Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why Isn't Senator Vitter Recommended to the Ethics Committee?Or Forced to Resign? Here's Why.

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
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 05:58 PM
Original message
Why Isn't Senator Vitter Recommended to the Ethics Committee?Or Forced to Resign? Here's Why.
Edited on Fri Aug-31-07 06:07 PM by David Zephyr
There's a Great Double Standard in How the GOP Handles Sex Scandals Where Laws Have Been Broken:

Louisiana Republican Senator engaged in illegal prostitution. He committed adultery against his wife and brought the U.S. Senate into dishonor. He also knowingly hid his criminal involvement in prostitution from not only his wife, but the public and his fellow Senators. This is essentially identical to the problems now faced by Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig: illegal sexual activity, adultery, shabby behaviour, lying and cover-up.

Fellow Republican Senator, Mitch McConnell, wasted no time whatsoever in recommending that Senator Craig be reviewed by the Senate Ethics Committee. Senator Vitter's abhorrent behavior and criminal activity, on the other hand, has not been recommended to the Ethics Committee even to this day. Why is this?

There are only two real distinctions between the situations of these two men who both engaged in illegal, sexual activity, covered it up and lied about it:

1.) One involved homosexual activity and the other involved heterosexual activity.

2.) One, Craig, is up for re-election in 2008 which he could not possibly now win and whose position when he resigns will be filled by a Republican Governor...and the other, Vitter, is not up for re-election in 2008, however his position would be filled by a Democratic Governor.

Why does the media permit this double standard? Why isn't the DNC jumping all over this.

IF THE GOP IS FORCING SENATOR CRAIG TO AN ETHICS REVIEW OR TO RESIGN HIS SEAT, THEN IT FOLLOWS THAT THEY MUST ALSO SUBJECT SENATOR VITTER TO THE VERY SAME STANDARD.

This is an issue that will connect with the American public.

Senator David Vitter should be forced to resign.

For the record: The Senate Ethics Manual states that certain conduct can be improper,regardless of whether it violates Senate rules because bad behavior by any Senator, that can be characterized as "improper conduct, reflects poorly upon the entire Senate." The Senate Ethics Manual explains that "improper conduct" is "generally accepted standards of conduct, the letter and spirit of laws and Rules..."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. It's OK to cheat on your wife as long as it is not a gay act.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. It's OK to break the law, cheat on your wife, lie about it...
1.) if it is a homosexual act,
2.) and more importantly, if you will be replaced by a Democratic Governor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OwnedByFerrets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 06:08 PM
Response to Original message
3. Its all about politics........nothing more..........
If Vitter goes, a dem prob goes in his place............IF Craig doesnt go, his spot prob goes to a Dem.
If he does go, the gov can put a repug there. ITs all politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Exactly, which proves the "outrage" over Craig by the GOP is phony.
Craig can be replaced by another Republican. That isn't true with Vitter.

What they did is exactly the same, however.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeattleGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #3
13. That's exactly what it's about.
The GOP would be talking forgiveness, blah blah blah if the governor of Idaho was a Dem, but since he's a Puke, then they can afford to let him go. Not so with Vitter.

These people would throw their own kids under the bus if it helped their party.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zensea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. Vitter didn't plead guilty to a crime
I don't see why that's so hard for people to understand, but apparently it is.
Regardless of the fact that he's most likely guilty of one, I don't think he has ever admitted to anything other than visiting an escort (which is not a crime) and even if he committed a crime when he visited an escort, there is no actual evidence of it.
You can't throw people out of office based on hearsay.

Also I am curious if the people that think Vitter should resign thought the same thing about Bill Clinton who also engaged in "improper conduct."
Speaking of double standards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Yes he did. He admitted to seeing the prostitutes! THAT IS A CRIME.
He admitted it on National TEEVEE. Clinton, Clinton, Clinton. Sheesh. Bill Clinton didn't break any LAWS! He was involved in a CONSENSUAL relationship! I don't see why that's so hard for SOME people to understand. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Thanks, I was pointing out the same thing, but you beat me to it.
Plus, Bill Clinton was investigated, Vitter hasn't been.

Clinton's was legal. Vitter's was illegal.

