It was a bold strategy, this from the man who took the initial approach to make things go quietly away.  Take the microphones, face the media and aggressively deny the charges. 

“I have a wide stance.”

And in doing so, why not forge a wide berth that, while even bolder, could turn the disadvantage into an advantage? Deny being gay altogether?

“I am not gay; I never have been gay.”

That was Senator LARRY CRAIG in July, soon after news of his arrest and shady plea deal broke.  He vehemently and affirmatively denied being gay, all the while claiming he was framed and set up by law enforcement at the now famous restroom in Minneapolis.

It sounded funny at the time.  He must have denied being gay a half-dozen times, in every which way but loose.  But there it was, out there on the record, like a red rose on a white starched shirt.  Out there, big and bold, and wide.  It was just a matter of time, wasn’t it, before one of what must be dozens of others this man must have sought out, or run across, on his many “flights” through airports, or parks, or mall restrooms across the country.  It was an awfully wide berth to maintain.

Or was it?

The leadership in the Senate let CRAIG weasel out of his supposed promise to resign his seat, and the Ethics Committee put the investigation into the deep freeze.  No testimony from others who might have been cruised by CRAIG in a bathroom, or in a bar. 

But the IDAHO STATESMAN, a newspaper in CRAIG’S home state could not let the wide berth stand.  They continued to develop the story.  They found and followed up with at least 8 men who claim LARRY CRAIG either had gay sex with them, or approached them for gay sex, in much the same way he “propositioned” that undercover police officer in the bathroom stall in Minnesota.

This isn’t a he said she said case.  No, no, no.  That would be a manageable wide stance.  No, this is a he said, they all say case, and they all seem to be saying the same thing: LARRY CRAIG is gay.  That fact, if true, is a berth too wide for LARRY CRAIG, wide stance and all, to manage.

Funny thing, there is nothing wrong with that.  Being gay is not a crime.  What LARRY CRIAG is alleged to have done may also not be a crime.  What is a crime, or at least a crying shame, is that LARRY CRAIG appears to be a lair and a hypocrite.  He has consistently fought against issues and legislation that might improve the quality of life for gay people.  He dragged his poor wife out on national television to defend his sorry ass when these allegations hit.  He employed his family in the game of denying he was gay, having them provide testimonials and various other accounts to dissuade the public from believing yet another conservative republican was actually a closeted, shameful, socially handicapped individual.

Didn’t we just do this with TED HAGGART?  Remember the leader of THE NEW LIFE CHURCH, the preacher, the national moral leader, the one who denied being gay, and denied doing drugs and having sex with a guy, the one who dragged his wife and family through the television news interviews, using them as props to perpetuate the illusion that he was straight, and pure and chaste and good.

MIKE JONES, the gay escort that outed HAGGART is also claiming LARRY CRAIG paid him for sex.  Imagine that.  I wonder if they, HAGGART and CRAIG compared notes.  Perhaps at a republican leadership conference, or maybe a prayer meeting on the hill.  HAGGART eventually came clean, lost his position of authority, suffered a sever blow to his credibility and dignity, went into rehab and moral counseling, and emerged the pitiful, fraud of a man that he was and is. 

How long before LARRY CRAIG realizes that must do the same.  Fess up, come clean, pay your dues.  It’s therapeutic, and inevitable, and right.  It would be hysterical, if it weren’t so tragic.  For his wife and kids.  And for the thousands of gays and lesbians who have been underserved and cheated by the hypocritical fumblings of yet another crippled, closeted conservative with the levers of power in his misguided grasp.

The berth, however, was too wide for even the man of ample stance, LARRY CRAIG.

Or is it BIG BERTHA?

Senator LARRY CRAIG, republican from Idaho has declared war on the local paper in his State, the IDAHO STATESMAN, as well as the undercover police officer that arrested him for lewd behavior on June 11, 2007, after he was caught red-handed cruising the bathrooms at the Minneapolis airport. He thought by pleading guilty to disorderly conduct in August, apparently without the counsel of an attorney that the whole thing would just go away, but it blew up yesterday when ROLL CALL broke the story of the arrest.

