Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Craig Revelations Complicate Senate Picture

The allegations swirling around Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) have the potential to endanger what should be a safe seat and further complicates Republicans' attempts to limit their losses in 2008.

Craig was regularly mentioned as a retirement possibility before this story came to light (it was broken by Fix alma mater Roll Call). This story seems likely to up the ante on retirement although Democrats cautioned Monday that Craig is notoriously stubborn and might just try and see this thing through.

Craig's ability to weather this storm depends on what else comes out in the coming days. The Roll Call story was devastating, although Craig did seek to push back on it in his hometown paper, arguing that he never should have pleaded guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct in a mens bathroom in Minneapolis airport.

As of this writing rumors continued to swirl about other revelations regarding Craig that are set to emerge. If the story continues to grow beyond what has been reported, it would be difficult for Craig to hold on no matter what he wants to do.

If the details as reported by Roll Call (subscription required) end up being the extent of the controversy, Craig might -- and we emphasize might -- be able to hold on until next November when he is up for a fourth term.

Regardless, this seat is now far more imperiled than it was just 24 hours ago. In an election cycle where Republicans must defend 22 seats, as compared to just 12 for Democrats, it's yet another hole on an election map full of them.

Two factors mitigate the damage for Republicans. First, if Craig resigns, Gov. Butch Otter (R) would be tasked with naming an interim replacement until the race for Craig's full six-year term comes about in 2008. Otter would (of course) name a Republican, giving whomever he chooses -- most likely either Lt. Gov. Jim Risch or Rep. Mike Simpson (R) -- a major edge next November.

Second, Idaho remains ruby red in statewide contests. President Bush won the state by 38 points in 2004 and by 39 points in 2000 -- some of his largest margins in the country. Republicans have held both Idaho Senate seats since 1980. That was the year that Sen. Frank Church, the only Idaho Democrat to ever win re-election to the Senate, was defeated by Rep. Steve Symms (R).

In each of Craig's last two elections, he faced wealthy Democrats. In 1996, Walt Minnick spent $1 million of his own money to get 40 percent. Six years later Alan Blinken, the former ambassador to Belgium in the Clinton Administration, spent nearly $1 million to get just 32.5 percent.

The only Democratic candidate in the race at the moment is former Rep. Larry LaRocco. LaRocco held the 1st District from 1990 to 1994 when he lost to Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R). LaRocco was the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor in 2006 but didn't even muster 40 percent of the vote in his loss.

To date, LaRocco has run an active campaign but has struggled to make any real fundraising headway. At the end of June, LaRocco had collected just short of $80,000 and had $44,000 on hand. Another Democratic candidate is rumored to be weighing the race but national strategists were tight-lipped on a name at press time.

For Republicans, either Risch or Simpson seems an obvious choice. Risch was elected lieutenant governor in 2002 and served seven months as the state's chief executive in 2006 when Gov. Dirk Kempthorne (R) resigned to take over as Secretary of the Interior. Risch was re-elected as lieutenant governor easily in 2006. Simpson has held the 2nd District since 1998 and had made no secret he is interested in running for statewide office. Given the Republican nature of the state, there are sure to be any number of names bandied about as potential Craig replacements and a primary is not out of the question.

No matter what happens with Craig, he has made this race a headache for Republicans. Whether it's a migraine or not depends to be seen.

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 28, 2007; 7:33 AM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: LA Senate: Kennedy Switches Parties
Next: Rudy's Florida "Firewall"?

Comments

Nice site!
http://topdrugs.squarespace.com/ Buy Xanax [url=http://topdrugs.squarespace.com/]Buy Xanax Generic[/url] http://topdrugs.squarespace.com/ Buy Cheap Xanax Online

Posted by: Fitral | September 26, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

moltvgnk vosij mdiu hexuwsb ibctqfj kmtcq pzokw http://www.murhwklfd.piuoam.com

Posted by: gjaxzv wjmcxquio | September 13, 2007 2:09 AM | Report abuse

vgupct rzvq pvswqb haqlr ijfryuetk gikehnusp ebgrx

Posted by: twkhqbl cnvjul | September 13, 2007 2:08 AM | Report abuse

No to defend Republicans or anything, but with Vitter, there is a Democratic governor who would appoint his replacement, and opening up his seat would likely pull Kennedy or other key Republicns into running for that seat, and the fallout of allowing the scandal to grow might harm the Governor's race as well. So, if Vitter stays, they keep his seat and still have a chance at picking up Landrieu's seat, while if he resigns, a Dem takes that seat, and both Senate seats are up for grabs next year with two Democratic incumbent and a state Republican party weakened by scandal. Not the position you want to be in, especially this cycle.

Mind you, the homosexuality thing plays into it big time as well, but it's also cold hard politics and electoral math.

Posted by: Michael | August 30, 2007 7:21 PM | Report abuse

"Forcing Larry Craig's resignation while embracing David Vitter
(updated below - Update II)

When Hugh Hewitt admitted that he wants Larry Craig to resign but does not want the adulterous, serial-prostitute-hiring David Vitter to do so, he was subjected to ridicule and scorn from many different corners -- on the ground that this inconsistency is obviously attributable both to anti-gay animus and rank political self-interest (Vitter's replacement would be chosen by a Democratic Governor, whereas Craig's would be chosen by a right-wing GOP Governor). Even some right-wing blogs noted the absurdity of that position: "Hugh Hewitt wants Craig to resign immediately but David Vitter to stay on. Huh?"

Yet that contradictory and nakedly unprincipled posture has now become the official position of the GOP leadership, led by its pious "moral values" wing. A whole slew of very upstanding Family Values Senators are parading around making a flamboyant showing of pressuring Larry Craig to resign (knowing that it will entail no political cost), all while remaining completely silent about David Vitter's at least equally "undignified" and confessed adultery and lawbreaking (acts which, just like Craig, he concealed from his family and colleagues in the Senate until he had no choice).

There has arisen a relatively recent orthodoxy among political journalists that, whether we agree or disagree with them, we're all supposed to show great respect to the "values voters" political faction, because it is grounded in deeply held moral convictions that merit real respect. Here is the adulation heaped on Tony Perkins of the odious Family Research Council by Chris Matthews on Tuesday night:

Tony Perkins, you're a great man. We have had you on so many times. . . . .

Tony Perkins, let me ask you to respond to that. Do you think that they're -- that the conservative people like yourself, who are not politicians, but are men of the church, who believe in values, rather than election results, will break with the pols on this one?

(Matthews then added, reciting the words from the Values Voters' lexicon: "I think that the gay lifestyle has, obviously, many features to it that may be unique to it").

Whatever else one wants to say about the "family values" wing of the right-wing movement, the absolute last thing that it is is a principled, apolitical movement. And -- as the starkly different treatment for Craig and Vitter conclusively demonstrates -- these vaunted "moral principles," for which we are all supposed to show such profound respect, are invoked only when there is no political cost to invoking them, and worse, typically only when there is political benefit in doing so.

Social conservative Ross Douthat, in a Bloggingheads TV session from yesterday, explained this important (though almost always overlooked) dynamic perfectly in the context of discussing Larry Craig:

The reason that gay rights became a political issue in a way that various other frankly more important issues having to do with marriage and family life did not -- particularly issues about divorce and heterosexual divorce rates and single parenthood -- is that, clearly, it is easier to demonize gay people. And it is much more of an electoral winner.

Obviously, I think the broader conservative concern about family values in American life is correct. I think the way it has manifested itself in our political life is that nobody wants to be the guy out there telling people -- hey, you know, your heterosexual marriage or your out-of-wedlock children are the problem. It's much easier to say -- here is this particular manifestation that you can easily set aside and say I'm not gay.

The only kind of "morality" that this movement knows or embraces is politically exploitative, cost-free morality. That is why the national Republican Party rails endlessly against homosexuality and is virtually mute about divorce and adultery: because anti-gay moralism costs virtually all of its supporters nothing (since that is a moral prohibition that does not constrain them), while heterosexual moral deviations -- from divorce to adultery to sex outside of marriage -- are rampant among the Values Voters faithful and thus removed from the realm of condemnation. Hence we have scads of people sitting around opposing same-sex marriage because of their professed belief in "Traditional Marriage" while their "third husbands" and multiple step-children and live-in girlfriends sit next to them on the couch.

They're all willing to cheer on the "rules of traditional marriage" which do not impose on them in any way (marriage must have a man and a woman -- no problem there). But no "Family Values" politician could possibly survive politically by seeking to enshrine with the force of law all of the other equally important prongs of "Traditional Marriage" (all of that dreary, outdated "until death do us part" business which would deny the "right" for Values Voters to dump their wives and move on to the "next wife" when the mood strikes, or remain shacked up with their various girlfriends and the like).

It goes without saying that no gay candidate would stand a chance of receiving the presidential nomination from the party that stands for Traditional Marriage. And indeed, the Idaho Family Values Association (entitled to great respect), in the wake of the Craig scandal, just called -- explicitly -- for the Republican Party to purge all gay politicians from the party:

The Party, in the wake of the Mark Foley incident in particular, can no longer straddle the fence on the issue of homosexual behavior. Even setting Senator Craig's situation aside, the Party should regard participation in the self-destructive homosexual lifestyle as incompatible with public service on behalf of the GOP.
But they would never call for the exclusion from the Party of political figures who dumped their wives and are on their "second marriage" or "third marriage" -- actions at least equally deviant from principles of "traditional marriage" as anything Sen. Craig did and which wreck the lives of Our Children far more -- because so many of their pious supporters engage in the same behavior, as Idaho's traditionally high divorce rates (.pdf) demonstrate. Indeed, the highest divorce rates are found in the parts of the country where the so-called "Traditional Marriage" movement thrives most strongly, namely the Christian Values regions in the South. Hence, no "Christian, family values" politician could faithfully adhere to a political position of "traditional marriage" and "traditional values" because to do so would be to alienate and condemn a huge portion of the members of that movement.

It is this same self-interested, cost-free moralism that explains how it could be that, with the exception of Mitt Romney, all of the leading presidential candidates in the Party of Traditional Marriage have personal lives that reflect everything except for those values, with all their wrecked marriages and multiple wives and long adulterous records and various "step-children" and the like. And even more revealingly, the leading lights of the Traditional Values movement -- from Rush Limbaugh to Newt Gingrich to Bill O'Reilly -- have some of the most morally depraved lives of any public figures, making most Hollywood celebrities seem chaste by comparison.

But their moral depravity is of the heterosexual variety, and thus perfectly tolerable, because to condemn them or repudiate them would be to make huge numbers of the Values Voters faithful feel condemned as well. And no political moralizing is possible if its mandates require real sacrifice or restraint from its adherents. That is and always has been the great sham that defines the exploitation of moral issues for political gain. It does everything except apply its alleged principles consistently.

Personally, I would be sympathetic to the notion -- now embedded as Required Belief among journalists -- that the right-wing "Values Voters" movement would at least be entitled to respect on the ground that they were driven by true conviction, even when that conviction demanded political sacrifice and imposed political cost. That would mean calling for purges of adulterous candidates and the shunning of people with broken marriages and especially laws which make divorce and recognition of "re-marriages" -- clear violations of the precepts of Traditional Christian Marriage as much as same-sex marriages -- difficult if not impossible.

That would demonstrate true loyalty to the claimed values. But this movement is the opposite of that. Their moralism exists only when it is cost-free and when it entails no personal sacrifice.

As one of the second-tier (at best) GOP candidates, Mike Huckabee, put it rather eloquently a couple of week ago:

The second thing, and this'll really wrangle, again, some of my Republican colleagues. Bill Clinton and Hillary went through some horrible experiences in their marriage, because of some of the reckless behavior that he has admitted he had. I'm not defending him on that -- it's indefensible. But they kept their marriage together. And a lot of the Republicans who have condemned them, and who talk about their platform of family values, interestingly didn't keep their own families together.
The issue is not that these Traditional Marriage proponents sometimes stray from their own standards. People are imperfect and will inevitably do so. The point is that they apply these supposed "principles" only when it is expedient to do so, only in ways that are politically comfortable, thus revealing the complete inauthenticity of their alleged convictions.

It is hard to remember an incident that more powerfully reveals the true, deeply unprincipled face of the "Traditional Marriage" movement than the completely disparate treatment from the GOP leadership for David Vitter and Larry Craig. As the likes of Mitch McConnell and (the divorced and adulterous) John McCain oh-so-nobly demand Craig's resignation while continuing to embrace David Vitter, the last thing we ought to be hearing is how this demonstrates newfound moral rectitude from the Republican Party. Whatever is driving the party leaders as they keep David Vitter and push out Larry Craig -- and similarly condemn same-sex marriages while saying nothing about (and often engaging in) divorces and multiple marriages -- devotion to "traditional moral values" is not it.

UPDATE: Not only does forcing Craig's resignation entail no cost for Republicans, the whole scandal is actually good for Republicans and terrible for Democrats. So sayeth the National Review. The disgraced Larry Craig was Mitt Romney's co-chairman, but Rich Lowry assures his readers that the true beneficiary of the Craig scandal is the Mitt Romney campaign. Jonah Goldberg then adds that the candidate truly hurt by the Craig scandal is Hillary Clinton.

It must be so soothing to get your news from National Review and always be assured that things are going exactly how you want them to, and even bathroom sex scandals involving leading figures from your own Pious political movement actually are politically beneficial and only harm the opposition.

UPDATE II: On MSNBC's Dan Abrams Report last night, Joan Walsh and Pat Buchanan argued vehemently about the Craig matter, during which Buchanan admitted that Republicans care about sex scandals when it is "especially against homosexual activity" (the transcript is not yet up, but the video is here).

