Today's Hot Topic: The Larry Craig Saga

The Larry Craig Saga: In the NYT, the editors claim that "the rush to cast [Craig] out betrays the [Republican] party's intolerance, which is on display for the public in all of its ugliness." The WSJ, meanwhile, declines to go that far, merely observing that the party "needs to get its house in order." Elsewhere in the Journal, Naomi Schaefer Riley explains why sex scandals still get so much attention in "a culture awash in sex." USA Today says "pity and compassion seem a more fitting response than outrage" for the Idaho senator. And in the WaPo, Ruth Marcus remembers the Walter Jenkins scandal and writes that "the story of Craig's encounter with a police officer in an airport bathroom underscores the continuing grip of homophobia on American society."

By Nick Baumann |  August 31, 2007; 8:50 AM ET
Previous: Today's Columns: Poverty vs. Celebrity |


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Too many people in the US are homophobic. That is sad. Here in Brazil we have some people like that, but mostly skinheads. At least in big cities we are a lot more tolerant.

Posted by: Euler | August 31, 2007 09:48 AM

I have a question. Can we consider the possibility of Craig being set up.! In order to undermine the credibility of the Republican Party.

Posted by: lumi boldovici | August 31, 2007 09:50 AM

Set up? That's what cops do, they set people up. It's called a sting operation. The airport Craig was in was known to have a high level of sexual activity in the bathroom. Also, back in 2006, Bill Maher and his guests were talking about Craig's homosexuality (look it up on youtube). This is not the first sign Craig was a homosexual.

Posted by: G | August 31, 2007 09:59 AM

It's time we came to grips with the different forms of human lifestyle. The entrapment in this case is disgusting. Let's try to be better people and sympathetic--less judgmental--there are far more important things in today's world to be aware of.

You can't legislate morals. Please encourage people to stay out of people's sex lives and bedrooms. We just don't need to know all this stuff.

Pedophiles are something entirely different and should be monitored, not released to abuse more children.

Posted by: farrarc | August 31, 2007 10:03 AM

It's time we came to grips with the different forms of human lifestyle. The entrapment in this case is disgusting. Let's try to be better people and sympathetic--less judgmental--there are far more important things in today's world to be aware of.

You can't legislate morals. Please encourage people to stay out of people's sex lives and bedrooms. We just don't need to know all this stuff.

Pedophiles are something entirely different and should be monitored, not released to abuse more children.

Posted by: farrarc | August 31, 2007 10:05 AM

The problem is he is a liar. To the public, his wife and himself. He is using the Clinton tactic of, "I didn't have sex with that woman." Oral wasn't sex in Clinton's view. Craig is saying, "I'm not gay." No, he isn't 'happy' because he's hiding out in bathrooms. He's homosexual and should just come out with it.

Posted by: Veronica | August 31, 2007 10:09 AM

So will Senator Craig (R-Idaho) join Paul Wolfowitz at the Heritage Foundation, or simply remain a member in good standing on the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association?

Posted by: re | August 31, 2007 10:10 AM

I'm just a damned Brit foreigner but cannot see the entrapment angle. Surely that would require something like someone encouraging the guy to enter a cubicle alongside a police officer and do such and such. I see nothing in the reports that he was encouraged to go into the booth. What he did in there was his own choice? Wrong time - wrong place

Posted by: JohnW | August 31, 2007 10:11 AM

Marion Barry could not have been caught smoking crack if he did not smoke crack, Larry Craig could not have gotten caught trying to have an interlude in a bathroom if he did not engage in the behavior.

Posted by: | August 31, 2007 10:20 AM

The issue is not one of the morality of being gay or gay sex. It is about one's conduct in a public place. If Larry Craig is gay or bisexual, that's fine with me. If so, it's hypocritical to push his anti-gay, Republican agenda. Probably fighting what is perceived as one's own weaknesses. Maybe if gays were more accepted, then he wouldn't feel that need.

Regardless, however, it is not appropriate to solicit sex in a public bathroom, and lewd behavior in a public place is what he was charged with. Entrapment comes when the crime is initiated in some way by the police. This clearly did not happen in this case.

If the complaints were that prostitutes were propositioning men at the airport, I'd expect the police to address the issue. This seems similar to me. I'm also not against prostitution and think it should be legalized. That still wouldn't make it OK to harass people at a public place.

Posted by: Tom Lehman | August 31, 2007 10:20 AM

Set-UP? Craig was certainly not "set-up", nor were the scores of other men arrested for trolling for toilet sex at the Minneapolis=StPaul Airport this past June. Were these guys victims of entrapment? Were they all just practing their Flamenco steps, pounding on the toilet floor and playing footsie? Who set that up? Their choreographer? And the hand intrusion into the neighbor's cubicle, was that part of the Flamenco display also?

If you believe the Senator was set-up, you are either quite naive or delusional. If you are a republican, probably the latter.

The Senator may not consider himself "gay", especially now when his life must look quite grim. He just enjoys sex with men. What he labels that behavior I really don't care. Just do it at home or in a hotel. In private.

The man is an idiot. But does that make him unfit to be in Congress? Were sound judgement and intelligence a requirement for holding public office the country would not be in the mess its in. (Of course, this merely reflects on the poor judgement of the voter based on slick advertising, dishonest talking points and sound bites. But thats another sad story.)

Posted by: JayHein | August 31, 2007 10:21 AM

You are right, JohnW. Legally, the actions of the police officer in this case do not constitute entrapment. Here's a definition.

"A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime."

Posted by: THS | August 31, 2007 10:28 AM

He has lied to the voting public. How could you trust him to do his job in congress.

Posted by: Johnmarine | August 31, 2007 10:31 AM

The fundamental issue is hypocrisy. Barny Frank is openly gay and continues to serve his country and gain reelection.

The Craig case illustrates a fundamental problem with the conservative end ot the Republican Party. As long as Republicans bash homosexualtiy as a political issue, they will continue to be embarrassed when the public finds out that some of the leading gay bashers are themselves gay.

Me thinks they doth protest too much.

Posted by: Tom Casten | August 31, 2007 10:34 AM

Let me be explicit about a fact that others have noted in passing.

In this instance, the police were responding to public complaints about sexual activity in this particular restroom. Officer Karsnia was not simply hanging out to catch anyone who happened to show interest in having sex. He was responding to a public nuisance.

In the tape of the officer's conversation with Sen. Craig, he says, "I don't care about your sexual preference."

Also important is that, by his own admission, Craig traveled through the Minneapolis airport almost every week. He knew which bathroom to use to find what he was looking for. Even if he hadn't been there before, information about where to find "tearoom trade" is available on the Internet, something Craig would have known.

A traveler who wasn't looking for sex couldn't be expected to know that this restroom was regularly being used for this purpose, which is likely why the complaints arose. People who weren't interested in sex were likely being propositioned or were simply annoyed by walking into a restroom and hearing other people engaged in sexual activity.

Posted by: THS | August 31, 2007 10:44 AM

I think we are making too much of it. Craig is a good man and no one has commented on the spiritual nature of his 'reaching out for his fellow man.' So he likes to suck cock every once in awhile. Doesn't make him a bad person. Jesus would forgive him. Why can't we?

Posted by: Barny | August 31, 2007 10:50 AM

People could forgive the act, Barny. What's hard to forgive is, first, Craig's lying and, second, the hypocrisy of his anti-gay votes in the face of his own behavior.

Posted by: THS | August 31, 2007 10:59 AM

WSJ said clean house? Yeah maybe clean out the closet?

Posted by: wej86 | August 31, 2007 11:00 AM

The issue here is not whether Craig is gay or not. Who cares??? The issues are that he broke the law and was caught. The most important issue to me is that he is a hypocrite. He has voted against gay issues every chance he could. He has passed judgement on other's sex problems. He is on tape condemning Bill Clinton as a "naughty, bad, nasty boy". I relish it when hypocritical politicians and religious people are exposed for what they really are.

Posted by: sc | August 31, 2007 11:03 AM

I'm not as disgusted at Craig's actions in the airport restroom as I am at his fervent denial of being homosexual or "bi-curious". His repeated condemnation of adults in same-sex relationships is intolerable, especially when it appears that he intended to take part in one of the more "deviant" sides of gay or even straight lifestyle called "stranger sex". Yes, straight do this too. It may not happen in a public restroom, but it does happen in public.

What is so upsetting to me is that when one of these stories comes out, it paints a picture that all homosexuals engage in this type of deviant behavior! Guess what folks? We don't. Only a small percentage does. I'm sure that straight people participate in just as many different types of deviant behavior if not more. We only make up a little over 10% of society.

As a woman in a same-sex relationship, I am thoroughly embarrassed that a country as progressive and rich as ours spends more time, energy, and resources on condemning people who are in genuine loving relationships, rather than putting that time, energy, and money into feeding our poor, our homeless, the working poor who cannot afford to buy health insurance....the list goes on and on.

Wake up, people! Let's work on helping Americans in need instead of targeting and discriminating against a group of our society who has harmed no one!

Posted by: B. | August 31, 2007 11:06 AM

What happened to the Good Old Days, the "Happy Days" when The Fonz could grab Ralph Malph or Potzy by the shirt and drag them into his "Office" and no one suspected anything?

It's sad how cynical we've become.

Posted by: Leftwith Nochoice | August 31, 2007 11:07 AM

"The issue here is not whether Craig is gay or not. Who cares???"

