From http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Larry_Craig.htm
[Boy, this guy is a real winner. So he's not only a hypocritical bigot misogynist homophobe for railing against the homosexual lifestyle while pleading guilty to soliciting sex from a police officer in an airport bathroom, but he wants to INCREASE the already massive economic disparity between the super rich and everyone else, pollute the environment, outlaw abortion, promote a culture of guns, and get rid of the public school system? This guy is really incredible! I'm sure we'll soon have a david brooks column on why he's really just misunderstood, and would make a fine moderate president... -ed]
Strongly Opposes same sex marriage
Strong Favors Constitutional Ban on gay marriage
Strongly Opposes same-sex basic training for recruiting US troops
Strongly Opposes expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation
Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition
Rated 0% by NARAL
Strongly Opposes a Woman's Right to an Abortion
Rated 0% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record
Rated 0% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record
Rated A+ by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record
YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows
Favors absolishing background checks for purchasing guns at gun shows
Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes
YES on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million
YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends
The Idaho Statesman editorial page begins today’s editorial with the sentence, “Sen. Larry Craig has spent 27 years in Congress with rumors about his sexual orientation following him almost from the outset.”
Craig “must speak candidly with the people who have hired him for more than a quarter of a century,” the Statesman editorial continues. “He owes this to voters no matter how difficult that may be for him and for his family. And voters owe Craig a chance to explain himself.”
Among the questions the Statesman editorial poses about the “bizarre case”: “If Craig’s actions in the restroom were misconstrued and he was not involved in any inappropriate conduct, as he said in a statement Monday, then why did he plead guilty?”; “Did Craig try to use his title to make the case go away?” (the editorial calls it “an inexcusable abuse of power” if, as reported in the police report, “Craig handed the plainclothes officer a U.S. Senate business card during an interview with police, and asked the officer, ‘What do you think about that?’); and “Why did Craig not come forward after the June 11 arrest? Did he honestly think this would never become public?”
“For Craig to keep this from his constituents, for 11 weeks, is not merely bad public relations,” the editorial goes on. “It’s an unacceptable breach of trust.”
The Statesman editorial also says voters deserve to know if Craig is gay: “Elected officials have a right to privacy, but also an obligation to tell the truth about who they are.”