Senate Rules require that Vitter be reviewed by the Ethics Committee. It is required.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zensea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. Sexual harassment is not consensual
even if it might appear to be so.
Clinton's actions are close to being sexual harassment and may well have been.
Reasonable people can differ on whether they were or not.
I don't think he should have been impeached though.

My comment on double standard is not to imply that Clinton should have been impeached, but to say that since Clinton's actions were allowed, by the same standard I don't think Vitter's admittedactions should not be allowed -- unless you can provide me a link that indicates he admitted to visiting an actual prostitute for sex. I don't think he has. He admitted visiting an escort, but visiting an escort is not illegal unless there is also sex as part of the service.
I did google around and all I found so far was Vitter very carefully parsing his language and not admitting to an actual crime.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. That's the second falsehood you have gratutitously posted.
Edited on Fri Aug-31-07 07:14 PM by David Zephyr
Monica Lewinsky has stated over and over that she was not "harrassed".

In your rush and desire to smear the Clintons, you have now posted two falsehoods.

1.) You say that Vitter was not involved in prostitution. He was.

2.) You say that Clinton was involved in sexual harrassment. He wasn't.

The OP, again, which you apparently wish to ignore provides the Senate standards regarding this issue.

Hijack another thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zensea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Do you have comprehension problems?
I wrote
"Clinton's actions are close to being sexual harassment and may well have been.
Reasonable people can differ on whether they were or not."
Let me help you understand here. I'll assume for the moment that you are a reasonable person.
"May well have been" does not mean that they were.
Whether or not they were, it is irrelevant whether Monica Lewinsky states or believes she was not harassed.
I also wrote
"I don't think he should have been impeached though."
How is that a smear? I have no desire to smear Clinton and I am not rushing to do so. You're completely missing my intent. From what I know Clinton should not have been impeached and from what I've read so far, the proven case against Vitter doesn't look like he should be removed from office over it either. I asked for a link to where he admitted to something that is actually criminal. Got one? Or are you just going to engage in calling me a liar?

Even if I am engaged in a smear (which I am not), how is it a smear of the Clintons? The only person I mentioned was Bill Clinton.
Why are you bringing Hillary into it? (as long as we are talking about thread jacking).




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. .
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Monica was not sexually harassed and has said so. This is the young lady who flipped her dress up
to show Bill her ass and THAT was before they were ever involved! She wasn't sexually harassed and enjoyed every moment of her relationship with him. They broke no laws. Sexual Harassment is only sexual harassment when the person who doesn't LIKE the sexual advances SAYS it's sexual harassment. Monica didn't. She was more than a willing player in that affair.


Vitter's admission:

"This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible," Vitter said Monday evening in a printed statement. "Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3361462
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zensea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. So where is the crime?
Notice how careful Vitter was with his words.
A "serious sin."
That is not an admission to a crime.

I never said Clinton broke any laws.

Did Vitter?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. You may not have said Clinton broke any laws, but you questioned why we didn't insist he resign and
do insist Vitter resigns. Vitter BROKE THE LAW visiting prostitutes. He received phone calls on THE HOUSE FLOOR from Madam Palfrey. He also made phone calls TO Madam Palfrey from the HOUSE FLOOR (when he was a Congressman). All the evidence is in the phone records. Also, there must be some law against spending tax payer's money (we pay him) to set up illegal visits with prostitutes from the House Floor....while on OUR DIME. If you want to believe his "sin" wasn't illegal, go for it, but he knows, Madam Palfrey knows, Larry Flynt knows, his wife knows and every prostitute he visited knows the truth. He broke the law and the ONLY reason he's still in office is because Blanco is a Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zensea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Escorts not prostitutes, which is not illegal
If Vitter admitted to visiting prostitutes then he should resign (or if it was proven instead of just alleged).

But he hasn't admitted that, at least anywhere I've seen, and despite my asking several times in this thread no one has provided a link or a quote where he does admit it.
He has admitted contact with escorts and to "serious sins," but that is not the same thing.

