So... we're not supposed to spy on communications with al-Qaeda members but we can expose the private lives of Americans?

Yeaaaa!

There is nothing wrong with being gay - as long as it is kept in the closet. We wouldn't want to scare or influence children or animals.

Backing so called 'anti-gay' legislation is not really anti-gay. It is just a vote to keep things out of sight.

it won't take too many false allegations for this tactic to come to a swift end.

genuine allegations though? as secular conservative who has watched in horror as the left attacks the citizenry through the courts while the right responds by empowering its anti-gay elements, i think no better thing can happen for the party.

I think this is about as dirty as dirty can get in politics. The same people that claim to be the "champions" of human rights and support gay rights are "outing" people left and right it seems. There is so much politicisation and hypocracy these days from the left. I am sick and tired of this. These people have no shame and what's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander in their book of political plays. I've always voted for whom I felt the best person was in any individual race, although I tend to vote more conservative than liberal. I'm frustrated this year because I don't want to support either party, but there are no realistic alternatives.

Irene, we reported on what a nationally-known activist announced nationally today. In his opinion, it is only news because Sen. Craig consistently has voted agains the interests of the gay community and accepts campaign contributions from organizations who oppose homosexuals. The hypocrisy is what makes it a story.

Note that Rogers does not claim Craig is gay, only that he has engaged in gay sexual activity.

Well, we haven't gotten to see the evidence yet the way we did with Mark Foley, but let's see this play out over the next couple of weeks.

Mike Rogers has outed a bunch of politicians who consistently vote against gay-friendly legislation, and he's never been wrong yet. His track record, and his stated readiness to defend himself in a libel suit, suggest that he's got this one right, too.

If so, good for him. It's important for the country to appreciate how awful it can be for persons (and for those who trust them) when they feel an impulse to act a certain way but also feel tremendous shame in that act. If homosexual sex is really immoral, we need more honesty without judgement in order to encourage homosexuals and bisexuals to get over these impulses. Alternately, if there's nothing immoral about homosexual sex, we still need more honesty without judgement in order for people to feel sane and not feel like they must choose lives of lies.

wELL HE WAS IN THAT CREEPY BARBERSHOP QUARTET WITH LOTT AND ASHCROFT. THATS ABOUT AS GAY AS YOU CAN GET WITHOUT DRESSING LIKE ONE OF THE VILLAGE PEOPLLE.

If this was politically motivated, why wouldn't Rogers be outing someone who faces an election THIS year? Craig isn't up for re-election for two years.

And this isn't exactly "news," either. Rumors of Craig being gay have been around forever.

I agree: People's private lives ought to be off limits UNLESS they are public officials who actively vote against human rights and equality for everyone. And sadly, Craig fits that category.

Funny how it's okay for the likes of Karl Rove to start rumors that this or that Democrat is gay, but once a Republican gets dragged out of the closet, the conservatives get their panties in a wad. I don't care what Senator Craig does or doesn't do in his spare time. But I am revolted by his hypocrisy in voting against rights for people just like him.

What in the world are you people talking about with this "rumors of Craig being gay have been around forever" kind of stuff? Oh go on; I just can't believe any of it! I was always absolutely sure that he wasn't even human or had any gender at all or was even an animate object at times! Based on his environmental record, I thought he was something the devil cooked up from toadstools, lichen, a few dead tadpoles, and a big lump of sulphur.

So some wacko gay reporter goes on a two bit never heard of talk radio show and says three gay men told him they had sex with Craig. If you believe this I have a bridge to sell you in Florida.

BUT: even if Craig is gay; so what? He obviously knows his life style is wrong and that is why he does not want it out and votes against making such life the norm. Hell; we all know lying is wrong but who among us does not 1) lie and 2) would vote against a bill making lying under oath a crime.

This is just more BS put out by the most two faced bunch of haters in my so called party and I am sick of it. Screw them this election. I want the party to win on platforms; not sex scandals.

The problem with social conservatives is that they want to legislate what people can do in their private lives except their own. They should butt out (sorry Senator) of private citizens lives and adhere to libertarian principles that the government should get out of sex, drugs and censorship.

Larry Craig voted to repeal Habeus Corpus! One of the cornerstones of our constitution and Democracy. He is not a friend of individual liberties for gays,straights or anyone.

It is interesting that someone so focused on other people's civil liberties and private lives, has so many attacking his.

Aint Karma a bitch?

Some of Senator Craig's sexcapades reportedly took place in Union Station in DC! That's the real crime.

The guy is a hypocrite and a tool of the closet. He should be outed if he is having sex with men and then trying to pass legislation against those healthy, mature and honest men who are trying to live in healthy, mature and honest relationships. He should be outed if he is having sex with men and then trying to screw gay men in the military. He should be outed if he is attacking gay men and living his own personal lie. Hypocrisy, thy name is Leary Larry.

Wow. Idaho sure is filled with a lot of STUPID people.

The operative word is private. it is entirely possible to enjoy circle jerks and butology and still believe such actions do not merit marriage or even public aprobation. Kinda like nose icking.

Maybe this view is to "nuanced" for some people here (like the author of this story, apparantly), but opposing hate crimes legislation and opposing the redefinition of marriage doesn't necessarily make someone a hypocrite simply because they may be gay. To claim that it does is more indicative of hypocrisy on the part of those making the claim (like the author of this story in the 5th comment)--ostensibly in defense of homosexuals--than of people like Larry Craig, who may or may not be gay.

This has nothing at all to do with exposing hypocrisy (this is, of course, obvious, but worth stating anyway). This is about immature leftists who view gays as pawns in their nation-wide junior high student council elections. The author, Jill, very clearly illustrated the intellectual simplicity of those running around outing gay people for their own personal satisfaction in her comment.

Nice try, Dave.

Senator Craig has a very long voting record supporting abrogation of the civil rights of gay Americans. I suggest you venture down the research trail before making such nuanced assertions about some special knowledge about hypocrisy. The actions of the Senator (and as a former congressman) directly affected the lives of millions of American citizens on a variety of issues beyond the con-servative whiny paranoia about the "redefinition" of special rights laws to serve others besides heterosupremacist couples.

The Right seems to be obsessed with the subject of homosexuality - it should come as no surprise to anyone that so many of their public officials apparently engage in the practice. For some reason, the "moral values" the Right holds forth as evidence of their devotion to right and wrong behavior, seems about as substantial as a five minute oral encounter in the bathrooms of a train station. No wonder they fail to see the hypocrisy evident in deliberate dishonesty. . .perhaps that has become so deeply embedded in the con-servative mindset that they believe truth itself is a sin.

Let me get this straight (no pun intended): Republicans are accused of discrimination against gays if they keep gays off their staff and accused of hypocrisy if they have gays on their staff yet still believe marriage, by definition, is a union between a man and a woman. The letter Rogers wrote Craig was reprehensible, demanding he "out" his gay staff members. Disgusting.

Rogers is more anti-gay than any Republican or Democrat who voted in support of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Apparently, people have never heard of serving their constituency. Larry Craig is from Idaho. From what I know of Idaho, it is a relatively social conservative state. The majority of people from this relatively conservative state call on Larry Craig to support things like the DOMA, even though he himself may be gay (which is more of an accusation than an actual proven fact).

So, Larry Craig does so. Along comes this Rogers fellow, who wants to out every gay republican in the nation. He makes light of Larry Craig doing the job of the constituents.

