Larry Craig is not leaving the Senate. He's not gay and he's not leaving. I say good.
There are many reasons not to like Senator Larry:
1. The denial of gayness. (Even if somehow he's not gay, it's disrespectful to gay people to feel that you need to deny it.)
2. His apparent willingness to have sex in a bathroom the general public uses. (I'm strongly opposed to sex in public bathrooms, but he didn't actually do that, he only, probably, indicated his willingness to have sex, probably, right there and then.)
3. He's making life hard for his fellow Republican senators. (They're "embarrassed," and they don't want to have to go through with a lot of conspicuous procedures to oust him. Plus, he "promised" to go, so why doesn't he keep his promise? Deal with it. He was elected. Let the people of Idaho pressure him to go if they don't want him.)
4. He pleaded guilty and then refused to accept the consequences, like everyone else who pleads guilty. (Obviously, he couldn't withdraw that guilty plea, and I'd have been outraged if the judge had bent the rules and let this powerful man with his high-priced lawyers break free of the rules that apply to everyone else. But I would have loved to see the legal battle over police tactics and freedom of expression.)
5. He was convicted of a crime. (Yes, a little "disorderly conduct." Does one misdemeanor unrelated to your job mean you've got to go? Are you willing to apply that rule across the board? I think not. As a crime, it's less bad than a drunk driving conviction. How many senators have those?)
6. He's not a solid family man. (Care to apply that rule to every Senator?)
So let's leave Larry alone.
October 5, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
80 comments:
As a crime, it's less bad than a drunk driving conviction
Even that isn't so simple. Apparently drunk driving is rather common. It became a public problem rather than a personal moral failing as part of a political power play in the 70s.
See sociologist Joseph R. Gusfield _The Culture of Public Problems : Drinking-Driving and the Symbolic Order_ (1981) ; and follow-on books generalizing the route to public power : create a public problem and take ownership of it.
Hat tip to my friend F.T.Grampp on MADD : ``If it weren't for the drunks, a lot of them wouldn't be mothers.''
I myself survived a childhood without seat belts.
Nevertheless, what Craig was accused of is less bad.
How about an intoxication homicide conviction, or letting a "friend" use your Congressional office to run a prositution business, or engaging in statutory rape?
Larry Craig's crime is a bit weak compared to those others.
3-- True. But they can remove him from the party. Probably should for reasons both right and wrong.
5-- I think it is different with legislators. They enact the laws. We should hold them to the standard of upholding them. I think the same should be true of cops; a misdemeanor should be a career ender.
Regarding leaving him alone,
"We foresake you,
gonna rape you,
let's forget you, better still..."
Of course, a little "see me, feel me, touch me" is what got this whole mess started...
It will make his Senate seat available for easy pickings by the Democrats, which is a downside you possibly haven't considered.
Bob said...
It will make his Senate seat available for easy pickings by the Democrats, which is a downside you possibly haven't considered.
The linked piece sggests(an I have read elsewhere) that Craig intends not to run for re-election (then again he did intend to resign). If he resigns, the Dems will have to run against a "clean" candidate and would most likely get trounced. Even if he did run for re-election and survived the likely primary challenge, he might well be a Dem in Idaho.
Bob assumes I'm a Republican.
Why should we leave hypocritical Senators alone?
A savvy Democratic leadership would start introducing bills designed to embarrass Craig further, reminding the public that he's still around. Alas, the Democratic leadership is so not savvy, and Senators tend to watch each others' backs. I'm sure every Senator knows dirt on every other Senator. Craig can probably just threaten to spill the beans on the other Senators with whom he shares a wide stance.
Nevertheless, what Craig was accused of is less bad.
I think that's drawing on contemporary official rules, rather than real life rules, about what you can say.
John Kobylt, of KFI's John and Ken, back in the late 90s when they were syndicated, described how much earlier as a new 20-year-old DJ he'd drive home from the tavern in the next town pretty soused, and there was nothing unusual or dangerous about it.
On the other hand, back then, public bathroom sex would have been pretty remarkable and disparaged by most guys, on the scale of badness pretty clearly much worse.
What drunks had, back then, was a transportation problem, not a drinking problem.
That's probably still actually true.
Ohio gives DUI plates to people convicted (I've wondered how they keep people from requesting them for their pickup trucks), and pretty innocuous people wind up with them. Having fallen into the ordinary life caught driving net.
Bathroom sex plates would be pretty much shunned.
I myself agree that the Craig story is not an actual story. It's played for audience, and the audience is sold to advertisers, is all, and that's why it's there. It's the media business model.
Ann Althouse said...
Bob assumes I'm a Republican.
Bob assumed that would be your reply.
I completely agree.
Excellent comments Althouse.
Right on girl!
Bob said...
Bob assumed that would be your reply.
You're so clever.
Justin said...
You're so clever.
*laughs at troll*
Ann: Bob also assumes that the citizens of Craigs state will suddenly smarten up after sending this guy back 3 times. fat chance.
"[I]t's disrespectful to gay people to feel that you need to deny it."
I think this is wrong. I can understand it being disrespectful for him to deny being gay when his actions permit of no other explanation. But if he (or any other public figure) truly is not gay, he is perfectly entitled to deny a public perception to the contrary. We will have reached a new low in political correctness if public figures are not allowed to deny unfounded rumors for fear of being "disrespectful" to gays.
I disagree with Althouse that it is purely a matter of the magnitude of the crime that matters in a Partyy asking someone giving up an elected seat.
Voters in Florida elected impeached judge Alcee Hastings to the House. "Cold Cash" Jefferson is still quite popular amongst his fellow NOLA parasites.
Republicans tolerated the nepotism and sleaze of Tom Delay, Stevens. Democrats tolerate Feinstein enriching her husband, Massachusetts pederasts, and Tom Lantos thinking he represents Tel Aviv in the House.
It's when a Rep "tarnishes the brand name" vs. magnitude of criminality or depth in corruption that the Party involved wishes to distance itself.
Craig denied many times - word of honor as a member of the Senate Club and all that - that he was a secret homosexual.. Looks like he lied and Republicans have plenty of other Idahoans that are ready to serve in his place.
Kind of like how Democrats would react if Chuck Schumer had rumors for a long time that he really didn't like the "Schwartzers", told nigger jokes in private, then a photo popped up of Chuckie in 1992 making nooses for his kid's amusement.
No crime, but I imagine Dems would call for his resignation.
Jeff: I see your point, but the convention is to say something along the lines of "not that there's anything wrong with it" if you don't want to insult gay people.
"Let the people of Idaho pressure him to go if they don't want him."
What pressure can be exerted on a Senator by his constituents when he has indicated that he won't seek reelection? His constituents have no more power over him than anyone else in the general population, and considerably less than his colleagues.
It seems to me that the only thing to be done is for the state party to disown him and start loudly and vigorously campaigning against Craig. The party needs to disassociate itself from Craig, as indeed a lot of candidates need to disassociate themselves from the incumbent Republicans.
We're seeing a lot of GOP incumbents declining to seek reelection, and I'm inclined to see this as a good thing, since the problem has been the incumbents: the problem hasn't been core Republican beliefs, it's been the unwillingness of incumbents to follow them (and to keep their hands out of the till and/or interns). That might sound like a conceit, but think about the tolling bells: the massive spending, the scandals, illegal immigration, Harriet Miers, NCLB, and so forth. If these are the things that hastened the end of the GOP majority in 2006 and continues to weigh it down today, these are problems of people, not ideas. In essence, we need to suspend the 11th Commandment for an election and run fresh candidates against the corrupt establishment. Thompson has sought to recapture the spirit of 1994, so perhaps the Congressional campaigns ought to do the same (and should think seriously about term limits again).
Personally, I'm inclined to solve the Larry Craig problem the old-fashioned family way. Right now he's part of the problem. And I for one am tired off Republicans who insist on being part of the problem, like these sanctimonious f*cks who claim it's a more pro-life thing to do to install Hillary Clinton in the White House than to support Giuliani if he gets the nomination. Sometimes you wonder if it'd be a lot easier if those crazies on the left who think Bush's Amerikkka is analagous toa fascist state.
Craig should say he will resign when Ted Kennedy resigns for his far greater crimes.
Ann:
Fair enough - I suppose good manners would dictate that the denial not imply a value judgment about those who are gay. Unless, of course, one is pandering to people who need to hear that value judgment.
