Sen. Craig's only intent: 'To go to the bathroom'

Okay, we'll drop the misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge and book you for lewd behavior and obstruction of justice, as he was clearly misleading and lying to the arresting officer. Senator Craig should let it lie and go away. Just another Republican hypocrite

Republican Senator WideStance was told by the prosecuter that he should seek the advice of an attorney BEFORE he pleaded guilty.
Keep on fighting, Larry!

Hey Mark,
How about doing a story on Fox Noise Channels, Bill-O?
Sounds like Mr. O'Rally put his foot in his mouth again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kpnTfTCIic

boy...if I had a nickel for everytime I went to the bathroom and got arrested for it......

Fight Larry Fight! Remind us every day of what a bunch of lying hypocrites your party is!

One thing Craig should not do is to resign until Ted Kennedy quits for leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to drown in his car; for Barney Frank to resign over the misdeeds in his home; for Hillary Clinton to resign for her role in the Whitewater fraud and the Hsu fund-raising scandal; for William Jefferson to resign for the $90,000 in his freezer and the related bribery allegations etc. etc. If you want to look for scoundrels in Washington in both parties, you don't need binoculars. They all should go.

It takes a lot of imagination to construct a crime from the Senators activity. My guess is that he was looking for a sex partner, but who cares. The cop on that entrapment detail must be on the job they give useless cops.

Senor Ortega, in your rush to point out only Democratic Party scandals, you seem to have overlooked some juicier 21ST CENTURY ones on the GOP side: Duke Cunningham (bribes), Jack Ambramoff (ditto), Tom Delay (obstruction), my favorite, Mark Foley (page boys), and Dick Cheney (hunting friends' faces). Nice try, however.

Ortega

But then nobody would be left!!!

Seriously, both parties have unethical members, granted. How could they not, the system is designed that way. It will never change unless there is meaningful campaign finance reform.

That said Senator Craig's indiscretion has nothing to do with money, it has to do with hypocrisy. If he were a Democrat who voted in favor of gay friendly legislation this might not be such a big deal. (Okay, actually it would, soliciting sex in an airport bathroom is not okay no matter what political party you are in or what your voting record looks like.)

KEEP UP THE FIGHT LARRY!

Typically the Democrats wouldn't have a chance with the rednecks in Idaho.

So it would come down to an election of someone who might or might not be gay. I'm sure that would go over big with your constituency Larry.

Give Larry Craig a break. There's an innocent explanation for all his handwaving and foot tapping in the stall. He was being assaulted by a terrorist who attempted to strangle him with a charm bracelet. The Al-Queda operative, a former employee of Dr. Evil, fled when the policeman flashed his badge.

Ortega,
The voters of his state don't seem to have a problem with him leaving. That trumps any "what he did-what they did" argument. Give it a rest. With all the serious issues we have to deal with as a country, hanging on to this bozo's cause isn't the most productive use of time.

Doomis-

Way to continue to prove the point-All of the GOPer's listed have been removed from power (except Cheney's accident).

The Democrats continue to "serve" however.

Hi, please visit wwww.gabrielchristou.blogspot.com

you will see PHOTOS of WHO and WHERE Bin Laden and his networks are.

PLEASE ALSO FORWARD IT TO THE FBI

Whoever wrote this article obviously didn't read Sen. Craig's motion papers, although they have been published on-line and have been available for at least a month now. Contrary to the article here, the entire argument is not that the Senator was just trying to go to the bathroom. If that was Sen. Craig's only complain, he would have no basis to withdraw his plea.

A review of his moving papers shows that he is moving to withdraw his plea on the grounds that: 1) his plea was entered without advise or assistance of counsel, and not otherwise made knowingly and intelligently, because he was misled to believe certain consequences would result from his plea (which didn’t occur); and 2) the plea forms and papers failed, as a matter of law, to furnish a factual basis for the plea. The latter argument is probably a bit better than the former, but I would not agree that the motion is defective or insufficient as claimed by the prosecutor. But, of course, what else would one expect the prosecutor to say?

What I find disturbing about the article is that it is slanted toward suggesting that Craig has little chance of prevailing. Neither the reporter nor his sources asked Craig’s attorneys about the merits of the motion or to comment on the prosecutors claims. Furthermore, the better of the two arguments made (i.e. the lack of a factual basis) could very well induce the judge to allow him to withdraw his plea. Judges aren’t that averse to granting these motions. They’re not letting anyone go free. Granting the motion will just give Sen. Craig the right to have his case tried.

Furthermore, the Judge will likely decide the issue as a matter of law, based on undisputed facts, in which case it could easily provide a basis for an appeal if the motion is denied (and Craig is not otherwise in procedural default of some rule that would prevent him from appealing). I wouldn’t count Craig out just yet.

Uh oh!

Sen. Craig better hope he doesn't go before one of those 'tuff on crime' judges!
(You know who they are.)

Ortega:

The ability to sort out multifaceted issues is not one you seem to possess.

Craig's possible resignation is one facet. His attempt to withdraw his guilty plea is another. The fact that it was the Republicants, not the Democrats, who asked him to withdraw is yet another factor that you can't quite grasp. Yet you lump these issues together and, being a typical slack-jawed Republicant, have the one-size-fits-all Republicant answer to all Republicant misdeeds -- point out Democrat misdeeds, without regard to whether they have any bearing on the present question (or maybe the money Hillary lost on Whitewater prompted Craig to go to the bathroom?).

Your litany of Democratic misdeeds also ignores another facet, namely, these are all elected officials. Their constituents were/are all aware of their real/alleged misdeeds. And they still re-elected them. It strikes me that you are not likely to have been a constituent of all of those Democrats, given their geographic diversity. That means you don't get to vote on whether they keep their jobs.

Try to put some thought to your statements before you spew them (whoops!-- not your spew, Larry).
-----------

Larry Craig may be the only Republicant capable of looking worse than GWB. Although the odds are astronomically against him, we can only hope that his motion is granted and we're all treated to the trial of the (new) century.

Oh Brainwashed, Ignorant, Demented Johnnny E., love the BS link about Bill O'Reilly's alleged racism. Drink some more of that Idiotic Kool-Aid, man with no job. Pathetic, truly pathetic.

Fight Larry Fight! Remind us every day of what a bunch of lying hypocrites your party is!

Posted by: Cheryl | September 26, 2007 4:22 PM

You go girl! Now if you'll excuse me I've got to give my boyfriend John D his meds.

Johnnnnn, get out of the Minneapolis bathroom please. Time to put on your apron & cook me dinner like a good little nutball. Vaccum too while your at it.

John D's when are you going to actually discuss an issue?
All you do is name calling or placing ad hominem remarks...
On the rare occasion you actually do say something, it's usually a diversion to diffuse or confuse the issue.
Grow UP

ABlinkin, your post was absolutely on-target -- bravo for you!

And, for both John D's Nemesis and John D, PLEASE take your marital difficulties outside this arena. They're immature and disgusting. Stick to the issue or just don't make a comment. You WON'T be missed.