Although my upkeep of Club Apologia has been shameful in recent months, as a Packers fan, I just had to take a break from end-of-the-semester tasks to welcome Dallas Cowboys star receiver Dez Bryant to the club. After the Pack rallied from a 26-3 halftime deficit and were 1:21 away from defeating Dallas 37-36 to keep alive their division crown hopes, Bryant walked off the field and to the locker room in AT&T Stadium. As most sports fans know, that's just not done--you stay with your team on the field until the game is over, for a variety of reasons.
Yesterday, Bryant addressed the criticism in the linked video, admitting he was "wrong" but explaining: "I was very emotional. I cried when I got into the locker room. I didn't want to show that stuff on the sideline." While that type of behavior no doubt would have gotten him booted from the Rockford Peaches, I had hoped that we had come farther on the issue of emotion in professional football. Surely, Merlin Olson and Brett Favre had shattered those "no tears" gridiron stereotypes long ago. So come on, Dez, it's 2013--just let it out, man.
Game highlights, including Bryant's walk-off, can be found here. Go Pack!
Audacity. That's what today is about. As our nation celebrates the fiftieth anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's majestic and inspiring "I Have A Dream" speech and the March on Washington, we remember King's audacity in offering a hopeful vision to a divided, volatile country. We also celebrate the daring and restraint of those marchers and all those who stood with the Civil Rights Movement a half-century ago. Audacity of a less noble nature could also be attributed to my decision to let others reflect more fully on King's day while I write about Senator Larry Craig and one of the odder political scandals of the past decade.
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.
Okay, Club Apologia has been on summer vacation but I couldn't resist this rather insignificant piece of apologia history in light of some current goings-on. With Mark Sanford, Eliot Spitzer, and Anthony Weiner all attempting complicated political comebacks from tawdry sex affairs, here's an example of a public figure simply apologizing and then shuffling back to life as a quasi-celebrity. In 2006, reports emerged that Hamptons architect Peter Cook, 47, the husband of supermodel Christie Brinkley, had an affair with an 18-year old employee at Cook's firm.
Seven years ago today, Cook, through his attorney, engaged in full-on mortification strategy. As reported here, Cook stated: "I'm sorry. I'm contrite. I'm stupid. Foolish. No excuse. I love my wife." Cook's lawyer added that, if Brinkley chose divorce, "she could have whatever she wants." It's kind of nice to remember that some people do take the route of direct responsibility. I mean, it didn't work--Cook and Brinkley divorced two years later, the proceedings were quite contentious, and, just last year, things were very much on the low road between these two, as reported here. So...what was my point again...? Oh yeah, I'm on summer vacation...
What was the deal? Two weeks after victory in the Republican primary, U.S. Representative Mark Souder of Indiana's third congressional district stunned the Hoosier state by announcing his resignation from Congress and withdrawal from his re-election campaign. Rumors had been circulating in political circles for months about Souder's involvement with part time staffer Tracy Jackson. The scandal finally came to light in May 2010 when Souder's chief of staff confronted him about the rumors, leading the staunch conservative to admit his infidelity. Six days later, Souder went public.
What did he say? A transcript of Souder's brief public statement, delivered three years ago today, can be found here. In the video of the speech above, the congressman does go off script a few times, most notably when he explains why his wife is not standing with him at the announcement.
How did he do? For a short speech, there's a lot here to deal with. First, Souder describes the affair as a "mutual relationship"? Huh? He really could use some help from one of our regulars Mark Sanford when it comes to waxing poetic about one's illicit passion so that it doesn't sound like a contract clause.
On a more substantive level, well, it's still not that great. Granted, it's a resignation speech, so no vigorous or creative self-defense is expected. Still, even a resignation speech should try to present the speaker in the best light possible under the circumstances. The address likely will remain the public's dominant memory of the accused and should not undermine a possible comeback down the road. In his public statement, Souder attempts two reasonable strategies: mortification strategy (apologize, seeking forgiveness, and accepting responsibility) and identification strategy (emphasizing similarities between the accused and the audience). Regarding the former, the congressman confesses: "I have sinned against God, my wife, and my family," "The error is mine and I should bear the responsibility," and "I am so ashamed to have hurt those I love and I am so sorry to have let so many friends down." He also identifies with the audience throughout the short speech, reminding the people of the third district of the bond he shares with them (his family had lived in the area for 160 years, he had been elected by the district's voters eight times, etc.). Near the speech's end, Souder returns to this theme: "I love this area. This is my home. It has been such an honor to serve you for sixteen years. My family and I have given our all for this area." If Souder planned to maintain his career and community in northeastern Indiana (and it sounded as though he did), it makes sense to hit these notes and try to win back those closest to him. Although one could also argue that pursuing an identification strategy when you're fresh off admitting immoral behavior may fall flat.
