Craig Reconsiders

It looks like Larry Craig may not resign after all. I have mixed feelings about this. On the merits, nothing Craig has done -- being gay, tapping feet in Minneapolis -- seems to me to warrant resignation or even to be wrong at all. The hypocrisy rankles, of course, but I don't see being a hypocritical anti-gay politician as any worse than being an earnest one. And in some ways the weird, covert nature of Craig's gay life suggests the possible existence of a level of sincerity and authenticity to his his anti-gay political convictions -- perhaps both are driven by a very real conviction that some of his deepest desires are deeply immoral and require repression by the state. Who knows? I'd never vote for Craig, but my reasons for not voting for him have nothing to do with what happened in Minneapolis.

But, of course, Craig isn't mounting that sort of bold defense that admits he is what he is and denounces the "pre-Stonewall morality fable" unfolding here. Instead, he's rather implausibly denying that he ever went in for anonymous gay sex. At this point, Craig becomes a liar and a buffoon in ways that seem to be firing offenses on their own terms.

Meanwhile, Senator Vitter who at least seems to have committed acts that violate laws that Senator Vitter seems to support, is sitting pretty in his Senate seat.

Comments

Christopher Hitchens had an interesting essay about in-the-closet politicians and the appeal of anonymous mens room sex: "So Many Men's Rooms, So Little Time: Why men like Larry Craig continue to court danger in public places."

Posted by Fred | September 5, 2007 9:42 AM

>>being gay, tapping feet in Minneapolis

He was arrested for being gay and tapping his feet? I was under the impression he was arrested for soliciting sex in a public bathroom.

Posted by jim | September 5, 2007 9:43 AM

What if Craig actually is innocent? That would be hilarious.

Posted by Jim W | September 5, 2007 9:46 AM

in some ways the weird, covert nature of Craig's gay life suggests the possible existence of a level of sincerity and authenticity to his his anti-gay political convictions -- perhaps both are driven by a very real conviction that some of his deepest desires are deeply immoral and require repression by the state

My god. I can't believe you just wrote that.

You know what would add a level of sincerity and authenticity to a politician in a democracy justifying his support of repressive policies against gay people?

Craig openly offering as supporting evidence his belief that his own urges must be repressed, as an open and democratic argument for his policies.

Such crazed beliefs are not based on any sort of supportable empirical evidence, nor of science -- no, if true, they are the crazed meanderings of an individual lying about his own policies.

Good lord, how ridiculous.

If Craig really thought that his own motivations justified his anti-gay posturing, then he should offer that as evidence to the public so that the democratic public may consider the evidence.

Posted by El Cid | September 5, 2007 9:48 AM

Larry Craig seems like someone who would not understand this joke :

Q: How do you know if you're boyfriend is gay?

A: His penis tastes like poo.

[Wording cleaned up for this family blog.bb]

Posted by blatherskite | September 5, 2007 9:50 AM

Well, he does have that rather unfortunate guilty plea to contend with, a terrible plea to what I would call an improper arrest, but it gives the GOP something to hang its hat on that sounds better than "governor's political affiliation." Vitter hasn't been convicted of anything. If and when, then we'll get a more accurate gauge of how far they're willing to twist themselves into knots.

Posted by jhupp | September 5, 2007 9:52 AM

Craig, personally, is just pathetic. The hypocrisy that Democrats should note here is institutional and fairly straightforward-- the Republican party needs to appeal to bigots in order to win elections.

Posted by MattF | September 5, 2007 9:54 AM

Whether or not Craig resigns will have nothing to do with "the merits" and everything to do with the perceived political consequences of resigning or not.

Posted by Bill | September 5, 2007 9:55 AM

There are lots of things that I have enjoyed in the past that I think should be restricted (especially for other people). For example: drug use and pornography (certain restrictions, especially for minors). I don't think this is hypocritical.

The problem with charges of hypocrisy is that there is a fundamental difference between what is best for society as a whole, and what is best for oneself as an individual. For example, it would be terrible if no one voted, but it makes absolutely no difference if I vote.

Even if Craig is a hypocrite, who really cares? hypocrisy is one of the truly minor sins. I'm enjoying his travails for the sole reason that he is a Republican scumbag.

Posted by Jim W | September 5, 2007 9:57 AM

"That would be hilarious."

