Larry Craig skates, dissembles through NBC interview

October 17, 2007

It’s hard to muster the will to mock Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) anymore. His story has been repeated, scrutinized, and pilloried in every possible way since the details of his bathroom arrest surfaced in August.

But now that Craig sat down with NBC’s Matt Lauer for an hour-long interview, aired last night, we get a chance to see whether the Idaho Republican has come up with a coherent explanation for the scandal that was supposed to ruin his career.

It was an unusually awkward interview, with Lauer simply unwilling to pursue Craig with any aggression at all. Consider this exchange:

Lauer: You know that there has to be thousands of people who have heard this story now, senator.

Craig: Sure.

Lauer: They’re trying to picture how this– you know, they’re flashing back to every time they’ve ever sat in a bathroom–

Craig: Oh, I know.

Lauer: –stall. And they’re trying to think, “Can that happen? How close are you actually to the guy next to you?” And this is that infamous wide stance, which I think what you actually said is, “I’m a wide guy,” is the actual quote you said. But– and they’re thinking, “It’s not that easy to touch the guy’s foot next to you.” And so, how could it have happened?

Craig: Well, as I– it didn’t happen.

Lauer didn’t follow-up, but that’s exactly the problem. We know from the police interview with Craig that the senator conceded at the time that his foot touched the officer’s foot in the next stall. When the officer noted that at the time, Craig said, “I won’t dispute that.” Now he’s arguing that the infamous foot-bump didn’t happen at all.

Indeed, the whole interview basically followed a simple pattern: Lauer struggled to politely bring up uncomfortable issues, and Craig struggled to politely respond with answers that didn’t make a lot of sense.

Tim Grieve did a nice job summarizing some of the less helpful questions Lauer posed.

* “I want to give you a chance to talk about what has been distorted. But let me take you back a little bit first, Senator, and — and, you know, this is your home. This was where you were raised, on a ranch. You went to school here, one-room schoolhouse. You were in the National Guard in Idaho. You got into politics here. You’ve served the people of Idaho in Washington — what? Thirty years now. What do you remember most about first going to Washington?”

* “So it sounds like you’re saying some of what goes on in Washington is a bit distasteful to you.”

* “You walked into that bathroom, Senator. Six minutes later, you were under arrest … and your career was in jeopardy, and your family life was in jeopardy. So how should we handle this? Do you want to tell me what happened?

* “Mitt Romney, John McCain, Peter Hoekstra, Mitch McConnell, and we have an expression in New York, they threw you under the bus … These are friends, weren’t they? … Well, doesn’t seem as if they are today.”

It’s almost as if Craig hand-picked his interviewer because he assumed Lauer wouldn’t push him too hard. And sure enough, it was softball city.

The whole fiasco is just, well, sad. It was disappointing that Lauer sat down with a scandal-plagued senator and declined to ask tough questions, but then again, maybe there’s no point to even trying. Craig couldn’t explain his behavior, couldn’t explain why he didn’t tell his wife about the incident, couldn’t explain why he never contacted an attorney, and couldn’t explain his guilty plea.

One wonders why he even bothered to agree to the interview in the first place.

It’s hard to muster the will to mock Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) anymore.

Wha-?!?

  • I saw a couple minutes of that interview last night. My gay-dar went off the charts and short circuited. Was Craig actually playing footsie with Matt Lauer during the interview? I mean, really… That was precious.

  • The guy is a fruitcake, so it’ll be hard for us to figure out his motivations for anything, frankly.

    I’ll bet Lavatory (“NOT GAY!”) Larry had some serious preconditions for that interview, but wouldn’t it be fun if Lauer had just blown them off the way Craig blew off his promises to resign? Not that I think he should resign, of course! Every day he stays in office is another day that the Republicans don’t get to make us all forget about Larry and what a bunch of hypocritical creeps they are.

  • The question that should have been asked is “Senator Craig, even assuming you are innocent, why should any of your constituents have any faith in you decision making abilities — especially if you made such a wrong, uniformed, panicked decision in this case?”

    At this point, I don’t care if Craig is gay or not, or even guilty or not for that matter. If he is innocent as he claims, he should then resign because in this instance he’s shown that his decision making skills are so lacking under fire. This should not only scare his constituents, but the US population at large.

  • Way to prove you’re “not” Gay, Larry.