Of more concern is that Souder didn't stop there. He trots out a dubious and hypocritical provocation strategy: "It has been all consuming for me to do this job well, especially in a district with costly competitive elections every two years. I do not have any sort of 'normal' life--for family, for friends, for church, for community." The implication that the rigors of his political position alienated him from his relationships and morals and somehow drove him into adultery is pretty absurd. One suggestion for better time management on the job? Stop having sex with your co-worker! Sheesh. So much for bearing the responsibility. Then he combines some bolstering with transcendence to argue that his resignation is to protect his family from the the "partisan" use of the scandal as a "political football" in the "poisonous environment of Washington, D.C." I'm sorry, but a conservative, family values evangelical pol should know going in that his marital infidelity will make for an easy target. One suggestion for protecting your family from the poisonous environment of Washington, D.C.? Stop having sex with your co-worker! Hey, I'm starting to see a pattern. Bonus irony: Mark and Tracy had already worked together on this pro-abstinence YouTube video!
One suggestion for increasing one's credibility when asking teens to forego "mutual relationships"...? You get the idea... Final Call?Botched. Yes, he does show some genuine emotion and obviously feels bad about what he did. But in the end it's just another guy claiming to take responsibility while blaming others, playing the victim, and spouting hypocrisy. Not a graceful exit and Souder hasn't been heard from since.
Remember last summer when I wrote here about the marital infidelity of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford and the press conference attempting to explain his misbehavior, an explanation heavily influenced, it seemed, by the overheated yet soggy prose of Robert James Waller? My final call at the time was that, although the Governor was able to finish his term, his political future remained cloudy.
The clouds have parted for newly elected congressman Sanford and he can move forward with both his political career and Argentine lover (now fiancee). In the end, the same communication behavior that doomed him in 2009 saved him in 2013--his total willingness to overshare with the media. Sanford's near-constant press availability during the closing week of the campaign (especially in contrast to his opponent's play-it-safe strategy) created precious opportunities for Sanford to plant doubts about Elizabeth Colbert Busch's policy positions and ease voters' discomfort with awarding him a second chance in politics.
Few things inspire more ambivalence than a story of premature redemption born of dumb luck and voting district party affiliation disparity. But the romantic in me sighs and thinks "I knew those two would end up together...."
What was the deal?During a concert in London on March 10, 2003,
with the U.S. a week from invading Iraq, Dixie Chicks lead singer Natalie
Maines told an audience, “We’re ashamed that the President of the United States
is from Texas,” referring to fellow Lone Star denizen, President George W.
Bush, a strong proponent of war with Iraq.With that, the popular country trio was plunged into controversy and
castigation.Outraged fans, media
commentators, and politicians accused Maines—along with bandmates Martie Maguire and Emily Robison—of being unpatriotic and even traitorous to their country. That Maines made the remark on the brink of war and on foreign only intensified the negative reaction. The retribution was swift: radio stations stopped playing the Chicks' music, album sales plummeted, and calls for the band's demise came from multiple quarters. On March 14, Maines apologized, acknowledging that the President should always be given the "utmost respect." After two months of silence on the flap, Maines, Maguire, and Robison sat down for an interview with Entertainment Weekly to address the situation.
What did they say? The interview, which appeared in the May 2, 2003, issue of the entertainment magazine, can be found here.
