I read that article, and it's an example of lazy reporting. The reporter did no investigation, just listed some publicity seeking guys looking to get in the papers. Reporting rumors and unsubstantiated claims is not journalism.

I have a friend who lives in Idaho.

Sue tells me in Idaho potatoes are called spuds.

You'd think these Craig followers would stop begging for Mr. 'tater head spuds and just eat mashed potatoes with butter.

No lie anymore. Spuds have eyes. Corn has ears. Truth can kill.

"But the Statesman's investigation, which included reviews of travel and property records and background checks on all five men, found nothing to disprove the five new accounts. The men offer telling and sometimes similar details about what happened, or the senator's travel records place him in the city where sex is alleged to have occurred, or his accusers told credible witnesses at the time of the incident."

Looks like this paper is doing the job the right way.

Yes, it's a "he said-he said" tale. But it's a tale the basic facts of which seem to have been repeated time and again for many years by multiple parties.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck....

Is non other than the self-professed gay escort and meth supplier from Denver who led to the downfall of Colorado Springs megachurch Rev. Ted Haggard.

Man, that guy gets around, don't he?

They simply won't learn. I'll bet Craig was no less shocked by B.Clinton, and never for a moment thought it had anything to do with him--despite his own proclivities. Did he keep his mouth shut then--or jump on the bandwagon?

Unfortunately, this is how our system works and makes cowards of us all. The problems with those like Craig is they don't know when to back down. They have no other life. They mistake power with respect.

They are as merciless with others as they are with themselves. As a Republican especially that is hard in the current milieu. I've lost track of how many times we're seen it in only the last few years--and still they won't learn. At this point, they show us what it means to be a fool and let those paying attention know who the other fools are.

When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton replied, "Because that's where the money is."

When asked how he "got around" so much and had meetings with both Ted Haggard and Larry Craig, the gay escort replied, "Because they know where the sex is."

...is that the recent 'Obama=Muslim?' reporting is an example of general Village idiocy, not idiocy that only seems to hurt Democrats. The common factor seems to be a combination of:

1) Villagers assuming whatever their salacious water cooler talk is should be the water cooler talk for the rest of the country

and

2) That they're the meanest Mean Girls around as long as whomever they're kicking is already down.

Regardless of the merit of this story, the headline is misleading.

It can't be "gay" sex, as Larry Craig is not gay, regardless of who he's tricking with. The allegations are about sex with other men, so call it homosexual acts, or sex with men, but don't call it gay sex.

The term gay is one of self-identity, so only men who acknowledge they are gay can have gay sex.

How does that work if one party self-identifies as gay?

Did the out man have "gay sex" while the closeted man "engage in a homosexual act"?

both tops, hmmm. I guess its safe to assume "conservative" is the new term for bottom.

... and that is telling.

The subtext to all this is that 1. Gays should be fired. 2. Gays are subject to and engage in sleezy blackmail and shouldn't be trusted. 3. Gay sex is dirty and shameful and occurs in public rest rooms.

In 1964 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that revolutionized libel law in the United States. The decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan created a national rule that squared with the free press guarantees of the First Amendment. The Court's ruling decided that public officials no longer could sue successfully for libel unless reporters or editors were guilty of "actual malice" when publishing false statements about them.

Craig would have a difficult proving actual malice.

...had to correct that! It's that anal thing...:-))

I would indeed imagine that this will not stop Craig from servicing the men of Idaho.

Ba-zing!

I couldn't resist.

Maybe he would have a difficult time proving malice, but why wouldn't he, in giving a statement to the media, launch a strong public relations campaign implying legal action?

Or, why not actually launch a legal campaign? Seems to me that if being gay is the awful sin Senator Craig seems to think it is, then, he should outraged over the smearing of his reputation.

This response seems a bit tepid...

folger wrote:

"The subtext to all this is that 1. Gays should be fired. 2. Gays are subject to and engage in sleezy blackmail and shouldn't be trusted. 3. Gay sex is dirty and shameful and occurs in public rest rooms."

That's only the subtext if you're an idiot. The reason people are taking Craig to task is that (1) he plead guilty to a public indecency charge, which in itself is news because he's a bigtime politician, (2) he subsequently denied the truth of the charge, (3) he publically claimed he is not homosexual and these new charges seem to contradict his statement, (4) in his official duties he has supported legislation that is contrary to the cause of homosexual rights.

MICKI wrote: "In 1964 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that revolutionized libel law in the United States... The Court's ruling decided that public officials no longer could sue successfully for libel unless reporters or editors were guilty of "actual malice" when publishing false statements about them. Craig would have a difficult proving actual malice."

Why do you assume he would sue the newspaper? Couldn't he just as well file slander charges against the individuals making the claims?