While we have said little about Ted Stevens on this blog, with Bruce offering one mocking post, noting the number of projects named for Alaska’s senior senator he discovered when he visited Anchorage, we have not hesitated to criticize members of our party for continuing to push pork-barrel projects.  I took on then-Senator Trent Lett on his penchant for pork here and addressed the problem of Jerry Lewis, then-Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, in this post.

And Stevens, famous for seeking an earmark for the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” has long been the king of Pork.

The pork-barreling ways of such Republican leaders are one reason Lewis and many other House (& Senate) Republicans are now former committee chairmen.  Had Republicans stayed true to our party’s fiscal principles and not adopted the spendthrift ways of such legislators as Stevens, Lewis and Lott, the GOP might still have its congressional majorities.

Thus, I’m not shedding a tear for the Alaska Senator’s latest woes.  He seems to think his forty year-Senate exempts him from the normal Senate disclosure rules.  Maybe it’s that he’s never “had a close election race since being appointed to the Senate in 1968.”

If he were a decent man, he would say that, after his long career, he wants to leave politics with his good name intact.  Thus, he will withdraw from the current Senate campaign in order to focus all his efforts on defeating the charges against him.  

Personally, I think he should have retired long ago.  And Glenn Reynolds has been publicly calling for his retirement for at least a year.

Ted Stevens really represents one of the greatest problems of the GOP in recent years.  Many of our leading politicians subscribe only to the principles of power and pork and not the conservative ideas which have proven successful for Republican candidates in any number of elections over the years.  No wonder that while the Democrats currently enjoy an edge in party identification, more Americans identify as conservative than as liberal.

This “ideology gap” could help he GOP if our elected officials stayed true to their principles.  But, alas, all too often, we’re saddled with unprincipled politicians like Ted Stevens.

Funny that the White House Press Secretary who helped facilitate an Administration’s decline in the polls writes a book while the one who helped save his boss from having a public relations disaster sink him doesn’t.

Scott McClellan, considered one of the least effective press secretaries in the history of presidential public relations gains his fifteen minutes of fame and media accolades (now all but over) by writing a book trashing his colleagues. Mike McCurry, however, considered one of the most successful such press secretaries, never wrote a book about his White House experiences.

I would love to learn about the challenges McCurry faced as he helped Bill Clinton save face.

Just an interesting irony of life that of two men who plied the same trade, the one who was less successful wrote the book. Almost as if Rommel wrote the book on military strategy in World War II while Patton, Montgomery, Eisenhower and Patton all remained silent.

And all this reminds me of another McClellan. It’s as if General George McClellan wrote a book on the Union’s military strategy in the Civil War while General Ulysses S. Grant did not.

UPDATE (only slightly related): Maybe I spoke too soon on McClellan’s fifteen minutes being all but over. Yahoo! (ever ressembling the MSM in its anti-Republican tilt) leads with this news item: Former aide: Bush should tell all on CIA leak. If McClellan’s new views didn’t correspond with the MSM narrative, they wouldn’t pay him much any heed.

(more…)

An individual afflicted with Huffingtonitis (named for one if the syndrome’s most prominent victims) “defines his political views and makes public statements in order to win social approval and/or acceptance.”

By his own admission, an outsider in the Bush White House and pretty much shunned by conservatives since he left (due, in large part, to his dismal performance as Press Secretary), Scott McClellan must certainly be seeking a place to belong. Now that he has been warmly embraced by Keith Olbermann, the angry left’s most prominent representative in cable TV, expect him to tilt even farther to the left so as to better fit in — and convince his new-found friends and admirers that he really is one of them.

It doesn’t matter to them that, if what he now professes to be true defines him as a coward and conscious collaborator with the “Bush regime,” what’s important it that he now toes the party line.  That way he can better find acceptance.

Basking in the adulation of Olbermann and his ilk, McClellan now knows what he needs do to find welcome in that crowd. Arianna, David Brock and Andrew Sullivan, you’ve got company!

Scott McClellan, perhaps the least distinguished of White House press secretaries in recent years, has now found himself the center of a media firestorm. It’s not unusual in this media culture for such mediocrities to gain such attention Usually when they do, they have something the media wants to sell or promote.

