Larry Craig Should Not Resign! September 7 2007
From The Bulletin, September 6.
Senator Craig Should Not Resign!
Congratulations, Arlen Specter!
It’s refreshing to know that the United States Senate still has at least one member with courage and integrity. Specter refused to engage in what has become an increasingly popular pastime, namely, pouncing on a wounded public official or celebrity, regardless of the facts.
Instead, the Senator’s voice has been the only one of reason regarding the airport arrest of Idaho Senator Larry Craig and his subsequent announcement that he would resign.
Specter urged his colleagues to reconsider their invective against Craig, admonishing those who are calling for Craig’s head to look at all the facts in the case.
“I’d like to see Larry Craig go back to court, seek to withdraw his guilty plea and fight the case,” Specter said on Fox News. “On the evidence, Senator Craig wouldn’t be convicted of anything…I’d like to see him fight the case because I think he could be vindicated.”
He added that “The more people take a look at the situation, there may well be second thoughts.”
Specter, senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said that “…if he went to court, and was acquitted, all of this hullabaloo would have no basis.” Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of Judiciary, praised Specter’s comments: “From a legal point of view he makes a very good point.”
If Craig is guilty of anything, it’s not resigning from a Republican Party that has, time and again, walked away from its principles while embracing political expediency. This is a GOP that seems hell-bent on demonstrating that it has learned nothing from last year’s trouncing.
Let’s look at the lightweight politicians leading the Craig witch-hunt. You have John McCain, desperately trying to revive his moribund Presidential campaign, calling for Craig to resign. Worse yet was the performance of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who labeled Craig’s actions “unforgivable” (while there may be certain things in life that are “unforgivable”—treason, child molestation, etc.— is Craig’s behavior in that category?). Even Presidential contender Mitt Romney chimed in, calling the behavior of Craig—a friend and supporter of Romney— “disgusting”. How’s that for loyalty from a man who seeks to lead our nation?
These so-called leaders should have stood by Craig, not because he was a colleague or friend, but because he appears to be yet another victim of a criminal justice system careening wildly out of control. Stories abound of regular citizens being railroaded by the government on a daily basis (can you say Duke Lacrosse?). At the least, Craig was entitled to the benefit of the doubt from his colleagues before they went public with his political execution.
And since “disorderly conduct” doesn’t constitute moral turpitude, why are Senators trying to force Craig to resign? That’s a decision for the people of Idaho to make. Period.
Let’s state the obvious: Craig’s guilty plea certainly didn’t help his case. As a U.S. Senator, you’re one of the big boys, and you simply cannot say, with any credibility, that you were coerced into making a plea or that you weren’t aware of the consequences of your decision.
So why would he plead guilty? Because the state has the power to make your life absolutely miserable if you don’t consent to its wishes—even, or especially, if you’re a U.S. Senator. In the audio police interrogation, Craig never admitted wrongdoing, and disputed the officer’s account of events. But faced with the choice of disorderly conduct or a sex crime, he took the path of least resistance in the hopes that the whole episode would “go away”. Naive? Perhaps, but he figured, quite reasonably, that his career would certainly be over if he pled “not guilty” and was forced to go on public trial for a sex crime. The adage of innocent until proven guilty doesn’t apply to public officials. It’s more like “guilty if charged”.
Is his situation any different from what occurs every day across the country? If you drive through a yellow light, and receive a ticket because an officer thinks it was red, you’re almost always offered a choice: plead to a non-point violation and pay the fine or take your chances before the judge. Even if you are absolutely convinced of your innocence, can you take the chance of having your insurance rates jacked up (or be dropped altogether) if you’re found guilty? If you’re like most people, you take the offer and plead guilty, even though you’ve done nothing wrong.
As far as the charges against Craig, what was illegal?
Remember, no sex took place, there was no public exposure, nor any physical contact.
Oh wait, I’m wrong on that last one. Their feet (allegedly) touched.
No offer of sex was made, and no money changed hands. And as far as looking through the crack of the stall door, well apparently that’s a crime too. So the next time you check to see if a stall is occupied—while in full view of everyone else in the bathroom— prepare to be arrested. You’ve committed a criminal act.
If Craig had stood on the toilet and peered over the wall, that would be a different story. If he was engaged in sexual activity inside a stall— with either a man or woman— that would constitute a crime. If he propositioned someone to pay for sex—you get the picture.
None of that happened.
And by the way, is this really the best use of our police resources, having officers loiter for hours on end in bathrooms?
Where does it end?
It doesn’t. A prime example is that, in certain jurisdictions, someone urinating in public can be charged under the sex crime laws and, if found guilty, becomes a registered sex offender. There is no distinction made between a pedophile and somebody relieving himself after having one too many.
So kudos again to Senator Specter for standing up to an increasingly intrusive government which seeks to control every aspect of our lives. Every time a travesty of justice takes place, our collective freedoms take another hit. Only when we reject the “I don’t care—it doesn’t affect me” mentality, will we stand a chance of living free once again.
Possibly Related...
Comments, compliments or complaints?
Jen Clark Sep 7
Chris,
Nice post. I agree with almost all of it. The one area where we are in disagreement is Arlen Specter’s motivation for speaking out for Larry Craig. You said that Specter:
“refused to engage in what has become an increasingly popular pastime, namely, pouncing on a wounded public official or celebrity, regardless of the facts.”
This was not his reason for speaking to the media. Arlen Specter would not take such a political risk if he didn’t have a good political reason.
I believe that Arlen Specter spoke out for Larry Craig because they are in agreement on the NSA spying program and they believe that there is something fishy going on with Craig’s public outing.
If you look, you will find that Arlen Specter has been the most vocal Republican against Bush’s wiretapping/eavesdropping (whatever you want to call it) plan. Larry Craig is one of the people that has been right there with him. If Specter is going to take Bush on in regard to this program, he’s going to need all the Republican votes he can get. Every single one counts. And Craig’s resignation takes one of those votes out of the Senate.
You have done a great analysis of the actual arrest, I’d love to hear your opinions on this eavesdropping connection.