There has been no proof regarding Vitter.
He has not admitted to a crime.
Craig did plead guilty to a crime.
That was my original point pure and simple.
That is another possible reason for the difference in treatment of the two men.
It doesn't mean that it's the only reason.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ediacara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #14
28. An escort is just a synonym for a classy prostitute
Anyone who claims that escorts just "escort" is selling you a line of bull.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Awwwww...come on! Everyone knows escorts just escort!
:eyes:

I must say, this is the first person I've EVER seen defend Vitter. Mrs. Vitter, is that you? :rofl:

He didn't admit to visiting a prostitute? :rofl: He admitted he visited an "escort" only. :rofl:

OOOOOOOOKAY! Whatever! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zensea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-01-07 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #29
50. We all know what escorts really are & I'm not defending Vitter
I was responding regarding the actual legalities of the matter and not about the realities.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #14
31. You are pointing out that they went after Clinton and didn't go after Vitter, right?
That the GOP congressfolks are hypocrites.

I agree. MKJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zensea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-01-07 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #31
51. Of course
All I was trying to comment on is that it works both ways.
If we accuse the GOP of being hypocritical because of going after Clinton but not Vitter then they will throw it right back at us to justify having gone after Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-01-07 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #51
53. Who went after Clinton? It wasn't "us".
Maybe you did. :shrug: MKJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zensea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-01-07 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. Jesus
Edited on Sat Sep-01-07 12:08 PM by Zensea
I can not believe the rampant misinterpretations I'm getting to my posts.
I said very clearly (if you know how to read) that the "us" that went after Clinton was the GOP and the "we" that should be prepared to have it thrown back at the "us" (this we and this us being the Democrats) by them (the GOP).
For your benefit, although given the level of reading comprehension from you also, I don't know why I bother here's the quote again. I'll add in definitions of terms for the dense.

If we (the Democrats) accuse the GOP of being hypocritical because of going after Clinton but not Vitter then they (the Republicons) will throw it right back at us (the Democrats) to justify having gone after Clinton.

It certainly wasn't me that went after Clinton bucko.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-01-07 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. Yeah, the "us" that went after Clinton was the GOP. Again, whatever pejorative you choose,
Edited on Sat Sep-01-07 01:51 PM by BleedingHeartPatriot
I don't belong to the "us" or "we" that went after Clinton.

Your response has not changed mine, I guess it's a stalemate. MKJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Prostitution is a crime. Consensual sex is not a crime.
How can you blur those two in order to defend Vitter.

Vitter's involvement in illegal prostitution should be reviewed by the Senate Ethics Committee. If you read the OP, you will see that I provided the language from the Senate' very own standards.

Bill Clinton's situation was legal...and by the way, he was INVESTIGATED for it, you might remember.

The Senate Rules requires that Vitter by reviewed by the Ethics Committee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zensea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. My mistake then if
I missed that he had admitted visiting a prostitute.
I do know that he admitted visiting an escort, but that is different since not all escorts are prostitutes.

I would like to see an actual link that indicates Vitter admitted to visiting a prostitute (or escort) for sex. I've looked (googled) around and what I see is that Vitter very carefully parsed his words in such a way to not actually admit to a crime. He admitted visiting escorts, but that is not an admission of a crime. It would have to be actual sex for money that he admitted to and I don't think he has done so. I don't mind at all being corrected on this if someone can find a link.

As for the legality of Clinton's actions, of course it was legal, that's not my point.
However, his actions would probably constitute sexual harassment, which is not illegal, but is not proper either. I don't think I'd describe it as purely consensual.
It's the type of thing that can get you demoted pretty quickly in the workplace.

However, let me be clear that I don't think Clinton should have been impeached.

Try to see how I am not blurring things, I am actually trying to be quite precise.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #12
32. You are an angels on the head of pin poster, no doubt.
Being precise, are you also metaphorical? MKJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #12
34. just as an aside, sexual har. IS illegal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment

If someone reading this doesn't trust wiki, just google/yahoo "sexual harassment illegal" and you'll find many links to state sites, etc., describing it as illegal.

I think you are raising some good points.

While I have no doubt that society in general is homophobic and that may be one factor accounting for differences in how these cases were handled, there IS a difference between admitting one saw an escort and being arrested for and pleading guilty to a charge of disorderly conduct. I personally believe Vitter did pay at least one prostitute, but the argument is that his situation was parallel to other situations but for the gender of the person with whom he had sex or tried to solicit it, and like you, I agree that without the links you requested, I'm not sure they are entirely parallel.