In most cases, their fame doesn’t last very long. I doubt that he has the staying power of a Paris Hilton or Madonna. Some people do find Hilton attractive while the latter has a passable singing voice and a talent for understanding the music industry and pop culture. McClellan, well, um, what qualities did he have? Um, Um. . . . .

Wait a second, how did he ever get this job in the first place?

Whatever the case, he has shown himself to be a person of incredibly low class, one who would sit silently by while supporting an Administration (which he now claims was) pushing propaganda and deception or as one who would sell out the man who gave him the job which put him in a position to achieve such prominence.

Last night on FoxNews’ Special Report with Brit Hume, Charles Krauthammer said as much (pretty much nailing it in my view):

Frances Townsend, who was the president’s terrorism advisor in the White House, said earlier today that there were lots of meetings in the White House among the advisors with lots of give and take and questioning, and pushing back, and that in these meetings Scott McClellan said nothing.

You also heard others have said — Ari Fleischer, who was his predecessor, and who was close to him, said that Scott McClellan never shared any of these misgivings in public or in private.

So you’ve got to ask yourself what kind of man collaborates on what he now says was deceptive propaganda to drag America into what he now calls an unnecessary war, and does it without ever privately or publicly saying anything, and without doing the obvious, which is to resign.

And the answer is one of two things — either he is the most dishonorable man in Washington, staying in a position and collaborating in what are essentially high crimes that he now asserts, or this is a guy, a young man, who sort of left under a cloud, who had one of the most undistinguished careers as a Press Secretary ever, who was legendary for his incoherence, and who doesn’t have a lot of big future on the side, is going to cash in on the one chance — the book — by telling stuff like the scurrilous stuff he has in the book about overhearing the president talking about alleged cocaine use in a telephone discussion.

That kind of stuff, I think, is — he knew that that would sell, and that’s why he did it.

Let me repeat, what kind of man collaborates in what he now claims is deceptive propaganda?

But, I don’t think at the time McClellan thought he was pushing propaganda. I don’t think he thought very much about what he was doing. He just did it. After he left the White House, he had a choice to spend the rest of his life in honorable oblivion or to spin his story to fit the narrative the media wanted and so become an instant celebrity. For fifteen minutes at least.

We’ve seen this all before. Four centuries ago, Christopher Marlowe wrote a pretty good play on a similar topic. As did Goethe just over two hundred years later.

If former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan were over 70, we might consider him for the Jimmy. With the upcoming release of his book, it seems he has learned something that he never seemed to master while in the White House, how to garner favorable press attention. It’s simple really. All you need do is attack George W. Bush, his team and his supporters.

In this book, McClellan apparently emerges for a stance during his White House tenure which Bill Kristol defined as a “defensive crouch” to go on offense against his former Administration colleagues.

With this offense, I have some questions for McClellan:

According to Mike Allen, you fault the president for his “failure to be open and forthright on Iraq.” I agree he should have been more forthcoming on Iraq. But, Scott, you were press secretary, did you press the president to do so? Wasn’t that your job?

Then, you go on to call the war a “serious strategic blunder,” contending it “was not necessary.” When did you come to that conclusion? If you came to that conclusion while working at the White House, why didn’t you resign? Or at least share these doubts with the president and your colleagues?

You fault the Administration for its “excessive embrace of the permanent campaign approach to governance,” yet claim that you were “outside” the walls the president’s team “built against the media,” indciating you were not part of any White House inner circle. Wouldn’t an Administration engaged in a permanent campaign want to keep the press secretary in the loop so as to better get its message out?

I’m eager to hear your answers to these questions and wonder why you have so completely embraced the rhetoric of the president’s “liberal critics.” Are you looking for the MSM to provide you your next job?

I mean, now that you have offered red meat for the Bush-hating crowd, I’m guessing this book will put the kibosh on the rumors about you circulating on left-wing web-sites.

In Log Cabin’s release calling on Oklahoma legislator Sally Kern to resign because of her recent remarks, its president Patrick Sammon said, “Free speech doesn’t mean the right to compare law-abiding, tax-paying citizens to terrorists.”

Um, Patrick, actually, it does. That’s why it’s called free speech. People are free to say whatever they want, no matter how stupid. And alas, no matter how hateful.

Free speech protects the rights of misguided, narrow-minded individuals like Ms. Kern to say whatever she wants even if it makes as little sense as her latest remarks. Just as it protects your right to call on her to resign. Or Rev. Wright’s freedom to spew hateful bile about white Americans.