The likely replacement for Craig, a Republican Lt Gov, I believe, would be a strong favorite in 2008 by all indications. His actions now are only a weak effort to salvage his reputation. His first instinct was to plead guilty and upon being exposed, to resign. His first instincts were correct.
As for leaving him alone, not a chance, he's a disgrace and not willing to do what is obviously the right thing. And please let's not elevate him by comparisons to other members of the House and Senate.
In New York state, disorderly conduct is not a crime, it's a violation (NY Penal Law section 240.20).
Is it a crime in Minnesota?
SteveR...then there is some merit of always leading with your "gut feelings" for politicians....instead of, for instance, your toe?
tap tap tap the boys are marching
and should think seriously about term limits again
please, lord
I see your point, but the convention is to say something along the lines of "not that there's anything wrong with it" if you don't want to insult gay people.
Oh, I dunno. In most cases when I hear someone say something like "not that there's anything wrong with it," I tend to think that they really do but are being nudge-nudge-wink-wink about it. Or that they really do and are just paying lip service 'cause they don't want to get called on it. Or that they're weirdly defensive.
In any case, it tends to be an eye-roller for me.
... really do think there is something wrong about it, that should be, in both instances ...
"Even if somehow he's not gay, it's disrespectful to gay people to feel that you need to deny it"
Taking your qualifier into account, I don't see how stating a fact is disrespectful.
"Even that isn't so simple. Apparently drunk driving is rather common. It became a public problem rather than a personal moral failing as part of a political power play in the 70s"
As dim a view as I take of the practice, I have to concede that gay men having sex in public don't murder thousands of people in this country every year. Drunk drivers do. They are violent, dangerous criminals and should be treated as such.
Bob: I am not sure how much you know about Idaho, but in the event they ever elected a democrat, he (or she) would be further to the right than Zell Miller.
reader_iam said...
In most cases when I hear someone say something like "not that there's anything wrong with it," I tend to think that ... they really do and are just paying lip service 'cause they don't want to get called on it.
I tend to think they're trying to play on the Seinfeld joke. And I think the Seinfeld joke was meant to parody the people who clearly think there's something wrong with being gay but don't want to be seen as intolerant.
Democrats in Idaho are like republicans in Massachusetts. They are practically nonexistent.
The republicans could run the elephant mascot and still beat a democrat in Idaho.
Whatever happened to Zell Miller? He seemed like such a happy guy.
I'm not sure what my stance is on this.
Other than that it's not wide.
I'm strongly opposed to sex in public bathrooms, but he didn't actually do that
... this time.
All the evidence points to him knowing exactly what he was doing wrt to solicitation.
Personally, I don't think what he did is a crime, and it's ridiculous he was charged in the first place. But we can't undo that. His big mistake was pleading guilty when he didn't actually do anything (this time). His second big mistake was promising to resign if he couldn't get the guilty verdict overturned. His third big mistake was reneging on that promise.
At this point he is an embarrassment to the party and the Senate, having shown himself to be a man of poor judgment and no honor. This situation is similar to those "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up" situations. It's not what he got busted for, it's how he reacted that shows he's not fit for the office. Throw him out!
Clearly he's not as good at tip toeing as toe tapping. And really, is there any more you need to know about the guy?
It's the hypocrisy that bugs me. It's surprising how often politicians and religious leaders bash gays and yap about family values and then get caught with their hand in the next stall.
Larry Craig should resign on the same day that David Vitter resigns.
What bothers me is the hypocrisy of his being an anti-gay man who likes to have anonymous restroom sex with men. Plus he maintains plausible deniability because he never wrapped his lips around the officer's unit. As a matter of policy, I believe, convictions for sex crimes shouldn't require policemen to expose themselves, which apparently is the next step in this bathroom ballet.
Luckily, the Bob Allen closet case is much clearer -- man offers cop $20 for the privilege of licking his lollipop.
Enigmaticore, baby please stop stealing my act:
I told you why I changed my mind
I got bored by playing with time
I know you thought you had me nailed
But I've freed my head from your garden rails
Now it's a legal matter, baby
You got me on the run
It's a legal matter, baby
A legal matter from now on
Just wanna keep doing all the dirty little things I do
And not work all day in an office just to bring my money back to you
Sorry, baby
( A Legal Matter, The Who sings My Generation, 1966)
Just kidding, good post baby!
