USA Today's Page claimed Vitter's actions matter more to conservatives
On the July 10 edition of MSNBC Live, USA Today Washington bureau chief Susan Page suggested that Sen. David Vitter's (R-LA) connection to the alleged "D.C. Madam," Deborah Jeane Palfrey, might not matter "[i]f you're running for mayor of New York City," but it matters to "a rather conservative state like -- like Louisiana. ... And especially to Republican voters who tend to be more conservative on social values." Page's comment suggests that the only relevant issue in the Vitter matter is possible sexual misconduct. But in addition to the question of possible illegality in Vitter's conduct, as CBS Public Eye editor Brian Montopoli noted -- citing posts on the weblogs The Carpetbagger Report and The New Republic's The Plank -- Vitter "said last year that the gay marriage ban was the most important issue out there" and campaigned on a theme of "stand[ing] up for Louisiana values, not Massachusetts's values." Montopoli concluded: "[T]his story has hit such a nerve with some folks" because "[i]t's the hypocrisy, stupid."
Vitter apologized for "a very serious sin in my past," about which he "received forgiveness from God and my wife," after it was disclosed that his phone number was among Palfrey's phone records. ABC News Investigative Unit producer Justin Rood wrote that Hustler magazine "may have prompted' Vitter's apology, reporting that soon after "a Hustler editor contacted Vitter's office to ask his connection to Palfrey's service. ... Vitter's office released its statement." Palfrey has been indicted on racketeering charges stemming from allegations that she ran a prostitution ring.
As the weblog ThinkProgress noted, in 2004, Vitter attacked Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and then-Sen. John Breaux (D-LA) for voting against the so-called "Federal Marriage Amendment:" "This is a real outrage," Vitter said in a statement released by his campaign. "The Hollywood left is redefining the most basic institution in human history, and our two U.S. Senators won't do anything about it." As New Republic senior editor Michael Crowley noted, in 2006, the New Orleans Times-Picayune wrote that Vitter clarified a remark suggesting that "gay marriage is more important that hurricane relief:"
"What I meant," Vitter said, is that "the existence or non-existence of a stable, loving, two-parent household" is the most significant predictor of success in life.
Page's comments recall NBC News congressional correspondent Chip Reid's assertion on the July 10 edition of NBC's Today, as Media Matters for America noted: "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."
From the July 10 edition of MSNBC Live:
TUCKER CARLSON (guest host): Is this -- have we reached a point, Susan -- I'm asking you this as someone who's covered Washington for a long time -- have we reached a point where, you know, "David Vitter went to a hooker, so what?"
PAGE: I don't think so. I mean, especially not in a rather conservative state like -- like Louisiana, maybe in New York. If you're running for mayor of New York City that might be different, but, no, I don't think you're at a point where this matters not at all to voters, and especially to Republican voters who tend to be more conservative on social value issues.
PAT BUCHANAN (MSNBC political analyst): I understand why Vitter worked so hard against amnesty. He did a great job on that immigration bill. He needs some work down there in Louisiana.
CARLSON: Yeah, but, isn't this kind of expected in Louisiana or no?
BUCHANAN: Well, it's -- well it's -- they had what's-his-name?
CARLSON: [Former Louisiana Gov.] Edwin Edwards [D].
BUCHANAN: Edwin Edwards, yeah. Vote for the -- They said, "Vote for the --
CARLSON: "Vote for the crook. It's important."
BUCHANAN: "Vote for the crook, not the kook. It's important."
Page was responding to Tucker's question about whether this matters or not; her response, in that context, was perfectly appropriate and sensible.
she suggested that it would not matter "in new york city". i don't think that's true.
"And especially to Republican voters who tend to be more conservative on social values"
This quote is very likely true for regular everyday Conservatives (as much as it is for Liberals) but for those that would like to wield power or those that already do....
It is simpler to make these claims than to actually live them!
Isn't prostitution illegal?
In D.C. anyway...
My view on this is basically I could care less what politicians do in their private lives, it's their business and if they want to cavort with hookers, well, their choice I suppose.
My problems with it are not my moral objections, but rather is it affecting their job and elected duties in anyway. Obviously, if they are missing votes or meetings or being distracted because of some adulterous affair, then I have a big problem. But even more serious for me is by compromising their behavior in ways like this makes them open season for blackmail which definitely could affect their public service. That is extremely problematic and probably reason enough for me to vote against them.
But each person makes up their own mind about stuff like this.
Pigs.
Boy you sure do bend over backwards in the name of prostitution... which is a crime in case you forgot.
At this point it's only alleged prostitution. Even MMFA makes that distinction. Should it turn out to be otherwise, then yes Vitter also was involved in criminal activity....but let's not put the cart before the horse just yet.
Since I live in Massachusetts I got a kick out of this statement from Vitter:
"said last year that the gay marriage ban was the most important issue out there" and campaigned on a theme of "stand[ing] up for Louisiana values, not Massachusetts's values."
Yes them good old Massachusetts values...
Like electing someone to the Senate, then re-electing him over & over again despite a long list of moral & alleged criminal issues. Must be his last name that overrides it all...
Vitter might be on to something here ;-)
I do think there are Republicans who are very socially conservative when it comes to moral issues that will find Vitter's behavior hard to forgive.
