[QUOTE=adam yax]
I think the only reason that Republicans would try to force him out is the gay thing and I already said it would be sad for someone to lose their job because of that (or, at least I said that in a post that somehow got eated).
[/quote]
Well, as far as practical reasons go, they’d probably like to force him out so that a new, unsullied, Repub could be appointed to his place and run as an incumbent in '08. They certainly don’t want to have to deal with Craig himself running for another term.
Meh, I consider myself a fairly ethical and law abiding citizen but I’ve had sex in public places (granted, not quite as public as an airport restroom). I imagine a sizable percentage of the population have done so as well. Seems silly to want every senator who is caught in any minor legal trouble to resign. This offense seems up there with speeding tickets and noise violations.
This is silly. He was convicted of disorderly conduct for an incident in which he solicited sex in a bathroom. The fact that he plead guilty to a lesser charge doesn’t mean he didn’t solicit sex.
[/QUOTE]
Soliciting sex (assuming you don’t intend to exchange money for it) isn’t illegal, or every bar in the world would be in trouble.
[QUOTE=Malodorous]
Well, as far as practical reasons go, they’d probably like to force him out so that a new, unsullied, Repub could be appointed to his place and run as an incumbent in '08. They certainly don’t want to have to deal with Craig himself running for another term.
[/QUOTE]
He’s not running for another term. And there’s not much chance they will lose the seat anyway, which is why I think there’s a chance he actually completes this term.
[QUOTE=Malodorous]
Soliciting sex (assuming you don’t intend to exchange money for it) isn’t illegal, or every bar in the world would be in trouble.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
I didn’t say soliciting sex is illegal. Soliciting sex in a public restroom pretty clearly is illegal - do I really have to look up the definition of lewd conduct in Minnesota? I’m sure several people have done it in other threads during the month since this became public. If it wasn’t illegal, I don’t think Minnesota police would have been watching out for it, and Craig probably would not have been arrested and charged with lewd conduct for doing it.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
:rolleyes:
I didn’t say soliciting sex is illegal. Soliciting sex in a public restroom pretty clearly is illegal - do I really have to look up the definition of lewd conduct in Minnesota?
[/quote]
Soliciting sex in a public restroom isn’t illegal either. HAVING sex in a public restroom is, however.
[QUOTE=gazpacho]
The “gay” thing should be a red herring but it is not. He is in trouble because it was gay sex if it was heterosexual sex he might have received a little flack about it but it would be forgotten.
[/QUOTE] cough Vittner cough
No, Vittner used the services of high class escorts. Bad? Yes. Adultery? Yes. A poor decision? Of course.
But he didn’t go cruising at some sleazy porn shop with spunk on the floor looking for a 62 year old sun washed, drugged out whore who would suck his dick for food stamps.
There’s the minor consideration of being guilty of a criminal act. If the very same people who demanded Clinton’s ouster for less don’t demand the same for Craig and Vitter, that says all it needs to, doesn’t it?
[QUOTE=Hamlet]
Soliciting sex in a public restroom isn’t illegal either. HAVING sex in a public restroom is, however.
[/QUOTE]
Why was he arrested if what he was trying to do wasn’t illegal? Maybe you’re just trying to say I’ve oversimplified, I don’t know - perhaps it would be more technically correct to say he committed a crime in the effort to try to have sex in the bathroom.
In any case, I think everybody knows what Craig is accused of doing, and the fact that he plead guilty to disorderly conduct rather than lewd conduct or “trying to get a BJ in the can” doesn’t mean he wasn’t trying to do that.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
There’s the minor consideration of being guilty of a criminal act. If the very same people who demanded Clinton’s ouster for less don’t demand the same for Craig and Vitter, that says all it needs to, doesn’t it?
[/QUOTE]
It pretty much is the same people, isn’t it? I don’t know much about Vitter but it’s the Republicans who want to bounce Craig.
Hmmm… good point about Clinton. Let’s see: every time that comes up, somebody shows up to make it crystal clear that, in the Republicans’ view, Clinton was not impeached for getting a blow job, but rather for lying about it.
It doesn’t bother me over much that Craig solicited gay sex. That it was adulterous – or at least attempted adultery – does bother me a bit; people ought to be able to keep promises they make. But guess what, Republicans: He lied about it!
A Senate Ethics Committee investigation? ‘Bout time we had one o’ them, ain’t it? Think the GOP Senators remember how it used to be done, back in the olden days?
And it isn’t just Craig, unless they want to look obsessed over homosexuality. Vitter, Stevens, Domenici, Murkowski all need to lawyer up now, don’t they, boy howdy!
Don’t expect an expulsion. They don’t do that even to the other guys, not in The Club.
The Craig case is still sad, though. Not only has he obviously never been able to face up to his gayness, but he seems to have the idea that getting the legal case dismissed would have *proved * he’s not gay.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
But guess what, Republicans: He lied about it!
[/QUOTE]
You’re forgetting that, for the loyalists, “But Clinton did it too!” is considered a positive *affirmation * of their own guys.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
It doesn’t bother me over much that Craig solicited gay sex. That it was adulterous – or at least attempted adultery – does bother me a bit; people ought to be able to keep promises they make. But guess what, Republicans: He lied about it!
[/QUOTE]
Meh, it would be a better argument if he hadn’t actually told the truth when he entered his plea. If he had just started out lying from the beginning like Clinton, he probably could’ve convinced people and a judge that the cop misinterpreted him.
I don’t think people actually get arrested for soliciting sex in restrooms. The cops seem to nail them on other things (err..there’s a term for it, charge of convenience or something), the idea being that its easier to catch them at these lesser, loosely defined crimes, since an undercover cop probably isn’t going to want to hang around till the suspect actually starts to engage in the behavior they’re actually trying to prevent. If I recall correctly, the charge Craig pled down from was something along the lines of invasion of privacy (for peering into the cops stall), not soliciting sex.
[QUOTE=Malodorous]
If I recall correctly, the charge Craig pled down from was something along the lines of invasion of privacy (for peering into the cops stall), not soliciting sex.
[/QUOTE]
That’s pretty much what the statute I quoted says. The point remains, I think - even if “soliciting sex” isn’t the charge he was convicted of, that’s what he did and that’s what got him arrested. The plea doesn’t change anything material.
[QUOTE=spifflog]
Senator Craig has decided to stay in the Senate. Is this a good move? A bad one? If he was your Senator, would you want him to resign?
[/QUOTE]
He is. I do. The sooner the better. Of course I’ve felt that way for 20 yrs now.
Oh! I forgot he’s not gay. the Democrats framed him and Hillary is behind it. And he will be elected again. So goes the talk of the local Repubs. Which is about everyone but me.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Strictly speaking, they don’t need grounds. Each house controls its own membership and can expel a member by majority vote. Of course, they might be concerned with setting a precedent . . .
[/QUOTE]