Why did no one make a big deal about the fact that Sen. Larry Craig apparently tried to use his status as a senator to bribe his way out of the charge?
From the Washington Post
According to the police report, at about noon on June 11, Craig tried to solicit an undercover officer in an adjoining stall, using signals "used by persons wishing to engage in lewd contact," including tapping his toes, moving his foot over to touch the officer's foot and swiping his left hand under the stall divider.Eventually, the officer flashed his police identification and escorted Craig away. Later, in the interview room, Craig pulled out a business card that identified him as a U.S. senator, and said, "What do you think about that?"
Isn't that rather more serious than cruising in a restroom?
Why isn't Senator David Vitter facing the same kind of ethical scrutiny after having engaged the services of prostitutes? Does sex stuff only count if it is same-sex? (Oh yeah, note that Sen. Larry Craig's replacement will be appointed by a conservative Republican governor, whereas Vitter would be replaced by a Democratic Governor. The Republicans dumped Craig because politically they could afford to.)
And how about Tucker Carlson committing an assault on a guy who solicited him for sex.
CARLSON: But it's also -- but it's evidence, in Larry Craig's case -- I mean, you know, you just watch the press conference, and you see a man who's not in possession of himself. I mean, there's something -- you know, I'm not a shrink, but there's clearly something wrong with Larry Craig. He appeared to believe it. This is a guy who's been accused repeatedly over the years of soliciting sex from men in bathrooms. So the chances that he's arrested for the same thing accidentally --ABRAMS: Right, right, right.
CARLSON: What, he's the unluckiest man and he's Job?
SCARBOROUGH: Hey, Tucker?
CARLSON: You know what I mean? It's insane!
SCARBOROUGH: Was he the guy in Georgetown, Tucker?
CARLSON: No, actually. I got that -- my point is -- let me just say --
ABRAMS: Tucker, what did you do, by the way? What did you do when he did that? We got to know.
CARLSON: I went back with someone I knew and grabbed the guy by the -- you know, and grabbed him, and -- and --
ABRAMS: And did what?
CARLSON: Hit him against the stall with his head, actually!
But then Tucker changes his story:
UPDATE: Media Matters received the following statement from Tucker Carlson by email from an MSNBC spokeswoman:Let me be clear about an incident I referred to on MSNBC last night: In the mid-1980s, while I was a high school student, a man physically grabbed me in a men's room in Washington, DC. I yelled, pulled away from him and ran out of the room. Twenty-five minutes later, a friend of mine and I returned to the men's room. The man was still there, presumably waiting to do to someone else what he had done to me. My friend and I seized the man and held him until a security guard arrived.
Several bloggers have characterized this is a sort of gay bashing. That's absurd, and an insult to anybody who has fought back against an unsolicited sexual attack. I wasn't angry with the man because he was gay. I was angry because he assaulted me.
—R.C.
He gets grabbed, and then comes running back 25 minutes later? With a friend? First he says he hits him against the stall with his head and then he says that they seized and held him. Which was it?
While I certainly deplore and do not condone forcing one's attentions on anyone, I also believe that reacting violently is completely wrong unless their is the threat of violence.
As an example, years ago, I was doing support at a doctor's office and the manager (a woman, by the way), came behind me, and put her hands on my hips. At first I though it was basically, "Don't back up - I am here." but she said, "Whoo! Michael must be wearing tight pants so we can check out his buns!" So, would I therefore have been justified in hitting her like Carlson did to the guy who hit on him.
I don't consider myself to be particularly attractive, so it sort of mystified me. I do get annoyed when someone I am not interested in invades my personal space or gets too familiar. My usual way to resolve it is to withdraw or change the subject.
So, if straight guys can physically fight back against unwanted advances from other guys, are they prepared to get the same thing from women who don't appreciate the advances that the straight guys make? Is it because straight guys think that they have license to be sexual aggressors and no one else can be? Should the women who were hit on by Bill O'Reilly entitled to fight back in the same way that Tucker Carlson did?
Leave a comment