By Chad Phillips
MTW contributing writer
What is it with those guys down in the deep south, anyway? First it was U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, (D-New Orleans) with his "left overs" in the freezer; now it's Senator David Vitter, (R-Louisiana) and his escortpades in the redlight district.
Most everything possible to flambe David Vitter has already been said, except one thing; it doesn't appear anyone is condemning him for behavior unbecoming a married man, much less an elected official. Instead, the primary "abortafacient" is "hypocrisy." It seems folks (especially the liberal breed) are more upset over Vitter's hypocrisy than they are over his infidelity. But if you're looking for excuses for David Vitter, you won't find them here. I just find it curious that apparently the only reason he's being charred to perfection by the liberal establishment is because of his dishonesty about his immorality. It would seem that being an honest adulterer is more "noble" than being a dishonest one in our culture.
What if Vitter had backed socially liberal policies, would Larry Flynt, the man signing the whistle blower's paychecks have hushed Vitter's scandalous affair up? It certainly appears that way. Here's what Flynt had to say when his "investigator" Dan Moldea gave him the skinny on Vitter.
[Moldea] sent an email to Flynt and telephoned him to say "I got one." Flynt's first question was, "Is he a hypocrite?" Moldea says he replied, "Just wait 'til you see this guy."
Flynt and others like him appear to be saying, there's nothing wrong with being Clintonesque as long as you wear it on your sleeve. You want to cheat on you wife with hookers or whoever, fine; just don't act like you've gotta problem with it. Don't vote for teen abstinence programs. Don't vote for federal marriage amendments based on your alleged belief in the sanctity of marriage and don't preach to us about curtailing government corruption, particularly when you're using the money we're paying you to buy high priced hookers.
Vitter's raunch and roll escapades with an escort service are just one of the many polarized scandals which have come to represent, and therefore co-opt, those of us who really do value marriage, who really do honor our partners, who really do believe that values are rooted in action and not just lip service.
Do our leaders need to be held to a higher standard? Absolutely. Do we condemn the actions of David Vitter? You'd better believe it. But let's get one thing straight: Vitter's past actions are reprehensible not just because he was hypocritical, but because he engaged in the same destructive behavior as those who have no shame.
“It would seem that being an honest adulterer is more “noble” than being a dishonest one in our culture.”
Vitter was confronted in 2002 and 2004, he denied the allegations both times. (Maybe you should have read more about the case).
“But if you’re looking for excuses for David Vitter, you won’t find them here.”
Actually he only admitted this after the woman posted his number on the Internet.
“Flynt and others like him appear to be saying, there’s nothing wrong with being Clintonesque as long as you wear it on your sleeve.”
Actually what he’s saying is, “This is at least the 3rd Rep who came out publicly asking for Clinton to resign who was having an affair themselves.”
Vitter also rails against Homosexual marriage saying it “threatens marriage” he even once compared it to “Hurricane Katrina.”
He campaigned as a “Defender of the Sanctity of Marriage” yet he was getting the little ahem ahem on the side.
If you can’t understand why people are pissed you are oblivious to reality.
For 20 plus years Americans have heard Reps soapbox about being the “Party of Morality” and “Family Values”, when in reality you seem to be the party of repressed homosexuals, repressed heterosexuals, and all around criminals.
Yet, here you are once more hiding behind the shroud of “Morality.”
The illusion has faded, the curtain has fallen. If you were truly a “Moral Crusader” you would be just as angry, but most of your piece, yet again, is about “Liberals.” Liberals didn’t make the man cheat on his wife with Prostitutes, and then get in front of America and claim to be a “Family Man.”
Oh, and you left out one very important thing. Unlike what Clinton did, having sexual relations with a fat chick, Vitter BROKE THE LAW! It is ILLEGAL to pay to have sex with a Prostitute. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have gone to jail doing the exact same thing.
Where’s your “MORAL OUTRAGE” over that? It’s so disingenuous Chad. Contrived.
“Partisan Morality?”
Just once I’d love to see you “objective” people really be honest and stop making excuses or finding ways to bring Liberals into the Mix.
JUST ONCE!
JUST ONCE!
SERIOUSLY!
ONE TIME!
YOU CAN STILL THINK FOR YOURSELVES, CAN’T YOU?
Way ta go, Diego! I can always count on you to prove my point, even when you don’t get it yourself. If anyone else would care to try to enlighten Diego as to just what the point IS, feel free to comment on this thread. But be warned, any attempt at clarification WILL be met with endless Sissyphusism.
