He did not word parse. It's pretty cut and dry: If there is no evidential basis for the case, the scandal could be nullified I don't live in his state nor have I looke dmuch into the bias the cops had against the senator (if any). But it does seem a little set up at times. If it was setup, the Dems sure are starting to learn what real politics are!

DavidtheDuke @ 2:

He did not word parse. It's pretty cut and dry: If there is no evidential basis for the case, the scandal could be nullified I don't live in his state nor have I looke dmuch into the bias the cops had against the senator (if any). But it does seem a little set up at times. If it was setup, the Dems sure are starting to learn what real politics are!

set up my ass...it was a known mensroom for sex....that's why the police were in there in the first place.............ok...it looks like we have a new conspiracy theory to deal with.

It is useful to keep in perspective what the NY Times editorial writers opined earlier this week:
"No similar leadership chorus for judgment has been heard about any number of other scandalous revelations on the party’s plate.
There’s the F.B.I.’s inquiry into whether Senator Ted Stevens swung a quid-pro-quo deal for a government contractor who eventually renovated his Alaska home. There’s also Senator David Vitter’s presence on the client list of a Washington brothel. Mr. Vitter, a social conservative, pleaded guilty to “sin” (heterosexual) and no leadership call ensued for a thorough in-house ethics inquiry. Certainly, no Republican called for the resignation of Mr. Vitter, who comes from Louisiana, which has a Democratic governor who would then replace him. Mr. Craig is from a safe state with a Republican governor."

This is a pretty funny story. Fodder for Letterman. The guy--especially his hypocracy--is a joke. But getting drummed out of the senate for it? I just don't see it. Gotta agree with Specter on this one. I don't see a provable offense and I don't understand why the guy would have pled guilty with the evidence we've seen. And God only knows, we have WAY too much information about this.

Spector also said in Craig's defense "You should've seen what the cop was wearing!"

It was a known mensroom sex? oh. hahaha. Boy would it be uncomfortable to be a straight cop in there.

Specter has already announced that he will seek re-election in 2010. Too bad, Arlan, the voters of Pennsylvania will be retiring you from Congress in 2010. Arlan Specter can no longer try to play both sides by pretending to be a moderate.

DavidtheDuke @ 2:

He did not word parse. It's pretty cut and dry: If there is no evidential basis for the case, the scandal could be nullified I don't live in his state nor have I looke dmuch into the bias the cops had against the senator (if any). But it does seem a little set up at times. If it was setup, the Dems sure are starting to learn what real politics are!

It's about time the Dems start following the Repubs lead on dirty politics.

Whoa 17. You're scarrin me. Anyone have a translator?

What is the SPPNA?

Society for People Proposing Non-sensical Arguments.

top link

broken

heh...

[Only wmv. The Quicktime links work fine. I've let the link fixers know-Sitemonitor]

He pled GUILTY. After almost two months. He signed off on his own plea. He wanted it to disappear.
He is responsible for his own guilt.

Arlen Spector is an utter asshole.

But I'd like to see his scenario play out. It would be great if Larry Craig went to court and tried to rescind his resignation (or pretend-resignation, or whatever Spector now claims it was). That would just draw the silly scandal out longer, and make the GOP look even more hypocritical and morally bankrupt - and give the Idaho Statesman more incentive to release the evidence it has of the anti-gay Senator's hidden gay life.

I didn't know you could retract a guilty plea after sentencing. Must be special rules for politicians.

The legal standard for granting a motion to withdraw a plea is not "I changed my mind." Generally, the defendant must show mistake, fraud, or ineffective assistance of counsel. Usually a judge will ask questions to determine that the defendant understands the charges, the possible consequences, his or her rights (including trial by jury, to remain silent, to be represented by an attorney, etc) and that they are knowingly and intelligently waiving those rights. It's usually given to the defendant in writing for them to read and sign.

"Buyer's remorse" is not sufficient. If Craig knowingly and intelligently (that doesn't mean smartly) made his guilty plea, the judge should deny the motion to withdraw.

That being said, I would not be surprised to see the motion be unopposed by the DA and granted by the judge, and then the case dismissed "for lack of evidence."

