NBC's Reid: "Washington" is "surprised" by Vitter-"D.C. Madam" connection because Vitter says he's a conservative
Reporting on Sen. David Vitter's (R-LA) apology after the disclosure that Vitter's phone number was among the phone records of alleged "D.C. Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey, NBC News congressional correspondent Chip Reid said that "Vitter's website says he is 'focused on advancing mainstream conservative principles,' which is one reason many here in Washington are so surprised by this revelation" -- suggesting that a conservative is far less likely to be involved in a prostitution scandal than a liberal or Democrat.
Palfrey was indicted on racketeering charges stemming from allegations that she ran a prostitution ring. As Media Matters for America noted, the disclosure of Palfrey's phone records previously led to the resignation of Deputy Secretary of State Randall L. Tobias, the first director of U.S. Foreign Assistance and administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development. ABC News noted that "[a]long with his wife, Marianne, Tobias donated over $100,000 to Republican candidates and political committees, according to the campaign finance Web site OpenSecrets.org."
Further, as the weblog TPMMuckraker noted, on the May 4 edition of ABC's 20/20, ABC News chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross indicated that the phone numbers linked to Palfrey included Republicans: "The phone numbers also tracked back to Georgetown mansions and prominent CEOs, officials at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and lobbyists, both Republican and Democratic."
The media have previously suggested that illegal, predatory, or unethical sexual conduct is more antithetical to conservative principles than to those of progressives and have downplayed alleged sexual misconduct by Republicans, particularly that of former Rep. Mark Foley, by comparing it to conduct by Democrats:
- On the May 3 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer observed that Washington is "no stranger to sex scandals," then provided viewers only with examples of alleged misconduct by Democrats.
- In the week following reports that former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) had allegedly sent sexually explicit messages to former congressional pages, numerous media figures -- including Newsweek columnist Howard Fineman, MSNBC anchor Amy Robach, CNN host Paula Zahn, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams, CNN congressional correspondent Dana Bash, and Roll Call executive editor Morton M. Kondracke -- suggested that conservative Christians were most likely to react negatively to the scandal.
- On the October 4, 2006, edition of CNN's American Morning, after airing a campaign advertisement from Minnesota Democratic congressional candidate Patty Wetterling accusing congressional Republican leaders of covering up Foley's "predatory behavior," co-host Soledad O'Brien asked CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley whether "Democrats ma[de] a mistake by grabbing this issue and running with it" because "[t]here's certainly been enough scandal in the Democratic Party in the past." Similarly, on the same day's edition of MSNBC Live, responding to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, MSNBC political analyst and Congressional Quarterly columnist Craig Crawford told host Chris Jansing that he has "some pause about this idea of Democrats on a roll, simply because when they were in charge, they had plenty of their own problems with abuse of power."
- Discussing the scandal surrounding Foley on the October 2, 2006, edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews claimed that "in this case," Republicans have "blow[n] it" on "moral behavior," which he described alongside "stopping inflation and fighting wars" as issues that are Republicans' "best stuff."
From the July 10 edition of NBC's Today:
NATALIE MORALES (Today national correspondent): A stunning confession from Louisiana Senator David Vitter. During the night, he says, he is sorry for what he called a "serious sin" after his phone number was linked to the so-called "D.C. Madam." NBC's Chip Reid has more. Chip, good morning.
REID: Well, good morning, Natalie. Senator David Vitter's website says he is "focused on advancing mainstream conservative principles," which is one reason many here in Washington are so surprised by this revelation.
REID [video clip]: Senator David Vitter, a conservative Louisiana Republican acknowledges that his phone number appears in the phone records of Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the so-called "D.C. Madam." She faces federal racketeering charges for allegedly operating a prostitution ring that reportedly catered to prominent Washingtonians.
What it suggests is the increased hypocrisy inherently present when an ultra conservative, such as Vitter, is engaged in this type of activity. That is the crux of Reid's assertion.
