Republicans defend hypocrisy on Craig

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.”

“David Vitter never did that. Larry Craig did,” continued Ensign on ABC’s “This Week” program.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, expressed a contrary view on “Fox News Sunday.”

“One, I say there’s a double standard,” said Leahy. “Secondly, I don’t think they’ll ask him (Vitter) to resign because, of course, he’d be replaced by a Democrat. It’s easier to ask Larry Craig to resign because he’d be replaced by a Republican.”

Idaho has a Republican governor who will appoint a successor to Craig. Louisiana’s governor is a Democrat.

Craig of Idaho pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in a men’s restroom and announced Saturday he will leave the Senate at the end of the month. He was caught in a sex sting at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport in June and, despite his guilty plea, now insists he did nothing wrong.

Vitter of Louisiana has not been charged with a crime although he acknowledged his Washington telephone number was among those called several years ago by an escort service.

Prosecutors say the escort service was a prostitution ring and have accused the woman who headed it of racketeering.

Craig’s conduct was “embarrassing not only to himself and his family but to the United States Senate,” said Ensign. Before Craig’s announcement, Ensign had strongly suggested that he resign.

Another Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, said on “Fox News Sunday” that Craig should seek to vindicate himself.

“I’d like to see Larry Craig seek to withdraw the guilty plea, and fight the case,” said Specter, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I’d like to see him fight the case because I think he could be vindicated.”

Regardless of any legal developments in Craig’s case, Republicans clearly would frown on Craig changing his mind about quitting the Senate Sept. 30 — and leaving the party with a festering corruption issue.

Ed Gillespie, President Bush’s counselor and a former chairman of the Republican Party, acknowledged that ethical scandals have hurt the GOP. He predicted that by 2008, the party “will not have candidates who have any kind of ethical considerations that will be a concern to the voters.”

Gillespie agreed with Ensign that Craig’s guilty plea made his case different from that of Vitter.

“The fact is that Sen. Craig pled guilty to a crime, and therefore was convicted of a crime. Sen. Vitter has not been charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one. So there’s a pretty big distinction here,” Gillespie said on “Fox.”

Despite Craig’s decision to leave the Senate, Democratic Senate campaign chief Charles Schumer, of New York, sought to keep the corruption issue alive. He accused Republicans of failing to support ethics reform when they were in the majority.

“What the American people are looking for is not a blame game, but who is trying to clean it up,” Schumer said on “This Week.” “For six years, there was no ethics reform.”

The New York senator defended Democratic actions in a new fundraising scandal. A party fundraiser, Norman Hsu, had been a fugitive since failing to appear for a 1992 sentencing.

Hsu, who had pleaded no contest in 1991 to grand theft, turned himself in Friday in California. He raised money for Democratic presidential contenders Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“We’ve already given money back,” Schumer said. “Nobody knew he was a fugitive. When we found out something is wrong, we returned the money.”

3 Responses to "Republicans defend hypocrisy on Craig"

  1. Nogood  September 3, 2007 at 5:51 am

    Sex between two consenting adults, a crime? I don’t see it! I am a straight male, a Democrat, and one who believes that if two adults consent to having sex, no matter if one or the another does the “approach” or if one agrees to pay for the services of the other, then where in the hell is the “crime”?????

  2. keith  September 3, 2007 at 11:58 am

    Nogood…. the “crime” in this case is that we now have FAR too many so-called “police” officers (town and city police, country sheriffs, state police, state highway patrol, airport police, railroad police, park and national forest police, fish and game police, military police, FBI, etc.) chasing FAR too many innocent citizens on highly questionable charges based on patently unconstitutional laws.

    What’s REALLY scary is that all those grossly and needlessly invasive (and therefore unconstitutional) laws have been enacted by FAR too many “busybody” lawmakers, all of whom firmly believe they are actually succeeding in “securing” us from some amorphous “something”.

    These, my friends, are the real “crimes” that are now being committed against us by an ever more intrusive, pervasive and Gestapo-like “State”.

    Yet, we are just as guilty in all this because WE keep electing (and then re-electing!) these exact same “busybodies” (and, in some cases, even cheer them on!) while they continue to eat away at our basic freedoms…all because we want THEM to help US “feel secure”.

    As Benjamin Franklin…one of those very wise men who signed BOTH our Declaration of Independence AND our Constitution…once said, “The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve…nor will he ever receive…either.

  3. Nogood  September 3, 2007 at 6:50 am

    Allow me to add this note: Senator Craig’s hypocrisy is disgusting, I do not defend this, but as in Bill Clinton’s case, I do not see the “crime”.

    If I go out and “hit” on my good looking neighbor, where is the “crime”. If she rejects or accepts, that is a matter between two consenting adults, period! It aint no damn business of the “police”, they should be involved in more serious business.

Comments are closed.