Craig is a cheapskate and wanted a freebie and Vitter ponied up for a good time.  That's so much more respectable. 

So if Larry Craig had only paid for a male escort, he'd be fine, right?  *snark*

David Vitter represents Louisiana, a state that has a Democratic Governor who would appoint a Democrat

Larry Craig represents Idaho, where the Republican Governor will appoint another Republican

Exactly.

multiple times with multiple prostitutes in Louisiana and DC. Numerous reports suggest that he had a fetish for wearing a diaper during sex with his hired ladies of the night. We probably don't want to know why.

The GOP leadership appears to feal that the "Base" is much more upset about Senator Craig's playing a little footsie with a policeman in a public bathroom than about Senator Vitter's play-for-pay kinky sex in hotel rooms.

After all, it is the free market principle at work in Vitter's case: straight cash for services rendered. It's good for the hotel industry, too.

Craig probably expected sex for free in a public place--an attitude very inimical to business.

Vitter resigns, Democrat Kathleen Blanco appoints the replacement... a Democrat.  Democratic Gain in the Senate.

Craig resigns, Republican C.L. "Butch" Otter appoints the replacement... a Republican.  No change in the Senate.

Notice the difference? ;)

gay angle?  I find that hard to believe, given how quickly Sen. Craig's old "friends" like John McCain and Mitt Romney threw him under the bus.

Its incredible that we are gonna debate "differences" bewtween these guys. There are as many offenses on both sides of the aisle and the fact is whatever the circumstances all of these people have compromised the trust that the electorate had placed with them. I personally am thankful of the resignations because it is only fitting once you compromise the trust given you one should resign regardless of party. There is a perpetual double standard that is sickening. It matters little in a court of law the party of which one is aligned  but it sure does in public opinion apparently.

"There are as many offenses on both sides of the aisle."

Seems to me the sex and corruption scandals in recent years have been overwhelmingly on the Republican side of the aisle. Not even close, but nice try attempting to make it bipartisan.

The Democrats may push for equal opportunity for women and minorities, but they practice what they preach in this regard.  Maybe they haven't achieved the ideal, but you definitely find a lot more diversity within the Democratic party. 

On the other hand, if a person makes heterosexual monogamus relationships a platform issue and then goes out and hires prostitutes; hits on underage congressional pages; or attempts to engage in homosexual escapades in public restrooms -- then they are hypocrites in a true sense of the word.

Ted Kennedy may not be a poster-child for fidelity, but he isn't a hypocrite on this issue, because he doesn't make sexual morality a platform issue -- at least not in a manner that is at odds with the way he actually lives. 

On the other hand there are the hypocrites.  Vitter is.  Craig is.  Ed Schrock is.  Gary Condit is.  Mark Foley is.  Ted Haggard is.  Glenn Murphy the former head of the national Young Republicans Foundation is.  The list is long for a party that supposedly prides itself in its moral superiority.  With the exception of the Condit scandal those other 7 scandals have all occurred within the last 3 years -- 6 within just the past year.  All are within one political party at a leadership level.  There is no equivalence. 

For what it's worth, 'cause being messed up about one thing or another, sex particularly, is part of the human condition and Republicans certainly have no monopoly on personal folly.  Just look at Bill -- the most expensive bj in history.  If Bill had kept his zipper up, Gore wouldn't have had to keep him at arm's length in 2000 and we wouldn't be pouring billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives into the quicksand that's Iraq.  And, going further in terms of back to the future, if Gore had succeeded Bill, we'd have had a hard working 43rd President well versed on Osama's threats.  Maybe an urgent directive coming down from the Oval House to the FBI 9-to-5 apparatchniks might have been enough to get one of them to pay attention to reports of Arab pilots taking flying lessons who weren't interested in learning how to land.  Maslow's hierarchy of needs as it manifests in a single individual sometimes intersects, at tremendous cost, with history.

http://www.armchairs...

What Clinton did was wrong, but I don't see him as a hypocrite.  Clinton never sold himself as a moral paradigm.  He never railed against the immorality of others, or the sexual licentiousness of his adversaries.

Vitter on the other hand, claimed that homosexuals were "destroying" marriage -- he co-sponsored legislation to this effect.  He railed against Clinton's infidelity at the same time that he himself was screwing prostitutes.  That is hypocrisy.