    At this point I think the only way he could prove his hetroness is to screw his wife on national TV without sobbing uncontrollably. If one wants to recast the late lamented Arrested Development then I would cast Senator Larry Craig as Dr Tobias Funke. Only he could say his lines and mean it:
    “even if it means me taking a chubby, I will suck it up. ”
    “Okay, Lindsay, are you forgetting that I was a professional twice over – an analyst and a therapist. The world’s first analrapist.”

  • Harry Shearer at HuffPost made an interesting point that little would have been gained by pushing Craig hard, since he’s been roasted by the media pretty well already. By politely asking a long, long list of questions about his history, he “created an overall effect of so many dominoes leading to that inevitable and sad moment in that airport bathroom. “

  • Adversarial. Adversarial. Adversarial. Journalists, politicians are not your friends. An angry interviewee makes news.

  • Here’s an interesting take on the story. I was watching “Morning Joe” today, I know, shame on me, but it’s one of the few infomercial free channels at that time, and his side kick said after watching the interview he was more sympathic with Larry Craig. Apparently he did a pretty good job of explaining himself according to Joe’s side kick.

    Personally, I’m with you. I’m 50 years old and I’ve never even came close to any physical contact while sitting in a stall. It’s just not possible in my mind.

  • You know there’s something really wrong with America when Bush’s crimes are off the Democratic table for impeachment, and the Republicans are massing a lynching party to kick Larry Craig out of the Senate for, let’s see, foot tapping, peeking and finger waggling in the men’s room..

    I mean really, really wrong.

  • Personally, I’m with you. I’m 50 years old and I’ve never even came close to any physical contact while sitting in a stall. It’s just not possible in my mind.

    Dude … how many people have had any physical contact — accidental or otherwise — while in a men’s bathroom?

    Most of the times when I enter one, guys will only use every other urinal and/or stall — gotta have that buffer zone, ya know.

    (The exception being KC Chiefs games — then, you get whatever spot you can get because you never know when you’ll get another chance.)

  • When exactly does a US Senator ever have to make a decision “under fire”?

    It can be argued that they do so all the time. Every time they speak in public, and in private for that matter, their words matter. The things they decide to say and not say can make a big difference for them and all of us. One simple gaffe can not only ruin their careers, but can damage the whole party. And they’re expected to be “on” all the time, particularly if a video camera is around. With politics the way they are these days, politicians are always under fire.

    But beyond that, I don’t think this is just an issue about being “under fire.” For god’s sake, the man didn’t even tell his wife about the arrest and conviction until after he learned it was already going public. That’s pretty messed up. It’s obvious that he has a deep shame about the whole thing and it clouded his judgment entirely. This is not a man who can be trusted to make proper decisions, even when he’s had time to think about what he’s doing. But then again, he’s a Republican. He doesn’t have to make decisions. He just has to campaign well, raise money, say what he’s told to say, and vote the way he’s told to vote. That’s the GOP way.

  • Damn — I’m the em dash king, aren’t I?

    Just wanted to follow up by posting that:

    a.) Wasn’t trying to blast Jack S. at all. After re-reading, it came across like that. Sorry.

    b.) This whole things is a freaking joke anyway. I don’t care where people meet; as long as they’re not having sex in the bathroom, I’m not sure why meeting someone there for cost-free sex is any different than, say, visiting a bar. Well, except the lighting is better in the bathroom.

    c.) Craig, however, has done all this to himself, and his ego could hurt the entire GOP next year as Dems use it as an example of their hypocrisy. I kind of enjoy that, to be honest.

    That is all …

  • I’ve only heard pieces and parts of the Craig interview, but I am always amazed these kinds of interviews go forward as if the interviewer actually believes that his or her questioning is going to release a torrent of confession and truth. A good interviewer may not be able to get his subject to confess, but good questions can serve to elicit answers that serve the same purpose. Lauer is not, in my opinion, someone who has that ability – but someone like Craig, whose story is riddled with holes and inconsistencies probably didn’t need an expert questioner to make that obvious.

    I’ve kind of gotten to the point where I can’t give people a pass for lying in a situation like Craig put himself in. If he’s living a law-abiding life, not preying on or trolling for sex in public bathrooms, and he wants to pretend he’s not gay – I really don’t care. In his bedroom, in a hotel room – his business. In a public bathroom – not okay; the Larry Craigs are the reason parents fear their children going to the restroom by themselves.

    Pathetic and sad man, but he needs to face the truth about himself and stay out of public bathrooms.

