by Daniel J. Weiss

Republican Congressional leaders have failed to force President Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. But that’s not stopping them from trying over and over again, taking hostages in the process.

First they used the payroll tax cut extension as a vehicle to force a decision on the pipeline in sixty days, even before the final route was identified. President Obama was forced to disapprove the permit because there was no time to assess its potential pollution.

This week, several senators took a different hostage: our emergency oil supply.  On February 13, Senators David Vitter (R-LA), John Hoevan (R-ND), and Richard Lugar (R-IN) introduced the Strategic Petroleum Supplies Act, S. 2100 that would prevent President Obama from selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve unless Keystone is approved:

“the Administration shall not authorize a sale of petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve… until the date on which all permits necessary … for the Keystone XL pipeline project application filed on September 19, 2008 (including amendments) have been issued.”

In other words, unless the president approves Keystone, he cannot sell our emergency oil — even if Iran causes an oil supply disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, a hurricane or other disaster disables oil production or refining facilities, or any other type of event causes gasoline prices to soar above $4 per gallon.  If any of these events happen, middle class Americans would pay significantly higher gasoline pump prices, giving billions of dollars more to big oil companies that made record profits last year.

These are not far-fetched examples – all of these situations occurred.  President George H. W. Bush sold SPR oil in 1991 before the first Iraq war in case of a supply disruption.  President George W. Bush sold SPR oil in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina knocked out oil production in the Gulf of Mexico.  President Barack Obama sold SPR oil in 2011 to offset the disruption of Libyan oil production due to its civil war.  In fact, Sen. Vitter praised President Obama for the latter SPR oil sale.

All of these SPR sales lowered gasoline prices and prevented significant economic damage while protecting drivers from huge gasoline price spikes.  Such emergency sales would be prohibited under S. 2100 unless Keystone XL pipeline is approved.

Additionally, this bill threatens our national security because it would give Iran more incentive to cause an oil supply disruption knowing that the U.S. could not legally access its 695 million barrels of oil reserves.

These hostage taking senators would argue that the Keystone XL pipeline – like the SPR — is vital to provide oil for Americans.  However, that is false.  It is likely that a large portion of the tar sands oil sent to Texas refineries will be for export, and would not be sold in the U.S.  At a December Congressional hearing, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) questioned the CEO of Keystone pipeline owner Transcanda about keeping the tar sands oil in the United States.  The CEO “said he could not guarantee that the fuel from the pipeline would stay in the United States.”

Watch it:

On February 14, 800,000 Americans signed an emergency petition to Senators urging them to stop trying to force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. These Americans oppose the pipeline because it would lead to the doubling of Canadian tar sands oil production, which produces 15 percent more carbon dioxide pollution compared to conventional oil, at a time when we must shift to lower carbon fuels to reduce the impacts of climate change.

The Senate is trying to force a pipeline route through Nebraska that is not yet identified, let alone evaluated to determine whether its impact on air and water quality. Because much of the tar sands oil refined in the U.S. would go overseas, Americans would bear the environmental risks while other nations get the oil.

Sen. Vitter’s bill would force the President to approve the harmful Keystone XL pipeline just to get access to  our emergency oil reserves and protect Americans from economic or security threats. Regardless of whether senators oppose or support approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, they should oppose this attempt to destroy a vital economic and national security safeguard.

Daniel J. Weiss is a Senior Fellow and the Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Dr. Scott Doney, who will not be NOAA's chief scientist

Doney’s nomination, which enjoyed bipartisan support, was blocked beginning more than a year ago by Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), who demanded that Obama administration officials testify before Congress on the Interior Department’s decision to halt deepwater drilling in the wake of the BP PLC oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

A Vitter spokesman told E&E News that “Vitter had no specific objections to Doney but had significant concerns with the administration’s handling of Gulf drilling.”

The NOAA chief scientist position has been vacant for more than a decade, unfilled by either the George W. Bush or Barack Obama administrations.

Doney is a top expert on how the global carbon cycle and ocean ecology respond to natural and human-driven climate change, including ocean acidification from the burning of fossil fuels.

