Archive for August, 2007
Senator Larry Craig may very well not be guilty of anything other than stopping into a restroom. It is my opinion that the media firestorm that has followed, and the determination of the officer who made the arrest, were politically devised. No rational person, who listens to the audio recording made at the time of arrest or who reads the transcript, can believe otherwise.
Here is what we know from the discussion between Sen. Craig and the arresting officer directly after the alleged incident. Craig flies between his home state and Washington weekly. He stops into the same bathroom in Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport periodically when he is at the airport. He waited a minute or two for a stall to become available. He entered the stall, and like most men who wear suit pants and don’t want them touching the floor, created some tension with his legs to support the pants. There is nothing suspicious in any of this.
Sen. Craig stated that he saw a piece of tissue paper on the floor and reached down and picked it up. He stated this to the officer more than once and it did not sound contrived at all. In a narrow airport bathroom stall, someone who is a fairly large person, and who is attempting to support their trousers, will likely have their feet on either side of the floor of the stall. Let?s remember that the stalls in some airport restrooms are often just a couple of feet wide.
This whole incident revolves around two actions that the Senator is alleged to have committed. He is alleged to have attempted a homosexual encounter in an airport restroom. This is based on two conclusions drawn by the arresting officer. One allegation the officer makes is that the Senator’s foot touched his. If the Senator is squeezed into a small stall, attempting to hold his trousers off the floor by keeping his legs and feet apart, isn’t it possible that his foot came in contact with the occupant of the next stall? Was it really intentional?
The Senator stated emphatically to the officer that he reached down to pick up a piece of toilet tissue that was on the floor. Once again, anyone who listens to the audio recording of the arrest interview will hear the Senator state this in a very matter-of-fact way. It does not sound at all contrived. The officer interpreted this action as a signal that a homosexual was engaging in some type of nefarious activity. This is a police officer, who is in that stall, with the mission of making arrests. Was picking up a piece of paper off the floor anything more than what it was?
On the audio tape, the arresting officer is clearly attempting to lead the Senator with comments and questions that draw false conclusions. Senator Craig immediately agrees to talk to the officer about the alleged incident. Would someone who knew they were guilty of purposefully doing what the officer alleged, be so willing to talk to the officer?
There are a couple of comments the arresting officer makes that are very suspicious. One almost hints at blackmail. The officer states: Okay, so we’ll start over, you’re gonna get out of here. You’re gonna have to pay a fine and that will be it. Okay, I don’t call media, I don’t do any of that type of crap. Why did the officer find it necessary to mention the media? Was there any conceivable reason he would have done that?
There was something else the officer said that calls into question the entire validity of this whole affair. After Sen. Craig stated that the officer saw something that didn’t happen (meaning the officer’s interpretation of Senator Craig merely picking something off the floor), the officer made a statement that makes me question his motivation. He said; Embarrassing, embarrassing. No wonder why we’re going down the tubes. What is embarrassing at this point, or is the officer suggesting that this situation would be made public and it would be ‘embarrassing’ to the Senator?
At least two veiled threats come from the arresting officer. Not only that, but the officer threatens the Senator with jail several times. He knows this is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine, but he treats the Senator as if he is guilty of a felony. The Senator makes clear that the officer’s conclusions are impossible, because the Senator would have had to turn sideways in the small space to reach his left hand under the partition to his right. The officer, ignoring the obvious logic in the Senator’s complaint flies off the handle in an effort to intimidate the Senator.
An article I just finished reading about the Senator’s predicament was titled, ‘Blood in the water.’ Anyone who knows this expression knows it refers to the feeding frenzy of sharks and other carnivores who can smell blood. Even Senator Craig’s own party is jumping on the lynching bandwagon despite the lack of evidence that the Senator is guilty of anything. Their excuse is that the Senator pled guilty. Put yourself in his shoes and you would understand why.
Consider for a moment that you are a respected United States Senator. You have a very clean record and have the support of most of your constituents. Now consider that the police confront you with something that is a misperception at least and a conspiracy against you at worst. You know that you did nothing wrong, but the officer that arrests you frames your situation in the worst of terms. Remember that Craig is one of the few members of the Senate who does not hold a law degree.
