This is too hilarious.
Sen. Larry Craig is reconsidering his decision to resign after his arrest in a Minnesota airport sex sting and may still fight for his Senate seat, his spokesman said Tuesday evening.
“It’s not such a foregone conclusion anymore, that the only thing he could do was resign,” said Sidney Smith, Craig’s spokesman in Idaho’s capital. “We’re still preparing as if Senator Craig will resign Sept. 30, but the outcome of the legal case in Minnesota and the ethics investigation will have an impact on whether we’re able to stay in the fight — and stay in the Senate.”
And the inevitable implosion of the GOP continues apace.
Think Romney’ll invite Craig back onto Team Willard? đŸ˜‰
Please share widely!
he never had to resign in the first place. he chose to let himself be hounded out. it’s beyond belief that the story implies that he had no choice.
<
p>
if he really does want to stay, why isn’t he acting like a real senator and taking part in proceedings?
Goshalmighty, with a show of dedication like that, if i were an idahoan, i’d be running a recall campaign!
<
p>
i wonder if his lawyer (about time he called one!) reminded him that he needed 5 more minutes in the senate to top up some retirement benefit, or some such thing. or are the repubs just that desperate for vote counts that they’ve now assured him that their ravings for his resignation was all a show for their idiot base, and they didn’t really mean it when they called for his head (the one atop his shoulders i mean – don’t want anyone thinking there would be twinks in the ranks!)?
Really, it's a missed opportunity for a parade.
Scott Thompson is brilliant.
…that keep on giving. Larry Craig. I hope he stays in Idaho all through next year.
,,,obligation to resign Neither, for that matter, was Mark Foley. Apparently, their caucus more than a bit urged them to resign. (Reportedly, the Republican caucus was what got Nixon to resign, too.)
<
p>
Gary Studds didn’t resign in 1983 after he was censured, and, indeed was re-elected a number of times.
<
p>
Returning to Craig and Foley, recall that each house can expell a Member; resignation isn’t the only way to get rid of someone who is perceived to be a miscreant.
The repub leadership must have been briefed about Senator Johnson’s (D-SD) return from 9 months of illness. They recalled Craig to balance that vote. This is my theory du jour. Johnson, unlike Craig, is actually back on the floor of the Senate, participating like a real senator. According to the press
True enough, I’ve received 2 “Welcom Back Tim!” emails so far this morning.
I remember hearing that, due to the unfortunate precedent of Strom Thurmond, who could barely recognize his own aides at the end, Johnson still had a vote during his absence. Did that not turn out to be true, or was it just never needed (never a one-vote margin)?
…Johnson’s case was probably something of a “gentleman’s pairing” than anything else. As probably was Thurmond’s.
<
p>
We’ve discussed pairing here before, and I don’t see any need to go into detail. It’s nice to see Johnson alive and well, but he probably should take it a little easy as he continues his recovery.
Johnson literally could not vote, but my understanding was that, due to Thurmond being allowed to vote (through his staff, if I recall correctly), Johnson could vote as well. No pairing involved, Thurmond was gone when Johnson was ill.
…I was not intending to suggest that Johnson was being paired with Thurmond. If memory serves, Thermond was dead and gone before Johnson’s health problems arose.
<
p>
What I intended to suggest was that the Republican caucus in the Senate probably accommodated Johnson’s illness by “pairing” just as how the Democratic caucus in the Senate accommodated Thurmond’s senility by “pairing.” Neither caucus was required to so that, of course, but it is probable that they did. And, it is probable that the Republican caucus in the Senate will expect similar treatment from the Democrats in the future–and it is likely that they will get it.
<
p>
We’ve discussed “pairing” here before, so I’m not going to go into that in detail.
is a bit different than pairing for (not) voting? i’m not sure that the opposition party can force resignation of an incapacitated legislator. if i am correct, no pairing with a repub johnson equivalent was required. my impression was that the repubs simply didn’t want to look like callous ambulance chasers by trying to press the issue of johnson retaining his seat. likewise, thurmond was duly elected. the dems could point to his dottiness and shake their heads, but could they actually remove him from office? and even if they could, again, they never would because it would offend the south and make them look like mean people. so i see these “agreements” as merely the opposition party membership agreeing not to make themselves look bad.
I'm not sure I buy it, but it's refreshingly optimistic.
so do enjoy it until someone provides some inconvenient truths about senate rules and tosses it in the vitterbin. đŸ™‚
I can't think about pairing too hard, it makes me sick to my stomach.