As the saying goes, it's not who you know, it's who you blow.

I don't see what's so complicated about this. Larry Craig got caught soliciting sex in a men's room. No doubt it wasn't the first time for this sad MO of his, and many, many people in Washington have long been aware that he's a closeted homosexual. As someone else pointed out here, he pled guilty to make it go away.

Personally, I don't think this pathetic interlude in and of itself should necessarily force him to resign, and from my perspective Larry Craig's real crime is that he's the worst kind of hypocrite, totally out of touch with his own sexuality, living a double life in which he seeks to punish and restrict those who do in the open what he does secretly and in shame.

Maybe Arlen Spector is in deep and naive denial about Craig and his behavior, but surely the politician in him is acutely aware that nothing would have pleased the Democratic party more than having Larry Craig continue to seek re-election in November 2008, and he knows damn well that it was his own party that drove Larry Craig from office.

DavidtheDuke @ 2:

He did not word parse. It's pretty cut and dry: If there is no evidential basis for the case, the scandal could be nullified I don't live in his state nor have I looke dmuch into the bias the cops had against the senator (if any). But it does seem a little set up at times. If it was setup, the Dems sure are starting to learn what real politics are!

Minnesota has a Repugnant Governor, and cops tend to be conservatives. Do you think that they staked out the restroom for weeks in advance, just to catch Lavatory Larry?

I agree with Specter. This was, at best, sloppy police work, and would not hold up under trial scrutiny. Give me 20 minutes with the cop, and he'd start looking like Mark Fuhrman to the jury.

I'm not an apologist for Craig. I hate the holier-than-thou, pompous, hypocritical posturing by so many Republicans on "moral" issues. But, I am a civil libertarian, and I'm convinced the wrong man is being lynched in the court of public opinion when he would be found innocent in a court of law.

You can not retract a guilty plea.

QUALAR @ 41:

Actually, it would be great if Craig decided not to resign from the Senate and elected to become an Independent instead. Harry Reid could then criticize the GOP's hypocrisy for supporting Vitter unconditionally while trying to crucify Craig for his alleged homosexuality. Reid could offer Craig the ability to caucus with the Democrats provided he renounced some of his past intolerances. After all, we already have one wayward Independent caucusing with us. The Democrats could demonstrate exactly which party is truly compassionate. Not likely, but would be nice to have a constant turmoil among GOP senators.

Q , You miss The Big Point- HE IS NOT GAY. HE NEVER HAS BEEN GAY. He said so. And RePugs Never lie. Nice fantasy,though,I grant You that.

xoites defends Constitution @ 40:

You can not retract a guilty plea.

Sure you can, if the judge lets you.

So where was the crime? Was anyone hurt? At worst, a guy is uncomfortable and says no thanks.

This whole thing is stupid and for progressives to delight in the crime is ridiculous. Like separate but equal, the sooner we put these stings behind us the better.

I wonder though, if Craig did stay, would he better understand the right wing (and apparently left wing) witch hunts or would he constantly try to prove his 'straightness'?

Let the right melt down on this by themselves, we have health care and other real issues.

Don1one @ 46:

So where was the crime? Was anyone hurt? At worst, a guy is uncomfortable and says no thanks.

This whole thing is stupid and for progressives to delight in the crime is ridiculous. Like separate but equal, the sooner we put these stings behind us the better.

I wonder though, if Craig did stay, would he better understand the right wing (and apparently left wing) witch hunts or would he constantly try to prove his 'straightness'?

Let the right melt down on this by themselves, we have health care and other real issues.

I'm so tired of this B.S. If you or I got stung, there'd be NO MERCY. It's the hypocrisy. Yes, I delight in it. Until they get their f-ing act together and stop bashing me and my friends (my friend was hospitalized in a gay bashing) let them suffer. Who cares. The police officer was doing the job he is paid to do. That applies to all users of the restroom.

Coffins draped with flags @ 49:

If the Republicans truly loved themselves and were proud of who they are, they wouldn't need to be sneaking around restrooms searching for sex. :lol:

Coffins draped with flags @ 45:

David Hawes @ 42:

QUALAR @ 41:
Q , You miss The Big Point- HE IS NOT GAY. HE NEVER HAS BEEN GAY. He said so. And RePugs Never lie. Nice fantasy,though,I grant You that.