The Republicans and Evangelists care a great deal about his supposed gayness. The literal reading of the New Testament says no to such activity.
No one seems to be interested in his state of mind just prior to the reported act. I'm curious, if it was a first for him, what caused him at that moment, in that bathroom, to take such a risk?

Posted by: Barny | August 31, 2007 11:11 AM

Senator Craig is a depressing specimen of self-loathing and stupidity. However, the behavior of the Republican candidates who have abandoned him lickety-split is even more depressing. Their homophobia is so transparent and their hypocrisy so clear (why don't they run away from Senator Vitter?) that one can only marvel. It is time for the public to reject politicians who try to win elections by paying lip-service to "family values." They do nothing to solve real problems like inequality, global warming and our endless war in Iraq.

Posted by: Peter | August 31, 2007 11:13 AM

I understand all of surrounding political issues, but to eclipse all of the man's value to society with a relatively minor mens' room prank is a real shame.

Posted by: Pointessence | August 31, 2007 11:17 AM

"What's hard to forgive is, first, Craig's lying and, second, the hypocrisy of his anti-gay votes in the face of his own behavior."
I agree with the disgust with his hypocrisy but the lying part, I think we have to look deeply into our political souls and watch a Presidential Press Conference or two. The lying that goes on there is considered de rigueur.

Posted by: Barny | August 31, 2007 11:17 AM

Obviously, the DEVIL made him do it. The Senator is not responsible for his slip-and-fall...the restroom floor was wet with temptation, thus, his "wide stance" to not lose balance, trip and fall...the DEVIL entrapped him....Let us prey....

Posted by: CrazyVietnamvEt | August 31, 2007 11:45 AM

Senator Craig is a hypocrite of the highest order. When can we as a nation learn to take care of every human being. The Republican can only blame themselves. Karl Rove admits to not being "a man of faith" and was able to lead the Republicans into a life hereafter in hell. Craig professes to being a christian but denies his behavior, hypocritical and all the Rove/Bush christians can once again hide in the closet until the next hypocrite republican is caught with his/her pants down. Use fact check and stop watching FOX news.

Posted by: Pete Thomas | August 31, 2007 11:49 AM

Homosexuality is not a crime, SCANDAL is.
Clara G. Redshaw
Lima, Peru

Posted by: Clara G. Redshaw | August 31, 2007 11:56 AM

As an Idahoan I am appalled that so many are calling for Craigs resignation. Congress did not elect him a senator. I believe that is should be the peoples choice here in Idaho as to wether or not Craig should be allowed to conintue representing us. And most of us believe his story and strongly feel that he should be allowed to continue representing his people.

Posted by: Emily | August 31, 2007 11:57 AM

Why didn't Craig tell his family, closest friends or (maybe most importantly) political advisors about this arrest? His decision to plead guilty was not made in a rush -- there were 2 months to calm down and decide what to do. The plea he entered includes a statement indicating that he knows the court does not accept guilty pleas from innocent people. He has gotten away with this behavior so long that he thought the secrecy could continue. How sad for him the end came like this.

Posted by: kednewt | August 31, 2007 12:02 PM

Playing footsies with his stall neighbor? Sounds like deviant behavior even if nothing else occurred.

Posted by: Vladimir Ulyanov | August 31, 2007 12:08 PM

Bravo, B.! You're right. As appalled as I am by yet another reminder of hypocresy in the government, as much as I like a gay basher being caught in a lie, this incident also sheds light on several problems in American society. First of all, yeah, many people, even those who consider themselves tolerant, seem to think all gays are into stranger sex, and making such a big deal out of this seems to support that idea.

Why has a (minor) sex scandal been on the front page for days? Because it involves same-sex sex? If so, it's us as a society that should think about our tolerance. Would this have been as big a deal if he had been caught trying to pick up a woman?

On the other hand, has anyone stopped to wonder why this is front page, instead of any of the real issues? Is this more important than poverty, health insurance, unemployment, etc.? Paying so much attention to scandals allows both the government and the media to skirt the real issues, but in the end, it is us, the public, the consumers, who are to blame.

Posted by: S. | August 31, 2007 12:11 PM

I agree with Vladimir. Footsies with the stall neighbor? Peering through the crack in the stall door? No. Nothing to do with sexual preference. Just, no.

Posted by: Joseph Intili | August 31, 2007 12:24 PM

Many Gay men have in D.C. have known about Craig, Foley, and dozens of other openly closted politicals for decades, and we kept silent out of reverence for the right of privacy, even when many of those men assailed us through the law. We also recognize that outing a lawmaker or a PAC leader (thinking Terry Dolan) for his frequenting of Gay bars, sex clubs, online chatrooms, or local public sex venues splays open our own lives for public examination; and so we have kept quiet to preserve our own relationships and the order of our lives.... ewww... and to think that I followed THAT home to play while his wife was away.....

To echo other observers, if America was more honest about sexuality in general, we would not see these public muiliations on a regular basis; and men wouldn't need furtive encounters with other men in public places to feel satisfied, and my marriage to my partner would be worth more than a legal fight here.

Posted by: bigolpoofter | August 31, 2007 12:35 PM

Could I please make a request? Pulleezzee take this whole sordid, disgusting thing off my television, out of my newspapers and get RID OF IT.
Why do we hae to hear every squalid word of the "tapes" every speach, denial-denial, police statement, expose??? God have we sunk so low that this is all we are interested in as a nation??
"...don't pay any attention to that man behind the curtain, little girl."

Posted by: Roger Fulton | August 31, 2007 12:36 PM

I am a Republican, Not from Idaho , but I still would like to see Craig resign. If being disgusted by same sex sexual activity is being homophobic then I plead guilty !Yes he was hypocritical , but that isn't the issue for me. The Republican party stands for moral family values and as far as I'm concerned that excludes homosexual behaviour. Forget about the religious prohibition it is unnatural and breaks natures laws. yuk!!!

Posted by: Al Gibbs | August 31, 2007 01:04 PM

Goes through the MN airport "once a week"? That is an awful lot of traveling. Is that normal for a congressman? If so I'd have to believe that this was not his first foot tapping in MN. Did he purposely pick that airport rather than Chicago or Denver for connecting flights? I just wonder if there are records to show he chose a longer layover in MN rather than a much quicker flight through another city.

Posted by: rjma | August 31, 2007 01:06 PM

CrazyVietnamVet has it right! Personally I don't believe having sex under the stall in a men's room is "gay", I think it's "homophobic" activity at its best. Gay men who are OUT enjoy their activity in their homes, rooms, baths but not public restrooms! PLUS it is pedophilic, I don't want my son witnessing any of this behavior in the MENS ROOM. He smiles, no one will ever know and he will walk out of there with his zipper up and catch his flight. Of course he shouted "entrapment", he had enough time to think about being busted on the way to the interview, HE'S A LAWYER... need I say more?

Posted by: foxygarcia | August 31, 2007 01:14 PM

Is Craig passive or active player?

Posted by: pervez | August 31, 2007 01:26 PM

foxygarcia, Obviously you have a different definition of "homophobic" than I do. A homophobic person would "have an aversion for" homosexual activity , not be drawn to it or tempted by it. Maybe we use different dictionaries.

Posted by: Al Gibbs | August 31, 2007 01:26 PM

I agree that the media does tend to make this type of story "high profile". We do have to be careful to not go in any direction of supressing information though. As a society, we don't want to go backward in our ability to be informed.

Herein however, lies the problem:

1)Not knowing which news to trust as far as "middle-of-the-road", unbiased reporting.


2)Overkill with the same news being replayed every 20 minutes.

It may be easy to say "just change your channel", but many people like to have their station on CNN and other 24 hour news stations. I don't know where the balance is, but my best advice is to find a station (if there is one) that provides accurate reporting and a wider variety on the types of stories they run.

Does anyone have suggestions as to whether this even exists?

Posted by: B. | August 31, 2007 01:29 PM

It's not just the hypocrisy of one person, it's the Republican Party as a whole. They have chosen to use this wedge issue as well as abortion, evolution and religion, to appeal to a narrow minded bigoted base. Ignorance and intolerance has been the grease to make the Republican Party wheels roll. Thirty years ago the Republican's were a decent, fairminded group, today they would run over their grandmother to win an election.

Posted by: kaycwagner | August 31, 2007 01:30 PM

B , CNN, MSNBC , and the three networks are firmly planted in the liberal Democrat philosophy. FoxNews slants towards the conservative side. There is no totally down the middle TV source. The internet provides the best bet if you have the time and patience to look at a plethora of sites.

Posted by: Al Gibbs | August 31, 2007 01:36 PM

kaycwagner , spoken like a true blue Democrat! The Democrat has perfected the art of pandering. If you look at the base of the Democrat party closely you will find everything BUT normal everyday Americans. They have cobbled together all of the fringe groups in America to create their base constituents. The gays , the blacks , the militant feminist ,the welfare class of government dependant poor etc. Many of the Democrats in congress are barely literate themselves. So I'll continue to vote REPUBLICAN for the sake of America.

Posted by: Al Gibbs | August 31, 2007 01:46 PM

Who in the world would want to play hid the hot dog with a male? Especially with so many beautiful gals in our country. I am a leg man myself.

