Redstate

I am deeply confused and complexed over this story. On the one hand I am outraged by the glaring double standards on display here. The double standard of the press when it comes to the democrats and there many moral and financial misdeeds. The double standard displayed by the democrats on any republican that has any homosexual encounter. On the other hand I am sick to death of republican office holders who are weak and no better than democrats. I guess what I am saying is, If this guy was trying to pick up men in a public bathroom, than I hope he enjoys the disgrace and I hope he rots in hell. Of he did nothing, he should have fought this thing with all he had.

:)

Let me get this straight...Senator Craig goes into the bathroom, gets accused by the cop of peeking in the stall and playing footsie.

Then, he pleads guilty, allegedly to get it past him, and now he wants to recant?

WTH????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the guy isn't gay THEN HE WOULDN'T HAVE PLEAD GUILTY IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It doesn't matter if he can he can get out of the charges...he's guilty!!!!!!

There's nothing in Scottish Common Law to help you out, so Specter will be of no help to you.

While parts of this story are suspicious, It's not a fight worth waging. Larry needs to stop flip-flopping and be accountable for himself.

I don't understand why my senator (Snarlin Arlen) feels an ongoing need to weigh in on matters that don't concern him. I look forward to trading him in for Pat Toomey in 2010.

This isn't about gay or straight. It's about the embarrasment of such conduct and Craig pled guilty. Case closed.

I think we all want to see an end to this story anyway.

Larry Craig should do his party and his state a favor and get out. Nor would it hurt if David Vitter and Willy Jefferson went with him.

I disagree with homosexuality and feel it is an awful addiction. But, I don't hope for them to go to hell. They're not doomed beyond redemption, after all.

I believe that if a representative does something to compromise his ability to do his job, that representative should resign. Craig has compromised his ability to do his job by both damaging his reputation beyond repair, and being put on probation.

If law enforcement feels that lewd actions occured, then the odds are that they have happened here. There's no reason for them to try and falsely accuse a US Senator of such things.

perhaps I'm naive but I have to give Craig the benefit of the doubt. For some reason I simply don't think he has had his day in court. Being foolish enough to make a guilty plea to "make it go away" isn't a crime that justifies expulsion from the Senate. I'm all for a "do over" to hear his case.

These trolls are getting ridiculous... geez...
Back in the day, Craig would be taking one for the team and resigning, regardless of innocence or not. Of course, these days, our team captain appears to be Snarlin' Arlen. What a crock.

I have never, not am I about to start to wish misfortune of any sort upon any person. I am actually praying for you and that you will live a long and peaceful life. However, for the sake of the Republican Party, and conservatives in general, I am hoping that you will follow through on your resignation and just go away.

Please!!!

Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

I find the comments to be less than worthwhile here.

I didn't take the time to look at the commenting individuals' posting history but much of what has been posted on this thread sounds more than a little trollish.

Try to stick to the point - the charges.

And in that vein - Craig should have fought this from the get-go. He shouldn't have plead guilty to a lesser charge (if indeed it was a lesser charge - I'm still not clear what "greater offense" they could have charged him with under the fact pattern even as laid out by the cop). But he did. And lots of more heinous criminals do and then recant their pleas. I don't think it was wise to try to cover it up, but we've seen a great many things "covered up" by elected officials. I don't think that it requires resignation.

I for one would be just as happy to give the Senator a few months to fight. There is still plenty of time before Election Day 2008, and in a place like Idaho, a Republican (probably Jim Risch) wouldn't need much time to campaign to win. Besides the fact that once January rolls around all the air in this story gets sucked out by presidential primaries.

If Craig fights and is vindicated, then we can decide what happens next. If things don't go well, he can resign, or just not seek re-election. And for those who might hope to tarnish the GOP again later, make it clear - given all the facts (the Senators statement, the police tape that is now out, etc.) it is not as clear that anything untoward happened. If after a more thorough and considered review of the facts the legal system and/or the Senate Ethics Committee believes that laws, or Senate rules, were broken, then Craig should resign. If no rules were broken, and he merely got himself into a bad situation, then we should be willing to acknowledge the humanity of error and allow for amends to be made.

