However… there is a very clear double standard here in the repub’s actions, since the are the party of family values. The forgive one indiscretion, and force a resignation on the other.

Your wild assumptions about David and the accompanying insults are inappropriate for this site.

We don’t know David’s orientation or what he believes about gay people.

I, for one, am a gay person who fully supports inclusion of gay people and the end to prejudice. And yet I can see David’s point.

He acknowledges the facts of the situation and simply states that he doesn’t see a double standard in those facts. That doesn’t make him a bigot.

I think that a double standard does exist and I think it comes into play in the response of some people. But I can also see that there are adequate differences so that others may legitimately not think this a double standard, or not enough of one to get upset about. While it may seem like splitting hairs, and I’m not stating I agree with all of this, I can see how some folks don’t see a double standard:

1. Plead guilty. Yes, it’s just because of statute of limitations that Vitter didn’t, but some folks think that a guilty plea is cause for resignation while an accusation is not.

2. Public v. Private. Many people (me included) don’t much care what goes on behind closed doors whether it’s the “horrible crime” of prostitution or not. But we all kinda cringe at the idea of sex in a bathroom in a VERY public place like an airport where we know kids are in and out all the time. So for some folks, it isn’t about adultery or sin or values, but simply that the creepy guy lurking in the bathroom has to go.

3. Timing. Vitter’s infidelity is supposedly in the past and he’s sought counseling for it. Craig’s infidelity was recent and he show no intention of doing anything about his preclivity for toilet cruising. Some people find it easier to forgive the guy who admits his fault and has already taken steps to make sure it doesn’t happen again as opposed to the guy who says, “I didn’t do it” when clearly they did.

Personally, I see them the same because they both sold themselves as one thing to the voters but were something else entirely.

Let me tell you something. as long as you (or GOP, or KKKristians) say that I can be treated differently than you for no other reason than you don’t like what makes my dick hard, than we are talking abouit prejudice. And as long as we continue to deplete our national will and energy over whether i get to live my life as I see fit, we will continue to elect the same bunch of idiots and moral degenerates, and bring aqbout the fall of the american empire.

So no, that’s not entirely correct: two situations don’t have to be exactly the same for a double standard to exist. There will never be two situations precisely alike. The world just isn’t as clean as all that. And so for that reason, there will always be the convenience of a hair’s worth of difference to merit a double standard. The only difference here I can see is that Vitter was able to deliver a pursuasive speech in a closed session of his caucus that earned him a round of applause. I’m not so sure there is anything Craig could have done to earn the same thing, not even on his best day.

I understand the double standard you and Jim claim is present. I’m saying that the the two situations are not similar enough to demonstrate any double standard.

What an amazing display of double standards.

The family-values Republican leadership forced Larry Craig to resign his Senate seat because he plead guilty to tapping his foot in a restroom. Perhaps he intended to dishonor the sanctity of his marriage by committing adultery. Perhaps not. David Vitter actually did commit adultery, yet he was welcomed back to the Senate with nary a peep heard about how he dishonored the sanctity of his marriage, let alone a call for his resignation.

Could it be that Craig’s actions had a whiff of lavender about them, while Vitter was just a good ol’ boy doing what good ol’ boys do? Could it also be the Craig’s likely successor would be a conservative Republican, while Vitter’s would most likely be a Democrat? Why is it that McCain and Giuliani, both of whom have adultery and divorces in their resumes and both of whom oppose marriage for gay people, are given a free pass by the Republican leadership?

Perhaps it is time to admit that “the battle over same-sex marriage” has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with power, money, and prejudice. The Republican Party denounces and demonizes gay people and our lives, and yet is virtually silent about other issues obviously more relevant to marriage and family life, such as high heterosexual divorce rates, multiple marriages, adultery, out-of-wedlock births, guaranteed health care especially for children, family planning, and the number of children in foster-care and orphanages– for a start.

If the GOP actually showed some real concern about families and started moralizing about those issues, they would probably lose many of their “values voters”. Anti-gay moralism costs its supporters nothing, and is much more of an electoral winner.

In order for there to be a double standard vis-a-vis Vitter and Craig the two situations have to be the same except for the homosexual/heterosexual angle. But they aren’t.

Of course, Tidmore’s accusation of career sabotage against Vitter are worth being investigated by the Senate.

Both crimes were misdemeanors. So yes, in my view justifying Vitter’s staying in office while calling for Craig’s head, is a double standard. Saying that somehow I “forgot all this” is a strawman.