Posted by: Joseph M. Abad | August 31, 2007 01:47 PM

I have lived in Boise Idaho for the past 15 years. For as long as I have lived here there has been scuttlebutt about Craig being gay. It was said for a long time that he married to squelch the 1980s intern scandle. It's no surprise to me that it has finally come to light so-to-speak. Personally, I don't feel a person's sexual orientation affects his or her ability to perform a job, whatever that job may be. Based upon the complaint filed, the taped interrogation and the plea entered, it is obvious Mr. Craig is lying - plain and simple. He should just be done with this whole affair as his political career is over at this point. He will not be relected as an Idaho politition in any capacity. This is a staunch republican state, with a "sinners burn in hell" mentality. This whole affair is just plain embarassing - enough already. I agree with other comments, sexual orientation aside, if you voliate a person's privacy in a public restroon then solicit that person for sex, odds are that it is not your first time doing so and you basically derserve what you get. Espically if you are a hyprocrite.

Posted by: TCB | August 31, 2007 01:56 PM

Don't worry, next he'll be finding Jesus.

Posted by: Regina | August 31, 2007 02:01 PM

Joseph M Abad... HEAR HEAR!!!!!AMEN

Posted by: Al Gibbs | August 31, 2007 02:02 PM

I knew that eventually someone would have to make a degrading statement about homosexuals. Congratulations, Al! It was you!

Please open your mind.

You may not approve of my lifestyle, but you don't know me or my family. You have no right to pass judgement on different types of families by stating that we are immoral or that we do not uphold moral family values. I don't think that "hatred" for a person or a family that is different from what YOU may consider "normal" or "natural" would be considered a "Moral Family Value". I also don't think you are are accurate in your portrayal of the Republican Party. Not all Republicans feel the way you do. I know many Republican, Democrat, and Independent families that do NOT teach HATE as a Moral Family Value. My partner and I teach our children that all people are different in some way and to love all people the same.

Posted by: B. | August 31, 2007 02:02 PM

So the homophobic atmosphere that Craig whipped up is now bitting him in the butt. What comes around goes around. No sympathy here.

Posted by: Retired govie | August 31, 2007 02:05 PM

Fringes of society? Where are you getting you information? Fox News?

Let us not forget your American Heritage as well as mine, Al. This country was founded on groups of people who were considered outcasts in their own countries. Remember..."Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses."

Posted by: B. | August 31, 2007 02:14 PM

B, I "hate" no one!! I am indeed disgusted by homosexual behaviour. As for the "unnatural" part , anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of human physiology can not argue that the natural order did not equip humans for homosexual behaviour. Nature intended that sex be for procreation , making it a pleasurable act guarantees the propagation of the species. To be blunt the digestive tract isn't a sexual organ. I won't attempt to address any value system you may possess beyond your sexuality , but I maintain that homosexuality is unnatural and disgusting . I am quite sure that that position is not restricted to Republicans .

Posted by: Al Gibbs | August 31, 2007 02:21 PM

B, Surely you jest! The composition of the Democrat base constituency is certainly not a secret . nor is that info restricted to Fox News. I am an avid follower of politics and get my info from myriad sources. I you are unaware of the facts I stated earlier I can assume that you are probably a consumer of news from CNN and the network news . I'm sure you are aware that 90% of the black population vote the Democrat ticket in all federal elections. Actually I think Bush set a record for Republicans with 11% in the last election. As for the other groups all I can say is open your eyes and look at the members of congress and the districts they represent. Facts are a stubborn thing.

Posted by: Al Gibbs | August 31, 2007 02:32 PM

Compassion for Craig? No way!!
He, at the forefront of anti-gay legislation, is now exposed as swimming in a lake of lies. He deserves the worst humiliation and condemnation possible for hiding his own deviations by pointing at other's.

Posted by: Brian Pelton | August 31, 2007 02:33 PM

If our bodies were only made for procreation, then why are so many people on this earth having sex outside of the purpose of pro-creation? In your description, I guess everyone is practicing in deviant behavior!

Your description above is your belief, not absolute fact.

The reason I used the term "hate" is because you used hateful terms. We are not disgusting, we are different. People fear things that are different than what they are used to. If you are disgusted about what I do in the privacy of my bedroom, then so be it. But do not think that you can make public statements in this manner and not be challenged, you are wrong.

At this time, I would like to apologize to the rest of the bloggers for this thread getting off track. The subject at hand is Larry Craig, not the judgement of homosexuals.

Posted by: B. | August 31, 2007 02:38 PM

Republican Senator Craig's arrest for men's room cruising for gay sex is a sad commentary on conservatives like him. These people propagate religious hatred against gay people. Then the truth comes out. Terrified of their own 'other self', and desperately attempting to hide their sexual conflicts, They project their own self-hatreds out upon others. Remember gay hating Minister Ted Haggard, finally outed by his male prostitute? Then FL. Rep Foley of the congressional page boys scandal? Also Young Republicans head Gene Murphy who was caught sexually assaulting a sleeping man (was caught giving a BJ while giving himself a JO) The list is endless on the web, and there are even questions and comments about Bush dressed up as a woman while in prep school.

Republicans under Bush have become a party of corruption, greed, and hatred. Meanwhile they propagates lies and religious extremism in a desperate attempt to avoid total disgrace and gain more power. Hypocrites and Grand Liars hardly begins to describe them. Bush and his conservative lockstep pals gave us the catastrophe of Iraq, the escape of Bin Laden due to the Iraq focus, more and more billionaires while the middle class suffers.

But the hypocrisy of the republicans and Bush, using religious hatred against a minority - the gay people - takes the cake. Let this continue and this country's true values - equality for all, opportunity to better oneself financially, and the leadership of the world will be destroyed. And then, thanks to Bush and his republican 'religious' buddies, we will have become just like Saudi Arabia etc. A small group of super rich princes, who go to the small persian gulf states to drink and have sex with women, men, little boys and girls. Meanwhile the others struggle. We could become just like them, ruled by corrupt 'princes' allied with a theocracy that destroys everyones' religious freedom. We've then lost the battle, because we have become just like our enemies. Saudi Arabia may be an Islamic example of corruption and theocracy, but for a thousand years, from about 400AD till the semi reformation, the world had Christianity's version of the dark ages when corrupt kings combined with corrupt popes killed upwards of 50 million Muslims in the crusades, supposedly in the name of God, but really to rob the Muslims civilization of their treasures.

If we let Bush and his gang continue on their path, then Osama has won. Two civilizations, both corrupt, both imbued with religious hatred. The stage is set for a total calamity for all, with nuclear weapons thrown in so each can 'win' with their version of their corrupt 'God'.

Every day I pray that the monstrosity called the Bush administration and its lockstep (jackbooted) followers will be totally disgraced and destroyed. Yes I see progress, with Gonzo, Rove, Snow etc deserting the sinking ship. Bush isn't just the enemy of the gays, or the enemy of the middle class. He is the enemy of everyone in the world who wants to see equality, opportunity, social progress and peace. And please never forget that his grandfather, Senator Prescott Bush, was director of a bank in NY that played a major role in funding the buildup of the Nazi war machine during the mid 1930s. Does that explain our current president - I think so.

Posted by: SteveMD2 | August 31, 2007 03:00 PM

B, Firstly I'm not sure it's all that far "off track" If Craig had been arrested for soliciting heterosexual sex do you think it would have triggered the hoopla that it has? I Doubt it. As for you challenging my statements I am a true defender of freedom of speech! Challenge away. My OPINION on homosexuality is what I have expressed and I stand by it. I would not expect practicing homosexuals to agree with me for Pete's sake. You mentioned your children in an earlier post. The one thing I'm sure of is that you and your "partner" did not produce those children. I am not coming from a religious viewpoint , so you are wrong about me considering sex between a man and a woman for purposes other than procreation as deviant. I do consider same sex sexual act as deviant , unnatural, and disgusting. That doesn't mean I hate anyone. Hate only hurts the hater.

Posted by: Al Gibbs | August 31, 2007 03:08 PM

stevemd2. You my friend are a true "Kool-Aid" drinker. If you actually believe any of that tripe , you are to be pitied.

Posted by: Al Gibbs | August 31, 2007 03:12 PM

After reviewing all the facts that I have seen in the press, I have got to say that this is one of the weirdest scandals out there, and this is why:

1.) The actual "crime" isn't that big of a deal, really. While notion of sexual intercourse in public restrooms (straight or gay) is very disgusting to me, people have had sex in public places before - restrooms, beaches, even airplanes (unless that's a myth). Yes, you don't want that type of a thing around you, but it isn't and it shouldn't be as high of a priority as violent crime, domestic abuse, and stuff like that, as all he was trying to do was have consentual intercourse with an adult.

2.) The police officer showed some signs of being a racist ("I would expect this behavior from someone out of the hood, but not from you"). If Craig had gotten a lawyer, the officer's credibility could have been questioned, and he probably would have gotten off, although with some bad publicity (which he is getting anyway).

I personally believe that Craig knew exactly what he was doing, but I don't see that it is that big of a deal, except that he has let his family down, and that his party doesn't want this type of exposure, so now they've all deserted him. I don't believe that he should continue to be a senator, mostly because of the terrible decision-making he has exhibited during the scandal, and not because he wanted to have sex in a public restroom. Politicians in power have done things that are much worse than this.

