Story here.
Of course, Senator David Vitter (R-LA) is sorry for his sin. But what makes it even juicier is what he wrote back in '98 about Clinton’s impending impeachment:
And in an October 29, 1998, opinion piece for the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Vitter took issue with a previous article, written by two law professors who had argued that impeachment “is a process of removing a president from office who can no longer effectively govern; it is not about punishment.” Given that Clinton was still a capable chief executive, they had maintained, impeachment was not in order.
Vitter, a graduate of Harvard University and Tulane law school and a Rhodes scholar, was aghast at this amoral position. He blasted the law professors for criticizing those congressional Republicans pushing for Clinton’s impeachment. Their argument that impeachment is “not primarily about right and wrong or moral fitness to govern,” he wrote, was utterly wrongheaded. He continued:
*Some current polls may suggest that people are turned off by the whole Clinton mess and don’t care – because the stock market is good, the Clinton spin machine is even better or other reasons. But that doesn’t answer the question of whether President Clinton should be impeached and removed from office because he is morally unfit to govern.
The writings of the Founding Fathers are very instructive on this issue. They are not cast in terms of political effectiveness at all but in terms of right and wrong – moral fitness. Hamilton writes in the Federalists Papers (No. 65) that impeachable offenses are those that “proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”*
In considering impeachment, Vitter asserted, Congress had to judge Clinton on moral terms. Decrying the law professors’ failure to see this, Vitter observed, “Is that the level of moral relatively [sic] and vacuousness we have come to?” If no “meaningful action” were to be taken against Clinton, Vitter wrote, “his leadership will only further drain any sense of values left to our political culture.”
What goes around sometimes does come around.
It gets better: Vitter was outed by Larry Flynt!
Dick Cheney might get caught up in it too.
I personally hope that part proves a canard. The idea of Cheney having anything remotely to do with sex is deeply disturbing. I prefer to think his daughter is a clone. It helps me sleep better.
Too complicated. First, he’d have to ensure level one security for the visit, then fly in a cardiac team from the Mayo Clinic on emergency standby.
“Fifi Le Boinque’s room! Code Blue! Code Blue!..”
Otto
July 11, 2007, 5:24pm
4
No silly, lesbians aren’t clones. Gay men are clones!
I wonder, if Cheney availed himself, if he shot anyone in the face.
elucidator:
Too complicated. First, he’d have to ensure level one security for the visit, then fly in a cardiac team from the Mayo Clinic on emergency standby.
“Fifi Le Boinque’s room! Code Blue! Code Blue!..”
You spelled “blew” wrong.
Heard something in passing about the good Senator’s wife had threatened to go all Bobick on him and truncate his Cheney if he misbehaved. Anybody got a reference on that?
In other news, gravity still applies a force of approximately 9.8 m/s².
I’m never shocked anymore when someone of “high moral values” gets caught with his pants down, their nose on the mirror, or her hand in the cookie jar.
Kimstu
July 11, 2007, 5:45pm
8
It’s in the OP’s first link:
In 2000, Wendy Vitter told Newhouse News Service she could not be as forgiving as Livingston’s wife or Hillary Clinton if her husband were unfaithful.
‘‘I’m a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary,’’ she said. ‘‘If he does something like that, I’m walking away with one thing, and it’s not alimony, trust me.’’
As much as I love the idea of Dick being shamed and ridiculed, I doubt that he would risk such a thing, given his obsession with secrecy. If he did it, he’d use an assumed name and do the deed in a very dark room so his face would not be seen.
BobLibDem:
As much as I love the idea of Dick being shamed and ridiculed, I doubt that he would risk such a thing, given his obsession with secrecy. If he did it, he’d use an assumed name and do the deed in a very dark room so his face would not be seen.
It’s all business. The story is not that he went to whores himself but that he retained their services to entertain Halliburton clients.
Even so . . . [shudder]
I’m not so sure:
I was just told Dick Cheney, while CEO of Halliburton, used her services regularly, they are trying to spin up a message to explain that members of his staff, in his offices, used this service to entertain foreign clients.
It sounds like he used her services and the staff is trying to spin this as best they can by saying he was merely getting it for his clients.
Otto
July 11, 2007, 6:08pm
12
Because merely procuring whores is ever so much more upstanding than fucking them yourself.
Well, if it was done in service of the Halliburton corporation’s interests, that makes it all right, doesn’t it? Business trumps all.
I think a better alibi would have been to say that the bordello had one wing for executives and another for legislators and that Cheney didn’t belong in either one.
Shocking, no, but it’s oh so schadenfreudelicious.
I vaguely recall reading an interview with a prostitute in New York when the Pubbies were holding their convention there, and the prostitute was saying that prostitutes generally preferred Republican conventions because the Dems had sex with each other, the Pubbies preferred to buy from pros. Sounds like she might have been right.
Trion
July 11, 2007, 6:27pm
17
I vaguely recall reading an interview with a prostitute in New York when the Pubbies were holding their convention there, and the prostitute was saying that prostitutes generally preferred Republican conventions because the Dems had sex with each other, the Pubbies preferred to buy from pros. Sounds like she might have been right.
Republicans have always been pro-business. Things are so much better when you leave them to the invisible hand of the market.
Kimstu
July 11, 2007, 6:31pm
18
Yeah, those damn socialist Democrats, trying to take adultery and fornication out of the cash nexus like that.
Or maybe it’s just that nobody would want to have sex with a Republican delegate for free?
Well, then, you better not look at this photo (SFW, kinda’)
So the Dems like to fuck themselves, and the Pubs like to fuck others. Huh.
