Maybe the Senator wasn't getting at home what he really needed and craved--sex with a man. This is getting predictable and tiresome. He's married. So what? Does it make sense that he backed an amendment that would have banned gay marriage? Yes. I'd say the term "gay marriage" would describe his situation in many respects, but why do these individuals think that if they crow loudest against something that they won't be noticed? Mark Foley was a big advocate for protecting children, while he was approaching them for sex on Capitol Hill. Surely, then, they want these laws to control their behavior in what could be viewed as a classic case of psychological "projection" of what one is "guilty" of.
The original incident happened on June 11th in a restroom stall at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. I've been to this airport, and one would have to go out of their way to get into the trouble Senator Craig is now finding himself in. The media should get-to-the-bottom of why we're learning about this now, though again, it's likely that the Justice Department and local authorities quashed it as long as they could under pressure. Release of the story at this historical moment seems timed for some impact, and eyes should be focused on Tim Griffin and Karl Rove. But the fact known today is that Craig pleaded guilty and is on-probation for his behavior of trying to solicit sex with an undercover police officer named Sgt. Dave Karsnia in an airport restroom. Who sat on the story? Who kept the records away from the media? Why is it being released now? Who leaked it? Is Sgt. Karsnia attractive? It bears all the MO of Rove and his associates.
We're also beginning to hear about an August 8th hearing, so that's probably when some of the mainstream media began to know about this, or shortly thereafter. Remember when the New York Times sat on the warrantless surveillance story until well-after the 2004 elections? They might want to tell us exactly why they did this, but we do know for-a-fact that the Bush administration told them they "would have blood on their hands."
Threats and the use of fear as a weapon appear to have been very useful for the White House since 9/11. Apparently they never heard or read FDR's comments on the emotion. Compliantly, the New York Times sat on the warrantless surveillance story for almost an entire year after George W. Bush had been safely reelected--but it also took the GOP stealing the elections again, partly through voter "caging-lists." This was courtesy--in-part--of the Gonzales Justice Department looking the other way, and through political operatives like J. Timothy Griffin coordinating the illegal activities in several states. A very ugly picture is beginning to emerge, and history will not be kind in its judgement.
Griffin now serves (or does he?) on Fred Thompson's presidential campaign team. Again, it begs-the-question whether Karl Rove is behind the release of this information in some way, since it will certainly do some harm to Mitt Romney's campaign. The Giuliani campaign has been facing similar embarrassments. How much harm has been done to both campaigns is an unknown at this time. The other potential factor in all of this is an unspoken system of cover-up for whoever happens to be in-power. This writer would wager that it's bipartisan in many areas, but falls predominantly on the GOP-side as they are currently holding power. Who was it that obstructed justice who isn't currently in the right place(s )to do so anymore? Why did the story break? Why now? Obviously, the Senator couldn't wait to have sex, and it wasn't a matter of "wait until I get home."
In the Senate, Mr. Craig, who is married and has three children [Ed.-Not his, but his wife's from a previous marriage], is known for his advocacy for the rights of gun owners and has a close association with the National Rifle Association. When Republicans controlled the Senate in the last Congress, Mr. Craig was chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee. He is a former member of the party’s Senate leadership. He represented Idaho in the House before first winning election to an open Senate seat in 1990 and he was easily re-elected in 1996 and 2002. In 2006, Mr. Craig publicly rejected allegations by a gay rights advocate that he had engaged in a homosexual behavior, calling them “completely ridiculous.” (New York Times, 08.27.2007)
Yes, how ridiculous, how absurd it is to have to deny who one really is simply to get elected, but that's America. If this doesn't clue most of the public to the fact that political and economic elites don't have problems with homosexuality--merely using it to divide the rest of us in America--they'll never get it, or anything else. It's an obvious lesson, and the GOP's leadership will do as much as they can to downplay any of these lessons since it's one of the few methods they've had left to get into office...besides barring Black Americans from voting, a high crime. Blacks haven't traditionally voted Republican for several generations, they vote predominantly Democratic.
But back to Larry E. Craig and his peers in the GOP: besides lacking any sexual control, it appears many Republican incumbents have little-or-no respect for the rule of law. No, it's not just the president. People do these things when someone (the president? the former AG?) has given them the indication that they can do it with impunity, and they hold most of the power in Washington and elsewhere. It's something that's unspoken in the corridors of power. Somehow, these GOP incumbents forgot that they lost the 2006 midterms and that many of their protectors were gone (except within the mainstream media).
It's important to examine elements of Craig's statement released today: ..."I should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this matter. In hindsight, I should not have plead guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously." Right, you thought that just by being a U.S. Senator that it would go-away, that you didn't need a lawyer. As we all know today, Craig was wrong. He was observed and arrested by an honest policeman. The statement of the arresting officer corroborates Craig's callous attitude towards the law.
...Craig kept asking what was going to happen. ...Once outside the restroom, Craig stopped near the entrance and was hesitant to comply. I told Craig that we would speak in a private area without embarrassing him or causing a disturbance. Craig was still hesitant to follow me at first, but then complied. ...Craig handed me a business card that identified himself as a United States Senator as he stated, "What do you think about that?" I responded by setting his business card down on the table and again asking him for his driver's license. (talkingpointsmemo.com, original arrest statement, filed 06.26.2007)
Said perpetrator plead guilty because he was caught. That's it. There's nothing complicated about it. He's on unsupervised probation until the Summer of 2008. For that reason alone, it's unlikely that Larry E. Craig is going to be running for reelection anytime soon, and that his seat is going to taken by a Democrat in the most conservative state in the Union, Idaho. In addition to this, Craig has already resigned from his post on Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. None of this is of any real concern to someone like Karl Rove or those who he serves. Romney is a long-shot. It's likely that someone wishes only to give Fred Thompson a more level playing-field in 2008. The press should be shadowing Karl Rove and his operatives all-the-time, this could be another one of their jobs.
The original police report from 06.26.2007 (why the lag?): http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/craig-arrest-doc/?resultpage=1&
The New York Times yesterday: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/washington/28cnd-craig.html?hp
Tim Griffin's e-mails to Monica Goodling from the House Judiciary Committee: http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/DOJDocsPt7-8070319.pdf