Inside Today's 6 News; The News Director's Blog

Boise State's 'Scary' Prospects for a BCS Bowl Bid

Happy Halloween!  Don't look now, but the BCS bowl system is getting a bit scary, with spooky teams in strange positions and a string of ghoulish upsets causing a lot of indigestion to college football's BCS contenders.  And all those tricks could lead to a surprising treat for the Boise State Broncos, who may just be the beneficiaries of a season that has become frighteningly unpredictable.

Consider this.  The past week, college football teams ranked 10-16 went 1-6, meaning most everyone behind them is moving up.  That puts BSU back in the top 25 (#22 as I write this.)  Not only that, but this very strange season has BSU in some interesting company.

• Undefeated teams:  Ohio State, Boston College(!), Arizona State(!!), Kansas(!!!) and Hawaii.
• One-loss teams:  Oregon, Oklahoma (who lost to Colorado (!)), LSU, West Virginia, Connecticut(!), Missouri(!!) and Boise State.  That's it.  Just 12 teams with one loss or less.  Everyone else in Division 1A has two losses or more.  Conference winners will go to the major bowls, but only Hawaii or Boise State have the inside track at an open non-BCS-conference spot.  No one else is even in the game.

Which means if Ohio State goes undefeated and BSU wins out, BSU likely takes their place in the Rose Bowl.  If Ohio State loses, the Sugar Bowl seems more likely for BSU.  Either way, the Broncos would take on a scary-good opponent, likely Oregon or Arizona State in the Rose Bowl or a team like LSU in the Sugar Bowl.

And let's be frank.  So far this year, this year's Broncos are not as good a team as last year's Broncos.  Consider this:

• Last year's Broncos turned a 14 point deficit into a big win over a very good Oregon State team.  This year's Broncos couldn't overcome a 14 point deficit (admittedly on the road) against what has turned into a mediocre Washington team.
• Last year's Broncos survived a scare on the road against San Jose State.  This year's Broncos survived a scare at home by Nevada(?).
• Last year's Broncos had a very experienced quarterback.  This year's Broncos have a quarterback with significantly less experience.
• Last year's Broncos receiving corps was deeper and more talented than this year's receiving corps.
• Last year's Broncos linebackers (led by Korey Hall) and secondary were a better unit than this year's Broncos, at least to this point.

Remember the Fiesta Bowl?  The heroes of that game were players like Jared Zabransky (gone), Drisan James with 2 TD catches (gone), the hook-and-lateral that led to the touchdown by Jerard Rabb (gone), and the pass in overtime that was caught by Derek Schouman in the end zone (gone).  Last year's team was inexperienced in big Bowl games but extraordinarily talented.  This year's team would have a little more BCS savvy, but not quite the level of talent.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pulling a 'Dan Popkey' here.  The 'Idaho Statesman' columnist had a lot of explaining to do after he said (on our air no less) there was no way BSU would beat Oklahoma last year.  He later (correctly) opined that he had bought too much into the whole BCS mystique.  In a year when Appalachian State can beat Michigan and Stanford can upset USC, there is little doubt that Coach Pete and his excellent staff would have the underdog Broncos ready to play and give them an excellent chance to win.

And if you look down the road at BSU's future, especially with the post-Fiesta Bowl recruiting class of freshman, the Broncos look scary good in the next few years if their quarterback situation solidifies.  They just haven't done enough this year to show they are ready for the LSU's of the world.  Maybe an impressive end-of-season winning streak, including a win against Hawaii at Aloha Stadium, will convincingly show otherwise.

In the meantime, here's the latest bowl prediction from Foxsports.com on the Broncos:

Rose Bowl presented by Citi
Jan. 1 / 4:30 p.m. Pasadena, Calif. ABC
*BCS vs. BCS (Big Ten Champion vs. Pac-10 Champion, if available)
Projection: Arizona State vs. Boise State

Chris Petersen vs. Dennis Erickson, who went to ASU after weaseling out of his deal with Idaho and who also took over ASU after the university fired former BSU coach (and Petersen mentor) Dirk Koetter.  If this holds true, whatever you think of the Broncos' talent, they won't be lacking for motivation.

People's Perspectives on Larry Craig (and the three ways the People can truly bring change)

Wow!  We asked for your feedback on the Senator Larry Craig interview, and boy, did you give it.  I've read every e-mail you've sent.  I've also looked at all the votes tabulated on our web poll, which is currently running 3-to-1 in favor of Sen. Craig resigning.  It is pretty clear.  The vast majority of you want Senator him to resign.  If that's true ... if you really feel passionately that Senator Craig should no longer serve you in the U.S. Senate ... then there are three things you can do to bring change, and if enough of you do it, you will make a difference.  More on that at the bottom of this blog, but first, here's the 'People's Perspective' contained in the dozens of e-mails to us after the Senator Larry Craig interview.  Perspectives covered the gamut of viewpoints.

People's Perspective #1:  Craig is innocent and should not resign.  Definitely the minority, but there were a few like, the viewer who wrote "I believe Mr. Craig, he is innocent. I also applaud him for NOT resigning!"  Another viewer said after seeing the interview,   "There is enough doubt that I now think he should stay in office until the end of his term. I once plead guilty to a misdemeanor traffic ticket for convenience when I knew I wasn't guilty and I didn't want the hassle, embarrassment or cost of going to court. I believe Craig foolishly did the same."

People's Perspective #2:  Senator Craig should stay in office as a practical matter.  Some wrote they believed Craig had lied, but accepted the Senator's contention that Idaho would lose too much if he resigned.  One viewer opined, "At this point it's not about Larry Craig, it's about our vote in the senate. The war, and so much more are our focus. It's only 14 months we're talking about, but it's an important 14 months to Idaho. When we let this drop and get back to our business, the world won't even remember his name."  Or this viewer's sentiment.  "Larry is not fooling his wife, his children or the people of Idaho. I don't believe Larry should resign because this will allow a non-incumbent election."

People's Perspective #3:  The problem isn't the man, but the messenger.  A few e-mails said Craig's problem aren't his actions, but the media's reporting on them.  "He was set up in the restroom and he made the mistake of pleading guilty. Give the man a break and get on to some useful, and accurate news."  Another wrote, "The News Media needs to DROP this story and LEAVE HIM ALONE." Obviously, I disagree.  Senator Craig entered the public limelight voluntarily, and he clearly knew withholding information on his arrest from the public was wrong.  That was just one of many mistakes.  We either demand accountability from public officials for mistakes or we don't.  It should also be noted that it was Craig's people who set in motion the process that led to the interview. 

The vast majority of responses we received did not support Senator Craig and his decision to remain in office.  The most popular response was ...

People's Perspective #4:  Sen. Craig is clearly lying.  "There are just too many inconsistencies to be believable," a viewer wrote, adding "I have voted for Senator Craig every time he has run for office. However, I think he is now thinking more of his legacy and opportunities after his term than what is in the best interest of Idaho." Many others agreed.  "Based on the reports and previous knowledge, I don't buy the explanation," or another viewer who wrote straight out, "I think he lied to the the public of Idaho."  For many, it wasn't the arrest, it was the deception to which they objected.  A viewer told us "...tapping and waving your hand under a restroom stall is not illegal. Being gay is not illegal. I do believe he lied to all Idahoans. For this, he should resign."

People's Perspective #5:  Sen. Craig is either gay or bi-sexual and in denial.  Some viewers believe the Senator is not being truthful about his sexuality.  One viewer wrote, "Senator Craig may not be gay but is certainly bi-curious at the least. This, itself, is no reason to resign but the fact that he stands against gay rights but yet seeks gay companionship makes Craig a blatant hypocrite. He has no integrity and for this Idaho voters should call for his resignation."  That sentiment was echoed by another viewer, who wrote, "Larry is an embarrassment to Idaho and himself. He was caught and needs to act like an adult, be honest and stop this pathetic game. He is clearly in denial about his own actions."  Some were harsher, with comments such as "Craig repeatedly shows himself, more and more, to be a self-aggrandizing moral defective ..."

