Craig and Vitter: What's the diffference?

I think the Republicans are being hypocrites when it comes to Larry Craig. John McCain, for instance, called on Craig to resign because he had broken the law. But Sen. David Vitter, while not pleading guilty to a crime, has come out and admitted soliciting prostitutes. So if one's a crime worth of resignation why not the other? You could focus on the technical aspects: Craig pleaded guilty and Vitter didn't. Our friends at Talkingpointsmemo make this same point and I tend to agree with them. If you're going to call on one to resign, why not the other? McCain has shown courage and libertarian tolerance on gay issues, refusing to vote for the goofy Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. No one questions his goodwill and tolerance but his logic could use some sharpening.

By the way, if I'd long heard rumors that Larry Craig was gay, surely everyone in the Senate republican Conference knew. I suspect his crime was getting caught. I suspect those Republicans figured it was his business and left him alone about it--which is exactly the point that gay groups themselves make. It's no one's business so leave us alone.

Anyway, it's hard to see Craig lasting much longer. Without his committee assignments he can't be like Bill Clinton and claim he's getting back to the people's business. He's been effectively neutered as a Senator so at this point his chances of having a post Senate lobbying career--Bob Packwood is doing well after his Senate departure on sexual harassment accusations---is going to dwindle every day he waits.