Last week, the White House announced the withdrawal of the nomination of Rebecca Wodder to be Interior’s assistant secretary for fish, wildlife, and parks, after failing to lift blocks from Vitter and Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK).

Rebecca Wodder

They try to say it doesn’t directly affect the policy with hydraulic fracturing, and technically that’s right. But the fact that you come in as an activist with an extreme position is just more of the same in the administration, in every little corner of government.

Vitter had vowed he would block her confirmation unless Interior issued a blanket extension of all Gulf of Mexico drilling leases, Greenwire reports. The extension was not issued.

Wodder will work as an adviser at the department.

“Based on her extensive experience and expertise, the Secretary has asked her to serve as a senior adviser, working primarily on conservation issues and the America’s Great Outdoors initiative,” said Interior spokesman Adam Fetcher.

One of Paul’s fellow Republicans, Louisiana Sen. David Vitter (R), is now joining that fight, invoking the failed welfare reform policies of the 1990s in calling for a federal cap on food stamps and other forms of welfare, vital programs for millions of impoverished families that grew even more necessary during the recession. Under Vitter and three other senators’ plan, the New Orleans Times-Picayune reports, food stamps would be capped at pre-2007 levels:

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., joined last week with three other conservative GOP senators to propose caps on means-tested federal social welfare programs. It would require that funding for food stamps and 76 other federal welfare programs be capped at pre-2007 levels by 2015 or when unemployment falls below 7.5 percent, whichever comes sooner. [...]

“One of the most significant substantive accomplishments coming out of the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress was welfare reform,” Vitter said. “But as significant as this reform was, we are overdue to renew welfare reform efforts and make additional gains because the welfare state has grown enormously since then — even factoring our recession.”

What Vitter doesn’t note, however, is that welfare reform was a massive failure, reducing America’s ability to aid its poorest and neediest citizens. In 1995, the old welfare system reached 75 percent of those living in poverty, but during the depths of the recession, the “reformed” welfare program reached less than a third. Food stamps, which were not included in those reforms, increased by 57 percent in 2009 as more Americans were plunged into poverty.

This isn’t the first time the GOP has targeted food stamps this year, nor are food stamps the only social welfare program to face the Republican axe. The House Republican budget cut funding for nutrition assistance programs and other programs that help women, infants, and children. The GOP has made extending unemployment benefits a chore, even as it endlessly protects massive tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy.

There are nearly 50 million people living in poverty, 15.7 million of whom are children, and without social welfare programs like food stamps, American poverty would be even worse. In 2010, 28.6 percent of Americans would have lived in poverty without social welfare programs, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Unfortunately, the Republican answer to that problem has been to propose raising taxes on the poorest Americans while simultaneously cutting the programs that are most vital to them.

“Can’t escape from the common rule: If you hate something, don’t you do it too.”  — Pearl Jam

Playing up the Solyndra bankruptcy to the highest political degree possible, Republicans are using their best rhetorical tricks.  They have homed in on two phrases to describe loan guarantees — calling them a tool of “crony capitalism” and claiming that they allow the government “to pick winners and losers.”

Practically every conservative politician speaking to the press about Solyndra has used these phrases, often in the exact same sentence.

But a Climate Progress examination of public Department of Energy data finds over $11.8 billion in conditional commitments or closed loan guarantees for renewable energy and nuclear projects in Republican House districts around the country.

The data does not prove whether individual members of Congress lobbied for support of specific projects. However, recent stories from the Associated Press and the New York Times show that a number of high-profile political leaders have helped secure grants and loan guarantees through the stimulus package for projects in their districts. AP highlighted a few of the contradictions in a story yesterday:

Louisiana Sen. David Vitter and other Republicans have criticized the Obama administration for awarding billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for renewable energy projects, including a $528 million loan to a now-bankrupt California solar panel maker. But the GOP lawmakers haven’t always been so critical of the program.

Documents obtained by The Associated Press show the Louisiana Republican wrote to the Energy Department at least seven times since 2009 seeking money for projects that would benefit his home state.

One of the projects backed by Vitter — for a company that makes activated carbon to reduce pollution at coal-fired power plants — has received preliminary approval for a $245 million loan guarantee.

