"Both men were born in 1945, pre-Baby Boomers (barely) and definitely not part of the "Greatest Generation" that fought and won the war."

Um, gee, born in 1945 and they didn't fight and win WWII... great research there. Why not tell us about how they were both definitely not part of that historic generation that fought in the war to save to union! Why not tell us how they definitely had no role in fighting at Thermopylae! After being told when they were born, we know they didn't fight in WWII, because they were just born. But why that needs to be said is just baffling... are word counts that hard to meet?

I'm not sure if it means I'm dumber than proxil or smarter, but it seems obvious to me that the author's point was that they come from a generation sandwiched between baby boomers and the "greatest generation."

tl: I won't opine on your smartness relative to proxil, but I think his point is fair. These two guys were born the year the war ended. Do we really need someone to tell us they weren't part of the generation that won that war? He should have ended the sentence after (barely).

If they were born in 1945 then they
would've been 18 in 1963 and 23 in 1968,
which was Not Too Old to go to war in
VietNam. So Why no mention of how they
missed That? Law School?

Loudoun Voter, your point is fair. Mostly because your tone and your message is fair. proxli's point is not fair because his tone, his message, and his condescending attitiude are all ignorant.
It may very well be unneccesary for Mr. Kane to tell us they didn't win the war, so what?
Anyone have something to say about the substance of the article, instead of nitpicking about the way it is written?

RE: Law school deferments...

By 1968, there were no graduate school deferments. You were deferred while you were in college, and your heard from your draft board within a very few months afterwards,

I know, I entered graduate school in September 1969, and went for my physical in November 1969.

If Judge Porter allows this old experienced law maker to withdraw his guilty plea, I'll be a monkey's uncle. In Craig we have one of the best examples of a prevaricating politician who says what he thinks must be said to get what he wants. In the case at hand, he said he'd plead guilty to the minor charge if the nature of his deeds did not come to light. He misjudged what the record of his arrest would show and thus he made political mistake in pleading guilty. It is the height of hypocrisy to think this man pleaded guilty under external pressure from aggressive law enforcement. He made a political calculation. He was not an innocent and naive babe in the woods, but an experienced and careful speaker who, when caught with his pants down, so to speak, made a tactical error. The admission of guilt took place over several hours and Craig had ample time to consider his position and consult his lawyers, but chose not to. It is no excuse to say that simply because Craig was embarrassed and flummoxed he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. Clearly his knowledge of law and access to representation should trump any argument that he was not in his right mind.

Proxli, are you really so captious that you feel the need to spend your time commenting on utterly trivial matters? Let's keep comments substantive.

Senator Craig is guilty as sin and anyone could tell that when the police officer put his badge under the stall and Craig screamed "No!" Ok! Craig knew then, and anyone could tell, that Craig had been caught with his pants down!

Senator Craig should receive exactly the same treatment that any other citizen would receive. Period.

I think if 'do-overs' were easy to get, we would need a lot more judges to handle the load....

If you had enough money, you could keep going until you won your case...

Might work if we changed a high price to get a 'do-over' and then the judicial branch could be a profit center...

The fact of the matter is that Craig committed no crime. As has been pointed out, if he and the cop had agreed to go to a hotel together, it would have been no crime. This is police entrapment at its worse--using social stigma against gays. It is unfortunate that Craig does not feel comfortable enough in our society to come out of the closet, but that is not a crime, nor is being a horse's rear end politically. He should be allowed to withdraw the plea, and then they should decide what crime, if any, to charge him with. BTW I'm a liberal democrat who doesn't like anyone--even political adversaries--to be victims of police entrapment.

Of course he's guilty, and of course he's gay. Of course he votes to limit the civil rights of others, and of course he's not bright enough to be able to navigate the legal system for which he personally responsible.

However,

The constitution contains a clause that members of congress cannot be arrested traveling to and from congressional sessions, and the police should not be entrapping people for doing discrete things in public.

if he is a no nonsense jurist then he will ask Larry the toe tapper to please take his licks(hope that isn't a bad usage here)
I would image he has heard the police officers side of the story many many times and can identify the facts withour any smoke and mirrors added. Good luck Larry I hope you are forgiven by your wife for this slight dalliance

I agree with Mr Hill. I can't get my record erased because 1) I don't have the money, 2)I'm not a public official, and 3)I'm not connected to the machine. How can I possibly agree that this idiot is more deserving than I am of extra consideration because he DOES have those three things.? Just saying.......