It does seem to be Democrat/Liberals who more often usually shrug these type of stories off by saing "it's only sex"
Yes, we shrug it off except for cases where the politician claims he is morally superior to us. I just loves to see me some republican hypocrisy exposed in the morning. It smells like ... victory!
So as long as I don't claim to be a saint...anything goes?
Cool
Just remember to stock up on adultery offsets.
If you need some, let me know...
While not quite that simple its not that far off. I am willing to give someone the benifit of the doubt. None of us are perfect and we all fall short if its a personal moral falling off the horse and not a long term debauchery thing then yeah I am willing to give a politician a break. On the other hand if I have had to listen to him tell us all how much morally superior he is he gets no slack. The hypocrisy is dealbreaker
I'm not sure I follow the scattered points of your post...
Vitter's relationship wasn't with a prostitute?
Prostitution's not a crime?
alleged "[link to blogs.abcnews.com] title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?[link to blogs.abcnews.com] color="#0052a3">D.C. Madam,"
Just repeating what MMFA wrote.
The "madam" involved in this claims that she did not employ prostitutes. She claims that the girls didn't prostitute themselves. She says they didn't participate in "illegal sexual activities."
Actually, no she doesn't. The madam claims that if any hanky panky happened, it wasn't directed by her. The madam -- I mean "matchmaker" just provided women to keep men "company" for a "small fee". It was merely a coincidence that sex may have occured.
; )
Of course, there is the slightest possibility she is being a little bit disingenuous...maybe. If so it would be the first time ever someone was disingenuous in a legal defense argument.
I was directly quoting her when she told some reporter that they did not participate in "illegal" sexual activities.
She contends that her escort service was a legitimate business offering sexual fantasies.
Yeah, I noticed that later. My mistake. Some argument though.
Give me a break...all of you.
Why in the world would he come out and make a public statement IF HE DID NOTHING WRONG!
Easy, tiger.
The man issued what can only reasonably be seen as a confession/apology. I did find it amusing that according to Vitter, God told him everything was A-okay!
At this point it's only alleged prostitution. Even MMFA makes that distinction. Should it turn out to be otherwise, then yes Vitter also was involved in criminal activity....but let's not put the cart before the horse just yet. - Jeter2
Do you think Deborah Jeane Palfrey had Vitter's phone number so she can call him up and talk about Conservative Family Values?
Do you think Vitter apologized to something that he never did? Please note the following from MMFA article:
Vitter apologized for "a very serious sin in my past," about which he "received forgiveness from God and my wife," ...
Based on Vitter's apology would it be reasonable to say that he had sex with an escort?
Also based on Vitter's apology would it be resonable to say that Vitter paid for this sex?
Jeter2,
The public doesn't have to wait for the court decision. We have what is called the court of public opinion and I think it's pretty clear Vitter paid an escort to have sex.
Let's give these guys the benefit of the doubt here. Being a staunch conservative can really be stressful sometimes. Maybe that is why these conservatives are usually claiming to get "back rubs" from known prostitutes. I just hope they aren't paying full price. That would simply be a waste of money and a real crime.
The public doesn't have to wait for the court decision. We have what is called the court of public opinion and I think it's pretty clear Vitter paid an escort to have sex.
Well Harl, it was pretty clear Bill & Monica were screwing around even when Bill wagged his finger at us all & denied it. But the Democrats chastised any & all that didn't believe him. Hillary screamed Right-Wing Conspiracy!
The "court of public opinion" turned out to be correct, and likely will be in this instance as well.
At least Vitter appears to be coming clean. Of course until the alleged is removed from in front of DC Madam, I guess we'll have to wait to be certain if it was a pay for sex deal..
I'm so sure if it was a Democrat, you'd insist on that...
Public opinion was also squarely on Clinton's side in the follow up. People weren't happy he lied. But most wanted him to remain our president regardless of what self-righteous conservatives thought at the time.
And Clinton, too, apologized.
By "court of public opinion," I trust you mean all the polls in which 60-70% majorities consistently found Clinton's impeachment to be a colossal waste of time.
By "court of public opinion," I trust you mean all the polls in which 60-70% majorities consistently found Clinton's impeachment to be a colossal waste of time.
Actually no, that's not what I meant at all. Wasn't even talking about Clinton's impeachment. Made no mention of it...Marv the bitter one brought it into the conversation, though I'm not entirely sure why. But then again, I've given up trying to figure bitter Marv out. Not worth my time...
My response in regards to the "court of public opinion" was to a poster above named Harlequin. He wrote [I'll paraphrase] that the public opinion would be that most believed, due to Vitter's "apology" he'd paid for a hooker & slept with her.
I simply said that the vast public opinion was that Bill Clinton was fooling around with Monica even though he first denied it.
Hope that clears things up arglebargle.
You wrote:
The public doesn't have to wait for the court decision. We have what is called the court of public opinion and I think it's pretty clear Vitter paid an escort to have sex.
Well Harl, it was pretty clear Bill & Monica were screwing around even when Bill wagged his finger at us all & denied it. But the Democrats chastised any & all that didn't believe him. Hillary screamed Right-Wing Conspiracy!