How did they do? Maines uses differentiation strategy early in the exchange when she makes a distinction between President Bush and U.S. troops fighting in Iraq, emphasizing that her disapproval was directed at the former, not the latter. Maguire corroborates this claim by revealing that Robison immediately added "But you know we support the troops 100 percent." No one has disputed this account, so it would seem to be a pretty effective move to add this pivotal information in a high-profile media interview. Maines repeated her apology for disrespecting the office of the president (mortification strategy) and smartly draws on her positive role as a mother (Bolstering strategy) to express her concerns and fears about Iraqi children potentially harmed by the U.S. invasion, or worse. Finally, employing transcendence strategy, Robison stated: "I think everyone is afraid [about tensions in the world] and they need to vent it somehow. Not that they aren't truly mad [at us] about something. But what brings something to this level, especially when we as a group or Natalie have never said anything in this realm before?" Robison clearly acknowledges that this strategy may be pushing it, however, if one finds the public and media reaction disproportionate, she reminds the audience that this may not be about the Dixie Chicks after all.
Final Call?Sinkhole. Over time, the Dixie Chicks were able crawl out of the hole and reestablish their critical and commercial success, but certainly this interview didn't help much. So if the trio effectively applied well-established apologia strategies, as I seem to conclude above, why did this media event fail? Two reasons: First, the cover. Although Maguire defends the provocative pose during the Q&A, it just came across as gratuitous, desperate, and, frankly, a little confusing.Why create this polarizing distraction that hits the reader in the face and reminds them of the trumped-up charges before turning the interview itself? Second, the era. As with Arnold Schwarzenegger's "girlie men" comment, this controversy arose at a very weird time in our political and cultural history. With patriotism wielded like a blunt weapon, rational dissent and worldly sophistication were routinely eviscerated. To that extent, Robison may not have been persuasive, but she was correct: The Dixie Chicks were swept away in the whirlwind of post-9/11 scapegoating.
White House press secretary Jay Carney today revealed that President Obama had apologized to Kamala Harris for calling California's attorney general "by far the best looking attorney general" in the country. The story can be found here. The remark, made during a DNC fundraiser, generated immediate MSM criticism of Obama's uncharacteristic unforced error. According to Carney, "[Obama] fully recognizes the challenges women continue to face in the workplace and that they should not be judged based on appearance. They're old friends. He certainly regretted that [his comments] caused a distraction." As for Harris's reaction, her camp released a statement reaffirming the attorney general's longstanding friendship with and strong support of Obama.
Maybe they are friends, but this falls squarely in WGT (Why Go There) territory. Kind of like Obama's infamous Special Olympics bowling comment on TheTonight Show--just gratuitous and dumb. He obviously knew that commenting on a professional woman's appearance was sexist, or at the least would be interpreted as sexist by many, and, after the escapades of the Big Dog, Bill Clinton, should know that the public is not ready for another casanova-in-chief. Not to mention that with his second term initiatives stalling and public approval declining, his high favorability numbers, based significantly on the perception of Obama as a loving husband and father, is the best thing he has going at the moment. So what to make of this "old friends" defense? Seems like a weird kind of differentiation strategy, redefining the comment as relationship schtick rather than condescending come-on. Does that make it okay because, what, he routinely compliments Harris on her looks? I can't imagine Michelle, nor the millions of Americans who adore Michelle, being thrilled about that. Obama's quick apology (mortification strategy) and a plethora of other news stories (North Korea, today's jobs report, the president's budget, and next week's gun control debate in Congress) will take the air out of this incident in short order. But it was a stupid thing to say and he should know better. The "best looking" comment came just after Obama praised Harris as "brilliant," "dedicated," and "tough," instantly undercutting what should have been a shining career moment for the fast-rising California pol. I guess what bugs me most is that the president seemed to hand out that praise just to make the flirty banter more palatable, hence, the odd opening to the passage: "You have to be careful to, first of all, say she is brilliant and she is dedicated and she is tough..." Why would he need to be "careful" about espousing those qualities. It seems more likely that what he really wanted to remark on was how the attorney general's beauty made her more serious qualities a surprise, or something along those lines. But, in the end, Obama ends up relatively unscathed and Harris gets national exposure (and a lot of Google image searches). The real loser in all of this is Eric Holder, who's probably thinking, "Yeah, she's attractive but, c'mon, by far the best looking attorney general? What am I, chopped liver?" Meanwhile, Kelli Goff, a blogger for The Root, offers a different take on the episode here, criticizing the double standard at work in the media's criticism of Obama. It's worth a read.
