Ben makes some good points. Not that I’m saying Craig is a saint. But the whole episode was just handled badly.
It is interesting too that defenders of Michael Vick say he should have his day in court and that he has been convicted of no crime yet. They are right. But Sen Craig, who did not do anything as serious or violent as Vick is alleged to have done, was not extended same defense.
Vick pleaded guilty to one count of "conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce in aid of unlawful activities and to sponsor a dog in an animal fighting venture"was carged with illegal gambling! And pleaded to same!
Facts are Facts!
I am no defender of Vick’s behavior, but as I have been saying on other posts the man’s dogs are his property and livestock. I’ve been hearing people for whom I have a high regard call Vick’s actions murder. Animals are killed and slaughtered. Humans are murdered. As for Craig, I sense he sought the quietest route and if that path of least resistance was to quietly plead out, then so be it. These cops could well have targeted a sitting US senator a la the GDR Stasi or KGB. In the sixties some “dropped out”. Today, good people are fleeing the public schools, their home towns, the television, newspapers, etc. In other words, good people are dropping out because they fear. And fear is the result of living with totalitarianism.
The problem is NOBODY believes this is senator craig’s first time in a men’s room seeking sexual recreation.
This case was handled badly, however that does not eliminate common sense conclusions that this was the ONLY time he did this.
Both Michael Vick and Larry Craig could have had a hearing but they opted to cop a plea instead. Both were charged with a crime and both admitted their guilt which is the same as being convicted. As a matter of law, both are guilty, not by the conviction of a jury but by their admission.