Numerous GOP senators, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, have sent letters to the Energy Department seeking assistance for projects in their home states.

On the Senate floor last week, McConnell called the first stimulus law “a national punch line” that featured “turtle tunnels” and “ sidewalks to nowhere.”

But in 2009, McConnell wrote two letters to Energy Secretary Steven Chu asking for federal loans for a plant that would build electric cars in Franklin, Ky. McConnell said the loans said could help create 4,000 jobs.

“I hope you will realize the importance of such job creation to Kentucky,” he wrote in a July 2009 letter supporting ZAP Motor Manufacturing. The plant did not receive DOE money.

And Florida Republican Cliff Stearns, who is also leading an investigation into the Solyndra loan guarantee, backed two separate clean energy projects for his state:

Stearns, who heads the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigations, endorsed a battery manufacturing plant in Jacksonville. The Saft America Inc. plant makes lithium-ion battery cells for military hybrid vehicles and solar and wind energy storage. The plant received a $95.5 million grant from the Energy Department through the stimulus law.

Stearns and other lawmakers from Florida also backed a Florida company’s bid to win a loan guarantee for biofuel refinery plant in central Florida. New Planet BioEnergy LLC received $50 million from the Energy Department and a $75 million loan guarantee from the Agriculture Department.

McConnell, Stearns and Vitter are defending themselves by explaining that the companies they’ve supported haven’t gone bankrupt or been raided by the FBI. Fair enough. But their lobbying for funds in the cleantech sector completely undermines the argument that Democrats are trying to pick winners and losers — or that the stimulus package didn’t work.

And as we pointed out last week, Michigan Republican Fred Upton, chairman of one of the House committees investigating Solyndra, has been a strong supporter of nuclear loan guarantees — even sponsoring an amendment in 2007 that would have expanded the nuclear loan guarantee program by $4 billion. Yet, Upton claimed in a hearing on Solyndra that the government is “acting as venture capitalist” that is, of course, “picking winners and losers…and shelling out billions in taxpayer dollars to keep them afloat.”

As one of the strongest nuclear supporters in Congress, Upton surely understand that nuclear facilities would not get built in this country without billions of dollars in loan guarantees and government-backed insurance. Private industry wouldn’t even consider building a nuclear facility in America without full government support (see also Exelon’s Rowe: Low gas prices and no carbon price push back nuclear renaissance a “decade, maybe two”).

And California Republican Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, dropped a typical rhetorical bomb on CSPAN this morning: “I want to see when the president and his cronies are picking winners and losers.”

But Issa has no problem boosting government support for nuclear through loan guarantees — a policy that supposedly picks winners and losers.

[A]dapting our tax structure to incentivize investments in nuclear technologies and using the guarantee of the federal government to jump-start a robust nuclear energy program, we can reclaim our place in the world and reduce our dependence on carbon-rich fossil fuels.

Forget crony capitalism. What we have here is phony capitalism.

A number of leading Republicans have repeatedly sought grants, tax credits and loan guarantees to support projects in their own districts. But when it’s politically advantageous, they now make the claim that government is “picking winners and losers” and violating the free market.

We all want to see taxpayer funds deployed as efficiently and fairly as possible.  Solar energy is soaring in this country and around the world, which suggests governmental support for the industry is working in a lot of countries.  The nuclear industry has all but died in non-market economies, in spite of massive government support (see “Nuclear Pork — Enough is Enough“).  Which one is the winner and which is the loser?

— Matt Kasper of the Center for American Progress contributed to this report.

Vitter called the administration “reckless” for awarding billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for renewable energy projects. That’s a particularly hypocritical charge coming from a man who has repeatedly asked for loans for those very same projects in his home state:

But Vitter was not always so critical of the loan program. Documents obtained by The Associated Press show he wrote to the Energy Department at least seven times since 2009 seeking money for projects that would benefit his home state.

One of the projects backed by Vitter, a company that makes activated carbon to reduce pollution at coal-fired power plants, has received preliminary approval for a $245 million loan guarantee.[...]