The "court of public opinion" turned out to be correct, and likely will be in this instance as well.
Seems perfectly reasonable to point out that the court of public opinion were heavily against the impeachment of Clinton. Not to someone who resorts to name calling as his first defense, though.
WRONG bitter one.
Harley was the one who wrote:
The public doesn't have to wait for the court decision. We have what is called the court of public opinion and I think it's pretty clear Vitter paid an escort to have sex.
I simply copied & pasted it so he'd understand THAT was the part of his post I was responding to.
Just figured I'd clear up that mistake of yours first.
Neither Harlequin nor I were discussing impeachment. YOU brought it up. It had nada to do with our [mine or Harley's] posts.
And still doesn't.
Okay, let's triim it to your words only:
Well Harl, it was pretty clear Bill & Monica were screwing around even when Bill wagged his finger at us all & denied it. But the Democrats chastised any & all that didn't believe him. Hillary screamed Right-Wing Conspiracy!
The "court of public opinion" turned out to be correct, and likely will be in this instance as well.
You both addressed the Clinton scandal AND a previous point about "the court of public opinion."
I made a valid point. Maybe you don't think it directly addressed anything you said. Fine.
And you know, if you didn't want to be a jerk, you could call me Marv instead. It's one thing to be self-deprecating. But when you address me as "bitter" it's insulting. I explained elsewhere that BitterMarv is meant ironically.
I wasn't bitter in any posts I made to you. I admit I don't think much of many of your posts here, but I addressed you in a fair and even handed manner. I don't think it's too much to expect the same.
You have the audacity to call Jeter a jerk, and then you arrogantly say you think very little of most of his posts. That is ironic, not to mention hypocritical.
Let me just say that Jeter's fair and balanced look at issues, his sense of humor and the respectful way he treats posters that deserve it are to be commended.
Whether your name is ironic or not, it fits perfectly in absence of any irony, nonetheless.
Thanks Tommy :-)
Amazing to read how Bitter-Boy is whining about being "insulted", when he has never shown me an ounce of respect or civility in the past. He finally manages one post without his usual rancor BUT nevertheless still attempts to misinterpret what I and another poster were discussing & he wonders why I reacted the way I did. Was he expecting an award for not being quite his normally belligerent self? His attempt to present himself as the hurt party, as if he were attacked out of the blue, is so disingenuous it's almost comical. We have an acrimonious history, which he initiated long ago.
You reap what you sow Bitter Marv.
Since I have a good rapport with most of the other posters here, Bitter-Boy's opinions are of no concern or importance to me.
I simply said that the vast public opinion was that Bill Clinton was fooling around with Monica even though he first denied it.
Hope that clears things up arglebargle."
All except for your Right-wing conspiracy reference, which pertains to the impeachment, not the infidelity. Hillary was characterizing the former (correctly) and not the latter. So your (possibly honest) conflation of the two was a bit water-muddying.
But thanks for the clarification.
All except for your Right-wing conspiracy reference, which pertains to the impeachment, not the infidelity. Hillary was characterizing the former (correctly) and not the latter.
Are you sure? I was under the impression that when Hillary first made that statement [Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy] on the Today Show that it was in reference to the [then] rumors about Bill & Monica that were circulating [and not long after Bill wagged his finger].
But I could certainly be wrong. I'll do some investigating later.
But for now I have to run. I'll be back around 2:30. IF you find anything on this, I'd appreciate you leaving the info. Thanks.
It was a reference to the Arkansas Project, which you can look up yourself.
TOMMY:
Just so I understand, you have no problem with people who:
1. wish for your vote, because they
2. wish to write LAWS which cover
3. MORALITY, of which they claim to be fine upstanding examples of, but they
4. ARE LYING TO YOU, because they are morally reprehensible, and they
5. want YOU to behave as they dictate through law, while
6. they are doing any immoral thing they damn please.
And your position is, none of this MATTERS to you? The lying, the posing, the double standard, the hypocricy, the lying, the arrogant display of entitlement which they do not extend to others, the phonyness, the lying, the lack of "authenticity", the craven immorality, the pandering to the deeply religious while in actuality being deeply sinful themselves, ALL THAT IS FINE WITH YOU, as long as they don't miss a vote in Congress?
What this tells me is that you will happily eat goat manure for breakfast, as long as I put it in a pretty box.
Tex,
Not that I care, but did you even read my post at all? I explained the reasons I would not vote for them based on their personal shenanigans, did you miss that?
And your preachy moralizing is very touching, were you as high on your pedestal when Clinton was staining Monica's dress in the oval office? Or were you trouncing on Republicans for their witch hunt?
Your glaring hypocrisy is showing, better saddle up and head west.
I didn't see anyplace where Tex talked about how he felt about these issues.
He was correctly calling you out on your hypocrisy.
You know, you guys are sickening enough when you post here to lick George W. Bush's boots...
But you're only just funny, when you post to dry clean Vitter's pants.
You know, you guys are sickening enough when you post here to lick George W. Bush's boots...
Oh Dem02020? Which "guys" are you referring to?
Can't be me, since I do no such thing. I don't even like the guy. IF you read my posts here, you'd know that.