Two e-mails we received particularly struck me.  One was from a woman who said she had been the victim of a cheating spouse had this interesting perspective on Mrs. Craig, writing "I feel that Larry Craig is as full of B.S. as he ever was. Quoting his wife last night "GIVE ME A BREAK!" This is truly a case of "stand by your man."  Another woman wrote, "Dear Larry I wish You well. I was married to 20 Years to a high-powered man. Who would not come out of the closet. He lived in pain with his secret. I feel You were having a bi sexual encounter and just got caught. It seems like most of Idaho feels the same way. My heart goes out to You and Your wife and You have my prayers."

People's Perspective #6.  This is really all about Larry Craig, not Idaho.  Clearly, many think Craig is doing this for his benefit, not ours, like this viewer who wrote, "He is self serving and not serving the citizens of Idaho. He should hold by his word and step down. Idaho deserves better."  Another writes "What a disgrace. Only thinking of himself with no regard for the state of Idaho and its people."  This from another viewer.  "He will NEVER convince me that he's staying in office because it's the best thing to do for Idaho. He's a self-serving hypocrite!"

Another viewer really keyed in on Craig's argument that keeping him in office could help Idaho reap hundreds of millions of federal government dollars.  "Craig's responses were well rehearsed and one couldn't help but admire the twist he put on the fact that his interests weren't on trial, but Idaho's were."  It's something many viewers clearly do not accept.  "Whatever gets him past this to save "his" name, not "Idaho's" name is the only thing that matters to him. Nothing was new that he said."  And finally, this comment.  "Craig is hurting Idaho every day he stays in office."

People's Perspective #7:  Blaming the airport cop just doesn't wash.  A viewer wrote, "This was not entrapment nor was it profiling. It was an effort by the police to stem a problem that they had many complaints about. This was a sting operation. Is it profiling when the police use these tactics to catch drug dealers? Or prostitutes? Or child predators? No, it is only profiling when a public figure is caught doing something for which he or she should be ashamed."  Another Idahoan laments, "It is sad that he thinks he can convince anyone that a trained police office would hang out in a bathroom just to set Larry up in a sting."  Or this comment.  "What a cry baby. What makes him better than any other guilty person. He's got to go..."  But on the other hand, there are some still out there who smell a rat.  "I just find it interesting that this happened during an election year. I wouldn't doubt that a Democrat or two were behind this," one viewer wrote.

People's Perspective #8.  He's actions reveal his incompetence.  Here's one point from a viewer I really hadn't considered.  "The issue for me is not where he did or did not do it, but that he stated he was confused and did not understand. I want a senator that does not get confused so easily."  Another viewer asked, "If you were not guilty, then why plead guilty and if you did not understand your right's or the law, then what are you doing in Congress?."  Many said it was his actions after his arrest that should cost him his job.  "... his reluctance to trust those closest to him, with his charges, renders him unreliable and deceptive. Sorry Larry, it is time for you to leave and allow Idaho to heal."

People's Perspective #9.  The Senator answered nothing but 'softball' questions.  I struggled whether to include this perspective.  After all, the comments are a direct attack against one of our competitors, and including them will be seen by many as self-serving.  But that said, I have made a commitment in this blog to 'tell it like it is,' and the truth is we did get comments with those clearly upset by KTVB's interview, like this e-mail.  "The interview was disgusting. Not for what Senator Craig said - that was expected. What was really disgusting were the softball questions and lack of probing of inconsistencies. (The) reporter should be ashamed. He did not act as a journalist, he acted like a part of the Craig PR team."  Another viewer wrote, "As always, Larry came across as a very rehearsed politician. His interview with Mark (Johnson) was obviously scripted and safe."  Another viewer wrote, "His interview with Mark (Johnson) was obviously prepped and repetitive."  And finally this comment. "KTVB NEVER asks the tough questions!!! They're very biased and sickly sweet, they have no idea what hard hitting news is."

