The video:
I love the part where he claims he overreacted. Erm...OK. You've just been accused by an undercover police offer of soliciting sex in a public men's room. What do you do? Assuming the accusation is true, I would image that your first reaction - and therefore, your first overreaction - is to try to do something to make it all go away. Hence the following section in the police report:
After he was arrested, Craig, who is married, was taken to the Airport Police Operations Center to be interviewed about the lewd conduct incident, according to the police report. At one point during the interview, Craig 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?” the report states.
Assuming that the accusation is false, however, I would imagine that your first reaction would be to protest your innocence to the heavens and call a lawyer. But not only did Craig not protest, he kept the entire incident a secret from his wife. Which would make sense if you were guilty, but is utterly bizarre if you believed yourself to be innocent. I mean, c'mon... the man claims he was falsely arrested, and he didn't think that worth mentioning to his wife? That sure is an odd definition of "family values."
Also worth noting - A good portion of Craig's defense comes in the following two lines:
"I am not gay. I never have been gay."
I realize Craig may not understand the difference here, but the crime he pled guilty to had nothing to do with being gay. It had to do with soliciting sex from an undercover officer in a public restroom. The gender of the arresting officer is irrelevant to crime he has already admitted under oath to committing. Moreover, were it not for politicians like Craig himself, sexual orientation would be a wholly private concern.
But all that is really beside the point. The man is a US Senator. He claims he was falsely accused of soliciting sex in a bathroom. Rather than use his considerable power to fight what he now claims is a false accusation, he instead pled guilty and hoped it would all just go away. That makes, as I used to say when I was a kid, negative infinity sense.
UPDATE: Or as Glenn Greenwald put it:
How can any rational person argue that a political movement which constantly exploits claims about private behavior like this for political gain ought to be immunized from scrutiny as to whether their conduct is consistent with what they claim? If having "strong family values" is -- as Craig claims -- the reason "first and foremost" to support someone's candidacy for President, then, by definition, whether one has "strong family values" is a politically relevant consideration for such a person. Craig's own pronounced political standards render it relevant whether a married political official with children is having anonymous sex in bathrooms. That is just logically true.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