Oh, Diego… you try so hard, and come so close to getting it…
Okay, I see two points here. You’re babbling on about how Republicans ought to give a damn that Vitter is a lecherous cheat. You’re right, and I for one am about as happy as I was that Foley turned out to be a faggot. That is, not happy at all.
But see, the problem here is that liberals are the last people that should be commenting. Ever since Clinton revealed himself as the lying, perjurious, adulterous scumbag he was, libs have protected him. “It was just a [sexual expletive]” for example.
If you’re saying it’s okay for Clinton to do what he did, then it’s
okay for Vitter. I disagree with it being okay for either schmuck.
To illustrate mine and Chad’s point about the partisan hypocrisy, let’s look at this statement:
“Vitter was confronted in 2002 and 2004, he denied the allegations both times. “
Kind of like Clinton denying his sexual relations with Lewinsky? Again, if it’s okay for Clinton, then it’s okay for ANYONE.
And you are so fervantly wanting to lower the Republican party to the seedy, heathen level of the libs, that you then make a play on this statement:’
“But if you’re looking for excuses for David Vitter, you won’t find them here.”
Chad wasn’t looking for excuses- he was commenting on the double-standard you libs thrive on: it’s okay for a lib to (insert activity) but it’s not okay for a conservative to (insert activity).
Most people would call that B.S.
Then you want to defend your fellow libtards:
CHAD: “Flynt and others like him appear to be saying, there’s nothing wrong with being Clintonesque as long as you wear it on your sleeve.”
YOU: Actually what he’s saying is, “This is at least the 3rd Rep who came out publicly asking for Clinton to resign who was having an affair themselves.”
Hey, I appreciate your solidarity. It’s admirable. But Flynt is just carrying a grudge, and will to his grave, against the conservatives that call him out for the degenerate pervert that he is.
And I will give you props for sticking to your demented guns:
“If you can’t understand why people are pissed you are oblivious to reality.”
You and I both know that wasn’t the point of Chad’s comments. (To refresh your memory, he was commenting on the libtard hypocrisy)
But I really enjoy this statement:
“For 20 plus years Americans have heard Reps soapbox about being the “Party of Morality” and “Family Values,’ when in reality you seem to be the party of repressed homosexuals, repressed heterosexuals, and all around criminals.”
I tell you what. Let’s have a comparison. Count up all the faggots, cheaters and criminals (convicted or charged, not assumed) on both parties. Be fair and don’t omit anyone. If the Republican party has more than the Donkeycrats, I’ll go change my status from registered Republican to independent and stop voting in primaries.
I think that you and so many other libtards know you’ve joined the party of evil, and you are embarrassed by your affiliation. While you can’t eat crow because of your pride, it is a good sign: it means that unlike so many libtards you actually know the difference between right and wrong. You’re not just an apathetic straight ticket voter like the so-called “conservative democrats.” There’s hope for you yet.
I also liked this:
“Oh, and you left out one very important thing. Unlike what Clinton did, having sexual relations with a fat chick, Vitter BROKE THE LAW! It is ILLEGAL to pay to have sex with a Prostitute. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have gone to jail doing the exact same thing.”
You must love salad bars, Diego- cause you sure love to pick and choose. Clinton did commit a crime- Perjury. And in just about every State, that’s a more serious crime than paying for sex. It’s a felony. I also like how both men committed adultery, but you downplay Clinton’s act by deeming it “sex with a fat chick.” At least you’re loyal to your compadres.
And let’s not leave without responding to this:
“Just once I’d love to see you “objective” people really be honest and stop making excuses or finding ways to bring Liberals into the Mix.”
I’ll be honest; Vitter is a lecherous scumbag. If a man can’t keep his promise to God and his bride, then how can he keep a promise to voters? The people who voted for Vitter should be ashamed. Not that they could have known, but still, they should be ashamed. However, since we’ve set the precedent in this country that it’s okay for politicians to lie under oath about their extra marital affairs, then you and all thee other libtards need to take a big dose of shut-the-hell-up.
So I done good?
That’s what you pay me for.
I get it Chad. The day anyone writes something “beyond me” on this blog is the day Hell freezes over, which could be soon if frigid Coulter happens to kick the bucket. AH HA HA HA HA HA!
I know what you’re saying and I agree to some extent. No one really cares he cheated on his wife it’s simply, “Gotcha!”
But at the same time Chadly, the Reps have hammered home this idea of being the Party of Values and such for decades,and the truth is they’re no more “Moral” than Dems.
And it’s always the really righteous ones. Vitter, Haggard, Coulter, Limbaugh, the dude and the Pages, I forgot his name “Page Loving Dude.” And that guy who wrote about and studied “Snuff Films.”