I predicted that Craig would resign by Tuesday the 4th. It wasn't a stretch to take that position. It seemed the best path for Craig, his family, and the GOP... as well as the country.

As someone said above, this is not about homosexuality. It is about cruising for sex in a public bathroom. Craig barely registered indignation at the cop accusing him in that restroom. Craig seemed to understand the situation almost immediately. He was defending his "wide stance" rather that exclaiming with incredulity "What the h*ll are you talking about!" He seemed to "on the same wave length" with the issue the cop was raising. Rather than outrage, he debated the minutia of the various "signals."

My opinion, he is in denial. He is hanging by a thread to keep from dealing with something painful, confusing, and shameful. He doesn't deserve condemnation, but...

And I may certainly be wrong on all this... I think he will still resign. I think this is a dead cat bounce out of desperation and fear. And I only have hopes for the best for him in moving forward to resolve whatever is there and patch up whatever and whomever has been hurt in his circle.

The World's Ruined

if he wants, and should, if he's innocent. but one of the reasons he's stepping aside is that he can't focus on his job and that fight at the same time. and nothing has changed in that regard. So, Senator, step aside and fight to regain your seat AFTER you've fought to clear your name.

unfortunately for him if he's innocent, the timeframe makes it nearly impossible for him to clear his name in time to run in 2008. but that's the penalty one pays for being stupid, even if one isn't guilty of being deviant.

I guess Specter's Single Bullet Theory can save Craig too. After all, Craig was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just like JFK passed too close to that grassy knoll.

in defending Larry Craig when I thought he was politically dead, let me say that I am surprised / pleased to hear that he is now reconsidering. This is not because I have any great affection for Craig as a politician, or as a person, but because I believe the press and his colleagues gave him a raw deal.

I do not know for certain what happened in that Minneapolis restroom (nobody really does), but I do believe that our reaction to this case should have been based on the evidence rather than loathing for the man and fear of political fallout. Based on the evidence, I have strong doubts that he actually did anything wrong or illegal in that famous Minneapolis bathroom, and until I am persuaded otherwise I think he should keep his job. To those of you who worry about the political ramifications of having Craig still hanging around next November, I say, get over it. This isn't about politics; it's about justice.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

Never thought I'd say that, but it's true.

This seems to be a huge misunderstanding, and Senators Ensign and McConnell, among others, should be ashamed of themselves for their rush to judgment.

Don't get me wrong. I cringed when I first saw this break, and I was just wanted it to go away. I'm generally not one to think that actions not related to an elected official's office should disqualify him from office, but even I said that he should resign once it became clear that the Party "Leadership" was throwing him under the bus. That was strictly because I thought that his continued service would be a political nightmare.

At first this looked extremely bad, but a closer examination of the facts suggests that Craig could very well be telling the truth. Throwing Craig overboard without a full examination of the facts could set a dangerous precedent for throwing Republicans overboard without any regard to the facts. An accuation without any basis in fact could become enough to lead to a resignation.

We also have the Craig/Vitter double standard issue. There is at least an appearance that the only difference between the two is that the allegations against Craig have to do with homosexuality. I don't doubt that some really believe the argument that the differences are that Vitter was in the House at the time of his indiscretions and that Craig pled guilty. I don't buy them, though.

I don't think that the standards of personal behavior are different for members of the House and Senate. Also, the evidence against Sen. Vitter is much stronger than the evidence against Sen. Craig. In light of the evidence that is out in public, a jury would be far more likely to find Sen. Vitter guilty than Sen. Craig. To be sure, I don't think Sen. Vitter's actions should preclude him from serving in the Senate either.

If we accept the Craig standard for turning against a Republican member of Congress, we are going to have serious problems on a regular basis. Republicans won't be able to use public restrooms or drive cars. (God forbid they go a mile over the speed limit on a fast radar gun!) Rumor will become conviction, and we will either turn on a member a month or get ourselves in far more trouble than we can handle splitting hairs over what tone of voice a member of Congress used when greeting a staffer. Do we really want to get into what a member meant when he said, "Hello" or winked or, God forbid, tapped his foot?

