It apparently happened several years ago, he’s apologized to his wife and asked for forgiveness from God, but the beat goes on.
As Brian at Iowa Voice points out, the left is predictably latching on to this news as if it ‘proves’ something about the right and some kind of ‘morals hypocrisy.’ All it proves to me is that we’re all fallible and susceptible to the unseemly trappings that the ‘good life’ entails, and how we must work hard at resist them. It’s easier for some than others.
Contrary to the usual gum-flapping coming from the typical leftiots about how the ‘right’ has no room to talk about morals seeing as some of their own don’t hold up to standards they say others should, here’s a much needed clarification - which I’m sure will be ignored by the willfully ignorant: The right typically preaches about the goodness of leading a moral life - they don’t claim to be immune to the temptations of immorality, just that your life is more fulfilling pesonally, professionally, and spiritually if you don’t succumb to them.
Of course, the left would have any discussions on leading a good, moral life shut down if they could and this is the perfect way they try and do it: by yelling about moralistic conservatives gone bad, because if the left had their way on this, we would all be wallowing in the same moral relativism pit that they do, where there is no right or wrong, no moral or immoral - there just “is” (think Bill Clinton) and our cultural decline would be even worse than it is now.
Sorry, ‘bats. I’ll take a pass on that.
And one other thing, as Brian also notes: Vitter’s name is only the first of many - Republican and Democrat alike - we’ll be hearing about from this infamous list in the weeks/months to come. So don’t get too giddy with excitement, Democrats.
Update I: Just to clarify, none of what I wrote in this post was done in an effort to ‘excuse’ the wrongness of what Vitter has done. I just get irked at the fact that the left thinks things like this are supposed to invalidate the message across the board. It doesn’t. It just means there are hypocrites on both sides of the aisle on the issue of ‘morality’ who should do a lot better job of practicing what they preach. It makes it a lot more difficult to sell the message when the salesman isn’t doing his part, too.
Update II: I see from my Sitemeter this post is getting a lot of attention in, ahem, certain ‘bat caves. Good. Just a reminder to newbies: insulting the host and utilizing extremely vulgar language in an attempt to ‘prove’ your point is a surefire way for your comment to get dumped in the trash heap. If you can’t grow up for a few minutes and behave yourselves, it’s probably a good idea for you to slither back to your little lefty havens where you can whine about how mean ol’ radrighty ST ‘censored’/banned you. 
Others: Captain Ed, Rob at Say Anything (who notes that this will affect Rudy’s campaign, too, for reasons explained in his post), John Hawkins, Ann Althouse, Dan Riehl, JammieWearingFool, James Joyner
Related/Flashback:
Your point “The right typically preaches about the goodness of leading a moral life - they don’t claim to be immune to the temptations of immorality, just that your life is more fulfilling pesonally, professionally, and spiritually if you don’t succumb to them” is certainly well-taken. Still, the song and dance is unfortunately the same, the hypocrisy begins immediately, and Vitter is no exception. The formula is the same: first the apology, then the invocation of God’s forgiveness, and finally, a refusal to comment out of “respect for my family” (the guy solicited a hooker, just when did “respect for family” enter the mix?) Sometimes, the message isn’t enough - you’ve got to practice what you preach. It’s disappointing when something like this happens, not because it necessarily detracts from the conservative message, but because it forces us to once again defend against inane charges from liberals.
Comment by Angevin13 @ 7/10/2007 - 11:40 am
Agreed. I just hate how the left tries to negate the message when something like this happens, as if the message itself was wrong.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 7/10/2007 - 12:00 pm
Vitter to be indicted for impersonating a president. But at least the prostitution ring was not run out of his house, unlike Barney Frank.
Comment by Don Surber @ 7/10/2007 - 12:06 pm
I hate it, too, but committing adultery and soliciting a prostitute is wrong, and the unfortunate fact that Vitter’s a Republican who supposedly espouses those views does not invalidate their truth. It just makes our job a little more difficult in fending off the lefties, that’s all.
As for Surber’s comment about B. Frank’s ring run out of his house, that’s not the only favorable comparison between Vitter’s situation and Frank’s
Comment by Angevin13 @ 7/10/2007 - 12:25 pm
Vitter’s wrongness isn’t in question in my post, for the record.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 7/10/2007 - 12:30 pm
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 7/10/2007 - 12:33 pm
Yes, I remember that knowing, forgiving, magnanimous, none-are-spared-temptation attitude being on full display when they impeached Bill Clinton for a quickie.
