Thursday, August 30, 2007
Bobby Jindal urges Sen. Craig to resign!
Think Progress has the link and shows the hypocritical contrast between the GOP reaction to Craig's situation versus its reaction to Vitter's.
I'd love to hear exactly why Jindal thinks Craig should step down, and why Vitter should or shouldn't follow suit.
Remember,
Jindal tepidly supported Vitter during his week of scandal hell, and probably infuriated him by abandoning the coordinated talking points Vitter provided to other GOP pols, and instead said that Vitter needed to "address" the prostitution matter. (Hence petty Vitty scheduled his press conference during the day Jindal officially began campaigning for Governor.)
Labels: Jindal, Vitty-cent
7 comments
DiggIt!
Del.icio.us
7 Comments:
Because the governor gets to appoint an interim senator if one steps down. The Idaho gov. is a republican. Meemaw isn't, or so I hear.
Dang, beat like a mule (Previous post)
I still love ya.
Well, of course that's the reason. But let's have someone publicly press Jindal to actually explain the reason why he wants Craig to resign but supports Vitty-Cent so we can hear HIM say it. God knows usually you can't get the guy to STOP explaining the intricacies behind why he's taking one position or another. Let Boasso or Georges or someone else publicly make the point that the deciding reason behind Jindal's actions in this case are pure partisan politics and nothing at all to do with the "morality" or lack thereof of either's actions.
i still say people should show up at Jindal events waving packages of Huggies...
Craig admitted to committing a crime. Vitter has not admitted to, been indicted on, or been found guilty of any criminal acts.
If Vitter did solicit sex for money, then yes, he should step down, and Jindal should call for him to. However, we have no admission or prove that Vitter did commit a sex crime.
"If Vitter did solicit sex for money, then yes, he should step down, and Jindal should call for him to..."
So Nick....what's your take on what the serial "serious sin" happened to be that Vitty-cent DID confess to after it became public that he'd made at least six calls to a woman whose job it was to hook up wealthy men and known prostitutes? And wasn't he such a paragon of respectability to "man up" and step forward? And (several years after the fact, after others had already outed him) admit to.....exactly what?
Of course, if we follow your stated ethical path, then Craig is just a sap. He's not unfit to serve in the Senate because he rubbed another man's foot in a public restroom--he's unfit to serve because he admitted to a crime in an attempt to make the restroom allegations go away. If he never admits to anything (and presumably never leaves any DNA "evidence" behind), then he can do all the "foot-rubbing" he wants--it will just be someone else's word against his (just like in Vitter's case) with no admission or proof that he did commit the "sex crime" of rubbing another man's foot.