From what I can see, Larry Craig is doing the job that his constituents want him to do. Paul Wellstone did the same thing for unions when he was in Congress, as Minnesota is a heavily unionized state.

Is there something wrong with serving your constituency now?

Old Larry seems to be big on serving the male members of his constituency.

i'm genuinely curious. i know there are gay conservatives who disfavor marriage liberalization, just as i know many gay "liberals" who don't care about marriage and only regard themselves as liberals because they get the impression that republicans hate them, but what is the reasoning behind it? to me it seems that gay conservatives would be the first to call to be included in traditional institutions like marriage.

Most of the gay conservatives don't want anyone getting involved in their lives. Period. They don't want state recognition, they don't want to have their relationship validated. They just want to exist in their home, happily bangin' away.

Many gay liberals that I know of also don't care about marriage, as their belief on marriage is that it ties people down and puts them into a social norm that really is not befitting of them. So they may support a DOMA, even though they don't necessarily partake in it.

Essentially, there are a lot of people who just really want to be left alone and not have to worry about marriage and the trappings therein. But they are the ones who have to contend with the 2% of the population that wishes to force their relationship out into the open, exactly where these people don't want it.

It's a nice try attempting to spin this as a gay conservative issue. . .but that isn't the case. If you look back into Senator Craig's past, he was calling press conferences as a congressman during a House page scandal back in the early 1980's. Moreover, where do you people get the idea that this is about nothing more than bitterness over "marriage" rights? Either there are a lot of naive people there, or a lot of people who don't understand that statutory definitions of "family" affect everything from insurance, and health decisions to having control over your own funeral arrangements.

Former Congressman Gerry Studds, for example, who just died this week, was legally married in Massachusetts. Because of federal law, his husband cannot receive federal pension benefits. Of course, Congressman Bob Ney of Ohio, who just pleaded guilty to federal crimes, will receive a pension even if he rots in prison for the rest of his life. Do you honestly believe a "gay conservative" thinks that this is appropriate American justice? The issue here isn't about "caring about marriage" - it's about inherent dishonesty and using public office to condemn and damage others who need protections, while going about your own business of redefining "family values" to fit into whatever little exploits you desire for yourself.

I do agree that most gay people don't want anyone getting involved in their lives. Period. But there are too many things regulated by state and federal laws which DO interfere with our lives, and too many holier-than-thou people out there who demand the right to pass more laws doing so. . .
And gay conservatives are among the first to call to be included in traditional institutions - just ask the Log Cabin Republicans.

So this angry reporter could not get even the NYT to publish this so he goes to a never-heard-of talk radio jock to try to destroy a human being?

It is amazing that people dont understand that if you have gay sex and vote against gay rights you deserve to have your hypocrisy exposed.

The reason SO many people denounce outing - is because SO many people don't want that to become commonplace - because they have a secret. Think about it.

Status Quo must be maintained by lies.

So many anti-gay people are anti-gay because they are struggling with their own gay tendancies or thougths. They know they are there and they feel that "acceptance of gays" has led them astray in the past. So they want to "protect" people like them.

Sad but true. This nasty anti-gay fool I am sure hates his own sexuality and votes against it.

RJP3 said "It is amazing that people dont understand that if you have gay sex and vote against gay rights you deserve to have your hypocrisy exposed."

So because someone is gay, they should completely adhere to the gay agenda? Wouldn't it be possible (assuming Sen. Craig IS gay) for him to not think same-sex marriages are a good idea? Does that mean that every black person should support the NAACP agenda? Or every female should support NOW's agenda? Every teacher support NEA's agenda? Again, assuming the Senator actually IS gay, isn't he allowed to have opinions that differ from the gay community in general?

Ms Kuraitis wrote:
"The hypocrisy is what makes it a story"

Sorry Jill, but you know that's bunk. Mike Rogers is an internet troll; He actively pursues gossip to harm REPUBLICANS. Just because he gossips on the Ed Schultz show, doesnt mean you have to run this story.

This is a story because of the "gay sex" angle; If "Hypocrisy" was the standard for making the paper, your daily paper would be the size of the NYC phone book. Shame on you.

This is not similar to Gary Hart's dare to catch him if you can, so dont trot out the ol' Tom Fiedler defense.

Stay Classy, Idaho.

You and your stupid paper are despicable. Slandering innocent people, and even if they did do what you allege, what business is it of your. You should be jailed and the key thrown away.

PEOPLE HE HAS NOT BEEN WRONG YET (Mike Rodgers). Many Married men have sex with men grow up. Watch OPRAH sometime and catch up with society. She has had this on her show before

Let me get this straight (no pun intended): Republicans are accused of discrimination against gays if they keep gays off their staff and accused of hypocrisy if they have gays on their staff yet still believe marriage, by definition, is a union between a man and a woman.

w3: Short answer: yes. Longer answer: Republicans are accused of hypocrisy if they demonize the so-called "homosexual agenda" and insist that gays are unfit parents and social deviants, when in fact they themselves are secretly flaming queers who take every opportunity to get hot and heavy with other guys in sticky glory-hole action.

***"The Right seems to be obsessed with the subject of homosexuality"

Funny, the only reason it comes up is because the socially maladjusted, but oh-so-compassionate left keeps outing gay people. You aren't fooling anyone there, big guy.

***"Senator Craig has a very long voting record supporting abrogation of the civil rights of gay Americans."

Interesting that you didn't see fit to mention even a single instance of such. I really don't think that you are to this, but if you care to list a few instances I'll bite. Just make sure that they are relevant to the issue and not merely subjectively described as "abrogation of the civil rights of gays". For example, gay marriage would not qualify, because its status as a "civil rights" issue is entirely subjective, and, in fact, is rejected by most Americans.

It is of public interest if Larry Craig is homosexual and engages in sex with men unknown to him.

Why? Because that would mean Craig is a hypocrite and a liar. That would mean he espouses "family values" as a cheap political tactic and that he does not deserve to remain in office.

Hey pat armas-

New West didn't break the story. If you read the whole story above you'd find that the Ed Schultz Radio show did. You should be locked up until you push through some of that ignorance of yours.

Pardon me; but wasn't Senator Craig elected to vote the wishes of his CONSTITUENTS versus his own personal beliefs?

If he feels differently than his consituents do about gay matters; HE STILL HAS THE OBLIGATION TO VOTE FOR HIS CONSTITUENTS INTERESTS.

I'm cracking up over those who pull the "wishes of his constituents" card. Puh-leeze. Ever sent an Idaho politician a letter stating your opinion--an opinion he or she doesn't happen to share? You'll get a letter back telling you why YOUR opinion is wrong and why he/she isn't going to value it, much less let it influence their votes.

And to DaveS, just because gay marriage isn't an issue to you doesn't mean it isn't a valid civil liberty.

Excellent point beckon, it's called 'the will of the people'. If the 'people' ever decide that they want same sex marriages, it would be our legislators' obligation to vote for it.

Chris said "Watch OPRAH sometime and catch up with society. She has had this on her show before"

Uh, Chris, get up off the couch and live a little... Though you may not like to hear it, Oprah is not the be-all and end-all of society.

Sheesh.

