Fred's Couch Moment

"I have argued both that Craig's actions in the bathroom didn't arise to anything more criminal than flirting and that Republicans seemed to be applying a double standard in their push for Craig's resignation. In my opinion, Craig should have fought both much harder. However, he didn't in either case, and now he's just becoming absurd."

Will no one out there say a kind word for the Idahoan? Okay, here's Quin Hillyer at OpinionJournal:

"I have hesitated to write this, but common decency finally compels me to speak up here: Sen. Larry Craig deserves some sympathy, and some perspective.

"First, some disclaimers: Obviously, it appears as if the rumors of his history (of doing the sort of thing that he is suspected of doing) are probably true. And if he has been doing any sexual acts in a public rest room, that's bad, very bad. As it is to have cheated on his wife. And if he was actually trying to solicit such activity, as accused, it's pretty gross, too . . .None of what I am about to write is meant to excuse his apparent intent, and what is likely his history of the same.

"But really, what this means is that this man needs help. Even knowing that he was under serious scrutiny for such alleged behavior, for him to do it (again) anyway shows a terrible, and bizarre, compulsion. It shows a bad psychological problem, and possibly a psychiatric one. Somebody who would risk his career for such activities is crying out for help.

"All that said, let's not forget this: This was a man who, in public life, did a superb job serving his constituents for more than a quarter century."

This reminds me of how the WSJ was sooo sympathetic about Bill Clinton's personal problems and took pains to separate them from his public work.

As the pre-Petraeus war debate drags on, Rich Lowry opens fire on some members of his own side:

"There is an easy way for a Republican senator to burst from semi-obscurity to the front pages -- offer a compromise plan on Iraq.

"Sens. John Warner (Virginia), Dick Lugar (Indiana), and Lamar Alexander (Tennessee) have all done it. Warner even double-dipped. He had dissented from President Bush's Iraq policy in July by sponsoring a compromise plan with Lugar, and then garnered headlines in August for a much-hyped break with Bush that was only a continuation of his previous break. How many times can a senator break with the president until he just stays broken?

"No contribution to the Iraq debate is as analytically pathetic as that of these halfway Republicans. Their reflex toward compromise -- honed in their collective 12 terms in the senate -- leads them to believe that any problem can be negotiated away, so long as enough members of the world's oldest deliberative body get together to deliberate earnestly (and a little pompously) . . .

"All the compromises propose that we stop policing a sectarian civil war and focus on counter-terrorism, training the Iraqis and increasing diplomacy. This means ending our combat role (i.e., 're-deploying'), but still supposedly achieving everything deemed desirable by the halfway senators (the defeat of al-Qaeda, the establishment of effective Iraqi security forces and regional stability). Would that the world were so susceptible to magical thinking."

Cindy Sheehan, you may recall, is running against Nancy Pelosi. The Nation's Katha Pollitt has criticized her bid--and felt the Peace Mom's sting:

"Her outraged and self-righteous response to my mild and polite posts make me wonder how she will withstand the rigors of political campaigning. Because I express doubt that she will make much impression on the ballot box, and think that likelihood and its implications are worth discussing frankly, Sheehan accuses me of 'stridently' (nice --does anyone ever use that word for a man?) defending the Democratic Party's 'complicity' in the war and of not caring about the sufferings of Iraqis the way she does.

"I'm sorry, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Even if I was the reprehensible character she claims -- yellowdog Dem indifferent to the horrors of war, willing to say anything to keep Nancy Pelosi in power -- I could still be right about Sheehan's own electoral prospects and about whether such runs are the best use of the antiwar/progressive movements energies. Shouldn't a serious candidate be trying to show the hundreds of thousands of people who visit this website that I am wrong? Sheehan doesn't address any of the points I raise . . . All she does is malign my motives and my personality, attack The Nation for supposedly exploiting her fame, and accuse anyone who questions her judgment of supporting the war."

And in the duh department, as noted by the New Republic, this CNN.com headline:

"Men want hot women, study confirms"

Ya think?