So now CRAIG has gone on the offensive. In a press conference where he took no questions, with, of course, his loving wife by his side, the senator defiantly claimed, I did nothing wrong at the Minneapolis airport. Funny, the police report tells a different story, wherein CRAIG came into the restroom, tapped his feet at the officer in the adjoining stall, and put his hand under the stall to signal him. CRAIG did not deny these actions when arrested, explaining he sat down with a wide stance and reached under the stall to pick up a piece of paper.

Continuing his assault, CRAIG proclaimed, Let me be clear, I am not gay. I never have been gay. In 2006 his office vehemently denied rumors swirling on the web of the senators sexual proclivities. And the STATESMAN cites an individual who claims to have had a homosexual encounter with CRAIG at a Union Station public restroom.

I take full responsibility for the lapse in judgment in attempting to handle this matter myself, LARRY CRAIG told reporters in Idaho, blaming a pressure campaign by the STATESMAN, a witch-hunt on his quick and sloppy plea bargain. He announced he has retained counsel to examine the matter, as if a trial would be a better option for the now embattled senator. Go away quietly and in shame LARRY.

HARDBALLS CHRIS MATTHEWS called CRAIG a sexual deviant and world-class hypocrite which about sums it up. CRAIG has championed conservative family values in his 17 years in the senate and 10 years in the house beforehttp://www.senate.gov/~craig/i/k2_lec.gif that. He has opposed gay marriage, gays in the military and hate crime legislation protecting gays and lesbians. Whats more, he was a vocal opponent calling for the head of BILL CLINTON during the MONICA LEWINSKY scandal. How many more republicans will go down in flames as dear old BILL looks to reclaim his residence in the White House? Pay back is a bitch.

CRAIG plans to announce next month whether he will seek re-election in 2008. With the smell of blood in the water, it would be hard to imagine he could even retain his senate seat for that long, wide stance and all.

Army Secretary PETE GEREN was trotted out yesterday by the Defense Department, and ultimately by the BUSH administration to try and squelch another burgeoning scandal-the apparent murder and cover-up of Corporal PAT TILLMAN.  The gist of the announcement, timed curiously to coincide with the current hearings being held by HENRY WAXMAN and his House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.  Former Defense Secretary DONALD RUMSFELD testified before that same committee on this very day.

 Recall, TILLMAN was the NFL player who abandoned his big salary and celebrity life to serve in the US military and fight for the noble cause of the war on terror.  He was killed in Afghanistan, as reported by the army, in a fight with Afghan militants.  The reality is he was killed by friendly fire, at close range, raising the prospects that it might even have been murder.

 Why would his own squad have murdered TILLMAN?  Who knows, but it has been reported that he was highly critical of the lack of courage exhibited by some in his division, and more interestingly, it has been speculated that TILLMAN was going to return to America to denounce the administrations efforts to expand the war into Iraq.  As it was, the army used the death of PAT TILLMAN to inspire patriotism and rev up enlistment in the services, at a time when Abu Ghraib and declining enlistment threatened to undermine the BUSH policies in Iraq.

 So, the announcement by GEREN that there were “errors and failures of leadership that confused and misinformed the American people and compounded the grief suffered by the TILLMAN family” should come as no surprise.  Nor should it be surprising that the administration laid the entire blame at the feet of Lt. Gen. PHILIP R. KE4NSINGER, Jr., who GEREN said provided a report “that he knew to be false, which was his own sworn testimony.”

 It was the 7^th investigation by the army into this matter, and GEREN and his superiors certainly hope it will be the last.  Not much chance of that.

 First of all, the fact that there have been so many inquiries would de facto indicate there have been cover-ups at work in this matter.  Would it be at all surprising to learn the army, or the BUSH administration lied to the American public about an aspect of the war.  Remember the whole scandal surrounding Pfc. JENNIFER LYNCH, who was originally touted as a superhero, but later it was learned the army used her story as more propaganda to invigorate the countries feelings about the war.  Don’t forget the attempt to lay full responsibility for Abu Ghraib on Army Reserve Brig. Gen JANIS KARPINSKI.

 As it were, Lt. Gen KENSINGER issued a statement after the announcement that he may lose a star from his 3-star title, “For over 35 years, I have tried to do the right thing.  I would never sully the reputation of the Army of the Officer Corps.” 