That's the funniest statement that I heard in a long time.

Thank You. Tip Your waitress,I'll be here all week.

Don1one @ 46:

So where was the crime? Was anyone hurt? At worst, a guy is uncomfortable and says no thanks.

This whole thing is stupid and for progressives to delight in the crime is ridiculous. Like separate but equal, the sooner we put these stings behind us the better.

I wonder though, if Craig did stay, would he better understand the right wing (and apparently left wing) witch hunts or would he constantly try to prove his 'straightness'?

Let the right melt down on this by themselves, we have health care and other real issues.

Speaking as a mother, I don't want to send my child into the men's room of a public place like an airport and have him witness sex. That would hurt him. There ARE laws on the book to prevent that kind of behavior and to protect the innocent (namely someone like my child). Craig was charged with "suspicion of lewd conduct" and plead guilty to the lesser charge of "disorderly conduct". The operative term here is PLEAD GUILTY.

All other discussion of whether he was entrapped is made moot by his guilty plea. As a 40 year lawmaker, don't insult my or his intelligence by saying he didn't realize the ramifications.

Speaking as a mother, I don't want to send my child into the men's room of a public place like an airport and have him witness sex. That would hurt him. There ARE laws on the book to prevent that kind of behavior and to protect the innocent (namely someone like my child). Craig was charged with "suspicion of lewd conduct" and plead guilty to the lesser charge of "disorderly conduct". The operative term here is PLEAD GUILTY.

All other discussion of whether he was entrapped is made moot by his guilty plea. As a 40 year lawmaker, don't insult my or his intelligence by saying he didn't realize the ramifications.

So you're saying the prejudice against gays is justified? Are their stings for heterosexuals joining the 'mile high club'?

If you catch anyone having sex in a restroom, straight or gay, then arrest them. There was no sex at the time of the arrest, no nudity, not even heavy breathing. "suspicion of lewd conduct" seems awful vague. Where do you draw the line on "suspicion of lewd conduct"?

Of course he understood the ramifications, he was gambling that the consequences would be worse if there was a long, drawn out trial. The consequences being a trap of his own making.

No, I don't have any sympathy for him. But I don't understand the glee among progressives.

Why is it Arlen insists on always reminding everyone
that he's a former attorney? Good lord.

I wish he'd choke on that damn tic-tac he's always chewing too.

I once had faith in Arlen to be a man of his word... silly me -
I should've known better. He runs around in circles and gives
off the impression that he'll do the right thing, yet in the end
he always carries the water bucket for bush & the repugs.

Fight it Larry, please....

Don1one @ 56:

So you're saying the prejudice against gays is justified? Are their stings for heterosexuals joining the 'mile high club'?

If you catch anyone having sex in a restroom, straight or gay, then arrest them. There was no sex at the time of the arrest, no nudity, not even heavy breathing. "suspicion of lewd conduct" seems awful vague. Where do you draw the line on "suspicion of lewd conduct"?

Of course he understood the ramifications, he was gambling that the consequences would be worse if there was a long, drawn out trial. The consequences being a trap of his own making.

No, I don't have any sympathy for him. But I don't understand the glee among progressives.

I'm not sure how you go to "prejudice against gays is justified", nor how you register any glee on my part. I don't think my child should be forced to view sex in any iteration in a public restroom--straight, gay, with Santorum's dog, etc. So, yes, there SHOULD be the SAME ramifications if a straight couple attempted it. As for glee, I'm about as far away from that as possible. I think Craig should be pitied that the cognitive dissonance in which he lives (vis a vis his sexuality) compels him to take such self-destructive actions.

Maybe because I've lived in San Francisco for 20 years and I'm familiar with a lot of the non-verbal signaling that is done with gays here (certain clothing or accessories and where or how it is worn indicate your particular preferences) that I'm less willing to believe the "he could have innocently run his hand along the bathroom stall" argument. (by the way, EWWW!!!! Why on earth would he do that unless he was trolling for a hook up? Can you imagine the germs he encountered? **shudder**) Whether the hetero community wants to believe it, there ARE codes that gays use. Because heteros are not familiar with them, they tend to dismiss them as idle tics (i.e., foot-tapping).

