Patterico's Pontifications

10/14/2007

Senator Larry Craig Raises Lowers the Bar: “I’m no longer in the way”

Filed under: Politics — DRJ @ 8:26 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Apparently Senator Larry Craig is right where he wants to be …

… getting a government paycheck while he appeals his Minneapolis disorderly conduct conviction:

Sen. Larry Craig says he will file an appeal Monday over a judge’s refusal to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea stemming from his arrest in an airport bathroom sex sting.

In an interview Sunday with KTVB-TV, Craig repeated he will not resign his post in the Senate and said he will continue to work his legal options. “It is my right to do what I’m doing,” said Craig, an Idaho Republican. “I’ve already provided for Idaho certainty that Idaho needed — I’m not running for re-election. I’m no longer in the way. I am pursuing my constitutional rights.”

GOP Senators continue to lower the bar. Now it’s down to “I’m no longer in the way.”

— DRJ

25 Responses to “Senator Larry Craig Raises Lowers the Bar: “I’m no longer in the way””

  1. I said this on another site. If deprived of an excuse to travel and the Senate expense account to pay for it in order to pursue his lifestyle, and were instead forced to hang around his ranch in Idaho, he’d hang himself.

    nk (6e4f93)

  2. so, what does his wife do when she wants to have sex, tap her foot on the floor?

    assistant devil's advocate (3f81c9)

  3. Oh come on, ada. The ridicule thread is on the NASCAR immunization post. He is pitiful but also to be pitied. And his family does not deserve any of this from what I can see.

    nk (6e4f93)

  4. NK:

    Oh, I feel terrible for this idiot’s family; you’re not supposed to cheat on your wife with anyone.

    But for him? I got nothing. He deserves to be ridiculed.

    –JRM

    JRM (355c21)

  5. NK,

    I agree it’s difficult to know what to do with Senator Craig but I don’t feel too sorry for him. For instance, they went forward with his induction into Idaho’s Hall of Fame. I’m sure he did a good job for Idaho but it’s awkward when he’s into fame instead of shame.

    DRJ (0ea8bd)

  6. and his family does not deserve any of this from what i can see.

    they’re providing cover for an elected official. besides, i’m just snarking on a blog, senator craig is kissing her right after blowing osama van halen in an airport men’s room; which of us do you think is ultimately more dangerous and disrespectful?

    assistant devil's advocate (3f81c9)

  7. DRJ – Where is that Hall of Fame? Pokafello?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  8. From the AP, which either is being purposefully droll or, more likely, is oblivious to irony (emphasis mine):

    Before the event, Michael Ritz, an Idaho Hall of Fame board member, said he had been bombarded with calls from national media outlets wanting to know whether they could set up cameras at the $50-a-head function.

    And while even some Republican Party members suggested withdrawing or delaying Craig’s nomination, Ritz said the 12-member board opted to go ahead.

    “We thought, It’s kind of going back on your word,” he said before the event. ”Once a person has been sent a letter and voted into the Hall of Fame, it would be kind of like breaking a promise.”

    Yes, breaking a promise and going back on one’s word ought to be avoided.

    Beldar (369293)

  9. Beldar….while this might not be the best venue, there might be something to making a promise and not breaking your word….

    reff (bff229)

  10. Reff,

    Craig promised to resign on September 30.

    nk (6e4f93)

  11. I think he said he “intended” to resign on September 30. Even when he said this the slippery weasel was deceiving.

    I defended Craig in the sense that I don’t think he had yet committed a crime before being arrested… but he’s a liar and a fool and I can’t stand the guy. The sooner he’s out of office the better.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  12. DRJ #5,

    I am contemptuous of his guilty plea, primarily. That gave me the impression that he’s a weak sister who follows the path of least resistance. His subsequent actions have only confirmed that impression. He does not want to leave the cozy nest of the Senate for the cold winds of private life not because he cares about his state and constituents but because it would be too uncomfortable for him.

    nk (6e4f93)

  13. nk…I was referring to the Idaho Hall of Fame committee…not Craig….he is a joke…

    reff (bff229)

  14. Oh…and not a joke because of any act he did in a bathroom….a joke because he is guilty of a crime, and still thinks he should be a senator…

    reff (bff229)

  15. His “family” deserves nothing but contempt. The wife knew perfectly well what she was getting into as she married him after his now-famous 1982 announcement that he didn’t have sex with any male Senate pages, even though no one publically accused him of doing so (meaning of course that he was indeed having sex with male Senate pages.) She obviously marreid him for the perks of Beltway wifedom, and the protective comforts of a Triumph of the Will & Grace marriage.

    Those children are not his, but the result of her first marriage. How clever of them to go on “Good Morning America” and speak up for dear old stepdad — acting as if they were his biological offspring.

    Can’t wait to see tomrrow’s Today show appearance, less for what new excuses he’ll trot out than how lavishly Biran Williams will kiss his ass.

    David Ehrenstein (e417fc)

  16. anyone know of any polls in his state about this? they are very conservative. Do they want Craig to resign (I assumed they did).

    Also, this isn’t going to cost the GOP that seat. It’s going to make the GOP look bad, of course. But they deserve it, the GOP has absolutely no moral advantage over the democrats, which is shocking when you think just how awful the dems are.

    ADA, I sure hope that Craig’s entire family has been checked for STDs. It’s no laughing matter. He’s robbing his wife of a fun marriage too, if he’s not heterosexual. But gay republicans sorta have no choice but to hide in this media climate (no excuse anyway)

    Dustin (ad339d)

  17. DRJ: You misspelled Stall of Fame.

    Dana (3e4784)

  18. Larry Craig-A Profile in Absurdity

    I must confess that I didn’t even know about Matt Lauer’s interview with Senator Larry Craig because I don’t watch Lauer, and even if I did, I would have no interest in watching Craig deny that he is gay. Lauer, by most accounts, was lobbing up softballs at Criag, lest he be perceived as bashing homosexuals and probably was most uncomfortable doing the interview. But hey! Craig is a Republican, so he is fair game. He could have gone down to Louisiana and interviewed William “Cool Cash” Jefferson regarding his bribery arrest (a topic Lauer’s network has all but ignored). But then, Jefferson is a Democrat. We get it , Matt.

    I did listen to excerpts of the interview on the John and Ken radio show on KFI (Los Angeles) because I am a John and Ken fan and I knew it would be good for laughs. And it was. To someone with a cynical sense of humor as mine, Craig’s staements were hysterically funny. Other than that, I am ready to turn my attention elsewhere-as long as Craig resigns. I must state, however, that Craig has now made a claim that is laughable on its face and must be addressed. Now he is asserting that he is the victim of profiling, and now he understands the victimization of innocent people by profiling.

    Profiling? Wait a minute. First of all, when we speak of profiling these days, most folks bring up racial profiling, that is, stopping someone based on their race. Is that what happened here? Did the Minneapolis Airport police spot Craig, a 60ish white male, grey hair, dressed in a suit and figure he fit the profile of someone that might be looking for sex in a public bathroom? Obviously not. I doubt that there is a racial component to that activity.

    As a retired DEA agent, I have some familarity with the topic of profiling. Law enforcement will tell you (and many people are not convinced) that true profiling is based not on race, but behavior that is typical of a certain type of violator. For example, suspected drug couriers flying around the country carrying drugs and/or cash proceeds have been checked out based on things such as type of ticket they were carrying, luggage, behavior etc. With vehicle stops that lead to a search, it is based on what details the officers develop during the stop that leads them to form reasonable cause to believe there might be drugs in the car. Any stop (in either situation ) based on race would never pass muster in court.

    In Craig’s case, he was not detained based on any profile, he was detained and arrested based on his actions. Let’s remember that it was Craig who initiated contact with the undercover officer-not the other way around. The cop was already in the restroom and in the stall when Craig entered and focused his attention on the cop. Prior to that (as far as we know) the police had not even observed Craig. So for Craig to claim entrapment and profiling is ludicrous.

    All in all, this man is continuing to make a laughing stock out of himself and humiliating his wife in the process. No one (except possibly his wife and children) care a whit whether he is gay or not. That is not the point. The point is that such behavior in a public restroom is against the law-and properly so. The public, especially children who use those restrooms, should have the right to enter without having to step over two people having sex in a public place-an activity that even most gays would consider disgusting.

    So now Craig is going back on his resignation, trying to get his plea erased and hold on at all costs to his Senate seat. To me, this is typical of the self-centered narcissism of politicians today. But as long as he insists in holding on, the longer he will be the butt of the late night comics.

    gary fouse
    fousesquawk

    fouse, gary c (33b5ba)

  19. Dana #19,

    Heh.

    (Sorry for the delayed reaction but I just saw your comment.)

    DRJ (67ced6)

  20. Beldar & Reff,

    Not to mention Craig’s intention to plead guilty and actual guilty plea which he went back on.

    DRJ (67ced6)

  21. NK #13 – Absolutely right.

    DRJ (67ced6)

  22. Hear hear, nk and DRJ, you are both absolutely right about #13.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  23. I may have misjudged him. He is “getting in the way” on a couple of pretty consrvative issues. Perspective and h/t here.

    nk (6061ba)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1336 secs.