At least it was a female prostitute. We assume.

Posted byWaldo Jaquith 20 Comments on At least it was a female prostitute. We assume.

In 1998, Rep. David Vitter (R-LA) said that Clinton’s extramarital affair was grounds for his resignation. Last night his phone number showed up on the D.C. Madam’s telephone records. Sen. Vitter admitted that he’d had sex with prostitutes, but says that’s old news now. What’s good for the goose is of no interest whatsoever to the gander.

Published by Waldo Jaquith

Waldo Jaquith (JAKE-with) is an open government technologist who lives near Char­lottes­­ville, VA, USA. more »

20 replies on “At least it was a female prostitute. We assume.”

  1. I think that the reality is that Vitter will not pay any political price for this whatsoever. Dude is from Louisiana. Home of mardi gras and the flashing of tits in exchange for plastic beads. They won’t care about this in the slightest.

  7. It always strikes me as odd how much some conservatives whine about being called homophobes and bigots when their hatred and disdain is so palpable and obvious.

  8. Actually, I was making fun of the Democratic presidential candidates for catering to such a discreet minority. I’m sure it’ll work out great at the polls. Just put the LBGT community together with the blacks, Hispanics, unions, unwed mothers, blah, blah, blah ad finitum ad nauseum and convince them they’re being royally screwed by the racist patriarchy that is America and you got a decent shot.

    Not that I’m questioning your patriotism or anything.

  9. Ha. A republican talking about the evils of catering to a narrow constituency? How that evolution question go at the last GOP debate? The support for the war in Iraq?

  10. Judge Smails,

    Are you comparing being bisexual to purchasing the services of a prostitute?

    I honestly can’t really make heads or tails of your last post. Who said you were questioning our patriotism? Or were you being sarcastic, in which case, how were you questioning patriotism?

    As far as the “racist patriarchy that is America” strawman, I think you could pretty much pick any other special interest group other than the queer community and that would make more sense, but we’re talking about people who aren’t allowed to legally marry their partners, often can’t get hospital visitation when they’re dying, and are often the subject of laws which make what they do in their bedroom enough to get them fined, arrested, or fired from their jobs. What in the world would make you think anyone would need to convince them of anything to be politically motivated to vote against Republicans, just so long as the Democrats look one bit better?

    Also, your Marxist, second-wave-feminism strawman reminded me that I wanted to ask, has all the cross-burning kept you too busy to beat your wife?

  11. Also, your Marxist, second-wave-feminism strawman reminded me that I wanted to ask, has all the cross-burning kept you too busy to beat your wife?

    I should clarify that the point is, we can beat on these strawmen all day, but it’s not going to get us anywhere, and it won’t be particularly interesting to watch.

  12. Especially when the “family values” people complaining about these strawmen are the ones who actually engage in the conduct themselves. But then, see the story above.

  13. “Actually, I was making fun…”

    ooo, the cowardly backpedal. Always a good one.

  14. @ Ben C.

    No, I wasn’t comparing being bisexual to buying a prostitute. I was actually just fulminating a little bit in the wake of this Vitter business. Of course, I readily admit he deserves whatever he gets (well, maybe not the John Wayne Bobbitt bit, but everything else.) If the GOP is going to present itself as the party of “family values” and whatnot, it’s got to accept the ridicule that comes with one of its staunchest, self-righteous champions being exposed as a hypocrite. The only caveat I’d add is that I doubt many of my friends on the left would be as gleeful if instead of Larry Flynt exposing Republicans it were, say, Dick Scaife exposing Democrats. But I digress.

    As to your main point about the rights, or lack thereof, of gays to marry and all the rights that go along with that I’d simply ask you where gay marriage is legal. What, like a half a dozen countries in Europe maybe? Indeed, when or where has it ever been legal? So I think you’re using the old strawman yourself for damning the US for failing to provide what no other society (until very recently) has ever provided.

