Would David Vitter's Resignation Be A Good Thing?

Is anyone else struck by how little resignation talk there's been surrounding David Vitter? On a purely political level, can you imagine if the situation were reversed and it was a sitting Democratic senator who'd been found to have repeatedly sought the services of prostitutes while in public office (albeit prior to his current term as senator?) Can you imagine the outcry from Republicans if the resignation of a Democratic senator meant that with one swift act the Republican governor could add to their slim majority in the senate giving him or her a presumed leg up in the special election that would follow? It's clear -- they'd be all over it. Yet here we are in just that situation and there's silence.

Now, I'm not advocating lowering ourselves to their level but, ummm, is there not an opportunity here? To potentially build on our currently non-existent majority in the senate prior to next year's elections and to begin to rebuild faith in the Democratic Party in Louisiana where, as Chris Cilizza reminds us, the party's fortunes have been in steep decline and consequently there's not exactly a deep bench. Instead, it appears the only ones considering calling for Vitter's resignation are Louisiana Republicans whose one condition is that they want an agreement from Gov. Blanco that she'll replace him with a Republican.

I suspect Democrats feel keeping Vitter in the senate has a bigger upside than likely losing a special election and replacing him with a 'clean' Republican: he's a constant reminder of the hypocrisy and corruption of the Republican Party. And to the extent that he represents the very aspect of the party that led to disillusionment among the party's base and hence the party's defeat last November, he's useful. He's their freakin poster boy. Still, I'm not a big fan of the idea that as long as he sought and has apparently found forgiveness from his wife and god, it's all good. The religious right condemns the left for moral degradation but when it's one of their own, all they require is repentance and forgiveness is granted. Sorry, it shouldn't be that easy. Not to mention the presumed legal ramifications of Vitter's actions, which seem to have been largely ignored. As Chris Kelly writes at the Huffington Post:

But isn't soliciting prostitution also a crime? Vitter's wife should know; she used to be a prosecutor.

Shouldn't someone be looking into the "crime" part, and whether there's something in the Constitution about removing people from office if they commit high crimes and misdemeanors, whether their wife forgives them or not?

Clearly the story isn't over. Next week will prove a new challenge for Vitter as the media covers his return to Washington after a self-imposed exile, so there will be plenty of time for exploitation of Vitter's moral and legal shortcomings by both sides of the aisle. Or maybe Vitter will get his wish and this scandal will go away. If Sen. Jim DeMint is right, there are any number of senators who could have some juicy revelations about their private lives come to light.

"I think all of us have to look at it and say, `We can be next. ... This can be a very lonely and isolating place.' I'm fairly surprised at how little it does happen."

Update [2007-7-13 20:1:38 by Todd Beeton]:The Times Picauyne hoists Vitter on his own petard:

The only question left is when: When will Sen. David Vitter leave office? He has no choice but to do so.

This is not my judgment. This is the judgment of Vitter himself.


For, as Vitter wrote with regard to Clinton's immoral behavior, ". . . some meaningful action must be taken against the president. If none is, his leadership will only further drain any sense of values left to our political culture."

There's more...

Arianna Huffington is a Hypocrite

Why Arianna Huffington has become the #1 source of daily 'Do As I Say and Not What I Do.'

There's more...

No Blacks Allowed At The Edwards Camp ?

This is in response to a post on this blog falsely accusing Obama Supporters of pulling the race card against the Blogosphere using a planted post on Obamas Blog.

( I call this one: Are Edwards supporters Racist?")

Comments from Edwards Blog in response to an interview Elizabeth had on Oprah. Team Edwards was disappointed that Oprah was NOT grinning and showing her teeth during the interview.

Barak is The Oprahs' "boy toy.." (none / 0)

Barak Obama is The Oprahs' "Boy Toy", what did you expect..?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
As an American of African decent , I am growing increasingly concerned with the attacks being hurled at Oprah. I have asked for video so that I may see for myself what the fuss is about, but now I'm reading comments about Barack Obama and I'm starting to become suspicious. What does he have to do with this other than his being Black? What are you trying to say? Where is the video.? I want to see for myself and I am really growing concerned because I have never had the impression about Oprah that many of you seem to be expressing.

