Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Senator Craig Is Not Gay! And Other Observations

I watched Senator Craigs statement live this afternoon, and I must say that the very first words to pass his lips can only be described as unfortunate given the circumstances.

Senator Craig opened the event by saying "Thank you all for coming out today". Initially I thought this may be some type of Freudian signal as to what Craig would announce. I anticipated Craig baring his soul to the world, describing how he struggled with his public persona even as he lived a secret life. Maybe he would even apologize for being so insufferably holier than thou on the issue of homosexuality, and call for others who once looked up to him to change their approach on the issue...

Suffice to say that I was sadly mistaken as Craig announced, and then reiterated, that he was not gay. Actually Craig may have a point here... He is married and has a gaggle of kids, so I would lay money on Craig being bi-sexual. I believe the chances are pretty solid that if the shoe on the other side of the stall had been worn by a female which Craig percieved to be willing, that he would have started trying to hit on that just the same as he tried hitting on the male undercover cop.

I also note the extremely frustrating use of a gimmick which has been long employed by the Bush administration to stifle questioning on subjects which they do not wish to address. The "I can not comment on an ongoing investigation" ploy. However, the pretzels which Craig must twist himself into in order to employ that logic is truly amazing. Typically an ongoing investigation would be considered to be wrapped up when the accused pleads guilty.

BUT... in one of the wierdest legal twists of logic ever in the history of legalisms, Craig has now hired a lawyer to "examine this matter and I will make no further comment". Thus we have Craig somehow falling back on the old canard that there is an ongoing legal... issue, even when there clearly is not. So he left the event being trailed by shouted questions from the press, and his supporters will say that he can't answer those questions because there is an ongoing legal proceeding of some sort. How twisted, and positively devious, is that?!

Actually, you have to admire that sort of chutzpah. The guy pleads guilty... and when one pleads guilty it's not like the judge one files the plea with doesn't drive it into ones thick skull exactly what one is doing. Craig was fully aware of what he was pleading too. So to now get a lawyer and to use that simple fact as a reason to not comment beyond his near delusional statement because the lawyer is examining the matter is truly breathtaking.

It is clear, at least in this one respect, that Craig has learned his lessons from the administration all to well.

I don't know. I think it's possible that he didn't want to make a scene when he was arrested. Most of these guys don't deserve the benefit of the doubt, but for some reason, I'm not sure this guy is guilty. I may be wrong.
999 out of a 1000 times, a person who isn't guilty of a crime doesn't plead guilty. The odds might even be lower if you're a rich, white senator.

Everything that's followed the guilty plea is just theater. I've heard many gay men love the theater, so in this way it makes perfect sense.

P.S. BHFRIK--great stuff on the Padilla case! Meant to comment when you posted but I was too lazy.
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]