Video: Tucker, lefty muckraker scream at each other over Vitter
posted at 9:14 am on July 12, 2007 by Allahpundit
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.
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: 1 2 Next »
I saw Tucker’s performance on Celebrity Jeopardy.
He is thick as a brick.
Anderson Cooper was on the same show and exhibited an impressive erudition.
TheSitRep on July 12, 2007 at 9:18 AM
I thought it was impressive the way Carlson goaded this douche into a screaming tirade.
packsoldier on July 12, 2007 at 9:23 AM
It is absolutely idiotic to allow the enemy to destroy the career of our people with this crap.
So he spent the night with some whore? The answer is to give the seat to a real whore (democrat)?
I don’t think so.
JayHaw Phrenzie on July 12, 2007 at 9:26 AM
Tucker is greatness. I used to watch his show all the time. Funny, understands politic nuances, and most importantly he calls out CAIR; works for me.
Vitter, 60/40 gone.
Spirit of 1776 on July 12, 2007 at 9:27 AM
Vitter is toast. Like it or not we have to live with the fact that Reps are held to a different standard.
Limerick on July 12, 2007 at 9:38 AM
whoa whoa whoa…william jefferson has $90,000 in his freezer and the media isn’t demanding he quit. where’s all the “it’s just sex” arguments from the left? i’m tired of republicans being the ones to show the integrity by resigning when things get tough. stay on, vitter. whenever it’s brought up just say your sorry and nobody’s perfect. nobody died. nobody perjured themselves.
wryteacher on July 12, 2007 at 9:42 AM
Look . . . Clinton put them on the knees in the Oval Office and set the standard for this type behavior. This guy made a mistake and he should stay in office and let the voters decide if they still want him at the end of his tour. Those screaming leftists couldn’t care less about the morality of the issue; they simply want him out so that Democrat governor can appoint a Democrat to fill the vacancy.
Don’t let the bastards get you down . . . stay Vitter!
rplat on July 12, 2007 at 9:42 AM
Tucker is great in the clips I have seen of him.
He hit it on the head – with the Clenis, sex life was supposed to be off limits, when it was never really about sex, it was about breaking the law. Now, a person’s sex life – someone who has come out honestly and apologized – is completely within bounds, because he is a Republican.
I also loved how he got the guy to actually hold up his own moral superiority, just after the guy said that “we’re not saying we’re morally superior.” Priceless.
That clip showed so much that is wrong with the modern Left.
nailinmyeye on July 12, 2007 at 9:45 AM
I don’t believe he spent a night with a whore. It seems like he has spent many nights with many whores.
Blake on July 12, 2007 at 9:45 AM
The Libs are losing their minds. When they call in on talk radio they just start off screaming and not making any sense. Its funny to watch them.
ctmom on July 12, 2007 at 9:46 AM
Of the many hundreds of conservative legislators in DC over the past decade, five or six turned out to be hypocrites. That proves that we shouldn’t push for “family values”?
jgapinoy on July 12, 2007 at 9:51 AM
Video is not available any more
Rick Donaldson on July 12, 2007 at 9:54 AM
“Superior moral values” aside, I think the point you’re missing is that prostitution is illegal.
Oh, and Tucker is still a tool.
SouthernDem on July 12, 2007 at 9:56 AM
It’s there, you just have to use IE or IE tab in FF to view MSNBC.
Spirit of 1776 on July 12, 2007 at 9:58 AM
I should add, though, I agree that the “moral outrage” by the left is laughable, but their hypocrisy is not a valid argument against Vitter breaking the law, nor does it negate his indiscretions.
SouthernDem on July 12, 2007 at 10:00 AM
So charge him and prosecute him, then let’s go back and get your buddy Bill for lying under oath . . . that too is “illegal”.
rplat on July 12, 2007 at 10:03 AM
He is a US Senator. This is a given!
JayHaw Phrenzie on July 12, 2007 at 10:04 AM
“Our candidates?” Methinks this is not a non-partisan organization, despite its important-sounding, self-righteous title.
Looks like this Clinton-supporting hack is taking the advice of that brain scientist –
eeeeeemmmmmmmooooootttttiiiiioooonnnnnssssss are what the Democrats are all about, baby.
Good Lt on July 12, 2007 at 10:07 AM
Heh. You mean except for Fred, I assume.
Spirit of 1776 on July 12, 2007 at 10:07 AM
Rectenwald has a point…so I propose a trade.
Feinstein, Jefferson, Murtha, Pelosi, Reed and Clinton for Vitter.
There. That would be nice and fair.