Larry Craig is not leaving the Senate. He's not gay and he's not leaving. I say good.
[...]
2. His apparent willingness to have sex in a bathroom the general public uses.
No comment necessary...
What bothers me is... wait, I don't care.
"Larry Craig should resign on the same day that David Vitter resigns"
Don't forget William ("Cold Cash")Jefferson, whose resignation isn't coming any time soon.
Have Vitter or Jefferson been convicted of anything?
I don't mean to defend these textbook examples of crooked Louisiana politicians, but the comparison to Convicted Senator Craig doesn't quite match.
Michael says that Archie's friend Steve is gay]
Archie Bunker: You are SICK, you know that? YOU NEED HELP. I've listened to this guy around here for ten months. All this pinko stuff, that's all right, that's what they're fillin' 'em up with in the schools nowadays, huh? The clothes, well, that's all right, they take from each other, one kid looks crummier than the next. Their wide-open sex any time of the day or night for no reason at all, that's all right, that's their submissive society. But when he goes besmearing - when he goes besmearing the name of a great line-backer, a second-choice all-American, a man, and I mean a REAL MAN, THEN YOU MIGHT AS WELL SHUT THE DOORS OF THIS COUNTRY AND HANG UP A SIGN, "CLOSED. OWNER GONE NUTS".
(All in the Family 1971)
"Drunk drivers do. They are violent, dangerous criminals and should be treated as such."
Nonsense. Violent? Dangerous criminals? They are statute criminals for the most part. The really dangerous ones that cause most of the wrecks are above the .08 standard. Probably around 1.5 or so. And right now, MADD is working to create even more criminals by reducing it down to .06, then .04, then .01 until we have restored prohibition.
Althouse - when you say "He's not gay and he's not leaving. I say good" - do you mean he should not leave? I agree with all the reasons you give as to why he is not a good guy and the conclusino is that he should leave. The senators should not force him out but if he cares about his party and the citzens he represents, he should just exit.
Have Vitter or Jefferson been convicted of anything?
I don't mean to defend these textbook examples of crooked Louisiana politicians, but the comparison to Convicted Senator Craig doesn't quite match.
No, but Vitter did give a press conference confessing to artfully unspecified extra-marital sins just after he was named as having used the services of a prostitute.
My point was to suggest the inconsistency of those calling for Craig's resignation but not Vitter's. I don't think they are motivated because he confessed to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge; they are going after him because of the nature of his sex scandal, and haven't pursued Vitter with the same zeal (or any, for that matter). Engaging in illegal sexual activity apparently has unequal ramifications, especially if you are lucky enough to represent Louisiana, a state whose governor is a Democrat.
As for Jefferson, I was only focussing on those whose transgressions are of the sexual variety. He's obviously corrupt, but not germane to my point.
As someone who votes for Democrats, I'm just fine with him sticking around. Though I have no delusions of Democrats winning in Idaho, Craig still sitting in Congress for the next year certainly won't hurt the competitive races for current Republican seats. And that is obviously why the other Republicans don't want him around. It'll be another Mark Foley situation, not enough to switch voters by itself, but definitely a helping factor.
Darkbloom said...
"Larry Craig should resign on the same day that David Vitter resigns."
David Vitter has poled guilty in court to a criminal charge?
Sorry, I meant "pled" not "poled." Freudian slip.
"Sorry, I meant "pled" not "poled." Freudian slip."
That's not a slip, that's a swan dive.
Simon, please see my 11:41 comment for a response to your question.
You have to have a wide stance to pole guilty.
Darkbloom, sorry, I didn't see that. I'd agree that the criticism has been given freer rein with Craig for political reasons, but nevertheless, I think there's a difference between a sex scandal and a crime. Clinton, for example, wasn't impeached because he cheated (sex scandal, a la Vitter) but because he perjured himself (crime, a la Craig).
I think there's a difference between a sex scandal and a crime. Clinton, for example, wasn't impeached because he cheated (sex scandal, a la Vitter) but because he perjured himself (crime, a la Craig).