But I won't be insulted if you don't. I usually ignore your 5000 word posts, so I haven't got a clue about you either, other than your moniker defines that you're a Democrat.
But you're only just funny, when you post to dry clean Vitter's pants.
Sorry we only dry clean blue dress....
I can only wonder why you responded to my post, if you didn't think it referred to you.
Well since Tommy & I were the only Conservatives that had posted at that point, exactly who else would anyone think you were talking about?
Sorry if that's too logical for you.
Jeter ... you're missing the point. The issue is the hypocrisy, and the suggestion that only conservatives would care about it.
I wasn't pleased with Clinton's behavior - but he wasn't riding around on a high horse telling others how to live their lives - like the Ted Haggards, Newt Gingriches, Henry Hydes, and Bob Livingstons of the world.
Fair enough, but:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=212734
"Some current polls may suggest that people are turned off by the whole Clinton mess and don't care -- because the stock market is good, the Clinton spin machine is even better or other reasons. But that doesn't answer the question of whether President Clinton should be impeached and removed from office because he is morally unfit to govern."
I just hate the lying and hypocrisy. To be fair during the whole Clinton Fiasco I was a teen and wasn't into politics, but I felt he was just as wrong for what he did. I don't now feel that Vitter should be fired or relieved of office for adultry, I do believe that he should be removed if he in fact solicited a prostitute, whch he has pretty much confessed. That's illegal. Congress had no right to impeach Clinton for his affair, but if he perjure himself, he perjured himself and he had to face the music whatever the outcome may be.
a small point. Congress has every right to impeach if it so desires and for whatever reason it chooses, as long as it fits the "High crimes and misdemeanors" threshold. It's in the Constitution.
Whether one agrees with the impeachment is warranted is another thing.
It makes sense that this matters more to conservatives since they're the ones who support him. Or at leaset did prior to this incident.
It matters to progressives as well, though. You forget that until about six months ago, we were living in a country controlled at the Federal level by these same hypocritical conservatives.
Vitter needs to resign, because to argue otherwise would just reinforce the hypocrisy that has come to characterize the republican party.
Yep, to Page and Carlson, the Vitter hypocricy is important only to conservatives down in LA. That is, as long as you don't count gays, and proponents for, or supporters of, same-sex marriage. And Americans who might expect their elected figures to have a little integrity.
I suppose one could argue that it only matters to Vitter what conservatives think of him, because that's where his support is coming from.
---"I suppose one could argue that it only matters to Vitter what conservatives think of him..."---
Vitter does show signs of actually being THAT ignorant. To this, I agree with you.
I think the implication was that cheating on ones wife with a prostitute is OK with liberals, but conservatives will really be concerned with it.
A myth, as conservatives seem mostly concerned with dirty deeds and hypocrisy when connected to non-conservatives, and are able to overlook this sort of hypocrisy on their side.
As evidenced by Tommy, who claims to not care about pols personal lives in this case,but posted yesterday;
I wonder if Edward's recently announced poverty tour will include a stop at his palatial compound? Maybe for afternoon tea, or at least so John-boy can sign the checks for the household servants. - tommy / Tuesday July 10, 2007 03:37:58 PM EST
I fail to see the correlation? Edwards is a phony who panders for votes and acts as though he is just plain folk, if he would shut up and stop trying to claim something he's not, then I would stop labeling him a phony.
I said I have no interest in a politician's private life if it in no way affects his public service. This issue for Vitter could very easily affect his job perfomrance which is where my objection with him lies.
I am sorry you can't distinguish the obvious difference.
Vitter is a phony who panders for votes and acts as though he is just moral and upstanding, if he would shut up and stop trying to claim something he's not, then I would stop labeling him a Hypocrite.
You're absolutely correct.
"...acts as though he is just plain folk..."
What does that mean?
Oh please, his whole schtick is based on it. Just look at his poverty tour, or whatever he calls it.
But this is off topic, you brought up Edwards, I did not.
First of all, no, he doesn't call it a "poverty tour." And you know that already, because it's been pointed out to you at least once. Secondly, have YOU looked at it? How does bringing attention to the millions who live below the poverty line in any way conflict with Edwards own wealth or upbringing? Answer: it doesn't.
Vitter is a hypocrite for running on a Familly Values platform, while practicing quite the opposite. Edwards is not a hypocrite for raising awareness of our poverty problem and proposing solutions. It's incredible that you remain unable or unwilling to grasp that.
you're right Clams, Edwards doesn't call it a "poverty tour." As usual, Tommy has bought into the right-wing talking points hook line and sinker.
Hey, do they have Cliffs Notes for those, or do you have to buy the whole book?
For the life of me I don't know why you find Edwards to be any more phony than any other politician. He grew up poor used his brain and became a lawyer and was successful at it and ran and won a Senate seat. He has taken unpopular positions an d apologized for mistakes. If he'd cheated on his wife or had a child out of wedlock would he have more credibility? What is the standard of phoniness? I'm not saying he's a saint but come on. Last I checked he hadn't divorced or abandoned his wife like so many popular Republicans do. He hasn't been caught with his phone number in a prostitutes rolodex.His wife gained weight and has cancer and he's a stud, still he is with her.
What is it that makes him "phony" the 400 dollar hair cut?