It even protects Andrew Sullivan’s right to call himself a conservative as he verbally swoons over the most liberal member of the United States Senate and backs his candidacy for president of the United States.

I agree with Patrick that “Oklahoma deserves better” than Sally Kern. But, once we start saying that free speech doesn’t protect her nonsensical ramblings, what other kind of speech will we find is not protected by free speech?

UPDATE: I e-mailed this post to Patrick Sammon and he wrote back, clarifying his remarks cited above. To read them click here (more…)

This weekend when I realized that since Bill Clinton and Gary Condit, the sex scandals attracting major media attention have all involved gay sex or solicitations for such sex (McGreevey, Foley, Craig), I quickly typed up an observation, perhaps my shortest post ever.

A reader, upset that I hadn’t addressed an issue I had then heard nothing about, wondered why I hadn’t said anything about the “venomous anti-gay hate speech by Oklahoma Sate Rep. Sally Kern” (his words), I replied noting that Ms. Kern is hardly anyone in “the national spotlight.”

It seems the media has dragged this misguided woman into the national spotlight, probably because of her partisan affiliation (alas, she’s a Republican). Her contention that homosexuality is a greater threat to America than terrorism is just plain silly. Ed Morrissey said it best when he wrote, “Republicans at some point have to distance themselves from those whose paranoid impulses lead them to these extremes.” (Thanks to a reader for the link.)

Lots of local officials say some really ridiculous things. The national media picks a comment a Republican made while ignoring those made by Democrats.  How long had they ignored the hate-speech of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright who served the spiritual advisor to an up-and-coming Democratic member of the Illinois Senate and later served in the United States Senate?

They only took an interest in his angry remarks when that Democrat emerged as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

This hate speech becomes a national issue because Senator Obama is a candidate for national office. Does Ms. Kern have such influence? Does she advise Senator Inhofe? Senator Coburn? And heck, those two Republicans aren’t even running for President.

(more…)

Please check below for a rebuttal from the reader whose e-mail inspired this post.

When a reader e-mailed me this morning, claiming, “sex scandals in the US seems lopsided toward the Republican side of things,” I wrote back saying that, in my impression, there were more Democratic than Republican ones. I based my comment not on any scientific survey, but on my own recollection, having followed the news pretty regularly for the past twenty-five years.

I wondered if my friend’s impression were based not on his bias (he tends to vote Democratic) but on that of the media, given that they seem to delight more in Republican scandals than Democratic ones, not merely because of the various reporters’ left-of-center leanings, but also because of the hypocrisy angle. They want to show that while Republicans may talk family values, they can’t walk the walk.

They use this supposed hypocrisy so as to more easily dismiss conservative arguments.

Numerous conservative bloggers, led by Glenn Reynolds (e.g., here), have observed how frequently MSM outlets make sure to reference a politician’s affiliation if he’s a Republican caught in a sex scandal, but somehow that doesn’t seem necessary to point out when it’s a Democrat.

Perhaps, that accounts for my friend’s sense that there are more GOP scandals.

Not only that. Republican sexual scandals fit into the MSM theory of sex, inspired by Freud and propagated by pop psychology and pop culture, that only sexually repressed people will seek out sex is secretive and seedy surroundings. Hence, the appeal of the Larry Craig story. A gay man denies his sexuality, thus forces himself to seek trysts in public restrooms.

Yet, if sexual repression were the reason people sought out such secretive sex, what explains former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s shenanigans? Or Carl McGee’s? McGee, an openly gay man and aide to Massachusetts’s Democratic governor, who had married his partner, was arrested for having sex with a teenager in a public steamroom. (Note how the article on McGee doesn’t indicate his party affiliation.)

The national media didn’t pick up on this story because it didn’t fit into their narrative of gay sex scandals.

(more…)

I love these. Hat tip goes to Dan (GPW) and VdaK for sending me this posting.

Here is just a taste of RightWingNews’ Top 40 Most Obnoxious Quotes: (READ THE WHOLE THING!)