Last I checked, engaging the services of a prostitute is a crime (in most places, anyway). Or are you saying you don't believe Vitter used prostitutes? Or that he wasn't convicted of his crime? In that case, of course, you should only be evaluating Craig's actual crime, which is misdemeanor disorderly conduct, and not the circumstances that surrounded it. (Craig, however implausibly, maintained that he had no sexual intentions at all in that restroom, so all he's confessed to is some disorderly conduct.) You'd have to be making the case that that crime merits resignation. Is that your position? Anyone convicted of misdemeanor disorderly conduct should resign?
Simon, P.S.: when I say "you" in my previous post, I don't necessarily mean you, Simon. I mean anyone who advocates for Craig's resignation but not Vitter's.
I generally agree with the post, including the yuck factor of sex in a public restroom. Perhaps he's just bi, not that I give a damn outside the public hypocrisy.
However, this is to his credit:
"He's making life hard for his fellow Republican senators."
Attaboy.
"Last I checked, engaging the services of a prostitute is a crime (in most places, anyway"
But in Louisiana, it's a time-honored way of life.
p.s. Have you noticed how the elephant in the new GOP logo for the Minneapolis convention has a wide stance?
And, it's bent over! Truth in advertising!
As Eddie Izzard says, there should be different degrees of perjury.
Perjury 1 is when you say the holocaust never happened.
Perjury 9 is when you say you shagged someone but you didn't.
I agree with Prof. Althouse's 5 points. I would add that it pleases me to see the Idahoans embarrassed for the remainder of Craig's term. Perhaps, in the future, they will consider more carefully who they elect to high office, and not just punch a hole in the ballot for the Republican. Then maybe I'll be able to eat a baked potato without any guilt pangs.
"Nonsense. Violent? Dangerous criminals? They are statute criminals for the most part"
If you don't think murdering somebody with a car is violent, I guess were not going to see eye-to-eye here. Drunk drivers murdered a minimum of 6100 people in 2006 - and that assumes every one of the remaining 11,000 deaths were the drunks themselves, which is unlikely.
Oops. Here's a link to the stats - http://www.nhtsa.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NCSA/Content/PDF/810837.pdf - see page 74.
Prof. Althouse, if you were truly committed to being amusing and a parodist, you'd do a parody of Chris Crocker, with yourself in the Crocker role, admonishing us all to "LEAVE SEN. CRAIG, ALOOOOONNNE!!!", "He's human" (etc., etc.).
(this would seem to be the exact opposite of the usual "You, a law professor" comments)
(a new genre of comments, "You, a raconteur...")
Like nearly all of our politicians and political class, it is all about Larry. This guy is a first class dirt bag. First, he is an old pervert and a sex addict. Sex addiction is real. Only a sex addict would cruise for sex in a public bathroom. Like the johns who cruise for streetwalkers, people who cruise for sex in bathrooms have serious issues. The fact that Craig denies it, just means that he is that much more of an addict.
The fact is that fairly or unfairly Republicans are held to a higher standard than Democrats. If you are a Democrat, you can get away with being an old pervert by calling it a "lifestyle choice". Republicans do not have that option. By doing what he did, Craig is hurting his party's chances of not being completely swept out of power next year. But Craig being a pervert and in complete narcissistic denial, doesn't care about that. All that matters is his ability to stay in power. The costs to his party and to what he professes are his beliefs mean nothing. It is all about Larry. If he were a decent person, he would resign and check himself into some kind of in patient treatment program and get the help he needs learning to control his perversions. But since he is obviously depraved and beyond help, he will continue to serve in the Senate. I guess he will fit in well; betraying the public trust, stealing money and cruising for gay sex seem to be the favorite pastimes of Congress these days.
Here's an idea. The Democrats offer up a bill that any U.S. Senator who pleads guilty to a crime, pledges to leave office, and then doesn't, loses his pension.
tjl said...
"Last I checked, engaging the services of a prostitute is a crime (in most places, anyway"
But in Louisiana, it's a time-honored way of life."
So much so that they named a party after them....ohhhh you republican devils you.
By the way folks, in the interest of fair play, I just sent $100 to the Larry Craig re-election 2008 campaign. I wrote a nice letter saying how pround I am of him for sticking in there (no pun intended) and not cutting and running when the going got tough....heck...he just got going!