If Craig is innocent, his arrest and subsequent public humiliation would be lamentable, not hilarious. It's lamentable as it is. Think about it: is there really no higher priority for a police manpower in an airport than bathroom buggery duty? Maybe the crapper cop or the boss who assigned him to toilet duty is a repressed gay man, who knows.

Anyhow, I think Craig will recant his resignation if he can get out of the guilty plea. Without the guilty plea, his fellow GOP Senators would have no substantive reason to demand his ouster (embarrassment doesn't count), and by sticking around, Craig could stick it to all of his colleagues who were so quick to throw him under the bus.

In any case, if Barney Frank could stay in office after a gay escort ring was found to be run out of his home, and that other Dem Congressman could stay in office after having an affair with a 17 year old male page, perhaps a little tolerance is in order for Craig's predicament.

Posted by Fred | September 5, 2007 10:02 AM

Christopher Hitchens had an interesting essay

Doubt it.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 5, 2007 10:03 AM

I was under the impression he was arrested for soliciting sex in a public bathroom.

And that's a crime? Who knew? Is it also a crime to solicit sex in other public places, such as a bar?

Moreover, it's not a crime to place a telephone call to a madame either, but Matthew seems to not understand that.

Posted by Al | September 5, 2007 10:04 AM

"Doubt it."

Ha, ha. That was so much cleverer than reading it and then ripping it based on its content.

Posted by Fred | September 5, 2007 10:07 AM

Shorter Fred:

"The cops are gay, probably, and the Dems do it too."

Posted by jim | September 5, 2007 10:07 AM

I hope Craig stays and runs again. And wins his primary.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 5, 2007 10:08 AM

I'm just glad he's back as I will enjoy seeing the Republican presidential candidates twist themselves in knots over this. Especially Rudy. Craig's from Idaho. It's not like we were going to get a Democratic pick-up there - or anything approaching sane. At least this way some good may come of it.

Posted by DanF | September 5, 2007 10:08 AM

>>is there really no higher priority for a police manpower

Whenever a Republican breaks the law, the first defense is blame the police for having nothing better to do. See Scooter Libby. It is always a waste of law enforcement power to investigate or arrest Republicans because they are all innocent, Clinton did it too, and the Islamofacists are coming.

Oh, but if the lawbreaker is a Democrat or a Mexican dishwasher, expect all sorts of very serious bloviation about the rule of law.

Posted by jim | September 5, 2007 10:15 AM

"Oh, but if the lawbreaker is a Democrat or a Mexican dishwasher, expect all sorts of very serious bloviation about the rule of law."

First, let's leave the Mexican dishwasher out of this. President Bush, Lindsey Graham, and a host of other Republicans agree with Ted Kennedy and most Dems that we should ignore the law when it gets in the way of importing more poor people from Mexico.

Second, most Republicans demanded Craig resign. I am in the minority here. How many Democrats have demanded Alcee Hastings and William Jefferson resign?

Posted by Fred | September 5, 2007 10:24 AM

>> most Republicans demanded Craig resign. I am in the minority here.

Translation: I'm the guy who always defends Republicans no matter what laws they break.

Posted by jim | September 5, 2007 10:31 AM

One thing I don't understand is why everybody assumes that Craig HAS to be gay due to this brouhaha.

Couldn't he be bisexual?

(I sent an e-mail to this effect to Andrew Sullivan, but he hasn't taken notice of it. I don't know how accurate this is, but I've been told by gay friends that gays hate male bisexuals even more than male heterosexuals do).

Posted by JRVJ | September 5, 2007 10:33 AM

"Moreover, it's not a crime to place a telephone call to a madame either..."

This is true. And besides, he was probably just calling her to discuss some completely innocuous thing... like, I dunno, Boise State's BCS chances this year or something. I call prostitutes all the time to talk college football and current events and the like.

Posted by Just Another Greg | September 5, 2007 10:40 AM

"(I sent an e-mail to this effect to Andrew Sullivan, but he hasn't taken notice of it. I don't know how accurate this is, but I've been told by gay friends that gays hate male bisexuals even more than male heterosexuals do)."

Speaking as a male heterosexual, I yield to no one in my irrational hatred of male bisexuals.

