Craig vs. Vitter — redux

September 2, 2007

It looks like the Republicans have settled on a talking point.

A GOP leader Sunday denied a double standard in pushing Sen. Larry Craig to resign after a sex sting guilty plea, while remaining silent over GOP Sen. David Vitter’s involvement with an escort service.

A senior Democrat said a double standard by Republican leaders is exactly what occurred.

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., the Senate Republican campaign chairman, said Craig “admitted guilt. That is a big difference between being accused of something and actually admitting guilt.”

While Ensign was repeating the line on ABC, Ed Gillespie, President Bush’s counselor and a former chairman of the Republican Party, was on Fox News making the same argument. “The fact is that Sen. Craig pled guilty to a crime, and therefore was convicted of a crime,” Gillespie said. “Sen. Vitter has not been charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one. So there’s a pretty big distinction here.”

This may not be wisest strategy. For one thing, confronted with evidence that he made use of a prostitution service, Vitter conceded immediately that he’d “sinned.” I’m not an expert in the subject, but as I understand it, paying for sex is a crime, and Vitter publicly conceded that he’d violated this law. He would have been subject to criminal charges, but the statute of limitations ran out. For the GOP, that makes the “pretty big distinction” fairly small — Craig pleaded guilty to a recent crime, Vitter acknowledged guilt of a less recent crime.

Moreover, the whole argument seems premised on strained legalisms. Remember when the president urged Republicans to hold themselves to the highest moral standard? “We must always ask ourselves not only what is legal, but what is right,” Bush said in 2001. “There is no goal of government worth accomplishing if it cannot be accomplished with integrity.”

So much for that idea.

The real irony of this distinction — which really turns on when the crime occurred, now or earlier — is that it is exactly the distinction Clinton was making when he asked the deposing attorney what “the definition of ‘is’ is.” Clinton was trying to determine if the question about he and Lewinsky was limited to present time or included historical periods. The Right mocked his question relentlessly.

They should expect nothing but the same in return; I only hope the Dems have the spine to give them what they so richly deserve.

Craig: Admitted guilt while denying the underlying assertions.
Vitter: Avoided “guilt” by waiting past liitations period but admits underlying assertions.

Which is worse?

But really, this outcome is fine for the Dems. Every day the Rethugs are stuck in the news arguing the distinction reminds voters of both Craig and Vitter.

Welcome to Culture of Corruption Election, The Sequel: Bigger, Badder, More Hypocritical!

  • Craig pleaded guilty to a recent crime, Vitter acknowledged guilt of a less recent crime. — CB

    From which we are to decuce that Vitter has now settled down and sins no more? Even though it’s as lonlely in DC as it had been in those days (his excuse for misbehavin’)?

    A Wandering Wand is a Wandering Wand, wherever and whenever it finds a place to roost.

  • If the media loves a good sex scandal, then where is all the coverage? Where is the ‘Does the Republican Party have a sex problem?’ story?

  • Not that I’ve had a particularly scandalous life- pretty average- but it makes you feel better about yourself, hearing about all these people. It’s like you can’t be that bad compared to all these sleazeballs.

  • Let’s suppose that the Vitter “confession” would get some traction – he confessed to the sin of extramarital sex – cheating on his wife, violating his marriage vows…now, where does it lead if there is some agreement or acknowledgment that that is not conduct befitting of a representative of the Republican Party, even if it was years ago, and even if his wife has forgiven him?

    Well. some might see it leading right to more than one of the Republican presidential contenders, don’t you think? And I’m not sure there are any good ways to address the question of whether there was adultery.

    Food for thought.

  • I think the Republicans are being consistent and fair.

    Craig had to go and Vitter barely deserves a slap on the wrist.

    Haven’t you heard of “don’t ask, don’t tell’?

    There is nothing wrong with straight sex. There is nothing really wrong with nearly raping a woman. Military people get away with it far too often.

    But it doesn’t even matter if the gay sex is consentual or legal. Republicans shouldn’t do it. They are just following the military code of justice.

  • Senator Craig committed the only unforgivable sin in Washington. He rendered his re-election unlikely.

    Vitter’s electoral future is still in doubt, so he stays.

    It’s a profound mistake to think there is any morality other than the ability to get elected involved, as far as the GOP leadership is concerned.

    And the moral calculus would be little different for the Democratic Party leadership, I’m afraid.