I thought maybe the surprise at a conservatives connection to the madam was that she traded (as far as I know) in adult female flesh.
except that he is advocating 'mainstream' conservative values...
what it means is simple. The right have adopted the family values, fiscal responsibility, christian values facade. That is all it is, a facade. It comes as no surprise to me a republican would be involved in any kind of criminal activity or prostitution scandal. republicans are repressed mentally, sexually and emotionally. That is WHY they are republicans as they do not know any better, or they get paid for acting like they don't know any better.
Jasper, you have no clue as to what a freak I am in the bedroom. Clairvoyant assumptions en mass are the provender of the day.
you have no clue as to what a freak I am in the bedroom.
Nor does anyone care.
. "The right have adopted the family values, fiscal responsibility, christian values facade. That is all it is, a facade"
Not really. Most conservatives stand up for moral values. We support life, traditional marriage, and the rule of law. Most liberals support anti-life policies and generally don't believe that you should legislate morality. The more extreme liberals even believe that drug use and prostitution should be legal. Two of the most popular Democratic Presidents of the past century were involved in numerous sex scandals. So yes, it is less likely and more surprising for conservatives to engage in this kind of activity.
The more extreme liberals even believe that drug use and prostitution should be legal....rino hunter
=================================
I think you have us confused with the Libertarians, Rino.
It's okay tho ... confusion is your middle name ... :)
Not really. HuntingtonBeachLefty said that he believes that drug use and prostitution should both be legal. I believe that Brabantio, Red King, and a few others said the same thing.
Where do I sign that petition? Add me to the list.
RH is right about me on this one. I'm 100% opposed to big government traditional conservative moral values totalitarians telling people what they can do at their parties.
But yet you're not opposed to big government liberals coming into my house and taking my guns away from me and taking money out of my wallet.
My position on both prostitution and guns are the same. It should be legal, but regulated.
Who is coming to take your gun rino? Those darn black helicopters again?
Who is going to pay for the war, RH? Our children and grandchildren? To generalize, like you were, conservatives believe in spending money they don't have, right?
I'm not happy with the big spending habits of the Republicans. If I were President we wouldn't have a deficit, because I would get rid of all corporate welfare, end pork barrel spending, and cut spending for the fast growing entitlement programs.
My point in posting that, RH, is that your generalizations don't work. I do believe you that you would be more fiscally conservative, but for you to label your side as all good and mine as all bad all while ignoring what has actually happened when yours has been in power does not work logically currently. This is not to say that the values you posted regarding conservatives are not traditionally what they stand for.
But yet you're not opposed to big government liberals coming into my house and taking my guns away from me and taking money out of my wallet.- RINO Hunter
You're attributing positions to me that are imaginary, but I'll answer your made-up stuff anyway.
I'm very much against anybody taking your guns,as long as you have a clean criminal record and no serious mental problems,go nuts.Who, specifically, wants to take your guns?
Nobody wants to take money out of your wallet either.If you choose to live in this civilization we've got going here, you are expected to not rely on everybody else, and to pitch in.
You also have the right to vote for those you think will use our money in ways that are the most in line with your interests.For example,education and health care that benefit society, or funneling billions to wealthy friends of the government.
"I'm very much against anybody taking your guns,as long as you have a clean criminal record and no serious mental problems"--hbl
Now I see where rino gets his objection. According to that last stipulation above you do indeed want to take rino's guns. Meet me at the black helicopter at 0100 zulu time. We've got to get rino's guns!
Just kidding, rino.
: )
Add me to that growing list, please.
The sex trade and drug trade become simultaneously less provacative and far more safe for all parties involved when there is regulation in said trade.
In light of the righties almost drooling desire to start this war we're in and their devotion to the death penalty and support of murderous regimes when it suits them (including Saddam!) it's really bizarre for Rino here to claim that they are somehow pro 'life.'
Actually, both conservatives and liberals supported the Iraq War in the beginning. It's just that the liberals have come out against it lately for political reasons. And there's nothing anti-life about trying to save thousands of people from an evil dictator. Those who receive the death penalty are guilty of horrific crimes and deserve the death penalty. Justice is being served in that case. The Bible makes it very clear that the death penalty is morally acceptable. We conservatives protect the innocent and bring the guilty to justice.
So, where IS Osama? WHEN does the trial start?