It must be the Left sponsoring all those constitutional amendments to "protect" Gerry Studd's husband from being able to access the deceased congressman's pension....right? Who exactly do con-servatives think they are kidding here? You have a senator who railed against the civil rights of adult Americans, including while allegedly engaging in the same activity and likely adultery. Why is it that the Right is never obsessed about their own sins, like dishonesty, but are so eager to legislate and control the lives of others?

So, Jill , you are telling us the timing of this story has nothing to do with the November Elections ?
,

Do you morons realize those most of the Democrats voted against DOMA as well? Where are the Democrat outings at if this is not partisan nonsense? Mike Rogers is a partisan who's using gay outings for political purposes, period. I'll hold my breath for you to string him up like these other people.

Hypocrites, every last person who supports this psychopath. You claim for equal rights and then claim people don't have their own rights because they are Republican, or believe differently than you? Insanity.

The new KKK in all it's militant glory ladies and gentlemen. Pat yourselves on the back for embracing everything you claim to hate and becoming the worst bigots of our day.

big‧ot‧ry  /ˈbɪgətri/
–noun, plural -ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

dalewalt wrote:
"Wouldn't it be possible (assuming Sen. Craig IS gay) for him to not think same-sex marriages are a good idea?"

Yes. His own sexual preference and behavior does seem relevant to the political issue though. Stating that "I am gay and I oppose same-sex marriage because X, Y and Z" is a different political stand than "I oppose same-sex marriage because X, Y and Z," and a VERY different stand than (I am secretly gay and) "I oppose etc."

Wiretapping terrorists = unacceptable

waterboarding terrorists to prevent attacks on our country = unacceptable

outing gay conservatives = great!

I find it disgusting that the left is more interested in protecting the rights of terrorists than gays who dare to think differently than them. Beware gays, think the correct thoughts or the gay gestapo will punish you. Nice to know who the left truly thinks of as their enemy: Conservatives.

Well, then how about "I oppose same-sex marriage because X, Y, and Z, and the majority of my constituents tell me the same thing".

It seems that liberals are quick to shout "Sexual preference shouldn't matter. Race shouldn't matter. Gender shouldn't matter." (Points with which I agree). Well, does it matter? Or doesn't it? An elected official should not take into account his own personal preferences when voting on policy decisions. And his/her own preferences SHOULDN'T BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT when he/she states those preferences.

The only reason Senator Craig's preference and behavior "... seem(s) relevant to the political issue" is because some in the public are MAKING it relevant. Personally, I don't give a darn WHAT a politician's personal preferences are... I vote (or not vote) for him/her based on whether they'll 'do my bidding'. If they will, I'll vote for them. If not, then I won't.

Is there something wrong with serving your constituency now?

Even though only Idahoans vote for (or against) him, it's not hard to make the argument that as a US Senator, Larry Craig's constituency goes beyond the borders of his home state.

"Even though only Idahoans vote for (or against) him, it's not hard to make
the argument that as a US Senator, Larry Craig's constituency goes beyond
the borders of his home state."

Not hard at all... only Idahoans vote for (or against) Sen. Craig, so his votes should chiefly reflect the views/wishes/wants/needs of Idahoans on matters that do not affect national security or the national economy. But, disregarding that, the view of the majority of US citizens is that same-sex marriage should not be legalized; hence your point falls of it's own weight.

Wiretapping terrorists = unacceptable

Find one Democrat who says wiretapping terrorists is unacceptable. Just one. And I'll denounce him as loudly as you.

It's wiretapping anyone you want to - with no accountability - that we object to. Just show us some evidence that a potential wiretap target may be a terrorist. What's so hard about that? After all, you must have at least some legitimate reason to suspect that this person is a terrorist if you want to wiretap him, right?

waterboarding terrorists to prevent attacks on our country = unacceptable

Waterboarding is torture. Torture is a) always morally wrong, and b) (in case you have no morals to appeal to) ineffective. Just because it works on 24 doesn't mean sh*t.

Here endeth the free meal for the trolls.

only Idahoans vote for (or against) Sen. Craig, so his votes should chiefly reflect the views/wishes/wants/needs of Idahoans on matters that do not affect national security or the national economy.

Why differentiate "matters that do not affect national security or the national economy" from those that do? What's the difference in your eyes, and why should Craig's vote not "chiefly reflect the views/wishes/wants/needs of Idahoans" on security or economic matters?

Well, at least the New West had their DNC Fax Machine on this morning.
,,,

WOW, the conservative comments on this post are hilarious.

Let me clear some stuff up for yall.

1. If you think this story is getting press because "being gay is wrong" you're totally off the mark.
2. Being a gay-hating republican while being gay is the question, sheds light on the hypocrisy of Republican "values" . . . as in "there are none."
3. If he's right, this blogger is doing your community a service because having a LIAR in political office is generally not good practice.

How was it determined that Studds' "spouse" was a husband, rather than a wife?

1982 Larry Craig denial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZXaaFbo6Oo&eurl;=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RntWGPEjoo&eurl;=

Craig, a middle-aged bachelor at the time, is the most adamant about being innocent! The gay child prostitution ring making late night visits to the first Bush White House were quickly glossed over by the Reagan administration.

And so it goes.

http://www.thelawparty.org/FranklinCoverup/franklin.htm

The interesting twist to the emerging Sen. Craig being OUTED as Gay story is that he was involved with male Page(s) back at the same time as (the recently deceased) Rep. Studds, who had an affair with 17 year old teen male. Why did Craig avoid censure back then and why has the GOP covered this up for over 20+ years? So now he gets OUTED for having sex with men in restrooms - this story might become huge!

"I'm not gay, my boyfriend is!"

If Craig wants to go on pretending he's straight, his "wife" doesn't mind, his constituents keep electing him, and the Republican party doesn't mind that their whole infrastructure is supported by people they hate, then what's the problem? He can keep hating himself, and the gay community can keep hating him.

But as of today, it will all be out in the light. The lies and attacks against his own people have been shown for what they are, and if he continues on this path, he'll never be respected by anyone ever again.

A witch-hunt, like what is going on in the GOP, will hurt the very body it is intended to "clense". Now, anyone can start calling members of Congress Gay, even the straight ones, and the GOP "accused" will have to defend themselves from their own pogrom. Congratulations to the Party of Hate.

Joe said "and the Republican party doesn't mind that their whole infrastructure is supported by people they hate"

This is *really* a tired argument. Can you please tell me how, for mainstream conservatives, opposing legalization of same-sex marriage equates to hating the gay community? If that line of reasoning is true, then you, sir, who apparently does not agree with conservative thought, must hate all conservatives. Is that true? That just because you don't agree with someones' views you apparently hate them? Except for far-right nuts like Phelps, can you really point to any leading conservative figures who hate gays?

Please, if you do nothing else, answer my question about whether or not you hate conservatives. While you're at it, do you agree with the legalization of marijuana? If so, does that mean you hate anybody who opposes it? Or is it just conservatives who "hate" those they disagree with?

This is the problem I have with Craig (and other closet republicans).. He exploits the gay community by enjoying the sexual aspect of the community, yet, he can turn around and write or support legislation that denies the gay community the very equal rights and protections under the law that he enjoys as a "straight" man with "two beautiful children". The hypocrisy reeks. I am totally in support of the outing of ANY individual, republican or democrat, who may act to deny equal rights to a segment of the population they in-turn, exploit. Jeff Gannon was one of those also. This is like a racist senator having nookie on the side with his black maid or mistress.
Same parallell.

