Republican Hypocrisy in the Craig Affair
---
More than one Republican senator are calling for Larry Craig to resign:
The points are:
1. McCain's befuddled insistence that his is not "a moral stand" makes no sense. Of course it's a moral stand: "If you were moral, then you would resign." Would McCain feel better if we switched to the preferred radical social conservative term: "values"? "If you had traditional family values, then you would resign..."? (Hat tip to Hodak Value for this observation.)
2. Far more importantly: How is it intellectually consistent for sitting senators to call for another senator to resign for misconduct, but not to initiate proceedings to expel such a senator?
Incidentally, speaking of Senate votes that were doomed to fail, McCain voted to impeach Bill Clinton. If a strictly symbolic vote was appropriate to expel one pervert in high office, then why not another? The double-standard becomes even more laughable given that Craig actually pleaded guilty to a crime — a crime of moral turpitude. Clinton, though an admitted defiler of the Oval Office, had no comparable criminal record — he "only" committed a constitutional misdemeanor. So which lecher more deserved a formal, constitutional removal from office: the one with a criminal record or the one without?
(Make no mistake: I believed then and believe now that Clinton should have been convicted in the Senate and removed from office. But surely Craig's status is more deserving of constitutional removal from office than even Clinton's sickening acts.)
McCain, Coleman and their cabal should — forgive me — either foot-tap or get off the toilet. If Craig should go, then kick him out.
More thoughts at QuizLaw, InterstateQ, Box Turtle Bulletin, John Steele Gordon.
---
The audio of Craig's post-arrest interrogation available here.
Several Republicans called for Mr. Craig to resign, among them Senators John McCain of Arizona and Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan.McCain, Coleman et al are of course correct — Craig should resign. That's not the point.
"My position is that when you plead guilty to a crime, you shouldn't serve," Mr. McCain said in an interview on CNN. "That's not a moral stand. That's not holier-than-thou. It's just a factual situation."
Mr. Coleman issued a statement saying Mr. Craig had pleaded guilty to "a crime involving conduct unbecoming a senator," adding, "He should resign."
The points are:
1. McCain's befuddled insistence that his is not "a moral stand" makes no sense. Of course it's a moral stand: "If you were moral, then you would resign." Would McCain feel better if we switched to the preferred radical social conservative term: "values"? "If you had traditional family values, then you would resign..."? (Hat tip to Hodak Value for this observation.)
2. Far more importantly: How is it intellectually consistent for sitting senators to call for another senator to resign for misconduct, but not to initiate proceedings to expel such a senator?
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member. (Article I, Section 5)The indignant senators don't need to just "hope" that Craig "does the right thing." They can kick him out. Finding 67 senators who agree might be pragmatically impossible, but so were, e.g., the federal bigot amendment and the flag desecration amendment. But the (Republican-controlled) Senate went through the motions anyway — because it was (supposedly) the "moral" thing to do.
Incidentally, speaking of Senate votes that were doomed to fail, McCain voted to impeach Bill Clinton. If a strictly symbolic vote was appropriate to expel one pervert in high office, then why not another? The double-standard becomes even more laughable given that Craig actually pleaded guilty to a crime — a crime of moral turpitude. Clinton, though an admitted defiler of the Oval Office, had no comparable criminal record — he "only" committed a constitutional misdemeanor. So which lecher more deserved a formal, constitutional removal from office: the one with a criminal record or the one without?
(Make no mistake: I believed then and believe now that Clinton should have been convicted in the Senate and removed from office. But surely Craig's status is more deserving of constitutional removal from office than even Clinton's sickening acts.)
McCain, Coleman and their cabal should — forgive me — either foot-tap or get off the toilet. If Craig should go, then kick him out.
More thoughts at QuizLaw, InterstateQ, Box Turtle Bulletin, John Steele Gordon.
---
The audio of Craig's post-arrest interrogation available here.
Related Posts (on one page):
Posted by Kip on
30 August 2007
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.