Comment by scarshapedstar @ 7/10/2007 - 12:57 pm
It is all relative, but paying a prostitute is less immoral than pressuring an unpaid intern to put out or get out. Besides I thought democrats liked helping sex workers.
Comment by David L @ 7/10/2007 - 12:57 pm
I agree David. I have heard some on the left talk about legalizing prostitution. But here we find out the end result of that idea, and these people want to use it as a weapon against this man. They are such hypocrites. If Vitter was bold, he would call them all hypocrites and tell them it is a matter between him and his wife. I don’t understand how the left can take themselves serious. They defended Bill to the very end, even when charges were brought up about his perjury, all you heard from them was about how Bill lied about sex, who cares. Now all of a sudden these people want us to take them seriously. Shut up you idiots. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 7/10/2007 - 1:33 pm
Vitter may have had a problem in 1999 as well with a woman he had a lengthy affair with. Can he just keep having affairs knowing it is alright because God will always forgive him? At what point does personal responsibility come into play? At what point does God and his wife say he needs to keep his pants zipped up?
Comment by gttim @ 7/10/2007 - 1:39 pm
The DC Madame said she was releasing the names because they had already been leaked and therefore anybody can add false or unverified names to the list and she could do nothing about it. Unless a name becaomes public that is not on her original list the source floating it should be held legally responsible. Not that that is much of a drawback for those in the scandal business. I expect that we are going to have a drip drip of names coinciding with the events of the day, to the disadvantage of Reublicans. The Republicans must counter with public exposure, no pun intended, of a name or two of Democrats and their affiliated Don Juans. Vitter said he went to confession and made peace with his wife and God. That is good enough for me. From what I have read about him, he is way above the Landriues and other scandal linked politicians in La.
Comment by ruth @ 7/10/2007 - 1:59 pm
Disappointing. Vitter’s the best Senator we’ve got.
Comment by Kevin @ 7/10/2007 - 2:12 pm
As a Louisianian, I’m gonna have to disagree with you there. Here, let’s take a flashback to his 2004 campaign…
Evidently his definition of “traditional marriage” that he beat us over the head with, again and again and again… doesn’t include monogamy.
Nice.
Comment by scarshapedstar @ 7/10/2007 - 2:35 pm
Lorica.
Funny you bring up Clinton.
Clinton lied about sex and was impeached by people like you. At the time it was said by the Right that it was not because of the sex (having sex is not criminal you know), but because Clinton lied under oath. One after another Republicans came out to declare to all four winds how our Constitution and American Jurisprudence could not survive, if we just looked the other way and Clinton was just let go after lying under oath.
And then we have Libby and what do you HYPOCRITES ON THE RIGHT SAY NOW?????
Let Libby off, no underlying crime, etc, etc.
Lorica…. You are bleeding from your tong. Next time be more careful when insulting people.
Comment by gil @ 7/10/2007 - 2:39 pm
Please prove this gttim. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 7/10/2007 - 2:52 pm
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, no matter how you spin it. The man said infidelity is a reason to step down from public office, when it wasn’t HIS infidelity. Apparently, Vitter feels that only getting caught at infidelity is worth resignation of an elected official.
Which is typical, really. It doesn’t matter what you did, it’s how fast you apologized for it. Republicans aren’t perfect, just forgiven. They’re sorry, and will never do it again, every single time.
Comment by Brian @ 7/10/2007 - 2:54 pm
In the interest of reasoned discourse, I’ll attempt a rational response to your post, ST. I do agree wholeheartedly with the idea that just because one man falls, the moral message remains. But the ability of that one man to speak for that message is substantially diminished, and I hope you can understand, gone forever in the eyes of many. If that man is an island, he bears little weight on the movement as a whole. But as his company grows, the ability of the movement itself to be credible begins to wane.
I have no problem with politicians promoting a moral lifestyle, but I just wish they’d do it by living one, rather than trying to legislate it on people who haven’t yet received God’s Grace in their lives. Really, it isn’t that hard to avoid sleeping with a prostitute, now is it, unless he suffered a very peculiar localized effect of gravity. The end result is that it feels like a deeply disturbed individual is working out his personal demons on the rest of society at large.
Christ led by example, not judicial dicta, and the left embraces those who do; the Mother Theresas, Rick Warrens, and Dalai Llamas of the world, for example. Yes, there’s alot of hubris and crowing on the left right now at Vitter’s fall, but the true source of it isn’t 100% schadenfreude as you believe it is, but more an outlet of frustration.
