I'm no fan of either Libby or Craig, but I'm pretty sure that one cannot appeal a plea of guilt, while one can appeal a conviction as erroneous on the law or facts etc.

One can make a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, but typically only if you can prove that the plea was the product of coercion, fraud or similar. You can't withdraw a plea because you have second thoughts, or because of evidence supporting factual innocence.

I know we all have an axe to grind against the hyoprcrisy and opportunism of the right, but it is only fair to point out another difference between Vitter and Craig: when they had the goods on him, Vitter admitted his transgression, while Craig continues to offer implausible denials.

...there technically is no "ongoing investigation" in this particular case, so Bush & Co. aren't really holding a double standard on talking about it.

But it sure does make the GOP look more and more like "Fear and Self-Loathing of Gays in Washington", doesn't it? I wonder if he hadn't taken his own life, would Hunter have gotten a laugh out of the current situation?

T

Under questioning by Matt Lauer today about Craig, DeLay got very huffy, and claimed Lauer was being unfair by mentioning the Foley, Vitter and Craig situations. In fairness, the context was the impact of Foley on the election, and the potential of these new scandals to snuff out some hopes.

DeLay launched into a decades-old litany of Democratic Party scandals, including the relatively recent $100,000 in the freezer mess...and Barney Frank's ancient history. I waited for Lauer to remind him that the Republican scandals were just the "recent" sex scandals, and didn't encompass all the other recent and current GOP corruption investigations and indictments. And to bring the hypocrisy factor into play. Didn't happen.

And once again, viewers who don't have the facts, were left with a whole load of lop-sided crap by a GOP spinner who is, himself, a great example of GOP scandal and disgrace.

He was hyping his book...and as its title implies, it appears he doesn't have the good sense or good grace, to just go away.

I am not trying to imply that someone who is gay is twisted. However, with a party and administration so full of black and white thinking people, I think the more possibility for them having secret lives....Rove having something go on would not surprise me, Libby wouldn't surprise me..Cheney is half dead with his artifical heart.....We are all human, we are not perfect...but people like Craig who portrayed himself as having such high moral standards and then is slinking around in gross, dirty(have to imagine) public restrooms looking for sex.....not eactly a poster boy for Romney...

I am not trying to be a conspiracy theorist.....But I think the quote,"he doth protest too much" definitely applies........Just gets me upset that people like this get into positions of power.....

Craig pleaded guilty.

Libby maintained his innocence but was found guilty by a jury of his peers.

Both are guilty in the eyes of the law, which should be all that matters to a man sworn to uphold the Constitution. But Libby can't be a "disappointment" unless he admits guilt. Sort of like how we can't fail in Iraq unless we leave.

That fact, of course, allows maximum flexibility for all the hypocrites and the purely political animals -- so they can condone, condemn, or just stay silent about ANYTHING AT ALL.

Come to think of it, IS there much difference between the worst hypocrites and the purely political animals? Not much, from where I sit.

This brings to mind Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's famous comment about obscenity: "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it."

Likewise, the huge hypocrites who put on such a flamboyant show of religiosity refuse to draw a bright line defining what is and isn't acceptable -- all we get is purely ad hoc reactions, which allows them the maximum POLITICAL flexibility. Utterly disgusting.

couldn't Bush just issue a pardon and make it all go away? Isn't that how it works? It is kind of like restoring one's virginity, isn't it?

Peace,

st john

the rule of "dead girl/live boy" applies.

And, remember, Clinton's transgressions weren't about sex.

And whores and lobbyists are interchangeable terms.

But most of all this isn't about being gay...

it is about the kids.

Or something.

Unfortunately, so long as William Jefferson exercises power in the U.S. Congress, it's a little hard for me to summon up the right outrage about differences in Republican reactions to the latest news that there's another gay man in their woodpile.

Paying for (hetero) sex isn't cheating.

Getting oral sex isn't cheating. If you think it's a chick.

I hope this clears things up.

This is a silly and petty point to make. There are any number of differences between the Craig and Libby cases, not least of which are that only one involves a guilty plea, and only one involves members of the Bush Administration.

Now I completely agree with you on the underlying point - the Administration's refusal to discuss the Libby case is based entirely on political concerns, and that the legal standards invoked are merely convenient excuses that are disposed of when they are not convenient.

But this supposed 'inconsistency,' is no evidence for that underlying claim, precisely because there are relevant differences between the cases.

Posts like this and the 'Revisionist History' post from last week http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/08/24/surge/index.html

only serve to support the right wing claim that liberals are just looking for reasons to hate Bush.

By all means, please continue pointing out inconsistencies from the White House, Congress, talk radio, etc. But don't be so eager to find them that you bring in cases that are, at best, pedantic hairsplitting. Just wait; they'll make another substantive, clear contradiction before you know it.