Osama is probably in a cave hiding somewhere. Catching Osama would be a huge symbolic victory, but Al-Quaeda would simply choose a new leader and be as strong as ever. The War on Terror is about more than one man. Simply capturing Osama Bin Laden won't solve all our problems.
You are right. Capturing Dick Cheney would be much more productive.
Yeah. Rationalizations like that are simply disgusting. I notice you apologists don't even pretend to care about justice for those 3000 souls anymore. All we get is tired, pathetic excuses why the administration's failure isn't really all that big a deal. You will forgive me if I find that unbelievable.
So are you one of the liberals who believe that the War on Terror will be over and all of our problems will be solved if we catch Osama Bin Laden?
It's not even relevant. That is like arguing that you shouldn't worry about catching a known murderer, because catching just one won't stop all murder forever. Complete B.S.
And I never said that we shouldn't catch Osama. I certainly hope that we do. It would be a huge symbolic victory for the U.S. I'm just saying that the War on Terror would go on and Al-Quaeda would simply choose a new leader.
"And I never said that we shouldn't catch Osama."--rino hunter
What a coincidence. If you re-read my post, I never said you said that either.
Who really cares what Al-Qaeda will do afterwards. It is irrelevant with regards to catching Osama. Saying such is simply making pathetic excuses for this administration's obvious failure to do their job.
Let me ask you this, RH: If a jury convicts the wrong man for a crime and is put to death, are they guilty of murder?
Do you have any evidence of that happening recently? Don't you think that a 10 YEAR appeal process is long enough to ensure that the defendant is indeed guilty?
Rino I have always said while we didn't agree I hope that you were open to knowledge.
You are not stupid and you know for a fact that lady justice makes mistakes.
Example for the next time you feel superior in saying "10 year appeal is enough time"
Byron Halsey Exonerated in New Jersey
After serving 19 years in prison for two brutal child murders he didn't commit, Byron Halsey was officially exonerated today when prosecutors dropped the charges against him. He is the 205th person exonerated nationwide by DNA testing and the fifth in New Jersey.
I've said this to you before and I'll say it again "sleep tight while you cry for the unborn and fell superior with you stance on the death penalty"
Here is another one:
http://ksdpfocus.blogspot.com/2007/05/press-release-may-11-2007-contact-eric.html
Well, what about that prisoner who was just released after 26 years after an erroneous rape conviction? Governor Ryan in Illinois commuted all of the death sentences in that state because he saw flaws.
My point is that the death sentence is irreversible and inhumane. The death penalty is also issued in a racially biased way (minorities murdering whites receive it the most frequently, whites murdering whites second and minorities killing minorities a distant third), plus there is always the chance of getting it wrong, which cannot be overturned. At least if someone is imprisoned their sentence can be overturned if something happens. Plus, with the current appeals process, the death penalty is far more expensive than imprisonment for life.
It's just that the liberals have come out against it lately for political reasons. Rino
I hate to use the Regan phrase but “there you go again”. Liberals realized that there was no “imminent” threat to America and the cost both financially and in loss of American lives was not worth it. Some decided that they would speak out while Republicans who faced re-election on 2008 decided to “save their butts” instead of “stay the course” which they’ve been happy to follow for the last 4 years.
"Liberals realized that there was no “imminent” threat to America and the cost both financially and in loss of American lives was not worth it"
Why didn't they realize that from the very beginning? Why were they promoting the idea of invading Iraq just like everybody else?
who are they?
Your 2004 nominee, for one, definitely said he would have gone in just as Bush did. So let's at least be honest about it.
This was one reason a lot of us weren't crazy about Kerry, but we knew he was a lot better than the alternative (as the majority of the country would now agree).
But while many Democratic politicians agreed, in the post-9/11 fervor, to give the president carte blanche to bring those responsible to justice (which was supposed to include diplomatic measures, which Bush ignored)--often misconstrued as "voted for the war"--many of the non-politicians among us correctly guessed that war would be a disaster.
Some of us were right all along, some politicians were right some of the time and wrong some of the time, and some people (Bush, the MSM, and some people on these boards, like Rino) have managed to be wrong all along.