  • I dub Senator Larry Craig as Senator Dick Smoker.

    And his “interview” with Lauer was simply not credible.

  • You know, there are times when I am embarrassed to be a part of the left. Almost every discourse concerning Larry Craig are one of those times. What do we get by mocking Larry Craig besides a nice dose of schedenfraude? At least this post CB doesn’t have the same frivolity about it. But so many posts on the left display an utter lack of understanding about different sexual identities (What the hell does gay mean? Is he gay? He has a wife, and children. He also likes to have *anonymous* sex with other men in bathrooms. This is certainly a more complex showing sexuality than can be expressed in our gay vs. straight world). No one seems bothered by the fact that the sting operation he was caught in seems targeted directly at entrapping homosexuals (I’m sorry that I am one of those people that think that some hand gestures and foot tapping probably shouldn’t constitute the ability to arrest someone, but I also know that it has for years. I also find it problematic that many of those captured were probably coerced into simply pleading guilty and paying money because that is what it means to be in the closet. Not bucking the system, regardless of how screwed up what is happening to you). Everyone keeps running around laughing and laughing. And when I ask the punch-line is, all I get is, “Hahahaha, he’s gay.” Forgive me for not getting the joke. I’ve never been one for laughing at people because they were gay. Of course, none of this behavior is homophobic! Of course not! We are on the left. We want to give them gay marriage! We want them to have rights. So ergo, laughing at Larry Craig isn’t one of the signs of parts of our homophobic culture catching up with us. No, we laugh because he is a hypocrite. Sure, but that hypocrisy comes from a place of fear, of confusion, of self-hatred, of double lives, and of worry. In short, it comes from a place that anyone who is gay in this culture has understood at some point or another. Especially those who have struggled with issues of sexual identity from the mid 20th century. It requires a strong sense of straight privilege to not at least of some sense of where this comes from, even if you condemn his action in the end.

    And we are good at pointing out the double standard on the side of the right when it comes to targeting Larry Craig and letting Vitter off the hook, but we never ask ourselves if it was simply hypocrisy that made the Craig story funny, why did we never have so many jokes at Vitter’s expense? Oh yeah, the punch line hahaha he is straight just isn’t as funny.

  • …the Republicans are massing a lynching party to kick Larry Craig out of the Senate for, let’s see, foot tapping, peeking and finger waggling in the men’s room.

    I understand why you wrote it that way, but that’s not why they wanted him out. They want him out because he has gay sex in bathrooms, and that’s a double whammy for their whole message. That’s the equivalent of a Democratic Senator getting caught at a Klan rally holding a “Nuke Mecca” sign while privatizing Social Security. Except it’s even worse. The whole Republican schtick is that they’re inherently better than Democrats because they’re all of high moral character, and thus deserve political office no matter what their policies are. Each Democrat runs on their own, but Republicans sell themselves as a package deal. And so for a longtime Republican Senator to be having gay bathroom sex and remain in the Senate, that puts a big hurt on their political messaging. After all, it’s kind of hard to attack Democrats as being the Party of Sodomy when they’ve got some of their own guys doing that in the bathroom. It’s like finding out that Bill Gates uses Linux.

    And let’s not forget, they didn’t successfully lynch Craig and he’s now getting the last laugh. Just like Clinton got the last laugh when they failed to finish him off; and how Bush would get the last laugh if we tried to impeach him and failed…which we probably would. But in any case, it’d be easier for Democrats to get rid of a Democratic president who did what Bush did than a Republican. That’s just standard politics. It’s just easier to take down someone in your own party. Sad, but true.

  • Scu: And when I ask the punch-line is, all I get is, “Hahahaha, he’s gay.”

    Uh, no. This one has multiple punchlines: Bathroom Sex, Republican Hypocrite, Horrible Excuses, and Republicans Screw Things Up Again. But the joke definitely isn’t that he’s gay. For example, if the whole bathroom sting hadn’t happened and this had simply been an issue of him outing himself for being gay, no Democrat would have attacked him for it; particularly not if he apologized for any anti-gay votes he may have had. But this was an issue of a longtime Republican who has made anti-gay votes getting caught cruising bathrooms for sex and then inventing laughable lies to hide the fact. That’s what the joke is. Added to that is that Republicans tried to get rid of the guy and it just made things worse for them. That’s simply hilarious. But again, this isn’t just a gay thing and he wouldn’t be attacked just for being gay.