To underscore that point rather powerfully, during that segment Emily Heil of Roll Call reported this:

If you look at David Vitter, I couldn't find anyone to talk to me about him in the days after his scandal. No one would talk to about it -- they said this is a private matter, this is a family member. And when [Vitter] eventually met with Republicans behind closed doors, they gave him a hearty round of applause, as I was told. I don't think Senator Craig is going to get that kind of reception.
That report is consistent with articles in the immediate aftermath of the Vitter disclosures, such as this article in Louisiana's News Star -- entitled: "GOP Leaders Support Vitter":
Republican leaders generally are circling the wagons around embattled U.S. Sen. David Vitter, Louisiana Republican Party Chairman Roger Villere said Thursday.

"The consensus is they don't want him to resign," Villere said after spending hours in phone consultation with Republicans for the past three days.

What wretched and transparent deceit. Can we at least dispense with the fiction that the Moral Values Senate caucus giving rousing applause to David Vitter is motivated by anything resembling actual principles when forcing Larry Craig to resign?

-- Glenn Greenwald"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/30/craig_vitter

Posted by: glen greenwald | August 30, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

I find it interesting how fast the GOP turned on Craig, when they have been so slow to turn on others accused of misdeeds. Is it because the allegations suggest gay sex?

If true, Craig's actions suggest sexual addiction. Anonymous sex, whether gay or straight, in public places suggests an unnatural compulsion. I hope Craig takes treatment and joins a group of men with similar experience to address that problem.

Politically, he's done. He has no support in the Senate. The only question is if he will finish his term or leave and allow the Idaho governor to pick a successor. Idaho has been a strong Republican State. The only prominent Democrat running is LaRocco, who has been a perennial losing candidate since he lost his seat in the US House in the early 90s.

Even if Craig runs for re-election he stands a strong chance of being defeated in the primary if a prominent Republican runs, as will be likely.

One Idaho citizen recently quoted though, says it is the apparent lying about the arrest that has hurt Craig in Idaho more than the gay sex angle. In fact the gay rumor has followed Craig for some time and he was still elected by landslide numbers. Perhaps it was this blantant loss of credibility that spurred fellow GOP senators to so quick an action.

Craig may be finished, but this seems hardly a pick-up potential for Democrats. Some other Democrat with a strong profile would have to emerge in Idaho to have even a ghost of a chance.

Posted by: Alan in Missoula | August 30, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

"Question:

Do you think Sen. Larry Craig should resign?
Answers:

Yes
(77 %)

No
(23 %) "

That pesky 15-25 % fascsit sell-out gop vote. At least they're consistant.

Slave dittoheads.

Posted by: rufus | August 29, 2007 7:07 PM | Report abuse

The radical-right's hyper-attack machine has been crippled, and while their toxic detritus will be with us for generations, keep in mind how much money the CEO's made. You think there are going to be any give-backs just because one of their foot-soldiers got busted? Chuckle now, but I am sorry to say, you probably ain't getting the last laugh

Posted by: Anonymous | August 29, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

"We all know that FOXNews is famous for switching R's to D's when Republicans get into trouble or they don't like what they hear from one, but they changed up their tactics in the case of Senator Lavvy Craig's potty scandal. Instead of assigning him to the bad, naughty, nasty Democratic party, in the below article from their website FOX chose to completely leave out his political affiliation altogether. That's right, nowhere in the article will you see the word REPUBLICAN attached to Senator Larry Craig's name. The article also quotes numerous Republicans stating their disdain for the Senator's actions -- attempting to give the impression they weren't talking about a fellow Republican. Brilliant!

Denying that he did anything wrong and stating emphatically that "I am not gay," Sen. Larry Craig asked the people of Idaho on Tuesday to forgive him for being arrested two months ago in a police sting in a men's room at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

Craig, who was taken into custody on June 11 by a plainclothes officer investigating reports of lewd conduct in the restroom, said he pleaded guilty to a disorderly conduct charge in an effort to suppress a story -- pursued by his home-state newspaper -- that he has secretly engaged in gay trysts.

Meanwhile, back in Washington, Republican leaders announced they will launch an ethics review of the senator.

I've posted the rest of the FOX article below instead of asking our fine readers to link to their site. "

Posted by: http://www.crooksandliars.com/ | August 29, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

"When a high-profile Republican runs into serious trouble, as Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) clearly has, he or she inevitably turns to a few reliable rejoinders that are supposed to help make things better. The first is "9/11 changed everything." That probably won't work in this case. The second is "Tempest in a teapot." When an anti-gay senator pleads guilty to pursuing gay sex in an airport men's room, dismissing it as trivia is a stretch.

And third is, "It's the media's fault." This, apparently, is the new excuse d'jour.

[Craig] blamed the Idaho Statesman of Boise for his legal and political troubles stemming from his arrest in a sex-related matter at an airport men's room in Minnesota in June.

He denounced the longstanding probes by the Statesman -- he called it a "witch hunt" -- for inspiring him to plead guilty to the offense even though he said he was actually innocent. He said he had been "viciously harassed" by the newspaper. "I am not gay," he said twice. "I love my wife."

Now, I can appreciate Craig's desperation, which is probably clouding his judgment, but blaming the Idaho Statesman is transparently ridiculous. First, the paper hadn't even published any stories about Craig's homosexuality until after he was arrested, so it's not as if news accounts led to undue pressure. And second, by the senator's logic, the newspaper's interest in his personal life caused him to plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit.

I'm afraid Craig is going to need a more coherent defense.
"

Posted by: http://www.crooksandliars.com/ | August 29, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse

In Idaho, the Dems would be smart to run a little lady out Sun Valley who has made a big impact on conservation in that state. She works with Republicans too!

Carole King, fame, fortune and down to earth quality that plays well in Idaho.

Posted by: Jack K. | August 29, 2007 8:25 AM | Report abuse

I've been monitoring this thing on some of the online news websites over the last several hours and it is not going away. Check out the Sleuth's last blog entry ("Still not Gay"). Too funny. The republican leadership ought to be ignoring this thing if they really want it to blow over.

Posted by: WesternNY Geologist | August 28, 2007 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Hey, does anyone think a Singing Senators reunion is possible?

Posted by: smokeclearing | August 28, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Priorities and others who are wondering-

The airport police had started the undercover monitoring of bathrooms in the hopes of observing and catching quite different clandestine behavior namely: the transfer of luggage from one passenger to another. Luggage monitoring is one of the most important aspects of airport security. They only started going after the lewd public acts after their fish nets caught things other than fish. In short this sting is not an example of not being serious about terrorism but rather the opposite.

Posted by: bluemeanies | August 28, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

If Ted Kennedy can commit murder and win re-election, Larry Craig can play bathroom footsie and keep his seat, too. I used to live in Idaho; to call the state ruby-red is almost an understatement. They'll vote for a Republican over a Democrat just about any day of the week, especially if the Democrat is Larry LaRocco.

Posted by: Denver D | August 28, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

tHE GOP IS not the "law and order" party.

they are for anarchy. Gop, how are you going to get your slaves to listen to you in a state of anarchy?

Posted by: RUFUS | August 28, 2007 5:09 PM | Report abuse

without further ado, I present the top five political cruising spots. Senators, congressmen: You, too, could soon be a Roll Call sex scandal:

5. At the Waffle House on Highway 161 in Little Rock, go through the drive through in an Arkansas State Police cruiser (no pun intended) and order the All-American Breakfast. If your order is returned to you with the butter on the side of the chocolate-chip waffle, but directly on the sweet-cream waffle, then that means that the waitress on duty is willing to meet Bill Clinton in room 42 of the El Rancho motel after her shift.

4. Stop at any Jersey Turnpike rest stop after midnight and read Jim McGreevey's The Confession in a well-lit area. Do your best to overlook the passages that describe the illegality of putting his lover on the state payroll and the ethical troubles of cheating on your wife and breaking up your family. Instead, cradle the book like a child and weep for how hard it is to be a "gay American" in the closet. You're sure not to go home alone that night. Just make sure you avoid a rough trick from Trenton named Toby.

3. Why cruise for thrills when you can create a cyberspace community to attract suitable partners in the comfort of your own home? Visit Mark Foley's myspace for a fun place free from "rules" where kids can hang out, talk, and do whatever. They can even join the Instant Message revolution and get advice from Uncle Foley!


YoungAtHeart54: OMG have you seen zacefronpleasestoptanning.blogspot.com???

FallOutBoyRulz: i know!!! high school musical 2 was teh suxxors

YoungAtHeart54: so, uh they show gladiator movies on disney channel?

FallOutBoyRulz: ??? your wierd


2. The chamber of the United States Senate. It may seem like an unlikely place to get your freak on, but D.C. Madam Deborah Jean Palfrey's phone records indicate that two of Louisiana Senator David Vitter's five calls to her prostitution service were made during roll-call votes. And Pulitzer Prize-Winning Washington Post Reporterâ„¢ Robin Givhan, justly awarded for having noted that Condoleezza Rice dresses like a dominatrix, has already commented on Hillary Clinton's daring flashes of cleavage in the sacred chamber.

I am woman hear me ... Rowr!

When it comes to sex scandals, we've already gone from a slippery slope to a toboggan ride to hell, and it's only a matter of time before the base urges of that many assembled politicians makes C-SPAN 2 indistinguishable from the Spice Network.

1. Barney Frank's place. No, really. Frank's ex-boyfriend -- er, friend that he paid for sex, put him in his congressional office, and wrote letters to his Virginia probation officer vouching for him on congressional stationary -- repaid the congressman's kindness by running a brothel out of his house. That's it. No joke -- other than he's still in Congress.

Posted by: mark | August 28, 2007 4:31 PM | Report abuse

An interesting interview with Romney on the Kudlow show today:

"Gov. ROMNEY: If--you know, I don't know the circumstances right now of his setting, and so I really can't call--make that call without having reviewed it, Larry. I will review that, and we'll give you a call on that. I certainly felt that Bill Clinton shouldn't have stayed in office. But you know, with regards to this setting, why, we'll take a close look at it.

KUDLOW: Actually, on that Clinton point, you threw Clinton in with the Craig episode and the Mark Foley episode. Could you just expand a little bit on that for us, sir?

Gov. ROMNEY: I'm not sure I need to. I think we've all heard the story about Bill Clinton and the fact that he let us down in his personal conduct with a--with a White House intern. And that strikes me as another one of these extraordinary acts of falling short of what America would expect of elected officials, particularly one who should be held to a higher standard.

KUDLOW: Do you think the Monica Lewinksy, impeachment and so forth, she was indicted--he, Mr. Clinton, was indicted in the House, he was not convicted in the Senate, Governor, does that become an issue again in this presidential campaign?

Gov. ROMNEY: I don't think so. I think the experience of the--of mine in the political world is that the things that we've heard about in the past, we tend to forget and not bring back up. But obviously, the continued parade of sexual misconduct in Washington, DC, is something which is very disturbing to America's families. And when you're trying to raise children, and you have stories like the ones we've seen over the last several years coming out of
Washington, that's very troubling. And I expect that people should be held to a higher standard, and that is something I'd expect to see in this particular case as well as in other cases that have proceeded it."

Now, wait a minute, I thought the clinton impeachment wasn't about sex....

Can't flip-flop Mitt even keep the Republican Party talking points straight?

Posted by: Michael | August 28, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse


Please explain to me why the so called liberal media did not report this on this after it was reported that Craig liked to make advances in the men' room on the Ed Schulz Show. A gay blogger exposed over a year ago that Larry Craig was making advances on strangers in public restrooms. Ed has 3 million listeners so if the media is so liberal they must of heard about it. Why didn't they follow him around like they followed Gary Hart? Where was the Liberal Media? Maybe the main stream media is not so liberal? Maybe the main stream media is controlled by the power elite and is beholden to the Republican party? Oh bye the way if Fox is so fair and balanced, where were they?

Posted by: bradcpa | August 28, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Just for the record, I'm an out gay Democrat who is positively giddy to see Craig exposed as hypocrite, but you seriously do have to wonder whether the airport police should be looking for terrorists instead of homos.

Posted by: Priorities | August 28, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Rothenberg hasn't even moved Idaho out of Safe Republican. Here's his rationale here:

http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2007/08/idaho-senate-democratic-prospects-still.html

Posted by: R. Howard | August 28, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

"Given everything you just outlined, I fail to see how this situation will be a headache for the Republican Party."

Still, without the power of incumbency, money will need to be spent there that wouldn't if this event had not occurred and Craig had run for re-election. Like in the house race to replace Pickering, a Republican will likely win, but it may divert funds and energy that could be critical to other contentuous races. And with a strong progressive, a D could get within striking distance (say, 42-45%, which in a small state like Idaho makes the final outcome unpredictable) making the whole situation extra stressful for the national Republicans.

Posted by: Michael | August 28, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

"I think well of Lindsey Graham and have thought he could become a leader in the R Party of the kind Jack Kemp was - principled, conservative, but open to reasoned debate. I do not want to see him ruined by innuendo."

I have great respect for the man too, and don't think when it does eventually come out that it will be as big a deal as this is because he generally doesn't make homosexuality a key issue nor is it likely to happen under such circumstances, I'm just merely stating what I think will happen because I do believe more questions will swirl on the matter and, as has been noted, it is an open question that has been raised by numerous people. Like I say, being exposed as being gay isn't automatically a bad thing (though in his case it probably would hurt him with his base), it's hypocrisy in this particular case (Craig)that is troubling.

