By Blogonaut. In 1982 a former congressional page made allegations that “15 to 20” Senators and House members had engaged in homosexual relations with teenage pages. This accusation was reported in the Washington Post—which named no names.
Inexplicably, Craig alone — among 535 members of Congress — issued a statement denying he was one of those lawmakers. In the news vacuum of the July 4 recess, the freshman Republican was thrust into the national spotlight and a news helicopter followed him to Jordan Valley, Ore., where he attended a potluck for Southwest Idaho ranchers.
As noted by Craig’s hometown newspaper, Craig's gratuitous denial struck some folks in Idaho and elsewhere as a mite "odd". [See Men's room arrest reopens questions about Sen. Larry Craig; also see You Tube 1982 Larry Craig denial, 1982.] As the Idaho Statesman put it in the linked September 6, 2007 article:
“Craig denied involvement in 1982, but the timing of his statement fueled rumors that lasted decades. Among them were that Craig married shortly after the scandal to cover up his alleged homosexuality.”
Obviously, people do not typically deny allegations that have not been made (let alone in such a public and over-the-top way); a prosecutor might call it "consciousness of guilt". And so do I.
So I pose the question: Why is not this 1982 gratuitous denial of homosexual impropriety with teenage pages—without ever being accused or implicated--being discussed front and center in this controversy? Particularly since Larry Craig was the only Congressman to issue such a denial?
Inexplicably, Craig alone — among 535 members of Congress — issued a statement denying he was one of those lawmakers. In the news vacuum of the July 4 recess, the freshman Republican was thrust into the national spotlight and a news helicopter followed him to Jordan Valley, Ore., where he attended a potluck for Southwest Idaho ranchers.
As noted by Craig’s hometown newspaper, Craig's gratuitous denial struck some folks in Idaho and elsewhere as a mite "odd". [See Men's room arrest reopens questions about Sen. Larry Craig; also see You Tube 1982 Larry Craig denial, 1982.] As the Idaho Statesman put it in the linked September 6, 2007 article:
“Craig denied involvement in 1982, but the timing of his statement fueled rumors that lasted decades. Among them were that Craig married shortly after the scandal to cover up his alleged homosexuality.”
Obviously, people do not typically deny allegations that have not been made (let alone in such a public and over-the-top way); a prosecutor might call it "consciousness of guilt". And so do I.
So I pose the question: Why is not this 1982 gratuitous denial of homosexual impropriety with teenage pages—without ever being accused or implicated--being discussed front and center in this controversy? Particularly since Larry Craig was the only Congressman to issue such a denial?
Not only is there a chilling parallel between the '82 denials and Craig's not-very-credible attempts to exculpate himself during his ubiquitously disseminated post arrest police interview ("I'm not gay") and subsequent public interview ("I'm not gay"), Craig's veracity (or lack thereof) has now been tendered to the good people of Idaho, Senator Craig's Republican colleagues, and the public at-large. Granted, the Senator parses words and phrases for a living and has done so for 27 years.
But for most of us--and for the all important court of public opinion--when a man of stature says in front of news cameras "It is my intention to resign September 30" he by God means it or he's a damn liar. And a recently released misdirected voice message Craig left for "Billy" seems to indicate that Craig never intended to resign, but wanted to give the impression he was doing so to dampen criticism while leaving wiggle room to not resign later.
Are you a damn liar Senator Craig? Or just a liar?
0 comments:
Post a Comment