NationStates Jolt Archive

The following is an excellent editorial about US Senator David Vitter (R-LA), the politician who has been discovered to be a client of the "DC Madam". I post it because I wanted to address both sides of this kind of hypocrisy and the complete fallacy of being "morally unfit to govern" with regard to anyone's private life.

It's long, but it's worth it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071201622.html?sub=new

Hold Your Fire and Brimstone
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Washington Post
Friday, July 13, 2007; Page A17

Perhaps because no one else will do it, I want to offer a qualified defense of Sen. David Vitter, the socially conservative Louisiana Republican who faces a bit of a problem.

Vitter admitted Monday night to a "very serious sin in my past" after his phone number was found on the client list kept by Deborah Jeane Palfrey, known as the D.C. Madam. This would not be good for any senator, but it's especially troublesome for someone who campaigned on family values and the importance of marriage.

My defense of Vitter is qualified because I believe that married guys have a moral obligation not to seek the pleasures of "escort services."

Nor do I like hypocrisy. During the battle over the impeachment of Bill Clinton, Vitter wrote in the New Orleans Times-Picayune that if no "meaningful action" were taken against the president, "his leadership will only further drain any sense of values left to our political culture." Vitter, then a state representative, suggested that Clinton was "morally unfit to govern."

But a big part of me is rooting for Vitter to survive because I so want to return to a time when we -- that "we" includes the media -- chose to pay little attention to the extracurricular sexual activities of our politicians. The magnitude of our public problems does not afford us the luxury of indulging in crusades about politicians' private lives, even those involving a high degree of hypocrisy.

Interestingly, the party that has preached loudest about "family values" has the greater interest in avoiding too fastidious an examination of such matters. Kate O'Beirne, the conservative writer, deserves a place in the annals of political commentary for her remark on the divorce rate among the top Republican presidential contenders. She noted that the only one with "only one wife would be the Mormon," Mitt Romney.

The Vitter scandal was unearthed by Dan Moldea, an investigative reporter working for Larry Flynt, publisher of Hustler magazine, who has been on a campaign to expose the peccadilloes of socially conservative politicians ever since the Clinton impeachment saga.

For liberals, there's something satisfying in demonstrating that the sex lives of certain right-wing moral crusaders turn out to be less than exemplary. It's certainly an outrage when straight politicians who deplore homosexuality as an affront to the sanctity of marriage and the family take a less than sacred view of their own responsibilities.

But if we are to get out of this habit of destroying the distinctions between public and private lives, liberals need to give the conservative hypocrites a break.

We should acknowledge that the outing process is erratic and leaves many falls from grace safely shielded from public view. We should also admit that we are tougher on the moral flaws of politicians who belong to a party other than our own.

The essential point, however, is that believing in a wall between the public and the private makes you a traditionalist, not a libertine. The traditionalist embraces a strict moral code but sees it as best enforced in the personal realm. We should judge public figures by how they meet their public responsibilities, and leave it to spouses, pastors, children and friends to praise or punish their private behavior.

This isn't easy. As voters, we judge politicians by a standard that inevitably includes a view of who they are as people. Like it or not, that view is influenced by our sense of their private behavior.

For example, I greatly admired the late Paul Wellstone not only for his boisterous brand of liberalism but also because of the profound bond of devotion, respect and love that existed between Paul and Sheila Wellstone, who were married for 39 years. The Wellstones didn't talk about family values. They just lived them.

In their reticence and humility may lie an answer to our conundrum. Politicians could exercise more care and restraint in their public talk about morality and convey a sense of understanding toward those with whom they have moral differences.

In turn, the rest of us might agree to keep the public conversation focused on the larger questions -- how to proceed in Iraq, how to fix the health-care system -- about which elected officials can actually do something. As voters, wouldn't we forgive a politician many private sins if he or she handled those two issues successfully?

Typically, we make fun of public figures who seek our sympathy by admitting to "sin." But maybe a politician who admits to sin gains a certain degree of humility in the process. Let's grant Vitter our collective absolution and move on.

I post it because I wanted to address

It seems you forgot to do just that.