Vitter has also backed projects for nuclear power, renewable diesel fuel and a company that makes fuel-efficient cars.

Vitter’s bill would require that federal agencies conduct a full audit of any renewable energy projects that have received taxpayer money since 2009 — presumably including the projects he lobbied for.

“We can’t afford any more crony capitalism where the federal government picks winners and losers and then leaves taxpayers on the hook when everything falls apart,” Vitter said in a news release announcing the bill. The Time’s Swampland blog points out that the Senator doesn’t seem to be opposed to crony capitalism so much as he opposes the fact that his cronies haven’t benefited enough. So far, several of the projects Vitter has pushed have been turned down by the Department of Energy.

Vitter once also signed a letter complaining that the Energy Department was being too careful with loan guarantees for nuclear plants. The coal project he championed that received federal loans presumably isn’t crony capitalism because “clean coal isn’t renewable.” Vitter has also defended taxpayer funded subsidies for the five biggest oil companies and sought to protect Big Oil from liability for spills they caused.

So according to Vitter, Big Oil doesn’t need more oversight — just renewable energy firms. Republicans’ manufactured fury over Solyndra threatens to derail important clean energy investments around the country.

The most remarkable thing about U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), if you ask me, is that he was able to publicly confess to committing a crime and just kind of skate on by without getting into any trouble. Indeed, as best I can tell, Vitter’s official position continues to be that people like David Vitter ought to be thrown in jail, unless they happen to be him, in which case they should be U.S. senators. So once you’re that far down the hypocrisy rabbit hole, this stuff is positively small time:

“We can’t afford any more crony capitalism,” Vitter said in Wednesday. Vitter should know. He’s written a bunch of letters to the Energy Department’s loan program seeking loans for renewable energy firms.

For example, on July 1, 2009, Vitter and Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana wrote Energy Secretary Steven Chu to support a loan application by the V Vehicle Company, a clean-car start-up (backed by T. Boone Pickens and the venture capital leviathan Kleiner Perkins) that was planning a Louisiana factory. “This vehicle would serve as a catalyst for job creation,” they wrote. A year later, Vitter joined the entire Louisiana delegation in another letter pushing “expedited consideration” for VVC. Alas, the Energy Department rejected the loan, citing concerns about the company’s financial viability. Vitter must have been annoyed by all this due diligence, because in December 2010–after VVC changed its name to Next Autoworks–he, Landrieu and Congressman Rodney Alexander tried once more. “Every day that Next Autoworks’ application is delayed is another day that workers cannot be hired,” the wrote. So far, no luck.

Needless to say this is over-and-above Vitter’s strident support of production subsidies for oil and gas companies. There’s no need to even ask whether or not Vitter thinks his favorite dirty energy firms ought to pay the freight for the negative externalities their activities have on the commons.

ThinkProgress contacted Vitter’s office to ask if the senator will be attending the speech, but has not received a response. A staffer answering the phone said he did not know.

In the wake of the Anthony Weiner scandal, many are wondering why Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), a member of Congress who was caught regularly using a prostitute service, has not faced public pressure to resign. On Monday at a campaign stop in Ames, Iowa, ThinkProgress asked Rick Santorum about the double-standard. He told us that he never calls on other members to resign and that he would only talk about his own conduct. However, in 1998, when he was still serving in the Senate, Santorum called on President Bill Clinton to resign if Republicans gained seats in the midterm because Clinton would undoubtedly face impeachment over the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

So on the following day, I asked Santorum what he would do if he had done what Vitter did. Santorum dodged the questions, before quickly jumping into a car and driving away:

FANG: We talked a little bit yesterday about congressional scandals. You said you would only talk about what you would do. If you did what Vitter did, would you resign?

SANTORUM: If I did what Vitter did, would I resign? Well I wouldn’t have done what David Vitter did.

FANG: That’s kind of a cop-out.

SANTORUM: No, that’s not a cop-out. No I didn’t.

FANG: You called on Clinton to resign for his sex scandal. In 1998, yes you did. You suggested that he should resign because of his sex scandal. Why the double standard for Vitter and not for Clinton?

SANTORUM: President of the United States, I said he should resign–

FANG: A senator can use a prostitute?