Posted by: Michael | August 28, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Given everything you just outlined, I fail to see how this situation will be a headache for the Republican Party. Craig will either resign (if new revelations appear) or retire. He won't be on the ballot in November 2008.

The party will nominate a new candidate and he or she will win. "Ruby-red" remember? Pretty simple and stess-free (unless you're Senator Craig, of course).

DMOnline
http://both-right.blogspot.com/

Posted by: DMOnline | August 28, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Mark and Bsimon:

You're both welcome. It isn't often my state is in the news. Wish it could be something a bit less tawdry than the present news. :)

Posted by: J. Crozier | August 28, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

priorities asked
"Don't the Minneapolis airport police have bigger things to worry about in the post-9/11 world than a little hanky-panky in a private stall?"


Good question. One might ask the same question about the party that works incessantly to add discriminatory ballot initiatives in swing states.

"If we give same-sex couples the same legal rights as opposite sex couples, the terrorists have won."


Though, on the subject of Minneapolis airport cops, their other recent appearance in the press was for arresting & (allegedly) beating a bicyclist for trying to ride his bike home from the airport.

.

Posted by: bsimon | August 28, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

rufus: The comment from Priorities is no different from those of the brain-dead Mike Vick supporters talking about all the more horrible things that are going on in the country. As if our law enforcement agencies can focus on only one thing at once. How simpleminded and sad.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 28, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

"Don't the Minneapolis airport police have bigger things to worry about in the post-9/11 world than a little hanky-panky in a private stall?

Craig is definitely a deeply disturbed hypocrite, but I'd hate to think of terrorists hijacking a plane because the airport police were staked out in the john."

Like always gop. Everyhing comes back to 9/11. Everything is applicable to 9/11. No laws should be enforced due to 9/11. And you wonder why your party is about to be eliminated for a generation. When we change the way we live, here in america, the terrorists win. Win will you republcians get that?

Stop changing the country to be more fascsit. Nice try though. I knew someone would try it.

Posted by: rufus | August 28, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Larry Craig arrest report | August 28, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Don't the Minneapolis airport police have bigger things to worry about in the post-9/11 world than a little hanky-panky in a private stall?

Craig is definitely a deeply disturbed hypocrite, but I'd hate to think of terrorists hijacking a plane because the airport police were staked out in the john.

Posted by: Priorities | August 28, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

I hear ya mark. But you sympathy doesn't keep Ann Coulter of Fox does it? She's like a cockroach, she keeps coming back.

Sorry for the tone mark. I got respect for you ,even if you are lost. :)

I don't think edwards can win. i like the guy. But if someone calls him a fa**ot repeatedly all over tv radio and news, I'm not sure he can be the president. Now who's fault is that? Is it edwards's?


I wanted to add Mr. Greenwald's take on this subject, since the blog has died down to a whisper.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/08/28/craig/


"Larry Craig's bathroom behavior and the right wing -- then and now
(updated below - updated again)

The reaction to the Larry Craig story provides one of the most vivid illustrations yet of how the right-wing movement works. Last October, just weeks before the midterm election, gay activist Mike Rogers reported that the married, GOP "family values" Senator repeatedly had sex with anonymous men in public bathrooms. His report was based on "extensive research," including interviews with several men whom Craig solicited for bathroom sex.

As Rogers argued at the time, the story was relevant -- just as the Vitter prostitute story was -- in light of Craig's frequent political exploitation of issues of sexual morality and his opposition to virtually every gay rights bill. Rogers' story, as a factual matter, seemed relatively credible, both because of his history of accurate outings and because there is no discernible reason why, if he were intent on fabricating, he would single out someone as obscure as Larry Craig, who was not even up for re-election.

Nonetheless, it is hard to overstate the intense fury that this pre-election report triggered from the Right -- not at Senator Craig for engaging in this behavior, but at Rogers for reporting it. A virtually unanimous chorus on the Right furiously insisted that nothing could be more irrelevant than whether the married family values Senator had sex with men in bathrooms (acts that are simultaneously criminal and adulterous). The same political movement that impeached Bill Clinton and which has made a living exploiting issues of private morality for political gain insisted that Rogers had reached a new and despicable low in politics even by reporting this.

This reaction was so widespread that only a fraction can be identified here for illustrative purposes. At Hugh Hewitt's blog, Dean Barnett pronounced: "The thuggishness continues . . . . [A] benumbed nation can only look on in horror at what has become of the Democratic Party." Barnett accused Rogers of being a liar ("Rogers will maintain the anonymity of these three men, presumably because they . . . . don't exist") and also claimed that he hasn't "heard from a single conservative who gives a hoot about Larry Craig's sexuality." According to Barnett (and many others), the Left only thought the story would matter because it mistakenly assumes that Christian conservatives actually dislike homosexuals:

I assume he's straight as do most readers, but the overwhelming sentiment we all share is indifference. . . .

But if those on the left actually knew more practicing Christians, they would know that the stuff about condemning the sin but loving the sinner isn't mere lip service. If the members of the left actually knew the people that they so casually and easily defame, they would also understand that infinite forgiveness is a hallmark of America's Christian community. . . .

If the left actually took the time to understand the dynamics of the community they so loathe, they would know that professional Outing Scumbag Mike Rogers will inspire the Republican base, not the opposite.

And at least at the time, Barnett was right. Among right-wing pundits -- weeks before the election -- there was nothing but support for Craig and outrage over the reporting of this story. The most hysterical outrage of all was from Glenn Reynolds, who went so far as repeatedly to predict -- literally -- that the country would be so repulsed by Rogers' reporting that it might actually swing the election in favor of the Republicans. More absurdly still, Reynolds cited a grand total of two reasons why he voted for GOP's Bob Corker over Harold Ford in the Tennessee Senate race, one of which was actually Rogers' report on Craig ("the sexual McCarthyism from the pro-outing crowd . . . . has convinced me that [Democrats] just don't deserve a victory with those tactics").

As usual, Bush-supporting bloggers like Ann Althouse and Patterico dutifully echoed Reynolds' line: "I truly believe this sort of tactic is going to create a backlash." Identically, Michelle Malkin's Hot Air actually convinced itself, as Reynolds did, that the Craig report was so despicable that it might save the GOP from defeat:

Three kids, nine grandkids. Supposedly spending his leisure time in the men's room at Union Station. . . . It's been said before but it bears repeating: the left always finds a way to shoot itself in the foot. Patterico expects a backlash. So do I. In fact, I haven't felt this motivated to vote in weeks. . . . .

If a U.S. Senator was going to have a tryst -- especially a gay tryst -- would he really do it in the men's room of one of the busiest places in D.C.?


But now, with the election safely over, a fundamentally different view -- one might say the exact opposite view -- has arisen among this same political faction (and, in some cases, though not all, even among the same individuals) over the Craig bathroom sex story, one which confirmed the truth of Rogers' October report. Michelle Malkin yesterday called Craig a "weasel," accused him of not caring about the "dignity of his office," and demanded that he resign. Various other right-wing blogs -- noting that a GOP governor will appoint his replacement -- also are calling for Craig to resign.

So revealingly, Barnett's blog colleague, Hugh Hewitt, demanded Craig's immediate resignation while openly acknowledging that he does not believe Sen. Vitter should resign. I wonder what the difference might be? It cannot possibly be that Craig's liaisons were with men rather than women, because the Right is completely indifferent to such considerations.

Various right-wing commentators are competing with one another to see who can express the most visceral disgust for Larry Craig's behavior (behavior which was so irrelevant just a few months ago that it was despicable even to report it). Mark Steyn echoes Hewitt's demand that Craig resign and then proceeds to spew adolescent mockery comparing Craig to George Michael. The Corner's David Freddoso registers his "obvious disgust" for Larry Craig and muses on "how rotten a job that plainclothes officer has."

And Jonah Golberg -- who last October penned one of the most pious condemnations of Rogers, calling the Craig story "wicked" and insisting that such tactics will "haunt [liberals] in unexpected ways in years to come" (notwithstanding the glaringly contradictory fact that Goldberg's entire public existence was foisted on our country by his and his mom's sleazy joint feeding off of the Clinton sex scandal) today pops up to make sure that everyone knows that he is repulsed by Craig's behavior: "I don't know what Larry Craig's been doing in men's rooms. And it sure sounds like I don't wanna know either."

Some right-wing commentators are candid enough to admit why they find the Craig story -- which last October was the Height of Irrelevance -- to be so significant today. In October, "Sister Toldjah" called Rogers a "despicable individual." But here is what this same person said today (emphasis in original):

Third, how disappointing, the two things that are at play here: the fact that in all probability he's cheated on his wife -- or at least attempted to, and on top of that he, according to the police officer in question, solicited for sex in a men's restroom. The man not only has a wife, but kids and grandkids. What the hell was he thinking? Only of himself, apparently. . . .

It's the personal aspect of this that is bothersome -- the deception, the lies, the adultery, the criminal nature of what he was arrested for back in June (is that the tip of the iceberg on Craig's adulterous behavior?). He's married. He's broken his vows of marriage. He hasn't been practicing what he preaches. He's deceived his constituency. That's what's bothersome.

They certainly don't seem to think that Craig's behavior is so irrelevant any more, do they? As always, it is astonishing to observe how the same human brain can accommodate those two opposite thoughts only a few months apart without even realizing that it is doing so.

And she's not alone. Other right-wing commentators individually have now completely reversed their views on the Craig story as compared to two weeks before the election. Here, for instance, was Ed Morrissey, waxing indignant over the Craig report, back in October, 2006:

People wonder why we don't attract a wider range of qualified candidates for public office. Michael Rogers sets himself up as Exhibit #1. The personal and degrading attacks convince many people to skip the trouble, and the people who do dare to run for office usually wind up experiencing the ruination of their reputations in one form or other. It comes from all sides to some degree, but this ghastly mudslinging really marks a new low. . . .

I couldn't care less whether Craig is attracted to men or women; it's really none of my business, and none of Rogers' either. As long as he's not importuning minors, then it makes no difference to anyone except Craig and his family, and that's if the allegations have any basis in fact.

But here is Morrissey yesterday on the Craig story:
We think it means you're even more foolish than this incident would suggest. How long before Craig checks himself into rehab or finds Jesus? . . . . Hugh Hewitt calls for his resignation. At the least, he should confirm that he will not run again.

Here is RedState on Craig yesterday:

I have blogged repeatedly here at RedState that we must clean our own house lest the voters clean it for us. . . .And today we have Larry Craig (R-Idaho) soliciting sex in a men's bathroom in an airport. . . . I can only say he must resign.
But here is Red State in October 2006 (a different front page commentator), in the course of arguing that Craig should acknowledge if he is gay as a matter of honesty with the voters:
Mike Rogers, the scumbag who runs blogActive, has published a claim that Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) is homosexual. I won't go into the sordid details Mr Rogers presents; if you are really interested, you can visit Mr Rogers' site. Senator Craig has flatly denied Mr Rogers' allegations, calling them laughable.

Patterico has the details and (at the moment) 123 commenters who are rightly disturbed at Mr Rogers' abusive tactics. Sister Toldjah is rightly indignant, and Brian at Iowa Voice is hopping mad. . . .

Mr Rogers is a scumbag, no doubt about that; were he set on fire, I wouldn't urinate on him to put it out.


What accounts for this complete shift in right-wing commentary about the Craig story? How can it possibly be that Craig's bathroom adultery compels his resignation today, but -- weeks before the last election -- the same conduct was so irrelevant that the mere mention of it rendered Rogers the lowest "scumbag" in the nation? Other than the fact that the Craig report threatened GOP political interests in October but does not do so now, what conceivable difference exists that accounts for such a fundamentally different reaction among the Right?

All of this is to say nothing of the fact that political figures like David Vitter, Mark Foley, Rush Limbaugh, and Larry Craig who relentlessly exploit private sexual morality for political gain obviously subject their own private lives to similar scrutiny. Standing alone, this quote alone from Craig about Bill Clinton, found yesterday by Atrios, demonstrates how ludicrous were the shrill October protests from the Right about Rogers' reporting of the Craig bathroom story.

But there is actually a more pernicious element visible here. Back in October, scads of right-wing pundits pretended that Craig's bathroom behavior was irrelevant to them not because they actually believed that (as their commentary now demonstrates), but only because they were petrified that the revelation of his behavior in October would harm Republican electoral prospects. It is just conclusively clear that so many of them insisted to their readers something they obviously did not believe -- that nothing could be less relevant than whether Larry Craig commits adultery with anonymous men in bathrooms and the only grotesque immorality is from those who report such matters.

Today, with the election safely over, that exact same behavior makes Craig a scumbag who should resign. Who would ever listen to anyone who engages in such patently duplicitous advocacy? Shouldn't all the people who were depicting Mike Rogers as Satan's spawn for reporting something so clearly irrelevant as Senator Craig's bathroom sex be condemning with equal vigor their comrades who, today, cite that same bathroom sex as a ground for mocking Craig and even demanding that he resign from the Senate? How can it possibly be that Mike Rogers was despicable slime for reporting on Craig's bathroom behavior without its being true that Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt and Mark Steyn are all despicable slime for demanding that he resign based on the same behavior?

UPDATE: A couple of commenters have mounted a predictable though clearly baseless defense -- namely, that the difference between October and now is that back then it was merely rumor but it is now confirmed. Simply read the posts I linked to. The outrage at Rogers was not based -- certainly not principally -- on the premise that his report was unconfirmed. The crux of the condemnation, often the exclusive argument, was that Rogers' report about Craig was completely irrelevant even if it were true, because it was only about Craig's private sexual behavior, which should be immune from public consideration.