People's Perspective #10.  He needs to do the right thing and resign.  This sentiment could be seen through most of the e-mails we received, but I'm ending our perspectives with the viewer who put it quite plainly.  "It is time for him to do the gracious thing for the state of Idaho, and that is to resign."

I very much appreciate all your input.  It helps us better see this significant news event from your perspective.  Senator Larry Craig was hired by you to represent you.  If you are one of the clear majority who that to change, then there are three things you can do to bring change, because the fact Senator Craig is refusing to resign is based in part because of the support of three critical people.  Their endorsement of him makes Senator Craig believe he can still be effective representing you.

Their names are Senator Mike Crapo, Representative Mike Simpson, and Representative Bill Sali.  If you make the effort to contact them and tell them how you really feel, they may come to the conclusion many of you have.  After all, they work for you too.  Here's how you can do it, and even some language you could use to express your views.

Sen. Mike Crapo, State Office:  (208) 334-1776, DC Office:  (202) 224-6142, email:  http://crapo.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Senator Crapo.  It is clear that Senator Craig can no longer effectively serve Idahoans in the Senate.  He has neither the support of the Republican leadership nor the people who elected him to office.  On your website, you say Senator Craig 'put Idahoans first,' but that is clearly no longer the case.  For instance, the Senate ethics probe will be a further stain to the reputation of our great state, yet Senator Craig says he welcomes it.  You say Senator Craig has a right to pursue his legal options, but he can do so without the added burdens of being a United States Senator.  If you believe that Senator Craig's wishes trump those of the people he was elected to represent, then your position makes sense, but if you believe elected representatives must be responsive to the people who choose them to serve, then I urge you to publicly ask Senator Craig to resign.

Rep. Mike Simpson, State Office:  208-334-1953, DC Office:  202-225-5531 e-mail http://www.house.gov/simpson/emailme.shtml

Representative Simpson:  While I understand and appreciate your personal loyalty to Senator Craig, you were elected to act first and foremost in the best interests of the State of Idaho and its people.  It is clear Senator Craig's continued service is no longer in the interests of this great state, and his presence in the Senate against the wishes of the Republican leadership and the constituents he claims to represent must end.  I urge you to do everything in your power to end this continuing embarrassment to the State of Idaho by publicly asking Senator Craig to resign.

Rep. Bill Sali, State Office:  (208) 336-9831, DC Office:  (202) 225-6611 e-mail http://sali.house.gov/zipauth.shtml

Representative Sali:  You were elected to help bring ethics and morality back to Washington.  In the words of Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who you support, it is clear that Senator Craig has 'fallen short.'  Frankly Congressman, when it comes to ethical behavior in Congress, you have 'talked the talk' but not 'walked the walk' on the Senator Larry Craig affair.  His continued service is not only opposed by the Republican leadership and the majority of people he claims to represent, but poses a continued embarrassment to our great state.  If you are the man of high standards you claimed to be when you campaigned and were elected, it is time for you to publicly ask for Senator Craig's resignation for the good of the country, the Republican Party, and the people of Idaho.

It is not Senator Craig's Senate seat.  It is not Idaho's Senate seat.  It is your Senate seat, and it is important that our public officials know how you feel about who sits in it!

Thank you again for all your comments.

Why the Most Important Perspective Tuesday Night Won't be Larry Craig's

Tuesday night, in a highly publicized TV event, Senator Larry Craig will answer questions for the first time about his now infamous bathroom arrest and subsequent behavior.  I'm not one to usually urge people to watch a competing TV station, but I think it is important Idahoans watch this interview and hear Craig's perspective, because it is critical to that other perspective ... the most important perspective of the night ... Your perspective!

