Posted on 08/31/2007 2:04:37 PM PDT by freedomdefender
"When, in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes, I all alone beweep my outcast state," wrote Shakespeare. Sen. Larry Craig knows today whereof the bard spoke.
Rarely has a United States senator fallen so fast from grace or been so completely abandoned.
As the nation now knows, Craig was arrested in June in an airport men's room in Minneapolis, charged with propositioning an undercover cop, who was on duty there because the place had become notorious.|
According to the officer, Craig, in the next stall, flashed known signals of a man seeking anonymous and immediate sex.
Rather than fight the charge, Craig pleaded guilty to a disorderly conduct misdemeanor. This week, the story exploded and Craig is fighting what appears a losing battle for his career and reputation.
In a statement carried nationally, he declared his innocence of any allegation of immoral conduct. I did nothing wrong, I am not gay, he said again and again.
Yet it requires a suspension of disbelief to accept the complete innocence of Sen. Craig. After all, he pleaded guilty, and for years similar rumors have swirled about him. The Idaho Statesman has produced a tape of a man who claims to have had a recent sexual encounter with Craig in a men's room at Union Station in Washington, D.C.
Craig denies all and calls the Statesman investigation of his private life, going all the way back to college days, a witch hunt. In his favor, after 300 interviews, the Statesman came up with nothing solid save the Union Station allegation and the airport incident.
As ever, such episodes reveal almost as much about the accusers as about the accused. Reveling in Craig's disgrace, the liberal media not only cast the first stone, but most of them. They are mocking Craig as a family-values hypocrite who indulges privately in conduct he publicly condemns. But even assuming Craig has led a second and secret life, would that automatically make him a hypocrite, a fraud, an Elmer Gantry?
Is there no possibility a man can believe in traditional morality, yet find himself tempted to behavior that morally disgusts him? Is it impossible Craig is driven by impulses, the biblical "thorn in the flesh," of which Paul wrote, to behavior he almost cannot control?
Why else would a United States senator take the incredible risk of disgracing himself and humiliating his family, and ending his career, for a few minutes of anonymous sex in an airport men's room?
Is every alcoholic who falls off the wagon a hypocrite if he has tried to warn kids of the evil of alcohol? Many men have tried to live good lives and fallen again and again. They are called sinners.
Yet, if the charges are true, and it appears they are, Larry Craig has worse personal problems than his impending loss of office.
And how have his colleagues responded?
Republicans immediately denounced him, stripped him of all his seniority rights, and ordered an ethics committee investigation and a study of whether more immediate action should be taken.
Sens. John McCain and Norm Coleman called on him to resign. "(W)hen you plead guilty to a crime, you shouldn't serve," said McCain, adding, "That's not a moral stand."
Sorry, but the morality here is far more relevant than the admitted misdemeanor. If Craig had pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct for punching out an obnoxious heckler, he would not be friendless today.
The silence of most Democrats is understandable. If you belong to a party that declares homosexuality a moral lifestyle, that perhaps should be elevated to the level of matrimony, then what would Craig be guilty of, other than being horribly indiscreet?
Up to this week, Craig was one of only two senators to have come out for Mitt Romney. He headed up the Romney campaign in Idaho. He vouched for Mitt in Congress and the country.
And Mitt wasted no time throwing his Idaho chairman under the bus, adding he deserved it: "Once again, we've found people in Washington have not lived up to the level of respect and dignity that we would expect for somebody that gets elected to a position of high influence. Very disappointing. He's no longer associated with my campaign."
Larry Craig's conduct "reminds us," said Mitt, "of Mark Foley and Bill Clinton ... of the fact that people who are elected to public office continue to disappoint, and they somehow think that if they vote the right way on issues of significance or they can speak a good game, that we'll just forgive and forget."
"And frankly, it's disgusting."
That Mitt was decisive, that he was a "good butcher," as a prime minister must be, said Asquith, is undeniable. This speaks well of Mitt's executive intolerance of failures and failing. But one did not hear much here in the way of compassion for Larry Craig or his family.
Some senators, like Chris Dodd, cut Larry Craig some slack and asked that we hear him out before sentence is passed.
Count your friends when you're down, Nixon always advised.
Well said, Pat.
That would be the Party of being Frank.
imho, horribly indiscreet in a gay bar is one thing. in a public bathroom in a busy airport is quite another.