If people want Craig to walk the plank, so be it. Those wanting him to do so, though, must be prepared for the potential consequences.

www.republicansenate.org

I'm perplexed. Craig's conviction was for, I believe, disorderly conduct - that's hardly a reason for a Senator to have to resign, right? So, why the calls for his resignation? I mean, if he had been caught using a mirror to look up women's dresses, would there have been such outrage and calls from the Republican Senators for him to resign? Bill Clinton had sex in the White House with an intern and the reason he was "brought up" was because he lied about it.

So, as we are extremely careful here at Redstate to keep a safe distance from any homosexual finger pointing , as Jerry Seinfeld would say..."not that there's anything wrong with it", perhaps this whole thread should be a testament as to just why Larry Craig SHOULD fight to stay in the Senate.

Perhaps I've missed it but are we saying that if Senator X, who is married, brushes up against a young woman in the book store at the Mpls Airport and asks her if she'd like to stop over at the Art Gallery shop to view his etchings, we'd all want his resignation from the Senate tomorrow?

A duck, however politically correctly you want to dress it up, is still a duck.

I knew nothing of Senator Craig before this happened. I guess that would have made me a good juror. Any rumors or anything else about him were unknown to me. I was surprised at the arrest. Like many, I am also finding it difficult to determine from the facts what exactly was the crime here, if he indeed committed one. If no words were exchanged, and there is doubt as to which hand was where (which is evident by the Sgt's words about the ring), then can anyone be charged with a crime by unknowingly speaking some cultish sign language? Show me exactly what Craig's intent was, based on his knowledge of these signals and their meanings, and I might change my mind.

I have been a frequent air traveler in the past, and I knew nothing of this foot tapping signal (better leave the ipod turned off in the restroom). I had joined Delta's Crown Room just to have a place to relax and an air-conditioned, cool bathroom in Atlanta's summertime heat when changing planes (and, I'll grant you, maybe a beverage or two).

Since the contact was initiated by the police, (his foot was moved towards Craig's stall), entrapment can be claimed as well. Again, the reasonable doubt rule and innocent until proven guilty concept needs to apply here.

I enjoyed Mark Steyn's remarks about the luggage placed in front of the door in the stall to block the view. Where else can you put the rolling carry-on on the stall but in front of the door? In the overhead storage bin? Next thing you know, I'll be arrested for soliciting as I walk thru the airport and, in sequence, rub my nose, scratch my head, and then touch my back wallet to make sure my wallet is still there.

If the police want to crack down on the lewd activity, maybe having stall walls that go to the floor would help? And maybe separator barriers at the sides of urinals? Much cheaper alternatives than paying trained policemen to sit half-clothed in a stall. just a thought...

-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off.
-- I see abortion as a pro-choice issue... the baby's choice would be life.
-- imwithfred --

Personally, I don't know what Larry Carig's intent was in that Minneapolis restroom. But in my opinion, I doubt anyone else knew either, except for Craig himself. And as I stated in an earlier thread, I'm still trying to figure out what law Craig violated ?

The worst thing Craig did on that day was plead guilty to a crime that didn't occur. If he fights this, I am confident he will prevail. Whether he gets reelected is another story entirely.

I'm not an agent, I just write books

I really don't care if Senator Craig is actually guilty or not, he can defend himself on HIS time, he doesn't need to bring the Republican Party down with him to clear his name. The legality of the case has nothing to do with why he needs to resign, he's an embarrassment to the party, and he needs to go.

If Senator Craig sticks around, the MSM will gleefully cover him 24/7 during the 2008 election, much like they did Mark Foley, and it WILL cost the Republicans seats in Congress, and very likely his own Senate seat. Regardless of how "Red" Idaho is, voters will happily take ANYONE over a humiliating Senator like Craig.

Craig lost the benefit of the doubt when he plead guilty to the charge. The Republicans can't afford idiots like this, the Party needs to force him out whether he likes it or not.

"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "

William F. Buckley, Jr.

... let him resign (like he said he would), get replaced by Gov. Otter, get cleared in court (no worse than 50-50 that will happen given the circumstances) and then fight it out in a primary.

This genie is out of the bottle, Senator. Senate seats aren't lifetime tenure (generally, not supposed to be, that is) - if you want to get it back, you're gonna have to do it the, erm, hard way.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Hard for me to understand how anyone can actually make excuses for such a damaging, bungling, wheedling, legalistic crock of nonsense as Craig has already foisted upon the Republican Party. I don't need the MSM to see someone who is either a pervert or a fool, and now he is compounding the problem by trying to weasel out of his own words. Nobody threw Craig under the bus, he positively dove under himself. And now we are supposed to take substantial political damage with Iraq, Iran, and the budget on the table in order to extricate him from his own foppish miscalculations. No thanks. If he wants to try a legal strategy to beat the charges he pled guilty to, that is certainly his right. But he should be doing so as a private citizen, not from a Senate seat, and most especially not from a Republican Senate Seat. This is a series of stunts worthy of Bill Clinton.

Looking at this since before the clamor died down, I have become more and more convinced that Craig has gotten a raw deal from the Press and especially from us on his side. True, he was incredibly stupid in pleading guilty to anything and hoping it would go away and perhaps his resignation should be seen as his punishment for that - for stupidity.

On that subject, I would be more sympathetic to his line of thinking that it would "go away" if he were a Democrat; the Press would have put this on page 31 and it would have blown over in a day. But he very stupidly forgot two things. [1] He's a Senator. [2] He's a Republican Senator. Things like this would never stay hidden or simply "go away."

I have no reason to doubt, at this moment, that the cop in question, Sgt. Karsnia honestly believes that Craig made a move on him, but I have serious doubts as to whether Craig actually did so ... and based on what little info we've all seen we should have given him the benefit of the doubt, no matter how annoying we found his position on immigration. Cops are not above making mistakes.

Now, I am well aware that it is politically advantageous for us to support the narrative that we throw out our miscreants while Democrats celebrate theirs, but the other side of it is that we now will have established a precedent of throwing out Republicans based simply on accusations or suspicion.

We cannot sustain this. Not least of all because the online Left and the MSM are entirely without honor and restraint and we are handing them a weapon that they will not hesitate to deploy against the GOP.

We really need to think beyond the short term here.

We throw out Craig now when it is so obviously well within the realm of possibility that he did nothing wrong, then what do we do when some Kossack, upon recognizing Gordon Smith (R-OR up for re-election next year in a Blue State) in a hotel, goes to the networks to claim that he groped her in an elevator? Using the Jamil Hussein tactic, all the Press would need as evidence to support her allegation is that she and he were in the hotel at the same time.

What do we do then? Throw him overboard? Demand his resignation even as he protests his innocence?

PS: I would be more than happy to have Craig resign to fight this upon the understanding with his appointed successor that the successor would step down once he has cleared his name so Governor Otter can re-appoint him to his seat. A dismissal of the charges in court is more than enough for a smart (I know, a tall order for today's GOP) operation to sway public opinion and rehabilitate his image for the people of Idaho. That, I believe, would be the smart thing to do.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

Don't we ever reach the saturation point on the Larry Craig debacle, when enough is enough? Why isn't this dumped on the doorstep of his constituents in Idaho and let them deal with it. There's no question we have a need to express our collective opinions on what transpired, but here we are a full week plus after this became public, and it's still being talked about, written about ad infinitum. Aren't there more important issues then this affecting our party? While we're bemoaning the pros and cons of this nonsense, there's Hillary and Bill, being knocked over by straws, at the news of another Asian money grab that probably leads right back to China and everyone's yawning. Golly gee, what was his name?

that too secure these rights,Goverments are instituted among men,deriving their just powers form the consent of the Governed, That whenever any Form of Goverment becomes destructive of these ends, it is the RIGHT of the people to alter or to abolish it,

When the cuffs lock your arms behind you, all you want is this to end....you want too start the day over and change the choices you have made. Seven years ago I was popped for OUI (Operating under the influence). I spent the 11.5 hrs in the county jail. All i wanted was this too end. Did I plea, no. Did I fight it, YES. I learned a lesson. Once your in the system your Toast.

We have too Quit allowing the Left to dictate what our Morality is. We conservatives have become punch drunk. Once a Republican shows a fault the Left Screams from their soap box, hypocrite....and we crumble.

We can make a list of sleez a mile long from the left, the biggest difference is their sleez is a badge of honor. Look at the Clinton's, good lord, how much money have they received from China......have you noticed, they years the Clinton's have been caught pocketing cash from the Chi'coms, in China, it's the year of the 'RAT'

We MUST NOT allow the left too dictate OUR morality....

I'm positive that 99.9% of the Republicans had never heard the interrogation tape.

This whole Larry Craig issue smells of loony-left hit piece. My opinion is, this was for the '08' election, with the report coming out of Iraq looking better that the Dems want, they needed too get their surrender off the front pages. They need time to prepare for this report and they need a distraction.

We need too ask ourselves, Who is in charge. Now lets get to work people..
Hk40cal

Senator Craig should agree to resign if Barney Frank resigns right along with him.

Its not a matter of right and wrong. Both were wrong and both should be gone. Yet Frank remains. Kennedy remains. Lets stop destroying our own while we let the democrats do these things and keep their seats.

We don't have to prove we are bigger than them. This is politics. What's good for the goose...

Now is the chance for sensible Republicans in the Senate Leadership, like our own Mitch McConnell, to shove him off the political cliff if he won't go quietly!

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2007/09/idaho-senator-larry-craig-is.html...

With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.

just once, not cave and collapse to the ritual screeched demands of the left. A lot of good it did for Alberto Gonzalez.

He didn't have sex with an underage male [Studds] and he wasn't running a gay w----house out of his residence [ Barney Frank]. Yet amazingly they suffered no demands for resignation, damn, I wonder why?

The sick freak Bill Clinton we needn't get into.

Ambivalent on this but still, just once, do the requisite mea culpas[ it helps to be seen with a ten lb. Bible], stand firm, and watch the left go insane, insaner, insanest?

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

He has done more harm to the conservative causes than just about anyone in the Republican party. I simply cannot understand why he is sticking his nose into this matter.

--
A liberal is a man who is willing to spend somebody else's money -- Carter Glass

This is extremely irksome. Craig needs to resign.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

but didn't Frank also plead guilty, and then there's America's most famous disbarred lawyer. Then there's always Rep Alcee Hastings for inspiration.
Point being, it's not the crime, it's the party.

To repeat, I am not advocating he stay but it would be refreshing to see a Republican in essence tell the media & the mobsters of the Democratic party to go to hell.

As for the voters of Idaho, as with child molester Gerry Studds in Conn., let the voters of Idaho decide.

I would be interested in seeing the party of gay rights and the liberated deep thinkers of journalism schools continue to pursue this. At what point and how easy it would be to turn this back on them.

Regard this as an idle speculation on my part so I'll bow out.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

So I should have used "minor", OK?

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

In regards sentencing distinctions are made for the age of a underage victim, I would say this is true for most jurisdictions.

But in two posts that touch upon at least three subjects, spot them if you can, to pick out the use of the word child when in fact the page involved was a minor, as are people usually designated as children, is petty in the extreme. On that I am not using my words "willy-nilly".

The mixed use of the words child and minor regardless of specific age is not unusual, although apparently you have never in your life seen it. As a rhetorical device and considering Studd's position, and in addition this not being a court of law, I see no need to grovel awaiting your forgiveness and benediction, nor I may add, any further observations of your sanctimony.

Speaking for myself only and having no desire to reassure you, still let it be said that I am "better than that". Remember BTW, that Foley had no sexual congress with any page nor was there any overt sexual overtones in his communications to pages.

See, I am better than that. Now if you please, take your pulpit elsewhere and find a more supple victim for your moralizing harangues.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville