as if it would mean anything if he did. His (Craig's) state is Republican; a GOP incumbent will run for that seat in 2008.

Now try to get ANY GOP Senators to speak out on David Vitter, who has fully admitted a hetero equivalent of Craig but sits under a Democratic governor. No way they'll call for him to resign. Craig? He's done, I think. They will appoint a replacement, but Larry La Rocco will make a big fight of it.

Considering his past support of hate crimes legislation, it wouldn't surprise me. It actually might be a rather shrewd move for him to join the chorus. He could court gays and bigots with the same position…very Smithlike, come to think of it!

This quote is from a commentator in the previous thread who was already discounting the possibility that Sentor Smith might call for Larry Craig's resignation. I know, I know--this is Blue Oregon where nothing Gordon Smith does is ever right.

The partisan chortling over Craig's problem, however, reminds me of Edwards and Kerry both going out of their way to mention Vice President Cheney's gay daughter in their televised debates in 2004.

Anyone who believes this issue is only about "hypocrisy" and not also thinly veiled partisan gay-bashing is kidding themselves.

"Anyone who believes this issue is only about "hypocrisy" and not also thinly veiled partisan gay-bashing is kidding themselves."

Exactly right. The gaybashing the GOP is implictly doing in this case is pathetic. They're not dumping him because he got caught soliciting sex, they're dumping him because it was GAY sex.

The gaybashing the GOP is implictly doing in this case is pathetic. They're not dumping him because he got caught soliciting sex, they're dumping him because it was GAY sex.

Nice try. Still partisanship uber alles. I'm glad the Democrats are so pure that they can comment on anyone's sexual orienttion as long as they use the Seinfeld forumulation: "Larry Craig is against gay rights and now it turns out HE'S GAY (not that there's anything wrong with that)."

There ISN'T anything wrong with that. It's the hypocrisy, the adultery and of course the lawbreaking that bothers progressives about the Craig affair.

Jack, it's the astonishing poor judgment.

Let us, for the moment, take Craig's word for it. Let's say it was all a giant misunderstanding. He accidentally tapped his foot three times, twice, and accidentally flashed his wedding band near the floor -- and let's say he didn't understand that that's the protocol for soliciting "tea room" sex.

Let's assume all that. He gets arrested. Does he call his wife and his lawyer and say, "Oh my god, you'll never believe this weird situation I got in today. What should we do about it?"

No, he hides. He "handles" it himself. He goes back, at least twice, to Minneapolis to deal with it. He never tells his wife, his chief of staff, his attorney.

Seriously, can you imagine a circumstance where a U.S. Senator gets arrested - and doesn't call his lawyer?

It's not the act. It's the cover up.

p.s. BTW, nobody here thinks that Craig should go, but Vitter should stay. It's the homophobia of the GOP that's causing the differential treatment.

But 'round these parts, we think they both need to go.

I'm not defending any of the things Craig did. And if I were one of his constituents, I would not want him representing me because of his poor judgment.

But that doesn't explain the piling on by Democrats. I don't remember you guys giving Rep. Vitter this kind of attention, either.

There was a time when closeted homosexuals were officially classified as security risks because it was believed they were vulnerable to blackmail. Today, some closeted homosexuals are threatened with political blackmail if they don't support a particular political agenda. Is that progress?

By the way, Kari, as an Edwards guy, what is your official position on Edwards and Kerry both bringing up Mary Cheney's sexual orientation in their debates. Was that kosher? Why do you think they did it?

Posted by: Bill Bodden | Aug 30, 2007 10:04:59 AM Seriously, can you imagine a circumstance where a U.S. Senator gets arrested - and doesn't call his lawyer? Daily Kos has a piece indicating Craig did call his lawyer.

Funny, I posted that same point and a link to the arrest and incident report back on Tuesday. Not that I am puffing my chest over it, but his lie was known the second he said it in his presser and I'm glad people are spreading the word that Craig's house of lies is tumbling down.

While it is still a leaning GOp seat, I wouldn't say it is a forgone conclusion. Sali had a tough go of it in the ID-01 race last year and only lost by a several points. Cheney had to fly in during the 11th hour to do huge fundraising to pull it out of the fire for him. So while Idaho is definitely a red state isn't one we should write off. This is why Dean's 50 state strategy is important. You never know when a race can flip and be put into play.

Posted by: Admiral Naismith | Aug 30, 2007 11:06:11 AM But that doesn't explain the piling on by Democrats. I don't remember you guys giving Rep. Vitter this kind of attention, either. Oh, some of us bring up "Diaper Dave" any chance we get.