You may find this shocking, but most lefties do not consider themselves immoral as you do; they either live by a moral code derived from something other than the Bible, or they have arrived at a different reading of scripture than you have, and I wish that we could each be more accepting of the validity of that process. Most on the left feel they’re living their lives in a manner that is within their own moral beliefs, and are sick of being told that their value judgements are invalid by people who are incapable of living within their own such as Vitter.
Comment by Rebecca @ 7/10/2007 - 2:58 pm
LOL
When did Libby lie under oath??? Who is able to prove he lied?? His story didn’t correspond with Tim Russert’s after an 8 hour grilling, so Russert is the absolute gospel truth? Whatever. The reasons Libby was being hounded is because of some stupidly false notion about getting Cheney, and because Libby was on the case for Marc Rich against Fitzgerald and Fitzgerald wanted revenge. Tell me gil, since Richard Armatage is the real leaker, and Fitzgerald knew that, why is Libby being prosecuted?? This man should serve as much time as your boy Clinton served.
Also, Thank you for proving my point. You are still defending Clinton because he only “lied about sex”. It was still perjury. As I asked earlier, when they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, then let Libby serve his time, but since Armitage was the leaker, not the President or the Vice President, your point is ridiculous at best. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 7/10/2007 - 3:04 pm
Lorica, if you read the post you quoted very carefully, you may notice that I was not talking about Libby, nor did I defend Clinton.
I said, if you recall, “The man said infidelity is a reason to step down from public office, when it wasn’t HIS infidelity.” That is a fact.
Your eagerness to debate the wrongness of Clinton’s infidelity is appreciated, but since we agree on the topic, you’ll need to find another windmill at which to tilt. Hypocrisy remains hypocrisy, and you remain unable to spin that.
Comment by Brian @ 7/10/2007 - 3:10 pm
I find humor when the “if it feels good, do it” Lefty crowd suddenly become Puritans!
Comment by Tom TB @ 7/10/2007 - 3:11 pm
The fact that Vitter is a serial adulterer is a matter between him, his wife and his god. Period.
OTOH, the fact that he’s a stinking hypocrite is a matter between himself and his constituents. If he were my Senator I’d be happy to run him out on a rail because I have certain expectations of my leadership. If they’re going to talk the talk, and go so far as to promote codifying their “morals” into laws that I have to follow, then they damn well better walk the walk, too.
Comment by Reluctant Republican @ 7/10/2007 - 3:17 pm
Sigh. Now let’s remember, where did the Puritans come from? That’s right, Massachusetts. And someone, please, refresh my memory, how does the right feel about Massachusetts now? Oh yeah, I remember now…
It’s pretty much a given that the harder a given society comes down on personal morality, the stronger that same society repudiates that morality in the end.
Comment by Rebecca @ 7/10/2007 - 3:21 pm
We find it just as humorous when those who cast stones break a big hole in their front door, Tom. Glad we can all still laugh about our political process.
Comment by Brian @ 7/10/2007 - 3:26 pm
So when Vitter does it it simply proves that we’re all fallible and susceptible to temptation? That certainly wasn’t the way you on the right talked when it was Clinton in the glare of the spotlight! The fact is, you right wingers, especially those of the fundamentalist “Christian” persuasion ARE very condemning of those who lapse from the standards you so aggressively espouse…except when it turns out to be one of your own. In truth, one of the defining characteristics of the right wing in this country today is the effort to use the power of the government to impose their understanding of these moral issues on the entire population. Sorry, folks, you can’t talk your way out of this one. The charge of hypocrisy sticks.
Comment by Debra P. @ 7/10/2007 - 3:26 pm
the only message I get from republicans is that you should be a hypocrite, tell everyone how to be moral and good, and then don’t follow your own rules. that’s the lesson here. when you have children, you should tell them not to have sex until you get married, and when they ask you if you had sex . . . lie through your teeth. hypocrisy is a virtue for republicans today because it’s better to lie about your entire life, instead of telling the truth about your sins, because it’s all for the children, you have to hide reality from them, so they don’t learn immorality. lying is good as long as republicans do it, because it’s for a moral cause.
by the way I am an immoral liberal relativist myself. And my personal belief is that it’s not society’s business to enforce morality. Just confess tell the truth about your life. Parents are the ones who need to be in charge of their children, and they should be honest with their kids, explain the mistakes they have made in their lives, explain the times that they cheated in the marriage that it was a bad idea, something they wish they had not done. You see if you are honest about it all, there’s a much better chance that the kids will understand the lesson. if you hide your failings from your kids and lie about it, the kids will learn hipocrisy is how you deal with moral failings of your own, you hide it from others and lie about it.