    Oh, and I remember many Dems laughing about the Vitter thing too. That he supposedly wore diapers and that he was a strong Clinton basher back in the day, when he was doing worse things than what Clinton did. Don’t you remember that? Good times. It’s only Republicans who thought Craig’s actions were worse than Vitters. But we all got Vitter too. The only reason why this story is lasting longer is that he just won’t let it drop and keeps dragging things out.

  • Let me enlighten you on a few things, Scu –

    You characterize the police department as conducting a “sting” operation, and Craig himself has shouted “entrapment” more than a few times. But who initiated the contact? Craig was not approached by or solicited for sex by the officer. It was Craig outside the stall, looking in from close enough that the officer could tell what color his eyes were. I don’t have sons, but I am a mother, and I can tell you that I would not be happy about anyone looking into my child’s stall. And once in the stall, it was Craig who did all the signaling – not the cop – and again, if my son is in that stall, I don’t want some creep trying to make contact. When the officer showed Craig the badge, did he express confusion, or ask what the hell was going on? No, because he knew exactly what he had done. Explain to me, please, how solicitation by toe-tapping and hand signals is any different from walking up to someone and bluntly asking for sex?

    See, I don’t think Craig is funny, and I don’t think what Craig did was funny. The cops were in that bathroom because others had complained about being solicited for sex, and I’m guessing there were occasions when there was actually sexual activity taking place in that bathroom. They weren’t looking to snag Larry Craig, they were looking to put an end to what was going on in that bathroom. Silly me, but I think that people should have some kind of expectation of being able to use a public bathroom without being approached for sex or having to see or hear people having it.

    I also don’t think it’s funny that he lied. I don’t think it’s funny that he’s still lying. I don’t give a flying fig what his sexual orientation is, what his sexual needs are or what does and doesn’t ring his bell – in general, that’s his business, but when he goes public in search of sex, that’s something else.

    What Craig did wasn’t funny; that he is just one more member of the party of family values to get caught with his pants down isn’t so much funny as it is ironic.

  • Explain to me, please, how solicitation by toe-tapping and hand signals is any different from walking up to someone and bluntly asking for sex?

    If I do the latter, I’m not arrested … ?

    Don’t get me wrong — it’s Craig’s stunning hypocrisy that interests me. I just don’t see how or why someone loathes themselves that much.

    But unless, as some have claimed, actual sex was going on the bathroom as well, I still don’t see how this is any different than coming up to someone in a bar — or on the street, or at the library, or anywhere — and just asking if they want to have sex.

    Yes, it’s crass and unwelcome and socially unacceptable. But it’s not normally illegal.

  • Mark – I guess you’d have to know the law of the particular jurisdiction, and I will be the first to admit that I don’t.

    But maybe look at it this way: It’s a public bathroom in an airport, so it’s not like a bar, where people are there to drink and socialize and some are looking to get lucky. But this was not a bar, was it? We know that there had been complaints about that bathroom, so presumably, people were being approached for sex, and/or witnessed sexual acts – or heard them taking place in the stalls. Public sex is not legal. Public solicitation of sex is also not legal – but you could test that in a bar setting, if you wanted, by approaching random strangers and getting right to the point, but I couldn’t guarantee that if the person you approached was a cop you wouldn’t have some creative explaining to do.

    I know nothing about toe-tapping or hand signals – they obviously mean something, and perhaps were designed to avoid the solicitation aspect – but I do know that when I go into a public restroom, I should have an expectation that I will not be approached for sex, or peered at from outside the stall. I should also not have to see other people engaging in sex, or have to listen to it taking place in a stall.

    Imagine taking your young son to the bathroom, going in with him to help and make sure it isn’t completely gross and he keeps his hands off the toilet seat, etc., and while you are busy helping, you hear two guys getting it on in the next stall. “Daddy, what are they doing in there?” Aren’t you angry? Upset?

    No, Craig never got to that point, but the law probably says he didn’t have to in order to have been in violation.

    Yes, I agree that Larry Craig is a hypocrite of the highest order, and in my opinion, the bathroom aspect makes him a creep, too.

  • Larry Craig is a perfect example of the “Do As I Say And Not As I Do” way of life many of his party members seem to embrace. It’s all about a game of perfecting the art of lying, manipulation and deceit. And if you’re really good at it, on some level you actually begin to believe the lies your telling. It’s worked for a long time now. But I think, just maybe, some are finally getting wise.