It seems you forgot to do just that.

They'll be back.

It seems you forgot to do just that.

Okay.

I'll make a rejected-on-sight attempt please Herr Threadsniper by asking this question:

Does it matter how a politician conducts his private life? Long before the media were as omnipresent and ubiquitous as they are now, and everything, EVERYthing, began being reported as news, we seemed to have above average leaders, idea men, orators, what have you. I'm certain that JFK wouldn't have won a single caucus, let a lone the nation elections, if his marital infidellity had been the subject of national media attention.

We used to leave people alone so long as they did their job and weren't egregious about their transgressions. It wasn't always the best idea (Teddy Kennedy got away with at least manslaughter at Chappaquiddick, for cryin' out loud), but at least it never led to $40M taxpayer-funded investigations of an Oval Office blowjob.

Please discuss the relevance of politicians private lives as they pertain to job performance, and whether infidelity matters in a politician. Thank you.

They'll be back.

They never came.

They never came.

Come again?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12877219&postcount=4
A
II
II
II
II

Come again?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12877219&postcount=4
A
II
II
II
II

It's Fass. I'm used to it. Meh.

Does it matter how a politician conducts his private life?

Yes, especially when said politician deigns to pass judgement on my private life. The public aren't the ones putting these politicians' private lives into play - they are themselves when they try to tell people like me that mine is corrupt, that my family is not a family and should be condemned. Them's the apples.

Come again?

They had not come when you claimed they'd "be back".

They had not come when you claimed they'd "be back".

"They"? I've been diagnosed with MPD over the Internet! What will they think of next? I don't know. Shut up! Quiet, both of you!

Vitter admitted Monday night to a "very serious sin in my past" after his phone number was found on the client list kept by Deborah Jeane Palfrey, known as the D.C. Madam. This would not be good for any senator, but it's especially troublesome for someone who campaigned on family values and the importance of marriage.

My defense of Vitter is qualified because I believe that married guys have a moral obligation not to seek the pleasures of "escort services."
Well that's fucking peachy and would be relevant except for the bolded part.

If any politician campaigns on "family values" and "upholding morals in the law," then if something like this comes up, he should automatically be replaced. The end. We don't need those kinds of hypocrites in government. Acceptable hypocrisy? No.

Yes, especially when said politician deigns to pass judgement on my private life. The public aren't the ones putting these politicians' private lives into play - they are themselves when they try to tell people like me that mine is corrupt, that my family is not a family and should be condemned. Them's the apples.

That is exactly it, isn't it? If someone is unfaithful or openly attacks homosexuals or other groups, and is found to cheat or solicit male prostitutes (Ted Haggard, though he's not technically a politician), then the hypocrisy is extremely relevant.

But what about the politician who may do all kinds of freaky things in his private life, but never speaks out against them or votes against them as a politician? Is he just as bad?

They had not come when you claimed they'd "be back".

And yet, you said "never".
For shame. *tsk*

"They"? I've been diagnosed with MPD over the Internet! What will they think of next? I don't know.

The use of the third person plural in lieu of a third person singular is common in English when one wishes not to make a statement as to the gender of the person referred to, primarily due to the language's lack of a gender neutral third person singular in reference to humans.

Shut up! Quiet, both of you!

Uhm, having taken that into an infinitesimally brief consideration, I must disappoint you in choosing not to entertain your BBCoded suggestion.

And yet, you said "never".
For shame. *tsk*

In the past tense, yes. Not the future. Your semantic mojo is severely lacking, it would seem.

The use of the third person plural in lieu of a third person singular is common in English when one wishes not to make a statement as to the gender of the person referred to, primarily due to the language's lack of a gender neutral third person singular in reference to humans.



Uhm, having taken that into an infinitesimally brief consideration, I must disappoint you in choosing not to entertain your BBCoded suggestion.

That is a sad defect of English. However, I was just joking. And please, don't waste a post telling me you didn't think it was amusing -- I know you didn't.

You have me at a disadvantage with the "BBCoded" suggestion. I was just using the bold/italic/underline features to augment the aforementioned lame joke. I apologize for any offense.

