What did he do wrong?

[Vicki]

ah, Pack, just moving...and isn't the expectation of regularity a good thing?

 

Certainly makes skipping to the loo easier.

 

Vicki

[packsaddle]

et tu, Vicki? Y'er killin' me, all o' ya.

[BadenP]

This thread has been in the toilet since page3, lol. I don't care if the guy is a liberal or a conservative a perv is a perv and this one got caught and is gone. One less moron in Washington to deal with.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

At least the city got a new slogan out of it:

"What happens in Minneapolis, stays in Minneapolis papers for weeks"

[Lisabob]

The talk this morning/last night is that Craig is now reconsidering his options and might not resign after all. Does anyone seriously think he has a chance in, well you know, of pulling that off? Even if he did, he's been removed (by his own party leaders) from all positions of power and influence in the Senate.

 

Regardless of whether you think he ought to have announced that he was resigning in the first place, my take is that once he did, going back and having a do-over was off the table.

[packsaddle]

I guess levity is down the...oops, sorry...now you guys have ME doing it!

 

I would like to play devil's advocate for the moment (DON'T SAY IT!)

The major criticism I'm hearing from those of us who support gay rights is that Craig has lived a deception and he has been hypocritical. In this sense, he has been unfair to himself, his family, the public, and in particular...to persons who are gay.

I would argue that because his alleged crime is not yet proven (and based on what I've heard so far I could not support a conviction if I was on the jury), and ignoring his plea to the lesser charge in order to shed the more serious charge, he deserves fair treatment even if he has been unfair to others. And I think our condemnation of his subsequent attempts to salvage what little is left of his political and personal lives might not be all that fair, if not to him, then to ourselves. We're better than that.

Craig should be answerable only to the people who elected him, not the Republican Party, and not broader public opinion. In his personal life, while he may need to attain a level of honesty that he has not displayed before, there is no crime in his self-deception. We may not like it. We may think badly of the effect he has on others. But those are not crimes.

Craig should be allowed to fight the charges and for his senate seat if he chooses to. Even if he is a jerk, we owe it to ourselves if nothing else, to give him this opportunity.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[GernBlansten]

 

Hmmmm.

 

Signs a guilty plea and it just doesn't go away. DO OVER!

 

Resigns from the Senate and criticism just doesn't go away. DO OVER!

 

Next thing we'll see is he will want a DO OVER on his vote to go to war.

 

And you thought Kerry was a flip flopper.

[John-in-KC]

At least his official bio does not reflect him having been an Eagle Scout...

 

The politicians and the newsies wonder why the American public is so cynical and jaded. All they need to do is look at this tawdry episode (and I don't mean what may have happened in the latrine).

 

In his actions at the Bar of Justice, this guy shows his contempt for our criminal justice system ... and he's one of the agents of change. Unlike you and I, he CAN make a difference.

 

Senator Craig has crossed a boundary with his waffling on resignation. He is now a thief of perfectly good oxygen.

[packsaddle]

thief of oxygen? Keep in mind, please, that oxygen is a waste product of photosynthesis. That's right, we live in and breathe in...poop!

 

OK, I know what you're thinking...don't blame me, you guys started this...

[GernBlansten]

I'm pulling a 180 here.

After listening to both sides of the argument on talk radio today, I think Craig is doing the right thing fighting this.

As a libertarian, I don't think the Senate should have any say on what this man did, aside from his ability to fulfill his role as a US Senator. The voters have the final say, and they will in 2008. They should drop the ethics investigation. Save those efforts for chasing down real scoundrels like that dude from Alaska.

I really don't care if Craig is gay. I do think its knee slapping funny that he is so hypocritical and would never vote for him. But I think he should stay in the Senate if he wishes to. I'm also pulling a mia culpa on Vitter. What he did had no impact on his Senatorial duties, its between his wife and the voters to decide.

[John-in-KC]

Gern,

 

On one part I'll agree with you: I see no professional ethical issue on Senator Craig's part, and why the Senate is investigating is beyond me.

 

On what he is alleged to have done: Unprotected M/M sex was a tremendous factor in the initial spread of HIV and AIDS. Even now, unprotected sex outside wedlock is a statistically significant factor in the worldwide spread of HIV and AIDS (both homo and hetero sexual activity).

 

Society, at the community or city level, to my mind, has a legitimate public health interest in keeping the spread of a disease that is:

- Exceptionally expensive to treat.

- Untreated nearly uniformly fatal.

- Known to mutate to stronger variants.

 

I still would gladly say to Senator Craig: If you are innocent, you should have fought it. You chose otherwise, face your consequences.

 

This man is a US SENATOR. He is an agent of change in the laws of our land. For him to play yes/no/maybe/I don't like your decision, I want a re-run is anathema to me as a citizen and voter. He's done a fair bit to demonstrate the upper tier of our society have a healthy lack of respect for the rule of law, even more than Paris Hilton.

 

Senator Craig should be thankful I am not a resident of Idaho. He'd be one vote down.

[GernBlansten]

Not so fast John.

The good senator didn't have unprotected sex because he didn't have sex. And even if he did accomplish is accused goal, we don't know if he would have donned a jimmy hat.

I agree, he would not have my support as my senator, but he would have lost my support long ago based on his voting record not his personal antics.

[John-in-KC]

Aren't clarity and feedback good things Gern!?

 

I see your point, and I will clarify:

 

The community has a legitimate public health (and economic, since the public health costs $$$) interest in minimizing opportunities for unprotected sexual contact and consequent spread of STD. On the proactive side, this includes the use of barrier devices and abstinence. On the reactive and perhaps coercive side, this includes proscribing various forms of "hooking up," including bath-houses and bathrooms.

 

Does that make more sense? You don't have to agree, but is my thesis clearer?

[Lisabob]

John I don't think you need to go that far even, in order to say why this is justifiably a public concern. I have a teen aged son. I don't want to be worried that if he needs to use a public restroom in the airport that he might walk in on *that* behavior. And apparently this activity isn't all that uncommon in certain locations, the Minneapolis airport being among those. The police were doing stake outs in there because of public complaints, and I believe I read that they had caught something like 40 men over a period of about a month. Now, sure, Craig did not engage in the behavior in question this time - but only because he propositioned a cop and got caught first.

 

Now as for whether he should resign? OK Gern, I can see your point I suppose, though I'm sure he's under enormous pressure from his own party to just "go away" as quickly and quietly as is still possible. And I'm pretty sure he'd have lost re-election all on his own in 2008 anyway. But once you announce that you are going to resign, you can't un-resign and expect to be taken seriously.

 

 

[Oak Tree]

I think Senator Craig was pretty much on the not-taken-seriously part of the reservation already. Un-resigning can only add to it, but I'm not sure how much less seriously he can be taken.

 

To further this point in today's news, I'll suggest that if you leave voice mail for your lawyer, you should really make sure you are talking to your lawyer's answering machine.

 

The Senate has the right to expel him if they want to. But for a misdemeanor? Talk about people living in glass houses. I guess a lot of the other unethical behavior hasn't actually turned into a guilty plea, though.

 

I'm with Lisabob - I don't want my kid walking in on this. And if you are conspiring to commit a lewd act in a public place, I think that's pretty much enough to convince me that you shouldn't be a Senator.