Steve Benen, upon learning that the new plan to deal with Craig is to censure both Craig and Vitter:
As far as I can tell, that last part, about censuring Vitter, is new. The GOP has struggled for weeks to explain why Craig’s conduct is, in Mitch McConnell’s word, “unforgivable,” while Vitter’s sex scandals are trivial and inconsequential. If the party is willing to censure both, that would be a pleasant surprise.
That wouldn’t be a pleasant surprise at all. It would be compounding stupid. The damage has been done to these men already, in Craig’s case he has paid his debt to society, and enough with people prying into their private lives (tawdry as they may be).
The reason liberals and libertarians and even moderate Republicans were making a stink out of the whole mess was the hypocrisy- the hypocrisy of these flawed men, conservative Republicans, acting like moralizing chumps by daytime and Deuce Bigelow by night, and the hypocrisy of the Republican party freaking out about Craig while cheering on Vitters.
The last damned thing we want to do is to encourage the GOP to become more a stronghold for moralizing blowhards, and pretending that censure for these men for private transgressions is a “pleasant surprise” is a horrible thing to do. It’s wrong politically, and it is just flat out distasteful on a personal level. Encouraging censure for these men is tantamount to telling Dobson and the blowhards “You are right,” when what we should be telling them to do is to STFU and do something Christian.
Asteele
I’m not sure it’s too unreasonable to censure senators for breaking the law.
Greg
Well….there is the fact that what they were doing is against the law – one could argue that criminal activity deserves censure… Yeah, there’s a certain schadenfreude, but there’s also the matter of criminality.
John Cole
It would be the first time anyone has ever been censured for what are essentially non-work related transgressions.
Only nine Senators in the history of the Senate have been censured, and I would argue that censure in this case is completely and totally absurd.
Considering how absurd the current Republican party is, it is almost a lock they will be censured.
TenguPhule
Damned if they do, Damned if they don’t.
Do we encourage these people to be sleazy assholes to stick it to the nuts or do we denounce them for being sleazy assholes and give the nuts a hand?
This is why I hate politics.
DougJ
I agree completely. And where’s the censure for Renzi, Doolittle, Lewis, Ted Stevens and other people who are under FBI investigations? I guess taking bribes is okay as long as it doesn’t take place in the men’s room.
whippoorwill
I believe Craig’s guilty plea was for a misdemeanor and doesn’t warrant censure. That is unless Benen wanted him censored for hypocracy. In that case every last Senator would also have to censure themselves and if they didn’t, they’d be even bigger hypocrites.
And Vitter has no such legal sanction to worry about. He could be censored for being an idiot, but the same principle above would apply. Besides, voters will have their chance to censure in a few years if he chooses to run again. It is Louisiana though, so they might throw him a parade instead.
Bob In Pacifica
Perhaps if more states follow Alabama’s lead and ban the sale of vibrators then I think that we can return to a land of decency.
Foobar
The GOP has to be seen as punishing Craig. If they don’t, the base will crucify them because it’s about that icky gayness. So that’s a given.
What’s a pleasant surprise in this context is the inclusion of Vitter. There’s no question the base sees this as a lesser crime, because it’s not about gay sex. Yet the Senate GOPers are apparently drawing an equivalence between the two, which, for them, is an act of enlightenment.
I doubt Benen meant anything other than that.
John Cole
This isn’t an act of enlightenment. They aren’t including Vitters because they see an equivalence, they are doing it because they have to- pretending otherwise is absurd.
It is an act of desperation, and establishing a standard in which politicians use the rarely used censure for craven political needs rather than to punish minor transgressions is not a pleasant surprise, nor is it good for this country. Once you set this standard, how long before the Republican minority is attempting to use censure to attack Democrats. I would guess a month.
Detlef
whippoorwill Says:
I believe Craig’s guilty plea was for a misdemeanor and doesn’t warrant censure.
No problem at all although I seem to remember that the Republican party does seem to have a problem with gay people?
That is unless Benen wanted him censored for hypocracy. In that case every last Senator would also have to censure themselves and if they didn’t, they’d be even bigger hypocrites.
Why should they?
In this situation, we´re talking about a person who advocated stronger laws against gay people while looking for gay sex at an airport. That seems to define the word “hypocrite”.
Given the facts, I have to reluctantly conclude that you´re a gay-loving, maybe even a pedophile (Foley) Republican.
And Vitter has no such legal sanction to worry about. He could be censored for being an idiot, but the same principle above would apply.
Did I already mention that your Republican family values were just a joke?
US Republicans are for family values and against gays.
Unless of course one of their party members look for gay sex or pay for a whore.
May I ask you about the difference between a blow job (back in the 1990s) and real sex now?
Just asking…
Elvis Elvisberg
John, I was going to disagree, on the grounds that these guys did in fact break the law, but your link in comments in the thread persuades me otherwise. Censure isn’t something to be thrown around willy-nilly.
Ted Stevens is far more deserving of censure.
Also, this is pretty awesome, from the link in the thread:
jrg
Which will not be nearly as effective if the Dems stand in opposition to it now.
Dems can refuse to vote, citing principle over partisan politics.
Dems can say Craig’s fate up to the voters in Idaho, not to the politicians in Washington, and Idaho should not turned into more of a circus (wink, wink).
Where is the downside for Dems if Brownback and Craig want to drag this out into a scorched earth pissing contest, particularly if it provides the Dems with the opportunity to call it out as dirty, intrusive, and irrelevant political theater (just like Schiavo)?
Tara the anti-social social worker
“Indisgressions”? Is that when you digres from discretion?
(Sorry. English major.)
Tara the anti-social social worker
And I manages to misspell “digress” while nitpicking neologisms. Serves me right, I guess.
whippoorwill
Dear Detlef,
Your response to my post is interesting, although mostly irrational. But I will a attempt to respond in a way you may understand.