UPDATE II: TPM has the video of Larry Craig, the co-chair of the Mitt Romney campaign, explaining why he supports Romney's candidacy (the video is now removed from Romney's site). Craig says:

Knowing Governor Mitt Romney is knowing someone who, first and foremost, has very strong family values. That is something I grew up with and believe in.
How can any rational person argue that a political movement which constantly exploits claims about private behavior like this for political gain ought to be immunized from scrutiny as to whether their conduct is consistent with what they claim? If having "strong family values" is -- as Craig claims -- the reason "first and foremost" to support someone's candidacy for President, then, by definition, whether one has "strong family values" is a politically relevant consideration for such a person. Craig's own pronounced political standards render it relevant whether a married political official with children is having anonymous sex in bathrooms. That is just logically true.

-- Glenn Greenwald"

Posted by: rufus | August 28, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

My last post - yes, Rufus, it is galling to hear Edwards called "gay" too.

I was simply responding to the "Mike" and "Michael" posts.
They had never been introduced, and they started off on the same railroad track, but on a collision course.

Does that make sense to you? I will look back tonight.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 28, 2007 2:08 PM | Report abuse

"I think well of Lindsey Graham and have thought he could become a leader in the R Party of the kind Jack Kemp was - principled, conservative, but open to reasoned debate. I do not want to see him ruined by innuendo. "

Nor do I with the edwards is gay. Can any person get elected to the highest office in the country when she-devils opening cal him a fa**ott?. I don't know. What about the gop making a point to label him as a girly man. I guess the road runs one way. The differance between Edwards and craig is, oo never mind. i'm wasting my time here.

Posted by: rufus | August 28, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

"But that isnt why I'm posting, I just want to say those who feel justified in calling people like Senator Graham gay need to look in the mirror. The man is a moderate who has put his own life on the line by serving in Iraq, when he could obviously get out of it. "

aLL The while denoucing gay's in the military. If he WERE gay. That would be hypocritical wouldn't it.

Posted by: rufus | August 28, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

This passage was lifted from MSNBC. Seems to be taken from the police report. Craig said his actions were misunderstood. Do you think something reported as his behavior needs clarification? As Ed Norton would say: Dumb-de-dumb-dumb!

"According to the prosecutor's complaint, obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press, airport police Sgt. Dave Karsnia, who was investigating allegations of sexual conduct in airport restrooms, went into a stall shortly after noon on June 11 and closed the door.

Minutes later, the officer saw Craig gazing into his stall through the crack between the stall door and the frame, fidgeted with his fingers and returned to gazing through the stall for about another two minutes.

After a man in the adjacent stall flushed the toilet and left, Craig entered it and put his roller bag against the front of the stall door, "which Sgt. Karsnia's experience has indicated is used to attempt to conceal sexual conduct by blocking the view from the front of the stall," said the complaint, which was dated June 25.

The complaint said Craig then tapped his right foot several times and moved it closer to Karsnia's stall and then moved it into the area of the officer's stall to where it touched Karsnia's foot. Karsnia recognized that "as a signal often used by persons communicating a desire to engage in sexual conduct," the complaint said.

Craig then passed his left hand under the stall divider into Karsnia's stall with his palms up and guided it along the divider toward the front of the stall three times, the complaint said.

The officer then showed his police identification under the divider and pointed toward the exit "at which time the defendant exclaimed `No!,' " the complaint said."

Posted by: A Cop View | August 28, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

J. Crozier, let me second bsimon's thanks to you for a local insight.

Mike the Aggie Marine officer, meet Michael, the Air Force Academy alum from norCal.

I think well of Lindsey Graham and have thought he could become a leader in the R Party of the kind Jack Kemp was - principled, conservative, but open to reasoned debate. I do not want to see him ruined by innuendo.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 28, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

are sick puppies, no doubt. America is better off without electing any of them, until they clean up their party.

Posted by: Republicans | August 28, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

"Is s*x between consenting adults OK or not? Is the gay lifestyle OK or not? Is cheating on your wife OK or not?"

The third is not ok (not illegal, but not ok, another issue Republicans don't seem to understand...), but as for the rest, again Zouk, it's the hypocrisy, stupid. Had he not had a 96% rating from the ACU, 100% rating from the Christian Coalition, voted in favor of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, voted no on expanding hate crimes legislation to gay issues, voted no on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation, and been a staunch R in one of the reddest states in the union, this wouldn't be an issue for any of us. It's about integrity and basic decency, something Republicans are strongly lacking these days.

My vote is for Lindsay Graham next, his homosexuality is the biggest open secret in the military these days.

Posted by: Michael | August 28, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

I havent read this blog in awhile, but I see little has changed. There are some who call every Democrat a soft on crime, soft on terrorism pansy. And some who call every Republican a closet homosexual pedophile Nazi. It just got old. Some will justify it by saying that if you belong to a certain party, you have earned whatever stereotype comes with that party. Or that the other side started with the name calling.

But that isnt why I'm posting, I just want to say those who feel justified in calling people like Senator Graham gay need to look in the mirror. The man is a moderate who has put his own life on the line by serving in Iraq, when he could obviously get out of it. Do not besmirch a good man's character just because of other Repuhlican slimeballs. If you want to talk about Foley or Criag, they are fair game. But not an innocent and honorable man.

Posted by: Mike | August 28, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

'do you want to spend more or less?'

what a joke. we now have an enormous deficit -- which republicans created. they are the party of enormous government, unthinkable corruption, and incredily hypocrisy.

and j crozier, don't worry about wassintg zouk's time. he has no other life than to sit on this board all day, begging for people to indulge in his fantasies. a lot like larry craig, i guess.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

J.Crozier-
thanks for that post. Its good to get the local perspective.

Mark in Austin-
read that last night. Friedman addresses the failure to compete effectively for the 'hearts and minds' without falling into the same old tired rhetoric patterns.

Posted by: bsimon | August 28, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Jim Risch an obvious choice???? He and Otter hate each other; Otter would appoint a Democrat to succeed Craig before picking Risch.

Posted by: JoeyJoeJoe | August 28, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

'So the proof that universal healthcare will fail is the war in Iraq, which we're supposedly winning. Does that make sense to anyone?'

Don't ask republicans to make sense. They apparently can't.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

"Dear Rufus,


George Bush broke America. Our bridges are collapsing, our levees are disintegrating, and millions of children are without health insurance.

Meanwhile, corporate executives and private insurance companies are running away with record profits.

And we have Washington Republicans to thank. Time after time, they have chosen to line the pockets of their corporate cronies rather than invest in this country's crumbling infrastructure and evaporating middle class.

Well, eight years is enough. You can help Democracy for America take our country back. Pitch in today and pledge a small monthly contribution to DFA.

Just $10 each month, from now until November 2008, gives DFA the resources to execute our plan for victory.

https://contribute.democracyforamerica.com/trust

What does victory look like? Yesterday's announcement of Gonzales' resignation is a great start, but we have more work to do. We are building a farm team of progressive candidates for state and local offices -- a new generation of leaders to take back each and every community. And progressive majorities in both houses of Congress with a Democrat in the White House.

It is long past time for a change.

Bush has neglected the needs of the American people at every turn. And every time some corporate executive collects another bonus, Bush and the Republicans line their campaign coffers and say how great the economy is doing.

At DFA, we don't take corporate cash. We are a people-powered organization. Your support is crucial to building a sustainable organization to fight the Republican machine.

For the cost of a movie ticket, a paperback, or a meal in a restaurant, you can make the difference for DFA each month.

https://contribute.democracyforamerica.com/trust

When you sign up to make a monthly contribution, you automatically become a member of the DFA Trust. Trust members get more than just that warm, fuzzy feeling of doing the right thing.

As a DFA Trust member, you are invited to participate in quarterly conference calls with DFA Chair Jim Dean and special guests like Al Franken, Markos Moulitsas from Dailykos.com, and Senator John Kerry. You also get into all DFA events for free! That includes our renowned DFA Training Academy weekends.

So, help DFA fight corporate influence and sign up for a monthly contribution today.

Thank you for putting your contribution into action.

Tom Hughes
Executive Director"

Posted by: Just sharing the democratic wealth | August 28, 2007 1:01 PM | Report abuse

And Zouk, I don't see any real benefit to continuing to respond to your posts. We are definitely viewing things from two different perspectives. To paraphrase from "A Beautiful Mind", further discussion between us would be a waste of your, and what is infinitely worse MY, valuable time.

You are welcome to your views and your opinions. I consider them incorrect, but I accept that I can't ever convince everyone 100% of the time.

Posted by: J. Crozier | August 28, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

On topic: many D posters gloat about R hypocrisy about both random acts of homosexuality with strangers and all pederasty, but they know that most Rs [like most Ds] actually find the conduct reprehensible. Personal hypocrisy is, well, personal to the perpetrator, not to the R Party, as y'all know.

A less tormented R will replace Craig as Senator from Idaho, I am sure.

Off topic: Did any of y'all read Tom Friedman in Sunday's NYT? Made one wonder whatever happened to to our vaunted ability to sell. Perhaps the next Admin can hire advertising firms to sell the world on Al Quaeda's evil. Try this link:

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/opinion/26friedman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fThomas%20L%20Friedman

Posted by: Mark in Austin | August 28, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Bsimon:

That is a good question. Keeping in mind that I can only speak in generalities and not state anything with any certitude, here are my opinions. I think that the biggest problem that Idaho has is not so much its conservative leanings as it is a generally uninformed nature.

A lot of people in Idaho just plain don't follow politics and are not politically active. Therefore, a lot of things that happen tend to fly under the radar because a lot of Idahoans just don't pay attention to things that don't impact them directly. They just prefer to be left alone and unbothered. (Definitely a libertarian mindset there isn't it?)

I don't think that Republicanism is as rock solid here as it is in, for example, the Bible Belt of the South. I think it is more a habit than anything else. It takes a while for impressions to change here due to the general lack of attention, and because the Democratic party barely invests in the state at all.

If the Democrats fielded a strong enough candidate who ran a structured, focused campaign and who aggressively pointed out the faults of the Republican, then the Republican could conceivably be beaten. The problem would be finding the way to get the message out to enough people. Idaho is a large state and has a small amount of population density, which makes getting a complicated message out to a great many people both expensive and difficult.

There are a great many people in my state who probably just wander into the polling place, pick the person with an "R" next to their name out of sheer habit alone, and then wander out.

On the other hand, there is a very strong current of religion in certain parts of the state. We get a great deal of conservative Mormon spillover from Utah, and those people are very likely going to vote Republican because Republicans are much more in favor of inserting god into the public domain than Democrats are.

Issues like public displays of the Ten Commandments resonate big here.

I think that Republicanism in Idaho, like in most places, is a coalition between the libertarian types who could probably be convinced to back the right Democrat, and the very religious types who will be hard to pull away. During the Bush years, the coalition between the two different types of Republicans has eroded and splintered in many parts of the country. It has only cracked a bit here.

Posted by: J. Crozier | August 28, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

"On one hand you want to forget what clinton did so long ago, even though he is running again while simultaneoulsy you say "particularly given how Republicans have handled spending in the Bush years before they lost Congress"."

No zouk. they lost because of their corruption. They lost because of their stubborness on iraq. They lost because they accomplished nothing in 7 years. Nothing but trying to turn this great nation towards fascsim. The people reject fascism. That is why you lost.

Has your party changed, at all? And you expect diiferant results from 06? Why, if you party hasn't changed since 06?

Posted by: state of denial | August 28, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

why do Republican men all pay close attention?

Posted by: When people talk about all the "big swinging dicks" in DC, | August 28, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

" I find it terribly funny when Ted Kennedy and Murtha decry the rule of law and the obligations of the office"

People got shot in the wild west in the 1800's. By the legal scholar zouk's thinking murder is legal now. Hypocrite gop'ers

Posted by: rufus | August 28, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Lordy that is a good quote from the CR Rossphx! Kudos to finding it! I would love to see the MSM carry that quote in the follow up stories on Senator Craig!

Posted by: Political Junkie | August 28, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

One is not against the law. The other is

so now you are the party of law and order - most amusing considering your candidate is going to be a felon soon. and in fact many forms of s*x are illegal, just not enforced, for example oral and even harrassment of a lesser employee.

Then it becomes hypocrisy

so your main concern is with hypocrisy? considering your party, I would stay away from that one. Look at the post above and all the criminals still in office with a D after their name. I find it terribly funny when Ted Kennedy and Murtha decry the rule of law and the obligations of the office.
On the spending front - Dems always want to spend more except on defense -as you have suggested. the one thing the constitution allows is contrary to Dem positions.

Democrats got tough new ethics legislation passed in their FIRST YEAR in control over Congress - are you living in an alternative universe? what are you babbling about - the voluntary earmark disclosure overseen by Reid himself. that sure is tough - if you're not a Dem.

to win would require a draft - I had no idea you knew more about the military than the Pentagon. but then you Libs always seem to know good ways to lose a war.

At least you had the courage to answer some difficult questions, something none of your candidates have done and obviously is not rampant on this blog.

On one hand you want to forget what clinton did so long ago, even though he is running again while simultaneoulsy you say "particularly given how Republicans have handled spending in the Bush years before they lost Congress".

why the double standard. this is exactly what I was stating about you Dems. Bush was a spender, he promised to spend to get elected. conservatives reacted with punishment last year. President rudy will not go there. any Dem president is sure to spend more than is conceivable. Look at their web sites - giant shopping lists hooked into your checking account.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 28, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Reason, re: Lindsey Graham

Mike Rogers and plenty of other gay bloggers have got evidence about Graham from ppl not willing to come forward. It's a pretty widely open secret, like Crist, Foley and Drier. At least he's not as bad as Craig--Graham is a "swinging" bachelor!