Posted by: D. | August 31, 2007 03:14 PM

So, may I comment on the comments? Many of the responses I see are sympathetic to this guy because he's gay. I see that as being biased as badly as the people who don't like him because he's gay. He's accused of inappropriate behavior in a public place, not being gay.
Most are rightly outraged that he denied his lifestyle by being hyper-homophobic. Now, I'm a little older, and a lot of my values were influenced by the Saturday matinees, but didn't we once hold our public officials to a higher standard of behavior than private people? Every time I hear a politician being lauded for his or her years of "dedicated public service", I feel slightly ill. It often seems that any service is for their political party, their constituents (to the detriment of other constituents), and their favorite lobbyist. Our heroes now are partisan politicians who have managed to best the opposition. The war in Iraq is not a national security dilemna, it is a news byte. There is no discussion of right or wrong, there is only discussion about what can be proven to be illegal, and what's only ridiculously unethical. We don't repair failing bridges, we build new ones so we can put our name on them, even if they quite obviously go from nowhere to nowhere.

Posted by: lclaurie | August 31, 2007 03:15 PM

Homophobia sets the stage for this situation for Sen. Craig, however the biggest thing people are probably outraged about are that it seems that Sen. Craig is lieing about the situation and has lied in the past. The GOP probably feel that they can't trust the guy. I mean listen to the recording of the police interview at the airport. He seems like he is lieing to a police officer. Actually the Officer makes that claim.

Clinton got rode during the Lewinski investigation, but it wasn't until he lied that the country went into full outrage mode.

Liberals are probably enjoying this situation because a crusading and condeming person against gays and lesbians, is ironically gay or bisexual i.e. a hypocrite. And if you look at the history of Sen. Craig just going back to 1982 (and you could go further) he's bisexual or gay, and probably had many encounters in Union Station (which he denied, another probable lie) and in MSP airport.

The sad things are there are successful politicians in Idaho that are out of the closet, he could have been one of them, and he is in so much denial it's amazing. The main thing he says from 1982 till now is "I'm not gay."

Posted by: GC4Life | August 31, 2007 03:22 PM

Many straight men who have homosexual encounters do not believe or want to believe they are gay or bi-sexual. Since they are not "out" and actively living a gay lifestyle, they believe they are not gay.

Posted by: B. | August 31, 2007 03:29 PM

Methinks the laddie Larry doth protest too much.

Posted by: JSykes | August 31, 2007 03:37 PM

BTW Sen. Craig is not being charged for being gay, he is being charged for peeping (invading someone's privacy) and for attempting to have sex in a public place. This is not his home or his partner's home, or even a hotel room. Normal homosexuals (that does sound funny to say those last 2 words together), but normal homosexuals and heterosexuals have sex in private. The police set up a sting because men in the men's room at MSP felt that their privacy was invaded and received unwanted sexual advances in a public place. Apparently Sen. Craig by his guilty plea was one of the folks invading people's privacy at the MSP bathroom.

Posted by: GC4Life | August 31, 2007 03:41 PM

It would be in his best intrests to resign. Its embarassing; and he sounds like an idiot. I remember way back when he plead guilty, and claimed he was innocent. Too late after that. He didn't have to talk to the cop, but he chose to. That was really arrogant.

Posted by: UnpaidDeptCollection | August 31, 2007 03:46 PM

It would suit me if there were a political party that was honest and consistant about the notion that sexually eccentric behaviors including homosexuality are unsavory and that we are under no obligation to admire or accomodate them. If there is anything this episode shows is "unsavory". We already got the homosexual arguing that this episode isn't bad... the only thing bad about it is that a Republican did it or the only thing bad about it is that a homosexual did it that didn't vote to endorse every other homosexual agenda.

Posted by: OverTaxed | August 31, 2007 04:02 PM

Note to everyone:

Homosexuality, it is fairly well established, is a genetically-determined sexual ORIENTATION, not a preference, nor a lifestyle.

To refer to it as a preference, only opens the door for folks to go down the road of seeing it as a sinful vice, that can and should be cured through prayer and other means.

AND, let's not confuse homosexuality with public sex. There are many heterosexual folks who do strange things as well as gay folks, so let's be sure to not make the mistake: homosexuality = deviance and bizarre behaviors...

Posted by: mozcram | August 31, 2007 04:18 PM

You are correct. My partner and I did not create these children. They are my biological children from a previous relationship. My partner and I are raising them, along with the help of their biological father and his wife. You see, Al, this family is based on love and respect for others. The four of us as parents communicate in a loving way in order to raise our boys to be strong, loving men who understand that diversity in our world is a really good thing. We believe that this is where we have to start to make changes in our society...with our younger generation. Hopefully when this generation of young people become government officials, they will be strong enough to realize that its the diversity that makes the world go 'round. Hopefully, they can be honest about who they are and be open minded enough to realize that their way isn't the only way.

Al, you have every right to your opinion and as hard as it is for me I respect your rights. However, it appears as though you do not have the same respect for other's opinions if they differ from yours, even though you state that you believe in freedom of speech. You will not drop it and leave at what it is....a differing opinion from yours.

Posted by: B. | August 31, 2007 04:20 PM

Who said that homosexuals said that what Larry Craig did was okay???

I don't think it's okay and I don't think that public sex is okay.

Look, he got caught in a sting. He confessed and then later says he didn't mean it. I don't care if he's gay or not. What I do care about is that he's in public office and for all the times he has voted against equal rights for gays, it appears that he was leading this other life. That is what the big deal is. The Republicans kicked him out of the "Good ol Boys Club" because they wouldn't want to appear to have any sympathy for gays.

I wonder if the "Good ol Boy's Club" would let him keep his membership if he were caught hiring a female prostitute to join him in a public place. I'm betting they would find a way to sweep it under the rug!

Posted by: B. | August 31, 2007 04:45 PM

B, I'm not sure what part of "MY OPINION" you failed to understand but I clearly said that is what I was expressing. I surely did not expect to have a homosexual agree with me. I respect your right to have your own opinion on this issue and all others. I truly feel sympathy for children caught up in situations that could teach them that deviant unnatural behaviour is a good thing. The poster that indicated that "it is fairly well established" that homosexuality is a genetically predetermined orientation , failed to say just who established that hypothesis. If we are to accept that , then I guess that pedophilia , necrophilia, and all of the other bizarre sexual orientations are just a matter of which set of genes we inherit. Quite frankly IT IS MY OPINION that such explations are nothing more than excuses for the behaviours, and like global warming you can find advocates on either side of the issue. I'll stick with common sense.

Posted by: Al Gibbs | August 31, 2007 04:45 PM

One big difference between Vitter and Craig is Vitter came clean. Vitter said i've sinned in my past. there you go. he's a hypocrite, but at least he's honest. Craig is still lieing through his teeth. Republican's might have a problem with the lifestyle, but if Craig, just said, "I messed up." he might have survived. I mean there seem to be some folks in Idaho that want to believe his story or forgive him and forget now after his statements.

Posted by: more from me | August 31, 2007 04:46 PM

Oh the way, there is NO homosexual agenda. I repeat NO Homosexual Agenda! We only want to live our lives in peace and be left alone. We do not wish to take over the world. We are not pedophiles and we don't try to convert people over to our team. I repeat, NO AGENDA!

Posted by: B. | August 31, 2007 04:54 PM

Would he have sold out our secrets to hide his life style? Was that the reason he was removed from the committees? Who cares if he is gay, I don't. It appears he is not standing up to hes beliefs. He put himself beyond the truth and placed himself into the reach of blackmail.

Posted by: DaWord | August 31, 2007 04:59 PM

Most of these blogs are coming from people who see the real issue: not that Craig is gay or bisexual (as in who cares?), only that he is a liar and a hypocrite. The police did NOT entrap him, and he admitted to the policeman on the spot that he had done what they charged him with.

What is really sad is those republicans who want to view this as entrapment and want him to be not guilty. TOO LATE, folks. He is already proven to be a "bad, nasty man," to use his own words against Clinton. This is certainly worse than anything Clinton did, except for the lying part. Now we'll see if Craig's wife is as steadfast and forgiving as Hillary was.

Posted by: Dodie76 | August 31, 2007 05:06 PM

See Al, there you go again...NOT dropping it.

Pedophilia and necrophilia are mental illnesses that result in atrocious crimes when acted upon. Having the gene that makes a person homosexual does not result in a crime anny more than having the heterosexual gene does.

And, please don't feel sorry for my children. They are great. They have a very healthy understanding about love and sex, something I do not believe you have.

Al, no matter what your opinion is of gays, it will not change me or my lifestyle. The only thing your ranting does is keep the flame of hate and discrimination going strong. I pity you.

I'll be the bigger person here and end my part of this debate.

Posted by: B. | August 31, 2007 05:09 PM

b, ...she said as she got the last word in.... funny...............

Posted by: Al Gibbs | August 31, 2007 05:20 PM

What is it about the Republican Party that is so anti gay??? I is no secret that the religious right wing of America loves to mix religion with politics and infiltrated the republican party so that Republicans could claim to be paragons of virtue, legislate morality and claim to be God's political party. Every Since Ronald Reagan, republicans have been rotten to the core and their party is only good at producing rich warmongers who consistently divert our nations treasury upwards towards the 2% of the nation's richest wealthiest people who do not need it and expect the middle and lower classes to make up the difference while claiming that they do not raise taxes. But... that is another republican fact best reserved for a more protracted discussion.

I swear...when I saw the footage of Senator Craig on CNN claiming over and over that he was not gay, I almost thought I was watching an episode of South Park. I thought that this was the voice actor for Mr., now Miss Garrison. I was waiting to hear him follow his denial statements with something outrageous like, "the republican party is God's party & God hates fags & I cannot be gay because I am a republican".

Most Republicans have inner demons in thier closets that easily out weigh any of their self righteous complaints and ideological causes against democrats. I'm just curious what inner demons Mann Coulter works feveroushly to keep hidden in her hate mongering, self righteous, jingoisted closet. What ever it is, I'm sure that it is very angry for being locked up in a right wing extremist as ugly as Mann Coulter.

The problem with the Mann Coulters and Senator Craigs (republicans) of the world is the fact that they usually cannot find anything filthier then their own personal reflection. The only way that they can stand out and make a living is to live a lie and try to seem like something they are not. And when thats not problem, they just make up all kinds of malicious lies about democrats and others who do not adhere to their skewed views of reality. Eventually, they always come out and when they do...look out. Let the self loathing begin!

Posted by: Eric Jackson | August 31, 2007 07:28 PM

Listen up nation, here is a quote from one of your own. Very sad.

"If you look at the base of the Democrat party closely you will find everything BUT normal everyday Americans. They have cobbled together all of the fringe groups in America to create their base constituents. The gays , the blacks , the militant feminist ,the welfare class of government dependant poor etc. Many of the Democrats in congress are barely literate themselves. So I'll continue to vote REPUBLICAN for the sake of America."

Posted by: PG | August 31, 2007 08:41 PM

To Al Gibbs: you say that "The Democrat has perfected the art of pandering." If you mean that all Democrats practice pandering I take exception. I respect your right to say that it is probable that most politicians occasionally pander: that's the nature of politics, I believe. You simply cannot expect to get elected without making some compromises.

The difference between "politician" and "statesman" is largely in the degree to which the person in question is willing to "compromise" his or her principles. No human can be perfect in this regard but when the degree of the compromise becomes very wide we call that person a hypocrit.

To make my point a little clearer: when President Bush was first elected in 2000 he knew that he would be required to take an Oath of Office to the effect that he would defend the Constitution and the same principle applied when he was re-elected in 2004.

Can you honestly say that President Bush has defended the US Constitution, Al.?

Al. if you reflect on the history behind the US Constitution, the original Constitution did not contain any mention of the civil rights of the people because it was believed that simply mentioning those rights would limit the rights to what was said in the Constitution!

Consequently when the Original Constitution was presented to the individual MAIN STATE legislatures for ratification not one of the thirteen was willing to ratify it!

What I am trying to say Al. is that the so-called Bill of Rights, in my opinion, made it possible for there to be a United States of America, not the other way around.

I freely acknowledge, Al., that both Democrats and Republicans voted for the Patriot Act and probably that it was necessary in statesmanship for them to do so. What I object to, and very strongly, is the fact that there did not appear to be an acknowledgement that there might be excesses in the administration of justice as a consequence of placing the Bill of Rights in abeyance and that innocent individuals would likely suffer as a consequence so there should have been a sunset clause in the Patriot Act for its automatic review and for its repeal.

Al. you will have read about Nathan Dane. Nathan would have been a second cousin of "DEACON" John Dane, one of my ancestors, who was born at Salem, Massacheusettes in 1692 at a time when at least one of his aunts was tried for witchcraft.. and one of the jurymen at her trial probably would have been an uncle of Nathan Dane....

Al. that is the sort of thing that can happen when we do not really think about what the consequences of our actions may be.

Let's not repeat the terrible disaster of 1692? These were individuals who really believed they were Christians and were following the will of God...but were they?

Allan Dane, M.Sc. (E.E.)
11234 - 71 Ave. NW
Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 0A6, Canada

Posted by: Allan Dane | August 31, 2007 09:03 PM

Okay, there seems to be a lot of comments about "lying", but what is so odd about that? Most people would lie about such a happening, unless, of course, they were telling the truth. So: What if he told the TRUTH--as many believe that he didn't? The results would have been much the same, right? There's a lot of schadenfreude (sp?) here. These people need to get over themselves.

Posted by: farrarc | August 31, 2007 09:38 PM

The weak crutch for his denial is the 'down low' which is more lust and business than sexual preference, something like "truth or dare" and how far one will go to get the favored position. However, it is not gay, and barely qualifies as bisexual, but references the fact that humans are sexual beings and have sex with whomever they please. It is in the explaining part- to spouses and friends, that the archetypes breakdown, and it is in his vehement denials that hypocracy is verified. this is his error. He could just say that oral aint sex or any other rationalization, but the value here is not in the act, only in his skewed attitude towards it. He cant be who he is, so he cant be a senator. We need more truth and reality, especially after realizing that anyone of any color, of any religion, or ethnic back ground can do Anyone they want, and its nobodies business, unless you lie about it. The other hypocrits, over in the jury box, judging their neighbor, are also corrupted by their
clucking and moaning, -refering to the rest of the Republicans who havent been caught with a bone in their skull. Having casual sex with anyone is a lot less damning than voting to kill
a million people on the fat chance a democracy will spring up to do business with the war mongers.

Posted by: | August 31, 2007 10:02 PM

To all of you out there trying to defend this A-Hole, ITS THE HYPOCRACY STUPID! I don't care about sexual orientation! But when you set your party as the bedroom police, and vote against anything that is even remotely tolerant of a gay lifestyle, don't expect sympathy when you're caught in an "awkward" position!

Posted by: jgrice | September 1, 2007 01:58 AM

My name is Elena. To me of 20 years.
I would like to get acquainted with you if you not against.
I Look forward to hear you soon with impatience. Adult Dating[url=]Adult Dating[/url]

Posted by: datinduto | September 1, 2007 03:15 AM

I think this guy has really delusioned himself into believing soliciting oral sex does not make him gay. I know several macho men who see receiving not as a homosexual act but just not refusing sex of any opportunity. Some men and women don't consider oral cheating. I get that of course he is going to try a cover up, who I don't get are these enabling spouses.

Posted by: Susie | September 1, 2007 03:20 AM

Looks like the Senator is going to have an open calendar to cruise all the restrooms he wishes.

Posted by: Mandy | September 1, 2007 06:00 AM

To All the republicans,
Are you not tired of the hypocrisy? Craig fought long and hard for the Marrage Amendment. He criticized homosexuality so vehemently. He ran on the "moral ticket." I am not saying homosexuality is immoral, but what he was doing is. The man is married, and he is having sex with strange men. How do you people think woman a getting HIV? Not only was he cheating on his wife, but he was also putting his wife at risk. Had this man just opened the closet door, and had relationships with men in an open and decent way, not too many people would be talking about him. But no, he was having sex in bathrooms!! He probably "cruised" the rest areas also. This is a very dangerous way to live. And even that would not be any of our business, had he been honest and not been so disparanging of the gay community. I also find it interesting how this man knows the lingo--why did he say "I AM NOT GAY", "I DO NOT CRUISE FOR MEN."? Straight men generally will say " I am not a homosexual." and what straight man knows about "cruising." He should be ashamed of himself for talking Jesus and how Jesus does not like "fags." That is what this is all about, not the fact he may be gay. Isn't it sad that he felt the need to betray himself and harm so many in his path?

Posted by: Lynn | September 1, 2007 07:02 AM

Warner is leaving and Vitter is staying? That's not right. Senator Vitter must also be pushed out like a loaf of Turdblossom poo: Corndog's man in the can, Republi-can Senator Larry E. Craig is a follower of the David Vitter School of Servicing the Public but at least Craig didn't have to pay for it. Give this Bushie a presidential medal of freedom! While the Singing Senators were playing with children, the Bushes protected Senator Mark Foley (Republican, Florida) and enjoyed a sausage tasting with Bush White House spiritual leader Pastor Ted Haggard at prayer breakfast - but Vitter is still sitting in the Senate with his thousands of wasteful no-bid Republi-can pork barrel sprawl earmarks. Senator Vitter (Republican - The State Formerly Containing New Orleans) followed Neil Bush's example of Bush Family values and should leave the Senate. Vitter can not remain to continue to hump in the American people. Bushy Bob Allen (Republican, Florida) is not only another RPOF backroom insider, he is also another Florida Republican who did it like they do on the Discovery Channel and Bushie Republican Senator Larry E. Craig certainly fits tightly in Bush's loyal family. But Senator Vitter was in bed with the Singing Senators on every Republi-can humping of the American people and he continues to stand behind Singing Senator Trent Lott in the Senate and push his pork through as hard as he can. So now we know what made the Singing Senators sing!

"Let the eagle soar...

Posted by: Singing Senator - Public Service | September 1, 2007 08:51 AM

The weak crutch for his denial is the 'down low' which is more lust and business than sexual preference, something like "truth or dare" and how far one will go to get the favored position. However, it is not gay, and barely qualifies as bisexual, but references the fact that humans are sexual beings and have sex with whomever they please. It is in the explaining part- to spouses and friends, that the archetypes breakdown, and it is in his vehement denials that hypocracy is verified. this is his error. He could just say that oral aint sex or any other rationalization, but the value here is not in the act, only in his skewed attitude towards it. He cant be who he is, so he cant be a senator. We need more truth and reality, especially after realizing that anyone of any color, of any religion, or ethnic back ground can do Anyone they want, and its nobodies business, unless you lie about it. The other hypocrits, over in the jury box, judging their neighbor, are also corrupted by their
clucking and moaning, -refering to the rest of the Republicans who havent been caught with a bone in their skull. Having casual sex with anyone is a lot less damning than voting to kill
a million people on the fat chance a democracy will spring up to do business with the war mongers.