First. your right. most dems did vote against DOMA, which sought to limit the rights of gay americans.

Second, I live in DC where lots of gay people adopt children and the residents are very accepting of gays. Larry Craig voted to ban gay adoption in DC. The residents of DC are not his constituants. Of course, if you think being gay is about sucking dick in a public restroom then I can understand why. If you think being gay is about who you fall in love with then you will feel differantly.

If a politician is going to gain votes by denigrating gay people, then his hypocrisy should be pointed out.

Keeping same-sex marriage illegal maintains the second-class status of gay citizens. It's done without rational basis, using the most tired of all arguments, and is indistinguishable from hate.

Places like the right-wingnut Hot Air have been screaming that Craig has Three kids, nine grandkids.

Michael Rogers points out:

In the wake of the Congressional sex and drug scandal of 1982 (see the video in yesterday's post), he married his staffer Suzanne Scott and adopted her kids.

Hey, being gay doesn't make you a bad person. It only makes one a bad person to the zipperheads who vote for Larry Craig, because in their totalitarian world view, everyone should live according to their ideals (even though they themselves never have....it's always do as I say, not as I do)

If the Right is this stupid, they are in for some big trouble. If there is nothing wrong being gay for them, then there should be no problem. This man passes anti-gay legislation, blasts homosexuals, and has the so-called values voters in his back pocket. He has every right to be outted. He is condemning what he himself involves in. This is not dirty politics, this is reality. It would be the same as someone having an affair while championing "family values". Hypocrisy lives, and it's home is the Republican Party. I seriously believe that the Republicans were born next to some nuclear power plant, because they have absolutely no common sense, nor do they have any social skills or social understanding. The more they try to make this "dirty" the more out of touch they appear to the rest of the public. They still don't understand the distinction between child predator and homosexual. They are socially and fundamentally retarded, and as they were blasting Bill Clinton for have a consensual affair and made it as if he committed treason, you know, like outting the CIA, they were busy sexually molesting under aged pages, and having affairs up and down the aisle. It's time to wipe the board clear of these morons and get people in with more than a double digit IQ. Out every last one of the hypocrites. Any time a person acts holier than thou, be afraid, be very afraid. 10 to 1 they will be a Republican.

Seeing the Right run around like chickens without their heads tickles me. They have been doing this shit for years, except when they did it, they lied, or manipulated the facts. Now exactly what they were doing all those years has come back to haunt them. Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch. And by the way, BlogActive has outted the hypocrites FOR YEARS NOW. They have an unbelievable track record, and just for your info, Rogers left with some final words, he has tons more.

The righties in this thread are all trying to argue the exact same point, which nobody seems to be addressing: that being gay is a choice.

Being gay is not a choice, it's a biological trait. So, no, this is not at all like somebody, who occasionally lies, voting to make lying under oath illegal--unless, of course, that person is a pathological liar, in which case you'd probably not want him/her to represent you in Congress.

A much more appropriate analogy would be a person of color being a spokesman for a white supremacist group that lobbies for legislation denying specific rights to non-white citizens.

dalewalt continues
"...Personally, I don't give a darn WHAT a politician's personal preferences are... I vote (or not vote) for him/her based on whether they'll 'do my bidding'. If they will, I'll vote for them. If not, then I won't."

An interesting notion, to be sure. I can't remember any campaigns based on candidates promising to do their constituents' bidding better than the other guy or gal. In the age of poll-driven campaigns, candidates and their teams do seem to approach the ideal of the automoton pass-through you seem to be looking for, but the general scheme of things is that they state their positions and the ones who best match the voters win.

I've written a lot of letters to Congresscritters over the years, and I have NEVER had a response that suggested my view was being weighed along with the rest of the district/state and would affect the person's position or voting. In all recent cases, I have simply been treated to the boilerplate statement on the particular issue--either they ignore my input and state their different position and why they hold it, or they ignore my input and state our common position on the issue and why they hold it.

Representative democracy means we elect representatives: persons of integrity who we can count on to act in line with our interests. (And hence the problem with campaign-finance democracy: the people and corporations who contribute the most to the re-election fund get THEIR interests protected better than the majority of people represented.)

I love the Right on here trying to say, but Craig like most Republicans (yeah, right), keeps his private life to himself, and to them, their private lives aren't a big deal. Again, the hypocrisy, the hypocrisy. These people are in everyone's bedrooms getting involved in everyone's lives. Conservatives only stop social services, and give it to their corporate buddies, WHILE EXPANDING THE GOVERNMENT INTO EVERYONE'S BUSINESS. Everything from school prayer, to abortion, to the FCC, to family values, to gays and lesbians, they are involved in everything that is personal, and now they're spying on everyone, even our bank receipts. These guys are the biggest hypocrites who ever lived.

Voting against gay marriage while being gay or have gay sex yourself is hypocrisy, but we don't even need to go into that, this man has blasted homosexuals, is in line with the value voters, and will vote for any any-gay legislation put in front of him.

Keep trying to manipulate Repubs, because your time is up, and the public already knows who you really are, incompetent boobs, who only want to expand government into all our lives, to the point where they are literally telling us, when to eat, sleep, and breath.

I love the Right on here trying to say, but Craig like most Republicans (yeah, right), keeps his private life to himself, and to them, their private lives aren't a big deal. Again, the hypocrisy, the hypocrisy. These people are in everyone's bedrooms getting involved in everyone's lives. Conservatives only stop social services, and give it to their corporate buddies, WHILE EXPANDING THE GOVERNMENT INTO EVERYONE'S BUSINESS. Everything from school prayer, to abortion, to the FCC, to family values, to gays and lesbians, they are involved in everything that is personal, and now they're spying on everyone, even our bank receipts. These guys are the biggest hypocrites who ever lived.

Voting against gay marriage while being gay or having gay sex yourself is hypocrisy, but we don't even need to go into that, this man has blasted homosexuals, is in line with the value voters, and will vote for any anti-gay legislation put in front of him.

Keep trying to manipulate Repubs, because your time is up, and the public already knows who you really are: incompetent boobs, who only want to expand government into all our lives, to the point where they are literally telling us, when to eat, sleep, and breath.

And while we're on the subject, that other lying sack of shit, Matt Drudge is gay, and got married in a sham marriage for a day to prove that he wasn't. It wasn't until David Brock or mediamatters.org published the e-mails of Drudge begging him for a date that the truth came out.

For the people who aren't gay on here, let me fill you in on something, gays know these guys if they are in big cities. Not all gays, but gays know the people that will show up to social functions, especially when it's things like say, gay bars. They know these guys better than everyone, and I'm telling you, if they say they know them, and tell you where they talked to them and how many times they showed up crusing for dates, they are telling the truth and are not wrong. Just a little tip for the future. Blogactive shows up to the log cabin functions and has always reported on the closeted hypocrisy.

GOP hatemongers like Ann Coulter and Michael Savage lowered the bar a long time ago, and the Dems have been way to forbearing in their response--until now. Seems to me that the right wing is a bunch of babyheads who can dish it out but can take it. Cry louder little conservative. Most of the country is getting a good laugh at your expense.

One point missed here is that all the conservatives above are all reacting as if being outed as gay was slander. They are all reacting as if Craig being callede gay was a personal assault. Why is this? You all act as if there is something wrong with being gay, as if the mere allegation were a huge slander. Gosh, it's not like your hatred and bigotry is on display is it?

