AARP & Other Liberals Spearhead Charge for Clintoncare II

Author: J.J. Jackson

As groups get bigger I swear their collective intelligence decreases. Nothing could be a truer example of this than one of the largest groups in America, the American Association of Retired Persons. Often affectionately known as the AARP I prefer to call them the Anti-American Retired Persons because I believe in truth in advertising.

Here you have a group that on one hand uses the power of capitalism. They flaunt the purchasing power of their vast membership to negotiate with companies all over the globe to get special discounts and incentives for their members in return for promoting these same companies to their members. But on the other hand they pimp anti-American ideas such as socialism and collectivism.

Case and point, the AARP has been running ads featuring cute, and dare I say naive, children who are reading from their given script and pleading with Americans to support candidates that promise universal health insurance coverage. They’re basically promoting Democrats and other liberals.

It’s no real big surprise. Their constituents are on two of the largest unconstitutional programs ever devised, namely Social Security and Medicare. You knew it could only be a matter of time before they decided that they needed to try and expand that base and their power.

So this push by the AARP just ahead of Hillary’s big announcement of her new and improved socialist plan for America shocks none.

Forget that she already tried to float this idea past American citizens in nineties and that it was soundly rejected. But hey, try, try again right?

So here comes Senatorette Clinton this week giving us Clintoncare Part Deux.

All you need to know about Hillary Clinton is that she said of her grand scheme, "At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed”. The key words being “at this point”. You got to love the way they couch their plans and telegraph their future intentions don’t you?

At this point there is no punishment. How about tomorrow? Well, we’ll get back to you...

You just wait for those “future” plans Comrade Hillary slyly discusses. Because what is going to happen if Americans do not join? If even one person chooses that path then the whole claim of universal health insurance (not care mind you) falls apart and you can bet your bottom dollar that all sorts of punishments will be created to deal with those people who won’t fall in line.

Clinton did however slip up and let out what she though at least one punishment for not joining Hillarycare will be. She envisions a day when, “you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination”.

So join or you can’t work?

On a side note, and unfortunately for Hillary, her claim about vaccinations and public schools is not true. For example in Pennsylvania you do not have to be vaccinated to attend public school. So I am not sure where Hillary is getting her “facts” from. Perhaps she is just making things up again? She seems to do that quite often and has shown that she is certainly not above letting the “facts” get in the way of a good story.

I apologize to those of you who have decided not to vaccinate your children. For I am sure I’ve just given Comrade Clinton a new item to add to her list of “things to order the unwashed masses to do”. After all, mommy knows best!

Hillary Clinton also said of her rehashed socialist agenda that her plan, “expands personal choice and increases competition to get costs down.” You have to love how liberals claim that having no choice is actually a “choice”. Mandating that you must participate in this plan as in her own self-professed future vision, if you want to work is, is somehow a “choice”?

In further nanny state fashion, Senatorette Clinton thinks that she can wield the power of government to coerce people to act the way she desires them to. Most notably, she plans to use the tax code. She has said of her plan, “We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans." And what if Americans disagree? Well, were back to the “at this point” clarification of there being no “punitive” measures. This is the same government that used the tax code for years to punish couples for getting married. Remember that.

The facts are, that beyond talking points Hillary Clinton still has given little details about her health insurance (not health care) for all plan. But that reality hasn’t stopped those who fawn over Marxist ideas from touting Senatorette Clinton as having “detailed” her plans. Break it all down and here is what it comes down to; government nebulously mandating how insurance companies and private industries operate and even how the citizenry must behave. And of course, it would be “paid for” in part by the left’s favorite past time; raising taxes. Don’t complain. Don’t you know that it’s their money?

What? You disagree? Be careful. The re-education camps await you.

If you are an insurance company and don’t want to insure pre-existing conditions because you are rightfully scared of people only buying insurance after they have been diagnosed with a disease only to drop it once they have been treated, taken tens of thousands of dollars in care and before they have paid enough in premiums to even cover the cost, oh well! Too bad. Government says otherwise, so you will comply if you want to be in the health insurance business.

Freedom to contract and freedom of association be damned. It’s just not the liberal way.

The truth they are trying to hide is that everyone in America has “health care” if they seek it out. What everyone does not have is “health insurance” to help defray the costs when they do. Nor should they. Insurance is a luxury. Not everyone has a 50’ yacht either and I doubt many would suggest government should provide such for the people that do not.

