You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Sen. Craig Vows to Stay in Office, Despite Ruling
2007-10-09
NPR.org, October 4, 2007 · Idaho Sen. Larry Craig vows to remain in office for the duration of his term, despite a Minnesota judge's ruling Thursday that he would not be able to withdraw his guilty plea in an airport sex sting. "I will continue to serve Idaho in the United States Senate," Craig said in a written statement released after the ruling. "...As I continued to work for Idaho over the past three weeks here in the Senate, I have seen that it is possible for me to work here effectively."

Craig's statement also indicated that he would continue his efforts to clear his name in the Senate Ethics Comittee, "something that is not possible if I am not serving in the Senate."

Thursday's ruling was a major setback to the Idaho senator's efforts to clear his name. "Because the defendant's plea was accurate, voluntary and intelligent, and because the conviction is supported by the evidence ... the Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea is denied," Hennepin County Judge Charles Porter wrote.
Posted by:Fred

#8  I'll be glad to elucidate.

There's a difference between getting elected and serving his term out. I would not vote for someone who is an openly practicing homosexual, but the qualification for office is to be elected, not being homosexual or (more appropriately) not being honest. I would not call for a homosexual to be fired from his job because he is homosexual, but he may have to be dismissed from his job IF the qualifications for the job require that he should not be one, OR if he had provided misleading information that would have originally disqualified him.

Because he misrepresented himself to his constituents, they have the right to change their vote for him next time. Unfortunately, "accurately representing themselves to thier consituents" is NOT a qualification for being elected and continuing to serve as senator: We'd be changing congressmen continually if that were so.

I, and other Christians, have called Homosexuality immoral, but hysterical critics have accused us of THEREFORE wanting them to be driven from their jobs, homes, burned at the stake, etc., etc., and THEN accuse us of hypocrisy when we do not act in accordance to their lies about us. I would be a hypocrite if I contradicted MY personal beliefs and convictions, NOT the personal beliefs and convictions that political opportunists THINK I have.

Iblis: good point. I confused the two. The senator seems to be demanding a do-over, and so I approve of the judge's ruling that he shouldn't. Still, what are the rules and laws that govern this? And why should a senator be dismissed for reasons other than what's in the rules? I oppose illegal immigration because, well, it's against the law, but I cannot support dismissing someone from a job if it isn't legal., (If the crime is a state felony, but dismissal is required for a federal felony, then I wouldn't support it either.)

If he has to do jail time, then he can't serve, and so has to go, but that's because he can't do his job from a jail cell.
Posted by: Ptah   2007-10-09 13:12  

#7  He's gone anyway. The only thing he is doing now is souring the voters on Republicans. Selfish bastard needs to keep his word and resign. Let someone else take over and hold the office and run for election withotu Craig ast a distraction.

Craig and his generation of Senators (Lott, Stevens, Warner, etc) seem to have some sort of elitist problem, thinking htey are better than us and above the law.

TERM LIMITS. NOW. 6 Terms House, 3 Terms Senate. And thats ALL. No more than 30 years in DC total. And if you serve you CANNOT lobby, ever again.
Posted by: OldSpook   2007-10-09 12:50  

#6  Damn, Rolf too?
Posted by: Thomas Woof   2007-10-09 12:46  

#5  Ptah:

Not a confession of guilt - a guilty plea. Big difference.
Posted by: Iblis   2007-10-09 12:10  

#4  Ptah: I am not certain I am following the last bit of your argument. Isn't the point that Republicans are unlikely to vote for a man who has plead guilty to soliciting sex with another man in a public washroom?
Posted by: Excalibur   2007-10-09 09:23  

#3  Funny how pleas to withdraw similar confessions, when made by accused murderers, are so quickly overturned.

Not that I disagree with this Judge: I believe that all such confessions be accepted at face value and upheld. It is a FALSEHOOD to believe one is being merciful by engaging in derailing justice: Mercy may speak, but only AFTER justice has had its say.

Nevertheless, one has to demand why the ruling that a state judge in minnesota regarding a Senator should require that that senator resign his post. Clearly, its not required, since democrats accused of crimes continue to serve.

The senator can be impeached, or can be convicted and thrown in jail, but trying to achieve his resignation by jawboning and posturing what they cannot get otherwise legally is still jawboning and posturing.
Posted by: Ptah   2007-10-09 08:12  

#2  Craig should respect the court's stance.
Posted by: badanov   2007-10-09 07:39  

#1  Hey, hey, HEY...say what you will about Liberace, the man had had more class and style in one sequin than Larry Craig has.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2007-10-09 05:12  

00:00