Senator Larry Craig, Republican of Idaho, pled guilty to disorderly conduct in connection with allegedly trawling for sex in an airport men's room (where, it might be noted, there is a decided lack of women to be trawled). In spite of pleading guilty to a misdemeanor stemming from what any objective definition would consider at least a prelude to homosexual conduct, the senator is maintaining the position that his is not, in fact, homosexual. Once news got out of the incident, Craig issued a statement that read, in part, "In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty." To whit, he has engaged lawyers in an apparent bid to have the guilty plea tossed out. Further, over the weekend, Senator Craig announced his intention to resign from the senate effective September 30. This morning, word from more of his lawyers is that he is reconsidering his resignation.
In sum: the distinguished gentleman from Idaho allegedly solicits gay sex in a men's room and decides he is not gay. He pleads guilty, then changes his mind and gets lawyers to try to make him un-guilty. He resigns from the Senate, and three days later changes his mind and decides he might stay after all. Now, my memory of the 2004 election cycle is a bit hazy, but wasn't there a term the Republicans themselves used to describe someone with this sort of history of changing one's stance? Except, of course, that the original target of that term changed his views over the course of years, not days.
No comments:
Post a Comment