Posted on 09/01/2007 10:18:20 PM PDT by smoothsailing
September 02, 2007, 0:00 a.m.
Culture of Corruption
Looking beyond “courageous” Craig assessments.
By Mark R. Levin
So, Larry Craig is gone. He solicited sex without actually soliciting sex or having sex. He pled guilty, but not to lewd behavior — to disorderly conduct (a misdemeanor). He is said to have a secret life involving same sex partners, but where are all these partners? According to one report, a guy in college believes Craig hit on him in 1967. Another says he “believes” he performed oral sex on the senator in a restroom at Union Station. He’s not 100-percent sure. If Craig has been living this secret life since 1967, you’d think others would come forward at some point. Maybe they will. So far, they haven’t. Indeed, where is all the evidence of Craig’s seedy life? Where are the photos, the video, the audio, the solid witnesses, and the rest of the evidence? And if the case against Craig in that airport restroom was so compelling, if it was so sleazy, if authorities wanted to send a message to others, why didn’t prosecutors take Craig to trial? Why let him go with a disorderly conduct misdemeanor? Were they doing him a favor? I don’t think so. They conducted a sting operation without any sting. Let me suggest not only couldn’t they make a gross misdemeanor charge stick, they would have lost the disorderly conduct charge, too. Read the statute. But the law is an ass, as they say. This is an issue of morality.
The truth is I don’t know Larry Craig. And it’s possible he is everything some say he is. But they say it without facts. Is that moral? When the news of Craig’s bathroom encounter first broke, I thought Craig must have been involved in a Pee Wee Herman moment — or something. But he didn’t even touch himself, let alone the officer in any sexually overt way. He didn’t expose himself. Hell, he was in a bathroom stall. And neither he nor the officer exchanged a single word about having sex. In fact, Craig never said a word. In the end, what we have here is a shoe touch … or was it a tap? That, along with his hand on the divider between the stalls and something or other was, we are told, code for soliciting sex. It seems to me that the officer should have taken the sting operation at least one more step, no? Wasn’t he a little premature in flashing his badge when he did?
Let’s be honest. I have no idea who Larry Craig is beyond his senatorial record, and neither do any of his outspoken critics. Even if he lives a secret life, we know nothing of it. It remains secret, if it exists.
Today some Republicans pat themselves on the back for their “courageous” stand against liberal charges of hypocrisy as they were early in their denunciation of Craig. Now, these would be the same liberals who show routinely their hypocrisy embracing Bill Clinton (accused of rape), Barney Frank (accused of allowing his home to be used for male prostitution), and the late Gerry Studds (who had sex repeatedly with a seventeen-year-old page). These Republicans fear the “culture of corruption” label the liberals have assigned them and aren’t quite sure how to respond to it. Mostly, they refuse to fire back by highlighting the numerous examples of demonstrable sleaze involving William Jefferson (alleged bribe), Alan Mollohan (alleged self-dealing), John Murtha (earmarks related to his brother), Dianne Feinstein (her husband profiting from military contracts), Hillary Clinton (Norman Hsu, et al), and, of course, the aforementioned Clinton, Frank, and Studds examples.
There is indeed a culture of corruption, and it extends well beyond any single politician. It swirls around big government. It always has and it always will. It has become institutionalized in many ways. And that culture of corruption celebrates clever word games used by unelected judges to exercise power they don’t have as they rewrite the Constitution; it demeans people of faith who speak out against the culture of corruption and for — dare I say — family values; it undermines and seeks to demoralize Americans in uniform as they fight a horrible enemy on the battlefield; it demonizes entrepreneurs and successful enterprises; it uses race, age, religion, gender, and whatever works to balkanize Americans; and so on. This is the real culture of corruption. Let’s call it what it is — modern liberalism. And its impact on our society is far worse than the disorderly-conduct misdemeanor to which Larry Craig pled guilty and for which he has now resigned.
— Mark R. Levin, a former Reagan-administration Department of Justice aide, is president of the Landmark Legal Foundation and nationally syndicated radio-talk-show host.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjVhMzdiZWNmNGNjYTAyMTBmOWEyYjRhZDQ2MTY3OTE=
bookmark
I cannot believe Mark Levin is so naive! "These partners" are, like Craig, "respectable members of the community" who do not want their activities known. They are businessmen who by all appearances are good family men, but who enjoy anonymous sex with men in places like airport men's rooms while they are traveling on business. They have as much to lose as Craig did from coming forward.
Levin is also overlooking the Idaho Statesman's interview with a Republican staffer who says he had sex with Craig in a Union station men's room a few years ago.
Regardless, the issue is not Craig's sexual orientation. The issue how he went about fulfilling it: illegally trolling for sex in public men's rooms.
I hadn't heard this. If this particular bathroom was nowhere near where his gate, and if the bathroom has a reputation, then game, set, match. I bet this guys internet browser history would make you retch.
