Craig vs Vitter

The fact that the sex scandals involving Republican Sens. Larry Craig (gay) and David Vitter (not gay) are being treated very differently has not gone unnoticed by the GOP establishment. The NYT’s Carl Hulse quoted some anonymous Republican insiders who offered an explanation.

Despite such unusual steps against [Craig], Republicans took no punitive action against Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, after his acknowledgment this summer of involvement with an escort service that the police described as a prostitution front.

Party officials said Mr. Vitter’s case was different in that he faced no criminal charges and was not in the Senate but was serving in the House at the time.

It’s a pretty weak case, which Greg Sargent took apart this morning.

Of course, Craig’s resignation will probably shift the conversation in a new direction, but in a sense, the point is even more salient now: Vitter hasn’t faced any adverse consequences at all, and the GOP establishment is content to pretend he didn’t talk to the DC Madam while casting votes on the Hill. Even some conservatives, such as Ed Morrissey, are waiting for a coherent explanation:

[Vitter] didn’t plead guilty in court, but unlike Craig, he openly admits he broke the law and solicited prostitutes. Others serving in Congress at the moment have pleaded guilty to misdemeanors of more import than disorderly conduct without being forced to resign. If morality and credibility are at issue, why isn’t Vitter being held to that standard?

We know the answer, but it’s apparently not a response the Republican establishment is anxious to acknowledge.

Party officials said Mr. Vitter’s case was different in that he faced no criminal charges and was not in the Senate but was serving in the House at the time.

Yep, that’s the ticket! In the Senate’s Gentlemen’s Club, there’s a certain sense of noblesse oblige; in the House… All that hoi-polloi… No ethics to speak of, so let’s not talk of ethics breeches.

  • So, if you’re a Family Values Repub, it’s okay to cheat on your wife with whores, spend taxpayer’s money on whores, and do it all while in office, but if you do it in a gay way, you’re shaming your party and you’re out.

    This multi-level hypocrisy has got to be hammered on constantly by Dems. Republicans DO NOT represent any morals or family values that decent people would recognize.

  • There is no possible justification for treating Craig and Vitter differently. Distinctions between them are nothing but sophistry.

    If we keep this issue stirred up, there is no way that Vitter can stay in office. And Louisiana has a Democratic governor!

  • Okie, @3

    We can stir the issue until we’re blue in the face as well as in politics and it won’t make any difference at all. It wasn’t us who’d hounded Craig out of office so efficiently; it was his own party.

    *Because* Louisiana has a Dem Givernor and Idaho does not…

  • Whenever you see a Republican standing on the moral high ground, it is only because the political floodwaters are threatening to drown them, and it’s all they have.

  • “(He) was not in the Senate but was serving in the House at the time.”

    Bill Clinton wasn’t serving in the Senate either and he caught a load of hell for a sexual relationship that didn’t even involved an exchange of cash for services like Vitter’s.

    Why the media isn’t swiping all over the place to take a stick to this piñata is proof they are part of the great right wing noise machine.

  • It’s probably a combination of the fact that Vitter would be replaced by a Democrat if he resigned whereas Craig would be replaced by a Republican, and the issue of “family values” that the GOP likes to peddle. Either way it’s hypocritical, but they’ll come up with something to justify it, like the weak example you gave. Glad to see another blogger pointing it out.

  • But remember, Larry Flynt claims that he is sitting on a number of important names… Vitter probably has company in the Senate, and I am sure that none of them wants to be the one casting stones at him, only to have their name put in lights…

  • Comments are closed.