Let's face it.  Craig isn't doing this interview because he wants to.  He's doing this because he has to.  Every move he has made to this point has been calculated to either save or revive his reputation with you.  Senator Craig didn't tell you about the arrest because he was afraid of how it would look to you.  He pleaded guilty in attempt to keep it quiet and keep you from knowing about it.  His news conference statement "I'm not gay" was directed at you.  His second news conference where he announced his 'intent' to resign was an attempt to deflect some of the immense public pressure he was feeling from you.  His decision to stay in office is what I believe is a 'hail-mary' attempt to try to save his reputation with you.  If you don't support him, no one else will.  That's why he's doing this interview.  It's all about you.

I'll be honest enough with you to tell you we made a bold play for the Craig interview as well.  We submitted a proposal we felt had several attributes no one else could offer him, but we were also very clear with his staff that we would challenge the Senator with very difficult questions.  Craig's staff even noted that our reporting has been especially hard on him.  It has.  His behavior not only in getting arrested but attempting to hide it from you and not be totally candid with you regarding his resignation demanded tough treatment.  But in my conversations with Craig's staff, I made the point that the Senator would benefit by facing his toughest critics for his answers to be credible, convincing, and effective. 

Obviously, my argument did not win the day.  Craig's staff said the Senator himself made the decision to interview with somebody else because he felt 'friendlier' with one of their anchors.  I can't blame him.  Considering what's at stake, the interviews will be tough enough without upping the degree of difficulty.

So watch the Craig interview Tuesday evening, then watch us 'Live at 10:00.'  We've arranged for those who have been among Craig's most vocal critics to watch and respond that night.  If the Senator can convince them, then his interview will be a success.  If he can't, it's going to be a very long year for him, and for Idaho.  And judging from our polls and e-mails, those tough critics include you.

There will be a lot of 'spin' that night.  I'm sure the Idaho Republican Party and the PR machines for Reps. Sali and Simpson and Sen. Crapo have probably already drafted statements congratulating the Senator for his performance before a single question has been asked and answered.  There are others ... advocacy groups who have depended on Craig's support ... who will come out and defend his comments no matter what Craig says.  We're not interested in the spin.

We're interested in the 'Unbiased Perspective' that only those who are most impacted by the Senator's scandal can provide.  Your perspective.

That's why we have recruited a panel of Idahoans to watch Craig's interview at our television station and react on camera for our Tuesday 'Live at 10:00' newscast.  It's one of many ways we will build our coverage of Senator Craig's interview around you, and afterward, I invite you to e-mail us your thoughts as well.  You can do so from our main page immediately after the interviews are completed Tuesday night.  We plan to weave some of those comments into our coverage, and I will also produce a follow-up blog which will contain nothing but your comments.

Because the most important perspective Tuesday night belongs to you.

An Unusual Plea from a Dog Lover

I bet you think you know where this is going.  I'm going to urge you to go to the Idaho Humane Society and adopt one of those puppies that was just rescued from an alleged 'puppy mill' in Eastern Oregon.

Wrong!  I'm not! 

I'm going to urge you to go to the Humane Society, and before you choose one of those puppies, just take a minute to look at some of the other older dogs in there ... just a minute ... to see if one of them touches your heart.

Let's face it.  The puppies will get adopted.  They are cute and cuddly and prospective owners get the opportunity to train and raise them from a young age.  What dog lover doesn't absolutely adore a puppy?

But there are other dogs at the Humane Society for which finding an owner is a life-or-death reality.  I know, because I saved one of them myself many years ago and I never have regretted that decision a day in my life.

It happened 8 years ago.  I was married at the time, and one of our two dogs died.  Losing that dog was very painful.  it took us a couple of months to recover, but eventually we went back to the Humane Society just to look around ('look around' ... yeah right!).  Sometimes, the Idaho Humane Society will place mini-biographies of the dogs on the doors, and two of those stories really touched me.