SANTORUM: I said he should resign because he lied about it to the American public–

FANG: Vitter didn’t lie? He didn’t lie to his wife, to his family, to the American people, to his office?

SANTORUM: Not in a court, in a deposition, which is what the President did and why I voted for his impeachment.

Watch it:

“There are a lot of people that I think are committing outright hypocrisy and are forced to do so as long as he (Vitter) remains in office,” said Joe Glover, the president of the Family Policy Network, based in Forest, Va. “I don’t think the senator should put those folks in the untenable position of having to pragmatically defend his presence in the Senate.”

Glover noted, for example, that House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, had called on Weiner to resign, but had also contributed to Vitter’s 2010 re-election campaign.

An article that will be posted on the group’s website tomorrow asks, “So what did Republican leaders do about Senator Vitter? They let him off the hook.” The article continues, “[T]he public’s perception of Vitter as a sleazy, hypocritical Christian only served to tarnish the name of Christ among unbelievers.”

Indeed, while Weiner received universal condemnation from Democrats and Republicans alike, Vitter actually received a coordinated campaign of support from Louisiana Republicans and campaign donations from national Republican leaders — the same leaders who demanded Weiner’s resignation. Even former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele saw “inconsistency” in the way his party reacted to the two scandals.

To their credit, some conservatives have spoken out against Vitter. Fox News host Bill O’Reilly said, “I don’t think Vitter should be there. Absolutely not.” Fox’s Greta Van Susteren and right-wing media provocateur Andrew Breitbart — who played a key role in bringing down Weiner — have also criticized the senator.

1,432 days ago, Sen. David Vitter admitted to being a regular customer of a prostitution service. (An activity that is, incidentally, illegal). Days after his admission he was welcomed back with open arms by the Republican party.

Thus far, the Republican leadership has not been pressed to explain the blatant hypocrisy of their divergent reactions to the two scandals. Last night, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly weighed in. His message was simple: “I don’t think Vitter should be there. Absolutely not.” Watch it:

Nevertheless, the chairman of the GOP, Reince Preibus, attacked Democrats for inaction, saying, “We’ve got leadership and a Democratic Party that are defending a guy that deserves no defense.”

Today’s events stand in stark contrast to the treatment of Senator David Vitter, who admitted in 2007 to being a regular customer of a notorious prostitution service. Immediately following Vitter’s admission, McConnell was asked about Vitter on ABC News and flatly refused to address the issue or offer any criticism of Vitter’s conduct:

ROBERTS: Are you comfortable with him staying in the Republican Caucus?

MCCONNELL: Senator Vitter has addressed the issue that you’re referring to, and I’ll let him speak to that.

ROBERTS: Right. Is this something that you think he can recover from? I mean, does the Republican Party, the Republicans in Congress take a hit because of this?

MCCONNELL: Well, you’ll have to ask Senator Vitter about what he had to say about the episode that I think you’re referring to. He would be the one to address that.

McConnell wasn’t alone. Gannett reported that “few colleagues would go on record” following Vitter’s admission. One who did, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), offered only praise: “David Vitter is one of the most capable guys here. He was fabulous in the immigration debate. I think his constituents will respect that.” When Vitter returned to the Senate a few days later and addressed the GOP caucus, he was warmly received:

Applause could be heard inside the room. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., who like most members wouldn’t disclose what Vitter said, reported that his comments went over well.

“People were very supportive,” Thune said. “People realize he has worked through this this past week. I think everybody is ready to move forward.”[...]

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, exemplified the forgive-and-forget view voiced by Senate Republicans.

“My attitude is he’s doing everything he can to rectify the mistake he made and should be allowed to do so,” Hatch said. “I’m a great believer in redemption.”

Despite moral transgressions that are more serious, from a legal perspective, than what is known of Weiner’s conduct, Vitter remains in the Senate with full seniority and committee memberships. When asked about Vitter’s potential legal violations, his GOP colleagues claimed ignorance of the law.

