I realize that Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig is now saying that he should never have pled guilty to all that lewd conduct nonsense in a Minnesota airport bathroom. And I get that he claims it was all a misunderstanding. And really, who among us hasn't had to use a "wide stance" every now and again?
But let's be honest here. The man has already pled guilty. And given the facts in the arrest report, well.... there isn't a man in America - straight or gay - who is going to believe his stupid story about a piece of paper on the bathroom floor.
So chalk up another one, this time from Idaho. The more they protest about family values, the more we can be sure.
Hey Idaho... you read to go blue yet?
UPDATE: This really is too funny. First we had McCain's Florida co-chair getting arrested in a Florida bathroom for offering to pay an undercover $20 if the cop would allow him to perform oral sex on him. His version of the "wide stance" was a fear of large black men.
And now? Senator Larry Craig was the Senate co-chairman for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. "Was" being the operative word.
These guys sure know how to pick 'em.
UPDATE II: Good catch by Hilzoy:
...if I had any sympathy for Larry Craig, the fact that he "handed the plainclothes sergeant who arrested him a business card that identified him as a U.S. Senator and said, “What do you think about that?”" would have destroyed it. The laws are meant to apply to everyone, Senators included. No one gets to violate laws he himself supports and then use the fact that he has been elected to high office to get himself off the hook. Being elected Senator means being given a position of trust and responsibility that you should work every day to be worthy of, not a Get Out Of Jail Free card.
Oddly enough, this relates directly to my previous post about Gonzales. The office isn't what makes you special; it's your actions in office that do. Far too many people don't seem to understand the difference.
UPDATE III: Just in case you think this story isn't about to explode nationally, The Idaho Statesman is running the story front and center this morning, complete with the results of the paper's 5-month investigation into the Senator's behavior. As always, it all begins with a very public lie:
In an interview on May 14, Craig told the Idaho Statesman he'd never engaged in sex with a man or solicited sex with a man. The Craig interview was the culmination of a Statesman investigation that began after a blogger accused Craig of homosexual sex in October. Over five months, the Statesman examined rumors about Craig dating to his college days and his 1982 pre-emptive denial that he had sex with underage congressional pages.
The most serious finding by the Statesman was the report by a professional man with close ties to Republican officials. The 40-year-old man reported having oral sex with Craig at Washington's Union Station, probably in 2004. The Statesman also spoke with a man who said Craig made a sexual advance toward him at the University of Idaho in 1967 and a man who said Craig "cruised" him for sex in 1994 at the REI store in Boise. The Statesman also explored dozens of allegations that proved untrue, unclear or unverifiable.
Just to be clear about this: This is about the public lies and the hypocrisy, not the sex. I don't care who this man or any other man has sex with. It's none of my business. Craig, however, disagrees, and has made regulating the sexual conduct of others a key part of his political agenda. That was his choice, and now he must live with the consequences.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