People like Clinton claim that we need universal coverage because the uninsured cost the rest of us in higher premiums and other costs. But who do you think is going to pay for those that would be covered under this plan but don’t have insurance now when the government runs it? The Tooth Fairy? Or will the money just come from the magical, mystical money tree Hillary has in her back yard? Heck no! The cost of the current “uninsured” will still be carried by the rest of us. It is just a shell game to try and hide that fact and grant more power to the government. Hence why she needs to raise taxes.

Clinton can’t even discuss her ideas without the obligatory double speak saying, “My Republican opponents will try to equate healthcare for all Americans with government-run healthcare.” Well, uh yeah Comrade Clinton because it is! If the government is mandating that all Americans have to have healthcare, creating laws regarding how the system works, dictating what you must do once in the program and enforcing that doctors, hospitals and insurance companies do what government says they must in order to cover all Americans then it is “government-run healthcare” by default. When you pass a law it isn’t a “recommendation” or a “request”. It’s a law! Did you ever take a civics course that you actually passed? Because this is pretty basic stuff here!

But then again, this is from the frontrunner for the nomination of the party that claims that it is a “pro-choice” yet is forcing you to pay into a government retirement plan. And let’s not forget that the party she represents frequently gets endorsements from the Communist Party USA for their presidential candidates. Are those little red lights in your brain going off yet?

Clinton said of her plan, “I believe everyone – every man, woman and child – should have quality, affordable healthcare in America. I intend to be the president who will do that.” Well, that’s all well and good that you believe that. Now do you mind pointing to where in the Constitution you and your fellow travelers are granted the power by “We the People” to mandate how we manage our own choices with regards to healthcare? Are you going to point out to us, finally after all these years of waiting patiently, where you are given the power to dictate what price something should be and hence its “affordability”? Or are you just going to ignore that major problem with your plans like you always do?

Uh huh. Silence. That’s what I thought.

We already have Medicaid for the “poor” who supposedly can’t afford health insurance and Medicare for the elderly who are dubbed by the left as too stupid to save for their own needs after retirement and Congress wants to make families with an income of up to $80,000 eligible for SCHIP. How much more do we have to give?

Once again, please let myself and other Americans that still actually believe in liberty have real choice and chose to pass on this and chose not to contribute to the program. But then again, that “choice” isn’t one of the government approved “choices” now is it?

For the left, “choice” is simply a mandate from them. And you will abide by it “or else”. If not they will eventually get you with future punishments that don’t exist at this time while they stick the camel’s nose under the tent today.

"The sad reality is that the uninsured don't just struggle with costs themselves, they impose costs on the rest of us," Clinton said. And why is that? Is it because politicians and the courts let them impose these problems on us by allowing them to get out of paying their debts, bailing them out with tax payer dollars and maybe only at best paying a fraction of the cost to those that provide their services thus increasing costs to the rest of us? There once was a time in America when if you owed a debt you paid it you either paid it, rotted in jail or were ordered to work off you debts to those you owed them to.

But then again, hard work scares liberals. Responsibility is too much to ask them to promote. So those concepts are certainly not on the table. But government mandates? Heck, that’s the way they think they can create utopia!

Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/aarp-other-liberals-spearhead-charge-for-clintoncare-ii-219155.html

About the Author:J.J. Jackson is the owner of American Conservative Daily Blog . He is also the lead designer for The Right Things - Conservative Political T-shirts . His weekly articles and exclusive content can be found at Liberty Reborn .

A Hillary by Any Other Name

I have been spending a lot of time thinking about the former first lady. I will admit my thoughts are not positive in nature. I try to not let them seep into a hateful rage and remain grounded in the truth that this is a women with the wrong set of ideas. I think many individuals are thinking about this women especially as she runs for our nation's highest office. But I wonder sometimes what the fate of this women would be if her last name was Smith or Jones? Would we be talking about Hillary Smith as the next President of the United States? I am of the opinion that we would not and there is where I see the real problem.

I suppose by my comments that I imply a certain illegitimacy to Senator Clinton's presidential run. The problem is that without her infamous attachment with her president husband I do not see how politician Hillary emerges to run for chief of the West Wing. Certainly I think most would have to admit this fact and in doing so might have to concede, Hillary Clinton is an artificial candidate created by creators of the Bill Clinton mystique.