To this day, RNC chair Reince Preibus refuses to discuss Vitter’s conduct saying he doesn’t want to “relitigate” the situation.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus has been particularly vocal attacking Democrats for not being hard enough of Weiner, specifically targeting Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Today, the two party chairs faced off on NBC’s Meet the Press, where Wasserman Schultz called for Weiner to resign and called out Priebus’ hypocrisy on congressional sex scandals. Priebus again refused to discuss the GOP scandals, claiming they are old news and thus irrelevant — even though Vitter serves in the Senate to this day. He quickly pivoted to saying we should be talking about the economy instead of personal issues, but that hasn’t stopped him from harping on Weiner:

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: What Reince is saying doesn’t pass the straight face test from the chair of a party, none of whose leaders called for Senator Vitter, who actually broke the law, to resign. Who is still serving in office. … Hired prostitutes, and evaded the truth.

Chairman Priebus was chairman when Senator Ensign was also embroiled in unethical, unacceptable, and probably illegal conduct, and he did not call on Senator Ensign to resign. … So it’s a double standard. You only cal for Democrats’ resignations, not Republicans.

Watch it:

According to former RNC Chairman Michael Steele, Vitter and Ensign’s indiscretions were “a degree or two more egregious” than Weiner’s conduct. Vitter broke the law by hiring prostitutes while Ensign violated Senate ethics rules (and possibly U.S. law) when he bribed the husband of his mistress.

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans have hijacked non-controversial legislation to push their pro-Wall Street agenda. As the Wall Street Journal reports, three Senate Republicans — Sens. Jim DeMint (SC), Jerry Moran (KS), and David Vitter (LA) — have stuck amendments onto an economic development bill aiming to weaken Dodd-Frank or, in DeMint’s case, repeal it outright:

A fairly noncontroversial U.S. Senate bill to support economic-development projects could quickly become contentious next week if Republican critics of the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul have their way. [...]

One amendment filed by tea-party Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) would repeal the whole financial law…Meanwhile, Sen. Jerry Moran (R, Kan.) has filed an amendment that would replace the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — a centerpiece of Dodd-Frank that would have broad powers over the financial industry — with a six-person board…A third amendment, filed by Sen. David Vitter (R, La.) would repeal parts of the Dodd-Frank law that give a council of regulators, known as the Financial Stability Oversight Council, the authority to decide if a company is “too big to fail.”

The amendments suggested by Moran and Vitter are right in line with other GOP efforts to weaken Dodd-Frank. Moran’s amendment would turn the CFPB into an ineffective commission, rather than the strong independent regulator consumers need and deserve, while Vitter’s would prevent regulators from forcing the nation’s biggest banks into abiding by heightened regulations.

Wall Street has actually spent as much to undermine Dodd-Frank this year as it spent trying to shape the bill at the height of the financial reform debate. And Republicans have dutifully played along, attempting to block or undo key parts of the bill. However, this week at least, the banks did not get their way, as an amendment that would have delayed new regulations capping the amount banks can charge merchants for debit card transactions failed to pass the Senate.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), chairman of the ethics watchdog House Government Oversight Committee, took a different tack, telling conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt yesterday that Democrats will let Weiner off the hook because there’s “a different standard between Republicans and Democrats” when it comes to ethics scandals:

HEWITT: Yeah, so I’m going to come back to that in a segment where we can set it up. But I do have to ask you, Eric Cantor, the leader of the Republicans today, called on Anthony Weiner to quit, said I don’t condone his activity, and I think he should resign. What’s your opinion, Darrell Issa?

ISSA: Well, first of all, I agree with Eric, who’s my leader, and who’s a classmate of mine and a friend. But I think Eric’s missing one point. Anthony Weiner’s not a Republican. He won’t resign. There’s a different standard between Republicans and Democrats. Yes, if he were Chris Lee, well, actually, Chris Lee did less and resigned immediately. There is a different standard that Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor hold us to. And we should hold ourselves to it, but if we don’t, in the case of Chris Lee, who didn’t, you’re gone. They’re not doing that on the other side. [...]

Out of 435 members and six delegates and commissioners, we are going to have human failures. The question is, will we hold ourselves to the standards Republicans are being held to, or the no standards the Democrats hold themselves to?