Senator Craig is guilty as sin.
You have also attributed motives and considerations to Craig that he directly contradicts in his own statements. More evidence that you have not familiarized yourself with this incident beyond a very superficial level.
I conclude that you just want to spout off the top of your head and have no real interest in knowing the facts before you engage in rebuttal.
This incident is getting more play than the JFK assassination. I’m waiting Oliver Stone to make the movie.
If he had a D after his name he would still be a Senator and any critics would be bigots. The officer would be accused of soliciting a Senator and reprimanded.
—
and there wouldn’t be a single defender of him on FR.
Amen.
From the moment this story broke, Mark Levin, who usually is spot on about most things, has taken the approach of analyzing this on “technicalities” and “legalities”, trying to show off how big his lawyerly brain is.
Completely missing the point that the real story is the incalculable damage Craig’s behaviors have caused. It ain’t about innocent or guilty at this point, its about public perception and minimizing additional damage that will occur the longer Craig stays visible. At least Foley had the good sense to resign immediately, taking some of the liberals ammo away from them.
I’m not all that impressed with Levin’s “lawyerly analysis.” This was a very clean, solid bust and Craig was at least smart enough initially to not contest it. Now he’s making noises about challenging the outcome after he already turned in a plea. What’s his lawyer going to do? Claim that his client was denied due process? That would be a legal hurdle no lawyer could jump, not in this case. And Levin knows it.
I prefer an originalist perspective. Societal problems are fixable by applying the last six of the Ten Commandments and all of the Founding Documents. No "interpretation" needed.
Read them and observe them - it worked for generations.
What Mark Levin did was make a case for the argument that Craig had been found guilty of no crime OTHER than one the nice ossifer said were acts which were “signals” for an illegal act.
The real issue here, IMHO, is that “criminal act” has been replaced with “possible intent to commit a future criminal act”.
Welcome to Liberal “legal construct” A.K.A. - THE THOUGHT POLICE ! ! ! !
Whether Craig is or isn’t a “stall queer” is not important. Egregiously overreaching police action should be of concern to the FR community.
Suggestion: Beware of any police action which infringes upon the precious principle of assumption of innocence.
Better by far that an occasional queer tryst occur than the police be allowed excessive powers. Power is always abused, which is why the Founders so limited it.
Gee, Levin is so stupid he couldn’t figure out the political problem with this event. He never once discussed it on his show. He never said that Craig would wind up going or that he thought he had problems. Why do you lie like this? Why don’t you go to one of two websites — markelevinshow.com or marklevinfan.com — where the actual comments over a period of days can be heard, without interpretation from you. Furthermore, analyzing the facts of case is an attempt to show how smart someone is? Well, then, I suppose the opposite is true, i.e., refusing to analyze the facts of a case shows how stupid you are. Craig is gone. You should celebrate. Gonzales is gone. Rummy is gone. Foley is gone. And still, the GOP is hurting, and the conservative movement lacks a smokesman in the political class. But don’t worry, you can pat yourself on the back. You are morally superior to the rest of us, some of us who actually tried to figure out the facts in addition to discussing the political consequences. Creep.
And Newttoidaho - what’s that name all about? Newt is brilliant but, as you just lectured everyone, public perception is what matters, right? He admitted cheating on his wife during the impeachment of Clinton. I guess you didn’t analyze that either.
So, Levin knows he is wrong, but is just writing this stuff to show how smart he is? Or, he writes this stuff because Criag is a Republicans. Now, did Levin question your intergrity and motives and intelligence? From what I see re your comments here, it wouldn’t be all that difficult to do just that. And if you continue with your cheap shots, as opposed to thoughtful discussion, Levin will respond in kind. But for now Levin, “the brainiac,” won’t since it’s Sunday morning and Levin is in a good mood.
“There’s no proof of anything here, other than Senator Craig’s mistake of trying to make it go away instead of saying the whole thing is bullshit.”
I don’t know about any of y’all, but if I were truly “not guilty”, I would NOT plead guilty to a damn thing.
I would hire a lawyer and fight for my good name, not stand before a judge and plead guilty......to make it go away!
That is just plain stupid.
Furthermore, I’d be so damn mad that just going to the bathroom would get me caught up in a sting...sorry, I’d fight for my reputation...not snivel out a guilty plea.
Make that Monday morning.
“If he had a “D” after his name...Levin wouldn’t have wasted his time writing a column.”
Get with it man, if he had a “D” after his name none of this would have become a “federal case”. The D’s are an evil bunch who paint the R’s with the brush that has smeared themselves, but before they smear themselves, they teflonize themselves. The media helps in this - the media is joined with the D’s at the hip, and don’t think that it is all legal.
Thanks for posting. Great rant, Mark. Thanks for being here.
WOOOOHOOOO!
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.