The problem here with vitter’s behavior to a liberal like myself is not the act, it’s the hypocrisy. Taht’s the issue. And that’s why it’s not such a big deal when the democrats are found with whores, they generally don’t try to protect individuals from moral failings by enacting laws that restrict individual liberties. to a liberal, your business is your own business, what goes on in the bedroom is not for society to legislate but for your family to deal with. on the other hand, to a republican, the law should be changed to enforce a societal morality, and that’s why republicans are held to a different standard.
Comment by eric taylor @ 7/10/2007 - 3:38 pm
Well put, Eric.
Those who attempt to legislate morality do so at the cost of the morals of anyone else. More stinging still when those who say in every word and deed, “Your kind cannot be trusted to live as civilized people, so obey me.”
It’s when those people who have built a career out of legislating their own morality over top anyone who dares to disagree fall short of their own standards, that we revolt. And truly, it’s revolting.
Don’t tell me who to doink, if you can’t control your own doinker.
Comment by Brian @ 7/10/2007 - 3:43 pm
Yes.
That’s not true. But then again, there was a lot more to Clinton’s affair(s) than the left is willing to acknowledge.
1. It doesn’t take a “fundamentalist” (I’m hardly one) to recognize that something like this is wrong and 2. The right does a hell of a lot more bending over backward to condemn their own on any number of issues than the left does, so you don’t even want to go there.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 7/10/2007 - 3:43 pm
why does this post have to be the “left”? Vitter is suffering under the weight of his own words now. He has been living in a glass house and fearlessly throwing stones. Now comeuppance has arrived and it is past due. If he had never uttered a word about the defense of traditional marriage this may have blown over.
This post plays to the weak minded. Analogize away between the dems and the reps and you are still at the rotted moral core of modern politics. Hold them all accountable.
Comment by pete @ 7/10/2007 - 3:44 pm
“They are such hypocrites. If Vitter was bold, he would call them all hypocrites and tell them it is a matter between him and his wife.”
So, why doesn’t he also keep his strong views on abortion, gay marriage, and moral virtues between himself and his wife?
He doesn’t - he tries to legislate his own morality and yet is clearly incapable of following those rules he’d put on the rest of us.
You’ll make the same distinction with Al Gore etc. using any power whatsoever and brand him a massive hypocrite, so why isn’t Vitter?
“I don’t understand how the left can take themselves serious. They defended Bill to the very end, even when charges were brought up about his perjury, all you heard from them was about how Bill lied about sex, who cares. Now all of a sudden these people want us to take them seriously.”
It’s too bad you didn’t take terrorism seriously while you engaged in an all out war against the blowjob.
Does it feel good that 3000 people + 3500 troops have died due to your incredibly misguided wrath?
“Shut up you idiots.”
Come and make me, you cretin.
Comment by Angryflower @ 7/10/2007 - 3:48 pm
“2. The right does a hell of a lot more bending over backward to condemn their own on any number of issues than the left does, so you don’t even want to go there.”
This is demonstrably false, and I would like to go there.
Name an issue, or one of your “own” this applies to.
Comment by Angryflower @ 7/10/2007 - 3:49 pm
Lorica,
You wrote “Who is able to prove he [Libby] lied? … As I asked earlier, when they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, then let Libby serve his time…”
No one - including Armitage and Libby - has been prosecuted for the leak itself, largely because Libby’s obstruction and lying made the intent element of such a prosecution difficult to a degree that Fitzgerald wasn’t confident in pursuing it. The idea however, that somehow obstruction and lying to investigators are not “real” crimes is patently false. (See here for a helpful primer - with citations - on the main facts and arguments.)
Scooter Libby was CONVICTED of not only obstruction of justice, but perjury (lying under oath) and lying to the FBI. The standard for conviction in a criminal case - which his was - is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” so I’m a little unclear as to what elements of lying and proof beyond a reasonable doubt dissatisfy you. Further, the crimes of which Libby was convicted carry a sentence completely in line with the sentence he received, and Republican Prosecutor Fitzgerald and a three-judge appeals panel (majority Republican) concurred.
