Maybe not. Now he is saying that he only “intends” to resign on the 30th, but he’s going to fight until then, and may change his mind. He has also hired an attorney to try and reverse the conviction based on his guilty plea.
Well, looking for love in restrooms is really a victimless crime. I mean, who cares?
unless you happen to see the two fat ugly old dudes going at it. Then you would be the victim. 
Well, looking for love in restrooms is really a victimless crime. I mean, who cares? \
Have you been to Idaho??? WHy do you think he stayed in the closet, and is proclaiming every 5 minutes that he is NOT GAY AND NEVER HAS BEEN !!! If he lived here on the either of the coasts, he would have gotten a little more sympathy, but not from the people that elected him, you know, the Mark Furman types…
“Well, looking for love in restrooms is really a victimless crime.”
I think now he’s looking for love from voters. (Perhaps I should have said “soliciting” love.) I don’t think he’ll find much in Idaho.
You guys have got to be kidding me. Now he’s a victim of Idaho voters, who are homophobes?
The man is a joke. He should be run out of office just for being so embarrassingly indecisive. "I plead guilty. Oh, I’m innocent. I should never have pleaded guilty. I’m gonna get me a lawyer. I quit. No, wait. I don’t quit. Or maybe I quit. I’m gonna have to think about it awhile . . . "
And what the heck is Specter’s deal? What motivated him to pick up a phone after Craig announced his resignation and offer support? And why the funky timing?
It has probably been discussed at length in one of the other threads, but I don’t really get what the crime is here… or rather if it is, why?
What is the difference between the vague “signals” he sent in the bathroom, versus the multitudes of crude pick-up lines guys use on girls every night in bars?
It is a punishable crime for him to tap his toe in a bathroom, yet I can go up to a girl in a bar and ask her if she wants go home with me and make sweet lovin’, yet all I’d get is a drink thrown in my face?
I don’t get it.
.
This has been discussed at length in another thread, but since the discussion is mixed up in a whole 'nother fight, I’ll summarize: The difference between what Craig did and throwing a pick up line at a girl in a bar is this: Craig was looking to engage in sex right there in the public restroom, not trying to meet someone to take back to his hotel.
Whether or not that is or should be a crime, certainly we should be able to agree that it’s not behavior appropriate for a married United States senator, right?
This has been covered in the other thread, but her’s the brief synopsis:
According to some, there’s no difference between Sen Craig’s actions, and Pres Clinton’s actions, and picking up a woman at a bar.
According to reality, the allegation with Sen Craig is that he was soliciting for the sexual acts to be performed in public, which is different from soliciting for sexual acts to be performed later, in a private place. If you solicited the woman at the bar to drop down and give you a bj there on the dance floor, you would be closer to what Sen Craig is accused of.
Whether or not that is or should be a crime, certainly we should be able to agree that it’s not behavior appropriate for a married United States senator, right?
if it’s alright with his wife, it’s alright with me. no moaning please, if I’m 2 stalls down, that’s all i ask. (that other thread is REALLY long, vitus… thanks for the summary but no way I’m jumping in that one now).
“if it’s alright with his wife, it’s alright with me.”
I assume this is sarcasm, but if not, are you really saying it’s ok with you if an elected member of the nation’s highest legislative body solicits unknown men for bathroom sex, just so long as his wife doesn’t mind?
Our expectations seem to have sunk pretty low if that’s the case.
“You guys have got to be kidding me. Now he’s a victim of Idaho voters, who are homophobes?”
I never suggested that he’s a “victim of Idaho voters.” It’s interesting that you should assume such an interpretation. If Craig is a victim of anything, it’s primarily his own bad choices.
Regardless of what one thinks about gay-related issues, he clearly doesn’t have the moral character that we ought to expect from our public representatives.
OK, thanks for clarifying.
“if it’s alright with his wife, it’s alright with me.”
I assume this is sarcasm, but if not, are you really saying it’s ok with you if an elected member of the nation’s highest legislative body solicits unknown men for bathroom sex, just so long as his wife doesn’t mind?
Our expectations seem to have sunk pretty low if that’s the case.
it’s just not the sort of thing that bothers me.
i realize that i’m a pretty small part of the electorate here. too much time in France, I guess. but consensual sex btwn adults isn’t something i worry about from my representatives. i’m much more concerned about straight-up corruption (bribery, embezzlement, etc). And I also look at voting records, which I find more important than who’s sucking dick in a public restroom.
How many more months does Craig have to hang on to be able to get his full retirement benefits? I think he merely has to make it another 3 months. After that, he probably won’t care if Idaho burns to the ground.
Who knows. Here’s the Congressional retirement plan. If you can figure it out, good on you.
-
He is a pervert.
-
Maybe I have been watching too many 24 reruns this summer, but wouldn’t this kind of behavior put an elected official in danger of being blackmailed thereby putting our country in danger?
Both suggest he should stay resigned.
"wouldn’t this kind of behavior put an elected official in danger of being blackmailed thereby putting our country in danger? "
At the very least, I would imagine it would make holding a security clearance pretty iffy.
Being from Idaho I could care less if he is gay or not.
I do have an issue with his staunch stance on homosexual status, and the irony of his actions. Personally the guy should be gone just based on his recent actions, lack of stance, and indecisiveness. I don’t want to be represented by someone that can’t make up their mind or is a hypocrite.
The humor that I do see is most Idaho people are upset at his actions but all of the sudden very worried about the money that he was bringing into the state. Where is the funding going to come from now for our new radar site at the airport. blah, blah
I think 28 years of service is plenty, get some new blood in there. Prime example for term limits etc.
I was wrong. Craig already qualifies for the full pension. Under both CSRS and FERS, Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at age 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. Members are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service. The amount of the pension depends on years of service and the average of the highest three years of salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.