Agreed. However there is an underlying difference to this as well which does have to do with homophobia and bigotry. That in Vitter's case, he was not pushing anti-heterosexual laws and anti-straight bigotry as public policy and straight-hating to me morally and socially acceptable.

That is why it is I view Craig's actions and dishonesty with more disdain than Vitter, though both are hypocritical scum-bags. Though like Roy Cohn, the added layer of self-loathing instilled in his psyche being projected outward and manifesting itself into his anti-gay bigotry and "family values" schtick (a phrase and concept which is in and of itself propagandist bigoted bullshit writ large) makes it even more shockingly hypocritical.

If I'm not mistaken, I thought Vitter admitted to hiring someone from an escort service and both he and the woman deny that they had sex. The owner of the escort service is being accused of running a prostitution ring and she is outing her customers, in part hoping they will "confirm" her story that they were not providing sexual services.

Ted Stevens has never admitted to any wrong doing, any more than William Jefferson has (I guess I missed all the posts here on Blue Oregon calling for his resignation).

Larry Craig's situation is different in that he pled guilty to a misdemeanor, which is why Senator McCain's position is reasonable, i.e., any Senator who pleads guilty to committing a crime should resign.

Contrary to what many posters have stated, however, Craig did not plead guilty to soliciting an undercover police office or for committing "lewd acts" which is what he was charged with. He pled guilty when they let him get off (okay, pun intended) with a charge of "disorderly conduct" whatever the heck that means in this context.

I agree he was monumentally stupid and I also agree that he undoubtedly was soliciting sex (although I frankly doubt they could have gotten a conviction under these facts). What I object to is the salacious obsession with his sexual orientation which I think a lot of people are trying to cloak with their claims of "hypocrisy."

In one sense, this reminds me of people accusing folks like Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes and Shelby Steele of not being "authentically" black because they oppose affirmative action or certain other civil rights laws. Being of a certain race, gender or sexual orientation does not obligate one to support a specific political agenda.

It might be worthwhile to go back and revisit some of the things Barney Frank has said about why, when he was still closeted, he felt the need to utilize the services of a prostitute (which, yes, was a crime) which led to his reprimand (not resignation or expulsion) from the House. In many ways, Larry Craig is more to be pitied than reviled.

That doesn't mean he shouldn't leave office; just that there is no need to dance on his political grave while it happens.

No Jack. When this closeted head-case is pushing anti-gay laws, polices and fomenting anti-gay bigotry in society is visiting airport restrooms for some down-low action, that is not just hypocrisy, but hypocrisy writ large.

And spare me the accusations of salacious obsession because that isn't what this is about. It is a bigoted jack-ass being hoisted on the petards of his bigoted GOP base, with a healthy dose of well earned schedenfreud garnishing a big old fat serving of exposing a hypocrite.

And as legitimate as the point about Frank's observation about the unhealthy effects of the closet pushing men in the old days to go underground and seek illegal activities to express their sexuality, Frank was not a member of, or using anti-gay bigotry to gain and maintain political power.

Posted by: DAN GRADY | Aug 30, 2007 3:23:41 PM Barny Frank is a Socialist whom caucusses with Democrats

Ah... no he isn't.

You are confusing independent democratic socialist Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont, with House Rep. Barney Frank from the Massachusetts's 4th congressional district.

Posted by: Sid Leader | Aug 30, 2007 4:17:38 PM

Let's not conflate closeted head-case bigots like Craig, whether he is gay, bi or just a down-low head-case with rapists and pedophiles shall we?

For a much douch-baggery Craig has and is displaying, he is not a rapist, nor are most gay and bisexual men (just like most straight men are not rapist either).

Sorry, talapus pete, I'm too busy enjoying reading various commentators proving my point to respond.

I don't remember you guys giving Rep. Vitter this kind of attention, either.

Here at BlueOregon, we didn't give Senator Vitter the same attention as Senator Craig because he represents Louisiana. Unlike Idaho, Louisiana doesn't border Oregon.

Craig has not used his office for personal gain

That is, assuming that he's not been diddling the pages during the 25 years after he first denied such activity.... a pre-emptive denial, despite the lack of an allegation against him.

Thanks, Kari. You've made my point much better than I ever could. By suggesting--with absolutely no evidence--that a gay man might also be a sexual predator and a pedophile you have demonstrated precisely the homophobia I was talking about in my original post.

Case closed.