I would say that Mrs. Clinton has used this mystique and the presumed glamorous times of the nineties with the Clinton White House occupation in her quest to fulfill her ambitions. Ambitions that have recently come to light in books detailing the Clinton's partnership and alliance to make all of their political dreams come true. It happened for Bill and as his time in the sun set Hillary's was beginning to rise.

She was not content to live out the behind the scenes life of a former first lady but instead to seek out some of the same glory and power her husband enjoyed. So she pursued a Senate seat in New York, a state very accepting of her kind, liberals. She now had the position to cultivate real political experience. She was not long for the Senate and we now have candidate Hillary again, but this time she wants her own keys to the White House. And with her husband's political machine, and deity-like image among Democrats behind her, she has vaulted to position number one for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Hillary finds herself in a top three with a one-term senator and a first-term senator. Not a group with a vast amount of political dirt under the fingernails. No, the real experienced pols have been relegated to the proverbial second-tier status. The Democrats say they want change, maybe shying away from experience is what they mean by that?

Not that I am saying that Washington experience is the be all end all or even preferred in most cases. I just cringe when I hear the pundits and sycophants drool over their top-tier candidates and most notably Mrs. Clinton. All I hear is how experienced she is and how that will be a welcome change from our current president. Well from reading her bio on Wikipedia I have found that before becoming a senator she was a lawyer, served on some corporate board, and was wife to a philandering pervert. That may qualify her for life in Washington D.C. but does that constitute a presidential resume?

I think it is great if some no-name American wants to throw their hat into the ring of politics. It is certainly every citizens right to run for public office. I just have a problem with this one particular politician because of the office she is running for. Seething rage will only get you so far before you have to look at the opposition's ideas. The truth is I believe that the junior senator from New York is wrong on the ideas. I worry that she may get that chance to sit behind the desk in the Oval Office, because at this point in history she just might get that chance. I just hope there are enough worriers out across the country who see the disaster on the horizon. Because that is what I think a Hillary Clinton presidency would be, a disaster. Whether it be a naive approach to foreign policy or an over expansion of government control of our lives, I think selecting such a leader would be a mistake. My point is that I wonder if we would even have these concerns if she was a Hillary by any other name?

Tough Love: Why the Federal Reserve Should NOT Cut Interest Rates

by Robert M. Clinger III

With the real estate bubble having burst and the financial system in a tizzy over the attending fallout in the mortgage markets, bankers, investors, homeowners, and CEOs are calling on the Federal Reserve's Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) to cut the federal funds rate in an effort to avert a financial meltdown. However, the Federal Reserve should see through these self-serving calls and hold rates steady for the time being.

A cut in the federal funds rate, or several cuts as the futures markets are predicting, may well spur growth in GDP from the tepid rate of the first half of the year. With this, however, comes the risk of increasing inflationary pressures at a time when inflation is likely to remain above a comfortable level for maximum economic output. In addition, increased economic activity resulting from lower interest rates at a time of sustained higher energy prices could result in inflationary pressures spiraling out of control.

A cut in the federal funds rate would also likely result in a long-term strengthening in the dollar. With the dollar currently weak in the foreign exchange markets, consumers here in America may find domestic-made goods less expensive than imported foreign goods. Likewise, foreign trading partners would find American produced goods relatively less expensive than their own domestic goods. Thus, the weaker dollar may well lead to a shrinking of the current account deficit. Cutting rates and strengthening the dollar could lead to an increased current account deficit which could have adverse economic consequences.

Further, a cut in rates now may well lead to increased spending by consumers, many of whom have already spent beyond their means. Higher rates have reduced the proclivity of consumers to make purchases on credit and have prompted repayment of debt and increased savings. This increased savings comes at a time when America has become a nation of dissavers in recent years.

More importantly, cutting rates now is not going to stem the much needed cooling of the housing market. Highly accommodative monetary policy that saw the federal funds rate cut to 1% was what the economy needed in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 and likely helped to avert a potentially deep recession. However, the FOMC, as is so often the case, overshot on the downside by cutting rates so aggressively. The environment of virtually free money, credit, and mortgages from 2002 to 2004 created a moral hazard--mortgage companies and banks loaned money for real estate purchases to many individuals who otherwise would not have been able to afford such investments. At one point, exotic mortgages (reverse amortization for example) and interest only mortgages accounted for over half of those underwritten.

