Larry Craig’s “What if” defense

Although in my previous post on this I’ve recommended the distinguished gentleman from Idaho step down “for the good of the party,” a very close friend of mine —who is quite liberal, by the way— has come to Larry Craig’s defense.


One of the main reasons is the absolutely shoddy police work. For example, the police report indicates that “other stalls were unoccupied” along that back row of toilet stalls in the men’s room.  The ‘IMPLICATION’ is that the Senator could have used one of those unoccupied stalls, but instead wanted a stall next to someone for the purpose of soliciting sex.

The officer’s report simply states he noted that other stalls were available because they were unoccupied.

My friend points out that this is an arrogant manipulation of alleged facts. At no place in the police report does it describe the condition of those unoccupied stalls.  In other words, “What if” they were all plugged up … or “what if” the seats had crap on them, or “what if” some idiots had failed to raise the seats and pee’d all over them.

I have to agree, this was shoddy police work, at best. Having been in bathrooms where commodes are plugged up and people have pee’d on the seats, I don’t feel it’s my job to be an airport janitor.

The senator had an alibi with that.

My friend and I also listened to the audio tape of the officer ‘interrogating’ the senator. Frankly, the senator’s story is quite believable. Regarding the “wide stance” argument, the senator says he takes a wide stance when lowering his pants so they don’t hit the floor.

That’s actually a very valid point. I NEVER let my pants hit the bathroom floor in a public bathroom, and I, too, take a fairly ‘wide’ stance to prevent them from doing so.  I’ve argued that I certainly wouldn’t let my feet go into someone else’s stall, but my friend points out that I’m in my mid-40’s, and the senator is 62.  “What if” he doesn’t focus on where his feet are, and he’s just trying to prevent his pants from hitting the floor,” my friend asks.

I could go on, but suffice it again that the senator did NOTHING wrong to break any Minneapolis or Minnesota law.

The ‘What If”s’ aside . . .

That having been said, I want to reiterate that I still think it’s in the best interest of the party for the senator to step down. By his own admission, he panicked and made a mistake.  He also never had a lawyer represent him in all of this — He simply tried to sweep it under the rug.

But even with all the alleged “panic,” the senator still had a month to mull it over before officially pleading guilty for disorderly conduct.

My reason for wanting him to step down is NOT because he may have been guilty of soliciting sex, but because he exercised very poor judgment in dealing with it.  Yes, he is human, and we all make mistakes. But our public representatives are supposed to have high moral character and make better decisions than that.

I certainly don’t want MY senator casting votes on my behalf when he has shown himself to make poor decisions in pressure situations. Since I live in Idaho, I believe I have the right to ask for people to have better decision-making skills when representing me in the US Senate.


1 Comment

Filed under Culture, Media, News, Politics, Rants, Thoughts

One response to “Larry Craig’s “What if” defense

  1. Pingback: We are no longer ‘innocent until proven guilty’ « Op-Ed Central

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s