Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

No Republican can dismiss the hypocrisy that was evident in the Vitter press conference today.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 05:59 PM
Original message
No Republican can dismiss the hypocrisy that was evident in the Vitter press conference today.
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 06:00 PM by Maddy McCall
They know that Democrats (and hopefully some astute members of the media) will say, "But Republicans didn't mind delving into the Clintons' private lives, every bit of which played out in front of the nation in impeachment proceedings."

They've got to have a comeback to that statement. They've got to some way distinguish what happened with Bill Clinton from what happened from David Vitter, in a way that somehow makes their hypocrisy excusable, or in some way that makes David Vitter's "situation" more ethically, morally forgivable.

So, DUers, what do you predict the Republican pundits will say, in response to the statement bolded above?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. They will say he did not lie about it "under oath."
They start claiming that they are not bothered by what happened so much as that he "lied under oath" about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Ok...
so he didn't lie about it under oath.

But how many politicians have been placed under oath to be questioned about their sex lives?

Why didn't they squawk when Ken Starr opened up an investigation into Clinton's sex life? Would they squawk now if an independent council began investigating Vitter's sexual past?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
16. That's what I usually say when they start on that one
I forget who it was, but the rethugs in my life they were defending whatever repuke was in trouble at the time - Foley, maybe? With that line. So I argued that Clinton should not have been subjected to questioning under oath about a private matter, and that even lying under oath about this was not really all that important in light of things - one doesn't want Hillary to find out, and I thought it almost justifiable that Chelsea should not hear of it.

They also have their crap argument that it subjects him to blackmail which could harm national security - that could be the case with a Senator too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Then they wonder why we get pissed at no-oath no-transcript testimonies...
...by Bush and Cheney aides. How long do you allow people to look you in the eye and call you "Stupid Motherfucker" before you get pissed off?

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
15. which then backs them into the Libby box.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. They won't say a word; case now closed. His wife absolved him. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
3. Clinton lied under oath.
Case closed.

They won't discuss anything else, regardless of the truth. Republicans are hypocrites and liars from day one. It's the first plank of the party platform.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Did they complain when the Clintons' marital privacy was invaded by Ken Starr?
How can they say that marital issues should be private, when they cheered on Starr's investigation into what can easily be considered the Clintons' marital problems?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxsolomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. and he didn't "lie"
he parsed. the parsed under oath.

you fuckers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. And Clinton wasn't breaking any laws with Ms. Lewinski. Vitter was soliciting prostitutes.
People go to JAIL every damn day for "soliciting prostitutes".

People who aren't Repub Senators who got elected on a "family
values" platform, that is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
18. When it says Libby, Libby, Libby on the label.....
cornered - not that they notice being boxed in corners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
5. They can and they will. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
7. And what's with this "private life" bullshit anyway? HIRING PROSTITUTES IS A CRIME, last I looked!
What happened with Clinton and Lewinski was certainly
not anything I'd be proud of, but no LAWS were broken.

Vitter can -NOT- say the same! We have PROOF that he
was breaking the fucking law!!!!!! (no pun intended)

So he can blow that "private life" nonsense out his ass!
I'm sure he's familiar with the procedure for doing so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Yep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
22. Matthews tried to poo-poo the illegal prostitution because it's just a
misdemeanor. :eyes: Chuck Todd pointed out that lots of Johns get their picture plastered over billboards for doing what Vitter did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
9. Tweety is discussing the statements now n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gatorboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. He agreed with Vitter that it's the media's fault.
Oh boy.. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
12. Republicans DO NOT apologize, only Democrats apologize nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
14. wanna bet?
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeunderdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
17. Clinton wore big boy undies.
Boxers, I believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
monmouth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
20. Clinton "stained" the sainthood of the physical Oval Office......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baby_mouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
21. Oh, how could you even ASK? Leave the POOR MAN aLONE.

Oooo... You dang LIBRULS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johonny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
23. Hey at least
Vitter paid for his women. Clinton was too cheap to even pay them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Sarcasm tag missing?
Edited on Mon Jul-16-07 06:51 PM by Maddy McCall
Edit...shit, sorry. I see that you're speaking in the Republican voice.

My bad. :rofl: :blush:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
25. I really don't think they can spin it.
But knowing those freepers, they'll come up with something asinine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. And while anyone with any critical thinking skills laughs at their...
inevitable response, Grape-Kool-Aid-Republicans will say, "Yeah, that's the way it is! That's right. Suck it, Democrats!"

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
27. Illegally hiring prostitutes isn't the same as an affair between consenting adults, according to the
LAW.

Clinton = Philanderer.

Vitter = Criminal.

(I don't make the laws!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. I agree. So what will be the response that Republicans craft, to answer this point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-16-07 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
28. sure they can and will be oblivious to the hypocrisy
The Dem vs Repub double-standard is already a well-established precedent
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Sep 19th 2014, 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC