Waterboarding is legal but paying to have sex with a prostitute is not! The law should be abolished and prostitution, like in every civilized country, become legal. As simple as that. Furthermore, all escort services advertise freely: if it is illegal why are they not prosecuted? This is complete non-sense.

OK, so which is worse for a public official - having a secret sex life or not understanding the importance of a guilty plea?

So let's say that he does get the plea overturned. Then he isn't so much a pervert as he is just plain stupid.

So, Idaho, who do you want to represent you: a pervert or an idiot?

I tend to contemplate the fact that Mr. Spitzer is a licensed attorney, well versed in the law, and his actions consitute an open violation of his oath to "uphold the law" with his actions. Regardless of a "perception" that this infraction is "minor" by the Harvard Law Professor, it is an infraction. Nixon did not get away with it, neither should Mr. Spitzer. Attorneys are not above the law and should be subject to all laws and regulations and audits of their books by an accounting firm to ensure they are operating in accordance with the law. Mr. Spitzer broke the law, he's a John, just like all the others that have been exposed, but due to his professional license to practice, the Harvard Law Professor projects this is OK. Time to change professors at Harvard that promote lawyers are above the law. They are not and should be accountable like every other citizen of America.

That Harvard law professor is as arrogant as is Mr Spitzer. It is the arrogance that will do him in, not the "victimless crime" (and at $1,000 / hour it is victimless).

Wake up folks-Prostitution helps pay for
this illegal war! Besides, it seems
Mukasey caught Bin-Quada--this helps explain the time and resourse to spare
for a HO-HUT sting!

What you republicans don't realize is that we hold the moral high ground. You break the laws because you are morally corrupt hypocrites. When we break the law, it is because the laws are unjust and it would be morally indefensible to obey unjust laws.

In fact it has nothing to do with politics at all. Sex with whomever we want is a personal choice and laws about sex only cause these private issues to become public. Paying for sex is no different than paying for other favors whether it is in politics or life in general.

I take a back seat to no one in support of our civil liberties. For that reason, while I disagree with almost everything that Mr. Craig stands for, I believe that the conviction of Mr. Craig should be overturned. When one looks carefully at the statement of facts regarding Mr. Craig's actions, I do not find that they are actions that constitute a crime either individually or collectively. Only when the officer's interpretation of the actions comes into play does the activity become criminal. If Mr. Craig's activity does not objectively constitute criminal activity, then it is irrelevant whether he pled guilty as he would have pled guilty to actions which do not constitute a crime.

When we start down a road to criminalize activity based on a pre-conceived notion of what the activity means, we have taken a path that could lead to arbitrary and subjective criminalization of innocent activity. I am uncomfortable with that direction, whether it be Mr. Craig or someone else.

Not sure I agree with Clarence that prostitution should be legalized, but he certainly makes an excellent point about the sick and twisted priorities of an American public that cheerfully tolerates kidnapping, torture, murder, and other unspeakable crimes by our government, while waxing indignant about the sexual misdeeds of politicians. Are the majority of people in this country just plain dumb, immoral, or both??

I think it does matter what Larry Craig stands for. Politicians and people in general who clearly hold political philosophies that are obviously wrong should be held to a higher standard when it comes to obeying laws. Those of us who are more progressive and enlightened have a greater understanding of what is right and wrong. That should be considered, especially when the laws we break are unjustifiable.

I can hardly believe Craig is still in office. Didn't he try to have sex with a COP in an airport men's room? He must be calling in every favor and bribe he ever could muster ... still in office?

Spitzer needed to resign yesterday! A Harvard-trained lawyer and former prosecutor knows the term "moral turpitude" all too well. Never mind if the Feds hit him with money laundering and wire fraud charges, interstate commerce charges (Kristen crossed state lines) and whatever else the IRS can dredge up as well. Spitzer can certainly have his law license suspended or revoked. So . . . I guess it's up to Spitzer to decide if he wants to go out easy or he goes out hard, because he is going!

I see that my previous comment was removed by the WaPo thought police. I just want you folks to know that I am very proud of having canceled my subscription to this rag in 2003.