I bet Larry can beat the next guy with both pantlegs down around his ankles.
He remains the best chance we democrats have...why ruin him.
When the cop busted him, Craig said indignantly, "don't you know who I am?". I think that pretty much says all you need to know about the good Senator's character and the state of our current political class.
Jeez everyone's piling on the "hypocrite" Republican Larry Craig and "stupid" Idahoans.
You'd think the antics of Ted Kennedy, Gerry Studds and Barney Frank would make the average Bay Stater crawl under a rock with shame, but the opprobium only seems to get heaped on the R-guys. How come? There's plenty of sleaze on both sides of the aisle.
"You'd think the antics of Ted Kennedy, Gerry Studds and Barney Frank would make the average Bay Stater crawl under a rock with shame, but the opprobium only seems to get heaped on the R-guys. How come? There's plenty of sleaze on both sides of the aisle."
Absolutely. But the sad truth is that Democrats are held to the lowest standard of behavior imaginable. They are never held accountable for anything. That is grossly unfair but that is as they say the facts. Craig knew this and chose to pursue his perversions anyway.
To what crime did Gerry Studds plead guilty?
I don't think Craig should resign. His misbehavior, even if criminal, is incredibly minor. His public statements, while hypocritical, are no worse than the words of any other Senator. If I were from Idaho, I'd likely not vote for him again, just for being such an embarrassment.
But nothing he did indicates an inability to carry out his duties as a Senator honorably. One may not like his positions, and they may be inconsistent (as inconsistent as Ted Kennedy arguing for a drunk driving law), but that doesn't warrant resignation. Let him serve out his term.
Larry Craig is the gift that just keeps on giving...to the Democrats.
If I were a Republican (just shoot me), the term; "selfish" would come to mind when considering Craig's decision to stay.
What can this guy possibly do for the party or even his own constituency?
John, in a a completely "objective" manner...says the following:
"But the sad truth is that Democrats are held to the lowest standard of behavior imaginable."
Yes, the Democrats live under entirely different laws than all other American citizens.
*It's mentioned right there in the Constitution...just like Christianity and God.
"1. The denial of gayness."
Sounds like severely repressed Puritanical joy. Or Baptist no singing, dancing or fornicating. Or Muslim, especially Islamist, no smiles at nothing fun on the pain of death.
Saying "The denial of homosexuality" might be less prone to mixed-up meaning-purloined vocab.
By waving his eager fingers and by going on record having knuckled under to police charges and party disapproval, Larry Craig made his (restroom stall) and should lie in it. That's what he sorta wanted to do, anyway.
Hmm...
I don't give a rat's behind whether Craig is gay or not.
But didn't he say he was going to resign? Then he sort of hedged and said that if he could get his guilty plea overturned then he'd stick around?
He lost. I've read the downloadable pdf of the Court decision and it looked as if he and the ACLU got pummeled.
Do the honorable thing and hit the road, Jack.
Or did I miss something here? Could be, IANAL.
[By the way, divine Prof A, great job on the Clarence Thomas book - comments were outstanding, too.]
bg
As my Dad is fond of saying:
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
Who the hell outside of...what state is he from? starts with an eye....first syllable.....
Personally I think Wisconsin will spank Illinois this weekend.
Another GOP senatorial groper; this time from David Vitterland.
http://www.towleroad.com/2007/10/gop-senate-cand.html
I do hope through the Larry Craig, David Vitter, Mark Foley, campaign director for Mccain from Florida (forget his name), Ed Schrock and now this new Louisiana family values republican that the republicans can dispense with, "I am a family values man". It is obviously BS and betraying the trust of the people that believe in this crap.
Everyone should assume that every candidate or person for that matter have dirty laundry. No one is holier than thou and if they are don't believe them.
Hopefully this can put to rest the family values crap. It is boring and demeaning to the voters.
I just left the following message on the Senator Craig site:
Yo Senator:
I'm writing you on the fly, dashing out of LapTop Lane at MSP, missed the shrine in your honor (Senator Larry Memorial Stall) but i've got a heads up for you...the action has moved to the west concourse...just in case...go Larry, don't let the police get you down...and by the way, that judge was way outta line.
Post a Comment