40) “(I have) a wide stance when going to the bathroom.” — Republican Senator Larry Craig tries to explain away his attempt to pick-up an under cover police officer in an airport bathroom

33) “I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center tower 7 — building 7, which collapsed in on itself — it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. World Trade Center 7. World Trade [Center] 1 and 2 got hit by planes — 7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible.” — Rosie O’Donnell talks Trutherism

27) “Is there such a thing as a man-made stroke? In other words, did someone do this to (Democratic Senator Tim Johnson)? …I know what this [Republican] party is capable of.” — Joy Behar on The View

25) “When I see a stroller now, I see it as someone who evicted a person with AIDS, right or wrong.” — Brian Basinger, president of the Harvey Milk Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transsexual Democratic Club on the horror of having to live near heterosexual families in San Francisco.

19) “I propose a limitation be put on how many sqares [sic] of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don’t want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required.” — Sheryl Crow at the Huffington Post

18) “Now I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows: that this war is lost, that the surge is not accomplishing anything.” — Democratic Senator Majority Leader, Harry Reid

16) “Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda — worse for our society. It’s as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was.” — MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann

12) “I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow….I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.” — Bill Maher

1) “Over time, however, the endless war in Iraq began to play a role in natural selection. Only idiots signed up; only idiots died. Back home, the average I.Q. soared.” — Ted Rall

Ignorance, malice and Bush Derangement Syndrome on full display from all corners in 2007.

HAPPY 2008!

SAY WHAT?!?

Following the debate, CNN learned that retired brigadier general Keith Kerr served on Clinton’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender steering committee.

CNN Senior Vice President and Executive Producer of the debate, David Bohrman, says, “We regret this incident. CNN would not have used the General’s question had we known that he was connected to any presidential candidate.”

Prior to the debate, CNN had verified his military background and that he had not contributed any money to any presidential candidate.

Following the debate, Kerr told CNN that he’s done no work for the Clinton campaign. He says he is a member of the Log Cabin Republicans and was representing no one other than himself.

Okay… now things are getting interesting for me on this story. How can say you have “done no work” for the Clinton campaign when this press release announces your involvement? What exactly is Gen. Kerr’s definition of “work”, I wonder?

But the real outrage to me is that there is a Log Cabin Republicans member working on a Clinton campaign gay and lesbian steering committee! Are you effing kidding me?

Hey folks… this is supposed to be a GAY REPUBLICAN organization. There are enough gay Democrat organizations to open up a store and sell them off the shelves, for crying out loud.

Patrick Sammon…. you have some explaining to do.

[Related Story:  Digging out more CNN/YouTube plants - Michelle Malkin]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from GPW): I expect to have more to say about this later. Kudos to Bruce for covering this.

Let’s hope (for Log Cabin’s sake) that this guy who claims to be a member of the organization is pulling a Clinton not telling the truth. It would, however, not surprise me if he were, given that when I was last at a Log Cabin meeting, several members suggested they might voe for Ms. Hillary if certain Republicans won the nomination.

As to CNN, well, once again, no wonder that some believe that the network’s acronym stands for “Clinton News Network” as I noted in this post.

UP-UPDATE (also from GPW): This looks to be developing into quite an embarrassment for CNN. Non-partisan web-sites have picked this up, with the Politico headlining its piece: ‘Gay question’ general linked to Clinton. Not good for Mrs. Clinton, even worse for her family’s eponymous “news” network.

UP-UP-UPDATE (also from GPW): Hugh Hewitt calls CNN: The Most Busted Names In News.

UP-UP-UP-UPDATE (also from GPW): With each passing hour, bloggers discover more Democratic plants at last night’s debate. Scott of Powerline notes that one questioner works for Democratic Senate Whip Dick Durbin while another works for Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson.

UP-UP-UP-UP-UPDATE (also from GPW): Finding yet another Democratic “plant,” blogger Jason Coleman asks: “Exit question for CNN (although I’ll never get an answer): Did you endeavor to select ANY questions from real Republicans other than Grover’s?” (Via Michelle Malkin).

And the left accuses Fox of being biased. Well, as I said when the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Convention in San Diego, CNN is far more biased to the left than is Fox to the right. The way the network conducted this debate proves my point.

UPDATE (JohnAGJ): I like how Hot Air summed this up:

Just identify the guy, CNN. His question’s perfectly fair. And, apropos of nothing, Hunter’s answer is awful.

Long before I speculated about Trent Lott’s kleptomania, I had been eager to see Mississippi’s junior Senator leave the political scene.

