So Just What Is Craig's Political Stance?

Well, the Idaho Statesman finally released the information about their investigation of Senator Craig's purported homosexuality. Following numerous leads, and often ending up without anything substantive, the Statesman basically leaves us with a "he says/he says," so anyone reading the article can believe either the speculators or Craig, but not both. Craig denies to this day that he ever engaged in any homosexual acts, although his objections sound a lot like that now famous line, "I never had sex with that woman!" I guess it's all a matter of what constitutes sex, or in this case, what constitutes homosexual sex. Too bad it's not Ken Starr going after Larry Craig, although Craig must thank his lucky stars every day that no Ken Starr has relentlessly pursued him. I guess that "down and dirty" stuff remains a peculiar Republican trait.

Accompanying the long and informative overview is the Stateman's request for some answers to some pointed questions about his behavior, his honesty, his trust and his responsibility towards the people of Idaho:

"...Idaho's senior senator must speak candidly with the people who have hired him for more than a quarter of a century. He owes this to voters — no matter how difficult that may be for him and for his family. And voters owe Craig a chance to explain himself."

The Statesman questions his rather feeble excuse for pleading guilty,

"Craig says, in hindsight, he should not have pleaded guilty and "should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this matter."

stating that as an "educated professional" and and elected one to boot, should have had the wherewithal to go directly to a lawyer. In other words, Craig's excuse sounds lame even to the Statesman.

They also suggest that Craig's handing his senatorial business card, and asking what the police think of that, is "...an inexcusable abuse of power," and I totally agree with them. This situation had nothing to do with the people of Idaho. It was personal and he should not have tried to weasel his way out by virtue of his being an elected official. Nobody is above the law.

The Statesman further finds that Craig's choice of remaining quiet about his little Minnesota escapade is "...an unacceptable breach of trust." Craig obviously hoped no one would hear of this episode. Then again, maybe he just didn't want to make the same error he made back in 1982 when he issued a statement saying he had no involvement in the page scandal involving homosexual sex, drugs, and abuse of power, before he was ever officially accused of such activity. After twenty-five years one would think that Craig had learned when to speak up and when not to. How difficult a lesson is that?

In ending, the Statesman states,

"Yes, we have pointed questions, as many Idahoans surely do. But there's a difference between asking hard questions and making snap judgments. We ask Idahoans to await the answers before passing judgment."

I agree with this position by the Statesman, but we do have not only statements by others about Craig's engagement with them in homosexual activity, but we have a police officer who was, himself, solicited by Craig. Now is the time for honesty... unfortunately I, for one, do not expect that from Senator Craig; however, it would be a very pleasant surprise, and I remain optimistic.