Both dogs had been adopted and returned twice.  One hated cats, and we had a cat at the time, so he was out.  The other, according to the biography, hated men.  We looked at other dogs, and yes, we looked at puppies, but I kept coming back to this large, black, furry newfoundland mix that hated men.  My explanation to my then-wife was "What single woman is going to adopt this big, furry dog?"

Besides, he had a really cute head that looked like a bear and seemed to have a pleasant enough disposition, so we took him out into the shelter's yard and ran around with him a bit.  He didn't mind me too much, and when I tried to put him back in the shelter's cage, he resisted.  He just didn't want to go back in there.  That dog was showing just enough attitude and I was feeling just enough sympathy for him that it sealed the deal.  We adopted him that afternoon.

My ex-wife and I are baseball fans, and named our dogs after famous players.  The dog who had just died was 'Chipper Jones,' the puppy we had gotten a couple years earlier to be his companion was 'Sammy Sosa,' and in part because this dog had a head that looked like a bear, we named our new family member 'Barry Bonds' (or 'Bear-y' ... take your pick).  Our own 'home run hitters' that are also 100% steroid-free!

The next day, I got a dose of just how much Barry really hated men.  My then-wife had to leave for work very early in the morning, and the dog had what could best be described as a 'meltdown,' running throughout the house in a panic, whining loudly, terrified of being left alone with me.  This went on for some time any time Barry and I were alone in the house.  It got to the point where it became a question of whether he was better off going back to the shelter because of the fear my presence was psychologically torturing the poor thing.

But we kept at it, and over time, Barry came around.

Three years ago, my wife and I divorced.  She got the house, I got the dogs, and I have never for a moment regretted the deal.  Barry and Sammy and I are the best of friends.  I work long hours, so some days, they don't get the attention they deserve, but they are just so excited to see me when I come home no matter how late each night.  I can't express the joy I feel knowing the dog that hated men now shows his love for me daily with his excited whines and wagging tail.  He even enjoys meeting men now, along with women, children, other dogs, cats, horses a couple of times, and even an odd encounter with a fox.  I may have saved Barry's life, but he has more than paid me back.

Sure, puppies are great.  I certainly have no qualms with people who adopt puppies, and I have great admiration for anyone who chooses to share their life with a pet.  But there is something about the bond you feel with a more mature dog you've adopted because you know in your heart that animal really needed you when so many others passed it by.

I don't know if Barry remembers just how difficult it was for him and I at first.  I can't say whether the bond he shares with me comes in part from the fact that I'm the guy who stuck with him and didn't return him to the shelter.  All I know is that when I stare into those big brown eyes of his, seeing them stare back at me and knowing those are the eyes of a dog with a good life filled with love, comfort and way-too-expensive doggy treats ... is pretty priceless!

Barry is getting older now.  Dogs age too fast!  Sometimes, I think ahead to what a very sad day it will be for me when those big brown eyes close forever.  But my one solace on that day will be the realization that this is a dog that could have very easily died unloved and unwanted, but didn't because of me.

Larry Craig and the Politics of Perspective

The other day, we found a binder full of KIVI-TV editorial scripts from 1987-1989.  I didn't even realize we did editorials way back then, but it was certainly interesting reading.  Akin to opening up a time capsule of sorts to see what people were talking about way back then.

Some topics of the day were rather quaint.  There was apparently some sort of dispute over the width of bus lanes downtown back then of which I don't quite comprehend the importance.  Some of the scripts were rather plain and predictable.  One urged people not to drink and drive while celebrating New Year's Eve.  A good message, but do you know anyone decided not to drink and drive on New Year's because of a TV editorial?  There were even sure signs that after 20 years, some things never change.  A couple of the editorials complained about the paltry amounts Idaho pays its teachers.  Obviously, we haven't quite fixed that one yet.

Most all of the editorials, which by the way were typewritten (anyone remember typewriters?), urged viewers to respond, and I found the responses to be the most interesting reading.

