
d) Sen. Craig engaged in this behavior because he was, in fact, soliciting gay sex from a total stranger in a public place, namely, a men's room
e) Citizens have an expectation of entering a men's room to relieve themselves without being solicited for gay sex by a pervert; therefore, it is reasonable to make and enforce laws against such behavior
f) Whether or not it's illegal, soliciting gay sex from strangers in a men's room is not acceptable behavior from a senator, whether said senator is openly gay or not
g) Senator Craig, as a lawmaker, is well versed in matters of law and is of normal or above average intelligence
h) Senator Craig was caught in an offense, arrested for it, arraigned, and voluntarily pled guilty
Since male homosexuality (point prevalence) is 4%, this means about 1 in 20 are open to Republican scorn and punishment.
Games with statistics. I find that as a profession, psychs have always played fast and loose with stats... it's all they have, really. First of all, you state matter-of-factly that 4% of males are homosexual; I don't agree and neither does this source, which can only put the number at somewhere between 1% and 10% with the caveat that "Measuring the prevalence of homosexuality is difficult because there is a lack of reliable data".
Even so, suppose for the sake of argument we use your 4%; that's not "about 1 in 20", as you say, but exactly 1 in 25! Why did you feel the need to use an egregious math error to overstate even your already overstated percentage by another 20%?
Makes me wonder who you're carrying water for, and why.