Why would Sen. Craig need to keep any activity under cover anyway? After all, if it isn't shameful to engage in homosexual activity, what would be the point of covering it up? Seems like the Right wants to have their cake and eat it too - they value privacy when it's about one of their own, yet haul out every faded dress from an oral encounter in the White House as some poster child for immoral behavior.

Dave S. - take a trip down memory lane and, to start with, look over the videotapes of Craig's press conferences during the last big page scandal involving sexual relations. There is also plenty of legislation Craig has voted against, including the federal non-discrimination employment law and hate crimes legislation.

As for the marriage issue, when has any straight person cared about whether the rest of the town "wants them to get married" when they propose?

Hmm, nice try Sam. Except I don't recall anybody's comments here (esp. mine) as meaning that being outed was slander. What we're discussing here is the hatred being displayed towards the Senator "ooh, he votes against same sex marriage, so he must hate gays, but now he's gay". My point all along has been that just because he voted against same-sex marriage does not imply that he hates gays. Oughta watch that "all the conservatives" stuff.

Nobody else has had the guts to directly answer my question; Tom sorta kinda danced around it, so I'll ask you:

"Wouldn't it be possible (assuming Sen. Craig IS gay) for him to not think same-sex marriages are a good idea? Does that mean that every black person should support the NAACP agenda? Or every female should support NOW's agenda? Every teacher support NEA's agenda? Again, assuming the Senator actually IS gay, isn't he allowed to have opinions that differ from the gay community in general?"

So, yes or no Sam... assuming the Senator IS gay, isn't he allowed to have opinions that differ from the gay community in general?

Idaho Sen. Larry Craig is a good representative. He is not promoting or supporting people like Nancy Palosi and her ilk do at the annual San Francisco Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Pride Celebration, where Pelosi marched with the late Harry Hay, a fierce advocate of man/boy love (remember NABLA, the "yecht" group strongly supported by the ACLU, unAmerican group).

Harry's statement: "Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world."

The "Do Nothing, Protect Nothing Democrats" don't need any votes!

I've only be in the state three years, but NONE of my friends who have lived hear their whole lives are suprised by this. There have been rumors of Craig's gayness for YEARS. I smell a cover-up.

The poor guy. He's like the living embodiment of "Brokeback Mountain."

The closeted gay cowboy!

"I can't quit you, Jack!"

"But you're a U.S. Senator, Larry!"

Old Timer - if you are interested in man-boy associations, I suggest you check out the con-servative elements of the Catholic Church, followed by the scores of documented cases of rightwingers and evangelicals accused of molesting children.

If these allegations are true, Senator Larry Craig might seem like a good representative to YOU, but then it also means you don't mind having a dishonest man and an adulterer representing your "moral" values. So essentially you don't mind demanding that gay Americans be treated as second class citizens, but wandering het/bi/gays with an apparent record of deception about their own moral behavior are just fine and dandy.

And Dalewalt - have you read anything about this subject? That question of yours is not only ridiculous, but irrelevant to the conversation. Do some research and you'll find your answers.

Kevin, explain why you think the question is ridiculous and irrelevant. Many people here have put forth the opinion that if you vote against legalizing same-sex marriages then you hate gays and is hypocritical. Do YOU believe that? And if so, then my original question stands. Afraid to answer it?

I guess the gist of the matter is this: Liberal gays want to get married and raise kids. Conservative gays want to stay in the closet and do kids.

All of these ridiculous attempts to rationalize outing a gay person are pretty much irrelevant anyway. Most of the country is certainly disgusted by this behavior (even the "values voters" that you think you are turning off). This entire ordeal simply reinforces what a lot of us already know... the "hard-left" is largely uneducated, very immature, and doesn't understand the dynamics of American politics.

As evidenced by many of the comments here, this politically ignorant portion of the leftist vote has a fundamentally flawed understanding of their opponents' beliefs--not that they care (or have the intellectual prowess) to understand nuanced ideas in the first place... This sort of elementary school behavior, rationalized using elementary school logic, is going to cause a MAJOR backlash.

***"And to DaveS, just because gay marriage isn't an issue to you doesn't mean it isn't a valid civil liberty."

And just because someone MAY be gay doesn't mean that gay marriage is "an issue to [him]", or that he thinks it is a "valid civil liberty".

Of course you know that. You (and the rest of these uneducated, intellectually feeble leftists) know that the logic you are using is horribly flawed--embarrasing, actually. The fact is, quite simply, that the left doesn't care about gay people or about civil rights... they actually enjoy belittling them (and minorities, etc.), but love to use them as pawns in their big, immature political game. The way you treat gays is abhorrent.

Anyone want to make a guess on how much prison time Mike Rogers gets, assuming Craig pursues his legal optios? Extortion of a US Senator is not a laughing matter.

Hey Idahoans - I envy you guys for the beauty of your state - must be like heaven!

I am a Democrat but that shouldn't matter - Hastert's coverup of the Page affair is inexcusable and if he were a Democrat I'd say the same thing.

With regards to your Senator you should consider the rationale here. This guy consistently votes against Homosexual rights yets engages in homosexual behavior. Now, Craig may be a good guy, I have nothing against homosexuals myself.

This is about hypocrisy. Whoever represents your state you want them to be honest and open. If Craig is homosexual, which it appears, this information could have been used against him if he didn't vote in a certain way, etc.

Demand honesty and openess from your reps. And these things won't happen. Good luck - looks like you guys are in for a snow-filled winter!

dalewalt wants to know:
"Wouldn't it be possible (assuming Sen. Craig IS gay) for him to not think same-sex marriages are a good idea?"

Your lack of a response has nothing to do with the lack of courage or dancing around the issue. I thought your question was not a useful avenue of discussion.

Yes, it would be possible. And no to all your other rhetorical strawman questions. We don't expect any member of Blank to support the Blank agenda for two reasons: (1) people are not organizations, and (2) "the Blank agenda" is anti-Blank mythology, hoisted for the convenience of pillorying Blanks.

On a related topic, I just heard a piece on the radio talking about post-nuptial agreements, and how some folks have come to closer relationships after having negotiated same. The commentator said "Marriage has a legal element, and a romantic element...." He didn't mention the procreative element, which of course many don't have, nor religious element... some being Forever and all.

It got me to thinking: why is it exactly that the government should have anything to say about romantic relationships beyond protecting those too young to make an independent decision? And why exactly is it that government should favor some kinds of consensual partners over others for approving legal relationships?

DaveS: hard to see a real argument in all that name-calling.
Top picks:
"ridiculous attempts to rationalize"
"hard-left"
"largely uneducated, very immature"
"politically ignorant"
"fundamentally flawed understanding"
"not that they care (or have the intellectual prowess) to understand nuanced ideas in the first place..."
"elementary school behavior"
"You (and the rest of these uneducated, intellectually feeble leftists)"
"they actually enjoy belittling them"
"their big, immature political game"

Those thems, they're nasty.

You show us your nuance, and we'll show you ours.

Tom, you're right, it is possible. Yet many people (and most of the anti-Senator Craig commenters here) insist that Sen. Craig is hypocritical and hates-gays-because-he-voted-against-same-sex-marriages.