Cheap money could not last forever, and, ultimately, the time would come to pay the piper when rates began to rise. Little heed, evidently, was given by lenders to the ability to service the debt obligation when rates increased down the road. By then, the underwriters would have packaged and resold those loans to other investors. Consumers also failed to consider the consequences of when the music stopped and they were unable to pay for purchases made on credit that had been and were still beyond their means. The irrational exuberance that surrounded the noble desire to achieve the American dream of home ownership clouded some consumer's and lender's judgment.

The blame for the current situation has to be shared by all parties. Consumers thirsted for the American dream but spent beyond their means with mortgages and credit cards. Lenders made the American dream sound possible with sales pitches that seemed too good to be true. Investors bought speculative properties and flipped them for quick gains with what was perceived to be no risk, driving up prices in some places and further fueling the exuberance. The FOMC failed to take the punch bowl away whilst the party was still going strong by opting for a measured removal of accommodative monetary policy in twenty-five basis point increments. Whereas their rate cuts had, at times been in fifty basis point increments, their reaction in removing accommodation was weak and timid.

Through all of this, did no one--lenders, consumers, investors, the Federal Reserve policymakers--recall the old adage, "If it seems too good to be true, it probably isn't true?"
Now that the party is over and everyone has a bad hangover, these same partygoers are turning to the Fed to bail them out of the problems that they have created. During the Greenspan era at the Fed, investors and financial market participants manifested in their minds the existence of a protective "Greenspan put"-the notion that the Fed would aggressively cut interest rates to avoid a steep decline in the markets. Indeed, the Fed cut rates in the early 1990s following the savings and loan crisis and again in the late 1990s following the Asian contagion and bailed out the markets following the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management.

The mandate of the Federal Reserve, however, is not to protect the markets from sharp declines. The mandate of the Fed is, as defined by the Federal Reserve Act, to "maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates." Whilst working to ensure the stability in the overall financial system is important, this should in no way imply that the Fed should bail investors out of bad investment decisions. Declines in markets (a.k.a. corrections) are a perfectly natural part of a well-functioning, orderly financial system and serve to adjust asset prices towards more fundamental valuations.

To be sure, the Fed should not cut interest rates now. Yes, credit conditions did deteriorate considerably in mid- to late August. The injection of over $69 billion into the system coupled with a cut in the discount rate helped shore up confidence amongst lending institutions. But cutting the federal funds rate (leading to lower interest rates overall) will not stop the pain the real estate market is feeling and the further pain that is to come. To stop the default on loans and subsequent foreclosure on properties with adjustable rate mortgages would require a cut in rates to levels of 2003 and 2004 when the federal funds rate was still under 2.25%. However, consumers who are already stretched too thin and who are buried under mountains of mortgage and credit card debt would still not likely be able to satisfy their debt obligations. Additionally, such a dramatic cut in rates again would start a vicious cycle of loose policy all over, further compounding the situation.

But more importantly, doing so would send a signal to the financial markets that this Fed will bail them out when they get into trouble as a result of bad investment decisions. Thus, the Fed would be obligated to bail out the next hedge fund that goes bust, and the next one, and the next publicly-traded mortgage lender that goes under, etc. Much like a spoiled child whose parents continue to bail him out of trouble without any consequences, the Fed would play this role well for unruly investors. And like the spoiled child, the investors would never learn their lessons. No, what we need is tough love from the Fed. Let the markets and investors sort this one out on their own. The Fed must hold rates steady. After all, the best lesson is a bought lesson, and it appears that investors and lenders may have bought and paid for this one to the tune of $50-$100 billion.

Robert M. Clinger III & Sebastian G. PereyCopyright 2007 Thinking Outside the Boxehttp://www.thinkingoutsidetheboxe.com/
Article Source: http://www.articlecube.com/

Rep. King Enters No P.C. Zone

Representative Peter King of New York made one thing clear, he is not concerned with political correctness. This was obivious after his comments about there being too many mosques in America.