Yes indeed. Hindsight is 20/20 with a lot of things, and I wholeheartedly agree that if we could turn back the clock to 2000 or 2004 based on what has happened under the current administration that Bush would get his clock cleaned by both Gore and Kerry.
But of course we can't do that.
So, in the interest of helping the Democratic Party move forward in actually winning, why don't you all run a better campaign this time and garner the needed electoral votes instead of complaining on the back end about how you were somehow cheated out of victory. No election in history has ever been perfect so I'm really not interested in listening to another cry-a-thon after the fact.
"So, in the interest of helping the Democratic Party move forward in actually winning, . . ."
Done it. See November 2006.
It's just that the liberals have come out against it lately for political reasons. Rino
Rino, your comment was that liberal were only coming out against the war NOW for political reasons. I simply pointed out that liberals have been coming out against this war for some time hence the 2006 elections. Republicans have started to come out against the “war strategy” in drips not because of principal but because they are up for re-election.. Remember, Obama was against the war from the beginning.
Of the 133 House votes cast against the resolution 126 were Dems. and 23 Senators voted against the resolution of which 21 were Dems.
The Bible also makes it very clear that forgiveness is acceptable. Moses killed a man, but wasn't put to death for it. Same with David. Paul very likely did the same.
"And there's nothing anti-life about trying to save thousands of people from an evil dictator."
It's not pro-life to kill 200,000 people to save 2,000 of them. Additionally, this was not the reason we went to war in Iraq.
Do you mean as lately as the Presidential elections in 2004? There has been dwindling support for the Iraq war for at least 3 years now - a period I feel is a lot longer than "lately."
Couple of things, RH: Is war a pro-life position? Is the death penalty? If Liberals do the things you say, what if a liberal came into office and legislated his/her morality and you disagreed. Believe it or not, morals differ and many believe there are no absolutes.
Finally, conservatives (if I may generalize like you do) don't believe in the rule of law when it comes to their own party (Libby), lies to Congress (documented with Gonzales), believe the vice president is not a part of the executive branch and believe big government is ok when it listens to private phone calls, traces internet sites
War can often times be a pro life position. War is sometimes necessary to bring peace in the end. The Bible says that war is often times justified. You can read what I wrote earlier about the death penalty. And yes, liberals have the right to legislate morality as well. Everybody does. It's called democracy. We battle it out through the arena of ideas and the side with the most votes gets to set the agenda.
Then, would you say that every candidate stands for "moral values" since every candidate tries to legislate what they feel is "right?"
Rino, you are so full of it.
Most conservatives stand up for moral values.
Bull! Some conservatives stand up for hypocrisy. They talk a “good” talk until they are caught. They stand before the public and tell you what they think you want to hear and then they go behind closed doors and act like everyday people. Feet of clay and all that good stuff. "People who live in glass houses don't throw stones" Take for example, Vitter’s wife. During the Clinton/Monica deal she said that she would be more like Lorena Babbitt and not like Hillary. Republicans had such fun with the “stand by your man” hit on Hillary but when faced with the same problem, Mrs. Vitter’s did they same as Hillary. She forgave her man and is sticking with him.
The problem with some conservatives is they THINK that they are different. They assume that the public will be unable to see that they are the same as every one else. No more religious than anyone else, and feet of clay like everyone else. When you Rino can stop believing the hype and BS you will find some difference of opinion but when it comes to individuals, Republicans have no more or less faith, belief in Christianity, humanity or core “values” than anyone else.
And for the drug use, Junior is still trying to deny that he used. Again “hypocrisy“. You pretend that you are all saints but fail because you are like everyone else human with the ability to make mistakes and hopefully learn from them.
Wrong-o, Rino
On the majority of issues that actually deal with life, the liberals are pro and the conservatives are, well, con.
Which party, after all, is in bed with the tobacco industry and the gun lobby? Which one is notoriously comfortable with corporate polluters and never met an environmental standard it didn't despise? Which one favors the death penalty, and even has no problem with torture in some cases? Which one started and furthered this hopeless war?