Craig would be more believeable if he hadn’t been accused of having sex with Senate Pages in 1982 and had to deny he was gay back then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RntWGPEjoo
Every comment on Cavuto just now doubted his guilt. Ben Stein called police actions gestapo. I, for one, would be glad to see Craig stand up to what Michael Savage calls the gay Maffia in Congress. Who is it that generted this media event two months later? Probably the same creeps that assassinated Mark Foley and then dragged him through the mud for two weeks.
What if Craig were to just switch parties. If he were a Democrat?
To be fair to the cops, we don’t want this kind of stuff allowed in public restrooms. However, are “stings” the only way to stop it? Why not just a sign saying “no inappropriate behavior. Violators will be prosecuted.” If a cop has time to sit, plainclothed, in a stall, couldn’t he just stand in the bathroom, in his uniform? That would end the shenanigans more surely than sting operations.
But then if the sorry dems are comfortable having a senator among them who left to drown in his automobile a young woman with whom he was having an extramarital affair…need I say more.
I applaud Romney’s abrupt severance of association with Craig. But his statements are ICE COLD, and I think it’s horrible. Dismiss the man—I think Craig should resign immediately—but there’s no need to push him to the floor and go Goodfellas on him. Alas, though, Willard was trying to advance himself by this affair.
The only man more concerned with advancing himself by every/any circumstance that I have seen is Slick Willy. Slick Willard is just such an opportunist, and conservatives should be VERY wary.
As a recovering alcoholic whose personal behavior did not always match my personal beliefs, I have to agree with Pat on this count. Indeed, here on FR I've stated that IMHO, alcoholism is like homosexuality in that all the "nature vs. nurture" studies, explanations and theories are somewhat irrelevant and that the individual must recognize and deal with the spiritual shortcomings that drive the behavior. Having said all that, my personal experience is such that the self searching and kinds of life changes one needs to make are probably of the magnitude that would have an impact on a senator's ability to execute the full responsibilities of the office at the same time.
Maybe he should have wagged his finger at the cameras and said “I did not try to have sex with that policeman, Mister Karsnia.”
Same difference!
Ed
I think not, the cop was out looking for it.
So who was actually harmed?
While not defending Craig I’m tired of folks getting busted for what they may of done, not for the actions they did do.
In other words, they should hang out in bathrooms and arrest someone for actually having sex in the bathroom, not for tapping his shoes.
“If Craig had pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct for punching out an obnoxious heckler, he would not be friendless today.”
True but Craig actions,a goldmine of sleaziness and hypocrisy, could have engendered blackmail or worse. Not a minor concern when keeping in mind his seniority and access to top secret military information. Sorry but Craig needs to step down right away.
From what I understand Craigs name was not even mentioned in 82 yet he felt it necessary to make that speech.
Strange indeed.
“But his statements are ICE COLD, and I think it’s horrible.”
I totally agree. He could have asked Craig to step down and made an announcement that Craig did so so as not to disrupt the campaign. Guess we don’t have to worry about him bandying about the term “compassionate conservative”.
I think we need a 6/11 Truth Commission. The Larry Craig Truthers will get to the truth of this conspiracy to entice Craig into a bathroom and control (like controlled explosions) him tap his feet, do the hand thing, not get a lawyer. How did HIllary know Larry wouldn’t get a lawyer? The Larry Craig Truthers will get to the bottom of this.
Well said. I am a strong believer in Law and Order, but I believe cops go for the easy kill. Instead of arresting those Somali Muslim cab drivers at the MPS airport who won’t haul people carrying liquor or pets, they are at the same airport sitting on the throne in a mens’ room hoping to make easy arrests. I just don’t understand how tapping feet, peering into the stall, or whatever merits arrest. If Craig were sitting in the boarding area and he spotted some guy he found attractive and said “hey bud how about a BJ?” there would be no cops swarming him and arresting him. So, how is tapping feet a criminal act? If sex had occurred in the bathroom (or boarding area) now that would be a different story. But no sex occurred. Sidenote: how many times do we read about sex occurring in public: in planes, in churches, in schools? Have any of those people who actually conducted sex in public been arrested? If they were, Libs would howl. I find it interesting, therefore, that Libs aren’t screaming about police over-aggressiveness in this case.
Yep.
BREAKING
Larry Craig will announce his future plans Saturday September 1.
Expect at least an announcement that he will not run again, if not an resignation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.