Yesterday I thought he should resign because he pleaded guilty and because he is a liability.

Today I think he should serve out his term and not stand for re-election. Preserve some dignity.

I didn’t really know much about him except that he voted for amnesty a couple months back, which angered me at the time. But I just can’t help feeling sorry for him. The way he handled this entire affair, the naivete, was almost childlike. And now he says he’s going to get counsel and fight it, so, so naive.

Sorry Larry. It’s a brutal business.

Would breaking the law in driving drunk be on an “allowed” list or should it require the person to recuse him/herself from holding public office?

If you are asking me… then ya DUI… definately OUT OF OFFICE.

Everytime someone is killed by a drunk driver it makes me sick. I quit drinking a decade ago. But even when I did, I NEVER drank and drove. Because I was not willing to risk anyones life (even my own ) for ‘fun’.

Our government is the one that makes the laws. I expect them to follow them.

I apologized for hurting your feelings, Taylor.

Again. Don’t flatter yourself. You can call me whatever you want, it doesn’t phase me.

Let’s recap.
You don’t know if the following should exclude (or should not exclude) a person from public office -

Premarital sex, sex outside of marriage, having children with someone other than ones’ spouse, engaging in homosexual acts.

No, no, yes, no. Ya happy?

And you still haven’t answered my question. Do you or do you not find his behavior heinous?

Yashmak said:
Who decides what conduct is unbecoming? Fellow legislators? The press?

if the liberal media is successful with this strategy and are rewarded for it, they’ll be going after the “fellow legislators” next. It’ll be a situation of “there was no one left to speak up for me” when the media demands a Senator be booted for lighting a cig in a No Smoking area or a like witchhunt.

So the legislators better think before casting stones that’ll act as boomerangs

Melvin_Udall said:
Every day Republicans become more like Democrats.

You’re right, inasmuch as they want to wildly throw as many Republicans as possible under the bus.

Others here have professed discomfort with that label, and I share that feeling. It’s an ugly term by virtue of its vagueness. It could be applied to countless behaviors. What’s next? A congressman who voted against the tobacco industry spotted having a cigar? A legislator who was a member of MADD having a cocktail? A perfectly able White House staffer parked in a handicap spot? What will be the next thing?

In the arena of scandal, Republicans don’t become more like Democrats every day. To pretend otherwise is a denial that Republicans have always had their share of scandal, just like the Dems. We were never free of its taint, nor were they. But it’s the category of behaviors now considered scandalous that is unnerving to me.

Who decides what conduct is unbecoming? Fellow legislators? The press?

taylork said:
You act as if I don’t understand that you’re insulting me.

I apologized for hurting your feelings, Taylor.

You continually want to bring this back to whether I want homosexuals in office or not,

Nope, I’ve asked which actions exclude a person from holding office, homosexual sex was just one.

Let’s recap.
You don’t know if the following should exclude (or should not exclude) a person from public office -

Premarital sex, sex outside of marriage, having children with someone other than ones’ spouse, engaging in homosexual acts.

You said you based your determination that Craig should be booted on the “10 Commandments”, but cannot explain how you got that determination from the “10 Coms”. (e.g. “he broke # because he did X,Y,Z., therfore he’s gotta go”)

I’ve tried to follow you, Taylor, but you just haven’t provided a linear or consistent logic. It would seem to me
-since the “10 Commandments” didn;t quite work out as an explanation – that you’re going more by emotionalism as opposed to a well thought out rationale. That’s not an insult, some people just “think emotionally”.

This is just one of those times when people will have to agree to disagree, I guess.

This is not the time for excuses or distractions. He needs to go. Now.

Any Senator who doesn’t step up to that fact should share the taint of supporting deception, attempts to strongarm the police and breaking the law. Supporting Craig at this point can come from no other motive but rabid partisanship.

He needs to go. Now. We are not Democrats.

I’m sorry if you were caused to feel bad, Taylor; but that’s something – a feeling of inferoirity – that only you can control. If you concentrate more being on topic & on answering questions and less on personalities, I think you’ll find it helpful.

Don’t flatter yourself. My happiness is not tied to your responses.

And again you load your response with smugness while accusing me of peronsal attacks. I’ll admit, I’ve called you a fool, but at least I’m not hiding behide a pseudo-intellectual attitude to do so. You act as if I don’t understand that you’re insulting me.

You continually want to bring this back to whether I want homosexuals in office or not, as if that’s what my concern has been. For the record, I don’t care if you’re gay or not, but I do expect appropriate behavior in public. And soliciting sex in a bathroom (be it gay sex or not) is inappropriate, though you seem to have a hard time acknowleding that.

The bottom line is this. For all your beating around the bush, you don’t seem to care about the integrity of the office. I do. Rather than express outrage that an elected official who did something heinous and illegal while serving in office, you try and wash it away by making silly comparisons to behaviors that aren’t illegal but may be considered immoral to some.

taylork said:
You asked me to point out what gives me my morality, so I gave it to you.

Not really, Taylor. If you check, you just made a vague reference to the “Ten Commandments”. I literally supplied chapter and verse. Though you were still unable to answer the posed basic, central questions.

I don’t know if the only thing you’re working with is a hazy recollection of the Decalogue or what. If so, we can still work a bit with that.

The Commandments forbidding coveting anything that doesn’t belong to oneself and agsinst taking Gods’ name in vain, for example. I would expect a survey of Congress to turn up a lot of violators on those accounts. If we are honestly driven by a need to enforce God’s Word they must be booted out.

Then we can start in on those who have divorced and remarried, with the exception for those whose spouse was unfaithful first. Jesus was quite clear about that – it’s adultery.

And you keep saying that this is all about bathroom toe tapping.

Taylor, instead of answering things that you fantasize I said, you should see if you can answer the simple qustions that I have actually asked.

As I sez, they’re not trick questions. e.g. “Should homosexual sex exclude a person from holding public office?” just shouldn’t pose a major quandry to answer.

Just because he hasn’t made a decision that’s affected me, the his stance on immigration could have, doesn’t mean it won’t in the future.

I’m glad you realize what Craig or anyone else does in a bathroom isn ‘t going to destroy your life, Taylor. In fact, as you now confess, Craigs actions have had zero affect on you. If you want to worry about unknown hypothetical “future” actions of politicians, I’m guessing there’s a few names folks round here could suggest that you might wanna spend your time really fretting and fussing about. (I suspect you’ll hear the word “Hillary” alot.)

What you have done is to pretend to take the high road on this, when all you’re trying to do is be smug about it.

I’m sorry if you were caused to feel bad, Taylor; but that’s something – a feeling of inferoirity – that only you can control. If you concentrate more being on topic & on answering questions and less on personalities, I think you’ll find it helpful.

3Steps said:

Here it goes…

which actions or behaviors disqualify a person from holding political office?
ILLEGAL ONES

I don’t give a rat’s butt about 10 commandments or 613…

I do care that he broke the law.

That’s as good a reason as any, I suppose, 3Steps. Though I think you’ll get a lotta differences on which laws they should be “allowed” to break and which ones should bring down the wrath of whatever. e.g. some folks think having smoked pot isn’t a big deal, others don’t want any kind of “druggie” to be in office.

I mentioned above about how the Presidents’ and Veeps’ drunk driving records would – and with some good reason – be of great concern to many, due drunk driving’s obviously very dangerous nature.

Would breaking the law in driving drunk be on an “allowed” list or should it require the person to recuse him/herself from holding public office?