Posted by southpaw | September 5, 2007 10:42 AM

And that's a crime? Who knew? Is it also a crime to solicit sex in other public places, such as a bar?

It is if you intend to have sex in the bar right then and there.

Posted by jimBOB | September 5, 2007 10:53 AM

How many Democrats have demanded Alcee Hastings and William Jefferson resign?

Well, William "Cool Cash" Jefferson is a disgrace. Who do you think is supporting him? Hastings is an odd choice. He was elected after he was impeached. You think he just slipped his little imboglio past the voters? And he was removed from office by a vote of 413-3. Not exactly a groundswell of Democratic support there, Sparky.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 5, 2007 10:55 AM

Don't forget that Craig was also arrested for staring at the undercover cop through a crack in the stall door. That's a little more egregious than foot tapping. I understand that if you don't want the guy next to you tapping his foot, then the reasonable thing is to not tap back. But what is a reasonable response to a stranger that is watching you take a dump? The judge dismissed the "lewd conduct" charge which stemmed from his staring through the crack it he door, in exchange for a guilty plea to disorderly conduct, which is tied to the foot tapping. If Craig wants to reopen the case, he'll have to explain why he was staring at the cop on the toilet.

Posted by Heraldblog | September 5, 2007 11:02 AM

Jeffrey Davis,

I know who is supporting them. To state the politically incorrect truth, voters in nearly all-black cities (e.g. Detroit, Newark) and gerrymandered black Congressional districts have, shall we say, a higher tolerance for corruption among their elected leaders than the broader electorate. I was referring to Dems in Congress.

My question remains: How many Democrats have demanded Alcee Hastings and William Jefferson resign?

Has the Dem House leadership? Have any? Do you know?

Posted by Fred | September 5, 2007 11:03 AM

Fred, as long as we're talking about unconvicted people, how many Republicans have called for Jerry Lewis to resign? How about Ted Stevens? Any of the dozen or more other Republican members of Congress who seem to be involved in corruption?

Posted by KCinDC | September 5, 2007 11:19 AM

We got it, Fred. The Dems do it too, especially the blacks. Your theory: Democrats are hypocrites when it comes to law breaking, so that is my excuse for being a hypocrite. Intellectually honest people, Republicans or Democrats, on the other hand, are against law breaking by either party. You just aren't one of those people. We got it now.

Posted by jim | September 5, 2007 11:21 AM

One thing Craig is not a hypocrite about is the misuse of anti-terror laws. He opposed the USAPATRIOT Act and they love him for it in Idaho. Of course, they hate him for it in DC and its one reason the GOP establishment is willing to drop him so fast. Who funds the Minneapolis Airprt Police? My research skills are not good enough for me to find out without making phone calls. All right. I am too lazy to find out, but maybe someone knows. I will bet that this outfit is funded by Homeland Security or some such anti-terroist source. Everything changed after 9-11 and no one told Larry Craig.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | September 5, 2007 11:31 AM

Interesting that no one touches upon what to me is a very important part of the whole Larry Craig thing - he spent his life lying to his wife, his family, and the voters. He was in a position of trust and intentionally deceived everyone both personally and publicly. There were a ton of calls for Clinton to resign for lieing to the American people over one affair - yet no one seems to think that Craig's lifetime of lieing, and engaging in even creepier behavior, fails the "public trust" test or even comment upon that.
At a minimum, I sure hope his wife went out and got herself tested for STDs - that's the kind of man her husband and the Senator from Idaho is.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | September 5, 2007 11:37 AM

And in some ways the weird, covert nature of Craig's gay life suggests the possible existence of a level of sincerity and authenticity to his his anti-gay political convictions -- perhaps both are driven by a very real conviction that some of his deepest desires are deeply immoral and require repression by the state.

1. I'm quite sure Craig sincerely feels that his desire to have sex with men is deeply immoral and requires repression by the state.