RushBaby on July 12, 2007 at 10:08 AM
Ah, a typical kneejerk reaction: CLENIS!!1!!!
Excellent riposte, yet it doesn’t negate the fact that prostitution is illegal and, in many instances, morally reprehensible.
Your point was?
SouthernDem on July 12, 2007 at 10:08 AM
Isn’t it possible for someone to believe strongly in family values, etc. and still be HUMAn and make a mistake. Not to trivialize it, but maybe then go home with a dozen roses for the wife and take the kids out to a ballgame.
Hey, if you want to say nothing good was ever done out of a h=guilty conscious i think you’re wrong. Throw out guilt and you throw the baby out with the bathwater… IT”S THE GLUE THAT HOLDS US TOGETHER… face it..
max1 on July 12, 2007 at 10:13 AM
morality…Lefties…
It doesn’t ring any bells.
1GooDDaDDy on July 12, 2007 at 10:17 AM
I wonder how Tucker fits in around the office at MSNBC…
krabbas on July 12, 2007 at 10:25 AM
Wow, this Michael Rectenwald is completely lost his mind. Did everyone read his “10 Point Plan”? Make the Republican Party illegal!? Is he serious? Talk about unhinged! Michelle can start off her sequel book “Even Further Unhinged” with this nutbar. Unreal!
Some of my favorites…
This one has to be the best example of far-left liberal lunacy I’ve ever seen…
But of course, it gets better…
Wow…just….Wow….
DakRoland on July 12, 2007 at 10:25 AM
Isn’t it possible for someone to believe strongly in family values, etc. and still be HUMAn and make a mistake. Not to trivialize it, but maybe then go home with a dozen roses for the wife and take the kids out to a ballgame.
But you are trivializing his behavior. He didn’t slip up once but routinely frequented escort services both in Washington and LA. Is he wealthy? Because those services usually run around $300-400, plus, a pop.
Blake on July 12, 2007 at 10:28 AM
That dude is a real douche. Unfortunately, in a nation packed to the rafters with profane, vein-bulging, spittle-flinging leftists, he barely stands out from the crowd.
That said, I’m extremely disappointed in Vitter, and Tucker Carlson can just bite me.
Blacksheep on July 12, 2007 at 10:29 AM
I believe the point was that there is a double standard against people who break the law.
Personally, I’m just annoyed that the Clinton trials gave us this nutjob.
Bill Clinton raped a woman (allegedly), sexually harrassed several women and was caught red-handed in an affair with someone who worked for him. It wasn’t about the affair itself but about him using women as sexual objects, something feminists used to care about and worked to make laws against.
Somehow, that became all about sex, and now libs like the one in the video feel confident that because “we” talked about Clinton’s sex life (and I guess now we’re calling sexual harassment a “sex life”) that he too should be able to talk about Republican sex lives.
So many years later, we’ve forgotten why Clinton lied in the first place, and it’s turned into nothing more than “his sex life.”
That said, yeah, it’s illegal, and if it can legally be proven in court, then he should certainly face whatever consequences await him. I don’t think anyone’s arguing against that. I think we’re simply arguing against those who want to use this as a political tool.
It’s relentlessly depressing that you feel this way.
Esthier on July 12, 2007 at 10:31 AM
“Isn’t it possible for someone to believe in strongly in family values, etc, and still be a HUMAn and a mistake”
Sure but its not possible for that person to remain in our party. period.
amend2 on July 12, 2007 at 10:32 AM
He is a US Senator. This is a given!
Heh. You mean except for Fred, I assume.
Spirit of 1776 on July 12, 2007 at 10:07 AM
Y’all aren’t keepinng up. Fred was cavorting with a different sort……….According to Andrew Sullivan (via Ace)
Alamo on July 12, 2007 at 10:36 AM
It’d be nice if someone did investigate
Rectom’sRectenwald’s sex life but when you have no shame . . .Well, Zosima said it best in The Brothers Karamazov:
“Not respecting anyone, he ceases to love, and having no love, he gives himself up to passions and coarse pleasures, in order to occupy and amuse himself, and in his vices reaches complete bestiality, and it all comes from lying continually to others and to himself. A man who lies to himself is often the first to take offense. It sometimes feels very good to take offense, doesn’t it?”
srhoades on July 12, 2007 at 10:36 AM
..or to clarify
can’t remain an elected official in the Republican party.
amend2 on July 12, 2007 at 10:36 AM
I understand what you’re saying, but it’s a tired argument. This isn’t about Clinton, it’s not about lying under oath or double standards.
