Vitter: I diddled, and now I burn; Update: “Some people disappoint you,” says Rudy

posted at 9:25 am on July 10, 2007 by Allahpundit

Oh, how he burns.

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., apologized Monday night for “a very serious sin in my past” after his telephone number appeared among those associated with an escort service operated by the so-called “D.C. Madam.”…

“This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible,” Vitter said in the statement. “Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there — with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way.”

Too bad this is newsy enough to warrant a post or else I’d have saved this for quote of the day:

Palfrey’s attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley, told the AP, “I’m stunned that someone would be apologizing for this.”

It happened years ago, his wife’s apparently already forgiven him (but at what price?), and he wears the golden laurel of an anti-shamnesty gladiator. He shouldn’t have much to worry about when he runs in 2010, although this’ll give La Raza a little something to work with. Captain Ed notes something I hadn’t realized, though: Vitter is Giuliani’s southern campaign chair, which means in the span of about three weeks Rudy’s been linked to a john and (allegedly) a cokehead. From one New Yorker to another, Mayor: Keep away from the southerners. They do things differently down there. Meanwhile, between Duke Cunningham (again, allegedly), Foley, and now Vitter, we’ve got two Republicans visiting hookers and another preying on young boys in the span of 15 months. It’s starting to smell in here, boys. Not to mention that you’ve deprived us of the right to make Clenis jokes in good conscience. Does the party need to add sex crimes to its vetting list for candidates going forward?

If only he’d known there are alternatives — alternatives unmuscled men learned of long ago. Thanks to the well-muscled Ed Driscoll for this:

Update: The guy who dumped his last wife at a press conference sounds disappointed.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


The extreme religious oversensitivity over the smallest of jokes IS like the mussies overreaction. Head chopping or no.

The only ways in which it’s “like” the Muslims’ overreaction are the ways that are common to any overreaction on any topic. Like:

1. First party takes offense to something said about his/her religion/sports team/haircut/mama.
2. Second party takes offense over the offense, since it was just a joke.

But if the first party threatens “to behead those who insult [insert subject here],” then that is specifically like the Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons.

Our fellow HotAirheads in this thread never got to threatening to blow each other up. As a matter of fact, I’ll wager that the last step never even occurred to the (other) arguing parties.

So your comparison falls flat–it’s too general and it’s a bit inflammatory. But I’m not offended, since I take your comment in good faith.

baldilocks on July 10, 2007 at 2:46 PM

This isn’t that big of a deal. How else could choir boy conservatives get laid if they didn’t pay for it?

Fragility on July 10, 2007 at 2:54 PM

“Everyone else is doing it, common!”

No, kinda more like, everyone else is convinced that blogs are the new media, so maybe you might want to take them seriously even if you ultimately decide to blow them off.

Esthier on July 10, 2007 at 2:54 PM

Esthier on July 10, 2007 at 2:54 PM

Argumentum ad populum. Look it up.

Nonfactor on July 10, 2007 at 3:22 PM

Nonfactor on July 10, 2007 at 3:22 PM

You seem to be missing my point. I’m not at all arguing that just because everyone else is doing it, it must be good. Taking something seriously is not the same as agreeing with it. I assume you can tell the difference between the two without forcing me to spell it out in a dead language.

There’s a difference between being a sheep and being stubborn, and if you don’t know what other people believe, then you can’t rightly take yourself out of those two categories.

Esthier on July 10, 2007 at 3:35 PM

JackStraw on July 10, 2007 at 10:09 AM

hahaha. Reminds of the time a buddy in high school got the drips from some gal he porked. At the free clinic he dropped his drawers for the nurse and instantly got an erection. He threw his chest out, put his hands on his hips and waited for her to swab him. To his surprised, she grabbed him with the head exposed and palm smashed that baby! Instant limpness!

Never again did he didlle and burn.

csdeven on July 10, 2007 at 3:36 PM

There’s a difference between being a sheep and being stubborn,

Stubborn people drive Scions?

James on July 10, 2007 at 3:36 PM

Yep, I’m a man. I’ll explain this again for all the “new posters” here.

I have 5 friends who have been close as brothers since middle school. Waaaaayyy back in the 80’s I got stuck with the nick Churchlady. I earned that one for a couple of reasons, the foremost of which was my constant quoting of Dana Carvey’s SNL character. For example, way back then I might have said something like this, “Now who could have caused Blake to want to use that obscenity, oh I don’t know, could it be, maybe, ……..” I’ve mellowed quite a bit since then and I’m not nearly as insensitive toward others as I used to be. Also, back then I tended to be the moral compass of the group – not so much out of brotherly love as righteous indignation, quite a bit like Carvey’s character. As I said, I’ve grown up a lot since then.

Now they all just pretty much call me by the abbreviated nick, Church. Back during all the Y2K hysteria, we all took y2 email addresses as a way to show how silly we thought the media’s/public’s fears were. So, I’ve been y2church ever since.

Hey, it could be worse, one of my friends is y2possum.

Oh yeah, cue the obligatory posts about how I’m whacked if I think I’ve grown up and yada yada, blah, blah, blah.

y2church on July 10, 2007 at 3:58 PM

Stubborn people drive Scions?

I’m not convinced that anyone drives a Scion.

Esthier on July 10, 2007 at 4:05 PM

Down here in New Orleans, conventional wisdom seems to think that the “sin” will be forgotten by the time Vitter is up for reelection again but that his aspirations of being #2 on a ticket with Rudy went up in smoke.

I’m not so sure about the first part but I’m relatively happy with the second. Vitter was my Congressman from the time he took Bob Livingston’s seat and he always struck me as a smarmy opportunist. More importantly, if you are going to run around proclaiming yourself a “family values” candidate- you get what you deserve when your phone number shows up in a whore’s database.

That being said, the one thing that is definitely true. Bill Clinton was a pioneer and lowered the ethical bar for all that came afterwards. Instead of resigning in disgrace, all Vitter has to do is say “my bad” in a press conference and go back to the business of Congress- screwing the American people.

highhopes on July 10, 2007 at 4:06 PM

I’m not convinced that anyone drives a Scion.


You know what they say, absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. Keep searching, and I’m sure you’ll find one.

Sorry, just too good to miss. Also, those are stupid looking cars.

Krydor on July 10, 2007 at 4:57 PM

Louisiana. it’s not the heat, it’s the stupidity.

(I can say that, I’ve lived here my whole life.)

I voted for Vitter. He’s generally good on the issues I value, tho I do agree with Highhope’s “smarmy” description.

But then, isn’t “smarmy politician” redundant?

And Blake, God told me that He thought your joke was funny.

And we all know His sense of humor is Divine.

I’m guessing y2church wasn’t a fan of Flip Wilson.
“The Devil made me do it”!

Not piling on y2, but…

soundingboard on July 10, 2007 at 5:46 PM

…”Isn’t that special?”

soundingboard on July 10, 2007 at 5:47 PM

You know what they say, absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. Keep searching, and I’m sure you’ll find one.

True, but it’s possible that I’m mentally blocking them out in my mind because of how ugly they look. I can live my whole life without ever seeing one up close.

Esthier on July 10, 2007 at 6:11 PM

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) first got his start in Congress after replacing former Rep. Bob Livingston (R-LA), who “abruptly resigned after disclosures of numerous affairs” in 1998. At the time, Vitter argued that an extramarital affair was grounds for resignation:

“I think Livingston’s stepping down makes a very powerful argument that Clinton should resign as well and move beyond this mess,” he said. [Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 12/20/98]

Goose meet gander.

I hope they publish all names. Whether it is fair or not regards the “MSM” is a moot point. The list is there for anyone to look at and investigate if they like.
IF the Republicans really mean what they say about being the real party of values then they should walk the walk and Republicans shouldn’t be so quick to defend them.

Bradky on July 10, 2007 at 6:42 PM

This morning the following link had the 2004 story with details about his denial of the 11 month affair with a New Orleans prostitute. It has a different message there now.

Damage control is in full press mode in the Pelican state!

Bradky on July 10, 2007 at 6:47 PM


IF the Republicans really mean what they say about being the real party of values then they should walk the walk and Republicans shouldn’t be so quick to defend them.

Please provide a list of the Republicans rushing to support Vitter. I’m down here in Vitter’s old congressional district and I haven’t heard one politician of any political party at any level of government come out and support Vitter. Compare to the way the very mention of Clinton’s whoring brings out wails of “it’s nobody’s business what politicians do behind closed doors.”

You want consistency? Let’s start with seeing all the anti-family values Democrats who think Clinton was forced into perjury come to the defense of Vitter. After all, it’s only sex. Right?

highhopes on July 10, 2007 at 7:16 PM

…”Isn’t that special?”

soundingboard on July 10, 2007 at 5:47 PM

Touche’. Special indeed. And don’t worry, I’m not feeling piled, but thanks for the disclaimer :-)

y2church on July 10, 2007 at 7:50 PM

highhopes on July 10, 2007 at 7:16 PM

I live in the northern part and I’m seeing mostly “well what about clinton sentiments”. Frankly, I didn’t like what clinton did and supported the impeachment. Nor do I want to see Clinton’s defenders come to Vitter’s defense. But the knee jerk reaction is all too predictable.
The fact that web pages with previous news on this are being killed by someone in Louisiana proves my point. Do you really think Democrats are doing that for him?

Take a look at the comments in this very thread and you will find plenty of the examples you asked for.

I quoted Vitter’s own words. If a Democrat were caught and had similar quotes don’t you think you would be inclined to remind others of that?
Like I said, the Republicans can choose to be the party that walks the walk and acts like adults or they can choose to roll in the mud and show that being petty is more satisfying. Which do YOU think gives them a better shot at gains in 08?

Bradky on July 10, 2007 at 9:57 PM

One minor difference between Clinton’s indiscretion and Vitter’s is that before it happened, I’d actually heard of Clinton.

Jim Treacher on July 11, 2007 at 3:34 AM

…”Isn’t that special?”

soundingboard on July 10, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Touche’. Special indeed. And don’t worry, I’m not feeling piled, but thanks for the disclaimer :-)

y2church on July 10, 2007 at 7:50 PM

Glad you picked up on the good natured/no offense intended vibe.

