Smart bombs

On Aug. 20, U.S. Sen. Larry Craig extolled the presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney at an editorial board meeting with The Spokesman-Review. A week later, he was tossed from the campaign bus when the bathroom-stall story broke.

At first, the Romney camp merely issued a brief statement saying that Craig was leaving as co-chairman of the Idaho team. But, it seems, being classy doesn’t win many votes. So, like the movie “The Trouble with Harry,” he dug up Craig and buried him … again and again.

On Tuesday, Romney said he was “very disappointed” and worked in the all-important Clinton reference: “I think it reminds us of Mark Foley and Bill Clinton.” On Thursday, Romney told the Associated Press how the scandal has challenged him:

“You’ll always have surprises. That’s the nature of humanity. People sometimes disappoint, and then the question is, ‘How do you respond to that?’ “

By capitalizing, of course! So he goes on to say that Craig’s behavior was “disgraceful.”

Hey, we get the point, Mr. Romney, you want to be president, and if it means scoring points off a devastated friend, well, that’s the nature of your humanity.

Latter-day saint? I used to feel sorry for Romney, knowing that 24 percent of voters in a Gallup Poll said they could not vote for him simply because of his choice of religion (LDS). That’s a lot of bigotry to overcome. But I can’t help but think that his serial denunciations of his friend are driven by his desire to curry favor with bigots of another sort.

Why, it’s downright disgraceful.

Pants on fire. I think Craig is lying. He’s scheduled a public statement for today, and it looks like he’ll have to resign. That said, I can see where someone, especially someone famous, might plead guilty in that scenario even if he didn’t intend to break any laws. It’s the best hope of keeping it secret. Even if Craig had fought back and won in court, his career would’ve been ruined after vice cops explained in graphic detail the rituals associated with public bathroom sex. Suddenly, that allegation about the Union Station incident would’ve gained more credence. Plus, Craig still would’ve had to explain the ethical violation of playing the “I’m a senator” card.

What sealed it for me was his pre-emptive accusation that it was the cop who was soliciting him. Please! A guy sits in a stall next to him and doesn’t tap his foot, doesn’t reach under the stall and doesn’t touch his foot, and Craig is the one who feels violated?

Wide stance, indeed.