Foot Fault: Sen. Larry Craig Responds to Arrest for Lewd Airport Conduct (August 28, 2007)

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.

Part-Time Lover: Congressman Mark Souder Admits Extramarital Affair (May 18, 2010)

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.

Texas Toast: Ten Year Anniversary of Dixie Chicks' "Entertainment Weekly" Cover and Interview About Anti-Bush Remark (May 2, 2003)

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.      

Copycat Cop-out: Juan Williams Addresses Plagiarism Accusation

Fox News contributor Juan Williams yesterday explained how entire paragraphs from a Center for American Progress report ended up in his own piece about immigration reform.  The story can be found here.  Unfortunately, Williams relies on the go-to shift blame strategy for plagiarism allegations:  throw the researcher under the bus.  Hey, Juan, if you put your name above the words, they're your words.  And if they're not literally your words, they're your fault.    

Twitter!

Club Apologia is now on Twitter, featuring links to breaking news reports and commentary about apologia and image repair situations.  The link is here.  Just added today:  Manti Teo's interview with Katie Couric!

Hair Brained Schemes - Part I: Rod Blagojevich Responds to Arrest and Offers Seasons Greetings (December 19, 2008)

What was the deal?  On December 9, 2008, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was arrested on federal charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and solicitation to commit bribery.  The governor allegedly attempted to exchange state jobs, contracts, and other political favors in order to obtain millions of dollars in campaign contributions and other special treatment.  The most sensational allegation involved Blagojevich's efforts to "sell" the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President Barack Obama in exchange for a high-level position in the Obama administration (which, granted, would make a fine plotline in a political thriller but is frowned upon in real life.)  Needless to say, calls for the the governor to resign were trumpeted throughout the land.

What did he say?  A video clip of Blagojevich's first official post-arrest statement, delivered four years ago today, is above and the transcript can be found here.

How did he do?  The governor appears to be in complete denial mode, both with the public and himself.  His first sentence declares "I am not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing." He then reinforces his denial with a promise to fight the allegations.  Okay, I may be understating this a bit.  Blagojevich actually states:  "I will fight this thing every step of the way.  I will fight.  I will fight.  I will fight until I take my last breath."  So while he scores points for tenacity, he gets downgraded for basically admitting that he'll be found guilty--otherwise, why anticipate fighting the charges until the reaper darkens his door?

Blagojevich then launches into a lot of attack the accuser strategy, calling out the "political lynch mob" and "political enemies" who rely on "30-second sound bites."  Then, adding a dash of conspiracy rhetoric, he alludes ominously to "some powerful forces arrayed against me."  Hmm, using conspiracy language when accused of conspiracy--very high concept, Blago.

The governor engages in some fairly effective bolstering strategy, thanking his wife and other supporters for sticking with him and promising to stay above the fray until his trial, throwing in a Rudyard Kipling quote for quirky good measure.

Where this relatively brief speech fails most, I believe, is in the expectations game.  Blagojevich sets such a high bar for any future apologia efforts that it almost makes one more skeptical of his innocence from the outset.  He states:  "Now, I'm dying to answer these charges.  I am dying to show you how innocent I am.  And I want to assure everyone who's listening, that I intend to answer every allegation that comes my way." There's a little bit of the John Edwards EPTEE (Excessive Paternity Test Eagerness Effect) going on here.  I just don't think innocent people love the process of proving their innocence quite this much.  I do think that guilty people love saying things like this though.

Final call?  Sinkhole.  Blagojevich offers some effective lines here, but it's undermined by low-level contradiction (i.e., stating his intention not to attack while engaged in attack, proclaiming a suspicious-sounding level of innocence).  But don't worry, Blago fans, the colorful governor will revisit Club Apologia.  And to his credit, the governor still exuded admirable holiday spirit, ending the December 19th speech with a jaunty "Merry Christmas.  Happy holidays" (bonus points for savvy navigation of "war on Christmas" tensions).  And so, during this festive time of year, as you gather around the hearth with family and friends, remember poor Rod Blagojevich and how he carried the spirit of the season within his heart--even when his heart was under arrest.  May that be truly said of us --and all of us!        

