Let's not do the "gutless libtard" thing again. If there is one thing we should be learning from the Glenn Greenwalds and Digbys and DailyKoses and other "netroot" e-activist is that Republicans are like hard-headed children that have to be told things more than once. The reason why REPUBLICAN (notice that there aren't really any democrats calling for Craig's resignation) want Craig out is so they can pretend we have short-term memories and then they can go right back to sanctimoniously denying rights for thier own political gain as though nothing happened. (The ol' Alberto Gonzales "I don't recall a Larry Craig in our party" defense.) The point that this post, and Glenn's and Joan's and others are making is that Senetor Toliet Scandal is the rule of the Republican party, not the exception. Larry Craig just got caught solicitating a bathroom BJ instead of strangling hooker on a yatch a lobbyist bribed him with, but this is basically what the modern GOP looks like. The only reason why the GOP IS throwing him under a bus is because the scandal isn't something they can just spin away as usual thanks to the guilty plea (after all, when the local paper and bloggers first reported rumors that Craig was gay bathroom troll, many in the GOP were self-righteously wagging their fingers at "liberals" saying "it doesn't matter.") Conservatives are are EXPLOITING both right-wing rage at homosexualty AND "liberal guilt" at being "too hard: on the guy (who will then pull you down while you're trying to pick him up). So let's stop falling for it please and keep holding their feet to fire so people will have no excuse to "not recall" what the modern Republican party and their fake "family values" are REALLY about.

But maybe you guys are right. I mean Conservatives would NEVER beat a sex scandal to death (koffBILLCLINTONkoff)

I said this in another thread, but this is EXACTLY why this story needs to stay at the forefront. The Republicans like to think they can highjack moral superiority in they bring up the ol' "But look at what Clinton did!" They STILL want to be the party of "moral values" and the Larry Craig scandal makes it harder for them to do that. This scandal is a ebbing of that tactic's effectiveness.

I think the gays will help Senetor Wide Stance (R-KY jelly) when he demostrates that he won't stab us in the back once we pick him off the ground. Given that he's a Republican, I'm not holding my breath on that.

In other word, is Sen. Wide Stance actually going to LEARN anything from this? Like I dunno, TAKING ACCOUNTABILITY for his actions (the thing that pisses me most about Republicans Judging from his defensive "I'm not gay and this is all the liberal media/Gay Agenda/Entraping law enforcement's fault" I would say no. He just wants to be let "off the hook" so we can forget this incident when he goes back to demonizing other groups in the name of "family values" (And THAT'S what he really needs to be apologizing for. And since he hasn't or given any indication that he wants to, I as a gay man can't possibly forgive him.)

Is this the political version of Fraiser? You know where a bunch of pompous windbags try hard to impress people and fix situations with their oh-so condesinding intellect (with the humor being that, somehow, despite their superior "genius", end up making things worse.)

So while some of the progressive population climb the golden stepladder (the better to help them get over themselves), let me explain that what the rep is suggestion is NOT "the same" as what the Republicans do. For one what WE say is (or should be) backed by actual truth. What this is, is not "dumbing it down" ("Oh if only those people were as lofty as me"), it is what people call "making it plain." For example, haven't you seen that old scene where some scientist dork is explaining so complex theroy to non-scientist, and then someone jokes, "Can you explain that again in English?" What that person means, of course is "can you explain that in a way that I can understand it?" I mean after all, ideas that can't be understand are meaningless babblling. (Who of course then wonder why "they" won't listen, "they" of course being the dirty unwashed masses who are like all icky and don't like being looked down upon by their intellectual betters like they're suppose to.)

So yes I do support making ideas vivid in the minds of "ordinary" people, even if I have to stoop to "their" level.

I mean using fake reporters to insure favorable spin? Shameful! Now I see Jeff Gannon in the back has a question...