Yes, it's a shame that the Senator, if he is indeed gay, felt he needed to hide the fact. But if he IS gay, and he is TRULY against same sex marriages, that does not make him hypocritical. And just because any person is against same-sex marriages, it doesn't follow that they hate gays.

i've never understood this: whenever has an abortion been administered, or a marriage certified, in somebody's bedroom.

i realize that the typical wording is that republicans are always in "everybody's bedroom", so maybe "everybody's bedroom" is another clever rhetorical transformation of private space into public domain, like the title of hilliary clinton's book, "it takes a villiage to raise a child" or "the benevolent state beaurocracy has more rights over your child than its parents" or whatever it was called.

dalewalt, don't you understand? white progressives OWN gays. just like progressives own women and own blacks. they're subject to harsh reprisals if the become willfull and disobedient.

and on dark painful nights, when the progressives throw open the door and come stumbling in from the rain, smelling of steamed milk and cardemum seeds, and press against you with their insistent demands to submit - submit or else, goddammit! - well, sometimes the only way to survive the night is to lay there silent while they have their way with your husk.

Kudos to Jill for presenting the story in a responsible way. The MSM tends to cover such up, and it's up to the blogosphere to at least give it an airing.

I'm impressed with the balance; the second paragraph gives Craig's response. Suppressing such stories discredits the media. This is not a story about Craig being gay, exactly, but it is about a credible individual bringing a charge that if true ought to be part of the discussion.

I don't see this as airing scurrilous allegations without basis to smear someone. The article makes clear that Rogers hasn't produced a witness willing to go public. Also, this isn't the October before Craing's re-elction, i.e., it's not an October surprise.

Thisis an example of how/why the blogosphere serves an important role. Kudos also to New West for running the story.

Ahh..Dave S. When in doubt, reach for the memorized baiting cliches that have become the tired and old whining tools of the Right.

When was the last time a heterosexual public official campaigned against hetero marriage and the special rights attached that are seen as civil liberties? Hmm...since married households are now the MINORITY in this country, isn't it time some public official represented the interests of those who are not/don't want/cannot marry and the way they are categorically discriminated against by their own government?

Isn't this the same guy who wanted to bring 500,000 illegal immigrants to work the farms in the mid-west and Idaho. GUESS WE KNOW WHAT HE HAD IN MIND WITH ALOT OF THEM

I'm a progresive Democrat from Texas. I am more than bit queasy with the tactics of this man. The fact that he has never been wrong in the past is irrelevant to me when it comes to the invasion of a public servant's privacy. However, it is the attitude and persistent gay bashing of the Republican party that motivates people like Rogers. I'm not saying that makes me entirely comfortable with what he does, but it does in some respects explain it. If the Republicans said that consensual same sex relationships were private matters to be decided between consenting adults, I think the vast majority of the public would come down on this slime ball like a ton of bricks. But becuase of the pandering that the Republicans do (largely insincere, if you judge by the number of gay staffers they have in Washington) for the religious nuts, they can't say that when I supsect that is what they really believe in their heart.

All that being said, no matter whether the allegations are true or not, this must be painful for the Senator and his family. They have my sympathy. Hopefully, after all the dust settles, perhaps we can all learn the many benefits of tolerance and acceptance over hate and division.

There have been widespread rumors floating around Idaho for years of Larry Craig being gay and having an arranged marriage of political convenience to quell the rumors, etc. I've always been proud of us as Idahoans for not letting these rumors surface in political campaigns. I'm sorry this has happened now. From my political perspective there are many good reasons to vote Larry Craig out of office but his sexual preference is not one of them.

What's so healthy about having anonymous gay sex in a public toilet?

hey, wayne, do you have any idea how offensive the term "sexual preference" is?? probably not, but its not about sexual orientation, but hypocrisy, and not standing still while farcical "religious" bigots attempt to limit the rights of tax paying gay citizens.

The dirty Republicans who engage in sneaky sexual activity with young males are like that of the vampire, they feed off of the essence of the male seed, it has nothing to do with being gay, its about energy and feeding off of a power source- the young healthy male. its a delicacy for the wealthy elite men. Gay people want to have a transparent life, these people are not Gay, they are energy vampires. And very sick people and I hope all of these perverts are exposed for who and what they are Deceptors and Liars. Laughing at the stupidy of the good old boys who are too dumb to see thru their lies. Wake up Zombies our country is being destroyed, not by Gays, but by corporate whores and pimps drunk on power.

Uh, Patrick, you need to back off a bit on the Blade episodes.

Mike M. said "All that being said, no matter whether the allegations are true or not, this must be painful for the Senator and his family. They have my sympathy. Hopefully, after all the dust settles, perhaps we can all learn the many benefits of tolerance and acceptance over hate and division."

Well said, Mike, well said.

I agree, Mike - I'm sure this is a painful situation for the Senator and his family. But then again, if the reports are true that he engaged in public activity, it isn't an invasion of privacy. He has a responsibility for his actions, just like anyone else. A decade ago, when I lived in South Carolina, the local newspaper had no problem printing the names of people who were caught having sex in a rest area - even if it meant some were exposed as engaging in homosexual relations and they would lose their jobs. Why should Senator Craig be treated any differently? If anything, the hypocrisy is in the public shilling of one "moral" position while engaging in it personally - and that is disturbing. And when people are forced to keep things hidden, it is always uncomfortable when it sees the light of day.

Mike M. said, "If the Republicans said that consensual same sex relationships were private matters to be decided between consenting adults, I think the vast majority of the public would come down on this slime ball like a ton of bricks."

Very well said, Mike.

I can see why the term 'sexual preference' is offensive to gays and will try to delete it from my vocabulary.

Larry Craig has been hypocritical in his positions on reform of public land mining laws, bankruptcy reform, and illegal immigration. If he is gay and has an anti gay voting record it should surprise no one. I can understand why many gays are angered by such hypocrisy and feel justified in exposing it. The outing of Democrat or Republican politicians is a distasteful practice, however, and I worry about its use for purely partisan political reasons.

Dale - stop grasping at straws and do your homework. All this posting and you apparently have no idea about the history of Sen. Craig's votes on issues affecting the gay community.

Kevin, stop reading things in to what I'm saying and read my posts. I don't care how the Senator has voted... my point all along has been that IF he's gay, him not voting for same-sex marriage is not necessarily hypocritical and doesn't show a hatred of gays.

Answer this question... is it possible that the Senator is gay AND doesn't believe in same-sex marriage? Would that position be acceptable to you?

Being gay, and voting against the rights of your own people is hypocritical. It would be like a black representative voting against the civil rights and voting rights acts in the 1960s. Dale, your argument is indefensible.

Oh let me get this straight-- Outing a closeted republican homosexual Senator who has sex in public restrooms is not okay; outing a extra-marital affiar of a democrat president is okay?

Double standards?

oh, on OldTimer's argument-- that if you march in the same parade as someone else, that means you agree with them is so flawed, it's laughable. By his same logic, we can say that since OldTimer lived in the same country as Harry Hay, he obviously supports Nambla.

BTW, Nambla, according to Wikipedia, doesn't really exist anymore.

Dalewalt - if you've done any research on this issue, you'd know that question has been answered time and time again. This story isn't about unrelated hypotheticals that you dream up to deflect from the reality of this matter. Either do the proper homework, or stop trying to play journalist with the interview questions.

