![[Iowa map]](http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2005/12/05/GR2005120501681.gif)
McConnell: Craig Case "Clearly Distinguishable" From Vitter, Stevens
Pronouncing the Larry Craig gay-sex sting episode "over," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said today that the Idaho Republican was forced to resign last weekend because of the finality of his guilty plea to disorderly conduct charges, and not because of the political stigma of the homosexual allegations inherent in the arrest.
McConnell said that Craig's legal problems were "clearly distinguishable" from those of Republican Sens. Ted Stevens (Alaska) and David Vitter (La.), because Stevens has asserted his innocence in an on-going corruption investigation and Vitter's recent admission of committing a "sin" involving a prostitution ring occurred before he came to the Senate.
"This had to do with admission of responsibility as opposed to charges or suggestions. ... There's a substantial difference between a conclusion to a matter and allegations that are being denied or behavior that occurred before you even came to the Senate," McConnell in his first public comments since the Craig scandal broke early last week.
But, in a 23-minute press conference, McConnell acknowledged that he has no particular doctrine for how he is going to deal with senators caught up in scandals and investigations. "All of these will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis," he said.
In the wake of Craig's forced resignation, Republicans are facing questions about how exactly they handle corruption among their own colleagues. There is no precedent in recent Senate history for the speed and force with which Republican leaders moved against Craig, following the disclosure that he had pleaded guilty Aug. 8 to a charge of disorderly conduct in a Minneapolis airport restroom. McConnell knows this, as he was the top Republican on the Ethics Committee in the mid-1990s and helped lead a several-year investigation into sexual misconduct charges against Bob Packwood (R-Ore.). Ironically, Craig was also on the committee at the time.
But Craig was not given several years to defend himself before the Ethics panel, as Packwood was before he resigned in 1995 rather than face a public expulsion trial. Instead, Craig was blasted by critics and targeted for punitive actions that left him no choice but resig. The backlash began Tuesday with McConnell's call for an ethics investigation of the men's room incident, continued Wednesday when the GOP leadership team stripped Craig of his top committee assignments, and culminated at the end of the week when the National Republican Senatorial Committee, with McConnell's assent, announced it would not support Craig for re-election.
For now there will be no call for an investigation of Vitter, who admitted his contact with the D.C. Madam two months ago and promptly fled the chamber for an entire week. Nor will Stevens be relieved of his senior posts on the Appropriations and Commerce panels, even though those committee assignments are central to an FBI corruption investigation that led to a raid of the senator's Alaska home five weeks ago.
McConnell did not address Vitter or Stevens by name when explaining the differences in their particular cases. "The individual involved maintains his innocence," he said regarding Stevens.
Referring to Vitter, McConnell said that no criminal charges had been brought against the first-term senator and his admitted involvement with a prostitute took place more than three years ago "before this individual came to the Senate, therefore raising a serious question as to whether the [Senate] ethics committee would even have jurisdiction over it."
Craig, however, has maintained that he "over reacted" in pleading guilty to charges brought by an undercover airport police officer operating a gay-sex sting, in hopes of keeping the case quiet. He said he was worried because his hometown newspaper, the Idaho Statesman, was conducting an investigation into past complaints about his sexual conduct at the time. He maintains his innocence and has hired a legal team to try overturning his own guilty plea.
McConnell doesn't believe that effort will be successful. He declined to say whether he believes Craig when he said he was not gay and was not soliciting sex in the restroom when he was arrested June 11.
"I think the episode is over," McConnell said. "We will have a new senator from Idaho in the next month or so, and we're going to move on."
By Paul Kane |
September 4, 2007; 2:40 PM ET
Previous: Document Shows Widening Probe Into DOJ Hiring |
Next: GOP Leaders Hesitant to Endorse Doolittle
Posted by: Chester West | September 4, 2007 3:20 PM
A question my older brother brought up -- why is Craig waiting until Sept. 30th to officialyl resign? Idaho has a republican governor, so that's not the issue. We were wondering if there is a pension issue in the background that hasn't come out yet or something.
Posted by: Kristin | September 4, 2007 3:24 PM
Maybe he wants to keep the key to the Senate's restroom as long as he can.
Posted by: pacman | September 4, 2007 4:51 PM
The Republicans' differing attitude and treatment of Craig vs. Vitter has to do in large part with whether the Governor of their respective home states is a D or an R. In Vitter's case, they don't want to run him out of office and have a D appointed who can run as an incumbent. In Craig's case, they want the office cleared as soon as possible in order for an R to be appointed who can immediately begin running for election, thus creating the best chance of holding the seat. That they are homophobic is a given; however it is being "Demophobic" that is their prime motivator.
Posted by: Henly, Texas | September 4, 2007 5:23 PM
The hypocrisy continues. Craig was drummed out because his conduct was gay and because Idaho is a safe Republican seat, so his replacement is guaranteed to be Republican. Vitter is still there because his replacement would possibly be a Democrat.
So paying for sex while married is unpunished IF it means the Dems may pick up a seat? But cruising for gay sex (and not even paying for it or even having it) is grounds for immediately being forced out?
Hypocrisy.
Posted by: Hillman | September 4, 2007 5:35 PM
If the Gov of Idaho was a Democrat, the Senate GOOPERS would have been three deep in protecting him.