George's comments show his ignorance of the draft lottery in the 60's. I was 18 in '68, and my lotto number was 320, so I was not drafted and had virtually no chance of being drafted. At the time, each person was assigned a number based on their birthdate in '68, '69..... So, after the government filled their requirements for '68, they began with the lottery for '69....of course, I knew in '68 with number 320 that in '69 they would have to go through ALL the eligible eighteen-year-olds (365) before they got to my year. So, at 23, these guys were a Long way from becoming draftees. Their year would have been '63 or before. The system made sense, in that one would not have to wonder for years whether one would be drafted. On the downside, it meant a lot of young men WERE drafted, hence the slogans (and temporary legal changes regarding the legal drinking age) about how if they were old enough to die, they were old enough to drink, vote, and have all the legal rights of "older" adults. When the war in Vietnam was over, you notice that most states reversed their previous decisions and the drinking age again became 21.

I don't know how anyone can claim that a crime was not committed. He was charged with disorderly conduct, a crime which is intentionally vague because it is meant to cover a great many circumstances. If the allegations are to be believed he is certainly guilty of that crime.

MN State 609.72:

"Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor..."

Someone peering into your bathroom stall for a period of time, and then subsequently reaching his hand under the stall certainly seems like it would fit.

And the rest of that statute:

(1) Engages in brawling or fighting; or

(2) Disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or

(3) Engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.

I understand that there were weeks of negotiations between Sen. Craig and the prosecutors office. If that is the case and this judge doesn't suffer fools, then this can be a very quick decision.

Mr. Craig epitomizes the worst of the republican party. The hawk that never was in the military. The prolifer that once the child is born refuses to provide it with education medical care and eventually ends by executing him. and finally the radical homophobe who turns out to be a homosexual himself and a promiscuous one to boot.

i feel they need to give him the benifit of the doubt here! However they need to research his past thoroughly to make sure that there are no underage boys involved in his past escapades AND they need to dig very deep and see if it was a setup and WHY!

Is the fix in .???? One would think that if The Larry was not gay, never been gay !!! He would go before Judge Porter, present his Senate calling and tell his story.
Goodness Gracious !!! is it possible the Judge would ask The Larry if he is bi-sexual

Being somewhat familiar with how county courts operate, may I suggest that the judge's career path -- from criminal court to family court to juvenile court represents a series of demotions. The judge was either the victim of prevailing political forces, or he does not possess the super-judge qualities some have attributed to him.
Ironically, it may be the experience gained in his first judicial appointment as a municipal court judge that landed him this assignment. While usually considered a bottom-feeder posting, a municipal court judge might see a number of matters similar to the hapless Craig's.
Does anyone from Minnesota have a closer perpective on the judicial pecking order there, or the politics injected into county court judical assignments ?

I think Craig should hang around. He is a shining example of the type of Family Values the Republicans so heartily espouse and I love the fact this story is so closely followed by the media.

Senator Craig is a great Republican. Without his leadership my son would be stuck somewhere in the military without anything to do. Craig has made it possible for him to have the opportunity to get killed in a civil war brought on by a delusional President who also missed WW II.

Craig is a perfect example of a political hack. Give no mercy to anyone except himself.

I feel sorry for his family. Surely his wife must wonder where his appendage has been and how many times in little boys.

He is a sick sorry SOB.

Maybe there was time for the Two week Haggard "Anti-gay" fix?

The Senator should be judged with stern indifference. He should be treated exactly as he has treated others. I am not a big fan of police entrapment schemes as there is a fine line in human behavior between what one intends to do and what one can be enticed to do. The Senator is completely guilty in this case as his hand swipe back and forth under the stall was a clear and well known signal that the Senator was inviting the young officer to slide his erect penis under the stall divider so the Senator could make ...umm... "contact" with it. The Senator is guilty as could be of initiating behavior in a public place that has no place in public. The officer will explain that, the judge will understand that, and the Senator will finally be held accountable for his behavior and his hypocrisy.

Blah, Blah, Blah, Larry Craig this, Larry Craig that! This is what happens when weak minded indivduals enter the House or Senate and have good ol boy connections. I am sick and tired of all the controversy we have to weather regarding these Monkeys in office. Oh, I got it! Lets change the rules regarding their behaviour. If they screw up in any way lets fine 'em a years salary. Maybe they will get tired and decide to go home! No, that probably won't work either.After a year or so we wouldn't have anyone left to run our beloved country.

IT IS REFRESHING TO HEAR OF A NO NONESENCE JUDGE IN THIS DAY AND AGE

This could not have been a first time offense, just first time getting caught...otherwise, how would he know the signals? I wouldn't, would you?

If judge Porter believes that it is possible to have sex in public restroom at the airport,
he is a complete idiot or a clever democrat. Also, judge Porter might have sick mind and he is gay by himself.