Give me proof. I want to see for myself. Also, I think what she did in Africa was awesome. I don't think promoting heath by not allowing junk food is "my way or the highway" as was suggested up thread.

I need an answer because what I am seeing does not reflect Oprah at all.

by KS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~


Usually, when people want their arguments to be taken seriously, on a message board or in the real world, they communicate in coherent and complete sentences. That seems to be an art you haven't yet mastered. All you have done throughout this thread is play the race card completely inappropriately every time someone puts forward a rational critique of anything Oprah does or says. Try coming up with an equally rational defense of Oprah instead of mindlessly reverting back to the same old "you're all racists because you called a young black male a boy!!!!!" hysteria.

The public/private school issue is also absolutely irrelevant. Imperical social science evidence has shown that performance improves significantly when students' families are involved in the educational process. Period. And incidentally, this trend holds true on a cross-cultural basis. If you have access to the PsychNet academic database (which is for social science students and professionals), you could pull up page after page of such research. Crying ignorance and demanding links does not make your own lack of informedness anyone else's fault. Private schools can of course get away with more than public schools can--that freedom to get away with more does NOT mean that such tactics are wise or beneficial for students. These particular choices are no more wise in a private school setting than in a public school setting. And in Oprah's case, it does seem to be a matter of control, since she has absolutely no training or background in cognitive psychology or education, and yet prides herself on the power she wields in determining her school's policy. If she was truly interested in making the school as good as it could be, she'd let people with the appropriate training make the decisions instead of micro-managing it herself.

And while we're on that subject, do you have a Master of Arts in Teaching? If not, should you really be debating the educational merits of Oprah's dictatorial private school with somebody who does have such a background in the field? I think not. It's plain you hadn't even done your homework on Oprah's school. You wanted to prattle on about junk food instead of addressing the real educational issues at play here. Only after others brought those issues to your attention did you run off and try to cobble together some kind of a response to save face. And more disturbing than anything else is the fact that you call yourself an Edwards supporter, and yet you're blindly and irrationally defending Oprah after her plainly adversarial attack on his family, and on top of that are blindly and irrationally attacking fellow Edwards supporters as being racist for daring to defend their candidate and his family against Oprah's hostile questioning. Instead of trying to dig yourself out of the hole that you keep making deeper and deeper, I suggest you just give it a rest now

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/4 /6/194725/2181

There's more...

Pro-Romney site equates Howard Dean with Ann Coulter

Yesterday, you'll remember, Ann Coulter, speaking about John Edwards, said the following vile, hateful words: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I - so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards." In a well-crafted response, Howard Dean said, "There is no place in political discourse for this kind of hate-filled and bigoted comments. While Democrats and Republicans may disagree on the issues, we should all be able to agree that this kind of vile rhetoric is out of bounds. The American people want a serious, thoughtful debate of the issues. Republicans - including the Republican presidential candidates who shared the podium with Ann Coulter today - should denounce her hateful remarks."

So, to recap, one the one hand you've got a disgusting statement by someone - Coulter - with a track record of similar statements. And, on the other, the measured response of an individual - Dean - simply asking those GOP presidential hopefuls speaking at the same conference as Coulter to, in his words, denounce her hateful remarks. One problem, one I anticipated when I called on conscienceless conservative Nancy French - of, among other things, the Web site Evangelicals for Mitt - to say, without a shred of hesitation, that there is no place in the political world for comments like Coulter's, whose appearance after Romney's at CPAC, said Romney, was "a good thing". And that problem is this: Someone at Evangelicals for Mitt doesn't think what Coulter said was wrong.

There's more...

Who suffers more - Jesus or wounded soliders? (political cartoon)

Crossposted from Town Called Dobson

click to enlarge

There's more...


Advertise Blogads