GOP lawmakers call for Craig’s ouster

August 29, 2007

I guess yesterday’s speech from Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) wasn’t persuasive; the long knives are out.

Idaho Sen. Larry Craig’s political support eroded significantly Wednesday when three fellow Republicans in Congress called for his resignation and party leaders pushed him from senior committee posts in the Senate.

The White House expressed disappointment — and no support — for the 62-year-old lawmaker, who pleaded guilty earlier this month to a charge stemming from an undercover police operation in an airport men’s room.

Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan all said Craig should give up his seat in Congress.

Hoekstra was the first to make the call, issuing a statement two hours ago that said Craig’s “conduct throughout this matter has been inappropriate for a U.S. senator.”

Then Coleman said in a written statement, “Senator Craig pled guilty to a crime involving conduct unbecoming a senator.”

Not satisfied with a press release, McCain went on CNN to announce his belief that Craig “should resign” and explain why.

JOHN MCCAIN: I believe that he — that he pled guilty and he had the opportunity to plead innocent. So I think he should resign.

JOHN KING: And suppose he comes back to Washington and says, “I want to serve.”

MCCAIN: That’s — that will be a decision that he will make and most importantly, the people of the state of Idaho. But my opinion is that when you plead guilty to a crime, then you shouldn’t serve. And that’s not a moral stand. That’s not a holier than thou. It’s just a factual situation. I don’t try to judge people, but in this case, it’s clear that it was disgraceful.

As for the White House:

Larry Craig, meet Nouri al-Maliki: CNN is reporting that presidential spokesman Scott Stanzel issued a statement today in which he said that the White House is “disappointed” in what it’s hearing, and that it’s now up to Craig and the Senate’s leaders to decide what to do next.

And what about Craig? What’s he said today? Not too much, but a) legal experts seem to believe he’s going to have a very tough time reversing his guilty plea; and b) he’s already losing his grip on power in the Senate.

Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) has agreed to step down as the top Republican on the Veterans’ Affairs Committee and two other subcommittees pending an investigation of his June arrest, according to a statement from GOP leaders in the Senate. It’s the latest sign that congressional Republicans do not support their embattled colleague.

“Senator Larry Craig has agreed to comply with Leadership’s request that he temporarily step down as the top Republican on the Veteran Affairs Committee, Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, and Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,” reads a statement from GOP leadership. “This is not a decision we take lightly but we believe this is in the best interest of the Senate until this situation is resolved by the Ethics Committee.”

It looks like Craig may soon have to decide to spend more time with his family.

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), meanwhile, is extremely fortunate that Louisiana has a Democratic governor — and that he illegally paid a female prostitute instead of illegally paying a male prostitute.

so i assume, steve, you’ll be watching to see which of our tough-minded journalists asks the likes of mccain why craig should resign but not vitter?

  • It’s so simple, and it has nothing to do with Craig’s behavior v. Vitter’s.

    It has to do with Vitter still being overwhelmingly popular in his district, and Craig’s approval tanking and the GOP fearing that if Craig doesn’t resign and allow someone to be appointed to complete his term – who can then go on to successfully hold the seat for the GOP in 2008 – the GOP will lose another Senate seat to a Democrat.

    It’s nothing but politics.

  • Funny how these guys treat such a minor legal infraction as opposed to how they treat serious felonies when committed by other Republicans.

    Libby gets everything but a pardon (that’ll come later) Craig gets to walk the plank.

    I hope lots of closeted Republican politicians get nice little “Dear John” notes from some of their special friends, telling them that should consider retirement.

  • If they throw Craig overboard, hopefully he will decide against going quietly. Perhaps then he can ask, as Howard suggests, why him and not Vitter? Why is Scooter, whose crime was considerably more significant in terms of potential penalty, taken care of? And maybe he can even name some additional names! “Why, I know Republican Senators A, B, and C are gay and having unlawful sex with underage male pages under coercive circumstances. Everyone here knows it! So why am I the only one who gets run off? Because all Republicans care about is the majority?” How sweet would that be?

  • Yep… altho… I think:

    “They are going to flush this guy” works better than “long knives.”

  • “Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), meanwhile, is extremely fortunate that Louisiana has a Democratic governor — and that he illegally paid a female prostitute instead of illegally paying a male prostitute.”

    Vitter also has not pled guilty to a crime. Although we all know from his admission that he committed a crime. Very fine line the GOP is walking here. The party of values.