2. I am quite sympathetic to the argument made in an article I read in a some gay magazine by a gay black man, the URL of which I am too lazy to hunt for, that just because Craig enjoys habitual furtive sex with men, it doesn't mean he's "gay", in the narrow sense in which that's currently understood in Western society. People do all kinds of weird shit, sexually. Sex is powerful and in some ways profoundly not nice. Think about it this way:

3. There are some kinds of sexual habits that are still frowned upon even by the generally non-prudish -- like making heavy-breathing phone calls, or conducting all-day marathons of crystal meth and masturbating to internet porn. Now, let's say you had developed a habit of doing one or the other of these. You were trying to fight it, but, like other addictions, it was really hard to kick. Now, let's say that meanwhile, a whole set of people start coming out of the closet with their heavy-breathing-calling and crystal meth internet porn loving selves, and establishing a whole lifestyle around it. They say they were born that way. You find this disgusting. This is something you're addicted to, but you find it the least valuable part of your personality. In fact, you even advocate laws banning porn on the net and making heavy-breathing calling a federal offense, partly in the hope of stopping yourself.

And then one day you're publicly caught with an empty syringe of meth sticking out of your arm, your eyes going around like pinwheels and your dick in your hand with videos of Jenna Jameson on your computer screen in flagrante with a donkey. And everyone says: Oh, poor guy! He should just come out as a net-porn meth-head. And you're like, jesus h. christballs! This is not who I am, in the deepest fiber of my being! It's this weird thing I got hooked on and am trying to kick, but I haven't been able to and probably never will. But that doesn't mean that this simply IS my identity!

A lot of people, obviously, find that the currently constructed definition of "gay" fits them quite neatly. They're happy with it; and that's great for them. But there are also plenty of people who are not happy with that vision of themselves. And for them to deny that they "are gay" seems to me not exactly hypocritical -- though for them to insist on a narrow definition of heterosexuality for everyone, and to insist that other people who do identify as gay are immoral, remains very hypocritical.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 5, 2007 11:37 AM

brooksfoe,

Thank you for making this point (which I tried to make earlier) in such a vivid and memorable way.

Posted by Jim W | September 5, 2007 11:58 AM

Again with Alcee Hastings. Hastings was impeached by a vote of 413-3 and removed from office. A long time ago. Since then, the voters in his district have forgiven or overlooked his offenses and have returned him to Congress. If you don't like it, too bad. How many times is he supposed to be punished?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 5, 2007 12:04 PM

Fred says: "In any case, if Barney Frank could stay in office after a gay escort ring was found to be run out of his home, and that other Dem Congressman could stay in office after having an affair with a 17 year old male page, perhaps a little tolerance is in order for Craig's predicament."

It's truly a funny state of affairs when a Republican calls for "tolerance" for a gay man's "predicament."

What next, Fred? Will you be calling for rational, honest debate before going to war? Will you be taking a stand against torture? Will you admit "intelligent design" is intellectual swill that has no place in a science class? Will you admit that Dumbya Bush has been horrifically incompetent?

Keep those surprises coming.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 5, 2007 12:12 PM

Jeffrey Davis,

Who said anything about being punished? I just asked if any Dems had asked him to resign from Congress.

Posted by Fred | September 5, 2007 12:12 PM

brooksfoe concludes: "A lot of people, obviously, find that the currently constructed definition of "gay" fits them quite neatly. They're happy with it; and that's great for them. But there are also plenty of people who are not happy with that vision of themselves. And for them to deny that they "are gay" seems to me not exactly hypocritical -- though for them to insist on a narrow definition of heterosexuality for everyone, and to insist that other people who do identify as gay are immoral, remains very hypocritical."

I generally agree with you, 'foe, and your comment was exceptionally well done, but you shouldn't begin with mindreading. I'm not sure how you can be "quite sure" about Craig's inner morality or conclusions about his own behavior. His sexual interest in other men seems to go back to his college days, and I have yet to see any counterbalancing "Larry was into women" comments. The timing of his marriage to an aide - a few months after his 1982 'I'm no pagebender' comments - also seems significant.

Craig doesn't seem unusual to me - just another conflicted, ambitious guy who got his unit trapped in a wringer he helped to maintain.

And I'm not "sure" of this, but my best guess is that for the past 40 years or more Craig's most frequent and most intense sexual longings have been for other men. I think that places him in the gay area of the spectrum but it's not something that concerns me much.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 5, 2007 12:33 PM

The problem that Senator Craig faces if the guilty plea is overturned and the case goes to court is that, as a part of the interview with the police, he asserted that he was not gay. Although it would appear that the issue of Senator Craigs' sexual orientation is not relevant, the fact that he denied it in an official interview with the police opens the door for the prosecutor to bring in evidence of his sexual orientation for the purpose of proving the former to be untruthful. Lying to the police is a crime in most jurisdictions. This is why lawyers advise their clients not to give interviews to the police and if they do, not to tell untruths.

