30 August 2007

Moral Consistency, Conservative style

It's been a tough summer for elected republicans in public restrooms. I won't bother to comment any further on Republican family-values anti-gay Senator Larry Craig's guilty plea to lewd behavior in an airport bathroom, because, really, what needs to be said about it? It's tragic and yet at the same time so very very awesome. Tragically awesome. My cup runneth over wth schadenfreude. This is even better than when Republican family-values Senator David Vitter publicly admitted the repeated use of prostitutes.

Which brings us to an interesting contrast. On the surface, the cases are similar: both Senators admitted to crimes of a sexual nature, both reek of hypocrisy, but there is one key difference. Senator Craig has been stripped of his committee positions and is under increasing pressure from the party leadership and prominent republicans to resign from the Senate. Whereas Vitter, whose confirmed transgressions go a lot further than Craigs's, not only retained his seniority and positions, but was actually defended by his senate colleagues and conservative pundits -- the same ones who are now demanding Craig's resignation.

What gives? Is it because there's something more creepy about getting an anonymous blowjob than paying someone to dress you up in diapers? Is it because Craig did it with men, but Vitter with women? Or is it a simple political calculation:
If Craig resigns, his replacement will be appointed by a Republican governor. If Vitter were to resign, his replacement would be appointed by a Democratic governor.

Ah, gotta love the modern GOP.

5 comments:

litbrit said...

Without a doubt, it's pure political calculation. Rove's cell phone still works, both for incoming and outgoing calls--you can count on it.

Nurse K said...

Eh, at least Craig didn't blow up an aspirin factory when he got caught with his pants down.

Matt Dick said...

Come on, your stance is that corruption is a Republican problem? William Jefferson was defended by Democrats on the basis of *separation of powers* for goodness' sake. Craig's a hypocrite for sure, but the Republicans are no worse than the Democrats about this garbage.

echeo

shadowfax said...

Matt,

I'm not sure what's more irritating: that you missed my point, the bogus moral relativism, or the way you misrepresent the facts on Jefferson.

A) I was not saying that all republicans are hypocritical closeted perverts skulking about engaging furtively in their deviant sex acts. That's been said aplenty and I don't need to add to the chorus on that. The point is how differently the conservatives treated their two perverts. they defended the one who still had political value and hung out to dry the one who did not.

Or, if you prefer this interpretation: they defended the straight one, and cut off the gay one. Either way, interesting double standard, don't you think?

B) Oooh, Democrats had one corrupt congressman, so both parties are equally corrupt and any criticism of the republican is just partisan sniping. Bullshit. The litany of republicans in either sex scandals (foley, craig, vitter, murphy, haggard, privette, allen) or financial scandals (ney cunningham, foley, delay, stevens, young) is really astonishing. And the democrats had . . . one guy? So they're the same? Really?

c) The Dems defended jefferson. Not exactly. Especially once he was found with $70K in his freezer, he was cut loose. Yes, there were complaints about the FBI raid on congressional offices, but in case you weren't paying attention, the objections were BIPARTISAN. And do not forget that the democratic party actually endorsed a rival to jefferson in the general election. hardly defending him.

Matt Dick said...

I'll certainly concede that I missed the point on your point A. You hammered the republican thing so heartily that missed the point that you meant only to show that these two guys were both republicans who received different treatment.

on B, I don't really want to get into a count of R vs. D indiscretions in congress, it will just make me mad at both sides. Are you really arguing that I can only get one corrupt Democrat? Please tell me if you are, because as annoying as it will be, I'll go diving into the past few years and find a dozen.

ksnuhqz