That bathroom was on gay sites as a good place for hook ups. Not something that I, as the straight mother of young children, would know about, but the police knew it and Craig knew it. And they both knew the signs. They're purposefully subtle enough so that gays can play dumb on "lewd" charges because gays remember the pre-Stonewall days. Craig did what three semi-closeted gay friends have done...played dumb and then plead guilty of a lesser charge.

You folks out there in America thought Pennsylvania got rid of our asshole problem in Rick Santorum last November. Right!!!

I'm not sure how you go to "prejudice against gays is justified", nor how you register any glee on my part. I don't think my child should be forced to view sex in any iteration in a public restroom--straight, gay, with Santorum's dog, etc. So, yes, there SHOULD be the SAME ramifications if a straight couple attempted it. As for glee, I'm about as far away from that as possible. I think Craig should be pitied that the cognitive dissonance in which he lives (vis a vis his sexuality) compels him to take such self-destructive actions.

Maybe because I've lived in San Francisco for 20 years and I'm familiar with a lot of the non-verbal signaling that is done with gays here (certain clothing or accessories and where or how it is worn indicate your particular preferences) that I'm less willing to believe the "he could have innocently run his hand along the bathroom stall" argument. (by the way, EWWW!!!! Why on earth would he do that unless he was trolling for a hook up? Can you imagine the germs he encountered? **shudder**) Whether the hetero community wants to believe it, there ARE codes that gays use. Because heteros are not familiar with them, they tend to dismiss them as idle tics (i.e., foot-tapping).

I don't believe I used your name when I talked about glee. But remember, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't really out to get you. However, there are those who think his bust is great.

So you're saying that everyone that you learned those hand signals from should be arrested. Because that's what happened to Craig. Thought police at its best. Would he have had sex there? Would he have met someone and arranged a later liaison? Did he want to see what would have happened? Was he really arranging a pick-up? We'll never know. All we know is that a cop thought he was acting gay. These days that's all it takes to be arrested. There was a good Washington Post article on how thresholds have changed.

I also lived in the Bay area and have seen the sexual activities. If I was approached I said no thanks and that was it. I tend to doubt the gays I met would have wanted to display themselves in front of little boys, that seems to be more of a Catholic predilection.

All I'm saying is let's wait until an actual crime is committed before arresting someone, and let's remember that the end result is the ruin of a life and an even stronger wall of resistance around conservatives. As far as I can see no one wins over this. The next Senator will be Republican, more likely to win, and even more virulently against gays.

I do believe that if Vitter had been criminally charged for solicitation of prostitution and pled guilty to same, there would be some pressure for him to resign, but not as much and not voiced as loudly as there was for Craig.

Of course there's a double standard against homosexuals in the Republican Party. It's not as if a lot of homosexual voters aren't aware of that. Many who vote Republican are painfully aware of it and activist groups like the Log Cabins are even convinced that they can change the party's platforms from the inside. Or some, like Craig himself, even join in on the oppression.

Leahy was just rubbing salt in the bigot wound as I believe most people should do when it comes to the GOP's politics of bigotry and oppression.

PS. Does someone want to remind Chris Wallace that the Senate is also a part of "Congress". Vitter's presence in CONGRESS is not past tense. He's still there, just not in the House anymore.

So you’re saying that everyone that you learned those hand signals from should be arrested. Because that’s what happened to Craig. Thought police at its best. Would he have had sex there? Would he have met someone and arranged a later liaison? Did he want to see what would have happened? Was he really arranging a pick-up? We’ll never know. All we know is that a cop thought he was acting gay. These days that’s all it takes to be arrested. There was a good Washington Post article on how thresholds have changed.

Seriously, I'm trying very hard to keep my responses civil, but you're making it quite hard on me.

