I agree with Bryan Fischer on this one.

-- Michael

___________________

 From the ISJ Politics blog: October 2, 2007

By Bryan Fischer, Executive Director, Idaho Values Alliance

It increasingly looks as though Sen. Larry Craig’s strategy is to stretch out the legal process as long as possible, perhaps virtually to the end of his term, in order to hang on to his job.

A judge is expected to issue a ruling later this week on the senator’s effort to withdraw his guilty plea, but legal experts believe it’s highly unlikely that this effort will succeed.

However, if the judge rules against the senator, he has the option of an appeal. As I understand the legal process in Minnesota, this appeal is not likely to be ruled on until sometime in the spring.

If the senator loses at that level, which again seems likely, my understanding is that he will still have one appeal left, to the Minnesota Supreme Court. That appeal is unlikely to be ruled on until at least the fall of 2008, a full year from now, and therefore close to the end of the senator’s term.

Thus the senator will be able to stay in office while claiming that he is simply waiting for the legal process to work itself out. This strategy will enable him to postpone a retirement decision until it will be too late to matter, even though he quite likely expects to lose at every step.

Those who argue that he is innocent until proven guilty should be reminded that we are already past that point, since the senator, by his own signed confession, is no longer legally innocent but legally guilty.

It’s my guess that the senator perversely is actually counting on losing in every courtroom in which he appears. He is in a position where it is actually in his own personal interest for every appeal to be flatly rejected. It’s the only way he can string out this process long enough to stave off a forced resignation.

The last thing the senator wants is for a court to allow him to withdraw his appeal, since this would force him into the nightmare of an actual courtroom trial.

A trial would expose the “Tearoom Trade,” as the widespread practice of gay sex in public bathrooms is called, and expose the senator’s likely participation in it for all the nation to see.

The prosecution would explain in detail that the police were only in that particular restroom because it so frequently was the site of illicit homosexual encounters that families were insisting that something be done.

They would remind the nation that this particular restroom was posted on homosexual websites as an inviting location for seedy hookups.

Further, the prosecution would go into detail about the well-established protocol followed by those seeking anonymous homosexual encounters, and how the senator’s own conduct followed that pattern in detail.

The arresting officer, a decorated officer with an impeccable reputation in law enforcement, would explain that the 40 arrests made over the summer were made because the suspects all followed this same protocol. This will make it virtually impossible to believe that the senator was not acting deliberately and with the specific purpose of soliciting anonymous sex.

The prosecution likely would point to research that indicates this particular protocol – the foot-tapping, the foot-touching, the hand under the divider - has been in use for decades by those looking for discreet ways to arrange restroom escapades.

The prosecution would likely go on to explain in disturbingly graphic detail the kind of sexual encounters which take place beneath these restroom dividers once two men agree to engage in anonymous sex.

This is way, way more information than the senator wants anybody to know. There is virtually no chance that he will take the risk of a public trial.

It seems sadly clear now that the senator is determined to place his own desires ahead of the citizens of Idaho, who need a senator in Washington who can give his full attention to the interests of his constituents and who is in a position to provide vocal and visible leadership on pro-family issues.

It seems likely that the senate will soon be faced with a veto-override vote on the defense authorization bill. The president has promised to veto it because the senate added a “sexual orientation” “hate crimes” amendment to it which will result in the loss of religious liberty in America and the criminalization of speech – including sermons – which criticize homosexual behavior.

Idaho needs two senators who can forcefully and convincingly argue for pro-family values in the debate over this veto override, and unfortunately we will have just one.

The senator’s intransigence is now doing demonstrable harm to the interests of Idaho’s families, and it is past time for him to step down and so that Idahoans may have the representation they deserve.