Bing,
You and I disagree about Edwards and that is fine. I respect your opinion, however I don't share it. Poverty isn't cured by huge bloated government spending programs, that has been evidenced for decades. What does work is a small efficient and lean government which provides opportunity and education for everyone, lowering the tax burden, personal responsibility.
Edwards can ride the rails of his sanctimonious poverty tour all over the country, but unless and until he details specifically how he will pay for it, it's just more liberal rhetoric.
And still no details from the Edwards supporters of this tour, yet they all applaud it......why is that?
"And still no details from the Edwards supporters of this tour, yet they all applaud it......why is that?"
Unless I missed it, you didn't ask for any "details" about the tour. And what details are you looking for exactly? Have you bothered to read anything about the tour before dismissing it as phony and pandering? You keep harping on about a lack of details in Edwards' plans (even as they've been spoonfed to you), and yet you haven't offered any details explaining your kneejerk reaction against them. All you contributed are baseless prepackaged soundbites about "bloated government."
I don't think it's necessary for the right to beat Edwards up for his political strategy. He won't be on the national ticket this time around with Clinton and Obama in the mix. He doesn't have enough support to win the nomination, so the whole point is moot.
Hopefully his poverty tour and it's elimination trickery will go the same way his VP and his Presidential campaign have gone, and will go........nowhere.
But it is fun to watch these liberals continue to say that conservatives who don't support this trillion dollar fiasco just hate poor people......that's worth the price of admission on any of his poverty tour stops.
TAX the rich!
Surprise, more empty and baseless rhetoric in place of any real substantial point. You admit that all you know on this subject was gleened from "breezing through" Edwards' website yesterday, and with that extensive base of knowledge you've decided that his proposals are "trickery" and that his plan is a "trillion dollar fiasco."
....maybe YOU don't hate them, but as my Mama all ways told me action speaks louder than words. The most vocal voices on the right have been well let's say harsh. The poor are characterized as lazy, immoral, crazy, druggies, alcoholics..... or any combination of these things. Now that's what they verbalize about them and apparently their policy to resolve generational cyclic poverty and the associated habitual criminality and anti-social behavior that can accompany that is to lower taxes for the most fortunate and financially blessed people that have ever inhabited God's green earth, call poor people ugly names, and build more prisons. I'd say poor people aren't very well liked on the right. And some of those holier than thous railing against the least among them are going to have a lotta splaining to do on J day. Now surely this isn’t reflective of your brand of conservatism I know, Your brand of conservatism basically seems indifferent to the social ills of our nation. You don’t hate poor people or like them but you don’t want to help them either not if it means you gotta give up a couple of dollars. Judging by your post here all you pretty much want is to have the government protect your person. You don’t want any parts of contributing to a public financial pool that protects the common good beyond security matters. Protection of that common good combined with the sweat of your own brow (I’m making certain assumptions here) is the very reason that you have been able to live a comfortable prosperous life. Without it Tommy it would be a pretty ugly world. America is a wonderful wonderful place for many of us. I would like to see more people access our wonderful America. We can facilitate that, we can show them how. I pray that the majority of Americans have the heart and the will to do that. Anyway, we’ll see come next election.
Poverty isn't cured by huge bloated government spending programs, that has been evidenced for decades.
Such as? What was proposed by Edwards that meets your straw stuffed description?
Poverty is indeed mitigated by our government in a variety of ways. Social Security has prevented a lot of seniors from ending up on the street, as has Medicare. Two great, popular programs, both of which run with efficiencies private programs can only dream of.
So, ya know, you're just spouting more nonsense without anything to back it up. But you'll be back to spout more nonsense as though THAT backs anything up.
You're just an Edwards Hater, Tommy.
You're the umpteenth liberal to come on here and say that Edward's poverty elimination pandering is some lofty gift from the heavens, but not a one of you has given me one penny's worth of substantive detail on how he proposes to pay for it, except the tired line of raising wealthy people's taxes. Well, I am not foolish or naive enough to believe that baloney even if it was viable, which it is not.
So, I ask you, how specifically will he pay for and implement these programs? Start with the "staying off drugs" part, if that helps you.
Otherwise, take your sniveling whining about how I hate Edwards elsewhere - because you have nothing else.
You're the umpteenth liberal to come on here and say that Edward's poverty elimination pandering is some lofty gift from the heavens,
Wow. Another lie from Tommy in the first sentence of his response to me.
Criticizing your bullcrap is not the same as calling anything about Edwards a "lofty gift from the heavens" and you'd be hard pressed to find me saying anything of that sort here or elsewhere.
The rest of your post isn't worthy of reading since you chose to start it out by lying.
I admit I don't expect more from you.
Not surprising. No specifics from you either.
You can't even try with any sincerity.
I presented Social Security and Medicare as two great programs that are also quite popular as being effective at mitigating poverty. This addressed your initial premise that I responded to, that the government isn't good at such things. Totally on point, and specific enough to address your invalid premise.
You responded with a couple of lies, and now squeal like a stuck pig. Excellent work, liar.
We are talking about Edwards poverty fix, you introduced SS and Medicare because you, like all the rest, can't tell any of us how he intends to pay for it.