People get pissed off about it and then foam at the mouth waiting to say, “AH HA, we nailed your butt this time.”
We spoke about this other day
I just want to see you, meaning you, meaning Chad, blast one of them the way you do Liberals. I don’t mean dancing around it by saying, “But if you’re looking for excuses for David Vitter, you won’t find them here.” (Sorry about that by the way I was in a rush earlier and copied the wrong sentence).
He is a hypocrite Chad, as are the rest of them. I find it disturbing that doesn’t seem to matter to you. If we hold others to standards we don’t hold ourselves what’s the point of having standards?
I’ll blast Liberals all day long, and as I told I may have hurt myself, at least temporarily doing so, but values, morals etc should not be Partisan.
You never take a strong stand against Reps. You didn’t with Coulter or Vitter. You skirt around it.
Chad,
As you know, I don’t react well to liberal idiocy, but as a new contributor, I do want to be a team player, so it’s fortunate that what I have to offer is irrefutable, even if I’m not the one who originally said it…
First off, Vitter is not a hypocrite. Flynt is though. See, a hypocrite is one who professes to believe in something but really doesn’t – or who doesn’t believe in something but makes it his cause to seize some advantage. In Vitter’s case, he certainly believes that what he did is wrong, so that doesn’t make him a hypocrite, it makes him WEAK.
Next, in regard to the illegality of it. Yes. Is he being prosecuted? Does this foaming liberal want him to prosecute himself? Would you, Chad, be upset if Vitter were to be held legally accountable? Of course not.
As regards Clinton, he as impeached for his illegality, and it had nothing to do with lying under oath, not the intern.
Liberals play fast and loose with just about everything, and especially language where, for example, misstatement and erroneous information become “lies,” and “hypocrisy” is not only the greatest sin, it’s the only sin. But we have indulged them for too long.
That a few Republicans get themselves into trouble does not mean all conservatives are hypocrites. In fact, those Republicans have found themselves in various stages of disrepute owing to their weakness. What happens to Vitter is still to be determined, but the fact that he hasn’t already resigned seems to have rendered our loon here hysterical. If he didn’t react that way to the long line of Democrat miscreants, he is, in fact, the hypocrite – unless he doesn’t really believe there’s anything wrong with “minor” illegalities?
Patrick Kennedy comes to mind…
Chad I’m finished commenting on your blog. Thanks man, but if that fat [expletive] calls me another name I’m going to find out where he lives.
What exactly did Coulter do that was so wrong? What’d I miss?
She made a joke about Edwards being a fag? She mocked Bill Maher’s cracks about killing the VP? And you’re going to compare that to Limblowhard’s drug use?
Did I miss something?
(P.S. I think Limblowhard has some good ideas, but I think his lowering himself to the shouting, crazed level of Dean is ridiculous and sure takes away from his credibility with me. However, I gotta love Ted Nugent’s outspoken views. Call me crazy)
Yeah, Deigo, as trolling goes, “you done good.” I still don’t think you get it (my commentary) though.
I stated that pretty much everything possible (in terms of the “hypocrisy” issue) has already been said in regard to the Vitter scandal. I didn’t feel the need to simply regurgitate what I’ve been reading all over the blogosphere. That’s one reason I chose to point out another angle on the story, which I believe is no less relevant.
However, I did point out both the moral outrage and disappointment many conservatives feel in response to the Vitter affair. I’m not sure how you missed it. Either you didn’t read the post, or you’re selectively reading the content to harmonize with what you already believe to be true.
I don’t know if that’s the case or not. But there are a lot of folks both in the blogosphere and in the media (journalists) who write about events, people, etc. NOT as they actually happen, but as they wish to see things. Sometimes I think you do the same thing–commenting NOT as I wrote the original piece, but as you wish to see it.
With regard to the Coulter piece, I already told you that what I did was make an observation about one possibility why she is so acerbic. Anything else was beyond the scope of my commentary.
I’m certainly not trying to be evasive. But you must admit that it can be frustrating when clarification doesn’t seem to help matters any. Some people aren’t looking for answers; they’re looking for someone to fight with. They’re looking for a smoking gun, a conspiracy, an ulterior motive. When that is the case, nothing less than giving them the answer they want, will do. I think that the same principle applies here.
Given those considerations, you might wonder why I tried to explain myself at all. Well, I know my answer won’t be good enough for you, but maybe, at least, other readers will get some benefit from the “exchange.”
Oh, and no apology necessary for the “typo” with the ‘copy and paste thing.’