Larry Craig Won't Resign

[Dan Wishengrad]

Who exactly is supporting Larry Craig at this point?

The Governor of Idaho, to name one. Sen. Arlen Specter for another.

And if the GOP party of Idaho continues to remain silent on Sen. Craig continuing to represent them, then that by itself is tacit, unspoken support of his remaining in the U.S. Senate.

Oh, yeah -- Suzanne Craig has strongly stood by her man, as has his own children who have stated for the record that they believe he is not gay.

[laxfan25]

Oh, yeah -- Suzanne Craig has strongly stood by her man, as has his own children who have stated for the record that they believe he is not gay.

An interesting aspect of this story - Sen Craig married Suzanne in 1983 and adopted her three children.

Allegations of cocaine use and sex with male teenage congressional pages by unnamed congressmen were pursued by investigators and journalists in 1982. Craig issued a statement denying involvement. Craig stated "Persons who are unmarried as I am, by choice or by circumstance, have always been the subject of innuendos, gossip and false accusations. I think this is despicable."

What was bizarre about his denial was that no one had raised his name as a potential page-o-phile. People associated with the investigation were like "say what?"
Better hustle out there and find the trophy wife...and kids.

[Zeuslax]

What was bizarre about his denial was that no one had raised his name as a potential page-o-phile. People associated with the investigation were like "say what?"
Better hustle out there and find the trophy wife...and kids.

Yea, but he has been one of the leading targets of "outing" (is this the right term?) websites and articles for years. There have been people trying to expose him since the cocaine Congress incident when Regan was in office. This whole affair involved paiges and he was the only one to come out and denouce his involvement when no one accused him.

[TheBearcatHimself]

I think what gets lost in all of this is that Idaho has quickly become the most progressive state in the union. They are the only state that has elected a homosexual to represent them in Congress. Eat your heart out blue-state America!

[laxfan25]

I think what gets lost in all of this is that Idaho has quickly become the most progressive state in the union. They are the only state that has elected a homosexual to represent them in Congress. Eat your heart out blue-state America!

Sorry, but Barney Frank from Mass. was "out" there long ago.

[Dan Wishengrad]

Who exactly is supporting Larry Craig at this point?

And let's not forget that Limp-wrist Larry was just feted this past weekend as an inductee into the Idaho Hall-of-Fame...

[sohotrightnow]

Limp-wrist Larry

Not sure if this is appropriate. What if he was Jewish and people called him gesticulating Gary?

[Dan Wishengrad]

Okay good point. I didn't need to take a cheap shot, Larry is doing fine all by himself.

[Dan Wishengrad]

Anybody else watch Matt Lauer's interview with Senator & Ms. Craig? Keith Olberman made a couple good points on Countdown about factual errors and downright lies that Larry got away with in the interview.

1) Sen. Craig says his story on what went down in that bathroom has never changed. "You've all heard that tape," Craig stated convincingly. "My version of the facts have not changed, although the police officer tried hard to get me to say things happened in that bathroom which did not." Sen. Craig sounded almost proudly defiant about how he has never wavered, despite pressure to do so. But, as KO pointed out, Craig never actually admitted to anything at all on the tape, and HAD no version of events! Five minutes after his arrest Larry kept saying "I don't recall" and "If you say that happened, maybe it did" and "I don't remember" over and over and over on the audiotape. Clearly, as Olberman called it, straight out of the Alberto Gonzalez playbook.

2) Craig was asked by Lauer about why he regularly used that particular restroom, which both the Minnesota PD and numerous gay blogs had called a "hot spot" for anonymous sexual activity between men. Did he really not know it's reputation? "You may not believe this, Matt," the Senator answered. "But I don't use the internet, I have NEVER used the internet (echoes of 'I am not gay... I have NEVER been gay')", he said. "I use my Blackberry to e-mail, sure, but I don't even have a computer on my desk." Olberman pointed out that Craig served on a Senate sub-committee on the Internet and was honored last year by a group for his work promoting Internet safety, which are both odd facts if the Senator actually never has even surfed around. Aren't U.S. Senators reasonably expected to know at least a little about the subjects they serve on committees about? Does ANYONE truly believe LC's assertions that he has never surfed the net? KO also noted that in a very recent op-ed column written by LC himself, the Senator wrote "If you do a Google search on the phrase....", which presumably contradicts his statement to NBC that he has never even been on the web. And, of course, Keith points out that using your Blackberry to e-mail IS using the net in and of itself, and you can use its browser to surf all you want.

Finally, I found it curious myself how Sen. Craig answered (or rather didn't answer) Lauer's direct question "Are you saying that Sgt. Karsnia is a liar?" about the two different stories of what went down. Craig would not answer, but did offer up a nugget about how he now believes that "The Sergeant was a profiler, and I was targeted and profiled". I'm not sure what Larry meant by this. Like an African-American who is targeted for "driving while black" ? Like a swarthy-complexioned person is profiled for "flying while Arab?" What exactly WAS Sen. Craig profiled for? For being a gay man who used a notorious hot spot of illicit activity and for using ALL the signs known to signal one wanted to have sex with another man in the next stall? Why is he saying that he was targeted? C'mon Larry, inquiring minds want to know!