Posted by: Greg-G | August 28, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

J.Crozier-
As an Idahoan, can you address the inherent libertarianism with Joe Idaho? In other words, if they're for the small government, low taxes kind of Republican, are they likely to overlook personal moral failings - even in a hypocrite like Craig? Or are there enough bible thumpers there that he's lost any chance at reelection?

Posted by: bsimon | August 28, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

rossphx... Beautiful.

Posted by: lTruth Hunter | August 28, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Craig's impeachment statement
Released into Congressional Record, February 12, 1999

. . .But I would submit that if a generation of young people are taught by our actions in this case that a lie carries no consequences, then the nation is at risk. If our citizens conclude that lawlessness in the highest office is acceptable, that their elected representatives are complicit in that corruption, and that nothing can be done to stop it, then the nation is at risk.

Posted by: rossphx | August 28, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Remember our old "Wide-Track" slogan? For the 2008 model year we'll be featuring our new "Wide-Stance" cars, modeled after my personal bathroom style.

Posted by: Hi, I'm Larry Craig for Pontiac! | August 28, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

In case it wasn't clear, that last reply was directed towards Zouk's questions of me.

Posted by: J. Crozier | August 28, 2007 12:24 PM | Report abuse

I'll waste a little more time replying. I say, "waste a little more time" because I long ago learned that in any debate, there will always be 20% on either side of the debate that won't be convinced no matter what you say.

"Is s*x between consenting adults OK or not?"

Yes - But not in a public bathroom. One is not against the law. The other is.

"Is the gay lifestyle OK or not?"

Yes - But not if you've made a career out of gay bashing and of trying to make that lifestyle illegal. Then it becomes hypocrisy.

"Is cheating on your wife OK or not?"

No...regardless of who does it, this is not okay. On the other hand, the Bill Clinton thing was seven or eight years ago. I condemned it when it happened. However, Bill Clinton cheating on his wife while a public official doesn't suddenly make it okay for Larry Craig to do it. Two wrongs do not make a right. All Republicans from now until the end of time don't suddenly get a free pass just because a Democrat years ago did it.

and moreover, on a policy front:

"do you want to spend more or less?"

On what? I want to spend more on education, and less on research for bunker busting nuclear bombs. Your question is too vague to give any sort of useful answer. I want to change spending priorities. Your question is a worthless one, particularly given how Republicans have handled spending in the Bush years before they lost Congress.

"do you want more corruption?"

Nope. That's why I criticize it when I see it, and these days most (but not all) of it comes out of the Republican party. The days when Republicans could run as the anti-corruption party are long gone. Democrats got tough new ethics legislation passed in their FIRST YEAR in control over Congress. Why couldn't Republicans do it in the 12 years they had Congress? Too busy UNDOING it is the reason.

"do you want to lose the war now?"

Of course I want to win. However, to win would require a draft. We need hundreds of thousands more soldiers to "win" in Iraq. Right now, we just have enough to lose slowly. All the "surge" did was have us lose even slower.

Posted by: J. Crozier | August 28, 2007 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Elias! So you mean zouk is really james :(

That hurts my feelings that he would post as multiple names. UUUGHHH

What are you people afraid of? yourselves? Your shadow?

Posted by: rufus | August 28, 2007 12:20 PM | Report abuse

rufus/dufus - You dolt! This is one of those days to stay on topic. Keep getting off topic and you play into Zouk's little hands.

And stop with your toy soldier fantasies. You and Zouk need help about that!

If you really qualify, get in touch: http://www.va.gov/rcs/

We know Zouk doesn't qualify.

Posted by: Elias | August 28, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Dems are doomed... Ahem, but excuse me?

Isn't it the GOP who have made personal behavior their TOP priority... as in trying to hound Bill Clinton out of office for those many years while accomplishing little else.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 28, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

This blog proves that the hard right and left are equally outrageous. Clinton lied and was sanctimonious about it. Bush rewards lying (read: commutation).
So now we have lying Sen. Craig. Sure, fella - people might tap their feet when the movement's difficult. But playing wiggle wiggle under the stall wall? You sure were misunderstood.

Posted by: muleman | August 28, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

The real question is how Craig's situation changes the Senate Line, which Chris won't do for another couple weeks. Here's the last version:

10 Alaska Stevens (R)
9 So Dak Johnson (D)
8 Neb Hagel (R)
7 MN Coleman (R)
6 Maine Collins (R)
5 Ore Smith (R)
4 VA J.Warner (R)
3 LA Landreau (D)
2 NH Sununu (R)
1 CO Allard (R) - (retiring)

Does Craig's seat bump Stevens'? That doesn't seem plausible. Does Johnson's seat leave the list? perhaps. Coleman is still at risk, as is Collins.

It looks like the 2008 race is shaping up to be exactly what the pundits have claimed would be impossible - a chance for the Dems to reach 60 seats.

Posted by: bsimon | August 28, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

We Dems prefer to discuss trivial issues. It keeps us from facing the reality of our candidate and her positions and history. Our only hope at electoral victory is to sensationalize and avoid any serious talk about terror, spending, entitlements, etc.
Once the public finds out where we actually stand, we are doomed.

go forth Liberal minions and spread the word - keep away from truth and issues no matter what.

Posted by: Dems are doomed | August 28, 2007 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Republicans have no monopoly on sex scandals. They just stand out because of their utter hypocrisy.
In some ways, Craig is to be pittied; he cannot even admit what he is.
Imagine how Larry Craig and the Republicans would play this up if it were Bill Clinton or any elected Democrat. If I have to choose between a sinner and a hypocrit, I'll take the sinner every time.

Posted by: CorpsmanHm1 | August 28, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

"it doesn't matter if we think it is primitive and immoral for the world to judge us by our willingness to go on making sacrifices of our young men and women on behalf of something as stupid as trying to make Iraq into even a vaguely Western-style democracy. "

Easy to talk about sacrafice and human loss sitting in front of yoru pc screen isn't it?

Posted by: rufus1133 | August 28, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

". There is no way to "redeploy" American troops, to use a favorite euphemism of the Democrats, so long as there is still fight in the enemy, without surrendering. And surrender is always a dishonor. For us to surrender to the terror campaign -- whether "al Qaeda" or "civil war" makes no difference -- would be to devalue America's word in the international arena forever. This would be disastrous not only to us but to the world order that we uphold and must uphold in spite of the Buchananites and others who think we can simply refuse this role and go back to being Fortress America. They, too, fail to understand national honor."

You choose to pull military matters out of the blue james. What is your qualifications? I was a army infantry soldier 11B. I am agaisnt teh war and want to pull out right now. Tell me more about your expertise. We can get to the bottom of this right now. Should I explain it to you? Are you zouk? (just have to check, the fascsit loves to use differant names because he can't compete). You know the gop game. If you can't win cheat.

Posted by: rufus | August 28, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Somebody must have sent out a FLASH Priority alert to Zouk this morning for him to come on so early.

First with him trying to sprinkle the thread with anonymous off topic posts to change direction and then finally trying to Beg the Question as Zouk.

It was said most succinctly already: It's the hypocrisy, stupid.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Yesterday, Bush lamented the resignation of Gonzo and charged "his good name had been dragged through the mud for political reasons."

Actually, the GOP's rule-of-law, "family values" playground IS a mud hole.... but they deny this even as their bespattered many frolick in it.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 28, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

"We can talk about radically socializing health care if you like. guess who wants to do that? We can talk about raising taxes - guess who?"

NAAA. Let's talk about Craig and the hypocritical facsit sell-out traitor gop instead. It's funner and actually has some being on making the world a better place. The less gop Traitor's to this nation the better

Posted by: rufus | August 28, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

The anti-war crowd have never been able to understand this: war is always stupid, immoral, unjust, hateful, but once a country is engaged in one the national honor is also engaged, and the consequences of dishonor are incalculable. There is no way to "redeploy" American troops, to use a favorite euphemism of the Democrats, so long as there is still fight in the enemy, without surrendering. And surrender is always a dishonor. For us to surrender to the terror campaign -- whether "al Qaeda" or "civil war" makes no difference -- would be to devalue America's word in the international arena forever. This would be disastrous not only to us but to the world order that we uphold and must uphold in spite of the Buchananites and others who think we can simply refuse this role and go back to being Fortress America. They, too, fail to understand national honor.

For, it doesn't matter, either, if the American imperium is a good or bad thing, though we ought naturally to want to make it as good as it can be; it doesn't matter if we think it is primitive and immoral for the world to judge us by our willingness to go on making sacrifices of our young men and women on behalf of something as stupid as trying to make Iraq into even a vaguely Western-style democracy. For better or for worse, this is the task that we have undertaken, and it will be a shame and a disaster to us now to fail in it. It's encouraging to me to think that President Bush understands this, even if his critics don't.

Posted by: james | August 28, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Jim Risch will be the next US Senator from Idaho, plain and simple. His acts are quite dispicable and hypocritcal. As a Conservative Republican, I hope he resigns so Risch can move on to the senate.

Greg-G, what sources do you have that would in any way, shape or form indicate that Lyndsey Graham is a homosexual or involved in anything illegal in any way? The rest of them you listed maybe could be suspected, but certainly not Graham. I believe that is just a rumor you put up there attempting to spread false allegations against Mr. Graham. If not, what site/news show/other evidence do you base your claims on? As far as I know, there are only 2 homosexuals/lesbians in the US senate: Larry Graig of Idaho and sen. Barbara Mulkilski of Maryland. That is a source for this guy, can't think of his name, that has a website up of who is gay in congress, governorships and the senate. He's a homosexual himself, and believes people should be "honest with their lifestyle." He suggests that only 2 out of 100, and that was Graig and Mulkilski. Now, in my conservative view, that's 2 too many. There were alot of congressman that are gay, both R's and D's. I don't remember about governor's, didn't get to read that part. But as far as I know, Graig and Mulkilski are the 2 homosexuals in the senate. If you look up gay in politics or something, you should propably be able to find it if you google it.

Posted by: reason | August 28, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

For all bill clinton's strength's and faults. He was a mack, first and formost. Got to give him credit for that. But in terms of you gop'ers getting mad. I don't remember clinton being a strong "family values" candidate. He had a wife and dautgher, but he didn't make family unity and values an issue like vitters and craig did.

But stay out of politicains personal life UNLESS, and that's a big unless; 1. They are breaking the law,(ie under age, in bathrooms, rape) 2. the are not practicing what they preach,(preaching family morals)

Clinton, i don't believe, broke any law until the cover-up when he did break the law. I can't hate him on that though, I would lie about that to. Maybe not to the level he did, but hey, he was the president.

Any comparrision betwen the clintons and the current gop failures is a joke. They have to point to something. They can't talk about the issue. The HAVE to point to a decade ago. They have no straws left.

The gop is about to become irrelevant for a generation. Now we can see what we can build. Now this country can reach it's full potential. Without the gop sabotage for $$$$$$$.

Posted by: rufus | August 28, 2007 11:59 AM | Report abuse

J cozier - I know you Libs like nuance and all but whenever some is involved it seems to go in one ear and out the other.

the point I am making is the hypocrisy of the Dems, nothing at all to do with clinton. you Dems treat issues with two different methods depending on the convenience. So once and for all, and considering all instances:

Is s*x between consenting adults OK or not? Is the gay lifestyle OK or not? Is cheating on your wife OK or not?

and moreover, on a policy front:

do you want to spend more or less?
do you want more corruption?
do you want to lose the war now?

A simple yes or no will suffice but try to remember your positions on these in the past. I know all your candidates have trouble maintaining any consistency from day to day but can you?

and remember that clinton is running on her "experience" whatever that is, so trying to play like her past performance is irrelevant doesn't work. If she wants to be experienced lets discuss her record - of corruption, lying, deceit, stealing, cheating and everything else.

We have one pair (2 4 1) of candidates who lost a law license after perjury. does that matter at all? We have one candidate who sold pardons, who stole silverware, got gifts, breaks campaign laws, etc.

We can talk about radically socializing health care if you like. guess who wants to do that? We can talk about raising taxes - guess who?

Or we can stick to s*x scandels to avoid the issues - the Lib choice and clearly the moonbats on this site who avoid any encounter with reality on a daily basis.

I understand you prefer not to talk about it, but too bad.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 28, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

is Larry Craig the "king of zouk" ?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...


Posted by: actually | August 28, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

sure, that guy seems strange --- but what is all the fuzz about ? is homosexuality forbidden in idaho ? and do they make police men sit in a toilet to hunt down homosexuals ?!? :-D seems like idaho is a peaceful little (police) state if they don't have better things to do...

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse

I'm Larry Craig! And as Howard Stern says, Craig rhymes with faeg.

Posted by: I admitted to the crime before I denied the crime | August 28, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

And I would add:

You guys who consider it to be of any signficance whether someone calls themselves a "Democrat" or "Republican", get a clue.

Both parties exist for one purpose, and that is to perpetuate the power of America's ruling class.

But both parties have populist movements within them that challenge the established order.


Larry Craig was one of the loyalist Republocrats who serves the ruling class.

His political demise is welcomed by all those who believe in a government by the people.

Posted by: lance | August 28, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

the topic is Republican Senator Larry Craig's desire to engage in gay sex in public restrooms.

Posted by: stay on topic zouk | August 28, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

well said mr J. Crozier . Thank you for making it clear. I know it's hard to get through that first thick layer of these gop'ers.