In the past tense, yes. Not the future. Your semantic mojo is severely lacking, it would seem.
Mine? Classic.
I said .. oh, how'd it go ...

They'll be back.
Lo and behold, they WERE!

Semantically speaking, you were incorrect, so i think you've got your polarities off (as seems common) regarding "mojo".
Perhaps you need to educate yourself somewhat on English yourself as to what "never" means ... kind of how you chided Zilam again on "insularity".

To wit, you owe a reply:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12877292&postcount=7

Can we hold the semantic threadjack, please? Good grief, I'm sorry I ever posted it.

When deciding who to vote for I have to decide if a candidate is trustworthy and likely to keep the promises they make. A politician who's prepared to cheat on their spouse can't be relied upon not to betray the voters, so I'd say their private lives can be extremely relevant.

If you don't like publicity, don't go into politics.

When deciding who to vote for I have to decide if a candidate is trustworthy and likely to keep the promises they make. A politician who's prepared to cheat on their spouse can't be relied upon not to betray the voters, so I'd say their private lives can be extremely relevant.

If you don't like publicity, don't go into politics.

Would you, had you been around and known at the time, have voted for FDR or JFK or any of the other philandering master politicians of history (apologies to citizens of other nations for not knowing who philandered in your countries history).

Would you, had you been around and known at the time, have voted for FDR or JFK or any of the other philandering master politicians of history (apologies to citizens of other nations for not knowing who philandered in your countries history).

I would certainly have voted for FDR despite any philandering simply because he was still the better candidate. I wouldn't vote for Jeffrey Archer though. ;)

Can we hold the semantic threadjack, please? Good grief, I'm sorry I ever posted it.
An unfortunate and predictable situation where Fass is involved.
Erm, and myself, on occasion :p

Okay.

I'll make a rejected-on-sight attempt please Herr Threadsniper by asking this question:

Does it matter how a politician conducts his private life? Long before the media were as omnipresent and ubiquitous as they are now, and everything, EVERYthing, began being reported as news, we seemed to have above average leaders, idea men, orators, what have you. I'm certain that JFK wouldn't have won a single caucus, let a lone the nation elections, if his marital infidellity had been the subject of national media attention.

We used to leave people alone so long as they did their job and weren't egregious about their transgressions. It wasn't always the best idea (Teddy Kennedy got away with at least manslaughter at Chappaquiddick, for cryin' out loud), but at least it never led to $40M taxpayer-funded investigations of an Oval Office blowjob.

Please discuss the relevance of politicians private lives as they pertain to job performance, and whether infidelity matters in a politician. Thank you.
I don't care if Vitter got off by wearing diapers and having hookers bottle feed him--that's his kink and he's welcome to it. But Vitter made his name being a cultural crusader, on calling other politicians out on their sexual peccadilloes, and on positioning himself as the holier-than-thou candidate. Remember, Vitter got his job in the Congress in the first place by replacing Bob Livingston, the man who was supposed to replace Gingrich as Speaker before he was outed as a ladies' man by Larry Flynt--I was living in that Louisiana district at the time (worried as fuck that David Duke would be successful in his run) and that subject was in the air. Who will be the moral candidate? When you put yourself on a pedestal, you better stay clean, because you have a long way to fall.

I don't care if Vitter got off by wearing diapers and having hookers bottle feed him--that's his kink and he's welcome to it. But Vitter made his name being a cultural crusader, on calling other politicians out on their sexual peccadilloes, and on positioning himself as the holier-than-thou candidate. Remember, Vitter got his job in the Congress in the first place by replacing Bob Livingston, the man who was supposed to replace Gingrich as Speaker before he was outed as a ladies' man by Larry Flynt--I was living in that Louisiana district at the time (worried as fuck that David Duke would be successful in his run) and that subject was in the air. Who will be the moral candidate? When you put yourself on a pedestal, you better stay clean, because you have a long way to fall.

Quoted for truth. If you are in violation of your political positions, like Mark Foley and Vitter, you deserve what you get.

Mine?