I think part of the problem is that our nation is still very young.  We have not had the hard won experience of places like "old Europe".  When a society has to re-build itself from the ground up, it helps to put things into perspective.  In that light a presidential blow-job becomes a matter that might result in divorce, but not in impeachment proceedings; on the other hand, a Senator who demonizes whole classes of people never gets into power in the first place, because voters remember not so fondly the last set of politicians who engaged in those tactics.  Things didn't turn out so well.  The type of leaders who engage in those tactics as a rule are generally unreliable and untrustworthy leaders.

On one hand, the problem is that Clinton couldn't exercise self-restraint.  On the other, the problem is that some voters couldn't put Clinton's lack of restraint in the proper perspective.  Both sides of the coin come into play with this one in my view.

This is assuming that Clinton's BJ was the sole reason that Gore struggled to beat out GW in 2000.  There were other factors in my view--including the fact that Gore tried to distance himself from Clinton and paid a price for the miscalculation.  Or the electioneering shenanigans.

In the big scheme of things, it is at least a little reassuring to know that the majority of Americans got it right in 2000 and 2006.  The mid-terms in 2002 and especially the 2004 presidential election are a different story.

But their driving force is political.  Craig could lose re-election to a Democrat next year.  Vitter can sit by and let this blow away as time goes on. 

here for Glenn Greenwald on "Forcing Larry Craig's resignation while embracing David Vitter."

When Hugh Hewitt admitted that he wants Larry Craig to resign but does not want the adulterous, serial-prostitute-hiring David Vitter to do so, he was subjected to ridicule and scorn from many different corners -- on the ground that this inconsistency is obviously attributable both to anti-gay animus and rank political self-interest (Vitter's replacement would be chosen by a Democratic Governor, whereas Craig's would be chosen by a right-wing GOP Governor). Even some right-wing blogs noted the absurdity of that position: "Hugh Hewitt wants Craig to resign immediately but David Vitter to stay on. Huh?"

Craig was caught in the act, Vitter was caught a few years after-the-fact.  That's one possible explanation.

I also think that the political appointment angle was a factor (as stated above one replacement would have been named by a Democrat the other was to be named by a Republican).

The anti-gay angle though was probably the most decisive difference.  The GOP use anti-gay biases to win elections, so the Craig issue cuts close to the bone.  Joe Conason had a fine article about this in Salon yesterday -- worth reading . . 

http://www.salon.com...

and then there are family values.  The family values where spouses cheat on each other, potentially causing divorce and definitely causing emotional devastation/trauma to all involved (especially the children) is so much more wholesome than the family values that involves total strangers who just happen to be gay.  But if you happen to know one of those gay people... watch out... that's gonna take a triple dose of family values to cleanse the soul.  The only quick way to a triple dose I know of is to throw them out of the party and pretend the other guy is a-ok because he said he was sorry.

Anyway, good call JTERP - that sounds like three really solid reasons why to me.

Let us be clear, any sort of relationship will have its ups and downs, whether it is hetero or homo.  I have many gay friends, quite a few of them have been involved in some rather hideous relationships, involving cheating, and even worse sins.

Yes, there are definitely homosexual couples who truly love each other in a monogamous fashion.  There are also heterosexual couples who do the same.

The problem is not straight vs. gay, the problem is self-indulgence. 

And sometimes, a person tries to fight their inner demons by becoming a crusader for moral values.  In their heads, it becomes expiation for their sins.  Unless they, like some, are completely bankrupt when it comes to morals, and it's all just said for political advancement.  I won't presume to diagnose any of these hypocrites.

Matusleo
Ut Prosim

and that may have as much to do with it as anything

The sex they had are in-material. It is the bashing of others.

BUT, the real big issue is Craig is stupid.
"Copping a guilty plea in hopes it will go away."
"Not having enough sense to deny everything."
"Then claiming he should have talked to a lawyer before copping the plea."
"Irregardless of his stupidity of sex in a public place."

Someone that stupid does not deserve to be in the Senate, one of the highest positions in our Government.

Idahoians must really be stupid people to vote such a person into office. Of course their total Republican State sort of proves that.

Irregardless of Ritter being a hypo-crite, he appeared to have brains in how to handle a situation. Now it gets down too, are LA voters stupid?