It's not the fact that he's gay, or any of you gop'ers. It's the hypocricy. It's telling others how to live while doing the exact opposite. Like every other issue with you gop'ers. Hypocricy and the gop go hand in hand. they go together like peas and carrots :)

Posted by: rufus | August 28, 2007 11:47 AM | Report abuse

"I don't want to come into an Airport bathroom after a 4 hour flight to find some 61 year old wrinkled guy giving it to another guy when I need to use the can."

ROFL

Posted by: Word! | August 28, 2007 11:47 AM | Report abuse

I thought the Dems were going to end the war immediately, not change their mind about it every two months.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 28, 2007 11:46 AM | Report abuse

I thought Dems were going to reduce spending not increase it at every opportunity.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 28, 2007 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Zouk:
I'm not upset over the sex part. I could care less if Craig is gay or not.

I'm upset over the following:

1. Location - Public, airport bathroom is a poor choice of place to start getting frisky. I travel a lot. I don't want to come into an Airport bathroom after a 4 hour flight to find some 61 year old wrinkled guy giving it to another guy when I need to use the can.

2. Hypocrisy - Larry Craig has been a longtime and staunch proponant of moral values, family values, and being against gay rights. You shouldn't make a career on bashing something that you do. More to the point, you shouldn't spend millions of taxpayer dollars investigating an affair in a public official, decrying his moral lack, when you yourself are having the same problems.

3. "What do you think of that?" - You also shouldn't have an attitude when you are, LITERALLY, caught in the act that your being a Senator means the law doesn't apply to you.

Frankly, I don't expect any of these points to hit home. From your posting history I don't think you have ever, not even once, during all the time I've seen you post, said something negative about a Republican. Granted, I don't read The Fix every day so I may have missed it.

But it seems that your standard response to anything that goes wrong with the Republican party is..."Hey, look over there! It's Bill Clinton!"

Posted by: J. Crozier | August 28, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

"Larry Craig has resigned his Romney campaign post."

Poor flip-flop mitt. His people are dropping like crazy. Who is the gop front-runner? The cross-dresser or the flip-flopping morman?

Or is it the actor who has been out of politics for 20 years and has went through a number of leaders to his campaign already. AND HE HASN"T EVEN ENTERED THE RACE YET. HAHAHAHA. Fricking republcians.

State of denial indeed.

Posted by: rufus | August 28, 2007 11:43 AM | Report abuse

the server kept crashing.

Posted by: I tried listing all GOP crooks and pervs since Ted Kennedy but.. | August 28, 2007 11:41 AM | Report abuse


As far as I can tell, nobody has pointed out the most important significance of Craig's meltdown.

Craig is a prominent promoter of open-borders anarchy legislation such as the "comprehensive" immigration bill promoted by luminaries all the way from George Bush to Ted Kennedy.


Craig's meltdown provides hope to the pro-sovereignty movement that he will be replaced with someone more supportive of a future for our country.

Posted by: lance | August 28, 2007 11:41 AM | Report abuse

"Another bites the dust. Boom Boom Boom. Another one bites the dust. Another down, another down. Another bites the dust."

The GOp is about to be eliminated from the political conversation for a year. good.

But if you want someone to blame gop, lok in the mirror. Liberals didn't do this to your party. The terrorists didn't. The boogyman didn't. You did this to yourselves. Now stop you divide and conquer game of lie spin and discredit and start to help fix the damage and division you have done to my great nation.

Start to bring the nation back together. Help defeat the monster you have created. Start with Fox and Rush and move from their. You people got yourselves and the nation in this hot water. Now stop turning the heat up and help us get out of it.

ONE WORLD ONE PEOPLE

Posted by: rufus | August 28, 2007 11:38 AM | Report abuse

I agree, we should all talk about a little tryst in a bathroom between two consenting adults instead of the massive level of corruption inherent in the leading Liberal presidential candidate. you Libs sure know how to obsess about s*x all right. but be sure to keep your fingers in your ears when it comes to outright corruption.

anything to avoid an actual issue. I know, I know.

Jane my point you missed, due to your rage, is not bill clinton - it is the Dem reaction to any news - the memory is so quickly erased and the behavior is the other side of the coin depending on whether the culprit is D or R. but don't let these facts ruin your little liberal parade of hate and envy.

I thought the Dems were going to clean up the corruption, not elect the most corrupt person known.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 28, 2007 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Republicans throw the scumbags out when they find them. Democrats love their degenerates, liars, crooks, traitors, and thieves; Barney Fag, Bill "is" Clinton, Hillary "$100,000 cattle futures bribe" Clinton, John Abscam Murtha, William "cold Cash" Jefferson, Sandy Burglar, Teddy "killer" Kennedy, Mel the perv Reynolds, Gary loves interns Condit, Gerry "bone smoker" Studds, Marion 'crackhead" Barry, Jerry pay the prostitute Springer, etc, etc.

Posted by: fred | August 28, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Contracting fraud in the effort to supply and equip Iraqi security forces, Afghan soldiers and U.S. troops is suspected to be immense. Over 70 cases are currently under investigation in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan, according to the paper, for contracts worth more that $5 billion. So far, investigators have uncovered evidence of upwards of $15 million in bribes.

Posted by: x | August 28, 2007 11:34 AM | Report abuse

""I thought you Libs celebrated the gay and unattached lifestyle?"

Um, try paying attention, dipwad. This creep Craig is not living the gay and unattached lifestyle. He is living the "happily married" but secretly craving dick while bashing gays lifestyle.

Just a small difference, einstein."

Word is born

Posted by: rufus | August 28, 2007 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Question: Where can you find lust-crazed Republicans with throbbing members?

Posted by: Answer: An airport bathroom, a brothel, a park, and the House floor | August 28, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

It looks like Major John Cockerham might have some competition for his title as most-crooked contracting official in Iraq.

The New York Times reports that a plethora of criminal investigations, all part of a new Pentagon anti-corruption push, are open into what exactly happened to "weapons, supplies and other materiel" dispensed in that country as part of over $40 billion in reconstruction aid. And one of the investigations -- though it's maddeningly unclear as to what the charge even is -- centers around a former aide to General David Petraeus, now the commanding general in Iraq.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Hi, I'm Zouk!

Posted by: Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton | August 28, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Home prices have shown few signs of any turnaround, and a new report sees the downward slide continuing.

On Tuesday, Standard and Poor's said its nationwide S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index fell 3.2 percent in the second quarter, compared with a year ago. For the three months ended June 30, prices dropped 0.9 percent from the first quarter.

Major housing markets showed worse declines. The Case-Shiller index covering 20 top metro areas for the month of June fell 3.5 percent, and the 10-city index dropped 4.1 percent year-over-year.

Latest home prices for 149 markets from the National Association of Realtors

"The pullback in the U.S. residential real estate market is showing no signs of slowing down," Robert J. Shiller, Chief Economist at MacroMarkets LLC said in a statement. "The year-over-year decline reported in the 2nd quarter of 2007 for the National Home Price Index is the lowest point in its reported history, which dates back to January 1987."

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2007 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Pay no attention to the anti-gay Republican Senator who solicited gay sex in an airport bathroom! That's meaningless! Only think about the Clintons!

Posted by: Blarg | August 28, 2007 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Hey your candidate. Stay on topic. We don't stray off the topic here at the fix :)

Posted by: rufus | August 28, 2007 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Some republican hypocrite gets busted in a bathroom and what does zouk do? Why, bring up Bill Clinton, of course. Because he so obbsessed with hate... the worst victim of Clinton Derangment Syndrome I've ever seen.

Now he'll be on here all day, posting lies about Bill and Hillary under different names because his whole life is one seething cauldron of emptiness, anger and hatred....

No wonder you have no life zouk. You are truly pathetic.

Posted by: Jane. | August 28, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

""Craig is the worst of the worst. Despicable.

A homophobic gay man.

If Craig was a Jew, he'd be a Jewish-Nazi.

If Craig was black, he'd own slaves."


Self depracating people. Frickin republcians. If you can't live by your own rules, STOP MAKING RULES>"

Not the poster but craig and the repub's. Sorry for that tone, whoever you are. On point analysis

Posted by: rufus | August 28, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

"I thought you Libs celebrated the gay and unattached lifestyle?"

Um, try paying attention, dipwad. This creep Craig is not living the gay and unattached lifestyle. He is living the "happily married" but secretly craving dick while bashing gays lifestyle.

Just a small difference, einstein.

Posted by: zouk the moron says: | August 28, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

"Look what a great job America's biggest collectivist enterprise, the military, is doing in Iraq."

That's a truly bizarre argument. Our military, which is commanded by an incompetent Republican president and fighting an ill-conceived and poorly-defined war, isn't doing well in Iraq. Therefore, universal healthcare and all government enterprises are doomed to failure.

But wait! It gets worse! That article is from a conservative source. And conservatives believe the war in Iraq is going well. (Just ask Zouk!) So the proof that universal healthcare will fail is the war in Iraq, which we're supposedly winning. Does that make sense to anyone?

Posted by: Blarg | August 28, 2007 11:28 AM | Report abuse

In April, Jim McDougal "hired" Hillary as legal counsel for Madison to represent his interests before the state securities commission.

"By now, the Clintons had managed to create a parade of friendly faces all along the way for their business partners. Six days later, Hillary contacted (friend and long-time Clinton contributor) Bassett on behalf of Madison." (Hell to Pay, p. 161)
And, of course, since the "fix" was in, "the recapitalization plan, selling stock that was essentially worthless, was approved" (Hell to Pay, p. 161)


Now, I don't know what Mrs. Clinton calls victimizing an unsuspecting public by selling them "worthless" stock in a plan approved by government headed by a spouse, but I call it far worse than "unscrupulous". I call it a conspiracy to defraud the public and the F.D.I.C. (that's us, the people of the United States).


As I said in the beginning of this piece, how Mrs. Clinton has avoided prison this long is a positively amazing credit to this Country's gullibility. But it looks like she has learned well from her mentor, Mr. George Soros, who has long practiced the creed he now says he scorns. Anything goes, as long as you can get away with it.


Here's how Carl Bernstein summed up her fall from Wellesley grace:

She could justify in her moral construct financial opportunities that increasingly made her uncomfortable (judging from her subsequent, almost frenzied efforts to hide them) or perhaps led her into some state of denial in which she rationalized that 'everyone' did it. Moreover, the Clintons certainly had the friends and the opportunities to skirt rules and procedures required of less-well-connected individuals. (A Woman in Charge, p. 134-35)
However one cares to explain it, one thing is certain: Hillary Rodham may have once been imbued with visions of bettering our world through the sacrifice of public service, but she long, long ago renounced those ambitions on the altar of profiteering. And in what may well become known as the most sardonic irony of the current Presidential campaign, she now hurls insulting charges at "unscrupulous" mortgage bankers, who for all we know now, have done nothing even half as "unscrupulous" as she has. And to top off that little chicanery, she even has the unmitigated audacity to herald her taxpayer-financed bailout like an angel from on high

Posted by: your candidate | August 28, 2007 11:27 AM | Report abuse

"Craig is the worst of the worst. Despicable.

A homophobic gay man.

If Craig was a Jew, he'd be a Jewish-Nazi.

If Craig was black, he'd own slaves."


Self depracating people. Frickin republcians. If you can't live by your own rules, STOP MAKING RULES>

Posted by: rufus | August 28, 2007 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is now pitching her multi-billion dollar bailout plan for the "victims" of "unscrupulous" mortgage brokers who act "dishonestly and try to take advantage of people". And what will fix the problem of "unscrupulous" business people? Why, more government bureaucracy and our money, of course. It's as if Madame Hillary thinks we taxpayers won't mind one little bit just eating cake, while she gives away a billion here and another few billion there; after all it's not her money.


But Hillary Clinton is certainly in a position to know about "unscrupulous" business practices that end up costing taxpayers lots and lots of money. After all, as Barbara Olson so nicely pointed out in her 1999 account of the prelude to Hillary Clinton's political rise, Hell to Pay, Ms. Rodham was up to her armpits in "unscrupulous," corporate wheeling and double-dealing long before she became First Lady.

Posted by: please don't remember | August 28, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

"both parties stink? i haven't seen a single democrat arrested for lewd behavior in a pubic toilet. i haven't seen a single democrat called out for breaking the law with a prostitute. I haven't seen a single democrat leaving his wife and family for another woman.

can the 'journalists' just stop calling republicans the 'family values party' because it's all just become too much of a freaking joke.. maybe even you guys in the Beltway Bubble can see through it. most of the rest of us with a brain certainly can."

Get em. Vitters Foley craig. I'm seeign a pattern here. Please stop with the "culture war". Hypocrites. Remember individaul freedom. It is not for the GOP to impose their will on the rest of the nation. Especially in light of both parties recent lack of morales. Just stop preaching the high ground. 1954 is over.

"Yoo hoo!

Excuse me, has anyone seen the king of zouk? You know, that loud-mouthed fellow with the devilish wink in his eye? And those scrumptious tight buns? "


HAHAHAHHAHAHHA. To early in the morning for that ghost man :). Thanks for starting the day off right.

Posted by: rufus | August 28, 2007 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Krugman's logic is impeccable. If we are going to have collectivism in one sector of the economy, then why not have collectivism in more sectors of the economy?

And why not collectivism in housing, supermarkets, clothing, utilities, farms, gas stations, automobiles, banks, airlines, movie theaters, professional sports, hotels, motels, resorts, casinos, etc. Can't trust anything to greedy capitalists. The Krugmanistas know how to run the world. Don't believe me. Just ask them.