Dude paid for a hooker while being in a marriage with multiple kids. Democrat, Republican whatever, it’s slimey. And it’s made all the more despicable because he talked up family values and the sanctity of marriage.
No, people’s sexual proclivities should not be up for public scrutiny, unless of course you get caught buying hookers.
SouthernDem on July 12, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Allah—Hot Air featured Rectenwald’s lunacy in its March 16 EDITION.
pjcomix on July 12, 2007 at 10:42 AM
.or to clarify
can’t remain an elected official in the Republican party.
amend2 on July 12, 2007 at 10:36 AM
Well you know I guess it’s a good thing we didn’t have such “high moral standards” during WWII… or we’d have lost Eisenhower over his adulterous affair with Kay Summersby…OH, AND WE’D ALL BE SPEAKING GERMAN!
max1 on July 12, 2007 at 10:44 AM
Oh, I know, I know, IKE was not an elected official…
gimme a break…
max1 on July 12, 2007 at 10:48 AM
(Y’all?)
I saw that, that’s abhorrent. Slander is pathetic.
Spirit of 1776 on July 12, 2007 at 10:50 AM
Well you just watch might point proved right – Foley?
I’m proud to belong to a party that is held to higher standards. I hold myself to those standards and I expect those I elect or others in my party in other states elect live up to those. Its no moral supremacy its moral courage.
Am I perfect? No but I wouldn’t run for political office, win, and then betray the standards of my party.
amend2 on July 12, 2007 at 10:53 AM
I’ll give Vitter credit for one thing, he confessed and apologized.
Compare that to the repulsive tactics of the Clintonista Spin Machine, where Bill’s female toys became the victims of never-ending assaults on their credibility and character.
Both are slimy indeed, but Slick Willie had more slime than a slug in a jelly jar.
fogw on July 12, 2007 at 10:55 AM
First, my knee didn’t jerk . . . I’m keeping any eye on it but as of now there is no movement. Secondly, my point was that victimless sex trysts by politicians are routinely overlooked and only rarely have a deleterious effect on their careers. Furthermore, if you are inclined to condemn one offender then you must condemn all. Whether or not prostitution is illegal and/or reprehensible is relative to the location of the act and the belief system of the person involved
rplat on July 12, 2007 at 10:56 AM
SouthernDem makes a good point. My problem with Clinton, Vitter, Foley and the rest isn’t about the sex per se, nor is it about their public sanctimony (though that’s pretty obnoxious, too).
My problem is that the people who know and love these men best — their wives and kids — can’t believe a word that comes out of their mouths. I mean, these guys are politicians on the go and all, but on a fairly regular basis, they’re looking across their kitchen and dining room tables and lying their asses off to their own families in response to questions as benign as “So, Dad, what did you do today?”, or “Hi, Hon … long day at the office?”
If they’re so fundamentally dishonest with their loved ones about everyday stuff, how can I trust that they’re telling the truth about more subtle, complicated political matters?
Answer: I can’t.
Blacksheep on July 12, 2007 at 11:03 AM
I understand that it’s not about Clinton, and yes, Republican, Democrat or whatever, it’s a slimy thing.
But it’s nearly impossible not to bring up the double standards here. If something is wrong, it should be wrong no matter who you represent or what values you claim to have. Far from arguing that Republicans should get the soft treatment Democrats do, the argument should be that Democrats should simply receive the same treatment Republicans do.
The crime isn’t made worse because of the person’s politically affiliation.
So far as I understand it, both parties are against prostitution.
Also, prostitution isn’t the only illegal sexual act, so there’s no reason to draw the line there when it comes to discussing sex.
Esthier on July 12, 2007 at 11:04 AM
Not quite. I heard a local radio reporter yesterday talk about a friend of his who is also a reporter in NO. Five or six years ago, the friend broke a story about Vitter and prostitutes. Vitter denied it vehemently and attacked the reporter, attacked his character, tried to get him fired, and generally made his life miserable. I can’t remember the NO reporter’s name but I will listen locally and see if they repeat the story.
Blake on July 12, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Wow. That was ….. awesome.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a better exposing of the true monster’s heart that beats under the faux skin of liberal “tolerance.”
Just fascinating. Like seeing a psychological autopsy on the entire liberal Left.
This is what always … always … happens to liberals. Getting them to talk – getting them to be honest about what they actually think and feel – always reveals this kind of ugly.
Ultimately, liberals will end liberalism. That’s why I love sites like the DUmmieFUnnies. Seeing the truth of liberalism is far more effective than any argument a conservative could offer.
Just … wow. That was pretty cool.
