Craig considers comeback?

September 5, 2007

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ken.) held a press conference yesterday on the Hill, and most of the questions focused on his scandal-plagued GOP caucus. McConnell, after several questions on Sen. Larry Craig’s (R-Idaho) predicament, characterized the controversy as a thing of the past. When a reporter noted rumors that Craig might reconsider resigning, a startled Minority Leader said, “He called me on Friday and indicated what he was going to say on Saturday, and I believe that’s a firm decision.”

As it turns out, that assumption may be wrong.

In his Saturday-morning announcement, Craig said, “[I]t is my intent to resign from the Senate, effective September 30th.” The use of the word “intent” was not an accident, and was apparently part of an effort to leave the senator a little wiggle room. Indeed, after his speech, a CNN correspondent asked Craig if he stood by his claim of innocence. “Absolutely,” he said, adding: “We’ll be fighting this like hell.”

As I noted over the weekend, the comments sounded a bit like O.J. vowing to catch the real killer, but Craig apparently meant it. As of last night, the Idaho senator was reconsidering his resignation.

Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho) is reconsidering his announced intention to resign, if he can clear his name of criminal and ethics charges before the end of the month, a spokesman said last night. […]

Dan Whiting, Craig’s Washington spokesman, told The Washington Post in an e-mailed statement last night: “As he stated on Saturday, Senator Craig intends to resign on September 30th. However, he is fighting these charges, and should he be cleared before then, he may, and I emphasize may, not resign.”

Sidney Smith, Craig’s spokesman in Idaho’s capital, told the AP, “It’s not such a foregone conclusion anymore that the only thing he could do was resign.”

There are plenty of fascinating angles to consider here.

For Craig, since the scandal broke eight days ago, there has been some conflict between the political and the legal. Politically, Craig was caught hitting on an undercover cop in an airport bathroom, pleading guilty, making up ridiculous excuses, irrationally blaming the media, and losing the support of his party and constituents. Legally, Craig was arrested for conduct that hardly seems criminal — if unwanted advances were illegal, we’d have to shut down every bar in America — and the evidence against him is thin.

In the political world, Craig was given the bum’s rush. In the legal world, the senator apparently realized sometime Friday night that he never actually committed a crime.

Over the weekend, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) told Fox News, “I’d like to see Larry Craig go back to court, seek to withdraw his guilty plea and fight the case…. On the evidence Senator Craig wouldn’t be convicted of anything. And he’s got his life on the line and 27 years in the House and Senate, and I’d like to see him fight the case because I think he could be vindicated.” Specter also said it was not too late for Craig to change the status of his resignation. The Pennsylvania senator apparently contacted Craig about this, which helped prompt Craig to reconsider his fate and use the word “intend.”

The more I think about this, the more I come to the same conclusion: what does Craig have to lose? The longer he stays, and the more this scandal is dragged out, the more it hurts the GOP — but that’s the same GOP that turned on Craig and threw him under the bus without a moment’s hesitation. Why would he care whether or not his controversy makes the party look bad? The more he fights, the better his chances of some kind of legal vindication. And if he can reverse his plea and clear his record, Craig can go to Idahoans next year and say, “I was vindicated and deserve another chance.”

This isn’t just some flight of fancy for Craig; he means it. In a voicemail message inadvertently left on the wrong machine, Craig is heard on Saturday morning leaving a message for his lawyer: “Arlen Specter is now willing to come out in my defense, arguing that it appears by all that he knows that I have been railroaded and all that. Having all of that, we have reshaped my statement a little bit to say it is my intent to resign on Sept. 30. I think it is important for you to make as bold a statement as you are comfortable with this afternoon, and I would hope you could make it in front of the cameras. I think it would help drive the story that I’m willing to fight, that I’ve got quality people out there fighting in my defense, and that this thing could take a new turn or a new shape; it has that potential.”

In other words, Craig was about to make this whole mess go away, when Specter decided to intervene and throw Craig a life-preserver. I have a hunch the Senate Republican leadership will not be pleased. Indeed, the Senate GOP heard the rumors about Craig’s change of heart late yesterday, and just about threw a fit.

Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter (R) has not yet decided on Craig’s replacement and hasn’t said when he will.

This one isn’t over. Stay tuned.

It seems like only yesterday that Tom DeLay was on “Hardball” patting the Repubs on the back for so quickly throwing Craig under a bus.

If Craig does put up a legal battle in an effort to overturn his own guilty plea it will have to be on the basis of some convoluted legal argument. Said argument likely being that Craig was too stupid to realize what his plea meant. Meanwhile, the replaying of the interrogation tapes and the reading of extracts from the police report will continue and the comparisons with Vitter, Foley and any new scandals will roll on. Craig’s assertion that “I’m not gay,” will enter the pantheon of boneheaded statements to take its place along side “I am not a crook,” and “I didn’t have sex with that woman.”

This can only help Republicans in the coming election.

  • Now Craig is a creep and hypocrite. But last time I checked, you don’t get run out of congress by your peers for being either of those things. There would be a lot of vacancies if this was the case.

    The real reason Craig is being run out on a rail is because he’s gay. Being gay is not a crime. But in the GOP being gay and out of the closet is.
    Anybody remember Rep Ed Shrock (R-VA).

    If Craig wants to stay in congress and fight the charge, so be it. If Craig can get his plea withdrawn, he’s got a chance to beat the charge, but he’ll have to work for it.

    And if this happens, the GOP Primary will be fun to watch.

  • oh, look! another bright and shiny object over here!

    notice how gonzales isn’t on the front page any more?

  • How many times is Mitt Romney Supporter Larry Craig going to vacillate? If he had a speck of integrity or dignity left he’d let a dead dog lie.

    But I forget: he’s a Mitt Romney Supporter. He has no integrity or dignity.

  • Get the popcorn out, and sit tight. We are about to embark on the new fad of the early 21st century: Redos and doovers for Republican politicians. First up, Larry Craig’s effort to stay not gay! Next, will we have the Hammer’s upcoming trial televised? Anyway we turn it, these Republicans are a silly lot at this time in our nation’s history. To bad their silliness has such tragic consequences for the rest of us. -Kevo

  • Ooh, how deliciously, wonderfully, tastelessly amusing! I’d love nothing better than watching this one unzip, er, UNFOLD over the next few weeks.

  • This is great… if Craig keeps dithering and keeping people guessing and Thompson continues his slow walk into the Presidential race, it will blow any White House surge/ Iran plans to the back pages of the dailies…. GO CRAIG! GO THOMPSON!

  • if unwanted advances were illegal, we’d have to shut down every bar in America

    And if this had taken place in a bar, it certainly wouldn’t be illegal. It didn’t, it took place in a public restroom, and the solicitation was not to go off to some private space to have sexual contact, it was a solicitation to do the act right then and there (which is what Craig’s signals meant). Doing it right then and there would be a crime (public lewdness), and solicitation to commit that crime is also criminal in itself. Don’t be so quick to let Craig off the hook.

    Could Craig have beaten the charge if he’d initially decided to fight it? Perhaps. Maybe if her were familiar with ACLU literature he’d have had a better idea how to stand up for his rights during the arrest. But oh, yeah, right wing Republicans hate the ACLU.

    I think CB is correct that this should be a lovely bit of theatre to distract from the Petraeus Show this week, not to mention the Big Push to Bomb Iran. That GOP sure knows how to pick ’em.

  • So, if what he did wasn’t illegal (and I don’t think it’ just about “unwanted advances,” he was proposing sex in a public place), is it also true that people who carry on internet conversations with undercover cops, then show up at a house expecting sex with a minor have done nothing illegal? They also seem to get arrested. I’m not seeing the distinction, so perhaps someone could explain.

  • Why is it always about the party? If we eliminated the corrupt party systems and saw each polictician as an individual who represents the people not the party, wouldn’t Craig be the one on trial here?