Yes, hence the second person possessive.

Lo and behold, they WERE!

Not in reference to what I was referring to. Your post implied they'd return - hence the "back" - as if to extol for the second time what they'd stated in the OP, while my comment referred to there being no statement by the poster in the OP addressing what they claimed to address. So the original poster did not "come back" when they finally supplied an opinion, they "came" with what they should have come in the OP after you erroneously claimed they could be back, which was at that chronological instance an impossibility. At that very chronological reference point of your claim, they had thus "never come" - hence my comment: "they never came". They subsequently did, but not so your statement of "coming back" could alter that they had never come prior to it.

Semantically speaking, you were incorrect, so i think you've got your polarities off (as seems common) regarding "mojo". Perhaps you need to educate yourself somewhat on English yourself as to what "never" means ... kind of how you chided Zilam again on "insularity".

And it would seem that you need to educate yourself in basic temporal notions of indirect speech.

To wit, you owe a reply:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12877292&postcount=7

To wit, I owe naught.

Can we hold the semantic threadjack, please?

Politeness makes me comply.

Quoted for truth. If you are in violation of your political positions, like Mark Foley and Vitter, you deserve what you get.
Foley's a slightly different case because he was cruising teenagers, but the basic argument is the same.

If you're going to stick your nose into the sex lives of the people you govern and tell them that they're being immoral then don't expect to get away anything more than sex with the lights off in the missionary position with your spouse of the opposite sex.

Yes, hence the second person possessive.Clever! In the oven none to long, with this one :rolleyes:

Not in reference to what I was referring to. Well, your communication skills are as clear as your intellect, obviously. As evidenced by this pathetic attempt to vindicate yourself:
Your post implied they'd return - hence the "back" - as if to extol for the second time what they'd stated in the OP, while my comment referred to there being no statement by the poster in the OP addressing what they claimed to address. So the original poster did not "come back" when they finally supplied an opinion, they "came" with what they should have come in the OP after you erroneously claimed they could be back, which was at that chronological instance an impossibility. At that very chronological reference point of your claim, they had thus "never come" - hence my comment: "they never came". They subsequently did, but not so your statement of "coming back" could alter that they had never come prior to it.
As if the posting times weren't enough.
What you overcompensate for with verbosity ever further leaves grace sorely lacking.


And it would seem that you need to educate yourself in basic temporal notions of indirect speech.Seem is an insular perspective once again, as your lack of attention to detail here boldly underlines. You simply don't understand what "never" means, as evidenced by your own posts here.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:never&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
See, instead of being "insular", i simply cross referenced to the DEFINITION of the word "never", instead of attempting to rely on your self-appreciating maligning of whatever word you want to put your own "unique" spin on.

To wit, I owe naught.
Finally, something true of you.

Politeness makes me comply.Okay, i'm going to politely request that you leave the thread and make your own thread that reflects your own insecurities and misunderstandings of basic premise, temporality, and tact.
Politely, of course.
Let's see what becomes of that.

If you're going to stick your nose into the sex lives of the people you govern and tell them that they're being immoral then don't expect to get away anything more than sex with the lights off in the missionary position with your spouse of the opposite sex.
Don't forget that as few clothes should be removed as possible.

I can't say I completely agree that ever uttering a word on the topic of sex should make you fair game for reporting on anything and everything you do, but in principle I do agree that if you make a big deal of something that you are then found to do yourself, it is reasonable for this to be exposed.

Don't forget that as few clothes should be removed as possible.
Of course. The more clothes you wear when you have sex the holier it is. It should also only be for procreation, not recreation.

I can't say I completely agree that ever uttering a word on the topic of sex should make you fair game for reporting on anything and everything you do, but in principle I do agree that if you make a big deal of something that you are then found to do yourself, it is reasonable for this to be exposed.

I can agree with that.

I'd be in favor of being lenient with him if I thought it would make the conservatives stop playing the "moral values" card. But it won't, so I'm happy to see him burn for the hypocrisy.

Okay, i'm going to politely request that you leave the thread and make your own thread that reflects your own insecurities and misunderstandings of basic premise, temporality, and tact.
Politely, of course.
Let's see what becomes of that.

