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.

For many years, unacceptable sexual activity has been the norm in Washington, D.C. That all changed with the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Closets were opened and improper activity was quickly punished. The accused was immediately shunned. The concept of fair trial was gone. The opposing party attacked to gain an advantage. The member party, secured the rope and hung the accused without a trial.

As a Catholic, I saw this happen in my church. For years, priests who abused children were allowed to continue to serve in the community. They were promoted and allowed to harm more children. Then, the crap hit the fan. Things changed. Some might say for the better. However, under the new plan, innocent priests who were accused were immediately punished and removed from their job. They lost a career and financial support. Some of these priests have been proven to be innocent. However, nobody seems to care as long as the problem is resolved. However, shouldn't we care about the innocent priest who served the community and was unjustly accused?

Senator Larry Craig was not guilty of a crime. He should keep his seat. The press, the Democrats and the Republicans must start thinking about the individual. Our country was built of the concept of a fair trial. It is nice to see that the Washington Post has come out to say that Craig did not commit a crime. Instead, he pleaded guilty with the promise his actions would be kept secret. They were not.

The Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP group, have criticized Sen. Larry Craig of Minnesota for his recent behavior -- as well as ex-Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney for his response to the Craig scandal.

Patrick Sammon, president of the LCR, explained why the group wanted Craig to resign: "Innocent people don't plead guilty," he said. "The time to contest these allegations is before and not after."

Yet Sammon simultaneously slammed Romney for the latter's cancellation of his ties to Craig. Romney, Time Magazine reported, "was the first of the Republican presidential candidates to denounce (Craig's) indiscretion in an airport men's room. 'It's disgusting,' Romney said of the man who used to be his Senate liaison."

This displeased Sammon, who said that it displays "the danger of legislating morality, and hypocrisy is revealed ... Mitt Romney is basing his whole campaign on quote-unquote 'family values,' so it's an embarrassment for Mitt Romney and he tried to get away from him as fast as he can."

Sometimes it must be hard to be a gay Republican. Party pundit Ann Coulter casually drops the F-word at public gatherings. Party leadership would call for higher taxes faster than it would for same-sex marriage. Yet I credit LCR with taking a thoughtful and comprehensive position on the Craig scandal.

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.

Senator Arlen Specter:

"I'd like to see Larry Craig go back to court, seek to withdraw his guilty plea and fight the case," Senator Arlen Specter said on 'Fox News Sunday'. Drawing on his earlier experience as District Attorney of Philadelphia, Specter said, "On the evidence Senator Craig wouldn't be convicted of anything. And he's got his life on the line and 27 years in the House and Senate, and I'd like to see him fight the case because I think he could be vindicated."

Senator Patrick Leahy:

Speaking on the same show, Senator Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Specter raised a good point. "From a legal point of view he makes a very good point," Leahy said. "Now from a political point of view I don't pretend to know what Idaho politics are or how they might be, but Senator Specter has laid out as strong a legal case as I've heard."

This is Example A of what Patrick is talking about earlier. Isn't it odd that most of the regret over Craig is being offered by Democrats and liberals?

Leahy was teeing off comments by Senator Arlen Specter, and yes, this particular incident he could fight, yes, the legal methods used to arrest Craig are questionable. But lets keep in mind the bigger picture here. The Republicans need to remake their image regarding corruption. You can't do that and have Craig in the party. Sorry.

Here's the headline on this story in the Washington Post in light of the retirement of Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) and the resignation of Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho): GOP Faces Growing Peril in 2008 Races.

I was all prepared to blast the headline, because while Virginia will be a challenge, Idaho is a red-red state and any Republican chosen to replace Craig will be heavily favored next November. So it's not good news, sure, but "growing peril"?

Then I read further into the article and find this nugget at paragraph six:

To be sure, last week's events will not necessarily change the terrain that much, if the Republicans get a little lucky.

And then goes on to note that Idaho won't be a problem at all, despite the headline and the lead paragraph. Nice. Virginia is indeed going to be a headache. Virginia Democrats not only have a popular former who could be persuaded to run, his name is also Warner, giving him a leg up in name recognition, while the Republicans are looking a thin. I wonder if they might consider turning back to George Allen and asking the voters to reconsider throwing out their Republican senator over a made up word. That will be interesting to watch.

Senator Larry Craig of Idaho has made the decision to resign his position and the effective date of resignation will be September 30th.

Whether it is a case of a corrupt politician getting what he deserved or the case of a naïve politician trying to do what was best under a stressful situation, the end result was going to be the same no matter what. Craig's career was, for all intents and purposes, over the moment he was booked for actions in a Minneapolis airport bathroom that an undercover police officer deemed lewd behavior.

According to The Politico, Craig's future in the Senate was further doomed when President Bush made the decision not to provide any support to the embattled senator and, to make matters worse, top GOP senators such as Norm Coleman, Mitch McConnell and John McCain all publicly chastised him. With such obvious lack of support, it became clear that Craig needed to resign and he did just that. Instead of becoming the longest "reigning" senator from the state of Idaho, Craig will now go down in the history books as the senator from Idaho who resigned from a sex scandal that never included any actual sex. His replacement to be named by the governor is expected to be Lt. Gov. Jim Risch.

He's not guilty of anything but he's resigning. "I did nothing wrong but I'm leaving." In my book, Larry Craig not guilty of anything but extreme hubris, hypocrisy and lies. He's ashamed of who he is and that's his problem. I'm sorry for him but if I went around being all Puritanical and judgmental, and then lying when caught, I'd expect to be tossed out as well.

David Vitter may be breathing a sigh of relief, but that won't last long. The mood of the country is to throw bums and hypocrites out and provide some leadership, some backbone and stand up to the administration. This applies to both parties. It isn't a question of being squeaky clean but they should be able to meet a higher standard in honesty than most.

Other shoes that may drop: Remember Rep. Bob Ney, who left and is in jail? Well, his staff has been singing and investigators are following the money. The D.C. Madam case is moving along and entire parts of the Justice Department are not cooperating with the Bush administration. High-ranking staffers are leaving the White House in droves. There's a reason Congress is supposed to investigate. It's their purview and part of the archaic notion of checks and balances. The big bombshells are likely to come from high ranking military. There's more to come, watch for it.

So who does the GOP trot out to do damage control on the Larry Craig scandal? None other than disgraced former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas!

DeLay was confrontational to Matt Lauer Thursday morning, responding to a list of GOP scandals by mentioning several Democrats who ran afoul of the law.

"The double-standard in the media is amazing," DeLay told Lauer. The feeding frenzy, the sharks in the water that's going on right now because of a Republican. Where is the frenzy on Alan Mollohan from West Virginia or William Jefferson from Louisiana?"

"The Hammer" has been a busy guy lately, what with hawking his new book, "No Retreat, No Surrender," and all, but he did make time to prove that, at least for the GOP, the best defense is a good offense.

And it's nice to bring the old guard back into the limelight. Former Sen. Max Cleland fought the good anti-war fight for the Democrats, just as DeLay is showing current Republicans how not to wilt under pressure.

CNN is reporting that sources say it's a done deal, no time frame is given. If Larry Craig is to resign, do it today on the Friday before Labor Day when people have a long weekend on their minds.

Idaho has a GOP governor so this may work out well if he appoints a young, energetic Conservative who can establish himself before the next election. Craig is dead in the water regardless of how any investigation turns out and he will be an albatross for the rest of his term. Idaho is never really "in play" anyway but if this were to linger on for too long, it could be.

Update (1410): Or maybe not. ABC is saying his aids are denying he'll retire. That's bad news for the GOP if he's hanging around. Stay tuned.

The NYT editorial page (along with several left wing blogs) makes a fair point when they wonder why the Republicans are rushing to investigate, strip and disown Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, while Sen. David Vitter got barely a head nod.

There's the F.B.I.'s inquiry into whether Senator Ted Stevens swung a quid-pro-quo deal for a government contractor who eventually renovated his Alaska home. There's also Senator David Vitter's presence on the client list of a Washington brothel. Mr. Vitter, a social conservative, pleaded guilty to "sin" (heterosexual) and no leadership call ensued for a thorough in-house ethics inquiry. Certainly, no Republican called for the resignation of Mr. Vitter, who comes from Louisiana, which has a Democratic governor who would then replace him. Mr. Craig is from a safe state with a Republican governor.

The answer is not, as the editorial page suggest, the brutal agenda of trumpeting the gay-marriage "agenda." That issue has largely run its course, as the states where the issue is most effective have already passed their marriage amendments. It's not much of a factor anymore.

Nor is it merely the cold political calculation that Vitter would be replaced by a Democrat and Craig, a Republican. That that is part of it I won't deny. Mitt Romney doesn't care about that, at least not primarily, and he was one of the first to scramble.

But the far larger reason for the scramble on Craig is all about 2006 and Mark Foley. Foley took himself out of the game very quick, but does anyone remember what the Democrat party mantra was last October? It was, "you should have known, you should have done something."

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.

I have been slow about reacting to the misdemeanor crime to which Senator Larry Craig pled guilty.

Should he resign his Senate seat? I don't think so.

Have we all gone nuts? Maybe the senator is a hypocrite. Scratch that: He is a hypocrite. But he didn't commit a crime. Maybe he was going to, but I listened to the tape and I can't imagine there was sufficient evidence for a conviction. The guy was in a hurry to catch a plane. He didn't want to be embarrassed further. He signed a paper. Paid a fine and got the heck out of the airport.

He pled guilty but I just don't see what crime he committed. He is just one more hypocrite who gets elected to one of the most prized seats in the world. Keep your seat, senator, but stay out of public bathrooms.

In a campaign season where the emphasis will hopefully be, at least in part, on integrity and honesty, strength of character, etc, etc., what does it say about a candidate who rewrites his own press releases to delete someone that turned out to be an embarrassment to him? Senator Larry Craig was Mitt Romney's Senate liaison up until a few days ago, at which time his relationship with Mr. Romney was severed for reasons that make all kinds of sense. However, all references to Senator Craig have now been removed from previously published press releases -- check out his Web site.

It's one thing to sever a relationship when someone you hired turns out not to be the one with whom you want to be associated -- seems to be happening a lot these days. However, to pretend the relationship never existed is something else again. Nations have been known to rewrite history to serve their own ends -- even our own history textbooks gloss over much of what might be considered unpleasant aspects of our history. Of course, it doesn't change history, just attempts to mislead people.

Mr. Romney has shown a convenient propensity to change his views on controversial issues in order to better appeal to certain constituencies now that he is running for president. I guess he also has a propensity to change (or hire people who will change) the facts to suit his purposes as well. You would think that in this day of the Internet and instant video replays that these people would get it. You can't hide this stuff.

Addendum: I thought the above opinion was clear, but after reading many of the comments below, apparently it was not. I have absolutely NO problem with Mr. Romney immediately severing his association with Senator Craig. It is what any politician with a brain in his or her head would have done and should have done. I think the Senator's behavior was sleazy and pathetic. What made it doubly so, in my opinion, was the hypocrisy that it represented given his dogmatic stance against gays, gay rights, etc., etc. (me thinks thou doth protest too much).

What bothered me about what Romney's campaign did was that by changing an already published press release to delete all references to Senator Craig's former position with the campaign, they were, in fact, rewriting history. I think we have had enough of an administration in the last six years that has played loose with the truth and assumed that Americans were gullible or naive enough that they could "change" the truth and that would make it so. All Mr. Romney had to do was to announce that he was severing the relationship with Senator Craig because in light of current events, it was obvious that he did not represent the values in which Mr. Romney believes. End of story. This sort of behavior strikes me as a knee-jerk reaction to a situation without thinking through the ramifications -- not something that gives me warm fuzzies about his potential administration.