While Issa is correct is saying there seems to be a “different standard” between the parties when it comes to scandals, he need only look across the Capitol to the Senate to see that he has it backwards. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) admitted in 2007 to patronizing the DC Madam prostitution ring — a crime “a degree or two more egregious” than Weiner’s, as former RNC Chairman Michael Steele said — yet Vitter remains in the Senate to this day. How did Republicans respond to Vitter’s transgression? With “a concerted push” to defend the embattled senator. “[T]he state GOP organized the release of a flurry of supportive statements,” the New Orleans Times Picayune reported at the time.

Issa could also look at the case of former Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), who remained in the Senate a full two years after admitting to having an extramarital affair with the wife of a staffer, whom he bribed with $96,000 in hush money and illegally helped acquire a lobbying job. Ensign only resigned last month because of the pending release of a damning Senate Ethics Committee investigation and the possibly that he could be kicked out of the chamber.

In neither case did GOP leaders call for the senators to step down. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was satisfied with Ensign giving up his GOP leadership spot in 2009, saying, “He’s accepted responsibility for his actions and apologized to his family and constituents.” Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the Senate’s number two Republican, offered support for Ensign, calling him a good friend and saying he still had a role to play in the party. “He’s a very intelligent senator,” Kyl said. “John is a person of great faith. So I know this is a very, very difficult deal for he and his family.”

In contrast, House Democratic Leaders like Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Steve Israel (D-NY) have called for an ethics investigation, while Reps. Allyson Schwartz (D-PA), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Mike Michaud (D-ME), and many more privately, have called for Weiner’s resignation.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus refused to discuss the Vitter scandal earlier this week, despite being the most vocal leader calling for Weiner’s resignation. But even his predecessor Steele sees some “inconsistency” in the GOP grandstanding.

Meanwhile, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus has vocally called for Weiner’s resignation. But this has led many to questions if Priebus is exploiting the scandal for political gain by holding Weiner to a standard the GOP didn’t apply to their own members embroiled in scandal, especially Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) who admitted in 2007 to patronizing a prostitution ring. Vitter remains in the Senate to this day and easily won reelection in 2010. Fox News host Greta Van Susteren asked Priebus about this double standard last night, but Priebus refused to address it and Van Susteren, not surprisingly, allowed him to evade the question:

VAN SUSTEREN: Is there a difference with Senator David Vitter, I mean, with the whole — with his whole little prostitution — he’s on a prostitution client list. Is that different?

PRIEBUS: Well, I don’t know if it’s different.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, nobody called –

PRIEBUS: Frankly, I’m not relitigating the David Vitter situation.

But even Priebus’s predecessor, former RNC Chairman Michael Steele, sees some “inconsistency” in Priebus’ acrimony, as he told MSNBC’s Rachael Maddow last night:

STEELE: It doesn’t matter if your name is Vitter or Weiner…[t]he consequences of breaking that trust should be equally applied. I heard what the chairman said today and thought it was a little bit not right. You can’t look at one case and say that this behavior warrants dismissal or you should quit, or look at another one that may be a degree or two more egregious and not see that same that requirement of removing yourself from office.

Watch a compilation of Priebus and Steele:

Unlike Pelosi, Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) did not call for a ethics investigation into Vitter, and remained largely silent on the scandal.

Vitter did, however, receive public support from fellow Louisiana Republicans. Realizing that the state’s Democratic governor would likely appoint a Democrat if Vitter resigned, the state GOP launched “a concerted push…to offer some support” for the embattled senator, the The New Oreleans Times Picyune reported at the time. Then-Rep. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), who was in the midst of a successful bid for governor, issued a statement saying, “While we are disappointed by Senator Vitter’s actions…[t]his is a matter for the Senator to address, and it is our hope that this is not used by others for their own political gain.” Louisiana GOP Reps. Richard Baker and Charles Boustany issued their own “supportive statements,” with Baker saying Vitter’s illegal use of prostitution “does not define the whole of the man and it is not irredeemable.” He even urged to the news media to exercise “some restraint” when writing about the scandal.

Priebus is right to call for a high ethical standard for political leaders, but his indignation would ring less hollow if he applied the same standard to those in his own party as well.