It wasn’t just his comments about homosexuality. It wasn’t just his penchant for pork. It was that he had, in his 6 1/2 years helming the Senate GOP, been a largely ineffective leader. He seemed more eager to get along with the Democratic minority (when he was Majority Leader) than to advance a conservative agenda.

Thus, my face lit up in a smile when, a few minutes before my departure from Cincinnati, I heard from CNN that he was stepping down. (Side note: I wonder how much audience that left-leaning “news” network would lose if airports did not pipe in its broadcasts.)

His departure opens up the Senate Republican Whip slot to someone who has a better appreciation of conservative ideas — and advancing them — than does Mr. Lott. And removes an embarrassingly arrogant man from the GOP leadership.

All I can see is Good Riddance, Trent Lott. You won’t be missed (Via Instapundit).

Are you kidding me?  

This was part of the transcript released tonight by NBC News of Matt Lauer’s interview with US Senator Larry Craig.

Matt Lauer: They had a laundry list of accusations. There was a guy back when you were president of your college fraternity who said you came onto him; that there was a rumor you were discharged from the National Guard because you were gay. And that there was a guy who says you cruised him, whatever that means– a store in Boise.
Larry Craig: I was president of a fraternity. I had to make tough choices sometimes about leadership roles. There was a young man who was bounced from our fraternity for getting involved in drugs. I believe that was the gentleman. He was not very happy with Larry Craig and the leadership role that I had to play.
Matt Lauer: So– vendetta? That was a little bit of–
Larry Craig: It– it’s very possible that that was a vendetta.
Matt Lauer: How about the National Guard?
Larry Craig: The National Guard– I have a medical discharge based on my feet.

*jaw drops*

Does this man’s brain perform any actual biological THINKING function before his mouth produces words?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

One of the things which has struck me about is how the media has become saturated with sensationalistic* stories of Senator Craig. When I e-mailed my Pajamas piece on the Senator’s lack of judgment to my Mom, she wrote back, praising my piece and noting how “sick” she was of “hearing about Larry Craig. . . it was all over NBC New followed by CNN.” While working out at my gym, it seemed every time I looked up at a television news channel, it was either reporting on the Senator’s indiscretions or running some report in the scroll at the bottom of the screen.

The story headlined the news on Yahoo! as well as AOL. I’m sure it made the front page of many papers.

I wonder if the saga of former New Jersey Governor Jim Greevey saturated the news media as this story has. Unlike the latest sensationalistic story of gay sex and politics, that story, as Scheie noted, also included a “financial scandal.” The Garden State Democrat used state money to pay off a lover (or as that alleged beloved contends, a man the Governor wished were his lover) (Via Instapundit).

Perhaps this story has generated more coverage because Craig has denied being gay while McGreevey came out as a “gay American.” Or because Craig is a Republican and McGreevey a Democrat.

I mean, it’s generated far less coverage than did the assault and battery charge against Democratic Congressman Bob Filner of California.

Perhaps, if Filner were a Republican, the media might pay more attention to his airport antics. But, then, the media didn’t entirely ignore McGreevey despite being a member of the press’s preferred politcal party.

I think we have seen saturation coverage of the Craig affair for a variety of reasons, one of which it that it allows the MSM to downplay stories of success in Iraq. But, let’s face it, the real reason is that sex sells.** The media’s been ever eager to explore the private lives of politicians, particularly if they’re Republicans.

But, this story has an added wrinkle which makes today’s media increasingly interested. It’s a story they want to tell, exposing the supposed hypocrisy of social conservatives. At least since the publication of Elmer Gantry eighty years ago, the chattering classes seem to believe that those who preach traditional values use their faith as window dressing to cover their own sexual indiscretions. Members of the media (and cultural) elite seek to dismiss the social conservatives’ defense of such values as mere subterfuge, concealing a sinister agenda to subjugate the non-believers. Or some such nonsense.

(more…)

In my first post on Larry Craig which I had to write in a rush as I was chairing a meeting that evening, I wrote that I expected I’d have “more to say about this at a later time.” Well, as I was collecting my thoughts, Pajamas Media asked me to write a piece on the situation which is now up on their web-site.