The Soviets and the Chinese couldn't make collectivism work, but what the hell; American ingenuity can tackle any issue, if we only put our collective minds to it. Look what a great job America's biggest collectivist enterprise, the military, is doing in Iraq.

I am sure in a Clinton (Hillary and Bill) administration (she gets top billing now), commissar Krugman will be on the front lines creating collectives throughout America with the old Clinton gang. The Clintonistas want collectivism for you and me, a pipe dream they thought America was ready for in the 1990s. However, maybe they may be right in the 21st century, if we let them.

Posted by: look out Dems, a real issue - stay away | August 28, 2007 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Chris, why refer to this as "allegations"? The man pled guilty. As any newsman knows, at that point, the word "alleged" becomes "convicted."

Posted by: Scott in PacNW | August 28, 2007 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Meanwhile an actual crime:


DALY CITY, Calif. -- One of the biggest sources of political donations to Hillary Rodham Clinton is a tiny, lime-green bungalow that lies under the flight path from San Francisco International Airport.

Six members of the Paw family, each listing the house at 41 Shelbourne Ave. as their residence, have donated a combined $45,000 to the Democratic senator from New York since 2005, for her presidential campaign, her Senate re-election last year and her political action committee. In all, the six Paws have donated a total of $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005, election records show.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118826947048110677.html?mod=hps_us_whats_news

you can take the girl out of the trailer park but........

the clinton sleaze will always go on and on

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 28, 2007 11:19 AM | Report abuse

HL Mencken asks
"Didn't anyone recognize the name in the police blotter, court docket?"

Well, reporters in Minnesota have had a busy August. You'd think someone would have noticed the June arrest, but then again, the major papers have been disrupted by buyouts & subsequent staff reshufflings. I think, if it were a local pol, they would have picked up on the event. But given that Craig is an out-of-towner, slipped through the cracks, as it were...

Posted by: bsimon | August 28, 2007 11:19 AM | Report abuse

I find it most amusing that the party who declared "It's only s*x" when billy was dabbling is now up in arms over it. who wonders whether the wife knew when a supposedly smart and agile wife was the last to know. now that is what you call hypocrisy. I thought you Libs celebrated the gay and unattached lifestyle?

Well which is it?

BTW - his conviction was for disorderly conduct which covers just about anything. I personally don't really care what his bathroom or partner habits are. At least he didn't lie about it for years and drag out a grand jury with his lies and smears costing millions and ruining lives. See the difference?

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 28, 2007 11:16 AM | Report abuse

he would bone a guy up the butt in an airport restroom and not even give him the courtesy of a reacharound

Posted by: Larry Craig is so selfish | August 28, 2007 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Don't worry, conservative voters of Idaho. There's always more repressed homosexual Republican politicians for you to vote into the highest office of the land. I guess the right just likes being duped and lied to.

Posted by: ErrinF | August 28, 2007 11:10 AM | Report abuse

He was arrested in June.

He pled guilty in early August.

Why is this only becoming news in late August?

Didn't anyone recognize the name in the police blotter, court docket?

Posted by: H. L. Mencken | August 28, 2007 11:01 AM | Report abuse

As much as I'd love to say that this means we'll finally see a Democratic Senator coming out of Idaho, seeing as I live here and all and Larry Craig is my senator, I'm afraid that it is a pipedream at the moment.

Unless the Republican in question is, literally, caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy, this state doesn't send a Democratic candidate to the Senate.

Being a liberal living in Idaho is hard sometimes.

Posted by: J. Crozier | August 28, 2007 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Pete from NY said, "Well, I guess Larry Craig puts Idaho in play"

Only if Craig decides to run again. Which I seriously doubt will happen.

Posted by: JD | August 28, 2007 10:53 AM | Report abuse

BAGHDAD - Police ordered a curfew Tuesday in Shiite holy city of Karbala and told more than 1 million pilgrims to leave after two days of violence claimed least 26 lives during a Shiite religious festival.

An Interior Ministry official accused the Mahdi Army militia of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr of attacking government security forces in the center of Karbala, site of two Shiite shrines under the control of the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council. Al-Sadr's forces are battling SIIC for power in regions south of Baghdad.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2007 10:48 AM | Report abuse

'What does Sheryl Stolberg do for a living?
In what passes for "news analysis," Sheryl Gay Stolberg informs us that Gonzales' resignation could be good news for the President. Along with Karl Rove's departure, it gives him a chance for a "fresh start" because he can go into the next battle with Congress over the Iraq war...free of the baggage both men carried. You see? The good king was weighed down by his wicked courtiers. One day, historians will be puzzled by the extraordinary inability of the national press to see the President for what he is.'

Aah, the librul media -- such a crush on bushie.

Posted by: Myra | August 28, 2007 10:47 AM | Report abuse

"BTW: Just how dumb is his wife?"

I would say as dumb as Hillary -

I've never understood how a party obsessed with my genitalia is not considered the party of perverts -

you have Romney being for gays, until he needed to be against gays, kind of like Hillary and Bill Clinton -

you have guliani dressing in drag over and over again - but being gay is now wrong

The rule should be simple - if you obsess about people's genitalia than you are a pervert and should never be elected to public office - but then again - it is Idaho - the new home to all the closet gay republicans fleeing LA

www.balancingtheissues.com


Posted by: Bobby Wightman-Cervantes | August 28, 2007 10:42 AM | Report abuse

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Turmoil in the stock and housing markets caused the biggest drop in consumer confidence in almost two years in August, according to a closely watched survey released Tuesday.

The Conference Board said its consumer confidence index fell to 105.0 in the latest survey of 5,000 households from a revised 111.9 reading in July.

Video More video

CNN's Charles Hodson talks with two prominent investors about stock market volatility.
Play video

CNN's Ali Velshi and Christine Romans talk to Ray Hooper about what to do if you're concerned about your mortgage.
Play video

It was the biggest month-over-month drop since September 2005, when hurricanes Katrina and Rita sent gas prices to then record levels. This time it was problems was a series of financial storms, as consumers focused on problems in subprime mortgages, and falling home and stock prices.

"A softening in business conditions and labor market conditions has curbed consumers' confidence this month," said Lynn Franco, director of the Conference Board's Consumer Research Center, which conducts the monthly survey of 5,000 households. "In addition, the volatility in financial markets and continued subprime housing woes may have played a role in dampening consumers' spirits."

Posted by: time for a change | August 28, 2007 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Well, I guess Larry Craig puts Idaho in play. Yes, how long have pundits been waiting for Senator Craig to admit: "I da ho"? (or is he the "ho").
Larry, you got to come out of the closet. Sure you hate yourself, and your vile urges. You think you can prove you're not gay by bashing gays and passing laws against them (against yourself, sort of like Rep Foley passing laws against using the internet for underage teen proposals, and then he violates it.).
But, sooner or later, you have a choice between hypocrisy and celibacy. Thus, the conservatives will not back Larry Craig if he is gay and conservative, but perhaps they will just dump him. Another seat for the Democrats in the Senate.
If only Merv Griffin could have come out of the closet a year ago before he died, that would have given some conservatives the insight that there are gays who are Republicans.
(posted on an earlier blog of The Fix:
August 28, 2007 01:30 AM )
PS: A Staten Island gay republican I know said "Well not everyone lives in Manhattan"--which is true. But you don't have to vote anti-gay.

Posted by: Pete from NYC | August 28, 2007 10:24 AM | Report abuse

This kind of sleazy stuff with strangers is what comes from a society pretending that certain things don't exist. Homosexuality has always been there. Denying it won't make it go away.

What's bothersome about it is how hard this guy worked to keep other gays as miserable as himself. That's why I can't feel sorry for him.

Posted by: drindl | August 28, 2007 10:13 AM | Report abuse

The U.S. military's soaring demand for small-arms ammunition, fueled by two wars abroad, has left domestic police agencies less able to quickly replenish their supplies, leading some to conserve rounds by cutting back on weapons training, police officials said.

To varying degrees, officials in Montgomery, Loudoun and Anne Arundel counties said, they have begun rationing or making other adjustments to accommodate delivery schedules that have changed markedly since the military campaigns began in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2007 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Lindsey Graham is not gay.

Just because he frequently visits military bases in his state to personally meet with and express his strong personal gratitiude and growing admiration of the young, handsome, virle, well built, masculine, sweaty, (and preferably under 25 and tall) United States Marines PROVES he is NOT GAY!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2007 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Craig's actions in the bathroom are not mere "allegations," as stated in your column. Craig pled guilty to the crime. As such, his mens room romance is a criminal FACT.

Posted by: ched | August 28, 2007 9:51 AM | Report abuse

'The U.S. Army is turning to the National Guard for help recruiting would-be soldiers in hometowns across America.

Army leaders, struggling to meet recruitment goals in the midst of a long and unpopular war in Iraq, are quietly working out final details of a program that would give bonuses of $2,000 per recruit to any National Guard soldier who brings somebody into the active duty Army.'

Where are all the College Republicans?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2007 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Lance Armstrong noted that only two in 10 proposals for cancer research get funded these days. This is driving young reseachers out of oncology toward other fields, dramatically slowing the search for cures. Until recently, when cancer budgets were cut by President Bush, it was five of 10.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2007 9:47 AM | Report abuse

I think VH1 should produce an episode of "Behind the Music" about The Singing Senators. This is a real-life barbershop quartet that performed throughout the 1990s and featured four Republican senators: Larry Craig, John Ashcroft, Jim Jeffords, and Trent Lott.

The episode would chronicle how the guys met, their rise to stardom, and then the band's spectacular demise:

* John was the first to quit the group, abandoning the legislative branch for the executive branch and having a solo hit song with "Let the Eagle Soar."

* Jim left not only the group but the Republican Party, embarrassing bandmate Trent and demoting him to minority leader.

* Just as Trent was about to make his big comeback, he slipped up by saying that segregationist Strom should have been elected president in 1948. This was widely believed to be the end of his career.

* Larry was the last to fall, getting arrested for propositioning an undercover cop in a men's restroom -- similar to another "Behind the Music" profilee, George Michael.

* Ironically, Larry's demise might be the salvation of Trent, who has now climbed back into his old job of minority whip. For if more senators get outed -- particularly minority leader Mitch -- the stage would be set for Trent's comeback tour.

Posted by: MLF | August 28, 2007 9:45 AM | Report abuse

It's the hypocrisy, stupid.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2007 9:41 AM | Report abuse

bsimon-- best not mention 'ethics' 'morals' and 'obeying the law' in the same sentence with 'today's repubicans'

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2007 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Andy R writes
"I would also suspect to hear from some of Romney's rivals about this. This is the second or third member of the Romney team that has left after being arrested, or charged of a crime. If you are judged by the company you keep...."


His rivals have to keep quiet for the same reasons. Giuliani certainly has been known to keep questionable company. And I'm talking about morals, ethics & obeying the law, not the salacious stuff.

Posted by: bsimon | August 28, 2007 9:35 AM | Report abuse

DCAustinite: Craig is 61.

And yes, it's sad, in a way. But this is such a ludicrous example of hypocrisy that you have to expect some gloating.

Posted by: Blarg | August 28, 2007 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Mark b.--Especially not guys who flash their Congressional ID's at the arresting officer, and say 'what do you think of this?'

The guy is a real case. Thought he could intimidate the cop on top of everything else.

Posted by: Judy | August 28, 2007 9:28 AM | Report abuse

It's easy to take shots guys, but this is pretty sad. He obviously thinks that what he is is sinful and wrong, so he fights it until he gives in and this drives him to random hook-ups in bathrooms with anonymous men who feel the same way. He's 75 years old, so his chance to be out and open, and subsequently have a happy, fulfilling, open life with a partner who cares about him is over. He had his chance but wasn't strong enough to be open.

Hopefully, if anthing good comes out of this it'll be that others become terrified of repressing thier desires and waking up 75 years old, shamed, probably soon to be divorced and out of a job.

So try and hide the shadenfreude guys, you should feel sorry for Senator Craig. He's probably realizing right now that he made the wrong choice for most of his life. Successful but unhappy.

Posted by: DCAustinite | August 28, 2007 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Richard Roeper writes: "Ted Nugent, he's a man's man. He talks the talk and walks the walk, right? Except when it was time to register for the draft during the Vietnam era. By his own admission, Nugent stopped all forms of personal hygiene for a month and showed up for his draft board physical in pants caked with his own urine and feces, winning a deferment. Creative!"

Posted by: rightwing chickenhawks | August 28, 2007 9:24 AM | Report abuse

". . . remains to be seen." Not ". . . depends to be seen."

Posted by: Ryan | August 28, 2007 9:24 AM | Report abuse

How messed up do you have to be to talk about traditional family values while picking up strange dudes in an airport bathroom.

Foley, Vitter, Craig, how many more of you hypocrites are lying to your constituents and earn our hard-earned tax payers money?

Honestly, if you believe any of Craig's excuses, you are simply naive. 75 year old white guys dressed in business clothes do not get arrested in airport bathrooms for nothing.

Posted by: Mark B. | August 28, 2007 9:11 AM | Report abuse

'A major battle is brewing in Washington over children and health care.

Nine million children nationwide are without insurance. As high as that number is, it was much higher ten years ago. That's when the State Children's Health Insurance Program was launched.

SCHIP has provided insurance to millions of American children whose families make too much to qualify for Medicare, but too little to afford private insurance.

The program is supported by Republicans and Democratic governors alike. Congress wants to add billions more dollars to the program to expand its reach. But the White House opposes the expansion. A new move by the Bush administration could limit federal funding for the program.'