So what? only an hypocritical idiot would want to censure a hypocritical idiot for being an hypocritical idiot when so many others are hypocritical idiots.
The only fact in evidence is that you are one stupid son-of-bitch for penning something as odious as this. I mean nobody, but nobody, gets by calling me a republican.
So kiss my ass buddy.
bohammer
Was Vitter wearing his diaper while they cheered him on? If yes Censor If not Never mind!
Chuck Butcher
John you’ve made a post worthy of a Democrat, and one they’ve been repeatedly crucified for, but you are at least mostly right. In Craig’s case I wonder what law was actually violated that would not be covered under freedom of expression? He was not charged with peeping or assault, he apparently was charged originally for expressing a desire for sex, and money was not mentioned. A whole lot of us are going to be in real trouble if a demonstration of sexual interest is legally dependent on time and place (outside employment). Since I’m married, the only ‘victim’ of my advances is tied to me by a license, but an expression of interest is not the government’s business nor is this the Senate’s business. Their hypocrisy makes it mine, and mine to publish, but absent the hypocisy it would not be my place to involve myself in a person’s private life.
rachel
Amen. The most fitting punishment for Craig’s and Vitter’s peccadilloes is to be laughingstocks until they are voted out of office (if that is the will of the people of Idaho and Louisiana) or resign.
bago
Just working to help bring about the apocalypse like any true believer should.
jake
The GOP has trained its following to expect nothing less than the Spanish Inquisition when someone is naughty but all they’ll get is some strange thing called a censure. Will they faithful be satisfied? Or will they view it as yet more proof that no one takes family values seriously, boo hoo hoo, better vote for whoever Dobson digs up? My guess is most will go with Door Number One: IOKAYR!
It is? I say that if the GOP still thinks moralizing and blow harding is the way to go, then fuck the GOP.
Incertus (Brian)
The last damned thing we want to do is to encourage the GOP to become more a stronghold for moralizing blowhards,
It may be the last thing you want to do, John, seeing as it’s the party that left you behind and you no doubt would like to return to it one day. As for me, I’m cool with it, because the more they become moralizing blowhards, the more marginalized they get. They can become the party of Johnathan Edwards’s Angry God and no one else as far as I’m concerned.
rachel
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
TenguPhule
I would guess they’ve already tried.
ATS
it is the “Pharisee at the front of the temple” quality that renders Craig (and Vitter) so odious.
These are people who would like to run all your lives if they could, and they can’t even control themselves.
chopper
i agree, congressional censure is too much for the crimes we’re dealing with here.
Brachiator
Part of the problem here is that Craig is furiously trying to get a refund on his debt to society. The other problem is that by definition, seeking sex in a public restroom, is not simply a matter of one’s private life. And people like Vitter and his sympathizers cannot claim that their private lives do not matter when they assert that a squeaky clean family life is part of what uniquely qualifies them for public office over their Democratic Party rivals.
There is also the hypocrisy of wanting to replace a Republican with another Republican in Craig’s case, while seeking to protect a Republican spot in Vitter’s case, and the crafting of lame rationales for what is politics as usual.
But there is also more here than just the Republicans acting like “moralizing chumps.” The official GOP position, and a view held by much of their base, is that homosexuality is a sin, unnatural deviancy, a curable psychological disorder, or a lifestyle that must never be chosen because it threatens society, marriage, the family, children, or [insert your own irrational fear-based justification here]. So you cannot have any openly gay GOP politicians, and the party must magnify its disapproval of any gay behavior in order to satisfy the fantasies of its base (as Craig must continue to reiterate the sad claim that he is not gay and has never been gay).
While I agree with this in part, and think that the Democrats might be best off ignoring the whole thing and leaving it to Republicans to play at cleaning house, ultimately I fear that what the Democrats do won’t much matter. If they play along, GOP windbags will claim that this “proves” the correctness of GOP family values. If the Democrats do not go along, they will be castigated as the party of deviancy.
chopper
i’m still not sure. part of me wants to see the GOP become more of a stronghold for moralizing blowhards, to the point that more moderate members split off and leave the christianists to their 25% or so.
at least then we’d be dealing with a republican party that has its head screwed on tight while the nutbags can stand in the corner and yell and scream about teh gays all they want.
i’d rather deal with the christian right as its own entity instead of as a parasite that burrowed into the brain of the GOP and controls its every move.
Andrew
I think that Craig and Vitter they should be banned from the Capitol men’s bathroom and whore house, respectively.
Chuck Butcher
I’m so far left of Larry Craig that I might actually bump into him coming from the other direction (see 2nd A), but that has not one thing to do with my insistance that a viable opposition party is of the utmost national importance. If you disagree, check the record 6yrs previous to ’06 and what happened to the Democrats pre-Newt’s BS Contract.
You bet, if John gets his Party back, he and I will butt heads, fairly seriously, but we’d also be able to sit down over drinks (coffee for me) and have a friendly and lively discussion. And both be better for it. Wishing for essentially the destruction of the Republican Party is bad thinking. I have made some attempts to help some individuals trying to reform that mess, not because I support their political ideology, but because I support reasoned debate.
jake
I hope you aren’t walking backwards when you do. Har!
Yep, but whether or not the GOP is that party is up to the GOP, and only the GOP.
If the Republicans want to get their act together and (here’s a radical notion) do their damn jobs, great. If they want to continue on their current course and ultimately experience total meltdown that’s great too. Either a viable party will take its place, or John will get his party back because the few survivors will have learned an important lesson about doing their damn jobs and not acting like spoiled kids one minute and pearl clutching elderly aunts the next.
There’s nothing anyone outside of the Republican leadership can do right now except watch.
Popcorn?