Posted by: | September 1, 2007 09:26 AM

Heterophobic is almost like reverse discrimination. We all tend to side with like minded peoples, but the common factor is we all have preferences and that is one of the quirks which makes us human. Getting up to that level and not getting tripped up by the '
desires of others or the behaviors of others is the goal. Refusing
normalicy to the blacks, after the Irish, Italiens, Jews, and so forth created an implied militancy here. Can you imagine a gay militancy? One where angry, educated, influential openminded folk create obstacles for the homophobicamongst them? This largely doesnt happen because of compassion and experience amongst the gays...But it could, just like the hip hop lyrics, just like the republican dirty tricks..... Drop those agendas and realize we are all in this together and duplicity just makes it worse, which is what Bush does on all levels... Even the christian bible says not to judge others- that is for god to do.

Posted by: | September 1, 2007 09:36 AM

I just read the Washington Post Editorial comparison of Sen. Larry Craig's misdemeanor to Michael Vick's felonies. Perhaps, it would have been more pertinent to fact, if the editorial had compared Craig or Vick, to Democratic Rep. Filner who was also charged with Assault and Battery in an airport. According to law Batteries that occur in transit stations are considered Aggravated Battery which is a felony. Since Rep. Filner's crimes were those of a violent nature, he is much more like Vick than Craig could ever hope to be, except of course, Craig no longer has his job, but Rep. Filner certainly still has his, getting no media coverage whatsoever, and no one demanding his resignation or investigations into whether or not his behavior was unbecoming a U.S. Representative. I wonder why? Perhaps because he is a Democrat? This idea that Craig's misdemeanor is more newsworthy because Republicans claim a higher moral standard, is just bunk! The Press Corp's insistence of making this a bigger deal implies that indeed Republicans do have a higher moral standard, therefore, they must be held to such a higher standard. However, it also implies, then, that since the Democrats claim no standards, they should not be held to any. Thus, the Press finds themselves in quite a dilemma. Does the Press hold Republicans to a higher standard and face the accusation of being biased? Or, does the Press hold Republicans and Democrats to the same standard, and therefore, remain unbiased and balanced. Perhaps, if the Washington Post desires to be even the slightest bit fair and balanced you might wish to bring this up in your next opinion or editorial column.



Posted by: JD | September 1, 2007 06:35 PM

As an adult male survivor of sexual assault-and rape which occured in a military barracks mens room-I suffer from post traumatic stress disorder-and have a lasting fear of entering mens rooms for over 37 years.
I was told to report this incident and when I did I was responded to by the statement "one would never think homosexuals need to rape one another",this by a man in position to make decisions in the veterans administration.
I have written on the internet almost daily trying to draw attention to the effects of sexual assaults on men-lasting effects which have pushed many men into corners to hide in safety.
To try to bring attention to the fact that sexual assault takes place in the military and that certain values are missing in the way the veteran who experienced sexual assault is treated I had hoped that the government and its leaders would hear about us and be interested in helping us...
and now this man,a senator-?,does this in a mens restroom seeking glory hole sex and every man ,and woman, who has experienced sexual assault in their lives has been pushed further back into their corners-instead of finding confidence in coming out to seek help-especially to trust.
There is no definition of sexuality in this activity other than devience and disgust and selfish behavior-with out consideration of the damage this man has done to any who might be a survivor.

Posted by: jay herron | September 1, 2007 06:37 PM

THe Senator abused those people who are homosexuals by ckaining thqat he is "not a homosexual". THose who are other than simply heterosexual have been abused by his cowardly denials of who he is.

The Senator is closeted in his own lies, guilty of his own delusion, and completely lacking in discretion.

I am proud of all my childre n, but especialy proud that our gay children treated their identity with respect and honesty. THey exhibit exemplary behavior and have longer committed relationships than our heterosexual children.

The Senator speaks not for the heomosexual community, but for a community of liars; he is dishonest unto hiself, and brings dishonor upon himself no matter what his sexual orientation is.

Posted by: Father of Homosexuals | September 1, 2007 07:02 PM

"Tearoom sex," homosexual sex in public bathrooms, is an expresion of sexuality all its own. It's daring; it's done with strangers; and it often goes on among more than two people at a time -- those are its thrills for those who engage, as well as obvious sexual pleasure. In fact, the dangers add to the pleasure.

Restrooms were created for people to relieve their bladders and bowels, not have sex, unless the restrooms are in private locations, where people can do what they want.

Does anyone, aside from tearoom sex aficianados, really want to walk into a restroom, bent on relief, and find one guy orally copulating another, while said copulee is getting sodomized from behind? I don't think so. It's why mothers take their little boys to women's restrooms as long as possible and why some heterosexual men won't frequent public restrooms. Who wants to see someone else having sex from a few feet away? Maybe at some nightclubs, where it's to be expected, but not when you have to void very badly.

Since restroom sex involves a lot of "exposure" during the act(s), let's expose those, like Larry Craig, who do it. If sex is no fun for these guys in any other way, they need psychiatrists to help them understand why they need this form of sexuality, which is one that some people prefer to all others.

That's after laws have been passed against the practice, penalties have been enforced, and, in essence, the book has been thrown at these guys. Let them keep it at home, at friends' homes, at private clubs, or wherever. Restrooms aren't sex rooms.

Posted by: bryony | September 1, 2007 08:07 PM

I really hate it when people begin their speech with- 'Firstly',

Posted by: Ladonna | September 2, 2007 06:48 AM

The arresting officer was hot!!!

Posted by: Miss Guided | September 2, 2007 06:55 AM

Farrarc's letter of August 31 is typical "Gay propaganda". You have to legislate some morality, or people pretend there are no rules. This isn't a matter of police breaking into someone's bedroom and their sex-lives. These are gays going to a public place to shove their sex-lives in our face. You could be bringing a child into that bathroom. That kind of exposure is a "kissing cousin" to being a pedophile.
To call being gay a "Lifestyle" is a propaganda misnomer. Choosing to have intercourse with the same sex, especially in a public bathroom is merely a perverse gay turn on. Police couldn't arrest these people if they had the class to go to a hotel room.

Posted by: Jeffrey Winslow | September 2, 2007 07:56 AM

B's August 31st comment that there is no "homosexual agenda" is an outright lie, and B knows it. If you read anything at all on the subject, especially by gays, you know this is true.
Saying there is no agenda is another "gay way" of trying to keep people from commenting on morals, while they have their immoral say on events. The gay population feels more than free to comment, and they feel more than free to put morals down. I guess if you live an immoral sex life, you will use any means, including telling a lie, and using partial truths to defend your way of life.
Congratulations on your letter. I am sure everyone believes you.

Posted by: Jeffrey Winslow | September 2, 2007 08:05 AM

Barny's letter on August 31 that Craig was "...spiritualy..reaching out to his fellow man.." is a tastless joke. Oral sex between men is wrong. Everyone knows it, the gay population just keeps saying it isn't in hopes they will wear you down into believing it.
I bet Barny was the laugh of the night at any gay party held.

Posted by: Jeffrey Winslow | September 2, 2007 09:00 AM

Well B, you make jest of the comment that sex was meant for procreation, but the thing is, everyone knows it is true. That is how civilization continues. I want everyone born of sodomy to raise their hand if this is not true. What, B? You were born by a heterosexual relationship? How could that be?
By the way, I would only use one letter to denote my name, if I weren't proud of my lifestyle.

Posted by: Jeffrey Winslow | September 2, 2007 09:06 AM

I think it's despicable he used his wedding ring as a signal that he was available for sex in a men's toilet.

Posted by: Jessica | September 2, 2007 11:21 AM

Here in San Francisco, we find the Republicans and their followers to be a constant source of amusement. Bathroom sex, bible-thumping hypocrisy, trillion-dollar fraudulent wars conducted while preaching fiscal responsibility and, of course, lies, lies, lies. Smug, condescending superiority is an ugly thing -- but the Republicans and their lemming-like followers make it so easy for us. We can't resist...

Posted by: Terry | September 2, 2007 09:48 PM

Sir: We've had two terms of the Bush administration. We've had too many years of the CONTRACT WITH AMERICA. Most of the idiots are gone, except this administration. Just ask youself if this cabal has helped you, the Ameircan!! The answer is that they, this "compassionate" administration has done nothing for the average American. We've seen the Constitution given short thought. We've seen individuals imprisoned without the due process of law and no right to an attorney. We've seen social welfare replaced by corporate welfare. We've seen individuals who sent and continue to send American sons and daughters to harm in an ill chosen war when in fact these very individuals did not respond to the call when America needed them long ago.

Sadly, this great America has some how chose this administration twice. I cast blame not so much on the idiot who is president, but moreso on those who elected him!!!!

Wake up!, America. Do you not have a voice?

Posted by: Tony | September 2, 2007 11:33 PM

If i were on a jury i would have to say not guilty! He said craig passed his hand under stall with palm up, as a signal. If i were sitting at a toilet, trying to pick up a piece of paper off of the floor, especially if was even with or behind my seating position. I have dropped things out of my pants before and distictly remember trying to reach items from this akward position,sometimes missing on first try. Also Cops or anyone for that matter can and are mistaken at times, especially if someone is looking for something to happen. I have glanced through stall cracks while waiting especially when i am in a hurry, to prevent an accident. Particularly when some idiot is taking forever and their seems to be no reason for such action. (like a cop sitting still for who knows how long) How long was Craig waiting before he stepped by stall ?