Everyone sees through this sham, pure and simple.
Posted by: LaurenM | September 4, 2007 6:23 PM
I agree with "Henley, Texas" and Hillman above. This isn't about winking at illegal hetero sex while condemning illegal gay didn't-even-HAVE-sex sex.
This is about Demophobia, not homophobia. Craig got dumped solely to remove an oozing wound from the elephant's nose, safe in the knowledge he'd be replaced by a Republican.
Vitter, who DID have illegal sex and admits it, would be replaced by a Democrat. And that's why the Republicans of the Senate are so willing to pretend to forgive, while hoping we'll all forget.
Not bloody likely. The nation is tired of the sexual obsessions of the Republicans (gay sex, gay marriage, abortion rights) and is going to remember in November that these guys -- and I don't mean just Foley and Craig and Vitter, but also the party leadership who happily covered for them -- have been liars and frauds all along.
The rules are different for them: their sons don't go to war, their daughters can always afford a legal abortion, and their friends (Scooter, old pal!) don't go to jail. We know it, and we're tired of it.
Posted by: Ankhorite | September 4, 2007 6:24 PM
Actually ol' lemon-faced Mitch knows full well he isn't even close to a paragon of virtue himself. He apparently doesn't even speak to his first family, Elaine Chao is a later spouse. He apparently called Jim Bunning's opponent, Daniel Mongiardo, a slur of some sort back in 2004. and of course Mitchy boy loves his campaign financing as he gets to raise more and more money, and keep it from the public eye. there is enough baggage against this clear troll (steve forbes is more handsome) so all the dems need is the right person to get rid of him in 2008.
Posted by: breakspear | September 4, 2007 8:53 PM
I am disappointed with everyone...those who failed to come to their friend's (Craig's) defense in public while quietly telling him in private that it is just a political thing...those who have turned this into a witchhunt over a MISDEMEANOR charge on an almost victimless crime (the press)...and the Democratic Party...for being so weak as to take the bait.
It amazes me how such pro-defendant's rights supporters could roll so easily on another colleague, regardless of party affiliation. I am not convinced that what Craig did rises to the level of misconduct that justifies stripping the man off committees and shoving him out of the Senate. The man may be guilty of poor judgment, just merely trying to protect his good name from being smeared to begin with...but no one wants to give him a chance. I was not particularly impressed with the officer's questioning of Craig on audiotape. Craig indicated that he felt like he was being "entrapped". Has anyone considered that maybe he really was being entrapped?
People like me who cannot afford a lawyer or risk the possibility of a felony conviction, may accept a guilty plea on a lesser, misdemeanor offense. Someone would do this to settle the issue and move on...no one said it was fair, but the cost of asserting one's innocence can be very high. Clearly it is because innuendo means more than truth these days.
Posted by: PSM | September 6, 2007 5:38 PM
Larry Craig said, "You solicited me" very clearly, very early on the arrest tape. When he said that, you then knew that HE knew what was going on. From that point on, it was all him trying to weasel.
Posted by: Aaron | September 6, 2007 8:07 PM
This is soooo about him being Gay and closeted...
Why don't the Repubs just send larry to "Jesus Camp"?.... He can be cured of his repressed homosexuality in two weeks, back in the saddle (sort of) with his wife, and ready to judge, condemn, repress or harass anyone that triggers his repressed self loathing....
And it'll show us skeptics that "America's God Saves Another Sinful Republican from Hell"
Posted by: whomung | September 7, 2007 12:54 PM
Craig showed extremely poor judgment in his choice of venue. He knew the Idaho papers were on to him, he should have laid low ..instead he chanced a rendevous in the worst possible place (UGH!!). Aaron makes a good point. Craig's gaming it right now with his "fight". How pathetic and tragic.
Rs aren't necessarily homophobic, it was just the salaciousness of this, the late night laff potential, the "misdemeanor" plea and of course the political damage with the core voters. Jim Kolbe (R- Ariz), recently retired was openly gay and well respected within political circles. But he wasn't married and I assume he was discreet.
I feel for Craig's wife and children - and for him, too. Not easy living a lie.
Posted by: MMD | September 7, 2007 1:02 PM
Repugs in Idaho are real concerned about the millions in federal pork earmarks that they won't get now since the new senator will be low man on the senate totem pole and won't have those senior committee positions. McConnell is probably trying to figure out how to get the new guy a little more seniority so they won't lose Idaho altogether in 2008. However, cynical all this is, the Democratic tasks are to have a decent candidate and keep helping people remember the hypocrisy, corruption and cover-ups.
Posted by: JoshuasGrandma | September 7, 2007 2:43 PM
[i]pro-defendant's rights supporters[/i]
You're not a defendant after you plead guilty...
Posted by: Ron | September 9, 2007 5:18 AM
Posted by: sohbet | September 19, 2007 12:41 AM
Good site! I'll stay reading! Keep improving!
Posted by: Doe | November 10, 2007 10:36 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Senator Craig plead guilty to discorderly conduct. Mitchie McConnell may very well rue the day he set the bar so low that a Senator could be run out of the Senate for accepting guilt to a misdemeanor.