In one response, a writer complained about media coverage of the Iran-Contra scandal that was at the time a stain on the accomplishments of the Reagan administration.  For those of you who don't remember, Iran-Contra was a scheme to get around a funding ban for the Contras, rebels who were fighting the communist government of Nicaragua.  It was led by a Marine Lt. Colonel named Oliver North who arranged the selling arms to Iran and then funneled those dollars to the Contras.

A viewer replied to an editorial by writing, "I believe the whole Ollie North case was a liberal attempt to discredit President Reagan."  He goes onto write, "Congress passed a stupid law against helping the Contras.  They obviously did it to provide opportunity for entrapment ... in hopes of causing Reagan to suffer a 'Watergate' ..."  Finally, he weighs in on all the media coverage as a liberal attempt to bring Reagan down.

Twenty years later, we now know those views were pretty idiotic.  Even Reagan's himself acknowledges as much in his journal, which was released after his death.  It reveals that he was personally disturbed by the Iran-Contra affair and was not fully aware nor did he approve of the extreme actions of subordinates in the executive branch.  That explains why he at first publicly denied Iran-Contra and then was compelled to admit it was true.  It could be an attempt at revisionist history, but I personally doubt it because of other things Reagan wrote in his journal at the time.

I won't go into the whole history of Iran-Contra here, but history now shows us the entire sordid affair was a self-inflicted blunder and not a conspiracy of liberal interests meant to discredit a conservative President and his administration.

It reminded me of how we're viewing the Larry Craig scandal today.  We've received a lot of e-mail on it.  The vast majority condemn the Senator's actions.  Many urge him to resign, others to stay the course, but there are some who seek to blame others for Craig's predicament.  They forwarded conspiracy theories that the Minneapolis police officer recognized the Senator and attempted to entrap him.  Others argued that Craig is the victim of a zealous prosecution in an attempt by Minnesota liberals to embarrass a conservative Republican.  The American Lands Institute, a pro-Craig group, has even gone so far as to urge a boycott of the Minneapolis airport!  Why?  Because a cop was doing his job?

Like the criticism leveled twenty years ago alleging a 'liberal conspiracy' against Reagan, there are no grounds to point fingers.  Senator Larry Craig's woes, from arrest to guilty plea to the bizarre blaming of an 'Idaho Statesman' investigation for his actions, are clearly self-inflicted.

It makes you wonder how these same 'liberal conspiracy theorists' would have reacted had Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi or Larry LaRocco had been arrested under similar circumstances.  Would those same people have proffered theories of a conservative conspiracy?  Of course not! ... and that helps defeat their arguments, because for our opinions to have credibility, they must begin with an even-handed dispassionate view of the facts.

That's not to say people can't support Senator Craig.  He has certainly earned the benefit of the doubt from many Idahoans, and I have no problem with those who are withholding judgment on this episode until it fully plays out.  But to dream up bizarre conspiracy theories or to think that somehow Craig's political opponents are behind this scandal is ridiculous.

This issue isn't like a baseball game where fans defend the team they root for no matter what the circumstances, like when your team makes the playoffs because an umpire blew a critical call (as just happened with the Colorado Rockies).  Colorado fans can make whatever tortured arguments they want that their team deserved to win that game under those circumstances, because in the grand scheme of things, the stakes are not that high (especially when you consider the Philadelphia Phillies will beat them anyway ... that's my biased view of the facts, and I'm sticking with them).

But when it comes to politics and our actions regarding out political leaders, the stakes are high, and the facts cannot be made to fit a side.  Whether we are a Republican or a Democrat, a conservative or a liberal, it is important that we as voting Americans with a stake in our democracy are willing to take an objective view of the facts, not distort them to fit pre-conceived personal agendas.  If we want accountability and personal responsibility in our political leaders, then we must hold them accountable and responsible for their actions, and not make up excuses for them just because we better identify with their party or political philosophy.

This isn't just a Republican phenomenon.  Democrats do it too.  We all have at times, and hopefully learned from our mistakes.  That's important, because history is watching, and twenty years from now, you don't want people to remember you for some idiotic theories you are insisting on today.