No, I'm not going to call it "drunken driving" just because that's what's hip in the AP style guide these days.
In Sweden, according to Wikipedia, public officials who are caught driving under the influence are expected to resign in disgrace. And, although few murderers spend more than eight years in prison there, you're eligible for a two year prison sentence if you're caught driving with a BAC over 0.1. Not so in Wisconsin. The Senate majority leader has an OWI under his belt, as do a handful of other legislators. And of course, there's the case of Jeff Wood, the now-censured Independent (on the D team) from Chippewa Falls.
The response to Jeff Wood's antics reveals glaring differences of opinion between generations. Young people, who have grown up bombarded by ads warning them of the evils of DUI, are less sympathetic to Wood's case than old-timers.
I would guess that the older generation's reluctance to treat OWI like a real crime is what allowed Democrats to vote against expelling him. But voting against expulsion is one thing: Did the Dems at least pressure Wood to resign, as most people expected he would do? Cases as embarrassing as his usually end with resignation.
I'm guessing the Democrats figured that, as long as Wood wouldn't run for re-election, they could get away with supporting him. "Leave the guy a lone, let the criminal justice system run its course etc." That way they kept him on as a crucial vote and could even accuse the Republicans of being vindictive and cruel (Wood used to be a Republican). What I would love to see are some opinion polls on the matter. What does the average middle-aged Wisconsinite think should happen to Jeff Wood?