You've really got to get that beam out of your eye, Rino. You're slipping from "foolish" to "pathetic."
Frankly, when I first hear about a politician involved in a sex scandal, I assume it's a Republican.
It saves time.
Two of the most popular Democratic Presidents of the past century were involved in numerous sex scandals. So yes, it is less likely and more surprising for conservatives to engage in this kind of activity.(RH)
Even if we give you "numerous" in place of "alleged",out of the thousands of elected officials who served in the past century, do you consider two who had publicized scandals statistically significant enough to base your expectations on?
I guess you've already answered that, haven't you?
I am suprised also, I would never expect a Conservative to engage in this type of immoral behavor. These Cons are a joke.
I would never expect a Conservative to engage in this type of immoral behavor.
Really? Did the last six years not happen? We've already forgotten (regardless of how hard we try) that hypocrite Newt Gingrich and his successor ... uh... uh... yeah, maybe I forgot his successor... Livingston! Bob Livingston!
It''s not surprising that a human being would fall prey to temptations of any sort. We're all fallible. But the conservatives in power have both suffered from the arrogance of that power and also allowed themselves to look foolish in doing so by pretending to be the party of righteousness.
Democrats are bound to show up on the Madam's list. But Democrats as a whole don't claim to be holier than thou -- or anyone else.
BM,
I think Doris was being sarcastic. Not sure though....
Conservatives & Liberals both screw around...it's just more hypocritical if you go around preaching Family Values & screw around.
It's like railing against liquor, and being a closet drinker.
Now I think I'll make some popcorn, crack open a beer, put my feet up on my desk & read the 250 frenzied posts to follow.
Well ok, no beer or popcorn cause I'm at work. Just a cup of coffee.
True.... when politicians and prostitutes mix.....good tv is soon to follow.
Vitter should worry too much though, Berry had the same situation plus crack and still got re-elected.
Hahahahah. True.
Why "frenzied posts"?
It was a good point, as you often do make. I've made the analogy before, but I'll risk boring people with it again.
Lefty and Righty are competing in the high jump. Lefty sets the bar at 6'0", but only jumps 5'10" and smashes into the bar. Righty, with a look of contempt, says "I can do better than that," and sets his at 7'0". He runs up, but only jumps 5'10" and goes clear under the bar. Facing ridicule, he points to Lefty and says, "Yeah, but he missed it, too!"
The Righties are the ones who set their own bars higher. Notice that I don't claim that Lefties actually jump higher, but they clearly look less foolish in their attempt.
I think a very naive person might interpret the story as an "acknowledgement" that conservatives are less prone to this sort of thing.
Was Foley as true conservative or just a Republican? Does anyone here differentiate?
There is as big a difference between common adultery and paying organized crime for sex as there is between common adultery and rape.
The difference is the law and those who have no respect for US law should have no place in any government position. Period.
In your world and opinion.
Mr. Reid simply could have been more eloquent. If he had said that Mr. Vitter proclaims himself to be a devout family man, this would be a non-issue. I think Reid could have been much more careful and left Vitter's political affiliation/beliefs out of the story.
Political affiliation of an elected official is always relevant in our system. More so when that official's activities demonstrate that official's hypocrisy.
I misspoke. Perhaps if he were surprised either way (Dem or Rep) it would make for better reporting.
What cracks me up is that Reid is basing his opinion by just looking at a web site as oppossed to talking to Vitter or people that know about him... Next on the MSM's analysis- 'We can't BELIEVE Bush and Cheney are being subpeanoned because WICKIPEDIA says they are GODS among men!'
Careful now...with that selective outrage.
- This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible...Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. - David Vitter
- I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong...for which I am solely and completely responsible...this matter is between me, the two people I love most, my wife and our daughter, and our God. - Bill Clinton
After all...it's only about sex between consenting adults.
No it is not just about sex. It is about using the services of organized crime.
He should be removed from office.
If it were up to many of the liberals on this site, prostitution wouldn't even be a crime.
It can be easily argued that nearly all sex is prostitution. It is all quid pro quo unless you happen to find one extraordinarily altruistic lover.
open_mind, one of the best off-the-cuff answers to a nosy personal question I've ever heard came from an old geezer I worked for years ago, as the subject of prostitution came up.