No injustice was done to Libby whatsoever, except perhaps by his masters. The only injustice is the mockery of due process and equality before the law that his commutation has made.
With regard to Vitter, it’s simply not the case that religious conservatives espouse a lifestyle to which they simply aspire. They roundly persecute, ridicule and denigrate those who don’t agree with the manner in which they choose to pursue that lifestyle, and yet so often fail to live up to those same standards. (Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Ted Haggard, etc.)
Vitter’s fall would garner a lot less attention than it has if he had simply kept his mouth shut earlier on and tried to live his life as best he could. As soon as he stuck his nose into everyone else’s business, he took on the responsiblity to live up to what he was demanding of others. “Do as I say and not as I do,” is a crock, no matter who is espousing it.
Comment by PBI @ 7/10/2007 - 3:52 pm
Eric:
Really? So you don’t pay attention to the thousands of other conservatives who do live upstanding moral lives and only go by the ones who fall from grace?
Brian:
BS. If you guys found stuff like this ‘truly revolting’ then you wouldn’t have rallied around to President Clinton’s defense the numerous times it was alleged that he, um, strayed from his wife (to put it mildly). Remember, Clinton was a ‘middle of the road’ Democrat (supposedly) who preached ‘family values’ himself, until it came to a point where it was beyond absurd for him to do so, considering what kind of husband he was to his wife.
This is all about the left getting in another dig at the morality crowd in general - whether they happen to be hypocrites are not. Morals? What’s that?
So save your little lecture for people who are dumb enough to believe it, ok?
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 7/10/2007 - 3:52 pm
“The right does a hell of a lot more bending over backward to condemn their own on any number of issues than the left does, so you don’t even want to go there. ”
Examples?
Comment by PBI @ 7/10/2007 - 3:54 pm
“Really? So you don’t pay attention to the thousands of other conservatives who do live upstanding moral lives and only go by the ones who fall from grace?”
It’s your side who calls all liberals criminals.
See Ann Coulter among others.
Tell me when any of you have ever paid attention to the “thousands” of people with any progressive viewpoint other than to think of them as degenerates.
Comment by Angryflower @ 7/10/2007 - 3:56 pm
Sister, I voted for Bush in 2000, and was an active duty member of the Navy through the Clinton scandal. I was not a fan. I accept that you might assume that about me, based on the fact that I am now opposed to the Right. Many thinking people change their political views in response to factual events in the world, and I am one of them.
So your attacks on me for doing things I never did, while quoting words I did say, are somewhat misguided. Myspace is a better forum for such a blog, wouldn’t you say?
Comment by Brian @ 7/10/2007 - 3:56 pm
Please prove this gttim. - Lorica
I was not there, and there was no blue dress that I know of so I can’t prove it. The Louisiana Weekly first reported this as Vitter geared up for a 2002 run for governor. Actually it was not an affair, but a year long run with a paid professional. Just prior to this story being published, Vitter pulled out of the campaign to deal with “marital problems.” Of course he has denied it. Other media followed up and talked with the woman, Wendy Cortez, who confirmed the story.
Now I imagine you will deny it as well.
Comment by gttim @ 7/10/2007 - 3:57 pm
I would suggest you go there, then.
Comment by Ryan @ 7/10/2007 - 4:08 pm
Me:
Angryflower:
Gladly:
First, lefty hypocrisy on condemnation:
—- Nutroots double standards strike again: Responses to Coulter versus responses to Stark -and Marcottegate- don’t add up
—- Liberal bloggers who have used the “f-bomb” and gotten away with it
Next, rightie condemnation of one of the left’s most hated villain (includes more on liberal hypocrisy):
—-The obligatory Ann Coulter vs. Elizabeth Edwards post
—-Conservative debate: when passion turns to poison
—- What he said
This happens routinely, especially as it relates to think Ann Coulter says versus things Bill Maher, Michael Moore (among other far lefties) say. The left flips out when Ann Coulter supposedly calls for someone’s assassination yet either don’t comment or barely mention Bill Maher’s thinking it would be cool to assassinate Dick Cheney. I would say a good 50 to 60% of the right pretty much routinely condemns Ann Coulter now but the left doesn’t do the same for jerks like Bill Maher.
That you would deny it just shows how deeply your head is buried in the sand.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 7/10/2007 - 4:10 pm
Seconded!
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 7/10/2007 - 4:14 pm
Source?
I pay attention to Kevin Drum, Jeralyn Merritt, Ellis Henican, and other rational lefties whose posts aren’t drowning in the ‘hate Bush/Republicans’ theme.