I have no intention of leaving the thread - I have the intention of acquiescing to the OP's polite demand that your irrelevant attempts at trying to divert the thread to be about me - no matter how much they feed my ego - be left to their own devices. I can be that selfless, but leave? Nope, as the actual subject of the thread - hypocrisy of politicians - happens to pique my interest.

Foley's a slightly different case because he was cruising teenagers, but the basic argument is the same.

Yeah. Either way, they were held to higher standard that they failed to meet. One, because he was wanking to a page's messages while holding a vote. The other, because he put himself on the pedestal of morailty, and fell off while having sex with a hooker.

I don't care if Vitter got off by wearing diapers and having hookers bottle feed him--that's his kink and he's welcome to it. But Vitter made his name being a cultural crusader, on calling other politicians out on their sexual peccadilloes, and on positioning himself as the holier-than-thou candidate. Remember, Vitter got his job in the Congress in the first place by replacing Bob Livingston, the man who was supposed to replace Gingrich as Speaker before he was outed as a ladies' man by Larry Flynt--I was living in that Louisiana district at the time (worried as fuck that David Duke would be successful in his run) and that subject was in the air. Who will be the moral candidate? When you put yourself on a pedestal, you better stay clean, because you have a long way to fall.

Larry Flynt was who outed Vitter as well. I find that somehow very appropos.

So would you have been okay with Vitter had he been so outed but had never taken those draconian public stances on "moral" issues?

Of course. The more clothes you wear when you have sex the holier it is. It should also only be for procreation, not recreation.


Does that mean Anglican Bishops wear their miters during sex?

I have no intention of leaving the thread - I have the intention of acquiescing to the OP's polite demand that your irrelevant attempts at trying to divert the thread to be about me - no matter how much they feed my ego - be left to their own devices. I can be that selfless, but leave? Nope, as the actual subject of the thread - hypocrisy of politicians - happens to pique my interest.

If you don't mind my asking the Swede-on-the-street, how common is this kind of hypocrisy in Sweden? Can you speak to Scandinavia in general?

If you don't mind my asking the Swede-on-the-street, how common is this kind of hypocrisy in Sweden?

Here you have the same phenomenon, but on a smaller scale as only one of the parties in the Riksdag has what could be deemed a socially conservative stance, so to speak, and when they do something not so "family-friendly" it gets a lot of attention. The other politicians tend to be lambasted for other types of hypocrisy; for instance, the leader of the Left Party (former communists) who tried to cheat on her taxes and that was forced to resign over it. Politicians here being sneaky with their taxes - that is almost the ultimate PR offence they could make, generally speaking.

But the "family values" group, as I mentioned, are rather small and with few scandals due to their lack of numbers, but they can be oh, so juicy, since they are still Swedes and thus can be quite the libertines. Not to propagate a stereotype, but it does come from somewhere...

Can you speak to Scandinavia in general?

No, since I really don't keep myself apprised of the specific politicians of the other Nordic countries. Policies, on the other hand...

Does that mean Anglican Bishops wear their miters during sex?

Of course.

That is exactly it, isn't it? If someone is unfaithful or openly attacks homosexuals or other groups, and is found to cheat or solicit male prostitutes (Ted Haggard, though he's not technically a politician), then the hypocrisy is extremely relevant.

But what about the politician who may do all kinds of freaky things in his private life, but never speaks out against them or votes against them as a politician? Is he just as bad?No, as the politician who campaigns on family values and doesn't live up to them is a liar, and thus should be held accountable. The politician who does not do so does not (usually directly) lie to the voters.

It's hard to get out of the "eye for an eye" mindset. You never want to be the one to put the stick down and get poked in the eye as a result.

I have no intention of leaving the thread
So "politeness" is just a cover, eh?
the actual subject of the thread - hypocrisy of politicians - happens to pique my interest.Gee, whyever so? Personal issues?

It's not the cheating that bothers me. It's the deep, deep hypocrisy.

