You have to wonder what has been going through this guy’s head.

First of all, I don’t care if he was seeking out some kind of physical airport pleasure. But let’s say he was and that the person in the other stall was receptive. What’s the next move? Does one person actually enter the stall of the other? As in, walk out of their stall and into the next stall? Bathroom stalls are not the most private of places. I cannot imagine it would not be obvious what was going on in there. Or does it all take place under the wall somehow? Perhaps I don’t need to know.

But there must be something that goes on, or the policeman would not have been assigned bathroom groping stake-out duty. (Do you think they request that?)

Then you listen to Craig’s story: the extremely wide stance that caused his foot to touch the foot of the person in the next stall over, the mysterious dropped toilet paper that he was reaching under the wall to retrieve, etc. When you listen to the tape (which, I am embarrassed to say, I have), he sounds like a kid trying to maneuver his way out of punishment for something the entire world knows that he did. (”It was broken when I got here.” “I think a Martian came into the kitchen and ate those cookies. Yeah, that’s it. A Martian.”) It’s just so … unbelievable.

In the end, he chooses to sign a guilty plea. Somehow, he seems to think by doing so, no one will find out about any of it. I wonder if he asked a lawyer about that. My guess is that he did not–he simply signed it, hoping it all would go away. Indeed, I don’t know of course, but I would venture to guess he told no one about this before it started to hit the press. You have to wonder when his wife learned about it.

Okay, so his initial strategy didn’t work out so well. Somehow–and your guess is as good as mine as to how such a thing could possibly happen–the fact that a United States Senator had pleaded guilty to soliciting sex in an airport men’s room became public information. Did he honestly think it would not?

Next good idea: challenge his own plea, claiming, among other things, that he was uninformed, that he was coerced, and that he was not given an opportunity to say in court that he was not guilty. (I like that one. He chose to mail in his signed plea complete with all kinds of waivers you would think a Senator would understand and then claims he did not have a chance to say he was not guilty in court and that the plea, therefore, is invalid. Makes you chuckle a little.) My favorite argument from Craig and his attorneys was that the “plea was not intelligently made.” I have to say, he may have a point there.

So now, having earlier promised to resign from the Senate if he could not get the plea withdrawn, he has reversed course, vowing to stay through next November. Does he really think this is going to serve the interest of the people of Idaho? All he is doing is fighting for his own reputation and causing a distraction to the United States Senate. It has become a personal quest, one that does not serve this country. Even as a Democrat, I get no satisfaction from this. There’s important work to be done, and Craig is in the way.

Personally, I do not believe Senator Craig should step down for the actions he took in that bathroom. I think he should step down for being too dumb to serve in the United States Senate. To have thought that he could hide this with a guilty plea; to make the argument that he only pleaded guilty so that he could hide it; to challenge the plea on the grounds that he was uninformed or that the plea was unintelligent; to change his mind and remain in the Senate despite the distraction he’s causing his own party as well as the rest of Congress; to think that he really can get the Senate Ethics panel to believe his story suddenly and clear his name–the man simply is not smart enough to hold such an important position.

But wait. Unintelligent people holding high office. Seems to ring a bell.