I really do think the fringe left is not ‘fringe’ anymore, but instead the mainstream and I’ve written about it here a few times. I don’t pay attention to as many people on the left as I used to, but that’s primarily due to the fact that most of them have allowed hatred of all things Bush cloud their judgement.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 7/10/2007 - 4:19 pm
Really? So you don’t pay attention to the thousands of other conservatives who do live upstanding moral lives and only go by the ones who fall from grace?
sister toldjah, the problem here is that these people do not generally confess their sins, they don’t admit to adultery they do not admit to homosexuality, every single one of them say that they are virtuous, and then every now and then you’ll have a vitter be discovered, and I have to think to myself, “How many of them are hypocrites, and how many of them are truely virtuous.”
Because none of them admit to their sins, I find it very difficult to trust them. By pure chance, some of the people that say they are moral and want to enact laws which enforce morality on society are in fact moral, but I certainly can’t tell which ones are the hypocrites.
It’s like when the catholic sex abuse cases broke. When that happened, the church’s response was to hush everything up and admit to nothing. So we, the public are the in the position of not ever being able to really trust the priests, because their own organization we know for a fact will cover up and hide any cases of abuse.
I know of course, that there are plenty of moral upright honest priests, but when the church decided on a course of action that hid sexually abusive priests, it tarred all of them.
How many of the republicans are morally corrupt? I have no idea, they all say the same thing that they are moral good people, none of them confess to immorality, we the public only find out when it comes out in a legal document. so of course I trust none of them.
I saw, let’s forget this whole republican idea of legislating morality. Let’s forget worrying about homosexual marriages, let’s quit worrying about protecting children from society, and instead move the job of teaching ethics and morality from the government, back to the parents, and families, let us stop trying to legislate ethics. If we do that, then politicians could be honest with us about their own moral failings instead of this constant lying.
Comment by eric taylor @ 7/10/2007 - 4:26 pm
Let’s be clear.
The fact is Vitter has based his entire political career on telling others how they should conduct their personal lives. Based on that alone, Vitter is a comical and pathetic hypocrite.
But there’s more.
One would think that someone with Vitter’s level of education might learn a thing or two from experience. After all, in the special election Vitter won to become Senator, there was a credible story that Vitter was engaged in a long-running affair with a New Orleans prostitute. He escaped that charge.
Further, the special election he won existed because his predecessor, Bob Livingston, had resigned because of his own sexual infidelities.
One would think these experiences alone would have caused Vitter to think twice about procuring still more services from prostitutes.
But noooo.
Comment by JadeGold @ 7/10/2007 - 4:28 pm
Cool, you cited yourself!
In every case.
“This happens routinely, especially as it relates to think Ann Coulter ”
They all mention her, too. Clearly *you* will condemn
*Ann Coulter*.
The John Hawkins cites re” calling people fags are specious and you know it.
“he’s apologized to his wife and asked for forgiveness from God, but the beat goes on.”
That’s condemnation?
Comment by Angryflower @ 7/10/2007 - 4:31 pm
WOW, more than one post from Angryflower?! Someone must have hit a nerve!
Comment by NC Cop @ 7/10/2007 - 4:45 pm
Really? So you don’t pay attention to the thousands of other conservatives who do live upstanding moral lives and only go by the ones who fall from grace?
Well, Sister, how do we know that these thousands of conservatives are upstanding and moral? Sen. Vitter certainly masqueraded quite successfully as an upstanding moral conservative until he was exposed. Why are we supposed to accept at face value any other conservative’s claim that he or she lives an upstanding moral life?
Comment by MaryC @ 7/10/2007 - 4:48 pm
So? I’m not the only one who was doing the condemning. Did you even READ what I wrote? Checked links within? Apparently not.
Yup. As well as Mark Foley, Sean Hannity among others.
Huh?
Apparently it’s so. You really ARE having trouble reading. Check the update. Also remember this: the right doesn’t and shouldn’t jump at the left’s demand to ‘condemn’ anyone. You only should condemn something if you feel it’s condemnation worthy. So there are going to be times when someone says or does something the right doesn’t feel is wrong to say or do, and they aren’t going to leap to condemn it. There are also going to be times when whatever condemnation IS issued isn’t going to be good enough for certain folks. What I object to is how the left is hypocritical on issues like these and my posts I referenced show that this isn’t the first time I’ve complained about it, nor is it the first time it happened.