It's one thing when liberal politicians, arguing that private relations should be the concern of private families and/or social institutions such as the church to which an individual chooses to belong, turn out to have some personal issues to deal with themselves. We may not think that they are the most respectable people in their sex lives, but then... they never asked us to elect them based on their sex lives.

When conservative politicians who condemn liberals for their loose sexuality and depraved values turn out to be the same--or worse--than the opponents they demonize, it is impossible to take them seriously as electable politicians. They asked us to judge people based on their personal, private conduct. They are in no position to turn around and call foul when we actually do so.

I think exactly the same thing when liberals pay lip service to environmentalism and then it turns out they don't even recycle. How am I supposed to believe that you are really going to FIGHT for the causes you espouse when you can't even bring yourself to do the bare minimum?

Okay.

I'll make a rejected-on-sight attempt please Herr Threadsniper by asking this question:

Does it matter how a politician conducts his private life?

When a politician makes his morality an issue and attempts to legislate based on it but is demonstrated to be incapable of living by the very morality he attempts to force on the rest of us, yes.

Please discuss the relevance of politicians private lives as they pertain to job performance, and whether infidelity matters in a politician. Thank you.

When that politician has made it his job attempting to force a particular brand of morality, then whether or not he lives up to that morality is very specifically related to his job.

Larry Flynt was who outed Vitter as well. I find that somehow very appropos.

So would you have been okay with Vitter had he been so outed but had never taken those draconian public stances on "moral" issues?

Well, I wouldn't be calling him a hypocrite. I disagree with him politically on a number of issues, but I probably wouldn't be calling for him to resign, or delighting in the schadenfreude.

So what I am hearing is that, so long as there's no disconnect or hypocrisy between declared political stances and personal lives (and the personal lives don't involve anything more illegal than a few parking tickets or speeding citations) most of you would be okay with a return to the kind of "don't ask, don't tell" of, say, the 1950s and 60s in the US (JFK, for example)?

I wonder when it changed, exactly. I hate to keep bringing up Teddy Kennedy's disaster at Chappaquiddick, but the man's been a US Senator longer than I've been alive. Were that to happen to, say, John Edwards or Rick Santo- (oops, he's out of office...sorry, I just like saying that) -- or anyone now, they'd be out of office in days.

Sen. Gary Hart gets trounced in the Democratic Primaries in 1984 after it's discovered he cheated on his wife. So sometime between 1969 and 1984 in the US, and perhaps elsewhere as well, something...happened. Was the Moral Majority (and neocons and other supposed bastions of moral rectitude) so powerful as to turn the nation into a Puritan stronghold (complete with Vegas and Miami and Atlantic City)?

More importantly, what has it gotten us as a nation? Milquetoast politicians and officeholders afraid to even sneeze without focus groups. Political paralysis.

Finally, how do we reverse this process? Is it even possible? How long can a nation's psyche function in the presence of such a huge bolus of cognitive dissonance (Vegas & Virginia Beach, home of The 700 Club in the same nation)?

Sen. Gary Hart gets trounced in the Democratic Primaries in 1984 after it's discovered he cheated on his wife. So sometime between 1969 and 1984 in the US, and perhaps elsewhere as well, something...happened. Was the Moral Majority (and neocons and other supposed bastions of moral rectitude) so powerful as to turn the nation into a Puritan stronghold (complete with Vegas and Miami and Atlantic City)Didn't he dare the press to dig into his life? Mightn't that be the start of it?

Sen. Gary Hart gets trounced in the Democratic Primaries in 1984 after it's discovered he cheated on his wife. So sometime between 1969 and 1984 in the US, and perhaps elsewhere as well, something...happened. Was the Moral Majority (and neocons and other supposed bastions of moral rectitude) so powerful as to turn the nation into a Puritan stronghold (complete with Vegas and Miami and Atlantic City)?

Not to get sidetracked here, but the thing about Gary Hart is that he basically dared the media to try and catch him. Thought he was too smart for them, and while he was certainly smarter than your average journalist, he underestimated their tenacity, and they busted him.

