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 if the Larry Craig affair wasn't surreal enough, now he's gone out and stated in a press conference: "I am not gay. I never have been gay." He might have just as well called the dogs out on himself.

I don't care if he's gay. I do care if he does stupid things like cruise public men's rooms looking for anonymous sex. It's a scandal, and blackmail, just waiting to happen. And after the Mark Foley kerfuffle, it's even stupider than it usually is.

There have been questions about Craig's sexuality for many, many years. It started after his first divorce, when he was investigated by the FBI for possible involvement in the abuse of male Congressional pages (remember Gary Studds). The latest incident happened last year, when a gay activist blogger claimed that he had relations with Craig in, of all places, a public men's room!

In this day and age, it was foolish for Craig to think that he could plead out the current case to a lesser charge, and no-one would find out about it. Not if you're a Republican, at least. I'm surprised that it's taken so long to come out (no pun int...oh, never mind).

Mark Foley's father was buried today, Saturday, November 18. This year he buried his career and his father. In a tearful eulogy he spoke of how much he had disappointed his father.

It takes events like this to realize that all politicians are human and they have entered a career that will destroy them personally when they make a mistake. The purpose of this story is not to say that what Mark Foley did was not bad. Instead, I wonder why anybody would enter the field of politics. As Foley's father was dying of cancer, he was made aware of his son's mistakes.

We are a nation that puts our politicians on a pedestal and when they fail, we destroy them. Should only perfect people run for political office? I would suggest that Franklin Roosevelt was less than perfect. His girl friend was a constant visitor to the White House and I am sure that he encouraged Eleanor to travel. At his death bed, Lucy Mercer was able to say a final goodbye to the man she could never marry.

There are many who believe that Roosevelt and his imagination, saved this country.

After Mark Foley resigned for his egregious e-mails and instant messages, most political analysts assumed that the seat would automatically go to the Democrat, Tim Mahoney. Joe Negron, a well-respected Florida state representative, filled in as the Republican nominee, but Foley's name stayed on the ballot. Political commentators surmised that many voters wouldn't realize that a vote for Foley wouldn't actually go to Foley but to Negron, and so they would just overwhelming elect the Democrat. However, analysts underestimated the intelligence of those Florida.

Negron, despite his limited time, ran an excellent campaign. His educative and catchy campaign slogan, "Punch Foley for Negron" was perhaps the most effective in the country, and it seems to have worked. Though almost nobody would want to vote for Foley, Negron received a massive amount of support for his name not even appears on the ballot. The final tally, with Mahoney receiving 49% and Foley (Negron) receiving 48%, was shocking. Yes, Mahoney won, but it was one of the closest races in America, especially after being though a guaranteed Democratic pick-up.

If there is one lesson we can take from this it is that we can't assume populace is uneducated and uninterested in politics. Votes aren't just based on caprice or emotion, but rather information and facts, something I think many politicians have yet to fully realize.

I have a real problem with how media and political types apologize. If I ever attempted to apologize for something stupid I did the way John Kerry just did, or the way Mark Foley did (right after the apology release the info that he believed he had been molested as a child and was an alcoholic), or countless others - the apology wouldn't be accepted, and if I was apologizing to a woman I'd promptly get slapped.

I was just over at National Review Online's The Corner blog, and a reader sent in the following to Jonah Goldberg. We could all learn from it:

Real apologies

1. Never contain the phrases "my words were misinterpreted" (to make it or "any [one] who was offended." These are weasel words. Nothing is an apology which attempts offload blame or place blame anywhere but on the person making the apology. Such "apologies" should never be accepted.
2. Never transition to an attempt to balance the scales by showing any other party is wrong in any way. Such "apologies" should never be accepted. Indeed, they should be condemned not just as unmitigating excuses, but as abuses in their own right.

Democrats have been attempting to block Florida'a secretary of state from posting notices in Congressional District 16 polling places that say a vote for Mark Foley will actually be a vote for Joe Negron. Negron replaced Foley as the Republican candidate at the beginning of October - too late to have the ballots changed. Today the First District Court of Appeals overruled a recent circuit court decision that that barred such a notice from being placed (Appeals Court ruling here - caution pdf).

The notice at all CD 16 polling places is ordered to read:

IN THE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 16 RACE

• A VOTE FOR MARK FOLEY (REP) WILL BE COUNTED FOR JOE NEGRON (REP), THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE.

• A VOTE FOR TIM MAHONEY (DEM) WILL BE COUNTED FOR TIM MAHONEY (DEM), THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE.

• A VOTE FOR EMMIE ROSS (NPA) WILL BE COUNTED FOR EMMIE ROSS (NPA), THE NO PARTY AFFILIATION CANDIDATE.

Big victory for Republicans.

A little good news for Joe Negron:

The First District Court of Appeal ruled that signs can go up saying a vote for Foley is a vote for Negron, if they also say a vote for Mahoney is a vote for Mahoney.

...

The order prohibits the Secretary of State from posting its signs, which only mention Negron for Foley. The Judges said those signs "suggest favoritism on behalf of the Republican candidate."

Mahoney is Mahoney and Foley is Negron. Everyone got that?

Last polling indicates that Mahoney was still 7 points up but with enough undecideds to tip the election.

I also think Byron York has an excellent slogan for the Negron Campaign: "Punch Foley for Joe"

Bob Novak, a paleo-conservative if I ever saw one, is predicting that the Democrats will pick up 20 seats in the House and 4 seats in the Senate in the latest Evans-Novak Report. He predicates this with the usual "if the election was held today" disclaimer, but then states that all that's left for the Republicans to do this election cycle is to minimize their losses:

With hopes of the late comeback faded, the Republican strategy has changed from that of a quarterback on a fourth-quarter come-from-behind mission to that of an overwhelmed emergency medical technician performing triage on several dying patients. The only thought now is to minimize losses by plugging whatever holes can be plugged. Late decisions have to be made about who lives and who dies.

He also claims that the Foley scandal really hasn't helped Democrats that much, and that Santorum and Burns are toast. Interesting reading.

It turns out that when Republican Rep. Mark Foley wasn't sending "overly friendly" e-mail messages and queries to teenage boys he had other things on his mind. It seems that when the congressman had temporarily rid himself of his personal urges he found the time to feel slighted. By President Bush.

This AP wire story reports that the ex-Congressman complained to the presidents brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, he felt he was "being ignored by President Bush on his trips to Florida" after several hurricanes.

The article states the ex-congressman and the brother of the president "had maintained a regular dialog" via e-mail. On September 29th, 2004 Foley asks Jeb to to intercede with the president on some perceived slights. Foley asks Jeb, "Have I done something to offend the White House? I am always getting the shaft."

Jeb responded (less than three hours later according to the AP story) with an e-mail telling the Republican Congressman that the president was busy preparing for his debate with Senator Kerry and the 2004 re-election campaign. Said Jeb, "I know it is nothing you have done."

It comes to light now that Marc Foley's sexual orientation was an open secret -- as was his "overly friendly" interest in teenage boys -- as early as 2003. The question though is this: Was George Bush and his political ferret, Karl Rove, as well as brother Jeb, aware of Foley's sexual advances toward teenage male pages in 2004 and, if so, did they engage a willful attempt to prevent and or block an investigation!!?

Just a thought...MAYBE SOMEONE SHOULD ASK W.

This morning, Saturday, October 14 at 1:30 AM, former Congressman Gerry Studds died.

Studds died at the early age of 69 years old. He was a great friend of the fisherman and did much to help them with their problems. He was involved in legislation that relieved them of significant tax burdens.

He was an effective congressman and he worked hard for his constituents. So when a scandal broke, he survived politically.

Last night I blogged on the bizarre Inglis-Griffith debate down here in the 4th congressional district of South Carolina.

Since then, both candidate Griffith and Rep. Nancy Pelosi have responded to Inglis' near-rabid accusation that the San Francisco-based Pelosi (and, by fiat, the Democratic Party) knew of Foley's pedophilic behaviors and hid them until now - just in time to upset the GOP re-e campaigns. Read more on their responses below.