Posted by: bush is a monster | August 28, 2007 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Mike Simpson ruled out a run in 2008 for the Senate, while Lt. Governor Jim Risch (who is a former Governor, and who beat LaRocco handidly in 2006) has stated his intentions to run if Craig does not. I consider him a much more likely appointee/nominee than Simpson.

Posted by: Va Blogger | August 28, 2007 9:10 AM | Report abuse

This news is hardly surprising. As other posters pointed out, Mike Rogers detailed all of this a year ago, when Craig was pulling this in bathrooms at Union Station, and he was in a congressional aide sex-drug scandal in the 1980's when he was in the House.

After the scandal in the 80's, he "married" a female staffer and "adopted" her children from a previous marriage.

The media could have ran with this story months ago. Why are they so happy to discuss Bill and Hill's sex life, but not those of hypocritical gay Republicans?

Mike Rogers and others won't give up. He was right about Craig, Foley and others. Next up on his list are:

Ken Mehlman
Lindsey Graham
David Drier
Mitch McConnell
Patrick McHenry

and of course Charlie Crist, the biggest political queen in Fl, now that Foley has retired. And Crist likes young boys too. Let's hope the Republican evangelicals are dumb enough to put him on the national ticket as VP. Hillary will get 350+ electoral votes.

Posted by: Greg-G | August 28, 2007 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Idaho will have a republican senator. GOP seat is safe, as it is totally a one party state. The voting population is about a century behind, very libertarian,until the government Ag subsidy checks arrive!

Posted by: clark A. | August 28, 2007 9:05 AM | Report abuse

The Idaho Values Alliance--"Making Idaho the Friendliest Place in the World to Raise a Family"--is going to have a hard time swallowing the latest news about its beloved Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), who pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct for lewd conduct in an airport restroom.

Here's one page of the group's site, a news update where it praises Craig for his "pro-life" vote on stem cell research, followed by a "Bonus Byte" on the perils of homosexuality and airport restrooms:

One of the tragic characteristics of the homosexual lifestyle is its emphasis on anonymous sex and multiple sexual partners. It is a little-acknowledged secret that many active homosexuals will have more than 1,000 sex partners over the course of a lifetime (the average among heterosexuals is seven - still six more than we were designed for). This sordid fact of homosexual life surfaced yesterday in an AP article yesterday that reports on the number of arrests police have made for indecent exposure and public sex acts in the restrooms at Atlanta's airport, the busiest in the world. The increased restroom patrols, begun to apprehend luggage thieves, instead uncovered a rash of sex crimes. Airport restrooms have become so popular that men looking for anonymous sexual trysts with other men have advertised their airport availability on Craigslist. One such ad was from a man saying he was stuck at the airport for three hours and was looking for "discreet, quick action."
What are the odds of a piece on airport restroom trysts appearing below a picture of Larry Craig in a conservative group's newsletter, not to mention the reference to Craigslist? It's all too much.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2007 9:04 AM | Report abuse

I heard he gave the best reach around
on the Hill,
now we know it's true.

i can't stop laughing here
at the Idaho dirt farmer.

have a good day
this is funny, funny stuff!

good luck

W's boy loves the Co-K!

Posted by: Steve Real | August 28, 2007 9:04 AM | Report abuse

'Sexual hijinks are decidedly bi-partisan. For every Republican sex scandal, you can point to a Democratic sex scandal.'

Lately I think the Republicans have really taken the ball and ran with it, as it were. Look at the presidential field, especially if it has Newt in it.Mitt's the only one married to his first wife, and his grandfather was a polygamist.

Posted by: Sam | August 28, 2007 9:02 AM | Report abuse

'The American Conservative Union gave Craig's 2005 voting record 96 points out of 100'

What does the term 'conservative' actually mean these days?

Closeted gay? Serial adulterer? Pedophile?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2007 8:57 AM | Report abuse

His wife must know and just keep her mouth shut. They have no children of their own, and he adopted hers from a previous marriage. Perhaps he's been a good father to them. But his hypocrisy is stunning.

'In 1982, Craig went on network news to deny rumors involving cocaine and sex with male congressional pages.[19]
In October 2006, gay activist blogger Mike Rogers published allegations on his blog that Craig was homosexual; Craig called the allegation "completely ridiculous".

Posted by: Lila | August 28, 2007 8:55 AM | Report abuse

Does Roll Call get Larry Flynt's one-million dollar reward?

Posted by: bob North Smithfield | August 28, 2007 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Craig is the worst of the worst. Despicable.

A homophobic gay man.

If Craig was a Jew, he'd be a Jewish-Nazi.

If Craig was black, he'd own slaves.


BTW: Just how dumb is his wife?


Posted by: Bob North Smithfield | August 28, 2007 8:48 AM | Report abuse

If I'm in an airport and I see Larry Craig and George Michael walking in a restroom together I'm calling 911

Posted by: MarkG | August 28, 2007 8:44 AM | Report abuse

If I'm in an airport and I see Larry Craig and George Michael walking in a restroom together I'm calling 911

Posted by: MarkG | August 28, 2007 8:44 AM | Report abuse

But federal officials say the inquiry has moved far beyond the initial investigation of hundreds of thousands of improperly tracked assault rifles and semiautomatic pistols that grew out of Senator Warner's query. In fact, Senator Warner said in a statement to The New York Times that he was outraged when he was briefed recently on the initial findings of the investigations.

"When I was briefed on the recent developments, I felt so strongly that I asked the Secretary of the Army to brief the Armed Services Committee right away, which he did in early August," Senator Warner said in a statement.

Posted by: fubar | August 28, 2007 8:41 AM | Report abuse

I think Craig is gone at least by the end of his term. Now if the RNC has there way he will quit now so that this scandal goes away by the time 08 arrives. If that happens then I really don't see the GOP losing Idaho. The only chance the Democrats have is that Craig tries to fight for another term, which I don't think will happen.

I would also suspect to hear from some of Romney's rivals about this. This is the second or third member of the Romney team that has left after being arrested, or charged of a crime. If you are judged by the company you keep....

Posted by: Andy R | August 28, 2007 8:39 AM | Report abuse

I have a hard time seeing how the Democrats can win a Senate seat in Idaho. I am sure that Craig will be persuaded to retire to allow another worthy Republican a clear shot at the seat. He will probably face a primary challenge if he does not retire.

The last Democrat I remember getting nabbed in a men's room was Billy Sol Estes, an aide to LBJ. Barney Frank and Gerry Studds (both Dems from MA) got into gay sex scandals in the 1980's.

Sexual hijinks are decidedly bi-partisan. For every Republican sex scandal, you can point to a Democratic sex scandal. However, since the Republicans proclaim themselves the party of "family values" in anexplicit appeal to conservative religious voters, the hypocrisy factor is a much bigger issue in GOP sexual scandals.

Posted by: JimD in FL | August 28, 2007 8:36 AM | Report abuse

Yoo hoo!

Excuse me, has anyone seen the king of zouk? You know, that loud-mouthed fellow with the devilish wink in his eye? And those scrumptious tight buns?

Posted by: Larry Craig | August 28, 2007 8:34 AM | Report abuse

CC-- you're dancing around the issue. Mr. Craig was soliciting sex in a public toilet. He pled guilty and admitted it. Now he wants to deny it, but there are plenty of sworn statements to the contrary.

The Republican party should apologize to gays and immediately stop their hypocrisy about the issue. Enough already.

Posted by: Sam | August 28, 2007 8:34 AM | Report abuse

What the D's need in Idaho is a Jon Tester equivalent, a rock-ribbed conservative who just happens to be a D. A career politician like LaRocco (born in CA, no less) hasn't a ghost of a chance. Aren't there any photogenic, semi-wealthy yet salt-of-the-earth D's in Idaho?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | August 28, 2007 8:32 AM | Report abuse

The enormous expenditures of American and Iraqi money on the Iraq reconstruction program, at least $40 billion over all, have been criticized for reasons that go well beyond the corruption cases that have been uncovered so far. Weak oversight, poor planning and seemingly endless security problems have contributed to many of the program's failures.

The investigation into contracts for matériel to Iraqi soldiers and police officers is part of an even larger series of criminal cases. As of Aug. 23, there were a total of 73 criminal investigations related to contract fraud in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan, Col. Dan Baggio, an Army spokesman said Monday. Twenty civilians and military personnel have been charged in federal court as a result of the inquiries, he said. The inquiries involve contracts valued at more than $5 billion, and Colonel Baggio said the charges so far involve more than $15 million in bribes.

Just last week, an Army major, his wife and his sister were indicted on charges that they accepted up to $9.6 million in bribes for Defense Department contracts in Iraq and Kuwait.

Posted by: where your money goes | August 28, 2007 8:30 AM | Report abuse

BAGHDAD, Aug. 27 -- Several federal agencies are investigating a widening network of criminal cases involving the purchase and delivery of billions of dollars of weapons, supplies and other matériel to Iraqi and American forces, according to American officials. The officials said it amounted to the largest ring of fraud and kickbacks uncovered in the conflict here.

The inquiry has already led to several indictments of Americans, with more expected, the officials said. One of the investigations involves a senior American officer who worked closely with Gen. David H. Petraeus in setting up the logistics operation to supply the Iraqi forces when General Petraeus was in charge of training and equipping those forces in 2004 and 2005, American officials said Monday.

There is no indication that investigators have uncovered any wrongdoing by General Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, who through a spokesman declined comment on any legal proceedings.'

This war is about nothing but money. A war for profits. What a filthy administration this is.

Posted by: Helen | August 28, 2007 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Odd that two Post articles dare not say what really happened, the Senator was arrested for soliciting gay sex in public. Is the Post afraid of offending Craig who his claim of being innocent after pleading gulity rings hollow, no need for presumption of innocence that is absent anyone in so many other alleged stories, or is the Post afraid that this allegation will cast gays in a bad light. Puzzling.

Posted by: vox populi | August 28, 2007 8:25 AM | Report abuse


Afghan opium poppy cultivation exploded to a record high this year, with the multibillion-dollar trade fueled by Taliban militants and corrupt officials in President Hamid Karzai's government, a U.N. report said Monday.

Afghanistan has opium growing on 477,000 acres of land, a 17 percent increase from last year's record 408,000 acres, according to an annual survey by the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime.

Posted by: winning in afghanistan | August 28, 2007 8:23 AM | Report abuse

both parties stink? i haven't seen a single democrat arrested for lewd behavior in a pubic toilet. i haven't seen a single democrat called out for breaking the law with a prostitute. I haven't seen a single democrat leaving his wife and family for another woman.

can the 'journalists' just stop calling republicans the 'family values party' because it's all just become too much of a freaking joke.. maybe even you guys in the Beltway Bubble can see through it. most of the rest of us with a brain certainly can.

Posted by: Martin | August 28, 2007 8:19 AM | Report abuse

Since the Mark Foley scandal broke earlier this month, increasing attention has been paid to the hypocrisy of Republican leaders. Every election year, these party leaders make what many of us see as anti-gay appeals to religious conservative voters who object to what they disparagingly call the "homosexual lifestyle." What these party leaders don't tell these voters is how many of them actually lead secret lives which include sexual encounters with members of the same sex. Recent stories in USA Today, National Journal, the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times have discussed this GOP messaging problem. As readers know, my work is bipartisan. The recent use of gays by the Republican Party during this election makes it necessary to focus on the Party and how it facilitates keeping gay men closeted.

http://www.blogactive.com/2006/10/senator-larry-craig-whats-with-gay.html

Posted by: Frank | August 28, 2007 8:16 AM | Report abuse

There have been stories [substantiated by several men who have come forward] about Craig for at least a year now... I thought they'd come out, as it were, before this.

Too bad he can't be honest about who he is.

Posted by: Sylvia | August 28, 2007 8:14 AM | Report abuse

What is it with Republican men? Thumb toward screen, "I did not have sex with that..."
(fill in the blanks). Vitter, Clinton, Craig, etc etc etc etc

Posted by: Both Parties Stink | August 28, 2007 8:13 AM | Report abuse

Give this Bushie a presidential medal of freedom! Bush protected Senator Mark Foley (Republican, Florida) and solicited advice from Bush White House spiritual leader Pastor Ted Haggard. Republican Senator Larry E. Craig certainly belongs in Bush's loyal family. So now we know what made the Singing Senators sing!

"Let the eagle fly...

Posted by: Singing Senator | August 28, 2007 8:09 AM | Report abuse


'The Romney campaign has also pulled a video of Craig from its YouTube channel, first reported by the online Web site "The Politico," and confirmed by CNN

The video, a clip of Craig praising Romney for his "strong family values," was changed to a "private" video shortly after the news surfaced of the arrest, The Politico reports.'

FAMILY VALUES. WHEN WILL THEY STOP THIS CHARADE? THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS NO VALUES WHATSOEVER--LET ALONE ANYTHING TO DO WITH 'FAMILIES'.

Posted by: STOP THE CHARADE | August 28, 2007 7:56 AM | Report abuse

'WASHINGTON (CNN) - Sen. Larry Craig, the Idaho Republican who pled guilty to disorderly conduct, has stepped down from his role as a co-Senate liaison for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's White House bid, the campaign said Monday.'

indeed.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2007 7:54 AM | Report abuse

what is it with republican men? can't seem to keep that zipper zipped, all the while talking about 'family values.'

like lady macbeth, protesting too much.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2007 7:53 AM | Report abuse

THe Craig story has to be one of the wierdest to come out of politics this year. Denying the entire thing after a guilty plea? So much for innocent until proven guilty.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | August 28, 2007 7:38 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company