 Whatever that means.  He lied repeatedly about this incident.  No doubt at the direction of his superiors.  And he has failed to honor a subpoena to testify before WAXMAN’S committee.  That seems like sullying behavior to me.

 But let’s not be fooled, this scandal, like so many others before it, goes all the way to the top.  GEREN was right; this was about “errors and failures of leadership.”  As was the very decision to get into this war, or the failure to plan for the aftermath, or to properly arm and protect our soldiers once there, or to torture prisoners at Abu Ghraib, or to rendition prisoners for torture in other jurisdictions, or the holding of prisoners at Guantanamo without charges, or the stripping of habeas corpus rights for those prisoners, or the illegal wiretapping of American citizens without warrants, or the data mining of those citizens, or, or, or.

 When will we have had enough of the colossal errors and failures of the BUSH administration?

The Democratic candidates for president in 2008 made their way to California for the state’s democratic convention April 28 th and 29 th, and the drumbeat was consistent, “bring our troops home.” HILLARY CLINTON, BARRACK OBAMA, CHRIS DODD, DENNIS KUCINICH, MIKE GRAVEL, JOHN EDWARDS and BILL RICHARDSON all had the same message-the first thing they would do when in office would be to end the war in Iraq. Demonstrating a tremendous surge in energy and enthusiasm, the conference in San Diego set an attendance record, with 2, 264 delegates listening intently to the strong field of candidates.

The frontrunners, or the “top tier” as they are now known, OBAMA, CLINTON and EDWARDS were all impressive, evoking adoration and excitement on the floor of the convention hall. HILLARY CLINTON spoke Saturday morning, chiding President BUSH for the misguided war in Iraq-“something that will stand in American history as one of the darkest blots on leadership we've ever had.” She referred to BUSH’s appearance on an aircraft carrier not far from the convention center here 4 years ago “one of the most shameful episodes in American history.”

OBAMA got the crowd rocking with a continued chant to “turn the page” on a whole host of BUSH failures including the war in Iraq. OBAMA was not in the Senate when the vote was taken to authorize that war, and has opposed it from the beginning. “We’ve seen how a foreign policy based on bluster and bombast can lead us into a war that never should have been authorized and never should have been waged.

On Sunday JOHN EDWARDS continued the drumbeat against the war, but added he would shut down the US detention center at Guantanamo Bay on his first day in office. Later in a press conference in response to a question on raising taxes for the highest income earners EDWARDS said it’s an idea that warrants further consideration. The media pounced on it as an indication EDWARDS would not only rescind the BUSH tax cuts but also would go even further and raise taxes. To his credit, EDWARDS replied, “I think it’s important for candidates to be honest with the American people, and honesty begins in the campaign.”

Political candidates are like rock stars, with one major exception. Their stock in trade is a personal connection with the fans, and so after their star turn onstage, they are all too eager to get out into the crowds and press the flesh, pose for pictures, and generally wallow in the adoration. Tom that end, the rock star at this event that stole the show was not any of those running for president, but California’s own NANCY PEOLOSI, who happens to be third in line to the president. She was showered with love as she took to the stage, and she more than HILLARY, BARACK or JOHN, played it to perfection.

She took to the stage after a rousing video introduction in which her feisty and skillful power mongering was on display, and she took the delegates to new heights. PELOSI does not pose a striking figure, she is slight and motherly, but once on her stage she knew exactly when to raise her arms, how to point a finger to emphasize her point, and what to say and how to say it. Her timing and presence were the highlight of an impressive weekend display.

The convention had increased significance in light of the recent move by California to move it’s primary up to February 5 th instead of June when most of the drama of the primary season is already played out. It is even more interesting juxtaposed against the field of Republican candidates who come to California this week for their first televised debate of the extended primary race, to be held at the RONALD REAGAN Presidential library Thursday night.

Do you think any of them will be outlining an end to the war in Iraq on their first days in office?

In 7 hours of remarkable testimony before the SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, D. KYLE SAMPSON, chief of staff to ATTORNEY GENERAL ALBERTO GONZALES contradicted his boss, and essentially said GONZALES lied when stating in various news conferences and interviews that the Attorney General was not involved in the firings of US Attorneys.  SAMPSON repeatedly and reluctantly admitted GONZALES’ statements were inaccurate, leaving the Attorney General alone and out on a limb in this growing scandal.

Even the White House has backed away from its blanket endorsement of GONZALES, now saying, “The Attorney General has some work to do on Capitol Hill.”

SAMPSON revealed he had conversations with GONZALES since before he was even confirmed for the top post at the Justice Department, a period of more than 2 years.  Under prodding from Senator CHARLES SCHUMER he admitted to at least 5 occasions in which he briefed and had discussions with GONZALES, including through the “thinking phase” of the project, indicating GONZALES was involved in the planning from the very beginning.  The 5 occasions might well be a conservative number, as SAMPSON went on to say he spoke with the Attorney General every day.

While those revelations are surely damaging to the Attorney General, who is scheduled to appear before the very same committee on April 17^th, there were other aspects of SAMPSON’S testimony that were far more shocking.  When pressed by Senators CARDIN and WHITEHORSE about documents, SAMPSON juked and jostled around a story, which was completely incredulous.

SAMPSON, by his own testimony, was “the keeper of the list” and “the aggregator of information” on the dismissal of the attorneys.  But when asked whether that list ever existed, or where or how it was kept, SAMPSON hemmed and hawed, saying there really wasn’t a list.  When asked whether he kept a file on these matters that ranged over more than 2 years, he seemed to indicate the didn’t have a file, referring to a “drop file” in his desk drawer, but that it ”changed.”

Say what!

There were meetings where top Justice Department officials reviewed the information compiled by SAMPSON, yet he claims not to have generated or circulated any documents. Attorney General GONZALES has said he saw no documents. 

Yet SAMSPON claims it was GONZALES and White House lawyer HARRIET MYERS who made the final decision.

That statement squarely contradicts previous White House statements that it was not involved in the process.

Yeah right.

JOHN EDWARDS, the one-term senator from South Carolina announced his candidacy for president over the holiday. On Sunday he appeared with his wife ELIZABETH on THIS WEEK, and when asked about gay marriage, an issue he has had some trouble with in the past, he blew any chance of gaining support from supporters of the movement.

He was asked about being booed in New Hampshire about the issue, a fact he initially denied, conceding later he might not have heard the jeers. Recall during the Vice President's debate when the question came up he gave some rambling answer about DICK CHENEY'S love for his daughter, completely avoiding the issue and creating an uncomfortable moment with little positive impact for EDWARDS.

Sunday he was asked why this is the single most difficult issue for him:

EDWARDS: "Because I'm 53 years old. I grew up in a small town in the rural south. I was raised in the southern Baptist church. And so I have a belief system that arises from that. It's part of who I am. I can't make it disappear. And what I said when I was asked about this in Portsmouth, New Hampshire//

JOHN EDWARDS (in New Hampshire: I personally feel great conflict about that. I don't know the answer, I wish I did. I think from my perspective it's very easy for me to say civil unions, yes, partnership benefits yes, but it is something that I struggle with.]Do I believe they should have the right to marry? I'm just not there yet, me, I'm not there yet.

STEPHANOPOLOUS: Are you?

ELIZABETH EDWARDS: Well, it's not particularly important whether I am, but I guess I come from a more eclectic background and so it's less problematic, I think, probably for me. But I think both sides of this argument understand the desire for equality and equal treatment. I don't think there is anybody who is for or against it who doesn't understand it and I don't think there's anybody who is for or against it who doesn't understand the trouble people have, because it just seems something that they've not been around.

Of course, they haven't, because we haven't had it in this country.

JOHN EDWARDS (in New Hampshire): My daughter who is 24 and goes to school in Cambridge --- her generation and all of her friends believe this issue will completely disappear with their generation.]

ELAZABETH EDWARDS: And I have to say she's talked to children on both sides of the aisle who are her age, the children of our senators and politicians on both sides of the aisle and people who are her age, regardless of the political affiliation of their parents, all believe exactly the same thing. This issue will not exist when they are the people who are sitting in these seats.

STEPHANOPOLOUS: So you can imagine changing your mind, but you're not there.

EDWARDS: I'm not there."

Somebody please tell the ex one-term senator with limited to nill foreign policy experience, and no public service in the military, that running for president requires more than just great hair.

He'll never be there.