While accusing Pelosi and the Democrats of holding this knowledge for political gain, Inglis personally attacked Pelosi's competence, character and demeanor, and her sudden calm and collected appearance as proof of her knowing culpability.

What Inglis said in body language to slander Pelosi. and to send a clear message to his reactionary base, can be read below and seen in this video.

In a Thursday night campaign debate with Democratic contender William Griffith, GOP Rep. Bob Inglis accused House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of withholding knowledge of Mark Foley's pedophile acts, thus leaving the Pages in harms way.

In the most bizarre of bizarre scenarios the usually calm, moderate-appearing 4th District congressperson became strident.

Narrowed eyes glinting, stretched neck, veins pulsing, pointing fingers at his Democratic contender, Inglis accused Pelosi of holding back the truth about Foley's stalking of Pages. Her alleged purpose: Democratic political advantage in the 2006 midterm elections.

As Republican Rep. Christopher Shays notices his party's ship-of-state taking on water as it drifts towards port (the port of Nov. 7th) he has reached a point of panic. His Democratic opponent, Diane Farrell, is reaching more and more voters in their Connecticut congressional district. His party is reeling from the cover-up scandal involving Speaker Hastert.

So Shays has abandoned the issues of 2006. Shamelessly he has reached back for the old reliable trick: Oh, yeah? Well what about Chappaquiddick...? The neo-con approach to inspiring the electorate.

Another pivotal House race is being fought by another desperate Republican in the 13th district in Florida. Vern Buchanan has, to date, stuffed well over $2 million of his own dollars into his quest to go to Washington. The voters in this overwhelmingly red district aren't buying his negative spiel though. Twice these voters have elected Katherine Harris to Congress yet they find Buchanan to be just a bit over the top.

See the latest poll numbers on the Florida race, after the jump.

Jay Cost, of HorseRace Blogger Fame, writes in on Negron's chances of overcoming the name problem on the Foley-Mahoney matchup in Florida District 16.

For voters in Florida's 16th Congressional District to cast a ballot for him, they are going to have to possess unique information to even begin to evaluate him as a candidate. Not only do they need to know things about him to develop sufficiently positive opinions of him, they also need to know that he is actually on the ballot. This forms a prerequisite for Negron's victory because -- in a Foley v. Mahoney match-up -- Mahoney wins in a walk. This is Negron's major problem, and I would estimate that it is a decisive one. There will be a lot of voters on Election Day who do not know of the situation, or at least know of it sufficiently well enough to be able to vote for "Foley." They will walk into the voting booth, perhaps knowing a little bit about Negron from advertisements or mailings, perhaps knowing enough to intend to vote for him, but will be surprised to see Foley's name on the ballot next to Mahoney's. As ultimately their choice boils down to which man they prefer more, they will vote for Mahoney.

Negron has four weeks to get it done, but if I had to put money on a winner, I'd put it on Mahoney. The consolation prize is that Negron will have a head start on 2008 in a very friendly to the GOP district. And then he will be able to run under a much better name.

If it weren't for the seriousness of the matter, Republican Rep. John Shimkus's explanation of his actions (or lack thereof) in the Foley scandal might make for good laugh. It's a bad sign for his re-election that he has been forced to recount this selective re-working of the facts on his own website.

How, for instance, is one to reconcile the following statements? In a September 29th press release, Shimkus said this:

"As chairman of the bipartisan House Page Board in late 2005, I was notified by the then Clerk of the House, who manages the Page Program, that he had been told by Congressman Rodney Alexander about an e-mail exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House Page. I took immediate action to investigate the matter."

But as the scandal gained momentum, he offered the following clarification on October 2 (emphasis added):

"The instant messages Mark Foley reportedly sent to a former page are deplorable. When I learned of these instant messages last Friday from ABC News reports, the very thought of this behavior made me sick."

So let's be charitable. Shimkus knew there might be a problem in 2005. He sets about investigating the matter. One assumes then, that he just did such a piss-poor job with his investigation that he couldn't turn anything up. Where does that buck stop again?