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.
Timely post fd, Now, just maybe, we can take a deep breath, stop lynching Larry Craig, at least long enough to return to the traditionally more serious business of lynching Pat Buchannan
So, people laugh any time they hear the name Barney Frank, yet he’s the chairman of a powerful house committee. The best lil whorehouse attitudes are alive and well. Harrumph.
Did Craig even do anything illegal? Sleazy maybe but with the press coverage this is getting you’d think he was a mass murderer. What a shame that he has to resign so he won’t be a “distraction” or drag on the GOP. If he were a Democrat they would be celebrating him, and defending his right to stay on the job.
It is pretty obvious citizens who vote for these Democrats who should be in prison have lower standards than we do. Or dare I say it, they are less moral.
Maybe he will announce a resignation so he’ll have more time to do the things he enjoys, like travel.
I dunno but I sure got a good laugh at lunch when I said I ‘had a wide stance.’ People ridicule homosexuals. I don’t see that changing.
hmmm interesting choice of words there, pat :-)
ahhh, yes, there is the issue of timing, isn't there, as in the timing of this tempest.
this story might just be the enfeebled new-generation leftist slacker's version of Clarence Thomas's "hearings."
As you wrote, this is well said by Mr. Buchanan.
Senator Craig may be a disappointment (especially to his family, friends, and constituents), but the charge of hypocrisy strikes me as hollow. The Democrats have a difficult time condemning him for his actual behavior, since they have in the past excused far worse; so they fall back on the general accusation of hypocrisy.
That said, I think Mr. Craig is finished in politics. Republicans and conservatives tend to have higher standards for their elected officials than do Democrats and Leftists. He will probably retire from the Senate; if he doesn't, the Republican voters of Idaho will turn him out in the next primary election.
He should say I’ll resign if Ted Kennedy resigns.
Exactly right. The speed with which the GOP is running from him is shameful. Ted Kennedy killed a woman and pled guilty to some drastically reduced charge ($$$) and he remains in Congress. Meanwhile, 5 years ago the GOP governor of SD killed a motorist, resigned, and went to jail. Just remember, the Dems never apologize and never resign. The GOP, on the other hand eats their own, and even a mere accusation causes them to resign. This has go to change.
Heh heh heh.
He’ll use online travel booking websites to book flights with 4+ stopovers-—to save money, donchaknow.
What happened to tolerance for people of all sexual orientations?
Where is the liberal support for Craig (I know, don't get involved when the other political party is self imploding...)?
I think conservatives aren’t the ones to yell “hypocrite” at someone expressing a standard that they don’t always meet. I think that is the liberals tactic, because they have no principle to stand on. Part of their argument is that if the advocates of high standards can’t keep them perfectly, it is better to have low standards or no standards at all. Why use a weaselly tactic? Because directly advocating low standards will not gain a politician any support. Even a leftist instinctively supports high standards, but desperately wants to be judged by low standards. The leftist twists logic to make believe not being a hypocrite is a good thing even if your standards are so low it is unavoidable. Therefore they can cling to one high standard and pretend they are better than those “hypocrites” who actually have to have some sort of self discipline.
Conservatives, on the other hand, judge harshly on high standards and expect excellent behavior out of their leaders. Whether or not someone supports high standards in public, they will be judged on low standards in their private life. They will also be judged on advocating low standards. Conservatives simply will not put up with it anywhere it is found.
No, not every one is a hypocrite. But if said alcoholic had said all his career that he doesn't drink and has never drank. And had said alcoholic tried to use his enormous power to outlaw or criminalize alcohol use, then yes, he would be a hypocrite.
Yes, where is the gay lobby? They’ve been lobbying for years for cops to end rest room surveillance, saying it unfairly targets them.
I presume they will be with Sen Craig at his press conference tomorrow, defending him against the “fascist tactics” of the cops. Don’t hold your breath on that one.
So, Pat, it looks like it’s a lot easier to be loyal in the face of adversity when you’ve got no skin in the game.
I think it’s instructive how quickly the elites of the GOP “threw him under the bus”— We already have suspected homosexuals in the GOP that we have managed to tolerate reasonably well. Barney Frank runs a prostitution ring out of his home, and we throw out a powerful Senator accused of playing footsie.
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.