Certain elements of our society certainly DID go crazy over the heterosexual allegations against Clinton whether they were consensual or not. But I think you're right about other issues too. When Lewinski was involuntarily transferred to get her out of the way because of her sexual relationship and not because of job-relevant reasons, I could see how that could be viewed as a form of gender discrimination harassment. Whether she decided to label it as harassment at the time or not isn't the only factor that determines whether it was wrongful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
6. The media doesn't jump all over the Vitter story because THEY are probably ON THE MADAM'S LIST too.
Edited on Fri Aug-31-07 06:28 PM by in_cog_ni_to
The same goes for the Democrats. I'm sure there's Democrats on her list, but Flynt said he wouldn't be outing anyone who isn't a hypocrite, so I don't understand their thinking on the issue. Probably afraid the WH has a list too and will out them! I don't doubt they DO have the list, do you? NSA????

I remember watching Howard Kurtz on CNN doing a story about the DC madam joining forces with Larry Flynt and you should have seen his face! He looked scared shitless! I KNOW there are MSM commentators on her list. THAT is why the media dropped the issue like a hot potato!

The repuke's excuse on Vitter is, they dropped the Vitter ethics investigation because Vitter's WIFE knew about what happened (or so she says she did) and SHE has forgiven him, so they dropped it. It's a "personal" matter. HOWEVER, he DID break the law and his wife can't decide whether he should pay for his crimes or not. She is NOT the law. I think the Democrats should DEMAND he be investigated and removed from office. He's in office ONLY because Blanco is a Democrat. It was an illegal heterosexual affair (prostitution is still illegal, right?)....never mind THE DIAPERS! :eyes: Since the Dems stayed VERY quiet on the Vitter issue, I say THEY have members on the madam's list too and are afraid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ediacara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
7. Blanco is a Democrat, Otter is a Republican, the GOP wants to keep the seat for the 110th
It's just that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Bingo! And that's where the Dems need to speak out.
At the very minimum, the Senate Rules & Regualtions should be enforced with a review of Vitter's criminal activity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zensea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #11
22. I agree with that
Surprised?

although you should say alleged criminal activity.
That would be my only caveat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-01-07 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #11
41. Yes! Why aren't the Dems doing this?

(Don't worry, that was purely a rhetorical question.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
21. Ding ding ding!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberaldemocrat7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #7
30. Blanco's a Democrat in name only. She signed the Louisiana abortion ban.
Edited on Fri Aug-31-07 09:05 PM by liberaldemocrat7
The Louisiana abortion ban may still remain in effect as of this post.

So how does Blanco naming a Democrat help the Democratic party except for giving the Democrats another 1 vote.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ediacara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. If Vitter were to have resigned, Blanco would appoint a Dem for the remainder of the 110th
Giving the Dems a 50-2-48 majority making Lieberman irrelevent.

When Craig (R-ID) resigns, Otter (R-ID) will appoint Risch (R-ID) to sit for the remainder of his term, keeping the balance at 49-2-49.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. And that's good enough for me.
Thanks, DinoBoy for getting the point. I want that Senate seat!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-01-07 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #7
39. Exactly. The GOP's highly selective moral outrage is nothing more than counting seats.
Edited on Sat Sep-01-07 12:18 AM by chill_wind
That was pointed out very effectively on CNN this afternoon by someone from the DNC/Hillary Clinton camp ( I missed a name, only caught the remarks). Then the CNN bimbo-ette (sitting in for Lou Dobbs, I think) hastened to point out in "The Interest of Full Disclosure" that the Dem critic was a Hillary supporter. As if that tempered the completely obvious truth in this matter in any way. Blechhh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
20. Republicans are hypocrites
What else is new.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
23. Two other reasons: 1/ LA has a Dem. governor and would be replaced by a Dem. if he had to resign.
2/ Craig pleaded guilty to a crime, while Vitter did not and has not been charged and condemned, which allows them to keep him while claiming you are innocent until found guilty.

