The Hill is reporting that one of the leaders of the anti-war movement in the House, Democrat Rep. Jack Murtha, is claiming that Republicans will join him against the Iraq war -- next year.

House Appropriations Defense subcommittee Chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.) said Monday that he expects that Republican lawmakers will begin abandoning President Bush's Iraq policy after the GOP picks a presidential candidate next year. "As soon as the primaries are over, you'll see Republicans start jumping ship," Murtha said in remarks at the National Press Club.

Murtha also is predicting that Democrats will pick up 40 to 50 seats in the House next year. To put his predictions in context, might I remind readers that Murtha, one year ago, was predicting that by this time (September '07) we would have surrendered in Iraq and our troops would be "redeploying" to areas outside of Iraq where we could provide "quick response" strikes on terrorists -- from bases as close as Okinawa, Japan, 4899 miles away.

I believe that Murtha's predictions this year are also in error. Iraq will be in play next year, but will be more of a problem in the general electorate for Democrats than Republicans. And with Congressional approval lower with a Democratic Congress than it ever was with a Republican one, I don't think you'll be seeing any Democrat landslide in '08. What are the Dems going to do, run against themselves? (Oh wait, there's MoveOn.org...)

If (a big if) Republicans clean up their act and pledge fiscal conservatism under new leadership, I think that the Senate will remain in the Democrats' control, but the House might switch again. If Iraq is going particularly well, however, that might change - Republicans could win the Senate as well. All bets are off if the Republicans continue to act like idiots. I think that the House Republicans have, for the most part, learned their lessons. The Republicans in the Senate, as of yet, have not learned theirs (as evidenced by Larry Craig and Ted Stevens), and might not until after 2008.

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.

Rudy Giuliani, former New York City mayor and current presidential aspirant, may have unwittingly given Larry Craig a vote of confidence for staying in the Senate.

Responding to a question about his private life during last week's GOP debate, Giuliani said, "I certainly haven't lived a perfect life. I am not running as the perfect candidate for president of the United States. I'm running as a human being who has been very successful as a leader and had definable results in a situation in which people thought it was impossible to accomplish these things."

If we delete the presidential reference and substitute one for the Senate, could not the substance of that statement apply to Craig? If so, Giuliani has given grist for hungry rivals. For his words contrast with what was said earlier in the debate.

"We should be bolder about standing up for family," Kansas' Sen. Sam Brownback said. "Family's important for us, and it's important for America ."

"When our guys have problems like this, they leave," Rep. Duncan Hunter of Texas said. "They leave the Senate or they leave the House. When the Democrats have problems like this, they often make them chairmen of their respective committees."

The "family values" opening is available for any Republican ruthless enough to use it. Paging Mitt Romney...

The New Orleans Times Picayune is reporting today that a prostitute has come forward who claims she had a four-month sexual relationship with Republican Senator David Vitter back in 1999. Larry Flynt, the publisher of Hustler magazine, paid for the woman to take a lie-detector test, which, Flynt says, the woman passed with flying colors.

Previously, Vitter denied having anything to do with hookers in the Big Easy, and he'll no doubt maintain that claim today after Flynt holds a Beverly Hills news conference with the prostitute, Wendy Yow Ellis:

During a phone interview Monday, Ellis said she met regularly with Vitter in the French Quarter aprartment and that he paid her through her pimp, Jonathan, whose last name she did not know. She said Vitter met her through the New Orleans Escort Service, not through the madam whose notorious Canal Street brothel was raided by federal agents in 2001. Although that madam, Jeanette Maier, claimed in interviews that Vitter patronized her brothel and favored a prostitute named Wendy...

Of course, it could just be a political hit. Vitter, who has already confessed to committing a "very serious sin" in using the services of D.C. madam Deborah Jeane Palfry, may have only ever visited escorts in the nation's capital, not in New Orleans. After all, Ms. Ellis stands to make a bit of money from this revelation. Yet, for enterprising reporters, if the allegations of a four-month entanglement are true, then there will be a leads to follow.

This is the last thing the Republican party needs at the moment (and if I had a dollar for every time I've said that over the past two years!). Let's say Larry Craig gets a judge to overturn his guilty plea, and a formal trial begins. Meanwhile, every gumshoe in New Orleans will set to work on Vitter.

Vitter and Craig, two men who chastised Bill Clinton for his indiscretion with Monica Lewinsky, bound together again. Good luck with that, boys.

"It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business." ~ Al Pacino, "The Godfather"

Mitt Romney has shown similar ruthlessness in disposing of his connection with scandal-embroiled Sen. Larry Craig.

"Once again," Pat Buchanan quoted Romney as saying, "we've found people in Washington have not lived up to the level of respect and dignity that we would expect for somebody that gets elected to a position of high influence. Very disappointing. (Craig is) no longer associated with my campaign."

Romney broke a pretty significant bond. As PJB detailed: "Up to this week, Craig was one of only two senators to have come out for Mitt Romney. He headed up the Romney campaign in Idaho. He vouched for Mitt in Congress and the country."

The former Bay State governor thus seems like an anti-George Bush in terms of standing by his lieutenants. Dubya stuck up for ex-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. "Throughout Gonzales' sometimes rocky tenure, Bush had defended him, accusing his detractors of playing politics," ABC News reported.

Which is the better policy, staying loyal to a supporter or dismissing them when they misstep? Romney will find out as the primaries progress.

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.

It would seem that the new GOP strategy when it comes to party corruption centers on issuing a swift public condemnation of the guilty (or perceived guilty) individual followed by a swift ouster of the embattled colleague. Of course, this was the way it played it in regards to the action taken against Senator Larry Craig and to a great extent this swift action was a preventive measure to avoid the 2006 calamity.

According to the Politico, while the furor and outrage over the Mark Foley incident definitely played a role in members of the conservative base sitting home, there were other corruption scandals that contributed to massive GOP losses. In Ohio, Rep. Bob Ney's felony conviction greatly damaged the party as did the Rep. Duke Cunningham corruption scandal and criminal conviction in California. And who could forget the ouster of Tom Delay?

For the GOP, it is a smart move to take a zero tolerance policy towards party corruption. Unless the GOP remains proactive in this area and establishes that such behavior will not be tolerated and must stop, the party will be perpetually labeled the party of corruption and will suffer greatly because of it. Or, more accurately, it will continue to suffer greatly.

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.