    That said, and Waldo and I have had this conversation before, I’m not completely certain I oppose gay marriage. I do think, however, that when a group advocates a radical change in the way a society operates, it’s incumbent upon that group to bear the burden of proof that the change will not adversely affect the society. I do not believe that burden has been met wrt gay marriage. But as the data continue to come in from Europe, perhaps it will be met. Were that the case I’d probably support gay marriage, or at least something like civil unions.

    As for your last point, I’d simply say: I’m not married.

  15. Actually, my point was not arguing for gay marriage rights, though I think it’s pretty obvious that I think homosexuals should get the same rights as heterosexuals (and for the record, I don’t believe the government has any business in “marriages” — though civil unions make sense), but rather no one needs to scare homosexuals into voting Democratic, much less to use the “phallocentric-maleocracy” BS. The key is really just to get them to vote, ’cause most queer people aren’t going to vote for the party fighting tooth and nail to discriminate against them.

    Now, that all having been said,

    So I think you’re using the old strawman yourself for damning the US for failing to provide what no other society (until very recently) has ever provided.

    Arguing for a relatively novel idea or pointing out ages-old injustices is not a straw man. I wasn’t actually trying to argue for gay rights, but I wouldn’t suggest that the US compares unfavorably to most other countries so much as I would say that we should be leading the way, even if it is untested.

    The only caveat I’d add is that I doubt many of my friends on the left would be as gleeful if instead of Larry Flynt exposing Republicans it were, say, Dick Scaife exposing Democrats.

    Agreed, and if the Democrats get as much power as the Republicans have had these last 6 six years, I expect they’ll rot just as badly, though I’d probably find their excesses to be slightly less distasteful. Sadly, I don’t think either party will have the political will to address the root problems in our system until the electorate demands much more integrity out of who we elect, and that means keeping them on a short leash, really scrutinizing how they vote, and crossing the isle or staying home when corruption does rear its head. But now I’ve digressed.

    As far as feeling a little schadenfreude, I’ll admit, I do enjoy seeing Republicans exposed a hypocrites more than I enjoy seeing Democrats exposed as such, but except in a few cases, my like for Democrats is usually outstripped by my dislike for career politicians, so lets let the bipartisan hypocracy-exposes begin!

  16. As to your main point about the rights, or lack thereof, of gays to marry and all the rights that go along with that I’d simply ask you where gay marriage is legal. What, like a half a dozen countries in Europe maybe? Indeed, when or where has it ever been legal? So I think you’re using the old strawman yourself for damning the US for failing to provide what no other society (until very recently) has ever provided.

    Judge, I value your input around here more than the input of most other posters, but I think what you’re saying here is just crazy. It’s an argument against any sort of societal change, be it progressive or recessive. You could have asked the exact same thing 100 years ago about women’s right to vote, or 50 years ago about blacks’ right to vote. Just because we don’t do something that few other countries do, doesn’t make doing that thing morally wrong. Like Ben said, we should be the guiding light, not a follower of other countries.

  17. @ Will:

    While I’m enthusiastically sympathetic to your notion that America ought to be “the guiding light, not a follower of other countries,” I just think it’s wrongheaded in this case. As a conservative, I’m content for the time being to remain the much-maligned defender of other democracies as they pursue their social policies hither and yon. It would not have been my wish, for example, to lead Europe & Canada into socialized medicine, unfettered immigration, and negligible defense spending. I think these things are wrong and stupid and will be proven to have been so in rather short order.

    Whether or not “gay marriage” is a part of the things mentioned above is yet to be known. But I’d rather exercise the prudence of caution rather than diving in first.

  18. Local (I think) right-wing blogger Jon Swift has a carefully-reasoned conservative response here:

    I’m not familiar with that blog, so it’s hard to tell if Swift is being ironic. Assuming he’s serious; his assessment is that Vitter’s transgressions are… the fault of gay marriage? The “carefully-reasoned conservative response” is that the gays made him do it?

    riiiight. [in best imitation-Bill Cosby voice]

  20. gotcha. the irony has been layed on quite thickly, though… it’s just short of an argument someone might actually make.

Comments are closed.