The double standards brought out by Craig's situation (ethics, CNN, FBI)

[TXboomerang]

I know that this article will irritate quiet a few people here, and I don't necessarily agree with it to a T, but there are plenty of valid points, and the most obvious one I will point out:

toledoblade.com -- News media miss real story

Every Republican tainted by scandal in 2006 either resigned his office or was defeated for re-election. Mr. Mollohan and Rep. William "Cold Cash" Jefferson (D., La.), in whose freezer the FBI found $90,000 of alleged bribe money, were re-elected by comfortable margins.

[UnderTheLiveOaks]

Voters are free to vote for whomever they choose. I think the issue with guys like Craig and Ted Haggard and Mark Foley and all the rest is the same issue folks are yelling about on the threads about "environmentalists" with huge houses and private jets: You can't go around blasting others for something you are guilty of yourself. Dems don't generally position themselves as the moral authority of the nation. Therefore, while reelecting a crook might be dumb, it doesn't reek of hypocrisy in the same way the Craig scandal does.

[bily4]

Wow, with that level of professional journalism I can see how this guy made it all the way up to the Toldeo Blade.

[TriMT7]

Originally Posted by toledoblade

Every Republican tainted by scandal in 2006 either resigned his office or was defeated for re-election.

But not every Republican tainted by scandal in 2007 has resigned his office. Mark Vitter, anyone (DC Madam customer)? FL State Representative Bob Allen, anyone (cruising for gay sex in a public park)? And now, even Senator Craig hasn't "resigned" officially.

Originally Posted by toledoblade

Rep. William "Cold Cash" Jefferson (D., La.), in whose freezer the FBI found $90,000 of alleged bribe money,

Point being? Look at his constituency. It's THEIR problem to get rid of him. It's the same type of loyal constituency that will re-elect a coke head to be mayor of DC. (or President). Was Jefferson even up for re-election in 2006?

[MooksterL1]

I would imagine it's the hypocritical nature of running on a platform of traditional values while holding up this type of behavior as deviant that has most of us thinking resignation is the logical solution here, as opposed to any great conspiratorial free pass for (insert current scandal name here) given to the democrats. If you are going to talk the talk, then by all means walk the walk. What a bonehead (pun intended of course)!

[TXboomerang]

Originally Posted by TriMT7

But not every Republican tainted by scandal in 2007 has resigned his office. Mark Vitter, anyone (DC Madam customer)? FL State Representative Bob Allen, anyone (cruising for gay sex in a public park)? And now, even Senator Craig hasn't "resigned" officially.

Wait til re-election time comes up for Bob Allen. As for Vitter, what he did was prior to coming to his current office, and it was not news to his wife whom he reconciled with. And get this: HE ADMITTED OPENLY AND WITHOUT EXCUSE OR HESITATION HIS WRONGDOING. And he still will have a hard time getting re-elected, although his lack of denial or sidestepping the issue will help him a lot. What was funny was that when Vitter was first brought up, I kept hearing the lib pundits going nuts that the madam list has just been looked into and that certainly there would be a lot more dirty GOP laundry coming. In fact, there were segments on CNN and also in newspapers speculating how many more issues would come up. I'm still waiting.....

Originally Posted by TriMT7

Point being? Look at his constituency. It's THEIR problem to get rid of him. It's the same type of loyal constituency that will re-elect a coke head to be mayor of DC. (or President). Was Jefferson even up for re-election in 2006?

Second Ballot, December 9, 2006
Bill Jefferson Democratic 35,153 (57%) Elected
Karen Carter Democratic 27,011 (43%) Defeated

They even elected him over another democrat, so it wasn't about sticking to party lines.

[citigirl]

Craig will lose his seat as he should. His hypocrisy is with his family and his voters, not because he voted against gay issues. Who would know better the evils of excessive alcohol then an alcoholic? Craig cast his votes against gay issues with personal knowledge.

The double standard is clear. If someone engages in homosexual behavior they need to be a Democrat where they are more likely to be re-elected if not applauded.

[UnderTheLiveOaks]

Cruising for anonymous sex in a men's room is not a "gay issue". It has nothing to do with gay marriage or gay relationships or anything else dealing with real gay couples. Not all gay people are found in the stalls of airports.

[TriMT7]

Originally Posted by tnbound2day

They even elected him over another democrat, so it wasn't about sticking to party lines.

Exactly. So what is the article author's point? OBVIOUSLY this man has a very personal constituency that supports him good or bad.


As for "Mollohan":

As the top Democrat on the House Standards of Official Conduct Committee, Mollohan blocked Republican leaders from weakening ethics rules in 2005. He also prevented the panel’s new chairman from installing his own staffer to the nonpartisan staff director position.

In its April 7 press release, NLPC said it began looking into Mollohan’s finances in May 2005. That was immediately after Mollohan prevailed in the ethics rules fight, which an April 28, 2005, New York Times article described as “a significant political embarrassment for a [Republican] majority accustomed to winning almost all of its fights.”

[UB50]

I'm surprised that reporter didn't mention Barney Frank in that opinion piece.