Redstate

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

Both of them broke the law while serving in office. Personally, I don't think either should be forced out as their crimes were not directly related to their official duties as Senators. They have conservative voting records and, by all appearances, share our values even if they fail to live up to them.

That said, I can see two differences between the actions of the Senators. One is that Craig's actions were of a homosexual nature. As a Catholic, I don't distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual extramarital affairs. I could very well be wrong, but I'll assume that most here would agree. Those who don't and think it important to say so by all means can respond to it.

The other difference is that Sen. Craig's actions were with an unwilling accomplice. Sen. Craig did not expose himself in public. He apparently made unwelcome sexual advances on an adult male. While prostitutes obviously consent to such advances, most prostitutes did not choose the profession but were effectively forced into it. As such, I don't see the two as being all that different.

Perhaps you should spend more time addressing the arguments of other members, even if they are not spelled out, and less time complaining that people who don't agree with you on everything are allowed to participate in the discussion.

www.republicansenate.org

When people make unsubstantiated drive by troll comments, no, I don't really feel the need to address them.

And don't tell me he was just asking a question. That's no excuse. Passive-aggressive trolling is just as much trolling as the copy-paste attack kind.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

SIC thanks, I thought it was a legitimate question as well. Unsure why it makes me a troll since I comment a lot here from time to time, but at least it gave Neil a chance to be condescending and show us all how much more enlightened and smarter he is that the rest of us.

I think it is a legitimate question. If Craig should resign then he should be in the back of the line behind a whole lot of Senators who have done unethical things related to their JOB.

Senator Craig broke the law. Senator Vitter broke the law. If we are holding them accountable for outside the job, unethical/illegal behavior, then if one should resign so should the other, in my opinion.

Has Vitter been charged with something?

Oz

www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com

for a criminal conviction should not be the same for whether a pol should resign or whether his colleagues should insist upon same.

Bill Clinton should have resigned.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Paying a prostitute is a crime, even if Vitter was not convicted because the statute of limitations expired.

Vitter sinned, stepped up to the plate and paid his dues. Life goes on. Craig needs to follow suit or explain in full. In the end, it's up to his family, his conscience, God, and the voters.
Vitter's weakness(although far from acceptable) is more understood and forgivable than Craigs. Either way, he needs step up, explain, and take what's coming to him. The sooner the better.

If Sen. Vitter's hooker habit came to light after Bobby Jindal took the reigns in Baton Rouge, I don't think he would have gotten such a free pass. What he did was despicable, what Sen. Craig did was despicable. The difference is that it's easy to call for Craig's resignation because he was looking for gay extramarital sex and he'll be replaced by a Republican. Pragmatic moralizing at its finest...

In a sense. The statute of limitations expired for the crime that he commited and admitted to. And he didn't have to appear in court.

If Governors were required to appoint someone of the same party as the resigning Congresscritter, we might have a few less disgraced politicians in congress.

Vitter should resign in disgrace (what he did was disgraceful and illegal), but he won't because it would give the Dems a senator.

The disorderly conduct fine? A person could be fined that much for any incidence of disorderly conduct... which could just as easily apply to someone who gets angry and makes a scene when they get kicked off a flight, or someone who gets wasted in an airport bar and starts being obnoxious.

I imagine his means were taken into account in determining the fine. I don't think a $1000 fine is going to jeopardize his mortgage payment.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I am ignorant to it as well, but from what I know about the story (toe tapping, moving his foot), I'm still not clear on what he did that was an arrestable offence.

That being said I can't imagine an innocent person pleading guilty as he did, so I conclude he must have in fact been attempting to hook up for anonymous sex in a public bathroom which (hetero or homo) is disgraceful behavior for a US Senator, and he should resign.

The Libertarian in me just would like to know how the police are empowered to determine that foot movements rise to the level of arrestable offence. Maybe I'm missing some of the story as to what exactly he did.

It is a catch-all offense that you can be charged with at any time for any reason. It's written into the law that way. If they don't like what you are doing, but can't nail you for a specific offense, they can always nail you for one of these. That's why we have them.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig1.html

The very short version is that Craig was not only playing footsie and reaching under the stall wall, but first loitering outside the stall peering in through the crack -- which was interpreted as checking out the man in the stall.

And now, ask yourself, "When in a public men's room, do I engage the person in the next stall, or assiduously avoid contact?"

He was cruising for sex, not that there's anything illegal about that. But, he was doing it in a public restroom, peeping on people doing their business (there is something illegal about that).

Odds are, he would have wanted to have sex in the public bathroom (also a crime), as he was rushing off to make a flight, but there's no evidence of that because it didn't go that far.

Craig should have learned to use the internet to arrange his anonymous sexual encounters, so this wouldn't happen in a public place. Ironically, the website http://craigslist.org could have helped him with this (or any need to buy or sell a sofa, car, or exercise equipment...).

It's wrong to try to apply the Presidential impeachment standard to a Senator. The Senate is allowed to define its own standards, and can bounce out anyone they want. If I recall, this power was used well after the Civil War.

Also, if Larry Craig is still IN the Senate, even if he's not running, the person who is running will have Craig used against him. That's a problem obviously.

But if Craig quits NOW, long before most people are watching, then the story will have a year to fade before the mushy middle wakes up and starts paying attention to the election.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

Craig shouldn't resign because what he did was THAT bad. While I may find it personally disgusting, it was unrelated to his job as senator and only a misdemeanor. He should resign, however, for the good of the party. He's become a joke and will do nothing but be a drag on the party as a whole. He's not needed to keep the Idaho seat and in fact, I suspect we're better off without him in that race.