You have no credibility.
Both Social Security and Medicare were both created to keep the elderly out of poverty. They're both efficient (I think the overhead on social security, for instance, is something like 2%.) They have both performed exceptionally well in mitigating poverty.
These are two examples of programs that the government has created to mitigate proverty. You suggested that this was something the government couldn't do. I proved you wrong, without touting anything about Edward's stances. So you responded by lying.
Get over it, Tommy. Again, you were proven wrong. And again, when that's occurred, you respond by lying, attacking the poster, and trying to change the subject to something more of your liking.
You're intellectually dishonest is all. Own up to it, like a good conservative. You know, personal responsibility and all that.
I've asked you in four posts to detail Edwards' implementation and spending specifics for his poverty plan and you have flip flopped and wormed out and squeezed your way out every time, and now accusing me of changing the topic.
Obviously you can't do so and don't have the integrity to admit it, so I am done asking. When you want to act like an adult and discuss an issue honestly, come back and play.
Otherwise, we're done. Being bitter is most likely your best quality, stick with it.
Look back a couple post, liar, and you'll see I QUOTED the part of your post I was responding to. I'll do it again just for you since you're either too lazy to do it, or you've purposely ignored it so you can continue your intellectual honesty parade.
Poverty isn't cured by huge bloated government spending programs, that has been evidenced for decades.
I responded to THAT. That statement is a lie, or at best, conservative propaganda. You non-responded with more lies about my positions on a particular candidate.
And you continue to do it. Which I'm pleased about, because it demonstrates to EVERYONE that you're not interested in an honest debate and you'd rather just smear.
What "spending specifics" are you hoping for here? I joked about this yesterday, but it now truly seems that you don't understand how government spending works, because the all the specifics that you need are given in the links that have been provided to you. Do you really need a Government 101 refresher to tell you how funding for these programs works?
OK, the government gets its revenue primarily from income taxes (corporate and individual) and social security receipts. Then they spend it on programs like Medicare, Social Security, defense, and so on. The president creates a budget to divy up funding between mandatory and discretionary federal spending. The budget goes to Congress and various committees mull over all the proposals and decide where the discretionary spending goes. This is how Edwards' proposals get funded. Is it clear to you now? Did you never ask these questions before or wonder where the billions that we're spending in Iraq are coming from? It comes from your and then Congress, the president and budget directors decide where it's directed. So now that this is no longer a mystery to you, maybe you can explain what, specifically, you object to about Edwards' ideas.
Wait so Edwards fights for povery and has actually done things to help the poor. But this guy fights for "traditional marriage" and has actually done things to help traditional marriage by cheating on his wife by sleeping with prostitutes? How does the even make sense?
OK, I'll try you. Can you please give me the specific details on how Edwards plans to pay for this albatross liberal spending backbreaker that he advocates? For him to skip across the country on this poverty tour with no specifics is as phony as it gets. Just how many haircuts will he require for the length of his tour? At $400 a pop, he better bring his own stylist.
Unless you can detail it specifically, then any further discussion of this off topic item is pointless.
barbers: $400[haircut]*12[week]=$4,800/yr
hos: ($300[trick]*52[week])*15%=$2,340/yr
pimps: ($300[trick]*52[week])*85%=$13,260/yr
The numbers don't lie. Edwards is helping the poor, while once again, the republican Vitter is simply helping the rich get richer.
Tommy,
Time to revive your figures. His campaign spent $1,200 for another haircut. They flew the barber in from LA and he charged them for wages he lost by traveling.
That's our 'concerned for the poor' friend, John Edwards for ya.
Really? I hadn't heard that. Well, I hope he got some extensions for that price.
$1,200 for that.......did it include a manicure and a pedicure?
LOL.........more haircut nonsense.
If this is all you guys have, you're in big trouble.
Post a link that both demonstrates this, and that his campaign hasn't been reimbursed by Edwards.
Marv, I hope you didn't put off anything important while waiting for Barney Fife to back up his post.
No, you've been around here longer than I have, I'm sure you didn't.
Revised:
barbers: $400[haircut]*12[months]+$800[lost wages]=$5,600/yr*
Narrows the gap, but not appreciably. Barbers would still do better selling their wives and daughters to republicans.
*(note: tips not included)
Tommy, Sometimes it seems to me that you and many conservatives have one standard of behavior for Liberals and another standard for fellow conservatives. i.e. they get a pass. I've seen countless posts from you and other conservatives on this board criticizing and mocking Edwards, but nothing said about the phony Romney. He's given a complete pass on his flip flops and his obvious vote pandering, yet Edwards is characterized as the devil incarnate. Moreover bending over backwards attempting to defend the bad behavior of another obvious phony like Vitter displays further bias. The truth is we human beings are all fallible and sometimes we have moral failings. But this overly judgmental superior than though attitude often displayed by many conservatives adds an additional and very unpleasant dimension to the human failing spectrum. It’s one thing to be a whore monger, but lecturing someone about sexual morality when you’re whore mongering is just plain annoying.
I meant superior than thou
Lynn, I will give you the benefit of the doubt but I have written several posts about my non-support of Mitt Romney. I have echoed your assessment of him a flip flopper, so sorry you missed them.
Factcheck.org recently did a pretty nice takedown of some of Romneys claims. It's worth checking out.
Tommy,
It's the passion and dogged persistence you bring to any criticism of Liberal politicians and pundits. I know you don't hate Edwards because you're not a hateful guy. But Edwards vote solicitation is par for the course as candidates go. It’s no different than average, yet you seem to see it differently. By the way Edwards wasn't always rich in fact he grew up in lower working class circumstances. You're always just a step from the poor house in those circumstances. I am sure that had a profound effect on Edwards' psyche; I know it would have had on mine. It's an unsettled feeling. I don't question Edwards sincerity about this issue, and this has been a historic position for him, one they maybe you don’t like.And as far as him making his money suing docs, let me say this. I have worked in the healthcare field for over 25 years now. I've mostly encounter physicians that are caring, competent, and absolutely committed to patient care and I've encountered those who weren't. The bucks drove them to the profession. This includes a thoracic surgeon, a very very nice man by the way. But he was allowing fellows and residents to performed unsupervised complicated thoracic surgery and saying that he did it when he was wherever the hell he was. He was sued and he should have been, because he was wrong. I bet he keeps his ass in the OR when he's supposed to be there now.Beach, Tommy was talking about SEX
So a rich guy saying he's supports poor folks a greater offense than a A politician bopping a prostitue while speaking against gay marriage and decline of moral standards?
Monk, I was simply trying to quickly explain the distinction Tommy had made. He's talking about a person's sex life because that's what THIS thread is about.
Beach brought in a strawman to the discussion..
Thanks Jeter, the comparison is invalid and the circumstances are vastly different. What they do have in common is neither gets my respect.....Vitter for his hypocritical lying libido, and Edwards for his pandering phoniness. Other than that, they bear little resemblance.
I do see your point. I guess I'm a little defensive, mabe unfairly. You didn't bring up Edwards.
My apologies.
Monk,
Don't apologize, threads get veered off topic all the time, by mostly everyone here, me included.
If we don't monitor ourselves the moderators will just delete them anyway. :)
Strawman? How DARE you ! Perfectly relevant.
Sorry, Jeter, when Tommy wrote "private lives" I didn't realize you would be bringing up the rear with a qualifier.
Unless you were referring to something that happened with you and Tommy in a private chat room. :>O
Unless you were referring to something that happened with you and Tommy in a private chat room. :>O
Beach, Tommy & I are consenting adults...
Oh no I think I've said too much :-O
Exactly, and there are no small furry animals injured or hurt in the process. ;)
But was a Bronx Blitzer administered? ;0)
MMFA Headline: USA Today's Page claimed Vitter's actions matter more to conservatives
Ho, hum, dog bites man: Doesn't every politician's action matter more to the supporters?
"Page's comment suggests that the only relevant issue in the Vitter matter is possible sexual misconduct."
Out of this question and reply?
Question: "...have we reached a point where, you know, "David Vitter went to a hooker, so what?"
PAGE: "I don't think so. I mean, especially not in a rather conservative state..."
MMFA is stretching quite a bit on this one. As Tommy noted earlier, Page's response is appropriate for the question asked. She was not asked about hypocrasy or legal issues, at least in this reported segment.
Ho, hum, dog bites man: Doesn't every politician's action matter more to the supporters? (Mo Sho)
Who still posts here on a regular basis mentioning Monica Lewinsky? Bill Clinton supporters?
HB you could have saved yourself some typing if you just wrote:
"b, bu, but, but Clinton......"
Personally, I think prostitution should be legalized. However, it is always delightful to see one of these "Family Values" troglodytes get caught with his pants down.
It should be legalized, I agree with you. Legalized, cleaned up, taxed. Police have more important things to do than track down hookers and their johns.
I agree with you there, Tommy. Most cops would rather be doing other things, although some would miss the "instant fines" they can impose on Prostitutes.
Agreed. I'm not going out trolling for hookers, but consenting adults should be able to do what they want. Keep the laws on the books for underaged individuals. People marry for money and have relationship for strictly financial reasons all the time, otherwise explain Thompson and Guilianis wives (Sorry I know that was a cheap shot).
Oh yes prostitution is great....yes....until its YOUR MOTHER. Since disease can never be cured or controlled completely I'm sure most children would not mind if mon came home and gave them a good dose of HEPATITIS now and then.......you people are not only selfish you crazy.
Let the record show that Tommy is calling for higher taxes. For somebody else...Sounds like a flaming lefty, that Tommy does...
;-)
On a serious note though:
If all that income was actually reported and taxed wouldn't that sort of be a boon for the economy?
Attn John Edwards; Work this into your poverty tour as a way to pay for all these programs you're advocating. Rename it "The Poverty Tour on the backs of Working Girls"
You have made a judgment about Edwards and no facts will make a dent in it. It is a good thing that this Universe has a far wiser judge.
The morality ploy that the Republicans have been using for quite a while now is wearing pretty thin, since they seem to have a fair number of porno-puritans, eh?
Technically, not really. I am calling for any at all taxation on their "activities". It's unfair that the Uncle Sam just "lays down" and does nothing about getting his just dues from them.
A whoretax, how delicious.
