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.

Do the Right Thing: Peter Cook Apologizes for Cheating on Christie Brinkley (July 25, 2006)

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...

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.

Update: Mark Sanford Wins Congressional Seat, Keeps Lover

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.

Then this happened last night.

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...."  

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.                     


  

The Ridiculously Good Wife: Sen. David Vitter Linked to the "D.C. Madam" (July 16, 2007)

What was the deal?  A federal investigation into an escort service run by Deborah Jeane Palfrey, a/k/a the "D.C. Madam," turned up the phone number of U.S. Senator David Vitter, a Louisiana pol who built his career on moral issues, family values, and the sanctity of marriage.  Uh-oh.  When the news broke, husband and father Vitter released a statement admitting calling Palfrey's service prior to his election to the Senate in 2004 and while serving in the U.S. House of Representatives.  Following this admission, Vitter went into seclusion for a week during which subsequent media reports linked the senator to a prostitution case in New Orleans.  The fresh charges and Vitter's hiding intensified the media scrutiny until, finally, the senator, along with his wife Wendy, called a press briefing in Metairie, Lousiana.

What did he say?  A transcript of the Vitters' statements, delivered five years ago today, can be found here and the video here.

How did he do? There's both good and bad in David Vitter's relatively brief statement.  He gets to an apology (mortification) quickly enough:  "I want to, again, offer my deep, sincere apologies to all those I have let down and disappointed with these actions from my past. I am completely responsible. And I am so very, very sorry."  The senator also explicitly denies the New Orleans allegations.  The most sophisticated strategy in Vitter's speech is to emphasize the framing of his misconduct as a private matter from a distant past and, therefore, not warranting public concern in 2007.  He often reminds the audience of the age of his dirty deeds ("actions from my past," "no matter how long ago it was," "dealt with this personally several years ago," "my past failings").  He further stresses the private nature of his situation when he states:  "Wendy and I dealt with this personally several years ago. I confronted it in confession and marriage counseling. I believe I received forgiveness from God. I know I did from Wendy, and we put it behind us."  The suggestion is that, if God and his wronged wife can forgive Vitter, the public should move on as well.  The senator ends with a transcendence strategy, focusing on a greater purpose which by turn makes specific misconduct appear smaller.  For example, he justifies his unwillingness to offer specifics to the press by citing "a lot of important work to do for Louisiana" on water resources, hurricane and flood protection, immigration, and transportation issues.  This "important work" is so important, in fact, that Vitter claims that from the press briefing he will "go immediately to the airport and to Washington for votes" (emphasis added).  

What doesn't work is Vitter's continued stonewalling and press criticism (attack the accuser strategy).  The senator peevishly frets:  "I'm not going to answer endless questions about it all over again and again and again and again."  See what he did there?  Vitter used "again" four times which shows he's pretty mad about all of the questions he hadn't answered yet because he was in seclusion.  And his whole "no questions" = "endless questions" move makes him look pretty unreasonable.

The most fascinating part of this apologia effort is when Vitter steps away and his wife, Wendy, takes the podium and pretty much shows up her husband.  She does a better job executing both the "private life" and attack the media strategies.  Speaking "as a mother," she chides the press for being "camped at our church--at our home, and at our church every day."  Hard not to sympathize at least a little bit.  Then Wendy goes on about how the couple dealt with this years ago, her forgiveness and love of her "best friend," and the increasing strength of their marriage.  Then, for good measure, she declares, "I'm proud to be Wendy Vitter."  Whether there were other feelings seething inside which contradicted her words, Wendy's show of support hit all the right notes and may have made it easier for the couple to escape the briefing without answering any questions while also encouraging the public to move on as well (similar to Hillary Clinton's support of her husband during the Lewinsky scandal).    

Final Call?  Speedbump.  Although Vitter got plenty of grief in the short term for his skeevy misdeeds and hypocritical posturing, he has endured.  Louisiana voters reelected him in 2010, and his marriage to Wendy is intact to this day.  Granted, the Pelican State historically boasts a high tolerance for roguish behavior in its elected officials.  Also, the Vitter scandal occasionally resurfaces in media coverage when public officials get caught consorting with courtesans, such as the recent Secret Service prostitution case, so this incident most likely will stand as the senator's most lasting political legacy.  However, Vitter remains an outspoken national lawmaker to this day.  And he should probably thank Wendy for that.

Big Ol' Jet Airliner Definitely Carried Him Too Far Away: Governor Mark Sanford's Extramarital Affair (June 24, 2009)

Another apologia from June 2009.  And this one just doesn't know when to stop.