Professor Blather on July 12, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Although, didn’t he get caught before he confessed and apologized? I understand that he probably spoke to his family before it all came out, but that doesn’t mean he was going to tell the rest of us until he had to.
Esthier on July 12, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Hey … is that for real?
Nobody is really that unhinged … are they?
God I love liberals. They just exist to make me laugh, don’t they?
Irony of ironies. This guy has devoted himself to exposing the hypocrisy of family values conservatives …. meanwhile, he’s a liberal – a word that, by definition includes a foundational support for free speech – and supports BANNING an entire political party because he doesn’t agree with them?
Vidder’s stupidity is barely a molehill compared to the enormous MOUNTAIN of that particular Rechtenwald hypocrisy. He should start a new organization: Liberals Opposed to the First Amendment.
Awesome. A world-class hypocrite exposing other hypocrites. I dig it.
Professor Blather on July 12, 2007 at 11:14 AM
I think it’s perfectly fair to hold the whole “family values, sanctity of marriage, Christianist-esque” politicians to a higher standard in sexual issues like this than those who are more libertarian/liberal on such issues. It is a 100 times more hypocritical to be caught with a whore if you preach the sanctity of marriage than if you advocate sexual freedom and legalized prostitution.
It’s the same way I would hold a drug warrior to a higher standard than someone who favored decriminalization if they were caught smoking a joint. Or even an anti-gun advocate caught with a cache of illegal weapons over an NRA member. If you devote time and energy to promoting a specific issue and then are caught doing almost exactly what you preach against, IMO you should be held to higher standard in the public eye.
JaHerer22 on July 12, 2007 at 11:16 AM
And a gay escort service being run out of Barney Franks’ house resulted in his resignation, right? The adulterous affairs by the mayors of L.A. and San Francisco have been backed up by leftist calls for their immediate resignations, correct?
Give me a break!
MCPO Airdale on July 12, 2007 at 11:18 AM
I think Rectenwalds head actually exploded.
A libs steps over the morality line and he’s a stud. A
repub does the same thing and he’s a pig.
Texyank on July 12, 2007 at 11:23 AM
So it’s the Democrat platform now to legalize prostitution? That’s news to me.
Esthier on July 12, 2007 at 11:25 AM
I can’t stand either one of them but that was REALLY enjoyable entertainment. I love watching two idiots who think they know everything turn into the equivalent of two-year-olds screaming “mine” on live national television. I even made popcorn.
ophelia on July 12, 2007 at 11:27 AM
I’m shocked by how many here are commenting on this in protection of hypocracy. What’s wrong with you people? It’s not a “Left” or a “Right” issue, it’s a Civilized Society issue. Why anyone is bringing Liberalism into this is beyond me, I can tell you that those who are doing so, sound very ignorant to me. It’s not just our elected representatives who we should be holding accountable for their actions, it’s ALL OF US. And going off and have sex with a prostitute and then bringing home all of her disease to your family is not something that ANYONE should feel is acceptable. If you don’t have the honor to be trusted behind your spouse’s back, you have no honor in life whatsoever, giving in to your impulses for a quicky reflects that you would just as quickly name your price for anything else. I don’t care who you are or what you do, if you do not have any honor in life, you are not a contributing member to society, but rather a drain on it.
KMC1 on July 12, 2007 at 11:31 AM
JaHerer22 on July 12, 2007 at 11:16 AM
well put.
Should all politicians be held to the same standard? Yes and no. They should be held to the standards of their own electorate.
If I vote for a public official who vows to allow everyone to have Fridays off with pay, then when he/she gets elected that elected person can’t turn around and pass a bill that makes people work overtime on fridays without pay or else they will hear it first from their opponents and last from their electorate on tuesday – if they don’t resign first.
It does say in the New Testament that some people, such as teachers or deciples are held to a higher standard because they represent the beliefs that others seek. The same holds true with politicians – they are elected to support the morals or beliefs they were elected to uphold.
amend2 on July 12, 2007 at 11:37 AM
No one is arguing that.
Esthier on July 12, 2007 at 11:39 AM
It’s against the law. Last I checked, all of our elected officials work to uphold the law, even laws they disagree with.
Esthier on July 12, 2007 at 11:41 AM
In the liberal mind, it’s less of a crime if the John believe’s prostitution should not be a crime. It’s not really sex if all your getting is a BJ. These are the same people who would like us to believe our founding fathers actually addressed abortion rights when they wrote the Consitution.