[Jana]

it's too bad they don't have a camera in the officer's stall, showing the precise hand movements, toe tapping, etc. Maybe that would have sealed the deal.

I think the point about the changing nature of Idaho political support is the precise reason why Idaho Republicans want Craig to keep serving, instead of risking the Democrats taking Idaho in the next election.

I watched the interview, and it was wierd that Craig justified staying in the Senate because Idaho "earned" the seniority of his 30 years in office. So....longevity equals a free pass on pleading guilty to soliciting for a type of sex he publicly opposes, in a public bathroom? Come on...

[LaxRef]

I watched the interview, and it was wierd that Craig justified staying in the Senate because Idaho "earned" the seniority of his 30 years in office. So....longevity equals a free pass on pleading guilty to soliciting for a type of sex he publicly opposes, in a public bathroom? Come on...

If you're going to outlaw hypocrisy, you're gonna have to kick them all out!

[Dan Wishengrad]

I watched the interview, and it was wierd that Craig justified staying in the Senate because Idaho "earned" the seniority of his 30 years in office. So....longevity equals a free pass on pleading guilty to soliciting for a type of sex he publicly opposes, in a public bathroom? Come on...

If you're going to outlaw hypocrisy, you're gonna have to kick them all out!

Well, not ALL of them -- there are good, decent public servants of both parties serving Washington.

But to me there is no greater example of hypocrisy than that "Contract for America" campaign ploy which helped sweep the Republicans into the majority in the House of Representatives and the contract's author, Newt Gingrich, to the Speakership in 1994. The #1 item on that GOP list was Term Limits. Newt and his fellow party faithful all argued strongly that one of the great evils of our representative government was having men and women serve for decades and decades and becoming "drunk with power" (a phrase Newt would use repeatedly on talk radio and tv appearances). From the very beginning, I was one who argued this was a terible idea -- that we already HAD term limits in this country, and that they were called elections. Why force out all effective public servants because of a few bad apples? I argued that by instituting term limits we also increasing the actual power of unelected staffers who would then have to lead "rookies" until they learned how D.C. actually worked. I also believed that the ardor this "Class of '94" held for term limits only existed because it was well-entrenched Democrats they wanted to get rid of.

One member of that Frosh class of Representatives was George Nethercutt (R-Washington) from here in my adopted state. Nethercutt ran against and defeated then-Speaker Tom Foley, running basically on one issue -- term limits. Foley had served too long, Nethercutt argued, and that was bad for the people of Spokane, bad for Washington state and bad for America. I was one of those from the beginning who questioned Nethercutt's sincerity, and argued this 13 years ago. I'll bet when it is his OWN term being limited, those like me said, that he will conveniently "change his mind". When pressed on this publicly by local Spokane newspapers, Nethercutt held firm, stated his was a firm and principled belief, and he then made a solemn, public pledge to everyone he would serve no more than three terms in office.

Well of course George was re-elected three times, and then when it was time to live up to his "solemn vow" the guy OF COURSE changed his mind! EXACTLY as I and others predicted. "I changed my mind," Nethercutt argued recently. "I was wrong about term limits and now I know better. What's so wrong with that?"

Hypocrisy, sayeth I! Read more about it here:

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Politics/Ra ... rcutt.html

Some of his very own Republican backers, who helped put Nethercutt in office, feel betrayed by this hypocrisy. The political action committee U.S. Term Limits, who funded Nethercutt's initial run against Foley, gave money to try to defeat him in 2000. The quotes from Republicans like Bill Bennett in the article above are more damning than anything a dyed-in-the-wool liberal like me could ever say.

PS Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb) is retiring at the end of '08 because he says he vowed to serve no more than two terms in the Senate and he is a man of his word. Good for you Chuck! I respect this guy tremendously, but wish he would run for re-election as he has been one of the only independent-minded members of his party in DC who doesn't march in lock-step with the President.

[laxfan25]

Aren't U.S. Senators reasonably expected to know at least a little about the subjects they serve on committees about?

That's really funny Dan! Have you ever heard Sen. Ted Stevens description of what the Internet is? And he was head of the Senate committee that oversees telecommunications!" I'll have to go try to find the clip somewhere...truly hilarious.

Here is a partial text of his remarks...found it by using The Google...

"Ten movies streaming across that, that Internet, and what happens to your own personal Internet? I just the other day got... an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday, I got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially.
[...] They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material"

Yup, that's why I've got the 10 foot tube delivering the Internet to my house - the driveway wasn't big enough for all the trucks!

[Pinball]

http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/19160729.html?location_refer=Homepage

Larry Craig Bobble feet at the St. Paul Saints (minor league baseball) game!!

Pretty funny!