Censure and move on

October 6, 2007

Senate Republicans can’t force Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) to resign, they don’t have the votes to expel him, and an embarrassing ethics investigation may prove more embarrassing to the caucus than the senator.

What’s left? Apparently, a censure.

Sen. Larry Craig is likely to be censured by the Senate – but not expelled – for pleading guilty after soliciting sex from a male cop, a top Republican said yesterday.

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), a presidential candidate and religious conservative, said his colleague from Idaho faces a rebuke by the Ethics Committee.

“Whether … he’ll be expelled or not for that crime, I think there’s a good chance of censureship [sic]. But expulsion seems to me probably unlikely,” Brownback told Bloomberg TV. […]

Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana may also face censure because he admitted hiring prostitutes, Brownback said.

As far as I can tell, that last part, about censuring Vitter, is new. The GOP has struggled for weeks to explain why Craig’s conduct is, in Mitch McConnell’s word, “unforgivable,” while Vitter’s sex scandals are trivial and inconsequential. If the party is willing to censure both, that would be a pleasant surprise.

I think there’s a good chance of censureship

The mother of all Freudian slips.

  • Let’s see… Vitter and Craig lie about sex. Both instances involve illegality (public sex, sex for hire). They get censure.

    Clinton lies about sex. It’s consensual sex between adults. Oh, no… censure is WAAAAAAAAAY too weak a punishment! Clinton must be IMPEACHED! HUMILIATED! THROWN OUT OF OFFICE AND BURNED AT THE STAKE!

    Frigging hypocrites.

  • Steve-

    Sorry, I’m not down for any Dems voting to censure either Craig or Vitter. It would be as hypocritical as those two pargons of virtue are.

    Let the GOP settle this on their own dime.

  • Republicans have no memory when it comes to equality of Justice. The very people screaming loudest for Clinton’s impeachment were at the very same time “breaking the law” with their sexual encounters.
    The very same methods they employed to condemn Move On but refuse to apply the same standard to Rush.

    The republicans are the party of Hypocrisy. You would think they would have learned by now that everytime they “condemn” someone or something that shortly thereafter one of their own will be saying or doing the same thing and worse for which they condemned others for. Yet knowing this would they still condemn others thinking they will always find a way of avoiding being condemned for the same behavior? The answer is “YES”, they would. This is why they have become the Party of Hypocrisy because they know they are being hypocritical but they don’t care…they can lose their memory of a standard they demanded just days ago.

  • CB, you said “…If the party is willing to censure both, that would be a pleasant surprise.”

    It’s difficult for me to see how 2 cynical GOP moves becomes a “pleasant surprise” to anyone.
    If anything it’s yet another disgusting twist in these sordid stories.
    The GOPervs were ruining their undies over the prospect that Ex-Sen Widestance might be subpoenaed in the Wilkes trial, but were much less punked by the thought of Sen. Widestance before the Ethics Committee, until – they realized that some heavyweight GOpervs have been covering for Larry; a la the mode of the Foley imbroglio of last year..
    Now that they realize that scabs would get peeled by any kind of investigation or hearing into big larry’s fetishes. So, they have put the Widester in a bomb-proof box named censure. In a twofer they throw in a matching limp wristed slap at Vitter thereby exonerating themselves of …

    The Appearance of Hypocrisy:

    …This was a small problem vis-a-vis the Vitter hooker hookups, but the goopers were willing to suck that up. Now – they don’t have to completely gag on even this one.
    The new scenario wherein they put on a public ceremony to censure both senators, mitigates The Appearance of Hypocrisy without really rendering anyone less hypocritical or requiring anyone to do any work. They can shit on both miscreants without risking scat back.

    Clever ? surprising ? …perhaps.
    – but pleasant?? … not a bit.

  • Re: #2: Vitter wasn’t charged with a felony, only a misdemeanor. I think.

    What does censuring do again? What makes it any more meaningful than a slap on the wrist?

    • Comments are closed.