  

Lie of the Tiger: Tiger Woods Announces "Indefinite Break" From Golf After Infidelity (December 11, 2009)

Three years ago today, golf legend Tiger Woods released his second public statement in the wake of allegations of adultery.  The statement can be found here.  Woods offers an apology and asks for forgiveness before announces his hiatus from the sport:  "After much soul searching, I have decided to take an indefinite break from professional golf. I need to focus my attention on being a better husband, father, and person."  Of course, this relatively brief apologia was just the second of numerous attempts by Woods to address the shocking scandal surrounding his personal life.  Rather than offering my usual dissection of the golfer's efforts (and because I'm smack in the middle of final exams and grading) I will use the occasion as an opportunity to plug a great new anthology about the image repair efforts of famous athletes.  Repairing the Athlete's Image:  Studies in Sports Image Restoration, edited by Joseph R. Blaney, Lance R. Lippert, and J. Scott Smith, and published by Lexington Books, offers more than 20 different case studies of the image repair efforts of top athletes from all of the major sports, including William Benoit's treatment of the Tiger Woods case, as well as other scholars' take on Mark McGwire, Serena Williams, Michael Vick, Bobby Knight, Michael Phelps, Kobe Bryant, and many others.  I even chip in my own analysis of Marion Jones's apologia interview with Oprah Winfrey.  Check it out at Amazon.com here.     

Third Person Possessive: Herman Cain Responds to Sexual Harassment Charges (November 8, 2011)

What was the deal?  During the fall of 2011, businessman Herman Cain was one of numerous candidates seeking the Republican nomination for President.  On October 30, a report surfaced that two women who worked for Cain at the National Restaurant Association had complained about Cain's sexually suggestive behavior and had received payments upon leaving the organization.  Cain denied both the harassment allegations and the settlement payments, although he later acknowledged that the organization had reached an “agreement” in which some of the women received money.  On November 2, a third woman accused Cain of harassment.  Five days later, a fourth woman reported allegations against the businessman, and became the first to reveal her name and offer specific details of alleged harassment.  Cain continued to deny all allegations, but pressure mounted on Cain to discuss the situation in more detail.  Cain scheduled a press conference for November 8, seeking to address the charges “head on.”  At the time the scandal broke, Cain was tied with Mitt Romney as front-runners in the Republican presidential primary.  With his candidacy in peril and his reputation in question, Cain chose to deliver an apologia.

What did he say? A video of Cain's briefing, delivered one year ago today, can be found here, and a transcript is included here.  

How did he do?  Well, Cain didn't lack in confidence.  He began his opening statement congratulating himself for his candor:  "I choose to address these accusations directly...because that's the person Herman Cain is."  Are we still doing the third-person reference thing?  Probably just a slip of the tongue.  Anyway, after that bit of bolstering strategy, Cain lays on the denial:  "I have never acted inappropriately with anyone, period....I don't even know who this woman is....The charges and accusations I absolutely reject. They simply didn't happen. They simply did not happen." Well then, that should take care of it, right?  The speech should end right there.  

Not surprisingly, it doesn't.  It seems Cain still has a lot of explaining complaining to do about the media, which had "stalked" his family and encouraged his "anonymous accusers" and his one, um, onymous accuser, a "troubled woman" brought forth by "the Democratic machine."  That's a lot of attack the accuser strategy for one speech.  But, wait, there's another shadowy group which Cain exposes to the harsh light of day:  "Some people don't want to see Herman Cain (okay, I guess it wasn't a slip of the tongue) get the Republican nomination...to keep a businessman out of the White House...their motivation is to stop Herman Cain (oy)."  The candidate comes off sounding a bit scattershot and paranoid here, which undermines the earlier candid denials and directness which had been, at least since the first paragraph of his statement, a Herman Cain hallmark. 

The question-and-answer part of the briefing tries to dig into the details of the accusations made by the woman who went public, or as Cain sensitively describes her, "the one that was, you know, put their face on TV."  He spends a lot of time offering tricky differentiation strategies to explain away his behavior and the payment the woman received after leaving Cain's organization.  First, the payout constituted an employment "agreement" not a "legal settlement."  Second, the offensive behavior involved an innocent gesture rather than sexual harassment.  Cain spins the following yarn of office drama:  "I was standing next to [her], and I gestured, standing near her, like this, 'You're the same height as my wife,' because my wife comes up to my chin. That was the one I remember."  Okay, well, that's not exactly Mad Men and sounds pretty harmless.   And he doesn't remember anything else, so why would anyone think there's more to the story?  Maybe because only three paragraphs earlier, Cain boasts, "I'm pretty good at remembering people."  I think Herman Cain knows that Herman Cain is not demonstrating the Herman Cain directness for which Herman Cain is known.

Final Call?  Sinkhole.  Cain's emphatic denials bought him a bit of time, but his press conference left too many unanswered questions.  Those lingering doubts grew when, three weeks later, another woman, Ginger White, admitted to a 13-year affair with Cain.  His poll numbers dropped into single digits and, on December 3, 2011, Cain suspended his campaign, and Mitt Romney eventually emerged as the GOP nominee.  However, Cain has far from disappeared from the public arena, hosting a popular radio show, touring the lecture circuit, and working as a FOX News commentator.  In fact, only yesterday, Cain called for a new, more conservative, third party in American politics.  It seems unlikely, however, that Cain, with his scandal history, will ever emerge as the nominee of that--or any--political party.