And, Barry Finn,
You made some excellent points, which most people weighing in on this story seem to miss.

No, it's not really hard to understand why, when threatened with having to stand trial on a much more serious charge -- with all the publicity that would inevitably bring for a Senator --, Craig might plead guilty to misdemeanor "disturbing the peace."

(You're right. It's a rotten system, where who knows how many poor unknown folks end up doing some time and paying some fines for offenses they didn't commit, because they
can't afford good lawyers and (rightly) fear the consequences of fighting more serious charges and losing.)

But I disagree as to whether Craig's "crime" should have been one. Not all laws are just, and IMO making a lewd suggestion to a stranger should be, at most, a matter for the civil courts (e.g., if the 'victim' can prove "emotional duress" or the like). As long as fornication is not a crime, offering it or asking for it should not be, either. (What's unclear to me -- as an outsider to the "code" for gay male "cruising" -- is whether Craig's actions were clearly an invitation to engage in PUBLIC sexual conduct. If not, where's the crime?)

What makes Craig look like a sleazebag to me, and unfit for public office, is that a) he can't keep his story consistent, b) his "explanation" defies credulity, and c) even in denying his "guilt," he continues to denigrate homosexuals and to conflate what he is accused of doing with "being gay."