It is rather obvious that, if these allegations are true, the Senator doesn't believe too much in any marriage. . .or at least the kind being touted by con-servatives as sacred and "traditional." Unless, of course, that tradition involves committing adultery or allegedly engaging in public sexual activity with someone outside the marriage. Is it possible for a heterosexual committing adultery to be in favor of "protecting" marriage?

As a conservative that believes homosexuality is either a Divine or Darwinian way of keeping inferior genes from being passed to another generation expressly states that my belief is that for many homosexualality is not chosen behavior, it is simply survival of the fittest.

Years ago I grew up in a college town with a very active gay students union and I knew many, it was clear that they physically lacked the hormones or genes to achieve heterosexuality. Since it was clear they had no choice in the matter I have no prejudice against them.

In the ensuing years since gays have become so belligerent I have a growing distaste for gay activists (activism, a chosen behavior). As a conservative the message I am getting from this thread is that if Republicans wish to not have their gay legislators thrown out of office between elections that maybe due to the tactics of the left that maybe conservative’s shouldn’t elect homosexuals in the first place. A step backwards for gays I would think.

Gay activists aren’t immoral because they are gay; they are immoral for their tactics.

I have voted for Larry Craig every time he has run and on most issues has served me well except for his stand on amnesty for illegal aliens I have recently come out against him and this possible outing will make the homophobes of Craig’s constituency oust him so we can get a conservative who will protect our borders, a result that most of you liberals will detest.

I think the shoe will drop on another fabulous representative that is gay (I dare not mention his name) so you liberals can be proud of how you can win in a hog trough when you can’t win at the ballot box.

I hate you gay activists more and more every day. Maybe this Darwinian or Divine culling does more than phase out the week ones, it phases out the hateful ones as well.

The Republiars are the ones pretending to hold the high moral values in congress to get the christine sheep to vote for them.That alone is grounds for exposing these hypocrites.Vote the sneaks out.

Which sounds better to you .."I did not have sex with that woman"
or the new GOP mantra "I did not have sex with that boy".
People who fabricate reasons to kill hundreds of thousands of people deserve a lot worse that mere name calling.
Why isn't Hastturd in jail?

"I hate you gay activists more and more every day. "

Let me get this straight. It's okay for Republicans to out an affair by a president; but, it's immoral for "gay activists" to out a closet case who has sex in public restrooms and meets men online, all the while voting against any and all rights for people like himself.

Is the GOP just a bunch of hypocrites? So much for your "high moral values." I laugh at them.

Devoted Gay sons will take care of their elderly parents, the sensitivity and compassion is not always found in the male heterosexual, they want to put them in a nursing home so they can be cared for by strangers and not take away from the straight sons quest for making money and not having the burden of touchy feely that the gay boys do so well. I dont know about Larry Craig, I hope he will live his life with honesty of who and what he is, a homosexual who wont challenge the "lies" of the claims by Rogers. What a sad double life this creature must live to be what others want him to be, and not being true to who he was made as. I'am so glad the lies and deceptions of the GOP are being exposed, its like God is casting a Light on all of the lies. Amen!

Daryl Hunter - What a twisted example of poor critical thinking skills. Perhaps you have a theory that might embrace how con-servatives seem to have such a Napoleon complex that they desperately need to explain away other American citizens as "inferior" (either genetically or otherwise) and that heterosexuality is something to "achieve" - as if heteros have done something to earn their special rights status which required work and effort. Don't make me laugh.

The continued attempt to deflect from the idea that perhaps dishonesty might not be a good character trait in our elected members of Congress seems to deliberately escape your mind - but perhaps we should conduct studies which consider that to be some sort of inferior genetic trait of con-servatives. . .something they just can't really help so we don't have to "hate" them - we just need to consider whether they are legally capable of making health decisions or marriage decisions in their own lives, despite their contention that they somehow possess a golden peepee.

I can imagine why gay "activists" annoy you so much - how dare any American citizen, let alone a taxpaying, productive, law-abiding one, actually expect they should have the right to honor their loved ones by being protected in pensions, insurance and arranging their own funerals? How could you not possibly hate another American citizen who believes they should have the right to designate someone to make health decisions for them, or ride in the ambulance with a partner? Why...that is the exclusive domain of the people with the golden peepee who are just genetically superior because they pass on the genes of con-servative nonsense.

Only a con-servative would believe that, if con-servatives would stop electing dishonest, closet-case gay legislators who are being accused of having sex in a public place, it would be a step back for the rights of gay Americans. That twisted reasoning points to the heart of con-servative thought - deception, manipulation, and criminal activity are all fine traits as long as the representative votes the "right" way. Kinda blows away any of that little "moral and family values" argument.

And it sure doesn't do much for the con-servative flag-waving claims of undying loyalty and patriotism to America, either.

Chris - Paula Jones files a civil suit against Clinton in U.S. District Court in Little Rock, Arkansas for ``willful, outrageous and malicious conduct'' at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock on May 8, 1991. Her court papers accuse Clinton of ``sexually harassing and assaulting'' her, then defaming her with denials.

White House volunteer Kathleen Willey, and Monica Lewinski, were a part of the Jones investigation to establish a pattern of behavior. Jerry Seper of The Washington Times wrote a book "The Missing Clinton Women” listing a dozen women he exposed himself to, fondled, assaulted or sexually harassed. There are many more victims of Mr. Clinton's predations who have chosen not to publicly reveal themselves, and many more still who willingly participated.

Juanita Broaddrick (video) accused him of rape.

Patterns of behavior are sought each day in court; it is part of the judicial process. If Bill Clinton’s proven predatory behavior is OK with you, it is also a reflection on you.

I have yet to see any proof of a pattern of behavior to lead me to believe that the alleged public restroom accusation has any validity. What was the name of the accuser of the Union Station incident? Anonymous huh.

Kevin – “Achieve” may have been the wrong word to explain that homosexuals may not possess the numerical hormonal measurement that triggers sexual attraction to an opposite sex that could result in creation of progeny. Sorry that my brevity offended, that was not the intention.

If conservative gays didn’t remain in the closet they would never get elected because of the 30% or so evangelical voting block that as a matter of their faith would never vote for them. Matters of faith can be irrational but inarguably right or wrong it is a factor.

If you want a proclamation from every conservative homosexual of the fact that they are homosexual, by default your condemning civic-minded people that want to help their community and country from ever holding office.

Many conservatives like me are for civil unions even though we are against gay marriage. Gays should be able to ride in the ambulance, make health decisions, funeral arrangements etc. where I have a problem is with the pensions and insurance, gays spoil their loving partner argument with a money grab.

I don’t think that we should exclude homosexuals from the republican party but if gay activists with a chip on their shoulder want to eat your own, homosexuals become a liability between elections therefore because of homosexual activists conservative homosexuals have no political viability. This is a bit regressive for homosexuals, don’t you think?

If most "con-servatives" were for civil unions, they wouldn't be voting for those bogus "protect marriage" constitutional amendments, something that is so drastic an assault on one group of supposedly "equal" citizens that it should make any real conservative pause. But here is one news flash - you can't exclude gays from the Republican Party. Not unless you figure out some other kind of constitutional amendment depriving them of the right to vote and hold office.

Interestingly enough, despite the loud rantings of evangelical nutcases, most states and the federal constitution do not require a religious litmus test to hold public office. The irony in this whole outing scenario is that the very people the alleged "christians" embrace are, perhaps not surprisingly, the most blatant offenders of morality. But someone has apparently found a few bible verses to justify bearing false witness in order to gain and hold power - so how could a Republican fault the dishonesty of a closet-case who was only following the con-servative dream of self-entitlement?