To whet your appetitie, I’ll give you the first paragraphs and then encourage you to read the rest at Pajamas:

When I first read about the arrest of Senator Larry Craig in a restroom at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Aiport earlier this summer, I was stunned. I wondered how a man in his position could have shown as little judgment as he had.

Ten months ago, he was the subject of rumors in the blogosphere, talk radio, cable TV and even a few mainstream newspapers that he had engaged in sexual acts with other men in restrooms at Union Station in Washington, D.C. At the time, I was skeptical of the claims, but also thought that if they were true, the Senator, realizing that his restroom activities were not as anonymous as he had assumed, would have ceased seeking them out.

Last October, he escaped the public humiliation he is experiencing today. Indeed, his local paper, the Idaho Statesman had followed up on the allegations against him, but until this Monday, “had declined to run a story about Craig’s sex life, because [it] didn’t have enough corroborating evidence and because of the senator’s steadfast denial” (Via Hugh Hewitt). The paper even interviewed the Senator. He was thus well aware that people knew about his actions.

Just click here to read the full piece.

So I’ve been traveling since 4am on Tuesday.   So as I spent yesterday away from TV and the internet, the most I knew about the world was that both Sen. Larry Craig and QB Michael Vick had admitted guilt for respective crimes.  End of story (for now), I assumed.

And then last night at a work event, I turned to a colleague who is also politically-connected and asked, “So what do you think about Larry Craig?”   He just shook his head and said, “Wasn’t his press conference today unbelieveable?”

My jaw dropped. 

“No he did NOT!”, I protested.    My friend: “Oh yes he did.  He must have said ‘I’m not gay’ three times.”

“No he did NOT!”, I said.  This time I continued:  “And let me guess, his wife was standing next to him?”  Well, of course!

I just shook my head.  “So by the end of the week, I bet he is an alcoholic, goes to rehab, and was molested by his priest,” I deduced.   Unreal.

Mark Steyn has a similar reaction to Craig’s unending stupidity.

Yes, I feel sorry for Mrs Craig and the family, too, but come on, the Senator’s statement in Boise this afternoon invites only a wholly deserved contempt. What was all that stuff about there being a “cloud over Idaho”? There’s no cloud over Idaho, there’s a cloud over him. The State of Idaho wasn’t in the stall of the men’s room at Minneapolis Airport, and the State of Idaho didn’t choose to cop a plea. If you’re going to dissemble, at least try not to be so pompous and narcissistic when you’re doing it.

And what was all that business about blaming it all on the “strain” brought about by The Idaho Statesman? What kind of excuse is that? “I wouldn’t have wound up in that men’s room if you guys hadn’t been investigating my secret gay sex life.”

This was a ridiculous performance.

The funny thing was, not having even watched or known about the press conference last night, I concluded the same thing!

The other immediate thought I had was… don’t these Washington politicians understand that this isn’t the 1960s and 1970s where people were either scared or in awe of US Senators and Congressmen?   Now, we have a collective borderline hate/disdain for them all…. so there ain’t no one gonna protect ‘em anymore.

My next revelation, along those same lines, was:  “Hmmm… if Ted Kennedy drove home drunk, wrecked a car, and left a body at the scene of the crime in 2007…. he’d not only be out of the Senate, but most likely in jail.”

Ah, the 21st Century.  Good times.

[Related Story:  A great internal debate by the Slate editors over the Craig foot tapping revelation.]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I join Hugh Hewitt in saying that Idaho’s Senior Senator, Larry Craig, should resign.

For those of you who haven’t heard, he was arrested, “at a Minnesota airport by a plainclothes police officer investigating lewd conduct complaints in a men’s public restroom” (Via Hugh).

I first read about this earlier this afternoon (Pacific Time) on Townhall’s blog. When I saw the headline, I thought it was a reference to old unsubstantiated reports about the Senator seeking sexual liaisons in public restrooms.

Given those reports (which now apparently have more substance than I once believed), this man should have been understood that people were aware of his unsavory behavior. That he continued (despite the reports) suggests a terrible lapse in judgment. Terrible.

Not only that, a grown man, particularly a man in public life, should know better than to do what he did. Public restrooms are not trysting spots.

I expect I’ll have more to say about this at a later time.

UPDATE: Just saw that Glenn posted on this, asking “And what is it with these guys?”

Welcome Instapundit Readers!!

UP-UPDATE: I re-arranged the order of the paragraphs for better flow.