  • bubba, while the Rethugs joke about Clinton’s “it depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is,” the R’s clearly have cornered the market on hairsplitting. your pointabout the party of values is perfect for BushCo, who initially swore that anyone who leaked the name of a CIA agent would “no longer work here” and ended up defending Rove by claiming he didn’t do anything “criminal.” New motto of the GOP: ethics be damned. Or, “we didn’t plead to anything!”

  • The actual “crime” at issue here — disorderly conduct — is only a minor type of misdemeanor (if that; it could be merely an “infraction”). Beyond any question, it is less serious than the felonies that Libby was convicted of, and his “crime” was also probably less serious (to the justice system, at least) than some of his colleagues have probably pled guilty to somewhere along the line (e.g., DUI, DWI, etc.).

    So I don’t think McCain’s statement (“But my opinion is that when you plead guilty to a crime, then you shouldn’t serve. And that’s not a moral stand. That’s not a holier than thou. It’s just a factual situation”) can withstand any scrutiny.

    It’s not the “illegality” that’s bothering this crowd; it’s teh gay.

  • JOHN MCCAIN: I believe that he — that he pled guilty and he had the opportunity to plead innocent. So I think he should resign.

    IOW; his crime is not soliciting sex in a public toilet; that, as Tucker so kindly explained, is common enough not to raise any eyebrows. Craigs crime is not pleading innocent. *That* is what’s out of whack with the traditional Rep party values which he didn’t follow: claim innocence even if you’re guilty, and you’re OK.

  • The hypocrisy is so blatant. Why did the press not even question why Vitter was still allowed committee seats yet Craig was being asked to step down? Morality is as always secondary to party politics. If Craig were to be replaced by a democrat, we wouldn’t hear a word from McCain or any other Republican. I wish the press would just ask the question…just ask the question…just ask the question. If Craig were to be replaced by a Democrat or if Vitter were to be replaced by a republican? But nooo…they go right along with the party of hypocrisy.

    Letting Vitter’s behavior go unchallenged and punishing Craig makes the most accurate statement to describe the republican party…pure hypocrisy.

  • Vitter is a charming rake for frequenting bordellos – he’s the kind of guy that your dad wouldn’t mind you growing up to be. Craig is a creepy dirty old man for hanging around men’s bathrooms – he’s the kind of guy that your mother warned you about. Huge difference.

  • Anne (#2) nailed it again – it’s mostly politics.

    But remember what Edwin Edwards said – something like “don’t get caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.” I think the Republicans really are bothered a lot more by an incident involving ho-mo-sex-shuls than by Vitter’s kinky hetero exploits..

    But it’s really impossible to separate Vitter and Craig. They were both being unfaithful to their wives. They both admitted breaking the law. They both fail to practice the “family values” that they preach to the rest of us. Netroots, let’s put the pressure on here: “Why Craig and not Vitter?” It’s a long shot, but if we say it loud enough and often enough, we might be able to take Vitter out and pick up a seat for the Dems in the Senate.

    Cynical? Probably. It’s just politics. Karl would be proud.

  • Craig is also a liar, and that shouldn’t fly. He’d be entitled to ask for a little slack on the gay issue, if he hadn’t taken such a rabid anti-gay stand and advertised himself as Mr. Family Values, just like a lot of Republicans who have later been shown to have a secret craving for what they pretend to abhor. But pretending now that he did nothing wrong is simply a lie.

    An observant commentor on one of WaPo’s articles on the subject pointed out that when a man drops his pants in a bathroom stall, his “wide stance” is limited by the size of his waistband. Anyone sitting in a bathroom stall with his pants up and belted is waiting for something. There are lots of better places to read the paper. Who does he think he’s fooling with that innocent “wide stance” crap?

  • It’s all so clear now , republicans hated Clinton cause he got blowjobs from Women .

  • Now we’ve finally seen what it takes to politically ruin a conservative politician and turn his support dry, after seven years of events that seemed like they should have done the trick turned to puffs of smoke.

  • Since Craig made it his business to persecute gay people, I can’t help but wonder about the ReThugs that are calling for his ouster.

    Are they using this opportunity to reassure everyone (especially themselves) that they don’t like sex with men, not even a little bit?

    They all protest too much, methinks.

    • Comments are closed.