The only ones "eating their own" in this situation are con-servatives, who long ago decided they preferred shallow pretense to honesty and substance. If a "patriot" must be determined solely by the direction his peepee points, then conservatives really never did give a damn about this country. Perhaps this is an opportunity for some real Republicans to come forward and reclaim their party from the lunatics who believed deception and divisiveness would bring the country one step closer to a vengeful God.

Kevin - Surprise surprise, you missed the point, Or several.

1. Endorsing civil unions isn’t endorsing gay marriage.

2. It isn’t republicans that want to exclude gays from public office, it is gay activists that will make it impractical for those in the know to support gays because backstabbing gay activists may someday sabotage them, therefore sabotaging their viability as candidates with a shelf life.

3. Gay activists by their actions are the ones that are going to exclude gays from holding republican elected office by making them unviable.

4. It isn’t just republicans voting for “Marriage Protection Acts”, across the nation these are passing by 70% and better, that includes many democrats.

Daryl - I think you are the one who missed the point. Perhaps you can explain why it seems to be so difficult for a con-servative to become morally attached to the concept of honesty? Truth?

I have to laugh at your deflection attempt - the "backstabbing gay activists may someday sabotage" them" was rich! It's called telling the truth, Daryl - you know, the kind of character that real Americans would like to expect from those who allegedly represent our interests in our government.

Openly gay candidates continue to run. . .and win. . .on the Republican ticket, don't they? And they certainly run and win on the Democratic ticket. Don't you think it's rather telling that a con-servative would advocate deception just to win election, or even attempt to tell other taxpaying American citizens that they can only achieve higher office if they pretend to be white heterosexual men?

Those shoddy little "Marriage Protection Acts" in most cases also prohibit any form of civil union and domestic partnership recognition, and any law which might bestow any kind of benefit or responsibility on an unmarried couple. Since most polls show a majority of Americans support civil unions, are some heterosexuals just too lazy to read the second paragraphs...or sentences of these amendments, or is the claim to support "civil unions" really just a worthless attempt at appearing like a non-bigot? And by the way, not all of those amendments are passing by such large margins - well, except in the reddest of states, where paranoia and fearmongering are welcome as a respite from personal responsibility. Having a group to target sure beats having to look into the mirror. Why, I'd wager con-servatives have spent more time these past few days thinking of angles to protect poor Sen. Craig than they ever did about contemplating the extent of that marriage amendment - so, once again, they'll "protect" an institution that rewards heterosexual murderers and rapists and child abusers and predators as a "God-given golden peepee right" while crowing about how moral they are about protecting the right to make funeral decisions from those immoral adult, lawabiding homosexuals.

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if the people of this country ever had the opportunity to vote on the rights of white heterosexual males - clearly they are a minority in this country. And there is certainly plenty of ammunition to use in demonizing their behavior over the past 230 years. . .hmm..don't ya think that...well, you know, one rapist scandal, a murder or two, a hetero child pedophile scandal, adultery..well..shoot...doesn't that mean that no heterosexual male can be trusted with public office? After all, why should they be treated as individuals when it is clear they continue to struggle with the concept of other citizens being individuals.

Naw Daryl. . .if the Repukes try a witch hunt, it won't be because the gay activists "backstabbed" their own in the closet. It will be the same hypocrisy and the same duplicity and manipulation that has characterized the self-proclaimed "Party of God" for the past six years.

My brother-in-law served on former Idaho Senator McClure's staff back in the late 80s. He often interacted with Craig's staffers outside of work and has told me on several occassions that they confirmed Larry's fondness for male pages. We will never vote against Larry though because of his high ranking and seats on committees where he can help bring home the pork...especially for the INL

Kevin – “white heterosexual males” why do you have to bring race into the discussion?

Since you opened the door and may be anti white as well as anti conservative gay, maybe you will hope as I do that Lynn Swann wins the Gubernatorial race in Pennsylvania, that Ken Blackwell wins his Gubernatorial race in Ohio and Michael S. Steele wins his Senate race in Maryland.

The world will be a finer place with these fine black men leading their states and will be fine role models for young blacks to aspire to.

I have always hoped Alan Keyes would move to Idaho because it would be possible for him to get elected to office here instead of Maryland or Illinois, the Craig seat that spiteful gays probably have opened up might be a good place for Alan Keyes, what do you think?

Its interesting that the Dominate culture always tells you how its gonna be, 10% of the population is Gay so of course the majority of people are going to say NO to Gay Marriages, its not an issue of concern for THEM. And yes the scared White man, who has always been in control is becoming the minority, and the Karmic wheel of justice does roll back around. I hope Larry Craig finds a meaningful relationship with a man, and not just with a hot rent-a-Stud for the weekend. And if he favors the posting of the 10 commandments that he reflect on the one about Adultery. But whatever, he is Idaho's alledged Homosexual Republican that is Loved and Adored by the Mormons and Good Old Boys, proving they can accept a man who "likes" guys. Maybe Idaho will go back to being a Democrat state as it once was.

Daryl - read some American history. There is nothing more annoying than a con-servative claiming to be a patriot who seems to lack any knowledge about his own country. My, how you must yearn for the days when only white male landowners had the right to vote and the rest of us were just property.

If you are hoping for charlatans like Blackwell to win office, there isn't a lick of sense - or honesty, in you. No wonder you advocate the pretension that so permeates the Republican Party as "moral." It seems so characteristic of just another lazy citizen who thinks that waving the flag is his only responsibility to maintain freedom - and then turns around and applauds every criminal, every manipulation, every deception as always justifiable if it supports the Party cause. But heck - as long as their peepee points in the right direction, it's all good.

GOOD OLD LARRY...
NOT to worry..his nuclear friends in Boise will see the ballot boxes are 'appropriately' staffed and 'monitored' to assure we'll be stuck with this hypocrital bozo yet another term!
I'm still going to the CELEBRATION at Democratic Headquarters on election night...if only to celebrate OTHER ..REAL STATES that have less robotic voters than creepy Idaho!

There is nothing inherently wrong with a gay politician. There is, however, something seriously problematic with a politician who lies. Lie about personal sexuality and they will lie about anything. Why focus on Craig? Because his behavior has been obvious for 25 years and his denials are a weak case of smoke and mirrors. And by now we should all recognize the smoke that leads to fire when it comes to our political figures. It's important for voters to know the people who seek their votes. Craig will be seeking that kind of election day support in the near future and it's time we know who he is. The time to expose him for the liar he is is now.

There is no hypocrisy in Craig's action. It would certainly be hypocritical if he were in a gay marraige while voting against it. However, same-sex encounters and and same-sex marraige are not the same thing.

Hey Idahoan-

That is how stupid that jackass is-He thinks that Craig IS running this year.

See what smoking pole does to an IQ?

Craig deserves to be stung up by his big gay balls, along with all the other hypocritcal religious wackjobs out there from Bush on down.

I am going to work on Larry Craig's defeat because he wants to give amnesty to 12 million illegal aleins, it appears that I can count on America's backstabbing homosexuals packing giant chips on their shoulders to help me do so! I guess it is no surprise that you sound like a bunch of catty women.

Update spring 07 ... Larry Craig has not yet announced whether he will run again. Meanwhile