They make it up as they go, to fit their agenda.
fogw on July 12, 2007 at 11:45 AM
No not all elected officials are elected to uphold the laws. They are actually elected to make, change or endorse existing laws.
amend2 on July 12, 2007 at 11:50 AM
If a congressmans platform is to legalize marijuana it wouldn’t be less against the law if he were caught with a joint but he wouldn’t be scutinized morally and asked to resign by his pot smoking party – he’d be applauded.
amend2 on July 12, 2007 at 11:53 AM
Actually, it seems almost everyone is arguing that, and further is painting this as a left vs right issue. It’s not. And as a society we are failing because of our inability to lead honorable lives. Not because of a difference of opinion on some issues which just happen to land us in one or another’s “camp”.
KMC1 on July 12, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Our society is not falling apart and I’d rather not be put in your generaliation that “we don’t lead honorable lives”. Our conservative party as represented by those who we elected – or voted out last year its whats falling apart.
However, we as a conservative base are getting stronger and more honorable by not tolerating behavior such as this.
amend2 on July 12, 2007 at 12:09 PM
“Can’t we all just get along?” Please. Rejoin reality. He wasn’t attacking the “right”. He was attacking the morals that the right was based on. There’s a big difference and it’s about time somebody (I know, Tucker, but still) stood up for what is morally correct. Vitter screwed up. Morally. How is it going to help fix his screw up to attack him? Morally, that’s not right either.
ophelia on July 12, 2007 at 12:17 PM
I’m actually generally in agreement with every word of that!
I’m often amused by the standards for hypocrisy that each side faces.
It’s sort of a sad commentary on being a liberal, but if I hear a liberal is caught with an underage prostitute while doing cocaine and chatting online with Pakistani bomb-makers, well … I may deplore the conduct, but I don’t see it as hypocritical. That’s kind of what Democrats stand for.
But if you’re an environmental Democrat, for example, you can’t drive your Hummer to the airport to hop on your Lear jet to fly 100 miles to the Live Earth concert …. without me laughing myself silly at the hypocrisy.
You do indeed have to, at the very least, follow your OWN standards. I can’t make you follow mine, and we sadly can’t seem to establish some basic guidelines for societal decency for us all to follow … but if you don’t follow YOUR OWN rules, you are an impressive hypocrite.
HOWEVER – both sides have got to stop lumping everyone together … and as Tucker said, it would be awfully nice if we’d all, in general, stay away from private matters.
As for Vidder, if you’re going to call him a hypocrite, it would help to point to specific things HE has said. Not all Republicans are “family values” guys. Not all Democrats are environmentalist nut cases.
So a Democrat isn’t necessarily a hypocrite for owning a gun or driving a massive SUV; a Republican isn’t necessarily a hypocrite for having a few mistresses (a scumbag? Sure. But if you want to apply the hypocrisy label, I want context).
So how about it? What have Vidder’s actual positions on the topic been?
If it turns out he’s been an anti-prostitution crusader, I’m soundly with you on this one, Jaherer22.
All I know is that none of this alleged hypocrisy comes anywhere close to a freakin’ free speech liberal who wants to ban political thought with which he disagrees.
Now that is ripe hypocrisy. And public hypocrisy. That’s the kind of hypocrisy we should all be focused on.
Professor Blather on July 12, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Recten??
Damn’ near killed him!
krakatoa on July 12, 2007 at 12:22 PM
Tucker just just a great public service. It didn’t take much to show what an aggressive and partisan guy this Rectenwald is. He also had the guy admit that he was essentially on a pay-back drive, targetting Repubs. His little organization is one of those Left mushrooms that pop up overnight to work a circumstance to the Left’s advantage.
Time to repeat this: Christian is a religious affiliation
Republican is a political party affiliation. They are distinct affiliations that can overlap, but not necessarily.
The Left should be called every single time on their usage of these terms because they are purposely smearing the two as if they were one and the same. If a Christian decides to join the Republican Party it is simply because he or she finds it the BEST option amongst many POLITICAL choices. It ONLY most CLOSELY reflects his or her religious beliefs. There is NO political party under the sun that reflects ANYONE’s beliefs, religious or otherwise PERFECTLY. ONe only gets the best of the available options or try one’s luck and start a new one and see how much general appeal it garners. CHristians have just as much a right as anyone else to work politically to certain desired outcomes – knowing full well that compromises have to be made. The wisdom is knowing when to compromise and when not to. Much of the Republican Party is not Christian, but the overwhelming majority of the GOP members must share some basic assumptions of human behavior and constitutional integrity in order to be able to work together.