  • Said argument likely being that Craig was too stupid to realize what his plea meant. — Dennis – SGGM
    He’s a closeted gay republican senator that votes in a virulently anti-gay fashion being caught by a police officer in a gay-related affair. It isn’t a stretch of the imagination to suggest that he pleaded guilty simply out of the panic of that happening. He is without a doubt a flaming hypocrite, but not necessarily a criminal.

    Plus, Larry LaRocco sure could use someone like him running for senate 🙂

  • I believe the appropriate expression about what Craig is trying to do is “unsh*t the bed.” Specter is probably quite right that Craig could contest this Minnesota charge in court and win, but it would be a case of winning the battle and losing the war. Craig’s crime did not occur in Minneapolis, his crime is being gay in a party that won’t tolerate gays, as well as being a hypocritical gay-basher. A jury of his peers may find him innocent, but a majority of his voting constituency will nail him to the wall. At least his position will keep him from being found stripped and beaten and tied to a fence in a remote location in Idaho.

  • just bill, while i understand your point I think we are actually better off with Craig and Vitter on the front page than Gonzales. The attorney scandal is too detailed, too complicated, and too easily clouded (“Clinton did it too! They were political appointees!”) for the general public’s attention span. But the Foley case showed the power of salacious scandal to topple the “family values” house of cards the Rethugs so smugly built. The R’s got there by promising the people they were oppressing economically a good Christian world, heaven on earth but with shotguns in every pick up truck. if this can drive the “values voters” back into their churches and away from Republican’t politics, the world is a better place as a result.

    that said, I can’t imagine the fine folks of Idaho are very impressed with the idea of Craig representing them. I plead guilty. . . um, no I don’t. I resign from the Senate. . . um, no I don’t. What the hell does this guy stand for?

  • I just love the idea of a Senator acknowledging he was too stupid to represent himself or call an attorney, which seems to be his only option for reversing his plea. It can’t be that he’s embarrassed about his behavior because he didn’t do anything wrong.

  • He’s the worst kind of flip-flopper. He pleaded guilty because of pressure and now wants to change his mind. He resigned because of pressure and now wants to change his mind. His votes in the senate are probably driven the same way. “I voted for the war to make it go away” and so forth. Not exactly a profile in courage. He should not be a senator.

  • My favorite aspect of this is the hypocritical contortions we can expect from the GOP if Craig does find a way to withdraw his guilty plea. We’ve already seen some lovelies over the radically different responses to Craig’s and Vitter’s situation. Imagine if the “we don’t like gays” crowd has to find some way to mesh their positions with the “we don’t want to lose a Senate seat” crowd. Imagine if the same people who excoriated Bill Clinton have to find some way to support Senator Craig’s right to private sexual behavior. Hee!

    Maybe progressives can’t get across the corruption of the modern Republican party, but everybody understands hypocrisy and they’ll know it when they see it. Pass the popcorn indeed.

  • Has anyone ever asked him if he’s bisexual? Bi’s don’t consider themselves gay. I have known many Bi’s and none of them would admit to being gay only because they still had sex with women. A good prosecuting attorney should see through ‘sexual double talk’. Unless he’s paid off by the GOP. Speaking of paid off? Where is the Monica ( or Murry ) Lewinsky in all this? This guy has had questionable sexual involvement going back thirty years to the congressional page scandals of the 1980’s. Someone has to step forward with a DNA squirt on a toilet tissue and accept the million dollar book deal.

  • Obviously we as voters demand much higher standards than we admittedly are willing to live up to ourselves. It truly is a matter of reality. We tend to fantasize virtue, especially when it involves another person. Inherently we take the popular route. Well, most do. Those that are secure enough to take the road less traveled may go against the grain. I for one am secure in the fact that I trust my own opinion, and thought process. This enables me to speak as I think. Even when it is not the most popular. This ability comes with maturity. A type of maturity some never reach. Now regarding Craig. Sure, the popular notion would be to oust him. So perhaps the situation was capitalized on due to this fact. Knowing well that the majority would follow suit in shredding his career , and life. Before I personally make a rash decision I sit back and personally analyze the matter. I’m getting to my opinion on Craig, however my approach is of most importance. I first honestly speaking, did not experience a sense of alarm that the media, and others portrayed, nor do I think they did either. I feel they took an opportunity to sensationalize. The media is notorious for this, and so are many people. If I were trying to achieve the destruction of someone, or the destruction of a party for whatever motive. I certainly would take advantage of the situation. In my life and career I have seen this hypocritical approach many times. Any readers probably have as well. I would love to elaborate on this subject further but this format is limited in its tolerance to my psychological analysis I am sure. So pressing forward I say this; Craig’s stiff approach, and past voting on issues certainly aided the shredding of himself. Last comment is of course assuming that he is truly guilty of trying to pick someone up in a bathroom. Lets consider that point. I personally know several gay people that voted against gay marriage. Why, I have no idea. I do know that their voting on the issue was certainly voiced without solicitation or the need to do so. So the idea of Craig s past voting record just went out the door with me. In my mind is he hypocritical. No, perhaps in his minds eye there are legitimate reasons for his voting outside of personal preservation. That is not my call nor the publics, constituents included. Keep in mind that his voting is to be for his constituents for whom put him in office. Is not that the way he is to line his votes up? Chew on that a bit. We tend to use a two edged sword when scrutinizing voting records. If I am clear on politics it is assumed, being a democracy that the representative is to vote on issues based on the majority opinion of those he is representing. Please correct if I am wrong. Maybe Craig was doing just that. This is reality as it presents itself. Now I look at his service record as far as his abilities, and expertise in carrying out his job. Seems to me he has served his constituents well, he in fact has held the seat a number of years. Could he perhaps have been stiff on Clinton based on this same principle? How could he ever imagine he would be nailed for what is accused, he did however if true respect his office, and did not perform any of the accused acts in his office, or with anyone that he had influence over. I give him that in his behalf. So cutting my rambling short lets now assume he is innocent. This one is simple. Perfect opportunity, they (whoever they may be?) capitalized on the aforementioned tactics of most following the popular opinion due to insecurity of being ones self or lacking the security of being different, including his on party. I have presented to you a very important approach to this that I am sure many of my colleagues have pondered. So I feel it is worthy of your consideration. Based on my personal analysis I feel he should remain in office. I think he has been harshly dealt with. Now consider my approach, and reach your own conclusion. I certainly will entertain any comments, as I have provided the following info:
    Email: marktaylorphd@gmail.com

    link to my website, and home of my future blog, if your interested use it, if not —toss it.
    Marktaylorphd

    Warmest Regards
    Mark

  • In Craig’s shoes, I’d be extremely nervous about trying to fight that charge. In and of itself, it’s an almost inconsequential legal matter, but as Neil says above, a “Monica” may show up giving a news conference, a page or some other individual with whom Craig has had “relations”.

    It seems to me that Craig is panicked and desperate to convince people he isn’t gay rather than that the policeman’s account to him of what the policeman saw was seriously in error. He reached down to pick up a piece of toilet paper? What’s he, the airport bathroom janitor? His defenses just weren’t terribly credible to me.

    For instance, that NO! when the policeman showed him his badge. That’s what spontaneously erupts when you realize something terrible is about to happen, like your car’s spinning out of control and you see a tree looming in your path and you can’t stop. It’s an emotional cry in the face of a looming disaster.

    Arlen Specter oughta’ have his head examined. He should have done Craig a favor and left well enough alone. You’d think Arlen had been in Craig’s shoes or something.

    Anyway, if Craig is so desperate to convince everybody he’s “not gay”, he’s probably concluded that since most of the party dumped him, he’ll do his thing, probably needing to convince himself more than anybody else.

    And I don’t think Craig’s decision will detract from Bush’s far more disastrous ones in Iraq at all. It just adds to the stew of hypocrisy and lying we’ve all come to expect from Republican politicians.

  • I certainly will entertain any comments… -Mark Taylor

    Just one suggestion. Paragraphs. Use them. Love them.

    …if unwanted advances were illegal, we’d have to shut down every bar in America — and the evidence against him is thin.

    The evidence may be thin, but the crime wasn’t unwanted advances. He wasn’t looking for dinner and a movie. He was trolling for sex, and not back in a hotel or appartment or home, but right there in the bathroom of an airport where anyone could walk in.

    It was and should be illegal. I wouldn’t want to walk a young son into a bathroom and be left explaining what the hell was going on in that stall.

    Oh, and as for shutting down bars, let’s be fair to the establishments. The airport didn’t make Craig peek through the gap in the door and determine he’d found his layover lay. The airport didn’t make him play footsie and throw up the gang sign for bathroom tryst. Craig is responsible for his own actions, and that includes pleading guilty.

  • Republicans get do-overs? Well, I for one, and looking forward to Craig hanging around. Idaho deserves him. They voted for the Gay ‘Ol Party, and they got what they asked for.

  • “He was trolling for sex, and not back in a hotel or appartment or home, but right there in the bathroom of an airport where anyone could walk in.”

    Several commenters have expressed this thought. But you don’t know that. Some people who troll for sex in bars wind up copulating in the bar’s bathroom, but most of them go home or get a room. What happened to “reasonable doubt?” If I’m on the jury, the only thing I convict him for is foot-tapping and finger-wiggling.

    This is still America, and both Democrats and Republicans have basic civil rights. Unless they’ve been abolished by the Bush Administration.

    That said, Craig is still slimy. And gay.

  • re Mark Taylor @ 22: Do we really hold public officials to a higher standard? The only times I see a public official on the ropes is 1) when an opponent or issue advocate drags him’her through the mud for political gain, 2) when he/she does something that our own social networks would shun US for, and 3) when they are hypocritical (which is probably a subset of #2).

    Unfairly attacking an opponent is obviously scummy, but the public isn’t responsible for that (although we are co-conspirators of a sort when we fall for such tactics). Most of the other recent scandals would be problematic for any of us — accepting bribes, preying on young boys, etc. Most of the groups I’ve belonged to don’t tolerate blatant hypocrisy either. So, I don’t see the public holding officials to a significantly higher standard. The press does, as you say, sensationalize things — just one of the many reasons we should rebel against modern media.

    “Keep in mind that his voting is to be for his constituents for whom put him in office.

    Yes and no. Leaders are supposed to lead, and in a representative democracy we should be choosing our leaders on the basis of their ability to do just that. We cannot possibly keep informed enough to wisely decide on the vast number of complex issues that our government deals with (although it’s apparent our leaders aren’t always as informed as we’d like either) To paraphrase one of Al Gore’s kids, I’d rather have my designated driver as president, not the guys I’m drinking beer with.

    Furthermore, the vitriolic nature of many of Craig’s moral judgments on others is I think proof that these are his opinions, not those of his constituents.

    Personally, I don’t get how cruising for a gay encounter should be legally different than what heteros do every minute of every day. So for me, all this comes down to a sort of malevolent hypocrisy — a willingness not just to condemn, but to harm others (through restriction of rights) for behavior that Craig himself engaged in.

  • If Larry can get all of this to go away and he decides to run for re-election then he will win once again. The majority of Idaho voters outside of Ada County will vote him back in. Most of them don’t pay attention to the issues but are concerned only with whether Larry called them when their loved one passed away. Like that makes someone a good senator! He will play up the ‘I was railroaded’ angle…..which even if he was what in the heck was he doing pleading guilty? He’s an attorney and he had two months to figure out what to do. He is either the most unlucky guy in the world or the stupidest…..either way should we have someone like him representing all of us in Idaho?

  • What happened to “reasonable doubt?” -OkieFromMuskogee

    I’m reasonable, and I have no doubt that his intentions were to commit a sex act in a public bathroom and that he signaled those intentions.

    You ask how we know he wasn’t going to take the nice young gentleman he met sitting on a toilet home? Because he was on a layover. You don’t leave the airport on layovers. There wasn’t a room available to him beyond the 4’x3′ public stall that he peeped into long enough and close enough for the officer to determine eye color.

    I simply don’t understand how anyone can defend him. He broke the law. Period. He plead guilty. Period. I’m sorry, but any doubt in this case is quite simply unreasonable.

    • Comments are closed.