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.

I get your point, but I think the comparison is a bit off.
SouthernDem on July 12, 2007 at 1:33 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:

Let the voters decide if he should be sent back to represent them.
csdeven on July 12, 2007 at 10:03 PM

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.

Let the voters decide if he should be sent back to represent them.

- The Cat

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.

georgej on July 12, 2007 at 5:25 PM

*shakes head* This from the guy who said

I prefer: “Potestas Democraticorum delenda est!” because I hope to see in my lifetime the Democratic party outlawed, its leadership imprisoned for treason, it’s assets confiscated, and DNC headquarters imploded and leveled and replaced by a hot dog stand.

georgej on May 25, 2007 at 1:47 AM

Why am I not surprised.

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.

No one is arguing that.

Esthier on July 12, 2007 at 11:39 AM
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

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.

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 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.

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.”

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….

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

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?

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

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?

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.

No one is arguing that.

Esthier on July 12, 2007 at 11:39 AM

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.

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 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?

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?

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.

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.

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….

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?

aengus on July 12, 2007 at 2:51 PM

Absolutely not ok

Zetterson on July 12, 2007 at 2:17 PM

Is is okay to vote for prostitutes? (Edwards, Hillary, Obama etc.)

It’s a problem

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.

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.

KMC1 on July 12, 2007 at 2:03 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.

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

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.