The reaction that such comments would elicit would be highly predictable. But these reactions would simply be reactions to the congressman's statement on a purely superficial level. I think what Rep. King was doing was being a honest politician, the kind of thing we constantly complain that we do not have enough of.

"There are too many people sympathetic to radical Islam," King said.

I think his point is an honest assessment of the current situation. When Islamic extremists carry out terrorists acts there is no condemnation or outrage from the moderate Muslim population.

We tend to judge people by their actions or lack of action as in these cases. I think it is entirely appropriate to question the motives of those in our country that have such an association to radical extremism and terrorism. If not, we risk a slow and steady infiltration of unwanted elements that do not wish to live out the great American dream but to destroy it.

Iraq War: to Leave or not to Leave

Author: Josh Greenberger
(September 17, 2007) It's probably safe to say that all Americans, regardless of whether they were for or against the Iraq war, would like to see our troops come home. The problem is, to pull out we need to leave a stable country behind. An immediate withdrawal would leave Iraq with a vulnerable military force, sectarian infighting and a power vacuum that would immediately be filled by terrorist factions.

Calling for an immediate withdrawal, as some are doing, ignores the many lessons learned from middle east politics and turmoil.

After the 2005 Lebanese elections, Hezbollah won 14 seats in the 128-member Lebanese Parliament, and now also has 2 ministers in the government. Hezbollah has since launched thousands of rockets into Israel. On July 12th, 2006, Hezbollah captured 2 Israeli soldiers, sparking a 34-day military conflict with Israel. By August 13, 2006, Hezbollah had fired close to 4,000 rockets into Israel.

In August of 2005, Israel pulled out of Gaza. That territory has been racked with violence ever since. As late as June 2007, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett lamented, "Once again, extremists carrying guns have prevented progress against the wishes of the majority ... "

With terrorists already in Iraq, why does anyone believe things would be different there? Will terrorists just get up and leave if we do? Hardly likely. In fact, Iraq would be a far bigger prize to terrorist than anything they've ever acquired before.

Lebanon has a population of around 4 million, covers around 10 thousand sq km, and has no oil. Iraq, on the other hand, has a population of almost 30 million, covers an area of over 400 thousand sq km., and possesses one of the world's largest proven oil reserves. With such vast resources at its disposal, a terrorists organization could grow exponentially.

We either finish the job today or fight again tomorrow. The difference is, today, as organized and as powerful as terrorists have become, we're still fighting rag-tag cells. Tomorrow we could be fighting a major power.

by Josh Greenberger
from shopndrop.com
Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/iraq-war-to-leave-or-not-to-leave-215937.html
About the Author:

Real Clear Politics Latest Poll

Tuesday, September 11
Race
Poll
Period
Results
Spread
California Republican Primary
SurveyUSA
09/07 - 09/09
Giuliani 28, Thompson 26, Romney 14, McCain 18
Giuliani +2.0%
California Democratic Primary
SurveyUSA
09/07 - 09/09
Clinton 51, Obama 27, Edwards 14
Clinton +24.0%
Republican Presidential Nomination
NYT/CBS News*
09/04 - 09/09
Giuliani 27, Thompson 22, Romney 14, McCain 18
Giuliani +5.0%
Democratic Presidential Nomination
NYT/CBS News*
09/04 - 09/09
Clinton 44, Obama 26, Edwards 17
Clinton +18.0%

The First Hsu to Drop?

Scandals and politics seem to go together like peanut butter and jelly. They have been occurring at all periods of time and we have seen a rash of them in recent years. Some involve sex, some involve bribes and money, and others consist of sex and money. What I am saying is that we should not be surprised when scandals occur and a politician is somehow involved in the story. And certainly when we hear the name of one political family and scandal we should be far from surprised. Of course I am talking about the Clintons. Many volumes of books and articles have been written on the Clinton's exploits over the years. And they contain all the salacious parts of a scandal, namely sex and money. Most of attention had been paid Bill in his early political career and during his time residing in the White House. But Hillary herself was not immune to the scandal scrutiny, the Rose Law firm and Whitewater to name a few. You would think that after there time in the White House, having achieved the power and position that they had so ambitiously sought, that the word scandal would have disassociated itself from them. Well so far it has from the former president but not from his Oval Office seeking wife. Ironically it involves an Asian fundraiser not unlike the ones associated with the ex-President Clinton. His name is Norman Hsu and he has been a very prominent Democratic Party donor. His exploits have been released into the public by the media. The controversy involves bundling of contributions and the Paws, a middle income family living in California, who by accounts have contributed $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005. In a bizarre mystery Mr. Hsu was apprehended recently in Colorado after failing to appear in court. The illness he suffered is not known but with the involvement of the Clintons into the story speculations abound. Some of those associated with the Clintons have been known to suddenly die in unusual circumstances amid swirling controversies. This is hardly something that Senator Clinton wants to follow her on the campaign trail but we will have to wait and see if the story gains any traction among the media. Is this the only bump for Mrs. Clinton on her road to the White House, or like her husband is this only the first of many mysteries and controversies to come?

