Senator Larry Craig just does not know when to give up the proverbial ghost.

Craig fell from grace and saw his political career crash and burn in the aftermath of an arrest in a Minneapolis Airport when an undercover police office accused Craig of soliciting sex. Craig eventually pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct and has denied he was seeking any sexual favors. Regardless, public disclosure of the guilty plea led to a firestorm of controversy and the embattled Senator has now decided to fight back by seeking to petition the court to have the guilty plea wiped away.

It is doubtful this will be a successful motion. Consider the following excerpt from the AP:

"He's already gotten lots of justice and fairness," said Mary Jane Morrison, a professor in criminal law at Hamline University. "A court will view this as taking not just a second bite at the apple, but a fourth and fifth bite. Because he had the right to refuse to plead in the first place, and put the state to its proof. He had the right to have an attorney help him figure out what was in his best interest."

Craig's actions will serve little purpose than bringing additional bad publicity not only to the GOP, but to the Harry Reid led Senate in general. The public is growing weary of a congress that they perceive as elitist and self serving as indicated by outrageously negative polls. The perpetual continuation of the Craig circus will certainly not help public perception at all.

You have no idea how hard it is for me to call ex-Marine John Murtha that. I respect anyone who has served...at least until the point that they take off the uniform and demean our troops like Rep. Murtha and Sen. John Kerry did.

John Murtha said shortly after several Marines were charged with murder in Haditha Iraq that they killed "in cold blood" when the hadn't even gone to trial. Most of the charges were dropped including the most serious charges and the Marines have effectively been cleared. So why hasn't Murtha apologized for his comments and why didn't the media question why a sitting congressman would first portray our troops as murderers than not apologize when it became clear they would not? That was a rhetorical question.

I guess if you can't get the old media to do the job, it falls to new media bloggers to ask the corrupt congressman the pertinent questions:

It seems that at that exact moment Murtha would like to have redeployed himself to Okinawa. Murtha loathes those who he once belonged to and he should be ashamed of himself. Unfortunately shame is not something Murtha knows anything about.

Congressman John Murtha is an absolute disgrace and he is exulted by the Democrats. He accused our troops of committing a vile act and when they are proven innocent, he runs away. Ladies and gents, enjoy your new Congress, the Most. Ethical. Congress, Ever.

Abraham Lincoln has a big memorial statue and Sen. Larry Craig gets... a bathroom stall. Well, Abraham Lincoln was a president, so it is understandable.

Yes, the infamous Minneapolis bathroom stall has now become a tourist attraction of sorts. According to the AP, travelers from all over the world who pass through the airport ask to be directed to the infamous stall where the notorious "hand signal" that led to Craig's disturbing the peace misdemeanor conviction occurred. The conviction also led to a lot of embarrassment for the Republicans and cast more dark clouds over the Senate as a whole as it reaffirmed in many people's eyes the negative stereotype of elected officials being self absorbed elitists. Of course, this is not of many elected officials – or even Craig for that matter – but for many, perception is reality.

While the entire Craig episode has been reduced to a comedic vehicle for pundits, the truth of the matter is that with the nation at war, a looming mortgage crisis, climate change, etc, the public needs (and demands) strong and solid leadership. The emergence of the "Craig bathroom attraction" highlights what has become endemic to the woes of the very unpopular Congress and its foibles as public disapproval grows.

Wow. Alan Greenspan's memoir is being previewed and George W. does not come out well. Remember, Greenspan is a life long Republican and a revered voice in financial circles. He was optimistic when his friends were elected.

When Bush and Cheney won the 2000 election, Greenspan writes, "I thought we had a golden opportunity to advance the ideals of effective, fiscally conservative government and free markets. . . . I was soon to see my old friends veer off to unexpected directions."

Here's what he's saying now about the Bush administration:

"Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences." The large, anticipated federal budget surpluses that were the basis for Bush's initial $1.35 trillion tax cut "were gone six to nine months after George W. Bush took office." So Bush's goals "were no longer entirely appropriate. He continued to pursue his presidential campaign promises nonetheless."

Smack down and he's only getting warmed up. Tell us how you really feel Alan.

By the end of last year, Greenspan writes with some bitterness, Washington was "harboring a dysfunctional government. ... Governance has become dangerously dysfunctional."

This from Alan Greenspan, never considered a radical. He worked with whoever was in office. He apparently appreciated Bill Clinton's ability to digest facts and face economic reality but pretty much says President Bush is the worst president ever. Now, I'm no Greenspan fan myself but we have found something to agree on here. The national debt has escalated faster than Republicans can send more brigades to the endless war. History will not be kind to this reckless cowboy and Greenspan is probably just the start. Worst President Ever, not the heroic cardboard cutout the Pretender sports.

It's happened again. Another foot, another mouth. This time it's Rep. John Boehner, the lead Republican in the House. What did he say? The death of thousands and wounding of tens of thousands was 'a small price to pay'. Seriously.

BLITZER: "Mr. Leader, here is the question. How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure, the loss and blood the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment, is going to require?"

A small price. Tell it to the families. Even other Republicans are not backing him. John McCain said:

With all due respect, every American wounded or sacrificed is the greatest possible price to pay,"

And of course Democrats seized on Boehner's very poorly chosen words. Rather than apologize, Boehner's office said he was talking about the money but the question was how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment, is going to require?" And now, we're supposed to accept the sacrifice of thousands more. A small price indeed.

Beginning in October 2007 the Department of Homeland Security will open a new office called the National Applications Office (NAO) charged with civil/domestic intelligence gathering. This new division of Homeland Security was conceived entirely by the Executive Branch, with no Congressional input, and will serve as a clearinghouse for requests to access the data provided by military spy satellites, with a resolution of inches, to view the territorial United States. That's right a resolution of inches and they are charged with domestic spying.

There's a funny thing tho. Americans might not like the idea of cameras peeping in anywhere and everywhere. In fact, there's a law that doesn't allow the military to undertake activities like this on Americans. It generally

prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.

Of course this is an administration that thumbs its nose at both. You may have heard of this law. The Posse Comitatus Act ? When is it going to sink in to Americans that the Bush administration is not out to protect Americans but to control Americans. Recent polls show the public is no longer buying the excuses and 'mis-statements' of the Republican Administration. Through fear, by co-opting a willing media and intimidation they have tried to mislead the public. This is just one more case. Every Republican candidate has no problem with the NAO office. Let's make sure they are stopped. Public awareness makes a difference if we act on it.

Now this is an interesting story. Apparently, Senator Larry Craig is having second thoughts about resigning from the Senate. Here, as of tonight, is his spokesman, Sidney Smith:

"It's not such a foregone conclusion anymore, that the only thing he could do was resign. We're still preparing as if Senator Craig will resign September 30, but the outcome of the legal case in Minnesota and the ethics investigation will have an impact on whether we're able to stay in the fight--and stay in the Senate."

Indeed, Craig should have his day in court. Why should he resign when David Vitter, who, unlike Craig, actually acknowledged an ethical lapse, remains in the Senate? Sure, Craig did plead guilty to disturbing the peace, but he claims it was mistake. People do make them from time to time. As Craig's children claimed today, perhaps the senator was simply reaching for a piece of toilet paper at the wrong time. Maybe he really does affect a wide stance to keep his pants from hitting the ground. Maybe he didn't tell his wife or children or Senate colleagues about his guilty plea because he knew how shameful it would sound.

Craig's new lawyer, the same man who represents Michael Vick, will surely put the record straight, so to speak. To hell with Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Norm Coleman, Mitt Romney, and all those in the GOP who want Craig to quietly disappear. The man should stand and present his case.

Amazing. And you'd thought you'd seen it all, America.

As the old sports saying goes "It ain't over until it is over." As of right now, the Senate career of Sen. Larry Craig is scheduled to be over on September 30 as Craig has announced his plans to resign in the aftermath of his arrest after a "sex sting" in a Minneapolis airport bathroom. Now, it appears that the end of Craig's career is not a foregone conclusion as Craig is considering changing his mind and staying on board with the Senate. Additionally, Craig has retained a high profile attorney who will seek to have Craig's disorderly conduct conviction re-opened and possible reversed.

According to the Associated Press, Craig was lobbied by fellow Senator Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) to not resign and fight the media pressure that has surrounded him. Considering that Craig was not caught "red handed" committing a lewd act, but accused of possibly soliciting an undercover police officer using hand signal code words. There has been some belief that the arrest was purely a misunderstanding and that Craig pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct as a way of keeping the situation quiet. Obviously, it was not kept quiet and was never going to be kept quiet.

As such, Craig's decision to plead guilty to a lesser charge without the advice of counsel was misguided, although the end result would have probably been the same no matter what he did. Ultimately, this appears to be morphing into the scandal/non-scandal that won't go away.

"We've got a role, the government has got a role to play -- but it is limited."

These were the words of President Bush when he issued a public statement regarding potential bailouts to those who are suffering from a mortgage foreclosures. In short, the president is offering to help, but he will not go so far as to provide a bailout.

There are two sides to the coin of the mortgage foreclosure controversy: those who borrowed far beyond their means and are now buried under debt and those who were victims of predatory lending that goaded them into signing loans they could not afford. Regardless of how the borrowers found themselves in the position they are in the fact remains the situation has reached critical mass and borrowers are looking for the government to help.

Bush, along with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, have made a pledge to homeowners they will provide the help that has been asked for. According to the Washington Times, the help may come in the form expanding "Federal Housing Administration insurance for subprime borrowers, which would assist about 80,000 mostly low-income and minority households facing foreclosure." Whether or not this will prove to be enough remains to be seen, but it is a step in the right direction.

As news hits us this morning that the Republican National Committee may publicly call for Senator Larry Craig to resign "voluntarily," I think that it would be helpful to spell out the reasons why Craig should go ASAP. And aside from the original "act," none of the reasons pertain to sexual orientation -- nor would they go away if Craig was successful in taking back his plea.

1. The incident itself. Cruising for anonymous sex in a public restroom is a recipe for disaster, be it gay or heterosexual sex. In addition to being personally reckless in regards to health issues, it's an invitation for blackmail.
2. The arrest. Craig informed no-one in GOP leadership of his arrest;
3. His plea. Craig informed no-one in GOP leadership of his plea;
4. His sentence. Craig informed no-one in GOP leadership of his sentence;
5. His probation. Craig received one-year's probation, and told no-one.

Each of the reasons above call into question Craig's judgment. As I've said before, I don't care if he's gay or not. As for his being a hypocrite, he was never one of the leading "family values" politicians, although I do feel terrible for his wife. As for his stance on gay rights, I think that it's perfectly acceptable to be gay and to not support gay marriage. As for gay rights, gays already have them -- the same rights that the rest of us have. To be gay and not to support special rights and laws for gays, above and beyond what everyone else has, is perfectly acceptable to the average American. Just not to the special interest groups.

The main problem I see with Craig is that he didn't inform anyone of what was going on in a criminal matter that he pled guilty to and was sentenced to probation for. Not telling leadership in the Senate is inexcusable. That alone would be justification for calls for his resignation. On a side note - I find it hard to believe that an incident like this could have remained secret for as long as it did. Reflecting on the Mark Foley mess, I can't help but think that someone, somewhere, also knew about this Craig debacle, but figured that the GOP leadership is still brainless - so the facts on the case would have been sat on until it could be released at a later time to do more damage to the GOP's 2008 election chances.

The future is not looking very bright for embattled GOP Senator Larry Craig. In light of the fallout of his recent legal troubles, Craig has stepped down from a number of important committee positions and now top GOP members of the Senate are calling on Craig to resign. Considering one of the voices calling for the resignation is the high profile Senator John McCain, the future for Senator Craig looks bleak indeed.

According to an AP report, in addition to Senator McCain, Senator Norm Coleman, along with Rep. Peter Hoekstra are also calling for Craig to resign. With such heat building on Craig his resignation looks like it will only be a matter of time.

What makes this entire situation perplexing is that while Craig did plead guilty to disorderly conduct in association with a lewd act, it is unknown whether or not he was actually attempting to commit a lewd act. Regardless, the entire situation has proven incredibly embarrassing for the GOP and has the potential to have a severely negative impact on the functioning of the senate in general. As such, perhaps it would be best if Craig stepped aside so as to avoid a spectacle from becoming worse.

When deciding who the best political minds of the last decade are, the list comes down to Karl Rove, James Carville and perhaps Paul Begala. Rove would sit atop this list because of his genius in the 2004 campaign alone. Rove figured that John Edwards was the more formidable candidate because he had no real track record and had a lot fewer areas to hit him. John Kerry, on the other hand, left so many openings that Rove devised a great strategy:

With his Southern base, charismatic style and populist message, Edwards, they believed, could be a real threat to Bush's reelection.

But instead of attacking Edwards, Rove's team opened fire at Kerry.

Their thinking went like this, Dowd explained: Democrats, in a knee-jerk reaction to GOP attacks, would rally around Kerry, whom Rove considered a comparatively weak opponent, and make him the party's nominee. Thus Bush would be spared from confronting Edwards, the candidate Republican strategists actually feared most.