Comprende?
Furthermore, I noticed you didn’t address this part of what I wrote:
You better make your response REALLY good, because my patience is running paper thin.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 7/10/2007 - 4:49 pm
So the moral of the story is to never trust anyone who talks about how leading a moral life is so rewarding and enriching on many levels? That certainly would be the easy way out, wouldn’t it?
If that’s the case, then we shouldn’t trust anyone about anything, because just about everyone is a hypocrite about something they say or do.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 7/10/2007 - 4:54 pm
First of all, as a left-leaning Christian, I deeply resent the intimation that the left is unconcerned with morality or even advocates an amoral society. We do recognize that some behavior must be rewarded and some punished by law — such as lying to Congress, or a Grand Jury, stealing, violence against the innocent, etc. etc. etc. There are also certain values that different religions hold that are in opposition to one another and those differences should be honored by freedom under the law. I agree with Sister’s point — in as much as the moral lapse of a man doesn’t invalidate the message of morality. However, Vitter — like Libby, like Randy Cunningham, like Gingrich, like — well, Bush — have done more than just violate their own personal ethics. These liars and adulterers have advocated and actively instituted the exclusion and criminalization of people who believe differntly from them. Some faiths allow abortion, some faiths allow same sex marriage — yet these whoremongers and liars have fought to marginalize moral un-hypocritical citizens.
What the majority of the left is criticising, is the Right’s inability to protect different citizens’ different beliefs — the Right’s inability to see that protecting the rights of the minority protects the rights of EVERYONE. Back to the founding fathers: it’s illegal for Puritan christians to burn Quaker christians at the stake; to today, it SHOULD be illegal for Baptists to deny Metropolitan Christian Church members the right to marry.
We’re not gloating that Vitter betrayed his state, his family and his God — it’s sad. We’re appalled, however, that this degenerate has the GALL to judge other Christians as unworthy of civil rights.
My morals are differnt from his — I don’t think its good to hire whores — but that’s between his God, his wife and a divorce court. He SHOULD be censured, as anyone like him, for trying to legislate a particular religion above the rights of others and their beliefs.
Comment by psmarc93 @ 7/10/2007 - 5:00 pm
Oh well, all interns and campaign workers at the White House have been free from sexual harassment during this current administration!
Comment by Tom TB @ 7/10/2007 - 5:01 pm
Wow, that’s an obtuse response.
No, the moral of the story is to lead by example rather than by trying to place one’s self on a pedestal by denigrating others, as people like Mr. Vitter have so often done.
In the free market of ideas, if a “moral” life is rewarding, it will be apparent and others will adopt it. Even “advertising” or talking up such a life is fine and good, but the Vitters of the world go beyond that and support things like the Defense of Marriage Act - for which Bill Clinton should rightly be disdained as well - and attempt to shove their particular take on the fine points of morality down everybody else’s throat.
If somebody like Vitter is going to make his political bones by forcing his way into the lives and bedrooms of consenting adults, the least he can do is not be a demonstrably lying and hypocritical blowhard.
Comment by PBI @ 7/10/2007 - 5:22 pm
This is just running around in circles.
If I’m going to make a point it’s that by trying to pin generalities on individual actions, or attributing them to a political side, is beyond pointless.
These are politicians, after all.
“most of them have allowed hatred of all things Bush cloud their judgement.”
Instead of condemning Vitters actions today, a great majority of bloggers are allowing their hatred of all things Clinton to cloud their judgment.
It’s silly and quite frankly I’m not expecting nor demanding any sort of condemnation anyway. Just don’t try to say that calling Vitter a hypocrite isn’t based in fact.
Furthermore, I noticed you didn’t address this part of what I wrote:
This happens routinely, especially as it relates to think Ann Coulter says versus things Bill Maher, Michael Moore (among other far lefties) say. The left flips out when Ann Coulter supposedly calls for someone’s assassination yet either don’t comment or barely mention Bill Maher’s thinking it would be cool to assassinate Dick Cheney. I would say a good 50 to 60% of the right pretty much routinely condemns Ann Coulter now but the left doesn’t do the same for jerks like Bill Maher.
“Bill Maher’s thinking it would be cool to assassinate Dick Cheney.”
I get your point, not to be picky but that’s not anywhere near what he actually said.
Ann Coulter makes a living out of these sorts of condemnable statements. Bill Maher as well. Michael Moore? I can’t really see many examples of him doing so but I’m sure there’s all kinds of examples on the left.
