Video: Tucker, lefty muckraker scream at each other over Vitter
posted at 9:14 am on July 12, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Lifted from the ‘Busters so I’ll make you click over for background. Carlson backs him into a corner from the opening bell and starts swinging, and not until about a minute left does this McCornthyite tool finally start swinging back. But it’s worth the wait for when he does. The money line comes about halfway through:
“I get it the way through intimacy and, and decency.”
I won’t spoil it by telling you the context. But suffice it to say: hot.
Rectenwald’s webpage is here. He’s very, very upset at Republicans who violate their own moral standards; if only they’d lower themselves to Democratic moral standards, they wouldn’t be exposed to this hypocrisy charge. Exit question: Is Vitter done? Click the image to watch.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
There’s my libertarian!
And, as expected, he said exactly what I knew he’d say: personal freedom, etc … but still wrong if you’re married.
What are we arguing about again?
My only quibble here would be that isn’t either/or … I think it is clearly moral and clearly political at the same time.
The conduct may bring up a moral question … but the RESPONSE to that conduct, on both sides, good or bad, is very clearly political.
See e.g. Larry Flynt. Notice which party’s info he is *not* releasing?
Professor Blather on July 12, 2007 at 4:48 PM
The list is available to anyone who goes to Palfrey’s site. Surely there are some republican sympathizers with the money to do the same thing Flynt is doing….
Bradky on July 12, 2007 at 4:53 PM
What JayHaw Phrenzie on July 12, 2007 at 9:26 AM, wryteacher on July 12, 2007 at 9:42 AM, and naliaka on July 12, 2007 at 12:23 PM said.
Clinton didn’t resign over Monica. Not even after he was caught comitting perjury in the Paula Jones case.
And I’d add that Democrat Gerry Studds didn’t resign either when he was caught molesting male congressional pages.
The HYPOCRISY of liberals/Democrats to demand that a Republican resign when they NEVER, EVER demand a corrupt Democrat to resign is palpable, it stinks, and I’m tired of it!
I am no longer going to “eat my own” over such stuff. If Vitter decides to stay on, let the voters decide when he comes up for reelection in 4 years.
To quote the Clintonistas: “It’s nothing important. It’s just about sex.”
georgej on July 12, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Then neither party is distinguishable from the other. Let Louisianans hold him accountable and the chips fall where they may.
Whether it is hypocritical or not isn’t really the point is it? Separate issue yes, but has nothing to do with Vitter’s accountability to his constituents.
Bradky on July 12, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Bradky: “Then neither party is distinguishable from the other.”
Bullsh*t!
Democrats favor cut and run, the Republican base doesn’t.
Democrats favor amnesty. The Republican base doesn’t.
Democrats favor tax and spend. The Republican base doesn’t.
There is plenty to distinquish Republicans from Democrats.
This issue here is the hypocrisy of the Democrats in their self-righteousness over Vitter when they remain silent (or circle the wagons) over Studds, Clinton, Murtha (Abscam), and Jefferson.
Oh. One final point: DEMOCRATIC voters return such men to office. That speaks volumes as to the kind of slime that call themselves “Democrats.”
georgej on July 12, 2007 at 5:25 PM
You want to talk strawman, Blather? How about this:
Nice. You assign a quote to me that isn’t mine. Nice. Next time try to quote something I actually said, and not make something up.
Secondly, you say it’s a strawman argument, yet you missed the entire point of my post, which is that even amongst ourselves, pointing out the lack of personal integrity (you would be exhibit A btw) has some howling about being self-rightous and siding with infidelity.
Next time you feel inclined to try to shout down and insult away someone, try to get your facts straight.
KMC1 on July 12, 2007 at 5:48 PM
That was great. You could see this guy was gonna lose it. Before the interview started his eyes were darting back and forth his mouth was going a mile a minute. I thought he was having a stroke or something. Then he atarted talking and lost it. Oh man. Funny how libs get like this. Used to annoy the hell out of me. But now sometimes I can just laugh at it…sometimes.
PowWow on July 12, 2007 at 6:39 PM
*shakes head* This from the guy who said
Why am I not surprised.
Bradky on July 12, 2007 at 6:41 PM
KMC1 on July 12, 2007 at 5:48 PM
The Professor did not try to quote you (Strawman) ! As in his previous posting he gave you an example of a posting where somebody said it is not OK to pay a prostitute for sex.
SIJ6141 on July 12, 2007 at 6:58 PM
Silly reporter, tricks are for Dems.
- The Cat
MirCat on July 12, 2007 at 7:06 PM
I don’t think there is any defense for Vitter. He did as his conscience dictated by handling it with his family and his faith.
Let the voters decide if he should be sent back to represent them.
csdeven on July 12, 2007 at 10:03 PM
More food for thought. Clinton USED an intern working at the White House – a subordinate to get free sex. CLinton USED Arkansas State Troopers – tax-payer paid police to troll for women and to guard his door while he was with them. Ahem! Abuse of so many things, most of all power and office. Stupidly enough, given how far Clinton dragged the whole country down into the mudpit, hiring a prostitute fair and square is actually better. Incredible, but true. Just a straighforward business deal in comparison, no promises you have no intention of keeping.
I’m keeping the family issue out of it at the moment to make the point, but sex is not the issue, it’s power. In this case – shifting the power to the Democrats by virtue of tearing elected Republicans out of their electorally gained seats. The Dems lost the vote, so they look for ways to deny the Republicans their seats so that the Demcorcats can gain more voting power and thus pass their Left-wing agenda. Doubt it? Trent Lott is hounded viciously for his attempt to flatter an ol’ cout at the guy’s 800th birthday. An off-duty social event. Lott – a racist stench to the Democrats, yet they completely ignore Robert Byrd, the card-carrying KKK member. Bowing to pressure, Lott steps aside, but the Dems wanted him to resign completely, vacating the seat. Obviously it couldn’t have been really about racism or Byrd would have been shown the door years ago. In the same way, it’s not about sex, it’s about VOTES and CONTROL of the Senate and House. Same with the text messages and the pages. No crime, but a seat was coveted.
The correct solution is this:
If the voters can live with it because the man votes to protect rights his constituents value, they’ll hold on to him. If they think they can do better with another fellow or gal who doesn’t have these weaknesses but votes the same, they may go that route.
The alternative is a VETO-PROOF DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY and if so expect the following:
OK on partial birth abortion
okay on fetal stem cell testing
okay human cloning
Mandatory Universal Draft and National Service requirements for all male and female 18-26
Mandatory National Health system – destruction of the US medical system, crippling of the US pharmaceutical industry
lots of other Left causes – haven’t even touched on the catastrophe that Global Warming/Climate CHange legislation would be.
Ginned up prudishness from a morally bankrupt Left is just a tool. Not sex, Power.
naliaka on July 13, 2007 at 12:30 AM
Where are you seeing the master plan you describe? This is your opinion only.
Let the past go and concentrate on the ISSUES. Vitter was wrong but so many want to defend him with the But but but clinton, jefferson, kennedy, barney frank, etc etc. Do you honestly think that is a persuasive argument that will make moderates say “Gee that conservative is right – doggone it I’m voting with them”?
I’d think that restraining the urge to blurt out Clinton!, Jefferson!, Murtha!, Mary jo Kopechne!, (I swear it sounds like a Gregorian chant it is so predictable)everytime a Republican gets themselves in a jam would be a better strategy to convince others of the party’s sincerity.
Either the Republicans are the “values party” or they aren’t. Let Vitter come out of hiding and defend himself like a friggin man.
The veto proof majority you worry so much about should be the warning bell that the “base” should remember to recognize that without the moderate republicans and some moderate democrats, next year will be a wipe out. But as it stands the base is too busy eating its own with its insults toward “Rinos” and close minded mentality that only the base has a right to determine what is appropriate and dissent is treason.
Good luck with that strategy.
Bradky on July 13, 2007 at 12:49 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2