Unless Vitter used his public office or public funds for the pursuit of sex – his actions are not related to his public service. He does not have to resign. The Dems always scream that in order to rip Repubs out of their elected seats, yet they hold on tight to their own seats – no matter what. Hypocrisy is not the word to describe Jefferson and his cold cash stash – criminal is. Zero calls that he step down, shame, standards, good of the Party. Nothing. They need his vote. They’ll argue he should vote from prison if they think they can get away with it.
Since when has it been been better to flaunt one’s dissolute lifestyle – “We’re disgusting, but at least we’re not hypocrites!” What a perverse defense! At least Vitter still has the conscience to feel shame.
The hypocrisy is the political self-interest demands of the Left to subvert the will of the electorate by constantly coming up with schemes to deny or subvert the lawful rights of Republicans to finish or continue in their elected positions. The Left hides behind the trick of the small hypocrisy while part of a bigger and more damaging one.
naliaka on July 12, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Wonderful post. Amazingly well-said. The whole thing, not just the part I quoted. Outstanding.
Professor Blather on July 12, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Almost as funny as Japanese tetris!
abinitioadinfinitum on July 12, 2007 at 12:34 PM
What Vitter did, whether it was once or a billion times, was WRONG. He preached about moral standards that we should be following and does the exact opposite himself.
It’s disgusting and embarassing. We attacked Bill Clinton for doing the same thing, it is only fair Vitter receives the same backlash from us. We should not be defending him.
heatherrc77 on July 12, 2007 at 12:51 PM
I don’t know that anyone’s defending him but fair’s fair. The attack they’re making is just as morally wrong. I keep waiting for someone to be the bigger person and – oh wait THAT’S never going to happen.
ophelia on July 12, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Its not an attack as much as it is an expectation that he aplogize to everyone including the woman he insulted by paying her money to use her body and then that he resign.
period.bingo
I’m done with this one.
amend2 on July 12, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Rectumwald was a self-defeating tool, and Carlson humiliated him, which was quite a surprise. I didn’t think Tuck was smart enough to do what I just watched him do. Nicely done.
Exit Answer: SouthernDem is right, prostitution is (hilariously) against the law in D.C., and Vitter will suffer the penalty.
Post Answer: So, let’s polygraph every member of congress and all of their staffers, and find out if any of them have committed the crime of paying a prostitute, and fire them.
Right?
Jaibones on July 12, 2007 at 1:00 PM
Same thing? Reeeaaally?
Vitter use interns? Vitter use the oval office? Vitter have a history of using state troopers as personal attendents?
What Democrat backlash was there against Clinton? It was circle the wagons, set up the pickets, an armed perimeter and besmirch the criticism from behind the sandbags. They made a couple of “we ought to be better than this” speeches, worked overtime to place exceedinly strict boundaries on any investigations, but when any votes came, they all held tight to protect Clinton’s elected status. Not a Democrat soul demanded Clinton step down for the good of the party.
So, shouldn’t loyal Republicans do the same as the Dems did?
naliaka on July 12, 2007 at 1:01 PM
heatherrc77 on July 12, 2007 at 12:51 PM
So in other words what you are saying is because Democrats admit to having no moral or ethical standards anything they do is ok and only those who claim to have moral or ethical standards need to commit seppuku when they make a mistake?
doriangrey on July 12, 2007 at 1:10 PM
No, it’s not okay for NEW DIRECTION DEMOCRATS to act this way because they admit to having no moral compass in their lives. However, EVERYTHING IS ON THE TABLE! Everything!! The voting marketplace will decide.
DfDeportation on July 12, 2007 at 1:26 PM
I live in Louisiana and can assure you that this incident means very little. Vitter has 4 years until he stands for re-election and by that time this episode will be a distant memory. In the mean time we will have elected Hillary and that will be the end of our country as we know it.
With all that Vitter has done for the conservative cause we should give him a gift cirtificate to an escort service. But this episode does point up one problem with the Republican party and that is that they have gotten on a Christian morals platform that is every much as bad as the socialist Democrats. The Repblicans need to return to the party of Goldwater and pass legislation to reduce the size and scope of our government. I would say taxes but thanks to our fearless leader (Bush), we will be paying out the nose for his deficit spending.
I personally see nothing wrong with prostitution and find that Vitter’s participation in this makes him much more of a man than the average jerk in office (Edwards).
davidcaskey on July 12, 2007 at 1:30 PM
That was Hot! ®
A registered trademark of Paris Hilton.
I like watching casting stones! Voyeurism is grand!
