The weakness of women in power

By By Nicholas Pappas

By Nicholas Pappas

We’ve all heard about Sen. Larry Craig and his squatting in a Minnesota bathroom. Like most masculine Republicans, he takes a wide stance on the john. He is a powerful man and a powerful man needs space.

That, or he’s a self-hating homosexual.

I assume it’s the latter and I couldn’t care less about the tabloid-style news briefs asking “is he, or isn’t he?” Regardless, he was dealing in deeds that did him in.

The real story of interest to me is that of Suzanne Craig, Larry’s tight-lipped wife. I have watched her with interest. She stands next to her adulterous husband at his press conferences, stands by him through the shame and ramblings.

I have no respect for her and no one should.

Now, I ain’t saying she’s a gold digger, but she ain’t messing with no broke senator. Larry and Suzanne wedded in 1983. By that time, he had been in office for almost a decade.

The rest is assumption. Suzanne was a divorced woman with three children. Larry had already been through a history of homosexual accusations. It seems likely she knew what she was getting into — the queen to her king while he’d rather be off with the bishop.

Even then, I do not judge her. She might have known he was gay, but if he was a good father, a provider and a friend, the convenient engagement is still better than half of the marriages out there.

What I don’t understand is women who stay with blatant cheaters. This isn’t an attack on conservatives, either. Bill Clinton was a great president, but a lousy husband. In my mind, I have trouble voting for a woman like Hillary knowing she used her husband for power and privilege.

What kind of role models are these women to young girls playing with their Easy-Bake Ovens? Stay in the shadows? Stand by your man, even if he’d rather not lie next to you? In Hillary’s case, treat your marriage as a loveless stepping stone to your own personal gain?

The last election spent millions forcing the “sanctity of marriage” stick down our throats, and it all hinged on whether two gay men could buy overly expensive rings and walk down overly expensive aisles. What then do we call these glowing heterosexual examples? Why do they get a monopoly on being joined in loving matrimony when it is treated more like a cold contract than a passionate union?

There is always a time for forgiveness, but in the cases of Larry and Bill we are dealing with men who are like bulls in a field of heifers (or other bulls?). They have shown little restraint.

Just once it would be nice to see a scandal of this magnitude and have the doting wife, the obedient live-in, stand up as an example to women and say they are strong. Just once I’d like to hear these shadows of great men willing to tell the world they can stand on their own — that they respect themselves enough to walk out.

It won’t happen. Suzanne Craig will continue to stare off silently and fake a smile. Hillary will allow Bill to cheat while she sleeps around with insurance company lobbyists.

Half the marriages in this country will end in divorce. Half of the rest will stay together out of fear, comfort or convenience.

And somewhere there will be an 80-year-old woman who wakes up next to an 80-year old man and still wonders how she got so lucky.

Is that too much to ask? If we look at the example of those who should be role models, it just might be.

[email protected]