I think the "Moral Majority" would like to roll us back to some nostalgic vision of a Puritanical society that never really existed, but they're finding it increasingly difficult to get any traction. Look at the polls--acceptance of same-sex and interracial relationships is way up among youths, premarital sex is far more acceptable, as is cohabitating, couples are back to getting married later in life (the wedding at 18 was a post-WWII aberration), etc. Hopefully, we'll get to a point where, as long as a politician isn't making hay over sexual morality, his or her personal sexual conduct won't be an issue.

There isn't any "acceptable hypocrisy."

The men and women who are going to Govern this nation MUST be the best of us. We entrust them with an enormous amount of power and responsibility. Either they can handle it well or they can't.

One thing I've found distatsefulwith at least one Conservative radio talk show host. *cough*Hannity*cough* is that he seems to be willing to grant Vitter a pass on the basis that his personal life is separate from his public responsibilities...

buh?

If that were true then if I go back to the 90s and dig up archives of his comments on the Lewinsky scandal, I'd better hear him singing exactly the same tune about Clinton.

Somehow I doubt that would be the case, and shame on him for it.

Personally if a man can't honor his marriage vows then how can we reasonably expect him to honor his oath of office? The former is easier to keep than the latter. Vitter must now convince the voters of his district that he's still worthy of their trust. I say he isn't, but he's not my Senator. By the same token, I held Clinton to the same standard. Either both are wrong or both are right. Treating them differently is hypocrisy.

There isn't any "acceptable hypocrisy."

The men and women who are going to Govern this nation MUST be the best of us. We entrust them with an enormous amount of power and responsibility. Either they can handle it well or they can't.

One thing I've found distatsefulwith at least one Conservative radio talk show host. *cough*Hannity*cough* is that he seems to be willing to grant Vitter a pass on the basis that his personal life is separate from his public responsibilities...

buh?

If that were true then if I go back to the 90s and dig up archives of his comments on the Lewinsky scandal, I'd better hear him singing exactly the same tune about Clinton.

Somehow I doubt that would be the case, and shame on him for it.

Personally if a man can't honor his marriage vows then how can we reasonably expect him to honor his oath of office? The former is easier to keep than the latter. Vitter must now convince the voters of his district that he's still worthy of their trust. I say he isn't, but he's not my Senator. By the same token, I held Clinton to the same standard. Either both are wrong or both are right. Treating them differently is hypocrisy.

Here's the thing about the whole "honoring the marriage" bit. A marriage is between two people, and no one on the outside of that relationship knows what sort of marriage that may be. It's completely possible that the two partners have an open marriage--should a politician in that sort of marriage be held to the same standard of "morality" as David Vitter, whose wife once said, publicly, that she'd be the next Lorena Bobbitt if she caught him cheating? I don't think so.

Here's the thing about the whole "honoring the marriage" bit. A marriage is between two people, and no one on the outside of that relationship knows what sort of marriage that may be. It's completely possible that the two partners have an open marriage--should a politician in that sort of marriage be held to the same standard of "morality" as David Vitter, whose wife once said, publicly, that she'd be the next Lorena Bobbitt if she caught him cheating? I don't think so.

That's a perfectly valid point, although what I'm getting at is more the general media treatment of an event like this than those involved. There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

But to address your point, if there's an open marriage then hey, if the wife doesn't mind him stopping in at the brothel for a tune-up then whatever moral issues one might have with that activity, at least there's no two-facedness. (Also depending, of course, on what is being promoted as part of the "Defense of marriage" business. If it were exclusively targeted at homosexual marriage issues, then it's not really relevant to the issue of open marriages between men and women.)

And that's the reason I focus on the vow issue. Everybody has different ideas on what's acceptable in marriage. For some, it's open marriages. For others, it's same sex couples. For many, it's an overlap. For still others it might be polygamy and for some it's very strict. All of it boils down to one thing, in my mind: What were the terms of the marriage vows, and are they being violated? If so, then that individual has no business pretending to be worthy of public trust because his/her word means very little to them, apparently.