Kini on July 12, 2007 at 1:31 PM
O.K., conceded. It’s illegal in D.C. and Vitter was a champion of the “sanctity of marriage” amendment.
Wouldn’t you say there is a lot more on the line when it comes to the President as opposed to a LA Representative? Of course they didn’t demand he step down, he was the leader of the US. I certainly would expect Republicans to circle the wagons. I get your point, but I think the comparison is a bit off.
SouthernDem on July 12, 2007 at 1:33 PM
I’m sure his wife and four children agree, he’s a real man.
I agree with that.
SouthernDem on July 12, 2007 at 1:35 PM
I think, as Human Beings, we are all subject to the same temptations. So theoretically I view Reps & Dems equally, regardless of what they profess.
OTOH, I also know that Public Servants are CONSTANTLY held to a higher standard than their electorate, PRECISELY because they are in the position to change the makeup of our Society. So in practicality I view Reps & Dems equally.
Either way, ALL OF ‘EM OUT. Violation of trust, laws, morality is not up to them as Public Servants…it’s up to the Public for the continuation of a Civilized Society.
If they want to do that on their own time & dollar, I don’t care. If they make it MY business, they’re gonna hear it from me. Don’t wanna hear it? Don’t make it my business by becoming a Public Servant.
LOL! This quote is SO FUNNY, since those ‘slave-holding Confederates’ were actually Democrats! Republicans didn’t exist in any real sense throughout the US until Goldwater’s run in 1964, and Southern (Yellow Dog) Democrats began their exodus to the Republican Party in the 1980′s.
Oh and BTW, Frederick Douglass was a Republican. So is his great-grandson. I know this for a FACT because I met him in 2005. He is the spittin’ image of his great-grandfather!
Miss_Anthrope on July 12, 2007 at 1:38 PM
The left has it very easy. Since they have no moral compass or ethical guidelines, they are not held up to any standards.
Kensington on July 12, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Forgot to mention that I saw this when it happened, and by the time Tucker got him peeled from thei ceiling the 1st time, dorko’s response of “what?” made be laugh so hard. Good thing I wasn’t drinking anything at the time, or out the nose!
I think this is just so dumb since Reps never seem to circle the wagon like I’ve seen Dems do so often.
This isn’t just about sex, either…do the Dems have a pro-theft platform too? Jefferson is the most recent, but not the only, example of the same circling.
I’m not saying Reps don’t get stupid…they certainly do, but they’re just more likely to be swatted for it by their party.
Miss_Anthrope on July 12, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Yeah, that is EXACTLY what I was saying. Puhleeze.
I don’t recall saying anything close to what you are accusing.
I never said that what Bill did was okay. I said what Vitter did was disgusting and embarassing. What Bill did was disgusting and embarassing. We attacked him for that, and he deserved it all. Im just saying that now, a Republican, is getting attacked for doing something very similar to what Bill did and everyone gets all defensive when the Libs are doing exactly what we did to Bill.
They both deserve to be shunned. Not just one or the other.
heatherrc77 on July 12, 2007 at 1:50 PM
The arguments in this thread are, by and large, ridiculous. This thread is a good example of why our society is such a failure and will never last. You people can’t even agree on something as simple as whether it’s right or wrong (NOT right or left!) to visit prostitutes or cheat on your spouse. This is not a Religious or a political discussion, it’s a moral one, and as such (it seems like it) should be a pretty straightforward one at that. Ironically it turns out, it is really a good reflection of the social morass of the United States today.
KMC1 on July 12, 2007 at 2:03 PM
You are absolutely, 100% wrong.
There are greater things at stake here than the vanity of your personal morals.
If Vitter resigns or is defeated in the polls because of this and a Democrat is elected that will use his or her power to further erode the morals you claim to support, then what comfort will your self righteousness provide you?
JayHaw Phrenzie on July 12, 2007 at 2:07 PM
That was brilliant. It really made my day. The bit where he called him a punk was pricless. More posts like this one please Allah.
aengus on July 12, 2007 at 2:08 PM
Hmmm I think the only candidate who doesn’t want this story out there is Hillary. How many times is Bill’s name going to be brought up in association with this stuff as it develops?
Zetterson on July 12, 2007 at 2:08 PM
Your correct in saying that this IS a moral issue, not a political one.
