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.

The Democratic duo might not want this endorsement.

Cuban leader Fidel Castro offered the following presidential ticket: Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.

"In an editorial in Cuba's communist party newspaper, Granma, the ailing dictator called the pairing of the two White House hopefuls 'invincible,' according to an English translation on the paper's Web site," CNN reported.

It's provided material for Ann Coulter to display on her Web site ("The Most Coveted Endorsement After Daily Kos!") and undoubtedly will give plenty of fodder to Coulter's colleagues.

Was there any chance of Fidel endorsing a Republican? I doubt it ... especially if that Republican was Mitt Romney, who displayed a remarkable ignorance regarding Cubans previously.

John Edwards is the angry man in this campaign. He's angry at Ann Coulter, Karl Rove, God evidently, for not making him black or a woman, and now Hillary:

"The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale. The Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent," Edwards said to applause, referencing a Clinton-era controversy in which high-dollar donors were allowed to stay in the White House's famed bedroom.

He said the past isn't going to solve today's problems or "a corrupt a corroded system."

"Those wed to the policies of the '70s, '80s or the '90s are wedded to the past, ideas and policies that are tired, shopworn and obsolete. We will find no answers there," he said.

Clinton served as first lady during most of the 1990s.

Edwards later said he didn't mean to target Clinton during his new stump speech.

Of course you didn't, John. Let's see, Lincoln bedroom? Check. Policies of 90's while Clinton was in office? Check. Wedded? Check. It sure sounds like he meant Hillary Clinton and everyone knows he meant Hillary Clinton. Of course Edwards weaseled out when he was called on it as is his wont when faced with difficult issues.

John Edwards is not gaining any support of men by having his wife, Elizabeth Edwards, constantly fighting his battles. First it was his ongoing battle against Ann Coulter, now she's fighting his fight against Hillary Clinton:

Elizabeth Edwards is again making sharper comments on the presidential campaign trail than any of the actual candidates, giving a particularly pointed critique yesterday of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In an interview with Salon.com, Mrs. Edwards said Mrs. Clinton was not as vocal an advocate for women's issues as she wished she were and lanced what she said was a suggestion by the Clinton campaign that people vote for Mrs. Clinton because she is a woman.

Besides the fact that she may be right -- John Edwards does seem to have unusual insight into women's issues -- the fact that she is increasingly fighting the nastier fights for her husband can do nothing but hurt Edwards. It will bring up the same issues as were raised when Hillary was on the campaign trail with Bill in 1992 -- who exactly are we electing, Bill or Hillary Clinton? Unfortunately, we ended up with both but that's a topic for another day.

From King Arthur to Indiana Jones, adventurers have long sought the Holy Grail. Seems Ann Coulter is seeking a Holy Grail of her own ... namely, the Holy Grail of the ultimate insult. Find out more in the latest "Running Gags"!

Where do we draw the limit in criticizing someone? Should we listen to people who make personal attacks on their opponents? How hard can it be to stick to the issues?

These questions are relevant in light of Elizabeth Edwards' courageous confrontation with Ann Coulter, with Chris Matthews playing the role of mediator. It is heartening that Mrs. Edwards took the time to call in. If others follow this strategy, perhaps we really will have a more civil and issue-centric discourse in this country.

Coulter thrives on insulting her opponents, whether disparaging the SAT scores of New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger or using the F-word to describe John Edwards. Part of what enables her to do this is that many of those who feel revulsion toward her will not have anything to do with her, which is understandable. "Ann and I don't hang out with the same people," Elizabeth Edwards noted on Matthews' show.

I wonder if what keeps Coulter's wicked words flowing is her confidence that her targets will rarely, if ever, confront her on what she says, and she can bask instead on adulation from fans.

Without commenting on whether Ann Coulter crossed the line, (I suspect she did, but am ignorant on the details of what she said exactly) I have to note that the discussion yesterday about Elizabeth Edwards and Coulter is reminiscent of what happened back in March when Ann said that calling John Edwards a "faggot" would land her in a re-education camp.