Posted by SLC | September 5, 2007 12:40 PM

Who said anything about being punished? I just asked if any Dems had asked him to resign from Congress.

Why would they ask for him to resign?

(Better strategy: don't answer and give it up. Hastings's situation is a terrible example for you.)

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 5, 2007 12:50 PM

Fred seems to be suggesting that because some Republicans are choosing to demand that Craig resign then Democrats ought to reciprocate by also ousting some of their own party members. Perhaps I’ve missed the unanimous cacophony from the Left demanding that Craig resign, but last I checked it was A) calling Craig a hypocrite (for being anti-gay yet gay himself) and B) calling some Republicans hypocritical and inconsistent for not demanding that the diaper-wearing, “family values” Senator from LA resign, too. Republicans like McCain could’ve easily and wisely avoided charges of hypocrisy or inconsistency if they’d opted to not appeal to homophobes and bigots and had instead give Craig the same unofficial benefit of the doubt that they’ve given Vitter. It’s not my problem, or the Left’s, that Republicans are making things worse for Craig and themselves. And it is moronic to suggest that just because Republicans turn on their own when it’s politically advantageous to do so that Democrats ought to do the same to some of their colleagues (Jefferson, Hastings, Frank). Let’s keep in mind that Craig chose to resign and Republican colleagues chose to call him “repulsive” and other nice names. This is hardly a witchhunt concocted by the Left. And it was the fundamentally bigoted policies of Craig and others like him in the GOP that ends up sowing the seeds for this pathetic moments of public hypocrisy for their party. If these guys were honest with themselves and others about their sexual proclivities OR they kept sexual issues out of congress and off the campaign trail, they’d scarcely have these problems. And it they didn’t use each other, embracing a new hero on one day (Tillman, Lynch, Tenet, Petraeus) only to discard them later on, they wouldn’t seem so utterly opportunistic and their supposed values might actually appear authentic.

Posted by tinisoli | September 5, 2007 12:51 PM

SLC, so Craig faces the same dilemma that ruined Oscar Wilde. First as tragedy, then as farce, eh?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 5, 2007 12:53 PM

Did you see the new Giuliani ad that links Fred Thompson to Larry Craig? Says Thompson's liked pages, but Craig not gay.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxu1Yoi50BY
I haven't heard Fred "Gopher" Grandy namechecked like that in a while. (much less outed)

Call me crazy, but this was posted the very same day that Giuliani rolls out his new internet strategy with a dry-as-toast Youtube clip by some straight staffer. ...but what if Rudy's media team (BrabenderCox, et al) are actually doing a super-stealth humor campaign simultaneously??? Maybe instead of being behind the times, they're out front?
(TechRepublican posted this yesterday: http://techrepublican.com/blog/join-rudy-joins-us-in-the-modern-world )

Posted by D. Meyers | September 5, 2007 1:20 PM

Look, there are lots of convictions that rely on police testimony, as the experts on the subject, that someone had the necessary intent to do something that would not necessarily appear to be intent to an untrained observer.

Think about money laundering or structuring, in which people are convicted on circumstantial evidence of intent provided by the amounts of certain wire transfers, or gang/drug stuff that relies on evidence of certain gang/drug codes (words on tapped calls, informant testimony, furtive observation) to prove intent to buy/sell drugs, etc.

This sort of code evidence is apparently pretty similar to the evidentiary use to prove intent of the code for soliciting gay sex in a public bathroom, i.e. foot touching under the barrier and then reaching across your body to slide your opposite hand under the barrier and run it from front to back, palm side up (which explains why the cop made a big deal about that on the tape -- he clearly thinks that is very strong evidence of solicitation).

Matthew purposely diminishes and misstates the actual evidence against Craig as just foot tapping. Weak.

I might not like it, Matthew might not like it, but circumstantial proof of intent is a part of the law, and people are convicted every day on what might seem to be flimsy evidence. Craig is no different. If he manages to rescind his guilty plea, a good lawyer might be able to make a difference in the outcome, but it is far from a sure thing.