In other words, Rove used the absolute Democratic hatred of President Bush to get the opponent he wanted. It's a beautiful plan in its simplicity, and the media obediently printed every single thing the Bush administration said about Kerry, thus making sure that the party would rally around the Massachusetts senator even knowing he was the worst candidate to run since Bob Dole in 1996. Kerry is Dukakis without the brains, and Rove and the GOP picked him apart piece by piece on Vietnam and his infamous "Winter Soldier" speech.

Well, Rove is doing it again and the Clinton camp is buying into it, they are taking every word Rove has said over the last week of his resignation tour about Hillary and using it to garner support, which will come from all areas of the Dem coalition. Hillary's spokesperson believes the hype:

"Considering that the Rove rhetoric closely mirrors what some Democratic candidates are saying, it's clear that the Republicans think she will win in 2008."

Rove knows full-well that Hillary is the single-most polarizing individual in the race and that she will not attract the needed "centrists" from the middle whose votes are mandatory for a win.

H/T: PW

Channel 2 in Chicago is reporting that Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert is calling it quits and will not seek re-election next year.

While sources tell CBS 2 that he's leaving Congress after 22 years, he's ridiculed previous speculation along those lines.

Last January, he told CBS 2, "I just think that was wishful thinking on the part of some people. Some had me being an Ambassador some place, which had no founding at all."

But, the sources believe this time it's real, and they point to sure signs of his decision not to run again. Several key players in previous Hastert campaigns have already signed on with other politicians this time, including important advisors and a top fundraiser. Republican State Senator Chris Lauzen of Aurora said Hastert's political Web site is now out of action.

This is bigger news to the Chicago area than the GOP. John Boehner from Ohio is leading the GOP congressional delegation now. It may be that Hastert decided that this was a good time to retire and make room for new blood. But it also makes it a bit harder for the GOP to get the majority back next year. Democrats will attack this seat with a vengeance. Keep an eye out for the actual announcement.

The political strategist Bush nicknamed "The Architect" will be resigning at the end of August and will be moving back to Texas. The Wall Street Journal has the story.

Mr. Rove, who has held a senior post in the White House since President Bush took office in January 2001, told Mr. Gigot he first floated the idea of leaving a year ago. But he delayed his departure as, first, Democrats took Congress, and then as the White House tackled debates on immigration and Iraq, he said. He said he decided to leave after White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten told senior aides that if they stayed past Labor Day they would be obliged to remain through the end of the president's term in January 2009.

"I just think it's time," Mr. Rove said in the interview. "There's always something that can keep you here, and as much as I'd like to be here, I've got to do this for the sake of my family." Mr. Rove and his wife have a home in Ingram, Texas, and a son who attends college in nearby San Antonio.

Does this mean that Karl Rove is quitting politics? I don't see it that way. Rove is a political strategist, his job is to win elections and Bush is not out to win anymore elections and Bush himself will not be the head of the GOP in 2008. Bush simply doesn't need a political strategist.

The obvious implication is that Rove is now up for grabs and is, as we speak, fielding phone calls from the Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Thompson, and now Huckabee, campaigns. It's likely that however the nomination plays out Rove will have a role. At least this way he gets somewhat of a vacation. Before 2008. He probably needs it.

In the last four presidential elections, California has voted for a Democrat. That's a galling fact-of-life for Republican lawyer Thomas Hiltachk, who is pushing a ballot initiative to radically alter how the state's electoral votes are counted:

California awards its cache of 55 electoral votes to the statewide winner in presidential elections - the largest single prize in the nation. But a prominent Republican lawyer wants to put a proposal on the ballot that would award the statewide winner only two electoral votes. The rest would be distributed to the winning candidate in each of the state's congressional districts. In effect, that would create 53 races, each with one electoral vote up for grabs.

The initiative is titled The Presidential Election Reform Act. Hiltachk works out of Sacramento, at a firm that represents the California Republican Party. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a past client of Hiltachk's, disavows any connection to the initiative. State Republican Chairman Ron Nehring, on the other hand, seems to think it's a swell idea, saying, "We'll take a serious look at it, once it qualifies for the ballot."

Call it gerrymandering writ-large. If you can't win California's electoral votes the way the elections are currently run, change the rules! Let's hope the voters of the Golden State shoot this shameless attempt at rigging the next election down in flames. If you want to make democracy more representative, then do so in every state of the union. These are, after all, national elections.