Everyone I learned the hand gestures from should be arrested? How idiotic. And poor logic. Let me state again--there is a whole language of non-verbal signals that the gay community uses to indicate their sexual desires. Most of them are subtle enough that someone not in on the code (which would be the vast majority of the straight community) would not think twice about them, BUT THEY MEAN SOMETHING WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE GAY HOOKUP AND THEY ARE SPECIFIC. Different gestures mean specific things. For example, if my former roommate wore a red bandanna in his right hand back pocket it meant a very specific sexual act. If he wore a blue one, it meant something else. If he tied the bandanna around his thigh, it meant something else. That's not thought police. Craig was clearly indicating what he was looking for. He knew the codes and the police knew that he knew.

All the rest of this stuff is purely moot and speculation on your part.

Nicole Belle @ 68:

Seriously, I'm trying very hard to keep my responses civil, but you're making it quite hard on me.

Ooooh, a threat. How very 'liberal' of you.

All the rest of this stuff is purely moot and speculation on your part.

And on your part as well. As no more than hand signals occurred and were plead to. But I see that 'many of your best friends are gay'.

Bigotry is bigotry. Left, right, or center.

Don1one @ 70:

Nicole Belle @ 68:

Seriously, I'm trying very hard to keep my responses civil, but you're making it quite hard on me.

Ooooh, a threat. How very 'liberal' of you.

All the rest of this stuff is purely moot and speculation on your part.

And on your part as well. As no more than hand signals occurred and were plead to. But I see that 'many of your best friends are gay'.

Bigotry is bigotry. Left, right, or center.

There is no threat, Don. I'm simply acknowledging the possibility that you may be here simply to bait and that it is a struggle for me to keep from taking it.

Your grasp of the facts show how little contact you've had with these kinds of incidents. Best friends aside, I'm familiar with this kind of things and know of what I speak.

Your grasp of the facts show how little contact you've had with these kinds of incidents. Best friends aside, I'm familiar with this kind of things and know of what I speak.

Am I gay, no. Have I spent plenty of time around gay people, both men and women, yes. Though to me they're just people. It's when they get labeled and grouped that I worry. Maybe we could just have them wear a pink triangle so we all can keep an eye on them.

Do I know the viewpoint of a straight mother. No. I've stated my opinion and so have others. Clearly this is a more emotional issue than an intellectual debate for you, so I'll let you have the last word and move on.

Don1one @ 74:

Am I gay, no. Have I spent plenty of time around gay people, both men and women, yes. Though to me they're just people. It's when they get labeled and grouped that I worry. Maybe we could just have them wear a pink triangle so we all can keep an eye on them.

Do I know the viewpoint of a straight mother. No. I've stated my opinion and so have others. Clearly this is a more emotional issue than an intellectual debate for you, so I'll let you have the last word and move on.

Don, to be clear, it isn't an emotional issue, other than being accused of being gleeful or bigoted, which I take umbrage with. Your Nazi allusion is again, ridiculous and uncalled for.

It's a LEGAL issue. I know of what I speak on legal grounds. Your dismissing of what I'm saying as speculation discounts that. I'm not willing to give out more information that affects the privacy of others on a public forum, but you're way, way off base.

I'm gay, and when I have a red bandana in my back pocket it's because I have a runny nose.

Of course if Craig goes to trial in the court system that Bush , Cheney and the republicans has created in the last 6 years he would get off. Where are the persons that have committed one of the most serious crimes against our country ""TREASON"". They have been pardon or censored from trial by Bush & Cheney's executive privage while still working in the same field or given a higher salary job and walking the street , bragging about it , while they get their propaganda machine , Fox comedy show and Rush the pill man to spread their BS and propaganda.
Why in the h... do you think Cheney has been stacking the deck with their loyal bias political republican Judges and personal. When you are the illegal decider , you do any d... think you wish , and do not give a s... what anyone thinks about it..
Just face it , we no longer have a democracy. Even our democrats are not defending our rights as strong as they should be. They do a lot of talking but when it comes time for their aciton where in the h... are they , running their campaign to be re-elected and trying not to upset too many American voters from voting for them.
The democrats by far are the better or the two evils , but we need more true democrats or independent candidates that values are for the citizen rather then the wealthy and Corporations. Seems like another political corruption of the republicans have been to run their candidates on the democrat's ticket claiming they are for the people's wishes and when they take office they back Bush's policies every time it counts. Lieberman is a fine example of this along with most of the Blue Dog (republicans) If you check the infiltration of the republicans into the democrat's party , they have been planting their candidates for a long , long time.
The religious right has spent a Huge amount of their TAX FREE MONEY and many years of their time to control this nation , in the first step for their domination of this world. The religious right-wing republican's organization in partnership with Global Corporations are spreading their propaganda throughout with their preaching in order to control the minds of their parish and congregations.
God gave man control over this planet to protect it and do good. Jesus said they who without sin throw the first stone. God gave man a choice in life to do good or evil , if he wanted to control man's mind and actions he could very easy have done this without any help of man. When man forces his thoughts and their interpretation on others by his force and actions , they are committing a sin. When you look at the corruption of the republicans and the religious leaders in the last 6 to 15 years , they should be ashame to try to accuse others of sex acts , stealing of others money or property , their freedom and rights , killing their neighbor , taking their neighbor's wife and they certainly are not doing unto others as you would wish them to do to them.
What a bunch of hypocrites...... They must be looking into a mirror when they start accusing democrats and other citizens of deceit and corruption , because if they or you have been following the news lately their cup runneth over.

If there was no crime, why did he plead guilty? Nearly two months later.

Don1one @ 53:

I'm so tired of this B.S. If you or I got stung, there'd be NO MERCY. It's the hypocrisy. Yes, I delight in it. Until they get their f-ing act together and stop bashing me and my friends (my friend was hospitalized in a gay bashing) let them suffer. Who cares. The police officer was doing the job he is paid to do. That applies to all users of the restroom.

yeah, but they aren't suffering, Larry Craig is. They are reveling in their success and getting rid of 'one of them'.

I once saw the Dalai Lama at UCLA. I wondered how he could not feel anger at the Chinese. I eventually came to realize that hate came to change the hater, not the target.

That is so true because you start to identify with it (or it identifies you), so you nutrture it along, and it consumes you. All that's left in the end is the hate.

Nicole Belle @ 71:

As to whether he needed to be in the act to be arrested, I disagree. See my statement
to Don1one. Craig was clearly indicating by non-verbal signals EXACTLY what he was seeking.

Sorry, but you are way off base on this. Regardless of how explicit his intentions were to have sex in the bathroom, no he should not be arrested unless actually engaging in the act. I'm not arguing that the signals he allegedly made are not real or explicit. He could have even said to the police officer "Would you like to have anonymous sex right now in the bathroom?". But that is not illegal. There is still something called freedom of speech in this country. If he did that repeatedly, sure that could be considered disorderly conduct. And since these "signals" are also normal actions that anybody could do in a bathroom -- wait for a stall, putting your bag in front of the stall door, tap your foot, spread your legs to keep your pants from hitting the floor, and picking up a piece of TP -- then yeah, I think we should give a little extra leeway on the side of freedom of expression rather than just arresting people on some police officer's whim.

So, no, seeking anonymous sex in a bathroom is not illegal. Engaging in it is. Pretty much everyone has agreed that had this gone to trial he would win.

Spectar is a slimy dickhead, I don't expect much better from him. Leahy should know better than to ever go on the FOX propaganda network. I expect much better from him.

Gregor @ 55:

I fear to make myself unpopular here, but I just wanted to ask, why everyone cares about what Craig did. Of course he's a hypocrite and so on and so forth but who cares about his sexual life. Same thing with Vitter. I know that Republicans claim to stand on moral high ground but the thing with Clinton was that they were after him for really no reason. That he got a blowjob? Fine! I don't care what politicians do in private as long as they do their job. Maybe he commited some kind of crime there but as long as he proves to be a good legislator, then vote for Craig or insert whatever politicians name here!
Well, just a thought because I don't care for a public figure's private life. Anyway, it's funny nonetheless to see another Republican hypocrite go, don't get me wrong :) But what was a none-story with Clinton is a none-story with Craig. And oh please, don't vote for Craig ... oh wait, to late, you can't do it anyway :) But of course I understand the underlying problem here that Craig acted as a morally superior anti-gay Christian and turned out to be gay himself. That's actually an unfortunate thing for him. Many gays have problems with outing themselves and hide behind an unhappy marriage. Hadn't it be great to have him remain in Congress and see another sure Republican seat turn blue? And with Iowa suddenly giving out marriage licenses to gays there is hope for the US. :)

See my post at #89. That's why I care what Craig did.