Anyone who thinks the police shouldn't do anything about this should think about their kids walking into public bathrooms where people are having sex. I am pretty certain that the number of people who think we should criminalize soliciting sex in a public bathroom is extremely high.

Also, an undercover cop might be able to catch people in the act, but it seems likely that it would be more difficult and more time consuming, as they have to sit there all day and all night, as well as more likely to cause a big commotion when they try to make the actual arrests.

Posted by bob | September 5, 2007 1:22 PM

Fred, what was the sin Vitter admitted if not seeking the services of a prostitute?

Certainly not calling a madam.

He was saved by the statute of limitations and LA's Dem governor.

Posted by bob | September 5, 2007 1:27 PM

"Why would they ask for him to resign?"

Well, I doubt they will, for the same reason they haven't asked Jefferson to resign: because they are wary of offending a powerful racial voting block. Of course, even if they did ask Hastings to resign, there's no reason to expect he would do so. But I think Democratic leaders should have asked him to resign anyway, because by asking him they would demonstrate that they acknowledge him to be a disgrace to the institution.

Posted by Fred | September 5, 2007 1:39 PM

Fred: I just asked if any Dems had asked him to resign from Congress.

On what basis?

They've already thrown him out of government once for the transgressions at issue; the voters returned him to government as a member of Congress.

Again, what is your basis for a demand that he resign?

What has he done since being elected to Congress to deserve a call for his resignation?

Are you saying someone convicted of, say, felony larceny, who then serves a 10-year sentence, and is subsequently elected to Congress after he gets released from prison must be asked to resign, or that Congress must refuse to seat him, even though he's already served his time for the crime?

That is essentially what you are demanding about Hastings.

Boy, you sure can't tell the difference between apples and oranges can you, Fred?

Or maybe you can, but you just can't be honest about it.

Posted by anonymous | September 5, 2007 2:20 PM

C'mon, I think we should all get behind ... er, support Larry Craig. He's getting jerked ...ummm, unfairly accused, and to expect that he'll go down (snicker), ummm, go away, without a fight, well ... think of the comedy we'd miss (better than what I've written here, no doubt)

Posted by Greg | September 5, 2007 2:23 PM

BTW, Fred, didn't Bush get arrested before he became president?

If so, then shouldn't the GOP be demanding he resign on the same basis that you are demanding that Democrats demand Hastings resign?

You say things Hastings did before he became a member of Congress are "a disgrace to the institution," so things Bush did before becoming president must also be "a disgrace to the institution" (though he's got plenty of other disgraces WHILE president).

In fact, let's look at the past histories of all members of the GOP for any embarassing things that happened in their adult life and if any of them have such incidents, then let's ask them to resign because under your theory such a past, no matter how long ago, is necessarily "a disgrace to the institution," even if they have been punished for those transgressions.

Posted by anonymous | September 5, 2007 2:25 PM

I really hope Craig doesn't resign. He has such potential to hasten the day when conservative "Christians" wake up, realize that Republicans have nothing to offer them, rededicate themselves to fundraising for themselves instead of for Republican candidates, and just stay the f$%^ home on election day.

Posted by Jalmari | September 5, 2007 2:29 PM

"Anyone who thinks the police shouldn't do anything about this should think about their kids walking into public bathrooms where people are having sex..."

My God, won't someone THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?

It's not only in public bathrooms—I've heard on good authority that 20 times more children walk in on their parents having sex in their bedroom than walk in a public bathroom and witness sex. Clearly, then, we need to outlaw sex in bedrooms and make proposition with the intent to have sex in the bedroom a crime. Oh, some undercover police operations are a good idea, too.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | September 5, 2007 4:42 PM

“At this point, Craig becomes a liar and a buffoon in ways that seem to be firing offenses on their own terms.”

If lying and buffoonery are firing offences for expressing a desire (never consummated) for sex, then what should the offence be for the lying and buffoonery with respect to the carnage Bush and the neocons caused through their deceptions??

In a couple of hundred years, the then Margaret Mead will look back in shock and awe.

Posted by erict | September 5, 2007 9:04 PM

Thought-provoking essay on the Craig affair: Cruising While Republican. Funny, too.

Posted by Juan | September 6, 2007 2:28 AM