(Obviously, the homosexuality issue is probably there as well, but there may also be a political calculation that Vitter is a safe seat for a few more years for the GOP, while Craig can be replaced quickly by a GOPer who will become the incumbent in 08 for the next election).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jade Fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
24. In a word, homophobia......
I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one who noticed this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
26. Very very good points. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #26
37. Thanks. Let's hope the media gets onto the "double standard" story.
It's glaring and it needs airing. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-01-07 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #37
49. I recommended -- hopefully lots more have by now. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
35. Because he supports the diaper industry?
:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Anita Garcia Donating Member (869 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-01-07 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #35
52. For the diapers!
Lobby for the adult use of diapers are big supporters...'scuze pun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDoorbellRang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-31-07 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
38. Well, that explains it then
Vitter's diapered tryst with the prostitute and Ted Stevens' little problem with bribery and corruption aren't worthy of ethics investigations, since per the manual those are "generally accepted standards of conduct" in today's GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-01-07 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
40. Night Line and Cokie Roberts just missed the 2nd main point David makes;
Vitters replacement would be made by a Dem, and Craig's is by a Repo.

They never mentioned it.

Night Lines contact page is here. http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3428117

Please tell them they missed half the story
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-01-07 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #40
43. I told them. If enough of us do, maybe they'll

have to report it.

I can't believe Cokie Roberts would not know the political reasoning here. Her dad was a Democrat in Congress and she's been in the news business for decades. Her mother was politically active, too, I believe, because she was Ambassador to the Vatican when Clinton was in office. The job always, AFAIK, goes not just to a Catholic but to a politically-connected one. Oh, when her husband was killed in a small plane crash, I believe she may have taken his seat in Congress. It was so long ago that I'm not sure of that, though. Hang on. . .

Yep, I was right! And Hale Boggs was SPEAKER of the House when his small plane supposedly crashed in Alaska, Oct. 16, 1972. An Alaska Congressman named Nick Begrich was with him, Boggs was to help him in his campaign for re-election. Neither the plane nor any bodies (an assistant and the pilot were also onboard) were ever found. Begrich was re-elected posthumously but his Republican opponent won the special election in early 1973. Lucky for him that plane went down. . .

Speaker Boggs's widow, Lindy Boggs, was elected to his seat in 1973 and served until 1991.

Cokie had a sister, now deceased, who was mayor of Princeton, N.J., and ran against Frank Lautenburg for the Dem nomiination to the Senate in 1982 but lost; her brother is a hot shot D.C. attorney and lobbyist, she's married to another journalist.

Is she playing dumb or is she a Republican now? I never watch her anymore.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-01-07 03:26 AM
Response to Reply #43
46. She's a Neo Con, and has been one for quite awhile. Her reporting leading up to
the war was atrocious.

She played the night line story as "morality," ie the Repos are more comfortable with hetro sex crimes than gay sex crimes and never said a word about the political power aspects in the # of seats in the Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-01-07 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #46
57. Certainly seems that way; that's why I quit watching her

years ago. Very odd for someone from a family with three people who held major offices as Democrats. She must be the black sheep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-01-07 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
42. Because we have a lapdog press who did not keep the story "hot".
Edited on Sat Sep-01-07 12:38 AM by SoCalDem
they showed up for his press event, and when he said "drop it"..they did :(

Did we EVER hear from a mainstream press person, about the dirty diaper stuff?

Nope.. they just reported is as an "infidelity that happened a long time ago, and for which his wife had forgiven him"..and then they moved on..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FourScore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-01-07 01:51 AM
Response to Original message
44. Excellent post. I agree wholeheartedly. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-01-07 03:15 AM
Response to Original message
45. Craig was arrested, I think Vitter's name showed up in the paper.
Even though Craig pled guilty, he claims he is innocent.

Even though there is no arrest, Vitter has admitted his guilt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-01-07 03:47 AM
Response to Original message
47. because they can't afford to lose more than they absolutely have to?
because they forgot?

because they don't have to if they don't want to! (na-na)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-01-07 05:00 AM
Response to Original message
48. David Vitter wears a diaper so he won't get caught in the crapper
with his drawers down.

Vitter went to the right schools!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-01-07 12:12 PM
Response to Original message
55. Somebody said something about a dead girl or a live boy. n/t
Edited on Sat Sep-01-07 12:12 PM by rucky
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 Thu Aug 28th 2014, 11:18 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