I’m on-record saying that Senator Craig should have resigned and he brought dishonor on the state and is reason I have to hear wide stance jokes about Idaho everywhere I go. That does not justify the Statesman’s investigation into the personal life of Senator Craig, nor the sleazy tactics it used.

The Statesman’s methods were disreputable. The Statesman’s Dan Popkey reportedly went so far as going into a gay bar in Washington, DC and showing a picture of the Senator to patrons in the hope of turning up leads.

Their months of investigation produced little solid proof and nothing the Statesman felt comfortable running with until after Senator Craig’s arrest for disorderly conduct in Minneapolis became public. Were it not for that, the Statesman’s investigation would have been a bust. If there were an award for dumb luck, I would own to the Statesman deserving it.

The Statesman’s investigation was corrosive acid poured over our democratic system. It illustrated why good people don’t run for office. Not everyone the press investigates turns out to be guilty, and innocent people don’t want their friends, family, and associates questioned in hopes of turning up dirt on their sexual practices.

I’ve read no substantive report indicating Senator Craig was a sexual predator like Bill Clinton, Mark Foley, or Bob Packwood. The worst thing alleged is that he’s a man who broke his marriage vows with other men. If that’s true (and it looks like it is), that’s awful, but outside of his propensity for public risk taking (which the Statesman was never able to prove prior to the Minneapolis incident) what business is that of the Statesman’s?

When the American Spectator investigated the indiscretions of Bill Clinton, including alleged misuse of government employees and resources, the left called it the politics of personal destruction. When conservative publications reported his alleged sexual harassment and assault of women, it was attacked as a vast right wing conspiracy. Yet, the Idaho Statesman spends months of valuable time and thousands of dollars on tracking down leads that suggested Senator Craig might be a homosexual, and for this they get a Pulitzer nomination?

Of course, the Craig situation was different. It was okay to rummage through his sex life, because Senator Craig was a conservative hypocrite for opposing gay marriage and including sexual orientation in the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. You see, hypocrisy is the one sin that excuses all others committed in response to it.

Worse yet, the Statesman’s investigation came as a result of information published by Mike Rogers of Blog Active, who threatened a closeted homosexual US Senator (presumably Craig) with public exposure should he oppose the Marriage Amendment. For his attempt to subvert the American Republic through blackmailing public officials, Mike Rogers belongs in prison. But to the Idaho Statesman, he was a dandy source.

The Statesman’s brand of journalism is not all that new to media. Pulitzer himself practiced yellow journalism, but even he couldn’t imagine the audacity of the Statesman. My hometown paper’s status as a Pulitzer prize finalist for contributing to the destruction of good government, rummaging through the sex life of a politician to make a political point, and investigating the claims of a blackmailer who attempted to subvert the US Senate mark a low point for the integrity of the mainstream press in America.

I find myself in agreement with d2 at 43rd State Blues and total agreement with the Mountain Goat Report. She writes:

With four generations of Idaho blood in these veins and embedded with the spirit of Bear Lake Valley pioneers, my love of this state and the people in it is deeply rooted.  I cringe to see and hear Idaho reduced to sleazy humor infamy by the arrogance of one man who, in the O. J. Simpsion style of “looking for the real killers,” just wants to “clear his name.”

Enough already, Senator Craig.  You’ve done quite enough for Idaho.  Many mistakes can be forgiven with time, however this tragedy is no longer about personal indiscretions—you’ve tarnished and stained and then selfishly smeared that tarnish and stain all over the image of Idaho. 

What else can be said? Senator Craig lied. Throughout this, he’s shown himself not to be a truthful person, whatever happened in that bathroom. Fundamentally, he’s been out to deceive in Idaho and hold onto power whatever the cost. Sadly, Larry Craig is emblematic of the type of people we elect these days.

Worried that the disgraced lawmaker intends to remain in the Senate indefinitely, they are threatening to notch up the public humiliation by seeking an open ethics hearing on the restroom scandal that enveloped Craig last month.