Any fan of the Church Lady can’t be all bad.

soundingboard on July 11, 2007 at 6:02 AM

I think it’s a presumptuous for him to announce God forgave him.


Because God told me that he said no such thing.
He wasn’t talking to your god.

Sensei Ern on July 11, 2007 at 10:14 AM

If this is all in the past and Vitter has dealt with his wife on the issue, then let it go. How many pols, if not Senators, have some very dirty laundry in their closets? I recall that one married Teddy Kennedy drove drunk, killed his young female passenger, then left her in a watery grave until the next day when he (or was it a friend?) contacted the police. He even tried to make himself appear valiant by saying that he had made attempts to save her. Who knows what he really did? Most people came to the conclusion that he did not go to the police because he needed to sober up first. I’ll expect Mr. Vitter, who has done a superior job in the Senate, to resign when Senator Kennedy resigns.

Newman on July 11, 2007 at 11:51 AM

Newman on July 11, 2007 at 11:51 AM

It is not about whether he should resign or not. It is about the fact that he made very public statements about this kind of behavior as relate to Clinton and Livingston that they should have resigned. This helped him in his bid to be elected to the senate. He has to answer to his constituents on that matter.

The larger issue is that too many Republicans are automatically pulling Mary Jo Kopechne out of the grave to defend Vitter or men or mentioning Clinton as a rebuttal. Facts as I see them:

1. Vitter was wrong to engage in this behavior
2. Vitter broke the law in doing so
3. Clinton has not been an elected official for over 7 years.
4. Kennedy was never convicted of a crime although the facts of the case do scream an injustice was done. But like all citizens he enjoys the innocent until proven guilty considerations.
5. Vitter made a great deal of fuss about lawbreakers in regards to the illegal aliens. Let him defend his double standard – should be an interesting explanation.

Opinion: Persuading moderate Democrats to vote Republican and the moderate Republicans to go to the polls should be accomplished by sticking to the issues affecting the country and not defending Vitter’s actions. Republicans get irritated at seeing some shaky Democrats being defended by their peers for unacceptable behavior and it is frustrating. It is reasonable to expect that those Dems the Republicans hope to win over may feel the same frustration when Republicans do the same.

Bradky on July 11, 2007 at 12:45 PM

To Bradky,
I voted for Mr. Vitter and am disappointed in him. I certainly am not defending his behavior. But the fact remains that I am very pleased with his performance in the Senate. What I despise is how when a Republican does wrong, we hear about it ad nauseum in the media until the person is forced to resign. I have read reports about conservatives who monitor the media and have found that wrongdoings by Dems do not get nearthe amount of media
coverage. Being a fair person, I do not appreciate the double standard which is in place. If Mr. Vitter is no longer engaging in this behavior, then based on his performance, I am willing to forgive the man and let him continue in his position. I am indeed focusing on the issues which are dear to me and affect our country in saying that.

I would not compare one man’s moral failure and yes past lawbreaking with millions of crimes being committed by millions of illegal aliens against the American people and our sovereignty. Thank God Sen. Vitter was willing to stand up to Pres. Bush, Sen.Kennedy, and the multinational corporations to protect our people and country.

And in regard to Kennedy, perhaps the only reason he was not convicted of a crime if that is so, is because it could not be proven that he was drunk at the time of his accident. To leave the scene of an accident which you caused, knowing you caused the death of someone and waiting until the next day to report it should be a crime if it is not. And I cannot imagine not immediately calling the police in such a situation unless you are trying to cover up something. But the people of Mass. apparently have not cared and I presume it is because they like the quality of his representation. I hope the people of Louisiana will make their judgement of Sen Vitter based on his record too. And also based on the fact that he is human and made bad choices just like Kennedy and like Kennedy he is sorry. Thankfully his behavior did not cause the death of someone. In reference to being a hypocrite, Mr. Vitter may be one in some ways but so are the rest of the members of Congress who break the law or engage in extremely unethical behavior and then pretend or deny that they did nothing wrong. There are quite a few of them in the past and present.

Newman on July 11, 2007 at 3:13 PM

Newman on July 11, 2007 at 3:13 PM


Like you I voted for Vitter. But we will have to agree to disagree about his performance. Without rehashing the whole discussion suffice it to say that killing the immigration bill for the forseeable future was not acceptable in my view. His poison pill effectively ensured no compromise could be reached. He did nothing to stem the overt fearmongering that was a tactic by both sides — just different items to scare with. I can’t excuse that. Had he emphasized this in his opposition to the bill I would feel differently.

My votes will likely offset one another. I will not vote for Landrieu for a variety of reasons, chief of those was her insistence on slowing the judicial picks. As for Vitter I will vote for anyone but him. He may well be reelected as may Landrieu but I’ll have held true to my convictions.

I’ve lived in Louisiana for nine years now and am disappointed with politicians of both parties. All of the Louisiana residents deserve better across the board.


Bradky on July 11, 2007 at 6:39 PM