The press made me do it.

I'm totally going to use that if I'm ever arrested. It was all the press's fault.

The party of Personal Responsibility Strikes Again.

When the Lewinsky mess first broke, I didn't hear any Republicans gushing about the sacred nature of testimony under oath -- instead their theme was "What kind of an example does this set?" and "What kind of father is he?"

If the Republicans would show consistency, they would now harp about his private behavior instead of finely splitting the distinctions about whether he should have pleaded guilty.

He try to fondle men in a bathroom, it's just something that he keeps being caught doing.

Is he just trying to fool himself?

It gives me sympathy for the poor bastard. His hypocrisy in public life is awful and destructive - all the legislation he's sponsored and opposed to try and keep down gay folk....All the benefits he's gotten from fanning the flames of xenophobia towards people who are gay like it seems certain he is...

But this guy is still so scared and just trapped in the whole he dug for himself, that he can't just square his shoulders and say what the whole freakin' world can clearly see. It's just sad.

I can only see more and more of these sorts of revelations in the future, as our culture evolves. This is actually a good sign; the shedding of a skin.

Shouldn't the DA or the Judge who I'm sure made it clear that pleading guilty must be done without reservation while under oath, and I'm sure took his guilty plea into account when determining the sentence, be interested in speaking to Sen. Craig again regarding his public denial of his guilt?

... he just likes to have anonymous sex with men. It's not like that makes him a homo or something.

"...uhhh...'bout last night...I ain't no queer...'

I continue to be amazed by Craig's insistence on one overwhelming claim: I am not gay. I have never been gay.

It's not about whether he is gay. It's about shopping for sex in a bathroom stall.

He wasn't arrested for being gay.

However, that seems to be the overwhelming concern in his world. So...I am assuming if he had been soliciting women for sex, it wouldn't be any big deal.

Republicans seem to have a real (pardon the pun) hard on about everyone else's sex life. Abstinence, sanctity of marriage....blah blah blah.

But when it comes to their own, it's only problematic when it's gay sex. And you get caught.

They are prudes on paper, and hypocrites in the bedroom. Or bathroom stall. Or public park. Or page's dorm. Or behind the pulpit. Or.....

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33540

The left should go a bit easy on Craig to try to avoid forcing him to resign. Let him stay on and lose the '08 election. There's nothing gained by hounding him out of office now.

Too bad Larry Craig wasn't in New York last night. The local Fox affiliate aired the Seinfeld "gay" episode. OK, Larry, you're not gay. You ARE a porn star named, "Buck Naked."

If Clinton was impeached for lying about sex with a woman, what happens to Larry?

Just said that Craig is 'another victim of Karl Rove, because he forced Republicans to run on issues of hatred and bigotry'. Yeah, victim. Right.

He was so nervous about fighting claims by the press that he had engaged in sex with men that he pleaded guilty to attempting to have sex with a man . . . yeah. That'll show those muckrakers.

Ladies and Gentleman, I give you the intellect of a United States Senator. Let's here it for him, folks.

How come stuff like this always happens when Jon Stewart is taking the week off?

He appears to be saying that he has never self-identified as a member of the gay community. Homosexual acts... well that may be a different story. Rather like Clinton's claim that receiving fellatio is not really "sex" -- which everyone knows only occurs when a penis penetrates a vagina. Yeah, right.

The press did make Craig do it! I get it now.

Because the Idaho Statesman was investigating if he had sex with men, he had to prove he didn't. And what better way to prove it than to put himself in a situation where he could have sex with a man but chose not to? And so, off to the public restrooms, where he could invite a gay man into his stall and then not have sex with him. Afterward, with the blue-balled gay man at his side as a witness, he could announce the story to the press and clear everything up.

Just his luck that the guy in the next stall should happen to be an undercover cop who misinterpreted the situation and arrested Craig. Then, Craig was so confused over how his brilliant, foolproof plan went awry, he blurted out "Guilty!" We should all be ashamed of ourselves for being misled by an obviously overzealous policeman and a flustering court process.

@Samuel Marshall: Great link!

It's interesting that he continues to insist a particular sentence: "I am not gay."

I've heard that some HIV clinics don't use the word "gay" at all anymore, because of people who insist "I am not gay" but have a lot of sex with men, and instead just ask if they have sex with other men.

Okay. So he claims he's not gay. So reporters need to get specific and ask him specific questions:

Have you ever had a sexual encounter with another man? Have you ever had a sexual encounter in a men's bathroom or other public place?

And, of course:

What are your personal feelings about attempts to legislate issues of sexuality, and what are your current opinions about your own votes opposing gay right?

"Let me be clear," he added. "I am not gay. I have never been gay."

It's amusing that his Republican spinners seem to have told him that the thing he needs to make most clear is that he does not have teh GAY!

Nevermind the fact that, regardless of sexual orientation, the behavior to which he pleaded guilty is utterly creepy. And adulterous. No, the part to worry about is the fact that it means he's a homo.