  • The cops were in that bathroom because others had complained about being solicited for sex, and I’m guessing there were occasions when there was actually sexual activity taking place in that bathroom. They weren’t looking to snag Larry Craig, they were looking to put an end to what was going on in that bathroom. Silly me, but I think that people should have some kind of expectation of being able to use a public bathroom without being approached for sex or having to see or hear people having it.

    You’re kidding, right? What the hell was all the foot tapping and finger-wagging about if people were walking around brazenly reguesting gay sex in a bathroom? An AIRPORT bathroom! Have you flown in the past decade? These aren’t unpoliced dive bars down by the docks. There was no one going around like a junkie begging for spare change or offering bj’s for a rock. There were just terrified gay/bi men shamed into finding sexual partners in a bathroom stall.

    There are two issues: 1) what the hell was Craig doing there; and, 2) what the hell were undercover vice squad doing there. This whole thing stems (in part) from a bunch of homophobes in uniforms (or in public office) deciding to catch people who are too afraid of homophobes to come out and go to the gay bar. Maybe not those particular officers, but someone, somewhere, said to themselves, “what? Gay guys having sex? Can we arrest them for something?” and then put tax dollars and police resources into a sting operation. Incredible. Outrageous.

  • Imagine taking your young son to the bathroom, going in with him to help and make sure it isn’t completely gross and he keeps his hands off the toilet seat, etc., and while you are busy helping, you hear two guys getting it on in the next stall. “Daddy, what are they doing in there?” Aren’t you angry? Upset?

    Your comparison is invalid because that’s not what happened. If it had, I don’t think there’d be much of an issue.

    Yes, it is much different than a bar. But again, simply asking someone for sex –without offering money or anything else in exchange — is not illegal. Sorry, but it’s not.

    Sure, someone may get punched in the face, kicked in the groin, or a drink thrown in their face. But simply asking a stranger “Want to do it?” is not, in and of itself illegal.

    If it were, there’d be no fraternity houses. Anywhere.

    🙂

    And please, don’t get me wrong — I am not saying your position is invalid. I understand 100% where you’re coming from. And I certainly am not the type of guy to defend a crooked Republican.

    I just honestly think, as other have pointed out, that this sting operation targeted gay men because many think gay sex is icky.

    Just my 2¢ … keep the change.

  • Scu,

    On entrapment…just how far should the officer have allowed Craig to go before he could arrest him?
    Would soul kissing have been enough? Would the cop have to drop trou? Can we give the assigned cops a well deserved raise?

    Mark D
    simply asking someone for sex –without offering money or anything else in exchange — is not illegal. Sorry, but it’s not.

    Isn’t it?
    Asking for sex for money isn’t illegal either.
    But the undercover cop offering it isn’t required to allow the prospective John to penetrate her before he gets hauled in, right?

    Sodomy and adultery laws (pre-marital, not just married, is covered in most states) would make the asking into proof of intent in most bar scenes as well if it were ENFORCED, I’d wager. At what point could they drop the charade and take you downtown?

  • But unless, as some have claimed, actual sex was going on the bathroom as well, I still don’t see how this is any different than coming up to someone in a bar — or on the street, or at the library, or anywhere — and just asking if they want to have sex. -Mark D

    Simple. You can leave the bar to go to a private place. You can’t leave the airport on a layover. Thus the solicitation implies the act was to follow immediately.

  • Simple. You can leave the bar to go to a private place. You can’t leave the airport on a layover. Thus the solicitation implies the act was to follow immediately.

    Interesting … never thought of it that way.

    Asking for sex for money isn’t illegal either.

    Depends on the state. In Missouri, the mere mention of something in exchange for sex is technically illegal. Which, of course, would make most marriages problematic …

    😉

    Listen, I still don’t think asking someone else if they want to have sex is that big of deal. Seriously. I don’t.

    Of course, I think legalized prostitution and drugs would remedy quite a few problems and root for the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals, so what the hell do I know?

    🙂

  • evmak asks- Why did Craig go back to Washington D.C. after the arrest? Did he fly to the Minnesota airport just to use the toilet!!?? His” innocent” use of that men’s room sounds very suspicious to say the least! Or, did I read incorrect reports on the computer that he returned to Washington D.C. after he was released from the arrest?

    • Comments are closed.