All you know is that you went into an airport bathroom, like you usually do when departing from this airport, and in the narrow stall your foot may have touched the occupant in the adjoining stall. Minutes later you have a police officer yelling at you that you might go to jail. He accuses you of lying and also insinuates that you might soon face public embarrassment. What would you do if you were told that a guilty plea would result in a fine, and your life would be back to normal?
Today, as I watched one of the major network newscasts, the lead story teaser said, “Can the Republican Party be considered the party of family values anymore?” This question will be sung in harmony by many thousands of news outlets across the country. Last year, the same strategy worked with the Mark Foley incident, to sway the November elections to the Democrats. Could this be a set up?
The Democratic strategy book has chapters right now about discrediting the traditions of the Republican Party. Family values are a real core value of the Republican Party, but for the press and the Democratic leadership to start cutting away at that fabric, it takes very little effort with complicity from the media.
America is inundated with news from their local paper, the local nightly news, the national news and the national morning shows. We see any number of national magazines on the racks at our bookstores and all of these sources are screaming the same message; look what the Republicans have done now. All of this generated from something that likely was nothing. Ironically, this will be the first time, very conveniently, that those on the left will believe a police officer’s story without question.
We already have seen, time and again, how the far left blames everything on the President. If they don’t blame the President directly, then they save their blame for Karl Rove. Now, another extreme liberal and supporter of the Democratic Party is practicing the blame game with AG Alberto Gonzales.
If you are old enough to remember ‘Dr. Death’, Jack Kevorkian, then you must remember his obnoxious attorney, Geoffrey Fieger. Fieger, who always looked in need of a barber, was Kevorkian’s legal counsel when Kevorkian was charged with murder after administering lethal doses of medication to 130 patients and eventually being charged with 2nd degree murder. (Kevorkian was not charged with 130 murders because initial court cases were unsuccessful in bringing a conviction).
Fieger, who ran for Michigan governor in 1998 as a Democratic, was found with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar. Fieger is charged with making illegal contributions, exceeding $125,000, to John Edwards during the 2004 Presidential race. Fieger is accused of using the names of 60 people to list as donors, while his firm allegedly donated an amount far in excess of the limits. (individuals are limited to $2000 donations).
The liberal, Democratic mantra of blaming others for their shortcomings rears its ugly head in this case as well. Fieger, looking for a scapegoat that other liberals would believe, is blaming AG Gonzales for concocting the charges to intimidate Democratic donors. Yes, you heard right, Fieger is trying to shift blame to the attorney general knowing that the mainstream media will run with this portion of the story only.
According to the indictment, Fieger is also charged with obstructing a grand jury investigation and concealing an incriminating document. Apparently, Mr. Fieger wants us to believe that he handed the document to the attorney general, who then hid it with malicious intent.
If this all sounds like a repeat of liberal blame-game politics, it is. This is right out of the Democratic strategy book. Liberals know that the mainstream media will conspire with them to turn their criminal actions end-over-end, removing factual information to blame the Bush Administration, conservatives or Republicans. They use this same strategy to paint a cynical picture of Christians also.
Like most high-visibility Democrats, Fieger is a millionaire. Democrats have been successful over the years painting a picture of Republicans as fat-cat country-club types looking down their noses at the middle-class. Ironically, it is Democrats like Fieger who are the big-money mansion dwellers who consider the middle-class intellectually deficient and classless. Much like the benefactor of the illegal contributions, John Edwards lives in a 28,200 square foot mansion. Both men are trail lawyers and both know how to work the media.
It is predictable, I guess that the media will go along with this hoax. Spurred on by the radical left, they will find no fault with the allegations against Mr. Fieger and find a way to cast suspicion on Attorney General Gonzales. The whole ‘bad Bush’, ‘bad Rove’, ‘bad Gonzales’ angle will find a new avenue in America’s newspapers, morning shows and magazines. In the end, Fieger’s money will buy him insulation from prosecution, and like Ward Churchill, he will be the darling of the liberal establishment.
By the way, a search of CNN’s website today found no mention of the indictment against Fieger, only ‘sponsored links.’