Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, September 07, 2007
Mike Gallagher :: Townhall.com Columnist
Vitter is no different than Craig
by Mike Gallagher
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


As a Republican, it would be somewhat satisfying to believe that hypocrisy in politics is practiced exclusively by Democrats. Most of us conservative pundits spend plenty of time in print and on-air showcasing example after example of hypocritical Democrats and their latest antics.

Sadly, the sordid tale of Sen. Larry Craig is a grim reminder that there’s no shortage of Republican hypocrisy, either.

In moral terms, it’s impossible to distinguish between the scandals of Larry Craig and Sen. David Vitter, a Republican from Louisiana. As everyone knows by now, Sen. Craig’s downfall was the alleged game of footsy he played with an undercover police officer in a men’s restroom.

But Sen. Vitter’s transgressions are equally immoral, totally illegal, and entirely reprehensible. After his phone number appeared in the phone records of the infamous “D.C. Madam”, a high-priced prostitution ring, Vitter professed regret, shame, and remorse and returned to the well of the Senate to a thunderous ovation.

What am I missing here?

Vitter’s supporters claim that his case is different from Craig’s for a variety of reasons. He admitted what he did, they reason. He accepted responsibility for his actions.

So does that mean if Sen. Larry Craig had admitted having happy feet in a filthy bathroom and said he was sorry, that his colleagues would have given him a standing ovation and he’d be allowed to keep his job?

Not likely.

Forget trying to make comparisons between homosexual and heterosexual scandals. While plenty of people find trying to pick up another man in a bathroom a lot worse than paying for sex from a high-priced hooker, what should matter to the GOP is doing the right thing.

Instead of trying to rank either scandal on some kind of David Letterman-type Top Ten list, I’ve got to believe that in our hearts, we know that both men did wrong. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Mike Gallagher is a nationally syndicated radio host, Fox News Channel contributor and guest host and author of Surrounded by Idiots: Fighting Liberal Lunacy in America.

Be the first to read Mike Gallagher's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

So sorry...
Well, I was thrilled to find your column, Mike, because I can't believe how the Republican Party has parsed the difference in these two situations. But I was greatly saddened by the poor justifications of most of those who have commented on your post.

Vitter didn't have to plead guilty to a crime because we don't treat adultery as a crime, anymore. So to say that it's OK for him to stay because he didn't plead guilty is ridiculous. And even if one says that he didn't "plead guilty" to adultery, and so therefore should not be penalized, he/she misses the point entirely. Craig didn't have sex, and yet is being castigated as though he and the cop were doing it on the airport tarmac. Vitter says he didn't have sex, but like Craig's appearance in the bathroom, I doubt Vitter's phone number would have been on the prostitute's phone if he had not planned a tryst.

Why don't we call this duck a duck? Both men were at least planning to cheat on their wives, and based on prior reports, both probably have. Whether they admit it publicly or not, or whether their wives continue to accept them, is not material; they have championed family rights publicly, and have probably not lived out those rights privately.

Either both should leave, or both should be censured by the party.

Derek Leaberry is wrong
You really should read your bible, Derek. Adultery is in the top ten, sodomy isn't.

Sodomy is part of such mosaic laws, for example as "thou shalt not be a whoremonger".
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.