A co-worker asked him "Have you ever paid for sex?"
without a beat, he answered "invariably"
There's a pretty big difference between a woman who is bribed to have sex a few times and women who actually engage in prostitution for a living. People paying other people to have sex probably happens quite often, but it's the ORGANIZED prostitution that the government needs to crack down on. People shouldn't be able to make a living by having sex. Legalizing prostitution would simply make it much more widespread than it is right now. It would lead to a huge prostitution industry and complete chaos and anarchy.
Like the escorts in Nevada who are tested for disease and have to register with a state agency? I am not for prostitution, but it could be done.
What do you think of strip clubs or the pornography industry? Should those things be illegal? If so, how big would our government have to be?
No. I don't believe that strip clubs or pornography should be illegal. The difference between prostitution and these two things is that prostitution spreads disease. It ends up hurting our society as a whole. People who go to strip clubs and look at pornography are only hurting themselves.
So, let me ask you this, Rino: If prostitution were regulated like it is in Nevada where the women have registration cards and must get tested for disease at random times in order to keep their registration, would you be in favor of it? Those who come down with diseases are banned and lose their status. Discerning customers are able to ask for registration when they see their companion and get the safety they are looking for.
I don't really see the point of legalizing something and then regulating it. I think that if the government is going to be involved in the issue, they should just ban it outright. I don't see what good it would do to legalize it and then regulate it. I think that that would create an even bigger government than simply banning the practice. I don't believe it's right for the government to get tax dollars from prostitution.
"I don't really see the point of legalizing something and then regulating it. I think that if the government is going to be involved in the issue, they should just ban it outright."--rino hunter
So you believe in prohibition of alcohol? Sales of alcohol is regulated and legal. At one time they tried to ban it and it was a complete disaster. Legalizing it largely removed the profit for organized crime. I imagine the same could be done with prostitution.
No. I actually think that alcohol should be regulated less than it is now.
"People who go to strip clubs and look at pornography are only hurting themselves."
Only if you don't lube up and loosen your grip!
Why not?
In Pahrump, NV there are legal houses of prostitution (Cathouse series on HBO). The woman are tested and clean. They choose when they work, how long and how often. The women who work there engaged in prostitution that is honest and fair. She has a product to sell and if there is a buyer a transaction is complete. I don’t see the problem.
I can’t imagine that anyone wants their child to grow up to be a prostitute but better legal and safe than standing on some street corner or alley. It’s especially better legal for men cause then they won’t bring home a disease to their wife or girlfriend.
And by the way Pahrump is a sleepy little town about 1 hour outside Las Vegas. Very little crime or chaos.
I agree with that. It also makes the women safer from all sorts of crime. It removes the fear these women may have of filing a criminal grievance against their more abusive customers with their local authorities or asking for their help without the fear of prosecution themselves for their occupation.
Feh. It shouldn't be a crime in the first place. The man's sin is adultery, and in my eyes, it's one of two sins he's committed here: Adultery and Hypocrisy. If he had done this in Nevada, it likely would never have made the news.
Silly politicians. Do it where it's legal.
Yep- dems get it for free, republicant's have to pay for it...
If Clinton was wrong so is Vitter. Fair enough.
Don't let the fact that Vitter called for Clinton's Impeachment sway you.
Tough duty since he was not elected until after Clinton was impeached.
Uh, where did Snoopy say otherwise? Vitter did not have to be in Congress to have made such a statement.
And, he entered Congress when there was still considerable discussion and controversy about Clinton:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/2004-11-03-vitter-profile_x.htm
“I think Livingston’s stepping down makes a very powerful argument that Clinton should resign as well and move beyond this mess.” - Vitter [Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 12/20/98]
In June 2002, shortly before the Louisiana Weekly ran a story about Vitter's alleged relationship with a prostitute, Vitter dropped out of the governor's race,saying he and his wife were dealing with marital problems.
Does that invalidate the qoute Snoopy provided?
I thought you were going to post the actual article, not a bunch of wikipedia definitions.