I'd also like to think they'd call Thurmond and Johnson a draw and end the practice, but I know they won't.
it is my assumption that a person must be present to cast a vote. now that tim is back in his seat, he can vote again. i presume all of craig’s trespasses will be forgiven licketysplit as soon as a close vote comes up. perhaps enda? There are hearings on it today. it would be poetic injustice of the the most evil kind to bring craig back into the fold for that vote.
He was physically present, but not mentally. From Wikipedia:
What I heard on NPR was what I said above — the guy could barely function at all. Anyway, I think you'll agree with me, Laurel, that it would be nice if Craig's experience made him more tolerant. But since it likely won't, I'd rather beat him in the voting booth next year than have him go down over this bust.
in that quote, which states that thurmond had to bring his feeble self to the floor to vote. i submit that the repubs are quietly recalling craig after publicly rebuking him, because they want to be able to fly him in to vote on hair-splitters now that johnson has returned to tip the balance by 1.
Johnson's incapacitation caused a slight uproar over balance, and my understanding at the time was that Democrats were citing the precedent of Thurmond to ensure Republicans didn't pressure Johnson to step down. I think this has pretty much held, but that's likely because there hasn't been a one-vote margin.
If that's true, it doesn't support your theory (Johnson's return therefore makes little difference) but also doesn't disprove it.
All this said, maybe the deal never materialized.
the return of johnson can make a difference in that with his return and craig’s departure, the senate effectively has 2+ voting margin in favor of dems. not forcing johnson to resign was a matter of control of the legislature through the majority of seats. that’s a different issue than the one here, which is voting.
the best thing would be for the repubs to retain craig for his vote. this will keep their hypocrisy high up in the news, and floodlights on the likes of their other leading sexual hypocrites, including Diaper Dave Vitter and Bob “i just ducked into his crotch to get out of the weather” Allen. then we will defeat craig in the next election. as far as i’m concerned, his infraction per se is irrelevant. his personal hypocrisy and the hypocrisy of how he is being handled by his republican bretheren is helping to show the country how morally bankrupt the “family values” party is.
the word i was unable to recall was “proxy”. i don’t believe proxy voting is allowed on the senate floor, although it is allowed in some committees. please correct me if i’m wrong! also, johnson will now be present to form a quorum, while craig won’t.
…for the simple reason that the governor has already announced his intention to appoint the GOP Lt. Gov. to the seat. So the GOP doesn't lose the vote.
For whatever reason, Craig has decided to make a nuisance of himself. As Raj noted, we force our miscreants to resign (Livingston, Packwood, etc.) rather than hew to the Dem practice of elevating them (I will not name names – fill in your own blanks).
Please note PP that the ID governor cannot appoint someone else to the seat unless and until Craig vacates it. He hasn’t. He has only announced intentions. I’m sure he can be persuaded to stay if the GOP honchos decide he’s more useful where he is.
if he decides to stay because he wants to poke a stick in the eye of the GOP colleagues who selectively crucified him. i would enjoy that spectacle.
um … Vitter? Who was applauded by his Republican colleagues? Because his state has a Democratic governor, and his seat isn’t up ’til 2010, perhaps?
<
p>
Come on, PP — you surely cannot be serious.
Nobody forced Livingston to resign, he decided that on his own when he realized he could never be Speaker.
<
p>
Oh, and don’t cry for him, he went on to start a very lucrative GOP-only lobbying firm in DC that was a major beneficiary of Tom DeLay’s K Street Project.
<
p>
By the way, what about Bob Ney (R-Inmate). He kept serving in the House even after he had entered his guilty plea in the Abramoff case.
I don't have a cite, but I heard somewhere that Craig was on his way back to Washington from Idaho when he was arrested, presumably because Congress was about to reconvene. Suppose this is true. Under the Constitution (Article 1, Section 6):
Here are my questions:
1. Leaving aside the guilty plea, is there a constitutional problem with Craig's arrest? Is “disorderly conduct” under Minn. Stat. 609.72(1)(3) a “breach of the peace” for purposes of the Constitution?
2. If so, does the guilty plea waive the Senator's defense on these grounds?
TedF
…legal issue. I would suspect that “dissorderly conduct” would encompass “breach of the peace.”
<
p>
But it strikes me that the issue is not a legal one, but a political one. What does his party’s caucus want him to do? If he leaves, he’ll be replaced by another Republican (cf. Vitter) And he’ll make a mint off the rubber chicken circuit.
<
p>
On your second issue, he pleaded. Maybe he shouldn’t have pleaded, but he did. Let me ask you this. How many voters will remember the fact that he pleaded, vs. the number who knew that he might have been permitted to withdraw a plea. Quite frankly, that’s another political issue, isn’t it?