The Senate hearing would examine the original charges in Craig’s case, including the allegation of “interference with privacy,” for peeping into the bathroom stall occupied by an undercover police officer. One senior Republican aide imagined “witnesses, documents, all in front of the klieg lights.” The committee also could look for “a pattern of conduct” — which means combing court records in other locales to discover whether Craig had prior arrests that haven’t come to light.

The call for a public hearing is not unprecedented. In 1995, the Senate narrowly rejected holding an open forum to examine sexual misconduct allegations against Bob Packwood (R-Ore.). The Democrat who called for the open Packwood hearing? Barbara Boxer (Calif.), the current chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee.

I’m trying to ponder the type of ego required to consider putting your family and the people of a state you say you love through this indignity. I just can’t fathom it. I hope Craig resigns before it comes to this, but he’s already spent a lot of good will through his plain failure to bow out gracefully. Hopefully, he’s not forced to bow out through a tawdry hearing like this. It’ll be sad if his own party has to do this to get Larry Craig to do the right thing.

It doesn’t matter. The issue with Larry Craig isn’t just what happened in a men’s bathroom nearly 4 months ago. The issue is honesty and integrity. He first pled guilty in order to hide this from the people. Then he made us think we were watching a resignation speech when instead it was a wink and a nod to his attorney with the words “intent to resign.”

One of the great challenges of civic life is to respect your leaders. How can you do that when your leader stands up and delivers a speech that really was just “an intent to deceive.”

According to Idaho Chooses Life, the senate yesterday defeated an amendment to the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) proposed by Sen. Wayne Allard, an amendment that would have required that the CHIP program continue to cover preborn children. Democrats are determined to remove that provision from the legislation.

The vote was 50-49, meaning that if Sen. Craig had been present, the vote would instead have been a tie, putting the tie-breaker in the hands of Vice-President Cheney who certainly would have voted for life.

As it stands, President Bush is likely to veto the Democrat’s version of CHIP, since it will allow federal tax funding for abortions in 17 states. As David Ripley of Idaho Chooses Life observes, if the Democratic version goes into effect, this program, designed to provide health care for children, will instead be used to kill them.

Thanks, Senator Craig for making Idaho half a state as far as the US Senate goes. I did a little bit of calculating. Senator Craig at this points looks like he won’t work for Idaho at all in doing his duty in the US Senate (no, issuing press releases from Boise doesn’t count and is really not important.)

A US Senator makes $165,200 a year. If you calculate that out, that’s $13, 766.66 a month. The Senator ought to leave office if he WON’T represent Idaho during his remaining weeks. If he won’t, then he should have the decency to return the salary’s he’s being paid for work he’s not doing.

Craig: Not Voting

At this point, Idaho is like half a state. We have one Senator voting and one Senator who has taken himself out of commission. It seems to me that if Senator Criag is continuing in the Senate he ought to continue and actually vote until the intended resignation on September 30th.

Otherwise, to have a Senator in Boise while the work he’s supposed to be doing is going on in Washington is absurd. If the Senator wants his staff to be able to make plans and finish up case files, I’m sure whoever Otter appoints will have no problem letting Craig’s staff stay until the 30th.

If S

Craig appeared ready to resign because he pleaded guilty to improper conduct in a Minnesota airport restroom, but he modified his position after he heard Specter on the Fox News Network say the Idaho senator should not quit. The misdirected voicemail disclosing Craig’s tactics cited Specter’s comments as reason for contemplating a fight.

Specter, a moderate from Pennsylvania, was grateful to Craig as a rare conservative senator who backed him vigorously when an effort was made after the 2004 elections to prevent Specter from becoming Judiciary Committee chairman. After privately being told by Republicans to stop boosting Craig, Specter Thursday contended he had said all he would say about the controversy.

Thank goodness for that, but again the GOP suffers a blow thanks to Snarlin’ Arlen. One of Bush’s greatest mistakes was to save this man from almost certain defeat in 2004 re-election campaign, and the Senate Republicans showed their clubbyness by letting this guy serve as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the last Congress.

A spokesman, who insisted that Mr. Craig is not gay and was not trying to solicit a police officer in a men’s room stall, said that the Idaho lawmaker had initially announced his resignation from the Senate in hopes of avoiding publicity, and “to make the whole thing go away,” after he discovered that pleading guilty to a crime failed to make it go away.

“Essentially, Sen. Craig is still experimenting with ways to make previous mistakes vanish,” the unnamed source said. “If backing out of his resignation and revoking his guilty plea doesn’t work, he may apply for a refund on the airline ticket that took him to Minneapolis in the first place.”

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) intends to try and overturn his conviction in an airport sex sting and if he is cleared, serve out the rest of his term, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on Wednesday.

McConnell said he spoke with Craig by phone on Wednesday morning where Craig told him his plan. Craig announced last Saturday that he intends to resign from the Senate on September 30th.

McConnell said the case has already been referred to the Senate Ethics Committee and that any further matter on the case would have to come from them.

“If he is able to get the case favorably disposed of, it would be his intention to come back to and to deal with the [Senate] Ethics Committee case he knows he will have and to finish out his term,” McConnell said.

Well ain’t this lovely? As Bryan Fischer and others have pointed out, the Constitution may be of some help in getting the convinction overturned:

If the senator had been a better student of the U.S. Constitution, his arrest may never happened at all, and if the U.S. Constitution is followed, as of course it should be, the senator’s arrest and guilty plea will have to be vacated.

This is because the Constitution, in a straightforward and unambiguous manner, states in Article 1, Section 6 that “Senators and Representatives… shall… be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same.” (emphasis mine) The only exceptions are for treason, felony and breach of peace, and the senator, of course, was charged with a misdemeanor.

A Talk Left commentator also finds some procedural mishandling which will also contribute to the guilty plea being set aside. So, thus folks we’ll be set for trial. Doesn’t that just thrill you? Idaho will be in the news for a very long time and if Senator Craig is acquitted in a jury trial, we get to have hearings before the Senate Ethics committee.

Now, don’t kid yourselves. If Craig were a normal defendant getting some type of stay of charges for a year that leads to dismissal if there’s no behavior problems would be fine . Problem is that doesn’t undo the charges or the plea. The evidence against him in the Court of Public Opinion is tremely damning as Bryan Fischer laid out today:

Most observers have overlooked one of the senator’s first statements to the arresting officer, “You solicited me.” That is an admission on the senator’s part that some kind of exchange of signals occurred between him and the officer. Further, if he was not familiar with the protocol used to arrange sexual liaisons, how did he know he was being solicited in the first place? Most of us had no idea of the process homosexuals use to arrange restroom trysts until we read about them in articles about the senator’s arrest.

The senator by his own admission had frequently been in that particular restroom, a restroom which is advertised on gay websites as a prime location for anonymous encounters, and is so far out of the senator’s way that he actually had to leave security to get to it, then pass through security checkpoints again to get to his next gate. It beggars belief that, in an airport with dozens of public facilities, he just happened to find himself in the one restroom in the entire airport noted for anonymous sexual encounters.

Further, the senator, as a frequent traveler, most likely had access to a VIP lounge for his use during layovers. His layover, according to press accounts, was from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., in other words, over the lunch hour. Most observers will find it inexplicable that a traveler with access to free food and a comfortable and clean bathroom in an essentially private lounge would go out of his way to seek out a public bathroom.

It’s virtually impossible for an objective observer not to conclude that the senator was in that bathroom cruising for gay sex, that such conduct is unbecoming for a U.S. senator who represents the state of Idaho, and that it is still appropriate for the senator to resign from public office.

The evidence is pretty clear, but Craig seems determined to selfishly draw this out to hold onto his career. Craig will most likely lose at trial, but not before being humiliated as the questions Bryan Fischer asked and more are brought, the court considers the credability of an officer who has busted several men for the same offense. Craig and his reputation will take a further ride through the mud, but Idaho won’t miss much, Larry Craig’s taking us along for the ride.

Like a bad horror movie, the scandal that began with Senator Larry Craig’s (R-ID) guilty plea in August to disorderly conduct sank into the distance. Now, it’s baaaack:

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

“We’re still preparing as if Senator Craig will resign Sept. 30, but the outcome of the legal case in Minnesota and the ethics investigation will have an impact on whether we’re able to stay in the fight — and stay in the Senate,” Smith said.

Craig, a Republican who has represented Idaho in Congress for 27 years, announced Saturday that he intends to resign from the Senate on Sept. 30. But since then, he’s hired a prominent lawyer to investigate the possibility of reversing his plea, his spokesman said.

And all across the land, late night comedians are celebrating and media folks are headed back to flyover country as Larry Craig is not resigning for certain. If he can get everything to go right in court and before the ethics committee then maybe not.

Of course, it’s the folks of Idaho that have to put up with it. We have to deal with politics being relegated to jokes about toe tapping and wide stances. It’s those in the Republican Party that have to bare the GOP being the butt of dirty jokes.

There’s only one reason Senator Craig is reconsidering resigning and that’s to hold onto power. Twenty seven years in Congress, that’s what he’s done with his adult life. Well, a career change at 62 can be tough. I’ll grant him that, but the idea that he’s going to back out on his resignation is revolting. The one egging this on, is none other than one of the chief members of the old boy’s club, Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) It’s why careerism is dangerous in the halls of power.

Senator Craig’s reconsideration is Exhibit A for term limits. Two terms in the Senate, four in the House. It’s enough for any man, and perhaps the idea won’t occur to them that the Senate isn’t a place you work until the day you die.

If Idaho matters, Senator Craig should pursue his options in court, but not while serving Idaho. As for the likelihood of success of those options, one lawyer experienced in this case explained on Talk Left why even if Craig gets the guilty plea set aside, he’s unlikely to succeed. The lawyer has tried about a dozen of these cases, winning one and losing eleven:

I’ve read the arrest report as an advocate, placing myself in the position of Craig’s counsel. I’ve also considered the potential admissibility of similar acts, most of which maybe too old to be admissible, but maybe not. Can the prosecutor get in other bad acts of solicitation in men’s rooms if they can bring in a witness? [The Idaho Statesman's source likely will not testify, even if disclosed.]

The big problem: the judge that tries this case probably has already heard several like it, considering the officer states in his report that there have been numerous complaints about this bathroom at this airport, and that’s why the officer was there. The officer’s detail (which will be recounted on MSNBC’s Countdown tonight at 8 ET) adds to his credibility.

My recommendation: “Senator, you do not want a trial. The odds of conviction exceed 90%, because you have a cop who has successfully arrested others and a judge who has convicted others for the same thing.

Now, maybe with a better lawyer he’ll have better odds, but as one of his new lawyers old clients, Michael Vick will tell you, fancy lawyers can only do so much.

Now, more than ever, it’s time for him to go.

Other blogs:

Michael Medved gives 7 great reasons why Craig should resign.

The Scottish Right has a round up of press coverage.

Michelle Malkin has a healthy debate in the comments.

I take no joy in this. Even before moving to Idaho, I had a lot of respect for the him and his service in the Senate. However, the Senate and Idaho are deserving of more respect than Craig gave it.

The Senate is the greatest deliberative body on the face of the Earth. At times, they may behave selfishly or like bickering children, but a member of the Senate, particularly a Senior Senator, stands as a nationally known figure for his state. His actions this past June in a men’s restroom in the Minneapolis Airport disgraced the Senate and Idaho as well.
Senator Craig’s explanation that his actions were misconstrued are belied by the fact that the arresting officer was a professional who has been on this detail for some time. Sergeant Dave Karsnia’s report is absolutely damning in describing the Senator lurking outside Karsnia’s stall for two minutes, and began to follow a familiar pattern used by men “seeking to engage in lewd conduct.”

Senator Craig’s explanation that this was all a “misunderstanding” doesn’t wash. Nor does his explanation of his guilty plea as something he did to resolve the issue expeditiously jibe. No innocent man in his right mind would plead guilty to a loaded charge like “lewd conduct” much less a man with 27 years in Congress. If Senator Craig is lying, he has a serious problem, if he is telling the truth, then he lacks the basic good judgment to be in the United States Senator. Either way, it’s time for him to go.

That Senator Craig should resign does not in any way justify the investigations of his personal life by certain leftists. Nor are those who are joyously celebrating the downfall of another human being anything less than disreputable scoundrels whose blind hatred will in the end threaten the survival of our Republic.
I wish Senator Craig the best. Hopefully, he’ll find grace, healing, and a fresh start in life. I also think it’s appropriate for all people to say a prayer for Senator Craig’s family.

Senator Craig’s past years of Congressional Service have been quite distinguished by thoughtfulness, and firm leadership. It’s a shame for this to be the note on which his career ends. However, a basic respect for the US Senate and for the people of Idaho should lead Senator Craig to step away from public life to get his own house in order.

UPDATES Follow below the fold. Latest updates here.

UPDATE:

Clayton Cramer is also calling for Larry Craig to resign.

And on things, you never expected to read on Adam’s Blog:

Linked by the Daily Kos. Thanks.

I find very fascinating this comment by McJoan who writes in Daily Kos:

My gut says he’s going to resign; his being gay wasn’t a problem for the Idaho GOP just as long as they didn’t “really know” he was gay and didn’t have to think about it. Now that it’s been exposed, and it’s all over the local news according to my sources in Idaho (well, ok, according to mcmom), the pressure is mostly certainly going to be on him.

I find this odd that even the left is equating Craig’s conduct with merely “being gay.”  So, according to the left, adultery and soliciting lewd conduct in a public restroom is just part of what goes along with “being gay?”

Interesting things that come out when liberals are on the attack.

UPDATE II

Comments closed. Let’s put it bluntly, we weren’t getting anywhere.  The argument that Senator Craig is a “hypocrite” is interesting, mainly due to the fact that Craig’s never been a hugely vocal opponent of homosexual rights. He voted that way, never talked about it much. Senator Craig was much more driven by agriculture.

Second point is that the argument in regards to the homosexual rights issue is little more than the old fallacy that liberals love (and a few conservatives too), Ad Hominem Tu Quoque which is illustrated below via a fallacy website:

Bill: “Smoking is very unhealthy and leads to all sorts of problems. So take my advice and never start.”
Jill: “Well, I certainly don’t want to get cancer.”
Bill: “I’m going to get a smoke. Want to join me Dave?”
Jill: “Well, I guess smoking can’t be that bad. After all, Bill smokes.”

The same logical fallacy repeated a thousand times is no less fallacious.

Also, “The argument, you can’t be a homosexual and oppose creation of hate crimes or you can’t be a homosexual and oppose gay marriage.” If you do, you’re a traitor to your group. Thus, the great problem with liberalism. They love you if you’re part of some designated group as long as you think like a member of that group ought. The moment you think as an inidividua,l you’re a traitor to whatever box you’ve been placed in.

I also found it quite novel that homosexuals soliciting sex in restrooms is entirely the fault of the Republican Party or entirely a Republican Party activity.

This little post hasn’t avoided a mention on Digg where the liberal digger writes:

This didn’t take long. Moments after the national media gets word that the Republican Senator from Idaho pleaded guilty to lewd conduct in a Minneapolis Airport restroom, one conservative blogger is already calling for him to resign. Doesn’t seem that loyalty that conservatives have for the Republican Party is very strong.

Apple Ann fires back:

What a dumb statement. It could only come from the party of no accountability. When the Dems are mired in scandal they are promoted and re-elected. Teddy Kennedy, his out of control son Patrick, Barney Frank (boyfriend running a prostitution ring out their townhouse), Wm Jefferson, John Murtha, on and on. Republicans hold their own accountable, usually calling for resignation. That’s what I call loyalty to the party. Try it sometime.

Couldn’t say it better myself. Indeed, one of the reasons the GOP lost in 2006 is staying too long with folks like Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney.

Finally, I see Binky Boy’s in his usual mood:

What a wonderful day. I think I’ll open up a cellar door wine and just kick back and watch the news have a field day with this.

For all the liberals who say they aren’t happy about what happened to Craig, here’s what I’m talking about when I refer to celebratory liberals.

Update III:

Linked by Patrick Ruffini and Hugh Hewitt

UPDATE IV:

Linked by Ridenbaugh. Bill at Free In Idaho has also called for Senator Craig’s resignation.

Dan Popkey posted the results of the Idaho Statesman Investigation.

Let me say this, I do think all this talk going on many blogs right now about who will replace Senator Craig is a tad unseemly right now.

I’m reminded of the Apocryphal story of an ambitious officeholder who heard that a key Lincoln Administration official had passed away. He ran to the White House, got into see the President and told him, “I want to take John’s place.” Lincoln shot back, “If it’s all right with the undertaker, it’s all right with me.”

There’s a time to discuss the future of politicians and their blind ambition (or in the case of Shelia Sorenson, blonde ambition.) but now is not the time.

Update V

Radical Russ chimes in. Won’t go into all the details. He points out I’ve not called for the resignation of David Vitter. No, I haven’t. The issue with Vitter is 6 years in the rearview mirror and has been dealt with, with his wife.

Russ summarizes what the issue is:

It’s not Craig’s gay conduct, whether it’s being caught in the men’s room john or it’s coming out on the cover of The Advocate… to paraphrase an old Clinton campaign slogan, it’s the hypocrisy, stupid!

As stated above, it’s the logical fallacy, stupid. This isn’t an argument, it’s a scorched Earth strategy to intimidate anyone from opposing you.

Also, the post was linked by Reason Magazine and Linkfilter.

Latest updates are here.

Enter conservative blogger Adam Graham. As of June 22, Graham was defending Craig against the “sleaze-ball tactics” [mp3] of Idaho Statesman reporter Dan Popkey who spent time earlier this year on special assignment trying to confirm rumors of Craig’s orientation. By July 7th, after the Senate’s highly charged immigration fight and Craig’s support of the President’s policy (called shamnasty by many), Graham had changed his tune, predicting a 55% chance of a Craig retirement.

Now Graham, very appropriately, is declaring Craig “one of them,” in response to reports of Craig’s support for embattled fellow Republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. In fact Senator Craig compared FBI officials investigating Stevens to the Gestapo.

I appreciate MGR noticing, but I’m being misinterpreted. I don’t write my blog for the benefit of politicians, I have a system of beliefs I follow on matters such as fairness (and that’s where Popkey’s sleazy investigation goes), and I also have a strong anti-Washington bias and suspicion of the federal government. My mind hasn’t changed about Senator Craig. I call them like I see them.

There are quite a few conservatives ticked off at Larry Craig for the border, primarily, but the Closed Primary issue is another one where he’s out of step. Given the national conservative mood regarding Ted Stevens, I doubt there would be a whole lot of sympathy for that statement. Is anger so high folks would throw out a right of center senator with a pro-gun, pro-life record for a pro-abortionist who earned a “D” from the National Taxpayer’s Union?

Will Larry Craig have a serious challenge should he run? I doubt it. Will he run? I think not. That, by the way, is not a statement of what I want, but of what I believe will happen. It’s predictive. Will him not running have much to do with conservative disatisfaction? No. The indications I’ve received based on my observations is that Senator Craig is considering retiring as he’s in his 60s and has spent 18 years in the Senate.

Will I vote for Craig in a Craig-LaRocco race? Absolutely. Larry Craig may have his problems, but Larry LaRocco doesn’t have the cure. LaRocco, in 2 terms in Congress, showed himself to be a bloated big spender (with the aforementioned D rating from the National Taxpayers Union), he opposes term limits, and is too liberal for Idaho. Craig, despite his faults has always had a B+ or an A from NTU, each of the past 17 years. Until the Democrats can get a candidate who can stand in his own right and speak forthrightly to the people of Idaho, this will never be a serious question, as the Democrats run against Republican politicians, but really give the public no reason to back them.

Linked in the Best of Idaho. 3 links in 2 days, I think I’ve been discovered.