This commentary is from someone who despise's Homosexual activities. I have seen the semen left on elevator walls and condoms in elevator pits (an Aids hotel in S.F.) and peep holes in stalls and semen on stalls in virtually every bathroom at Stanford Libraries. Peeked at by gays in Grey Hound Bus depots through holes in stalls you've got to plug up.

IF ? a Big If! he's guilty, cut off his penis!

HOmosexuals in general are the most blatent in your face confrontational people on the earth. Trying to justify their deviation from normalacy.
However anyone can change if they desire too, so i am not out to destroy homosexuals , only their behavior.

Posted by: uncommonsense | September 3, 2007 02:30 AM

Oh why can't all the hypocritical Larry Craigs get caught with their pants down and their hands under a stall? We'd have a blessed, wonderful, tolerant, loving, all-embracing society in which to live, laugh and pursue happiness.

Posted by: ds | September 3, 2007 02:03 PM

hipocrits all of them....listening to rush (limbaugh) everyday you would think the right hand of god corrects every speech these idiots write. grow up and get over it..the reps came after everyone in the clinton admin and now we are seeing they aren't such shiny quarters more like tarnished pennies not worth much.

Posted by: ecgbacote | September 4, 2007 12:39 PM

I would like to see the candidates support global poverty, we see that the focus of most candidates has been "fighting" immigration but I believe that global poverty and immigration have to do with the same core issue. If we focused on fighting global poverty there would be less need for people to leave their countries in search of a better future.

Posted by: aileench | September 4, 2007 06:33 PM

Why are people so fixated on the same sex angle? I could care less if it was with a man or a woman. The fact is this was an ELECTED OFFICIAL soliciting SEX in a PUBLIC PLACE. This means YOUR child or MY child could have walked into this bathroom and see this going on by an ELECTED OFFICIAL!!! I am not a prude by the longest stretch, but some things should not be done in public. Soliciting sex in a PUBLIC BATHROOM is one of them. I don't care if he's a Dem, a Repub, black, white, male, female or whatever. I would not want an ELECTED OFFICIAL doing this in public place.

Posted by: | September 4, 2007 06:38 PM

I agree with the writer above-AND,now the creepy thing is planning to stay in office?? ugh...

Posted by: jay herron | September 4, 2007 11:04 PM

To Al, Jeffrey, uncommonsense, and any others who maintain that homosexuality is unnatural and perverse, I am a gay man. I did not want to be gay, but I am. I have been in a loving relationship with my partner for 31 years and we will be together as partners until "death do us part". Homosexuality IS a naturally occurring variation of human sexuality. It has existed throughout history as a natural occurrence--just as left-handedness has existed. It is so hurtful to have someone call my sexual orientation unnatural, disgusting, perverse, and all the other hateful terms used by small-minded bigots.

Posted by: Don | September 5, 2007 12:43 PM

What a scandal. Someone was busted in on in the bathroom doing the dirty, and that someone happens to be a government official. We elect them to model ethical and proper conduct, which he didn't seem to show here. But this is also his private life, and its interesting to see how hard people have come down on him.

Posted by: Erica | September 5, 2007 03:26 PM

It is a fact that many people in our society are gay. If they want to meet one another in washrooms then that is a matter for them. The idea of entrapment is morally repugnant to me as is homophobia. If Craig is lying then is that so bad? I mean, who tells the truth about their private lives if it will cause them embarassment? I feel sorry for him and his family. The holier than thou Christians are often very unsavoury people who believe in being unkind and uncharitable. How many outraged heterosexuals have engaged in adultery or changes their vote after meeting a generous lobbyist or made false declarations on their tax returns? I like the biblical story in which Jesus says: 'Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.' I think he was telling the stonethrowers that there actions were indecent. The GOP, and anyone else who wants to be outraged should stop and take a deep breath before attacking anyone who is gay.

Posted by: Robert James | September 6, 2007 11:18 AM

Most of the gay and lesbian community really do not care if you are in the closet. Everyone makes choices and deals with his/her orientation accordingly. What does gall us is when they are called upon to vote on issues directing affecting our peoples. There are 3 or 4 major bills in the congress...the Hate Crimes, ENDA, Repeal of Don't Ask/Don't Tell, and partners in different nations immigration. Suggestion to those in the closet...if you cannot vote to support these bills, then miss the vote or vote "present".

Posted by: John | September 7, 2007 07:51 AM

looks like the repulsives and the democraps are guilty of the same thing. Both have criminals raising money for them. Both have criminals elected and in office and both represent the criminal class in Washington.
Isn't it time "We the People" out the whole rancid, polluted and corrupt bunch? Throw all these b--t-r-s out and elect some honest people for a change.
I do mean all of them. No exceptions. And that includes those running for national office. These two parties are not capable of running this country.

Posted by: Peter Courtenay Stephens | September 7, 2007 11:55 AM

Larry Craig is guilty as charged and more so. He is lying and is using the media to try and cover his butt with his family. The whole I am not gay and I shouldn't have pleaded guilty is a smoke screen. He is incapable of owning up to his actions in that restroom stall. 1. Read the entire police officers report. He stood outside the cops stall and fidgetted and looked in at the police officer for a couple of minutes. When confronted about this later he said he was waiting for a stall. He lied. There were several stalls available. He was waiting for the stall next to the cop. 2. He tapped his foot. He denied this, He lied. 3. He waved his left hand under the stall barrier with the palm up. He said he didn't. He lied. He said he was picking up a peice of paper. With his opposite hand? He lied. There wasn't any paper on the floor and it was his wrong hand. 4. He put his foot under the stall barrier and touched the cops foot. He said he had a wide stance while doing his thing. He lied. He did admit very reluctantly to the officers declaration that he touched feet.
It is against the law to solicit sexual favors in a public mensroom or womens room. 5. He is a pervert and a liar and he does not deserve being in office as a US Senator. 6. He is a liar.

Posted by: Peter Courtenay Stephens | September 7, 2007 12:08 PM

Gay or straight, looking for sex in a public restroom is sick (and illegal) behavior.

Posted by: | September 7, 2007 05:27 PM

the comments about Sen Craig make interesting reading. I didn't have time not inclination since the theme of many was the same. It looks like most commentators are somewhat homophobic even though they try to cloak it by statements such as "public sex is illegal", "he lied", etc. Very few seem to be able to see that the whole sad affair never should have happened. Homosexuality is a fact and all the denial of borne-again Christians will not change that fact. private encounters and a toilet stall should be considered private, between consenting adults should not be against the law.
Recently a young attractive woman was told to cover up or get off the plane. If this is an indication of where America's so-called morality is going, in 10 years the Taliban will look like liberals in comparison. Just because your neighbor is doing something that you don't like but isn't harming you except perhaps for firing up your moral outrage, why should there acts be against the law. Please don't say "for the sake of the children". From the looks of it America's slow descent into puritanism has been spectacularly unsuccessful to date.
If America wants respect it needs to grow up!

Posted by: cav | September 9, 2007 09:35 AM

Look what i've found about subj
what do u think ?

Posted by: biofbonsusy | September 9, 2007 02:18 PM

why should someone take a pathetic situation and make it more so...
the web site biofbonsusy suggests is sick...

Posted by: jbird | September 9, 2007 08:28 PM

Craig should be universally condemned for having public sex in a place frequented by children. I have allowed my 10 year old son into airport bathrooms without going with him out of a misguided attempt to foster independence. I am disgusted to discover that not only is it not safe, but that US Senator's are engaging in this behavior.

Lest anyone take this as an excuse for homophobia, I would like to remind people that in practically every species examined, homosexual preferences are found at about the same rate as they are in humans. Some species of goats have such high rates of male homosexuality that its a serious problem to people who raise them.

I am sure that all these creatures, created by God, did not choose to be gay. The idea is simply ridiculous.

I am highly confident however, that people do choose when and where to have sex. Please let us focus on the provable and deplorable hypocrisy of our leaders (not just Craig) exploiting the differences amongst us for political purposes. Meanwhile I will of course accompany my son into bathrooms from now on. Thats really what pisses me off.

Posted by: reussere | September 10, 2007 01:53 AM

Hey there from sandygirl24!

I'm new and poking around here for all the good stuff. I like finding the latest
news videos about the hottest stars and found a pretty good and underused site -
[url=]neat little celeb news page[/url]

I'm going to school right now and can't wait to be done. All of this studying is
killing me for sure. My social life seems to be about half what it used to be before
I got so close to finishing. LOL! ;)

I found a neat site I'm so glad I ran into. This is really only going to help students
so if you are one you might want to look at it. I try to make a few bucks to spend
partying on the weekends when not studying for school. It's hard to make any
kind of good money tho as students know. This won't make you any serious
money so that's why I say for students only probably. Anyway I'm able to get
usually a couple hundred bucks a month from this and it doesn't take too long
and isn't that hard. The site is legit but sounds a little "salesy." Don't worry
about it 'cause it does work. LOL! You can look at it here - [url=]here[/url]

Posted by: xsandygirlx | September 11, 2007 02:15 AM

Only for real adults, person low than 18 age move out!
what do u think ?

Posted by: GuetteFeept | September 11, 2007 02:28 AM

"You can't legislate morals. Please encourage people to stay out of people's sex lives and bedrooms. We just don't need to know all this stuff."

have you been paying attention? You can legislate activity. How about people have sex in their own privacy, and there won't be any problems for straights or gays?

Posted by: epthorn | September 11, 2007 07:18 AM

Ummm . . . Editorialist? Where'd you go?

Posted by: D | September 12, 2007 09:32 AM

There is not much left to say other than nice post.
Thank you

Posted by: Aslam | September 13, 2007 06:31 AM

If you can't find anyone else to run this feature, I'd be happy to.

Posted by: ByGeorge | September 14, 2007 12:07 PM

How many offering an opinion in this forum are represented in the Senate by Larry Craig? This is an issue between Craig, his family and the voters he represents. If he was commiting bestiality with sheep the rams should be the judge. Not any of us. The legislature of this country is riddled with persons having unliked behaviors but let the first who is clean cast the first stone.

Posted by: npsilver | September 18, 2007 01:00 AM

As the Republican embraced a rabidly anti-gay agenda, what exactly did it think the gay (or simply conflicted) members of its own Party would do other than hide deep in the corner of really dark closets? They've been tumbling out now for years. From Roy Cohn to Larry Craig, the Closeted Conservatives have used anti-gay rhetoric as a beard to hide behind. The Republicans set themselves up for this. One thing you can be sure of: Larry Craig ain't the first, and he sure won't be the last.

Posted by: Larryman | September 19, 2007 03:42 AM

Stay, Senator WideStance, stay! You're the perfect reminder of the glaring hypocrisy of the right. It turns out it was you who were the bad, dirty, naughty boy. Hahahahahaha!

Posted by: John | September 19, 2007 12:46 PM

I think that he is totaly guilty of this crime ans hould defently put away for this

Posted by: katheirne williams | September 19, 2007 05:36 PM

What a horrible guy this is somthing that i couldnt even imagine a person like him doing this. It's sick and its wrong

Posted by: Mandy Moore | September 19, 2007 05:39 PM

Craig shouldn't resign because he likes sex in airport toilets with strangers.

However, Craig and all those who oppose full equality for gays and lesbians, like the policymakers of the Democratic and Republican Party, are antigay bigots. Craig is distinct from them and far, far worse; he's a two-faced homophobic rat. None of them are fit to serve.

The distinction is that Craig's a homophobe, afraid of being gay, and it leads him to deceitfully vote for anti gay laws while haunting restrooms. The catholic, protestant, mormon and muslim gay haters in the Republican and Democratic Party are unashamed bigots, like the Nazi's were about Jews.

Posted by: | September 23, 2007 04:58 PM

When Paul said....

In the sound
of a darkness and while
a delicate wind
again fades away,
a magical voice appears
light as a feather,
and always, when a
weeping willow presents
the song of a blackbird
and a wasted desire,
I try to forget
a luminous vision;
that sun disappears,
the care of a sadness
invents the profile
of a beautiful day
and then, at the same
time, I turn in
a marvel remembering
the words, when
Paul said: "..and anytime
you feel the pain...".

Francesco Sinibaldi

Posted by: Francesco Sinibaldi | September 29, 2007 02:53 PM

If Craig were merely a homosexual that would be a different matter, Craig sin is his cruising for anonymous sex in a public bathroom. As far as entrapment, as a straight male, I can't see how you can get turned on by another guy dropping trou, it just doesn't work. As far as being tolerant about what people do in there own bedroom, the operative word in that sentence is "bedroom" . Craig is not only a homosexual, he's an idiot.

Posted by: hmmmm | September 30, 2007 10:33 AM

Should Barney Frank resign too?

Posted by: Franco | October 1, 2007 03:12 PM the Washington Post slacking into the back of the pack...Larry Craig has moved forward since he was arrested for soliciting mens room sex. I think most of you would agree...if a police man was to accuse you of this crime-would plead guilty just to make it go away?
So now its into nearly a week of October-the man said he'd resign. ooops,he's not really sure if he means it because there he work. Plus-he has cost tax payers more money to plead his case before a judge to have his guilty plea turned around.
Are we stupid-can any body really believe this?
However-as scared as we should be that others that think like this may be sitting in the Senate...why is it this 'opinion' section of the Washington Post not up to the current news-Larry Craig is trying to stick his dick out at all of Idaho and Minnesota and the United States of Justice just like he was accussed of doing in the airport restroom...and you have left this in limbo!!
Thats pretty bad...yup,pretty bad!

Posted by: jay herron | October 5, 2007 08:59 AM

Interesting comments all around. Pretty much Craig violated the law. The issue is not about him being gay or "homosexual" due to the nature of his, marriage, if you can call it that. The issue is that this gentlemen has on countless times took the best interests of the people in mind and went against anything that had same sex across it when in fact he gets a kick out of a little same sex action. Kinda leads you to wonder what else he might be trying to cover up in his life that he over compensates for?
This is America. Its not against the law to be who you are. When it becomes against the law I will not bare arms to make sure that the rights of the people are protected. If you think it is against the law to be who you are then I suggest that you visit Ellis Island and read what an inscription there has to say. As a matter of fact I agree with the tons and tons of other writers and readers when they say that if this had been Craig picking up a positute and getting blown to join the mile high club he would still be in good standing. Even if he had picked up two "Ladies of the Night" and got them to preform in front of him and got caught he would probably be the coolest old geezer on the Hill. Interesting that he's just the sleazist piece of crap there now because he no doubt has had a few guys suck him dry and more than likely visa versa.
To all of those folks out there that cry morals, examine yourself. Wrong is wrong. There aren't different levels of wrong. We each add that little extra clause in the law of how we deem the law.
To me actions speak so much louder than words do. Sen. Craig, get a room dude. Gay bashers get a clue. Media, get this crap off TV. My .02 about the matter.

Posted by: jb | October 5, 2007 01:31 PM

Give me a break! Did this man disrobe in public? Did he sexually touch the policemen? Did he request sexual favors? Did he touch himself inappropriately in public?

What was his crime? Did he ask for sex? Name a price? Make lewd comments?

What he did would rate a "Shape UP or get out of politics" notice--but did he rape, mutilate, torture, kidnap, burglarize, verbally assault, physically assault,etc.

You get my point. There are molesters out there for the police to go after! There are rapists, murderers, kidnappers, robbers, assaulters, etc. These people should the the high priority to get out of the public arena.

Everyone I know has some kind of secret that they don't want others to know--embarassing maybe--but not a crime!

Posted by: driverc | October 5, 2007 03:02 PM

Preview your Comment

what gets me is people who preach for tolerance but they themselves are the hatful people they themselves call everyone who dose not agree with Homosexuality a bigot and a racist , they make all kinds of claims about others threatening them hating them...sorry but people can still have their own opinions in America and if I wish to bring up my child telling him Homosexuality is wrong I will do that.Homosexuals HATE Christians and that is ok , why is it not ok for people to disagree with the Homosexual lifestyle, that in itself causes so much misery in the world.
The Homosexual mantra is people of faith hate us and tell us we are going to hell, well the Bible says what it says ,and for people to tell someone their faith is hateful is wrong. For thousands of years Homosexuality has been divert, wrong . a mental illness , all of a sudden when the Democratic Party decides to trade their support for the millions of Homosexual voted did it become a new Life Style to be embraced.

Posted by: JJ | October 6, 2007 05:43 AM

For all the people in the world.

For the sound of a gentle delight describing
a candle and a loving profile, for a luminous care
that now fades away leaving a flame on a delicate
sadness, for a beautiful ground now forgetting
a tear, and then, in the sunshine, for all the people
in the world, for the song of a weeping in the
light of a sunrise....

Posted by: Francesco Sinibaldi | October 6, 2007 02:53 PM

Sen Craig will be the poster boy for R hypocrisy and sleaze in his remaining time in office. He has done the country a favor by deciding to remain in the Senate.

Posted by: Dem in Texas | October 8, 2007 09:07 AM

Someone probably covered this but let me ask again:

Can someone explain to me why (for the most part) male Democratic leaders get into trouble with females and male Rebuplician leaders get into trouble with males?

First, please jettison some hack Freudian explanation.

Posted by: Ted Hyder | October 8, 2007 09:33 AM

The only bad thing about Larry Craig is that he is a hypocrite of the worst kind. He did not do anything wrong in the bathroom. If the cop did not tap his foot back, he wouldn't have continued on. In any case nothing lewd occurred. I'm not for sex in bathrooms, just putting this in perspective. I think what Sen. Domenici and Stevens did are far worse: using their office to sway a pending court case and getting free labor, respectively. The U.S. needs to get out of the Victorian era and realize sex for what it is...a natural urge (as long as it is between adults), that sometimes gets people in awkward situations.

Posted by: | October 8, 2007 09:43 AM

Reason in life.

On the surface,
like a delicate bird
admiring sometimes
the sound of the
future, I see your
profile, Grace, arising
alone in a beautiful
sight; golden hairs
and a luminous charm
invent, suddenly,
a fugitive glimmer,
and always a pleasure
arrives near the
faith of a sullen desire,
just so, giving the
glad eye, in a loving
A silent and desolate
weeping for the
sound of a sunrise,
for the song of
a blackbird in the light
of the sea, and for
you, pretty young girl,
for a delicate wind
that now disappears....

Francesco Sinibaldi

Posted by: Francesco Sinibaldi | October 8, 2007 12:28 PM

Craig should have fought the charges. He didn't whip his johnson out. He didn't touch anyone. He should have just gone into denial. The cops didn't have a case.

Posted by: jsinton | October 8, 2007 12:52 PM

The issue is not about being set up, or being homophobic, or about denying things. It is about hypocrisy. It is about being caught for the very behavior that he has denounced in others.

Posted by: Rod Stevens | October 9, 2007 01:32 AM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.


© 2007 The Washington Post Company