He never should have pled guilty in the first place, or if he did he should have stuck to his guns and never offered to resign over it. It wasn't a big deal until he tried to hide it. His power and influence are done; almost no one's gonna take him seriously any more and there's only so much a lone Senator can do. He repeatedly shot himself in both feet, and at this point Idaho is almost certainly better off if he resigns.

However, if he stays, I hope he'll remember the great loyalty and support his friends and allies in the anti-gay movement showed him, and act accordingly.

[Sarcasm italicized for the humor-impaired.]

"...Defying G.O.P. Wishes"

Wouldn't the will of the Grand Old Party as a whole define their values more than the will of a single congressman?

Do the actions of William Jefferson, D-LA, define the values of the DNC?

At least Republicans want him to leave, and are saying so. If Craig were a Democrat, the Dems would be telling the country that it was "a private matter" or "just about sex" and the mainstream media would let it go at that. What Larry Craig did is bad, but it's no worse than what Clintoon did with Monica in the Oval Office. So if it's okay for Clintoon, why the different standard for Craig? I mean, besides the obvious reasons that it makes good political hay?

Butch:

That's DEFY, not DEFINE. Craig is DEFYING the GOP's wishes by not resigning. "Defining" has nothing to do with it.

Hope that helps.

"What Larry Craig did is bad, but it's no worse than what Clintoon did with Monica in the Oval Office. "

What Craiig did is a little worse, I think: Clinton and Monica were consenting adults acting in private and there were no undercover cops, public restrooms, or guilty pleas involved.

I am amused by the reflexive invocations of William Jefferson and Clinton by you GOP-ers in response to mention of Craiig. Don't forget about Teddy Kennedy!

So if it's okay for Clintoon, why the different standard for Craig?

saying "but the other kid did it too!" never worked for me on the playground, either. it does seem to work for some politicians, though.

by the way, isn't it worth thinking about when a vocal anti-gay US Senator is convicted of attempting to publicly solicit/perform gay sex?

Sam, take a reading comprehension class. "Defining" GOP values is another way of saying he is a "symbol" of republican values which was Jack's original message. Is that simple enough for you? If not, say so and I'll provide you with a link to dictionary.com.

Yeah...It's amusing all right.

I can't say as I've seen any Democrat screaming for his head, or even his resignation. Of course, when a Demo crosses some invisible morality line, all the hypocritical Repugnantcans start screaming their heads off about the moral degradation of the nation.

What a bunch of bollocks. Roadapples.

I hope he stays, so that the zealously righteous hypocrites of the demonstrably arrogant and misguided fundamentalist christian wackos will feel compelled to sit out the election. Or, enough of them, at least.

GOP stands for Gay Outreach Program. Repugnantcan Party equals GOP.

They have the "wide stance".

""Defining" GOP values is another way of saying he is a "symbol" of republican values which was Jack's original message. *** Posted by butch | October 4, 2007 5:56 PM"

Then why did you quote the NY Times headline: "... Defying G.O.P. Wishes" rather than "perfect symbol of the GOP" from Jack's post?

After quoting the "Defying" headline you talk about "defining" GOP values, not "perfect symbol" of the GOP.

You obviously had the words "defy" and "define" confused. Your lame explanation, defensiveness and ad hominem attacks only confirm your confusion and embarrassment over it.

Sam, I'll try to keep this simple. I am smart and literate enough to comprehend that because two words may share some common letters, they can mean the complete opposite. I never even drew a correlation between the words "defy" and "define". Reread it and substitute the word "symbolize" for "define" if that makes it easier for you. Good day.

Got your photo 'symbols of Republican values,' right HERE.

Got your photo 'symbols of Democratic values,' right HERE

"I never even drew a correlation between the words "defy" and "define". *** Posted by butch | October 4, 2007 7:01 PM"

Yes you did, Butch:

""...Defying G.O.P. Wishes"

Wouldn't the will of the Grand Old Party as a whole define their values more than the will of a single congressman?
***
Posted by butch | October 4, 2007 5:14 PM"

You doth protest too much. Your protestations make me more certain than ever that you misread the NYT headline and thought it said "Defining G.O.P. Wishes" when you made your 5:14 pm post.

Just admit it. Don't worry, I'll still consider you smart and literate.

Whatever you guys say, the fact is that Craig is define their wishes.

As much as I hate to interrupt such a highly entertaining and pointless pissing contest, I gotta say to Sam that you've misunderstood what Butch was trying to say.

Which is - I think - that the GOP is defined more by their desire to see Craig go than they are by Craig's actions or by his defiance of their wishes. This is presumably in response and opposition to Jack's calling Craig a "[...] perfect symbol of Republican values" and in that context his point and his quote makes perfect sense.

And I think Butch is right that today's GOP is not properly symbolized by Craig.

Instead, it is properly symbolized by the ravenous cannibalistic feeding frenzy it turned on one of its most valued members rather than admit that private sexual behavior bears no relation to job performance. I kinda doubt Butch will like my version any better, though. :-)

Alan:
Even though I disagree with your point, I nominate your comment as post of the day on bojack.org!

Very well done!

Alan...though not EXACTLY on my point, you summed it up well enough.

Craig could carry a deck of cards with naked women and everytime he gets accused of being gay, he could pull the ol' routine, "I'm not Gay! Would a gay vampire have a deck of naked women playing cards?!"

Hi Butch.

Sen. Larry Craig was hungry, horny, sweating and desperate -- trying to have sex, with a young man, in public, in a filthy airport bathroom and that might have been your young son in the next stall.

Or mine.

The good news is the mighty midget, Lee Atwater, is saving him a seat by the fire.

Daphne,

What gave you the impression I was defending Larry Craig?

You compared Larry Craig, a fuilthy, sad, sex pervert disguised as a married man (NOT HIS KIDS!) to some loser in Louisiana who tried to steal some money for his family.

All people like Craig and Foley and Guckert/Gannon and Senator Diaper Boy Vittle think about is getting laid, with anyone, anywhere, anytime, at taxpayer expense!

Jefferson was greedy, if true.

Simple greed versus a dirty, rotten sex fiend with cold hands reaching for a young man in a public airport bathroom.

Sure, same thing. Right. Anything you say.

"...some loser in Louisiana who tried to steal some money for his family."

BWAAAAAAHAAAHAHAAAHAAHA!!!

Hey Daphne, first - I didn't compare them to each other. Both are reprehensible.

Second - I'm sure you took this stance toward sexual deviancy when a certain ex-pres was caught in the act, accused of sex crimes, etc. Of course you did....because you are so objective (yes...I'm laughing and eyes rolling as I type this). Now...off to your next Code Pink rally Daphne, its been fun.

And I'm very pleased to announce Republican Senator Larry (I'm not gay, just Bi) Craig will be at the front of the parade.

Holding out his... hand.

Later, Butchie.

"ex-pres was caught in the act, accused of sex crimes"

Who are you talking about? Not aware of any such ex-pres in recent years.

Neither is true of Clinton, if that's who you mean.

At least he did not use the "mentoring" defense!