Yesterday's Washington Post states the GOP's response to Senator Craig's bathroom escapade was "stunning" in it's swiftness and severity.....
The intensity of the Republican leaders' assault on one of their own was stunning, if for no other reason than its unusual -- un-senatorial -- nature. Several ethics lawyers and experts could not provide an example in the past two decades of one senator calling for the ethics committee to investigate a colleague. Link
High profile Republicans did not hesitate to voice their rejection of Craig, and those voices were....umm......not nuanced....
"I believe that he pleaded guilty, and he had the opportunity to plead innocent," said McCain, of Arizona. "So, I think he should resign. My opinion is that when you plead guilty to a crime you shouldn't serve."
"Sen. Craig pled guilty to a crime involving conduct unbecoming a senator. He should resign," said Minnesota Republican Sen. Norm Coleman.
Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan added: "The voters of Idaho elected Sen. Craig to represent their state and will decide his future in 2008 should he fail to resign.
"However, he also represents the Republican party, and I believe he should step down, as his conduct throughout this matter has been inappropriate for a U.S. senator." Link
These mighty protectors of traditional values point to the "guilty" plea and "inappropriate conduct" as the reasons why Craig should step down.
You know, I hate to bring this up.....but alas, I must. Where was the righteous indignation from these same GOP'ers when another GOP Senator, David Vitter, got his schlong caught in the media/political wringer for prostitution? It wasn't because Vitter had not allegedly committed a crime....
Senator Vitter's solicitation of at least one prostitute was not merely, as he has stated, 'a serious sin,' it was a violation of criminal law," said Melanie Sloan, Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington Source
And Vitter's "indiscretion" was not an isolated event.....
"Senator David Vitter visited a Canal Street brothel several times beginning in the mid-1990s, paying $300 per hour for services at the bordello after he met the madam at a fishing rodeo that included prostitutes and other politicians, according to Jeanette Maier, the 'Canal Street Madam' whose operation was shut down by a federal investigators in 2001. Link
Knowing all this,what did the "values" GOP'ers say about Vitter....
Yet Utah's Orrin Hatch (R), who helped lead the charge against Bill Clinton, said of Vitter: "I've never judged a human being on those type of issues." Link
Senate Republicans defended Vitter yesterday, describing the affair as a personal matter and predicting no fallout for a GOP badly wounded by the sexual dalliances and the resignation of former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.).
"David has already resolved this with his family and taken responsibility for it," Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said. "I'm sure if there are other things he'll have to deal with, he'll deal with them."
Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said the confession "is certainly a regrettable incident, but the senator confronted it head on."
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) was more to the point. "Have you ever done anything wrong?" he asked The Hill. "So have I." Link
So, GOP'ers don't call for Vitter to step down but do call for Craig to resign despite the fact that both Vitter and Craig broke the law in their sexual quests. Could CNN's Hugh Hewitt be correct on why there are no GOP calls for Vitter to resign.....
I realize that I did not say this about Senator Vitter, but Craig's behavior is so reckless and repulsive that an immediate exit is required. Hugh Hewitt
According to CNN's resident wingnut screecher, Craig must resign because cruising for gay sex in a men's restroom is "reckless and repulsive". The Reverend wonders how hiring prostitutes repeatedly, while being a Senator, is not "reckless and repulsive". Of course, I recognize I'm not quite in tune with the finer morality points of the "traditional moral values voters" who obviously vote Republican. I suppose one must be "born again" to decipher these divine distinctions.
What if Hewitt is wrong(a very, very strong possibility because he's, like, Hugh Hewitt)?
Would the GOP reason for asking Craig to leave be because Craig didn't own up to his actions ( I am not gay) and Vitter did?
METAIRIE, Louisiana (July 17) - Sen. David Vitter on Monday denied having relationships with New Orleans prostitutes, a week after admitting links to a Washington escort service that federal prosecutors allege was a prostitution ring. Link
I guess that's not the reason.
Both of these Senators denied doing anything wrong or illegal, both were involved in adulterous activities, both are Republican Senators, and yet only Craig is being "assaulted" by GOP leaders in a "stunning" way, to resign.
No question that the GOP is the party where those American "values voters" go to shop for political candidates, so what gives here? Could the answer be found here....
Louisiana's governor is a Democrat, and Idaho's is a Republican. Craig resigning would mean a Republican incumbent going into the 2008 election; Vitter resigning would mean another Democratic Senator. So no conservative pundit should get credit for standing on principle for demanding that Craig resign, and that goes triple if they haven't made the same call for Vitter (who actually violated the law, although he did so in a more heterosexual way that will help to earn forgiveness from conservatives.)
Could the differences in how GOP'ers are treating these two law breaking, adulterous, outside-of-their-marriage-sex-seekers, be simply attributed to mere political power concerns.....I mean....that can't be it....can it?
About This Blog