Henry J. Stern
Thursday, September 6, 2007

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water.
 
Just when you thought you had heard the last of Senator Larry Craig,  we learn that he has reconsidered the matter of his future, and that he did not in fact resign effective September 30, as announced at a press conference last week, but simply  expressed his intention to resign.   Now he and his new legal team have concluded that he has a defense to the charge of disorderly conduct in a Minneapolis rest room to which he pleaded guilty on August 8, he is asking the Minnesota court for permission to change his plea to not guilty.

His public efforts at self-resuscitation are chronicled in yesterday’s Times.  A thorough  article by Carl Hulse and William Yardley, with assistance from Duff Wilson, on pA24,c5&6, headlined CRAIG SAID TO RECONSIDER RESIGNING FROM SENATE, tells the story well and fully.

The lede:  “Senator Larry E. Craig of Idaho opened the door Tuesday to returning to the Senate, raising another twist in his unfolding political drama and raising the possibility of an ugly showdown with national Republican leaders.”  The rest of the article is a straightforward account of recent developments, which gives the background of the unfolding situation.

The public mood is, at least to a small extent, changing to becoming more sympathetic to the embattled Idaho senator.  He is morphing from a toilet pervert to a poor old man being gang-raped by the colleagues he worked with for 28 years, now saying that what he did was disgusting and beneath contempt.  President Bush, whom Craig supported on the unpopular immigration bill, said nothing and walked offstage when asked about the Senator.  Craig's old allies now say that his very presence is a blot on the Senate, and that he must be removed like a wart.  Perhaps they fear he will approach them in the Senate men’s room, or accidentally or deliberately see their private parts.  After all, they have a gym and they shower.

A number of questions arise to an independent observer who is following the case:.

Would all his Republican colleagues feel the same way about Craig if Idaho had a Democratic governor who would appoint a Democrat to the seat who could then run as an incumbent in 2008?

2) The Republicans lost 32 seats and control of Congress in 2006 the major cause of their defeat was the war in Iraq. But there were secondary causes.  One was  the corruption issue involving a number of congressmen, notably Duke Cunningham of California, who was convicted and imprisoned for taking $2.7 million in bribes.  Another was the scandal which led to the immediate resignation of Mark Foley of Florida, the ephebophiliac page-chaser whose inclinations were known for some time to the Republican House leadership, including former Speaker Dennis Hastert.

Was the instant demand for Craig’s head, or his seat, the result of  the perceived weakness of the leadership in the Foley case, and their desire not to be politically tarnished once again?

3) Craig has been a Senator since 1991 and a member of Congress since 1981.  This is his 27th year on Capitol Hill.  After the men's room incident became public, the press reported that rumors of his predilections had been heard from time to time.  Is it probable that a close colleague could have homosexual inclinations to such an extent that he would prowl through toilets to find a stranger with whom to have sex, and yet no one he worked with would know about it over a period of 27 years?

We would suggest that although it is possible, it is highly unlikely that such a secret about a high elected official would be kept for a generation in a company town like Washington, D.C., where gossip circulates freely.   The likelihood is that many of his colleagues knew, and it was all right with them as long as it was not a public issue.  When the news got out, they hastened to distance themselves from Craig, as they had done with Foley, whose conduct was much more egregious.

In today’s Politico, to which  you should link, Roger Simon wrote about the misuse of resources involved in the case, as well as the absence of proof of a criminal act.  The column is very well done, both serious and funny. Here is a sample:

“Do law enforcement officers in Minneapolis have nothing better to do?
How about checking the bridges for cracks?  Think that might be a better use of manpower?”

“Larry Craig is no William Blount " Simon says (the title of his column).  You’ll have to read Simon's column to find out who Blount was, and why he was expelled from the Senate in 1797.

“Larry Craig is a hypocrite, a liar and a fool.

“But if we kicked people out of the Senate for that, how many senators would we have left?”

Another defender of Craig’s rights, although not his behavior, is former Mayor Ed Koch, whose column you can link to here.

Koch quoted Senator Arlen Specter, former chair and now ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, who said: “The more people take a look at the situation, there may well be second thoughts.  He said if Craig had not pleaded guilty and demanded a trial, “I believe he would have been exonerated.”

Koch continues "I  have no doubt that in the event of a trial, and particularly if the trial. Were held in New York, Craig would be found not guilty.  Under these circumstances, a criminal case could not have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

“I believe that Craig intended to solicit sex.  However, not having offered money or otherwise engaging in any sexual conversation with the officer at the time of the alleged solicitation, he could not be found guilty, particularly when he denied knowing of the meaning of the hand and foot signals the officer referred to.”

We ask whether a Senator elected by the people of any state should be forced from office for tapping his foot and swiping his hand in a toilet stall?   Is intent sufficient for a conviction for lewd behavior, resulting in the loss of a job one has held for 17 years?  What if, when they met face to face, one man had found the other to be a troll, or an undesirable sex partner for any other reason?  What if the older man had been solicited but refused to pay? (Senatorial privilege, they are used to freebies,)

We usually punish crimes, not intentions, except for cases of terrorism or where injury to others is foreseen  Who would be injured in this case, whether they had sex or not?  What about the defense of entrapment?  If the officer had not responded to the tapping by moving his own shoe, that could have ended the matter.

We conclude that this is not a moral, but a political issue.  The Republicans are trying to extricate themselves  from embarrassment by harsh treatment of their ailing brother. Senator Larry Craig did not turn gay at the age of 62 in a Minneapolis rest room.  That is not the way it happens. Rule 16-J again: "Nobody does it once."  Craig's behavior  was tolerated as long as it was unknown to the public.  When his secret was out, even in the form of an allegation, he was out, tarred and feathered by his brothers in arms.  What a shock.

It is interesting to note that the Senator has apparently no redeeming qualities to earn sympathy or approval.   His legislative record is relatively barren for his 17 years as a senator, and he is a down the line conservative.  In this country, conservatives have rights too, although his conservative colleagues apparently do not feel that way.  His liberal colleagues are silent, probably laughing to themselves.  Even Barney Frank, in 1990, had defenders..

To us, Senator Craig was never as appealing as he is in disgrace.  It may be what he deserves for his hypocrisy, but expulsion from the United States Senate is not a traditional punishment for that human vice.  Let the people of Idaho deal with the man they elected, not the king-makers in his party whose only interest is his seat. Last thought: being a New Yorker, I can't help thinking: what would Joe Bruno do if this happened to one of his guys?


#410  9.6.07     1404wds