What Experience?

It has become standard for political candidates to try and distinguish themselves from their opponents by touting their experience. Each candidate points to their long public service records and commitment to serving the people as a reason why people should vote for them. This is not anything new in politics nor is it exclusive to the Republicans or Democrats. We have already seen many examples of this in this presidential election campaign season. But I got to thinking about those touted Democrat front-runners who each has declared they are the most experienced and qualified to sit behind the desk in the oval office. One would only have to look at the experience of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards to wonder what experience they are referring to. I start with John Edwards who is in the third position of first-tier candidates. What experience does he have? Well we know that he is a very wealthy man who made his millions as a slip and fall lawyer as Curtis Sliwa might say. I must not forget his forgettable term in the U.S. Senate where he was apart of so much important legislation, none comes to mind of course. Then we have the rock star Barack Obama. We know that he served in the Illinois legislature and is presently serving in the Senate. Certainly he has served the people of Illinois and continues to serve them, but does he have the experience necessary to run a country effectively? And finally we have the leader of the pack, the former first lady, Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton. I got to thinking about her experience that she claims to have over her opponents. It may be that I am not intelligent enough to understand the complexity of her experience that would make her the ideal person to lead the world's superpower. I know she used to be a lawyer, but with people's opinions of lawyers I do not know if that is something to run on. We know that she has been a spouse of a politician, a first lady of Arkansas and later the United States. Maybe that is the experience Mrs. Clinton is referring to? But I almost forgot that she serves the people in New York as their junior senator. Each of the three is lacking when it comes to meaningful legislation attached to their names. But yet we will constantly hear from the candidates or their handlers that each is more qualified then the other and infinitely more than the Republicans whose first-tier candidates have actually run major cities and states. I am sure this trend will continue as each candidate tries to convince the electorate that they can lead and preside where others cannot. I will continue to ask and wonder and I would hope for others to ask an honest question of these candidates, what experience?

Reconsidering Larry

After a week of heavy press coverage and press conferences we know one thing for certain, that Larry Craig is not gay. And maybe that is up in the air for the moment. It seems as if the Idaho senator has had a change of heart and is thinking about taking back his resignation declaration after people like Senator Arlen Specter have told him to fight on. I will say one thing about this entire situation, I have not come away very impressed with Senator Craig's judgment. We have him declaring he was not involved in a scandal involving pages back in 1982 before names were named and he pleads guilty to some sort of activity in a Minneapolis airport bathroom. I have been thinking about this situation as I turn from channel to channel and listen to talking head after talking head. I realize that lewd or sexual behavior in a public environment is wrong but is that the case in this situation. I am still very much confused with what exactly took place and what the crime was. To me it looks like at the most a man flashing his hands under a stall and touching another man's foot with his. I am not a lawyer but I thought solicitation involved certain acts being performed in exchange for money. With the absence of money being exchanged you have two individuals with consenting feet. It might have helped if the police officer in the other stall had been wearing a camera to record the lewd activity that Mr. Craig apparently exhibited. Or intent might have been better established if the officer had been able to get Senator Craig to enter his stall. I hope if Craig is innocent that he decides to fight on and clear his name. I think his excuse for pleading guilty to a lesser crime to make things go away is troubling. I think if you are innocent you should declare it up front and not take the fall for something you have not done. These people should be able to fight their charges without have to try and hide them for fear of the public hearing about them. In the end their innocence will either be proven or not. I still do not know what the whole truth surrounding this situation is. I think it comes down to two possibilities. You either have an innocent senator with a lousy judgment or you have a politician with a penchant for foot philandering.