Spitzer is not beholden to the media or to the "politically" motivated few. He should fight and not quit. He has a responsibility to his constituent. Your private life is yours.

Have we just forgotten about David Vitter?

I'm pretty sure global warming was also a factor in this scandal, since hotter climates increases sexual activity, which never would have happened had it not been for Bush and his refusal to support Kyoto.

Once again, this is all Bush's fault.

Governor Eliot Spitzer should not resign. Period! Bill Clinton, Governor Rendell of Pennsylvania, Governor Corzine of New Jersey did not resign for the same sexual trangressions. All of them had extra-marital affairs and all are adulterers. It would be hypocritical to demand Governor Spitzer to resign for the same sins.

I am not sure I understand how one plea guilty today then tomorrow say it was a mistake, and wants to retract it. That would either mean the confession was coerced or the person confessing is a complete moron. With regard to Spitzer, despite his now obvious double standards I believe what a man does, or woman, on their own time and with who sexually is his or her own business. Unless Spitzer used taxpayer dollars to play this matter should be between him and his family. I would wager that many of those out there calling for his head has and is doing what he was caught doing.

[editing this for whatever apparently needs to be censored...]

Larry Craig pled guilty because he knew he was guilty. There was no confusion there. He thought MAYBE--just maybe--he could plead guilty, and his little infraction would squeak by under the radar. In his mind, that was his only hope, and that's why he waited until the last possible day to do it because he was indeed thinking about how to handle this the whole time. He knew [darn] well he could consult a lawyer; his strategy was to deliberately NOT get a lawyer to decrease the risk of this getting picked up by the media. It fit rights into the pattern of denial he's been demonstrating for his entire marriage and, most likely, his entire life.

But whoops! The media DID pick it up. Once his strategy completely backfired, he started throwing out any excuse that would stick. The kitchen sink strategy. I would pity him if not for his own hypocrisy in condemning the very behavior he himself engaged in--both marital infidelity and homosexuality.

As for Spitzer, he should resign for being [unintelligent]. "Maybe no one will find out I've been paying thousand of dollars for high-class [prostitutes]!" They ALWAYS find out. It's just a matter of when.

All you Rs and Ds back and forth... it's silly. Neither party, whether taken as a whole or represented individually, is worth a damn. That's point 1. Point 2: Spitzer prosecuted people for the same crime he's likely guilty of committing himself. Do I care that Spitzer has illicit sexual encounters? No. Do I condemn Larry Craig for seeking male companionship? No. But in both cases I celebrate two simple things: 1) both Rs and Ds are hypocrites; and 2) both men in this case had no mercy for others caught in similar circumstances. So for that: Let them stew.

Name That Party! continues. Craig's party affiliation was identified. Why not Spitzer's? I think we all know the answer.

Craig should resign. He is a disgrace. Spitzer is worse. His public charge was to prosecute mob controlled prostitution rings not solicit them and eliminate their competition. The two cases are very different.

The call girl that Eliot hired probably had some nighty-night skills that his wife had either forgotten or never had. So many women just show up. If a policeman came in and caught them in action, they certainly could not be charged with a moving violation. At least once a month a smart wife will hang her inhibitions on the bedroom door knob and take the hitch out of her husband's backswing.
Yours, Jerry Hurley, Redding, CA

Here is what Spitzer should do:

Go on television and announce with a straight face while wagging his finger for emphasis:

"I did not have sex with that woman, Kristen."

If he is called before a grand jury, lie. (After all, it's "only about sex.")

If the legislature tries to impeach him, fight it.

Toughen it out to the end of his term.

Then have his wife, an Ivy-League lawyer, run for Governor with the platform that she has experience in the Governor's mansion.

Spitzer is stepping down, as he should, but I still have a bone to pick with some of the media I favor most: The initial headlines of both Wapo, NYT, and CB himself, said Spitzer had been "Linked" to a prostitution ring. My first thought was, damn, is he kingpin of some sort? Only later was it clarified that he was a "client" not a made man. Apparently Rep. Peter King had the same reaction he told your blog that "prostitution rings are invariably linked to organized crime..."