The Edwards campaign milked that for all its worth and Jonah Goldberg wonders if this is a repeat of that situation:

...She may not have talked to her husband, but the suggestion that this wasn't greenlighted or calculated by the campaign is laughable. Campaign spouses don't freelance like this. More to the point, John Edwards is imploding. And his last really good moment in the press was when Coulter called him a "faggot." It was dumb and distasteful, but it was also money in the bank for Edwards, who used it to further endear himself to the netroots base and to raise money on it. Elizabeth Edwards is - smartly - trying to change the subject back to Edwards as a victim of those mean rightwingers. It strikes me as a little desperate.

It certainly could be that Ann Coulter is the best thing that has happened to the Edwards campaign both then and now. I certainly agree with Jonah that the Edwards campaign is insulting our intelligence when they deny any ulterior planning. My suspicion is that they are feeding off each other. It's pretty distasteful from either side.

Ann Coulter appeared on Chris Matthews' show today, offering her usual shtick of personal attacks, name-calling and zippy one-liners. All pretty predictable stuff, until, that is, Elizabeth Edwards called in and directly confronted Ms. Coulter about disparaging "personal attacks" Ann made about her husband, John Edwards, as well as their deceased son.

Of course, Ms. Coulter played Mrs. Edwards' request for civility as an attempt at censorship. You see, Ann simply cannot conceive of political debate without resorting to her trademark tools of attack. After all, what would become of Coulter if she couldn't wield sensational ad hominem arguments? Answer: She'd be out of a job.

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter appeared on "Good Morning America" on Monday to hype her book "Godless." Also, in discussing next year's Republican presidential field, she tweaked two 2008 hopefuls: ex-GOP Sen. Fred Thompson and Democratic star Sen. Barack Obama.

"I think [Thompson's] kind of our Obama," Coulter said, "which is to say, it just shows how unhappy we are with [John] McCain, [Rudy] Giuliani and [Mitt] Romney that Thompson steps in, people know very little about him, and -- 'Oh, he's our guy.'"

She continued, "And it's sort of like that with Obama, that the Democrats aren't happy with their leading candidate, Hillary [Clinton], so they gravitate to Obama knowing nothing about him and him being, you know, 14 years old."

Obama does lack experience, having been in the Senate for two-plus years. Still, perhaps one can admit that political experience isn't everything. John Kerry served in that body for about two decades when he made his presidential run in 2004, yet his days on Capitol Hill didn't seem to provide much of an asset.

Hat tip to my sister on this one ...

Prominent political careers ended in Europe recently, but Americans should not forget a leader who remained: Vladimir Putin of Russia.

Last week, Ann Coulter praised the French for electing Nicolas Sarkozy, and sounded optimistic about England. Tony Blair, she wrote, is " about to leave office -- only to be replaced by a leader from the even more pro-American Conservative Party."

But the leaders who left aren't as significant as one who lingers. Putin could present sizable problems for this country because of his allies ... and ours.

How time flies. It was four years ago that President Bush landed on that aircraft carrier and declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq. We'd won the war! "Mission Accomplished." And the pundits stood up and applauded our Top Gun.

Ann Coulter: It's stunning. It's amazing. I think it's huge. I mean he's landing on a boat at 150 miles per hour. It's tremendous. It's hard to imagine any Democrat being able to do that.

Chris Matthews: ...the president deserves everything he's doing tonight in terms of his leadership. He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics.

Laura Ingraham: Speaking as a woman, and listening to the women who called into my radio show, seeing President Bush get out of that plane, carrying his helmet, he is a real man. He stands by his word. That was a very powerful moment.

Of course, historical perspective has a way of mutating over time, as the following video illustrates.

Concealed-carry gun permits are not the cure-all for school shootings that some people think.

Ann Coulter argues, "In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect." She suggests a reason: "Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can't shoot back."

There is evidence supporting this. As the Wall Street Journal reminded us, three years before Monday's tragedy at Virginia Tech, another gunman, Peter Odighizuwa, killed three people at the Appalachian School of Law, also a Virginia institution. One of the students who helped subdue Odighizuwa told the "Today" show that "We saw the shooter, stopped at my vehicle and got out my handgun and started to approach Peter."

While Coulter's argument sounds persuasive, it is flawed. She implies that if only we had students or professors bringing guns to campus, the scope of future tragedies would be lessened. Perhaps. But this begs the question of how many students or professors actually want to carry guns to class? If a school OKs concealed-carry permits and no one uses them, does this not create the same vulnerable situation that existed at Virginia Tech Monday morning?

There is a pressure in this country for relaxed gun-control laws, and presidential candidates of both parties have pandered to gun owners (John Kerry in 2004, Mitt Romney now). But any politician who picks up Coulter's call for concealed-carry permits ought to consider whether it truly is the solution she claims it to be.

I have read the conservative blogs and those that defend Ann Coulter. She has every right to say whatever she wants. She can imply that people who are heterosexual are really homosexual. She can put them in the box. You see, the success of the Republican party has been to create groups of people that hate each other. Fear and hatred have been the formula to victory for the Republican party. Newt Gingrich has a sister that is gay. So what. It is all about a political plan. Who cares about your sister. Attack them, smear them.

Dick Cheney is offended when somebody talks about his daughter being in love with another woman and having a child. That is private. Politics allows him to breed hatred against the group that is homosexual but he loves his daughter and we should leave her alone.

The Republican Party was led by the moral majority while their party leaders were immoral. No problem, it was all about politics. The formula for winning has included hatred. Go after immigrants, verbally attack homosexuals and most of all if you don't believe in God, how could you ever run the country. You see, all these things are a distraction. Ann Coulter is a lightening rod. She takes attention away from the real issues. Let Ann Coulter say what she wants. You see, she is the Republican Party.

For those keeping score at home, Louisiana's Shreveport Times became the fourth newspaper this week to drop Ann Coulter's syndicated column after she called John Edwards a "faggot." The other dailies include Lancaster Pennsylvania's New Era, The Oakland Press of Michigan, and Sevierville, Tennessee's The Mountain Press.

The Times' Executive Editor, Alan English, explained the decision this way:

It is her recent "joke" about John Edwards being considered a "faggot" that is the back-breaking straw for a decision we've openly discussed for some time. We had a dialog with readers last year regarding whether Coulter was a responsible commentator and journalist... ...Unlike the work of a Thomas Sowell or a Kathleen Parker, two thoughtful conservatives, does a Coulter column raise the level of discourse? The answer: rarely.

Andrew Sullivan, another thoughtful conservative, has perhaps the definitive word on Coulter's antics. The question remains as to how many newspapers and television shows will finally cut ties with Coulter. One thing's certain, don't expect to see her at any high-profile campaign events between now and election '08.

March 9 Update: Another Louisiana paper to add to the list. Lake Charles' The American Press farewell to Ann.

Politics has always been an ugly game. Backroom deals and ad hominem attacks have long been the status quo. Things actually got worse this past week.

Let's start with Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter is a very smart woman and a very good writer. She is unabashedly conservative and pulls zero punches when she opines on the latest political events. She's written several successful books that have raced up the charts and have earned her acclaim and, one would have to believe, a nice paycheck. Whether Conservatives like it or not, she is one of the faces of our party.

While speaking this week at the CPAC Conference, Coulter took a verbal shot at presidential candidate John Edwards referring to him as a "faggot." This of course is not Ann's first foray into controversy, but it was the first at such a large event and knew full-well knew it would be page-one fodder. She knew what she was saying and calculated that saying it would increase her edginess and contribute to her earnings. She knew that there is a group out there that would buy her next book simply because of what she said. In essense, she used an event that was supoosed to further the conservative movement and, in the interest of increasing her bank account, set the Republican party back decades.

What Coulter fails to understand is that this is a party that is supported by people such as me who are social moderates but strong fiscal conservatives and hawks on foreign policy. She alienated many in the party she unfortunately thought she was speaking for. Thanks Ann, just shut the hell up and stay away from events when you can only do damage to our party.