And that's the reason I focus on the vow issue. Everybody has different ideas on what's acceptable in marriage. For some, it's open marriages. For others, it's same sex couples. For many, it's an overlap. For still others it might be polygamy and for some it's very strict. All of it boils down to one thing, in my mind: What were the terms of the marriage vows, and are they being violated? If so, then that individual has no business pretending to be worthy of public trust because his/her word means very little to them, apparently.

See, here's the problem I have with that--why should a politician be forced to open up his or her personal life to that degree? If a politician wants to keep his or her personal life private, I'm in complete agreement, as long as the politician makes the same argument legislatively and rhetorically.

I don't need to know whether Barack and Michelle Obama have an open marriage or a traditional one to decide whether or not I'm going to vote for him. I don't care what kind of vows they took to each other--that's personal--and I can certainly understand why a political couple in an open relationship would want to keep it private. In this political climate, saying that you're in an open relationship is a killer.

See, here's the problem I have with that--why should a politician be forced to open up his or her personal life to that degree? If a politician wants to keep his or her personal life private, I'm in complete agreement, as long as the politician makes the same argument legislatively and rhetorically.

I don't need to know whether Barack and Michelle Obama have an open marriage or a traditional one to decide whether or not I'm going to vote for him. I don't care what kind of vows they took to each other--that's personal--and I can certainly understand why a political couple in an open relationship would want to keep it private. In this political climate, saying that you're in an open relationship is a killer.

True.

And I don't mean to sound like such things ought to become public laundry, either. I'm only going with what I know. (Assuming the information we've been given is accurate.) Since we know that the Vitters don't have an open marriage then we can reasonably conclude that there's a broken vow here.

And incidentally, I do also agree that if you're gonna crow about the sanctity of marriage, you'd better be a poster child for keeping the sanctity of your own.

I'd also like to add that I'm not here to say that Vitter or anybody else on that phone number list is a slimeball. That's not my call. I don't even think it should be illegal. My issue is purely with consistency/hypocrisy.

If I had an unmarried Congressman going to the Bunny Ranch in Nevada, I wouldn't care.

See, here's the problem I have with that--why should a politician be forced to open up his or her personal life to that degree? If a politician wants to keep his or her personal life private, I'm in complete agreement, as long as the politician makes the same argument legislatively and rhetorically.

I don't need to know whether Barack and Michelle Obama have an open marriage or a traditional one to decide whether or not I'm going to vote for him. I don't care what kind of vows they took to each other--that's personal--and I can certainly understand why a political couple in an open relationship would want to keep it private. In this political climate, saying that you're in an open relationship is a killer.

While I agree with your statement about the separation of personal and private, why do you think that stating "I'm in an open relationship" is a killer?

I thought the Democrats had plenty of votes this time around for President. Just nominate a warm body, and you're in the White House.

One thing I've found distatsefulwith at least one Conservative radio talk show host. *cough*Hannity*cough* is that he seems to be willing to grant Vitter a pass on the basis that his personal life is separate from his public responsibilities...

buh?

If that were true then if I go back to the 90s and dig up archives of his comments on the Lewinsky scandal, I'd better hear him singing exactly the same tune about Clinton.
That's because, you're right, he's a sawed off twofaced little prick.
And apparently in the right line of work.

Yes, especially when said politician deigns to pass judgement on my private life. The public aren't the ones putting these politicians' private lives into play - they are themselves when they try to tell people like me that mine is corrupt, that my family is not a family and should be condemned. Them's the apples.

Exactly here I agree with you when their position is deciding about my private life their private life is fucking open season

This is not the guy being adulterous but talking making a name for himself for wildlife conservation here.

Didn't he dare the press to dig into his life? Mightn't that be the start of it?

Oh yeah. I totally forgot about that. I wasn't saying he was bright...heh.

Personally if a man can't honor his marriage vows then how can we reasonably expect him to honor his oath of office? The former is easier to keep than the latter. Vitter must now convince the voters of his district that he's still worthy of their trust. I say he isn't, but he's not my Senator. By the same token, I held Clinton to the same standard. Either both are wrong or both are right. Treating them differently is hypocrisy.

Really? Are you married?