  • “It’s a profound mistake to think there is any morality other than the ability to get elected involved, as far as the GOP leadership is concerned.”

    Well, the Democrats aren’t that far behind, though they’ve been keeping their noses clean lately for the most part.

  • Remember when the president urged Republicans to hold themselves to the highest moral standard? “We must always ask ourselves not only what is legal, but what is right,” Bush said in 2001. “There is no goal of government worth accomplishing if it cannot be accomplished with integrity.”

    LMAO!

  • It seems like only yesterday that the Republicans were braying that moral relativism would rot our minds and lead to all sorts of heavy petting, cats living with dogs, two-headed calves, etc.

    Now they’ve settled for moral legalism. That must be a huge relief to Rudy Giuliani although the slogan, “We’re the party of family values or at least not getting caught” seems a bit cumbersome.

  • Remember when the president urged Republicans to hold themselves to the highest moral standard? “We must always ask ourselves not only what is legal, but what is right,” Bush said in 2001.

    Republicans are always right, so what is all the fuss about?

  • Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., the Senate Republican campaign chairman, said Craig “admitted guilt. That is a big difference between being accused of something and actually admitting guilt.”

    “Diaper David” Vitter also admitted guilt – that he violated laws against prostitution in at least two jurisdictions. Craig only admitted that he was guilty of disorderly conduct – foot-tapping and finger wiggling. How bad is that? He isn’t gay, you know!

    This approach isn’t going to work. Only the most rabid Republican partisan (or the most confirmed homophobe) will think that Ensign’s argument makes any sense.

    This is an impossible situation for the Republicans, but perhaps Karl Rove could have come up with some better talking points than this if he was still on the job. Everyone will just laugh at Ensign.

    This issue has legs. Vitter should be getting his suitcases out of the attic.

  • It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. This story is all over the place, and it’s really making a lot of people look bad. I wonder if anybody in the GOP will respond to all the buzz.

  • I agree that the difference seems to be gay vs. straight, though from the perspective of “family values”, adultery as well as homosexual activity is also on their list of verboten acts. There are so many elements in both Vitter’s and Craig’s transgressions that the right can keep everybody arguing forever just by continuing to change the goalposts.

  • One. William Jefferson of LA.

    Why should this guy ever admit guilt. By the Wingnut standard, only admiting guilt (or pleading guilty) is wrong. Accusations and indictments mean nothing. Yet still the Republican’ts call for his resignation.

    Two. Scotter Libby.

    This guy was convicted by a jury of his peers. Is that good enough for the Republican’ts? Nope. He’s still worthy of a pardon (and gets a commutation).

    Three. Japanese Justice.

    The Japanese justice system is a little different from ours. Their police don’t focus on getting evidence to get a conviction. They just get confessions. And they do it rather well. Note that the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) the U.S. Military has with Japan does not let the Japanese have custedy of a U.S. Serviceman until they have hard evidence against him. Tells you a lot about how much faith we have in Japanese interrogations. But if Republican’ts have their way, confessions are going to be the only grounds for conviction in this country. And how soon after that will “enhanced interrogation techniques” be applied to suspected common criminals?

    It’s pretty amazing how much the Senate Republican’ts are denying double standards in the Vitter/Craig situation.

    What amazes me more is Craig’s self-serving hypocrisy. The man hates the idea of Homosexuals leading healthy, accepted lives because HE won’t get any fun in a airport mensroom. The man’s right, he’s not Gay. He’s a sick twisted nasty little pervert who thinks because he’s a U.S. Senator the rules he’d apply to others don’t apply to him.

  • Pingback: Tumblepost: Political Round-Up « Semidi

  • Vitter’s still in because his Democratic governor would appoint a Democrat to replace him. His re-electability is a joke….many women would not vote for him because of his infidelity – with not just another, probably younger, woman, but a prostitute, and the rest of the voters will want to get rid of him if only to avoid the ichy mental picture of the guy in diapers!
    Watch if other Senators are outed as expected…those from states with Republican governors will be thrown out quickly; those from blue run states will be given a pass. I’m just waiting to see what excuse they’ll come up with for next one!

  • Pingback: sunsetchaser » Blog Archive » they dig it themselves | Julia Rietmulder-Stone’s blog | ramblings about poetry, politics, & Harrisburg

    • Comments are closed.