Larry Craig to try and stick around

September 29, 2007

It’s Sept. 29; do you know where your Larry Craig resignation is?

Based on a self-imposed deadline announced a month ago, the Idaho Republican, who pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct after making advances towards an undercover police officer in a Minneapolis airport men’s room, was supposed to step down from the Senate tomorrow. That’s clearly not going to happen.

As of Wednesday, Craig said he would await a judge’s ruling on his request to withdraw his guilty plea, before making a final decision on whether to resign. That could take a couple of weeks, and perhaps longer depending on appeals and any possible new charges prosecutors may file.

But in a “Hardball” interview the other day, Craig lawyer Stanley Brand suggested the senator may disregard the outcome of his case in Minnesota, and may very well stick around regardless.

MATTHEWS: Stan Brand, is your sense that the senator may well be able to hang on until the end of his term?

BRAND: I — think that’s conceivable, especially if he gets some type of relief in Minnesota. But I don’t think it depends on that.

For those keeping score at home, as of a couple of weeks ago, a favorable ruling in Minnesota was the only thing that would keep Craig from resigning. Now, the senator may decide that a misdemeanor charge on his record isn’t the end of the world.

Craig seems to be nearing the point in which he tells his colleagues, “If you want me to go, you’re going to have to expel me.”

And what of the Senate Ethics Committee investigation, which would disappear if Craig resigned? The senator’s lawyer seems unconcerned.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the Ethics Committee. That’s especially for you working within the Congress on ethics matters. Can you win his case in the Ethics Committee, if it comes to that? I know that no senator’s been expelled by the Senate. I — I think you have to go back almost to the Civil War, when they expelled people for joining and taking an oath to the Confederacy.
BRAND: Right.

MATTHEWS: What is the case? Would they…

BRAND: Well, again…

MATTHEWS: What’s the worst the Senate could do to a senator…

BRAND: Again…

MATTHEWS: … if he says, I’m staying?

BRAND: Yes. Again, I mean, I — you know, I—they’re — it’s inconceivable to me that the United States Senate will open the door to bringing cases against senators for misdemeanor, misdemeanors that have nothing to do with the performance of official duties.
I know they say they have the right to discipline people for bringing discredit on the Senate. That’s a vague standard. That’s well beyond where we are in 2007. I can’t imagine that 99 other senators want to be judged by that standard.

MATTHEWS: Yes, you wonder about all the traffic violations and other kinds of problems that they would be facing.

If I’m a betting man, my money is on Craig pushing this as far as he possibly can, knowing full well that the Senate almost certainly can’t force him out.

Craven!

  • This guy’s flip-flopping is hilarious. First he pleads guilty then he says he wants to change his plea. First he says he is resigning then he says he’s going to stay. Typical Republican.

  • Craig must have a humiliation fetish. That would explain both his bathroom exploits and his subsequent behavior.

  • Yes, it’s inconceivable to me that Republicans would open the door to bringing a case against a sitting President for sexual misdemeanors, misdemeanors that have nothing to do with the performance of official duties.

    I know they say they have the right to discipline people for bringing discredit on the Presidency. That’s a vague standard. That’s well beyond where we are in 2007. I can’t imagine that 99 other senators want to be judged by that standard.

  • Melior is damned funny@#4. Craig and his lawyer have a point. If the Senate expells a Senator with a misdemeanor record, just what in the heck will they have to do with the alleged criminal David Vitter and the alleged bribee Ted Stephens? And if they go after sexual piccadillos, what becomes of Lindsay Graham and Mitch McConell?

    Poor inconsistant Senate Hypocricy anyone? Double standards much?

  • First of all, you don’t “try and do something,” you “try TO do something.” Christ, do I hate that!

    Second, it’s a real stretch to say that no Senator has been expelled since the civil war. Bob Packwood resigned, but only because the ethics committee unanimously voted to recommend expulsion. Packwood wasn’t convicted of anything, but on the other hand he did sexually harass women while he was performing his official duties.

  • Even if Craig is guilty as charged, he shouldn’t have resigned. He shouldn’t have been asked to resign. The delicious irony about his case is that 1) he’s obviously gay, 2) his voting record is anti-gay, making him a hypocrite in my book, and 3) his Republican colleagues all piled on when his problems came to light. Now his continuing presence is an embarrassment to everyone.

    And the best part is that Craig’s problems keep David Vitter in the spotlight. In my book, Vitter is the greater of two evils here.

  • Somehow I managed to go quite a few decades without knowing how to wiggle my hands and feet in such a way as to solicit gay sex in a toilet, but now I know, thanks to a family-values Republican. I guess the rightwingnuts do promote public education after all.

  • Odd; I was pretty sure that “getting some relief in Minnesota” was what got him into trouble in the first place.

    It hardly needs repeating, but the longer Larry Craig hangs around, the more of a perennial humiliation he is to the Republicans. It speaks volumes about their despair for the next election that they will endure “Senator Craig, a Republican who was busted in an airport toilet for allegedly soliciting gay sex from an undercover police officer…” add-ons to every story that mentions his name, in order to hang on to a Republican seat.

  • I hope Craig hangs on just so he can be a continuing embarrassment to the Republicans. I hope he runs for reelection!

    There is one aspect of the Craig story that has bothered me since his “resignation” announcement at the end of the first week of the story. My wife and I watched his press conference live and we both immediately asked what does he mean by it is his “intent” to resign? Any clear reading of the English language shows that he did not announce his resignation. He did not say that he was resigning effective Sept. 30, but rather it was his “intent” to resign on Sept. 30. Nevertheless, every reporter and news outlet reported that Craig had announced his resignation. There has never been any discussion of the fact that all the media got the story WRONG! If anything, the media version has been that Craig reversed himself. Why didn’t some reporter ask Craig or his staff about his wording at the time? Why doesn’t somebody do a story on how the entire news media misreported a national news story?

  • Tell another tale
    Get a friend’s support
    Add the fine detail
    As an afterthought
    Never any doubt
    Never any shame
    Under no account
    Ever take the blame

    He’s not leaving folks. What’s he going to do? Go home and spend his days dodging the knuckle-draggers who elected him because he’s such a homophobe?

    Speaking of which, I’ll be interested to see how he votes on the P-Gon spending bill that includes the Matthew Shepard bill.

    • Comments are closed.