Vitter and Paul similarly argued that neither the language nor the intent of the 14th amendment were meant to confer “birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.” Yet the fact that their initial proposal involved actually going through the trouble of modifying the Constitution signaled quite the opposite. This week, the two senators addressed the legislative dissonance by introducing a bill that’s essentially a carbon copy of Rep. Steve King’s (R-IA) birthright citizenship proposal in the House. Vitter and Paul, along with Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Jerry Moran (R-KS), say their legislation “requires the federal government to limit automatic citizenship to children born to at least one parent who is a citizen, legal resident, or member of the military.”

Yet, rather than seeking two thirds of Congress and three-fourths of all the states to amend the Constitution, they now simply seek to redefine it by amending the Immigration and Nationality Act. It seems unlikely that Vitter and Paul’s bill will get the 60 votes it needs to get passed — at least in the current Congress. Even if it did, the whole premise that the “subject to the jurisdication thereof” language of the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to undocumented immigrants is pretty bogus in light of judicial precedent. The 14th amendment is relatively explicit about the fact that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are in fact “citizens of the United States.” The Supreme Court, at various times, has ruled that “the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State’s territory. That a person’s initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State’s territorial perimeter.” (Plyler v. Doe)

Since it’s highly unlikely their proposal will get very far, it raises the question of what Vitter and Paul’s goals really are. It’s one thing to argue in favor of a constitutional amendment. The arguments behind it are still beyond questionable, but at least they are based on a general agreement that the 14th amendment has been rightly interpreted throughout the past century. When people start arguing that the Constitution has been misread for over 150 years, it undercuts the legitimacy of the millions of Latino and Asian citizens who at some point in their family tree had citizenship conferred to them through an immigrant family member who came to the U.S. during periods when most foreign residents lacked formal “legal” status. Given the fact that Vitter and Paul waged two of the most blatantly racist campaigns last year, I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s exactly what they’re trying to accomplish.

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) released a statement yesterday expressing his outrage. According to Vitter, undocumented immigrants are to blame for Louisiana’s loss of a congressional seat:

“Even though we’ve been expecting this, the confirmation that Louisiana will lose a congressional seat is frustrating. Last year, I tried to prevent this from happening with my amendment to require a citizenship question on the census and to prevent the counting of illegal immigrants for the purpose of apportionment,” said Vitter.

“Now, Louisiana stands to lose clout in Congress, while states that welcome illegal immigrants stand to unfairly benefit from artificially inflated population totals.”

As Vitter notes, last year, he and Robert Bennett (R-UT) attempted to add an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill that would require the U.S. Census Bureau to add a question about immigration status to its 2010 survey. According to Vitter, undocumented immigrants should be specifically identified and cut out of congressional reapportionment decisions because they “dilute” the voting power of the rest of the population.

The Fourteenth Amendment clearly stipulates that representation should be determined by “counting the whole number of persons in each State.” Asking a citizenship question would’ve likely dissuaded undocumented immigrants from participating in the Census in the first place. Widespread non-participation would have lead to inaccurate demographic information and costly mistakes in infrastructure, education, and health care planning. That’s why children, ex-felons, legal residents, and several other nonvoters are also included in the census apportionment data.

For those reasons, Vitter’s proposal fell flat on its face. The census questionnaire didn’t include a single question on immigration status. So, it’s odd that Vitter is now complaining that “states that welcome illegal immigrants” are going to benefit at Louisiana’s expense when he doesn’t even have any census data to base that on.

What the new census data does show is that the Latino population is rapidly expanding across the country and will nearly triple to about 130 million by mid-century. Of course, not all Latinos are immigrants and they’re certainly not all undocumented. Yet if Vitter’s race-baiting campaign ads are any indication, the senator of Louisiana has a hard time distinguishing between the two.

Vitter has also failed to acknowledge that migrants — many of them undocumented — have given Louisiana a much-needed population boost and helped rebuild its infrastructure following the devastating aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Demographers point to the state’s sluggish growth over the past decade that put it “on track to lose a seat in the House of Representatives and one of its nine electoral votes anyway.”