I think we should create "Sex Malls" in every state...out in rural areas. They would be clean, licensed, taxed, and well lit, with their own security guards. I've heard that they have something similar in Denmark.
Don't they have that in Nevada?
Heavily taxed, with the revenue going to drug/alcohol treatment programs for all those working girls. I would still criminalize pimping.
"Some current polls may suggest that people are turned off by the whole Clinton mess and don't care -- because the stock market is good, the Clinton spin machine is even better or other reasons. But that doesn't answer the question of whether President Clinton should be impeached and removed from office because he is morally unfit to govern.
The writings of the Founding Fathers are very instructive on this issue. They are not cast in terms of political effectiveness at all but in terms of right and wrong -- moral fitness. Hamilton writes in the Federalists Papers (No. 65) that impeachable offenses are those that 'proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.'"
---David Vitter, October 29, 1998, Times Picayune, New Orleans
So when taking into account his own standard and his interpretation of the Founding Fathers, why is he still a Senator?
"the abuse or violation of some public trust"
Sounds like Bush and Cheney to me.
Furthermore...
I wonder how Vitter's anatomy is these days:
In 2000, Vitter was included in a Newhouse News Service story about the strain of congressional careers on families.His wife, Wendy, was asked by the Newhouse reporter: If her husband were as unfaithful as Livingston or former President Bill Clinton, would she be as forgiving as Hillary Rodham Clinton?"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.""I think fear is a very good motivating factor in a marriage," she added. "Don’t put fear down."
Kudos to DailyKos
Hahaha.... That's holding them accountable!
Great post. That is enlightening. Now we can see if the wife is a hypocrite as well.
I find it interesting that people would so often freely opine as to what they would do in Hillary's shoes considering Bill's infidelities. You never really know what you are going to do until (God forbid) it actually occurs.
Gee, how about them family values. Guy screws around and the fantasy response is assault with a deadly weapon?
Check out the articles in this morning's New Orleans Times-Picayune. According to its felonious madam, David Vittewr was also a client of the infamous Canal Street brothel in New Orleans. Apparently she still thinks Vitter is an honorable man because he didn't beat her whores...
http://www.nola.com/
Vitter is my Senator and I knew him before he went into politics. I saw him recently at the local hardware store and was tempted to chastise him for his support of Bush's Iraq policies but then thought it better not to sound like a nut case confronting a U.S. Senator in a store. But, IMO, his support of the Iraq war is what truly demonstrates his immorality. The whoring part is just hypocricy...
As we have seen time and time again, politicians seem to have a weakness for 'relationships' outside of marriage.
I do believe that politicians are like the rest of us where they have standards that they feel we as a society need to strive for and at the same time personally succumb to the temptations they rail against.
It doesn't matter whether they are Republican or Democrat or any other party, they are unable to maintain personally the moral standards they publicly profess.
It is indeed hypocritical to talk about family values, etc. and then end up in a relationship outside of marriage and/or pay for sexual gratification.
I do believe Vitters will eventually step down. His constituency will demand it. His credibility is shot. His moral tone is shot. I wouldn't be surprised if his marriage is also shot.
We need our representatives to hold themselves to a higher standard. Their personal lives must match their public positions. To do less only leads to this type of scandal.
I have to mostly agree with Tommy's take on this. In the narrow context of the question, the answer is reasonable. While it does seem to take Vitter's behavior and turn it into an attack on liberals, I can imagine a similar scenario played out in reverse with Edwards/poverty as the topic.
I'll add one caveat...I believe it's a mistake to assume that issues like these don't matter at all to liberal voters, as Page's comment about New York may seem to imply. It may have a lower priority, but all others things being equal, I'd bet that a liberal would vote for the faithful spouse instead of the one who cheats.
"I'd bet that a liberal would vote for the faithful spouse instead of the one who cheats."
Great point! I also wonder why is it is more important to conservatives why is Guiliani a frontrunner? Didn't he have and affair while governor?
Does that mean you'd vote for Hillary over Bill?
Heh...I honestly haven't considered how they match up.
Yeah? I wonder who would come out on top?
(Yikes! I shudder with the visualization!)
;-)
Hillary now vs Bill now (history and all)? good question.
It would honestly depend on their platform in the end, but if I only had to choose from the two Hillary would start out ahead simple because of the affair. As far as Bill goes aside from the indiscretion with Monica, I think that he did do a lot of things right and there were some things he did I did not agree with. His good outweighed the bad to me at least. IT would actually be a tough choice, but Bill would be at a disadvantage due to the affair imho.
In real life, I'm not too sold on Hillary at all. I don't think she is a big enough change in the right direction that this country needs. I really like Obama atthe moment and I would give serious consideration to Ron Paul if he got the nomination, even though I don't agree with everything they are for, I believe they are both honest and intelligent candidates.
She says she had 10,000 customers in DC! Her girls were busy. Our politicians were busy. The girls even work the political conventions. That's just one way to spend campaign contributions, eh?
..yeah busy literally screwing around.
Maybe Vitter and Jefferson should submit joint resignations.
I think you are right. Louisiana has not generally provided the best Congresspersons. Coincidentally Vitter took Livingston's old Congressional District after he resigned for his adultry back in 1999.