What was the deal?  At the start of 2009, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford enjoyed a swiftly rising reputation in national politics.  He won praise for his tough stands against government spending and was emerging as a promising presidential candidate for 2012.  On Father's Day weekend, Sanford's wife, Jenny, reported the Governor missing.  Responding to media inquiries about Sanford's whereabouts, his staff issued a statement that he was hiking on the Appalachian Trail.  Rumors surfaced, however, that Sanford was not hiking but rather was visiting a woman in Buenos Aires, Argentina.  When Sanford flew back to the United States, a reporter met him at the airport and confronted him about the allegations of an affair.  Awkward.  Sanford admitted that he had been in Buenos Aires.   Scandal, as they say, erupted and "hiking the Appalachian Trail" took on a whole new meaning.  Soon after, the Governor held a press briefing in the rotunda of the South Carolina statehouse during which he admitted having an affair with an Argentine woman.  Questions emerged immediately about whether Sanford had ended the illicit relationship, whether he lied to his staff or ordered his staff to lie about his whereabouts, and whether he would resign as Governor.  With both his national presidential prospects and governorship in serious jeopardy, Sanford used the press briefing as an opportunity to explain his actions.

How did he respond?  A transcript of the briefing, delivered three years ago today, can be found here and the video here.

How did he do?  Um, well, let's just say his approach is highly unusual.  Sanford does draw on typical apologia and image repair strategies, such as bolstering (references to attending "Christian Bible study" and being "a person of faith all [his] life"), denial (when asked if he directed his staff to help him cover up his whereabouts, the reply is a definitive "absolutely not"), and a high-concept provocation argument that the "zone of politics," whatever that is, required him to seek counsel, and apparently sex, far from the halls of Washington.  Still, these defenses stand little chance anyway, because they are not his priority in the briefing.

The Governor starts the speech in oddball fashion.  In attempting to admit that he suggested to his staff that his destination was the Appalachian Trail, Sanford spends the first few minutes discussing his trips to the trail as a high schooler, his work as an Eastern Airlines rep during college, and more vaguely described "adventure trips" throughout his early years in politics.  Other than establishing Sanford's extended career as a somewhat shady vagabond, these stories come off as a weird kind of wistful bragging.

Even his many apologies and requests for forgiveness (mortification strategy) are grating.  Sanford apologizes to everyone.  He apologizes to his wife, his four sons, and the people of South Carolina.  Okay, no problem there--that's what people want to hear.  But then he spends a looooong time apologizing to his staff, his "good friends," his father-in-law, the "people of faith across South Carolina" (just in case his apology to the entire state wasn't enough for God), and finally threatens to go "one by one and town by town...across this state...asking for their forgiveness."  Such absurdity makes one wonder if the Governor is serious about any of his contrition.

Two-thirds into his statement, Sanford finally admits his specific misbehavior:  "I have been unfaithful to my wife.  I developed a relationship with a--what started out as a dear, dear friend from Argentina.  It began very innocently, as I suspect many of these things do..."  At this point, Sanford seems to be offering a teaser of the bad romance novel going on inside his head.  Which brings us to the most critical flaw in Sanford's self-defense--he wants desperately to talk about his new girlfriend instead.  While we may tolerate this behavior for a while with our close friends, we don't really want to hear how our chosen leader and his mistress met cute during an innocent chat when Sanford tried to talk her into going back to her husband, from whom she was separated at the time, only to fall in love with that very same woman.  Wait.  Maybe this would make a good romance novel.  The Governor continued with his tale:  "About a year ago, it sparked into something more than that.  I have seen her three times since then, during that whole sparking thing."  That whole sparking thing?  Really, Governor?  I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I just can't go on with this...       

Final Call?  Sinkhole.  Oh, where to begin?  Maybe with more Steve Miller:  "I've got to go out and make my way/I might get rich you know I might get busted/But my heart keeps calling me backwards/As I get on the 707/Ridin' high I got tears in my eyes/You know you got to go through hell before you get to heaven."  In fact, if you read all the lyrics of Jet Airliner in the context of this scandal, the entire song comes across as a bizarre but prescient cautionary tale about Mark Sanford.  Theatre aficionados may be more inclined to go the Evita angle (Sanford actually admits:  "I spent the last five days of my life crying in Argentina."  And I won't even delve into the whole "adultery-on-Father's-Day" issue.

The Governor apparently thought that if he could convince the public that the relationship was more than a one-night stand, it would be more understandable.  However, trying to convince us that it's The English Patient in Dixie was probably a miscalculation.  Needless to say, the scandal did not go away; ethics charges and public ridicule dogged the Governor for some time.  Sanford did finish his term but his political future remains cloudy.