Ruthless People @ 23:

"Leahy asks why the Republicans have such a double standard between pressuring Craig to resign and protecting David Vitter"

And when something like this involves a Democrat it's impeachable....make that a triple standard.

The repug answer is Vitter was not arrested.
Vitter did confess to the world and his wife, to prevent the baseball bat scene, that he did it.
Therefore he is guilty.
Craig pled guilty also after his arrest.

What is the difference?

One is from a state with a repug governor and the other from a state with a democrat governor, that is the difference.

Master @ 86:

Nicole Belle @ 71:

So, no, seeking anonymous sex in a bathroom is not illegal. Engaging in it is. Pretty much everyone has agreed that had this gone to trial he would win.

I agree that Craig wouldn't be convicted of a crime, but, in my mind, that isn't the point. The evidence conclusively points to Craig soliciting an anonymous sexual encounter in a public bathroom. Is it a crime under our laws to ask someone out on a date in a public bathroom, no. But it certainly points to Craig's ability to govern and represent his constituents.

The question is, do the people of Idaho want a man who solicits sex in a public bathroom representing their interests whether said solicitation is considered criminal or not? The answer is obviously no and that should be enough to force his resignation. Another question is, would the scandal limit his ability to govern properly. (An obvious YES!) Specter sounds like he thinks it would be good for government to have a sitting congressman involved in a protracted court case centered around soliciting sex.

Typical Rethug. denial after just admitting their guilt when legally busted. Please keep the Craig denials going in the newspapers for a long time for my sake.

I guess Specter did not receive the GOP memo that they want Craig gone, both because this story is a huge embarrassment for the Republican party of "family values," and, apparently, because Craig has opposed Bush's illegal wiretapping of Americans. But if Craig fights to reverse his guilty plea and withdraws his intent to resign, that will only keep this story in the news for many more months. As long as that occurs, Republicans lose.

The culture of corruption Republicans are treating Vitter like they treated Mark Foley, versus their treatment of Craig, whom they've thrown under the bus.

And all because Craig's Senate replacement will be appointed by a Republican?

In the case of Vitter and Foley, though, there is and was some question about Republicans holding onto Senate and House seats, which is why I say they are being treated similarly.

In Foley's case, apparently the House Republican leadership knew about his "activities" for many years, but did nothing to stop him, because his Florida House seat was considered a "safe" Republican seat, even as Foley solicited sex from underage House pages. In other words, the culture of corruption Republicans considered keeping a House seat more important than protecting our nation's children. The Republicans only moved against Mark Foley after his scandalous "activities" were exposed just before last November's elections and they realized that their previous policy of doing nothing might cost them some seats in the House and Senate.

Thus, the Republicans continue to place their lust for power above any principles.

Why hasn't Vitter been charged with a crime involving solicitation of prostitutes? Why hasn't the Senate Ethics Committee censured him for his criminal behavior?

The investigation into Mark Foley's solicitation of underage House pages for sex has seemingly hit a roadblock with the House blocking release of his office's computers, but why haven't subpoenaes been issued to the internet servers who routed his emails?

On the other hand, even though I have little sympathy for the hypocritical Craig, he's been tossed out by Senate Republicans, even though there was reportedly no "sex act" involved in his restroom encounter with an undercover police officer. If Idaho had a Democrat as governor, though, the Senate Republicans would have lined up behind him like they've done with Vitter and did with Mark Foley for so many years...and to hell with principles.

From my Christian perspective, the House and Senate Republican leadership should all brand their foreheads with the number 666, because it is quite obvious that they've sold their souls to the beast...and to hell with any principles that might get in the way of their lust for power, power and more power. Poor, poor, pathetic fools.

[...] GOP SENATOR SAYS THAT CRAIG MAY NOT RESIGN [...]