“I’m a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary,” Wendy Vitter told Newhouse News. “If he does something like that, I’m walking away with one thing, and it’s not alimony, trust me.”
Proof that Vitter doesn't have the balls to be moral...
LOL...that would certainly call for a short arm inspection for Vitter.
That is because he cut and pasted his entire post from Vitter's wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Vitter
"After all...it's only about sex between consenting adults."--wesley
I agree. For whatever reason the media like to drag these guys through the mud. I really don't care. It is a matter between this guy and his wife.
The problem is that I don't recall any conservatives objecting to dragging Clinton through the mud at the time. Why would you expect liberals to give your buddy here a pass? It's just partisan t*t-for-tat. Is anyone surprised really?
Dag nabbit!! Another scandal!
I though Repugnicans were only the pedophile party, but they still stood tall (relatively speaking) against adultery.
I've been misled.
This guy Chip Reid is a sad joke. He's been so indoctrinated by the right-wing he spouts the con talking points by reflex.
I would say that the only saving grace here for mr. Vitter is that it wasn,t a male escort service.
In May, USAID lost Randall Tobias to a well published DC madam sex scandal. The president announced, that he was appropriating an additional $30B for PEPFAR. The prior $15B is no longer there nor was misuses mentioned. Other also have shown to question logic of giant defense contractors like Northrop into the compassion care arena, especially as Northrop’s recover from years-long slump, openly stated desire to diversify, triggered by numerous DOD investigations concerns and fierce military contract competition. During that period of Tobias reign at USAID -- when Northrop went from zero to $300B – now they’re the single largest USAID contractor. Congress became acutely aware of the crisis. (see Corruption Gone Wild) http://truthtellingforum.com/ourblogs/?cat=3
and guess what? a lot of these tv evangelists have been caught in these same kind of activities. where's the "surprise" factor? and will fox have dick morris do an analysis of sucking call girls toes?
I think the point (about hypocrisy) being missed here is that Vitter was one of many Republicans who took the floor of Congress and argued that legalizing homosexual marriage would be detrimental to the sanctity of traditional, heterosexual marriage (and by extension, the very fabric of our society). According to him, traditional marriage is the last bulwark against immoral behavior and to grant legal recognition to gay people would weaken that defense. Yet, once again we see how little substance there is to either their argument or their example.
Morality is not the exclusive province of any party, sexual orientation or religious affiliation. The comparison to Clinton is false because he never made this claim. Vitter (and his ilk) did...and incredibly, still do.
Just how imbecilic and irrelevant the mainstream media has become is evident in this report. Who didn't know right away even before the media reluctantly released the info that Vitter was a republican, that Vitter was a republican. And you also knew right away instinctively that he was a family values guy, praising home and hearth and decency. Much like old Ravenel down in SC. Before he got caught dealing coke. It's almost unbelievable that the republican faithful still can't see through these slimebuckets. Makes you wonder about their values, huh? Such as in birds of a feather......
Are the republican idiots still raking up the Clinton example. Jeez It's as if anything Clinton did or didn't do justifies right-wing moral bankruptcy. 'member how Bob Dole came on as the man of the people in '96', playing the values card. All one needs to know about Clinton and Dole (besides one is a winner and the other is a loser) is that while Clinton took on the murdering tobacco lobby, after losing in '96', Dole went to work for the tobacco lobby. Republican idiots: it's not what you say, it's what you do.
Former president Bill Clinton, who came to the White House with modest means and left deeply in debt, has collected nearly $40 million in speaking fees over the past six years, according to interviews and financial disclosure statements filed by his wife.
Does this post have a point, other than to emphasize the one on top of the poster's head?
POLITICIANS PRIEST PRESIDENTS AND THE MOST OF THE ENTIRE AMERICAN POPULATION WANT TO HAVE GOOD CHRISTIAN VALUES. THE PROBLEM IS YOU ARE WHAT YOU ARE. SOME GET CAUGHT AND SOME DONT.
No one is perfect, (with one notable exception.) We are all sinners to one degree or another.
No one is perfect, (with one notable exception.)
Nope, Ronald Reagan wasn't, either.