What was the deal? On June 11, 2007, U.S. Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, 62, found himself in a men's restroom in the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. According to Sgt. Dave Karsnia, an undercover airport police officer, Craig first stared through a crack in Karsnia's stall door for two minutes then entered the stall next to him, blocking the front of the stall with his rolling suitcase. Craig then tapped his right foot, ran his left hand several times underneath the stall partition, then touched Karsnia's foot with his right foot. All of these activities, according to the officer's experience, signaled an interest in engaging in sexual activity, which had been the subject of prior complaints about the airport restrooms. At that point, the officer arrested the senator. During the police interview, Craig argued that his actions were misinterpreted and that he only made contact with the officer's foot because Craig typically had "a wide stance when going to the bathroom." He also produced his Senate business card then asked "What do you think of that?" On August 8, Craig pled guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct, acknowledging that he "engaged in conduct which [he] knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm or resentment," and paid a $500 fine. Senate GOP soon called for an ethics investigation of Craig's conduct. A CNN report with further details can be found here.
What did he say? Six years ago today, Craig, with his wife by his side, addressed the case. A video of his public statement is above and a transcript is here.
How did he do? Thankfully, Craig doesn't revisit the "wide stance" defense offered during his police interview. However, his statement showcases his own brand of audacity by wielding what can only be called an "innocent guilty" defense strategy. Although Craig signed a plea agreement and paid a fine in response to his arrest, the senator relies heavily on denial strategy (perhaps in denial about many things). The senator states: "I did nothing wrong" and "I was not involved in any inappropriate conduct at the Minneapolis airport or anywhere else." He also denies being gay (rumors about his sexuality had surfaced months before the arrest).
Craig also refuses to get into any details of his encounter with Sgt. Karsnia, thereby abandoning the argument that the officer misinterpreted his actions. So, what is this speech about then? His decision to plead guilty--which he characterizes as an "overreaction," "mistake," "misjudgment," "failure," "poor decision," and, my favorite, "a cloud over Idaho." The strategy makes sense in the abstract, as the number one question naturally is going to be "If you did nothing wrong, why did you plead guilty?" Craig emphasizes his failure to retain a lawyer to guide him through the legal process (lack of information strategy). He plays some attack the accuser by blaming his guilty plea on the stress caused by the Idaho Statesman newspaper investigation of Craig's sexuality (which he dubs a "relentless" and "vicious" "witch hunt"). Blended into all of this is fairly typical bolstering strategy boilerplate about loving his family and serving his state. None of it is done in a sustained or convincing manner.
Because Craig has shifted the topic of his apologia from his airport conduct to his guilty plea, he is able to indulge in a lot of mortification language. For example, he states early in his speech: "I regret my decision to plead guilty and the sadness that decision has brought to my wife, family, friends, staff, and fellow Idahoans. For that I apologize." Craig later talks about taking "full responsibility for the mistake" and asks for "forgiveness." The language in bold is often associated with admitting wrongdoing and taking responsibility. However, none of this language is about the charge to which he pled guilty; it's all about his decision to plead guilty. Still, this approach could have generated public sympathy for Craig on the situation as a whole, albeit by misdirection.
Final call? Sinkhole. Craig tried to do with the public and media what is very difficult to do in a court of law--withdraw a guilty plea. In the public's mind, a U.S. senator is/should be no rube. It just doesn't seem credible that Craig didn't know what he was doing when he pled guilty without legal counsel. The Senate Ethics Committee didn't believe him and the public probably didn't either. The most honest statement in the speech appears to be when Craig explains "I chose to plead guilty to a lesser charge in the hope of making it go away."
Ultimately, Craig retired from the Senate after completing his third term in early 2009. His legal efforts to withdraw his guilty plea have been unsuccessful. Today, Craig is, of course, a lobbyist. Audacity.