The rest is just really ridiculous.
heatherrc77 on July 12, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Ha, ha, ha! I would love to be a fly on the wall in the Clinton house right now!
heatherrc77 on July 12, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Thank you for that quote. So much of what was said in The Brothers Karamazov still rings true today. The Grand Inquisitor’s exegesis of Jesus’ temptations reads like the talking points and platform of the modern Democrat party. The modern socialist nutroot is like a violent mix of the worst parts of Fyodor (selfishness), Dmitri (sensualism), Ivan (arrogance) and Alexei (credulity). The west is exhibiting signs of the very brain fever that Ivan succumbed to at the end of the novel.
spmat on July 12, 2007 at 2:14 PM
I say its ok to visit a prostitute so long as its done legally. What another person wants to do with their money should be their decision to make and should be their own personal business. If someone of legal age in a state where it is legal to do so decides they want to sell their body for money that too should be their decision to make. I say its wrong to visit a prostitute if you are married.
Zetterson on July 12, 2007 at 2:17 PM
And I should probably add, if your husband or wife is a prostitute you might want to consider divorce.
Zetterson on July 12, 2007 at 2:29 PM
I wish that someone would make the point to the face of one of the mainstream media’s liberal frontmen that the liberal/left has one key advantage over the conservative and moderate right…they are not subject to shame. They simply cannot be shamed.
It’s a problem
Blaise on July 12, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Is is okay to vote for prostitutes? (Edwards, Hillary, Obama etc.)
aengus on July 12, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Absolutely not ok
Zetterson on July 12, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Seeing as though Gore has been criticized for his hypocritical stance on global warming, it should play out the same for all sides/politicians/leaders/etc..
Although, are we going to say that if you have a speeding ticket, then you can’t legislate driving laws? Are we going to go down that path for everything?
nottakingsides on July 12, 2007 at 3:27 PM
Re exit question:
Yes Vitter is done on a couple of levels already. Possible VP consideration for Rudy – no more, Possible run for Governor – not gonna happen. Reelection chances in 2010, maybe.
But the local Republicans in the state are already talking about an agreement with Blanco in which if Vitter is convinced to step down a Republican will be appointed until a special election is held. A former Republican governor named Treen is the name being floated.
The constituents are taking what he did quite seriously. As more comes out the more it seems to be a pattern than a one time stumble.
Guys like this tend to be radioactive and the Republicans should back off completely and let him speak for/defend himself. Nothing like a soundbite of a fellow party member speaking highly of a person who turns out to be very flawed. Think Lott and Strom Thurmond….
Bradky on July 12, 2007 at 3:38 PM
Link to story mentioned in last post
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070712/NEWS01/707120336
Couple of additional thoughts:
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.
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 12, 2007 at 3:52 PM
Can I ask you why you think my belief that we should all conduct ourselves with honor and integrity is evidence of my self-rightousness?
Do you really believe that a Democrat being elected into office is more of a concern than our loss of social integrity? Clearly you see the connection between the increased violence and crime in this country and the net effects of Liberalism, and I agree with you on those points. However, do you really think it matters which party affiliation our elected representatives claim, if we as a society do not have the prescience to accept our responsibility to each other, and to society? Do you really feel that we’re absolved of responsibility because of what goes on at Capital Hill?
I think it is actually you who are 100% wrong, and the fact that something this clearcut cannot be agreed upon is the real issue here.
KMC1 on July 12, 2007 at 4:24 PM
You are the finest straw man artist I’ve seen come down the pike in quite a while.
Since you’re determined to tell us what we think and feel so you can debate what you think what said and feel … what do you need us for? Go argue with yourself.
Here, let me show you: raise your hands if you think it’s morally, ethically, or otherwise a good thing to cheat on your spouse? Anyone?
How about go to a prostitute? Is that a good thing? Have we got some good libertarians here to back that one up?
There. Now pay attention to the responses.
I have no doubt that 99.9% of the people here are against infidelity, and that at least 95% are against prostitution (I’m counting on a real libertarian or two) … and even the 5% will tell you its wrong for a married guy.
(And for the record, there is at least a fair debate to be had on the subject of prostitution … but that’s completely irrelevant here, since it isn’t legal in Vitter’s district or in D.C.)
In short, you’re arguing with silly straw men. Very silly ones. Nobody – or at most a couple people – have disagreed with the basic thesis that cheating on your spouse and screwing hookers when you’re married is a no-no.
There. Happy?
The only truly ridiculous posts in this thread all have your name under them. Sorry, chum.
Is it fun being self-righteous? Isn’t there something in St. Matthew on that subject?
Professor Blather on July 12, 2007 at 4:42 PM
Like I said … he’s a straw man artist.
Either that he really digs the hookers, and he’s engaging in some classic projection.
Either way … pretty amusing.
Carry on. Let me grab some popcorn.
Professor Blather on July 12, 2007 at 4:43 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »