Following the Republican be-rilement over Senator Tim Johnson's vote to confirm rejected Obama assistant AG nominee Debo Adegbile, I served up a question about whether hiring a lawyer who represents scum should have any impact on our assessment of the candidates seeking to replace Johnson.
Today I ask how Republicans feel if a candidate himself represents scum.
Last fall, Scott Krantz of Sioux City pled guilty to possessing and transporting child pornography (note to perverts: if you have to have child porn, don't move it! you'll save yourself an extra charge). He tried to contend that the court should let him walk around free pending sentencing because he'd served in the military. The U.S. Eighth Circuit said no, military service is not an "exceptional reason" to excuse bad guys from jail.
Helping Krantz make this unsuccessful argument: soldier, lawyer,and Republican U.S. Senate candidate Jason Ravnsborg.
A nice Republican candidate spends his work day trying to keep a child porn user out of jail—frankly, I don't get too bent out of shape over that, because Ravnsborg's a lawyer, and he has an important if at times unpleasant job to do. Everyone deserves legal counsel, even scum.
But I don't have to vote in the GOP primary. Republicans do. And Republicans shouted an awful lot about how it was unacceptable for our current U.S. Senator to even vote for a decent lawyer who has defended a disreputable individual. Can they now vote for a decent Republican who has himself represented a disreputable individual?
Or does Ravnsborg get a pass because he, unlike Tim Johnson and Debo Adegbile, is a soldier?38 comments