It doesn’t matter. We can both dredge up righteous indignation until the cows come home. These people are pundits and entertainers, not legislators.
You better make your response REALLY good, because my patience is running paper thin.
Or what, you’ll spank me?
I kept spelling his name Vintner…I’m really thirsty now.
Comment by Angryflower @ 7/10/2007 - 5:28 pm
Please show me where any lefty pundit has suggested death for a politician and federal judges like Coulter has. I went through this on another blog and never got an example. I do not mean a politician like Maher, who has no problem attacking Clinton as well as anybody else, but a pundit who frequently appears on network television or in the mainstream print media. Michael Moore, one of the right’s favorite boogymen, is not a pundit paid for his opinion. He is a film maker and has never called for anyone’s death that I know of. Please cite the lefty pundits on the MSM who have done what Coulter has. Please, give some examples. I really would like some. Show me where lefty pundits, Coulter’s counterparts, have said the things that she has.
Comment by gttim @ 7/10/2007 - 5:28 pm
“The right typically preaches about the goodness of leading a moral life…”
What, like taking care of the poor? Respecting creation? Accepting and loving your neighbor for who he or she is? Turning the other cheek? Honoring the gifts of reason and empathy that God gave us?
That is today’s right wing in America?!
Comment by Kevin @ 7/10/2007 - 5:36 pm
Ah, so Maher doesn’t count. Got it. I find it humorous that Coulter is brought up on this site, where ST has frequently stated how much she disagrees with things Coulter says. When the answer doesn’t fit your agenda - move the goalposts. Got it.
So basically the point here is, from those on the left, that if you don’t practice what you preach, you should be ignored. Check. Are you going now ignore pretty much everyone involved in “Live Earth” then?
Comment by Ryan @ 7/10/2007 - 5:43 pm
Vitter should just take a page out of the Al Gore book.. Come up with a scheme like “Adultery Offsets” or “Prostitution Offsets.” Then he can purchase them, and feel good about his message despite the fact that he wasn’t living up to it.
Comment by Ryan @ 7/10/2007 - 5:51 pm
You got it Ryan. I guess the point is that the many websites and comments of the left that expressed disappointment when Cheney wasn’t killed in an attack in Afghanistan are irrelevant, but because there is not one lefty “pundit” who expressed it, it doesn’t count.
Comment by NC Cop @ 7/10/2007 - 5:53 pm
gil:
Clinton lied about sex and was impeached by people like you. At the time it was said by the Right that it was not because of the sex (having sex is not criminal you know), but because Clinton lied under oath
Your point? Are you claiming Vitter lied under oath, as Clinton did, or are you just trying to hijack a thread?
MaryC:
Well, Sister, how do we know that these thousands of conservatives are upstanding and moral?
If you’ve got proof on any one of them, produce it. Otherwise, all you’re doing is making baseless insinuations that aren’t worth the bandwidth to read. I could just as easily say, how do we know that MaryC isn’t toruturing puppies in her basement?
WOW, more than one post from Angryflower?! Someone must have hit a nerve!
True, NC Cop….usually Angryflower doesn’t stick around to debate after trolling in for one quick non-sequitur. But as you can see, AF still hasn’t learned how to follow a link.
JadeGold:
The fact is Vitter has based his entire political career on telling others how they should conduct their personal lives.
His entire career?? Nothing whatsoever about any issues such as tax policy or the WOT? Where’s your proof? Or are you making this up?
Here’s the salient point, and it goes right back to the subject of ST’s original post: the leftists who are now pointing fingers all said Clinton’s conduct was perfectly fine. On the contrary, ST and those of us on the right say both are wrong?
Is Vitter a hyprocrite? Possibly - you could make a case for it.
Is ST a hyprocrite? No way. She - and I join her in this - say both are wrong.
Are gil, Angryflower, Brian, JadeGold, MaryC, gttim, and the rest of these trolls hypocrites? Unless you can produce some evidence you also condemned Clinton, YES.
By the way - there’s nothing “progressive” about a political philosophy that punishes people for working hard, wants to surrender national authority to the UN, and sympathizes with islamofascists who subjugate women and murder gays as a matter of public policy. You can try to hide what you really believe by adopting a new term to confuse people, but most of us see you for what you have been and still are.
Comment by Great White Rat @ 7/10/2007 - 5:56 pm
ST:
PB:
No it wasn’t, especially seeing as to what I responded to. Which was:
eric:
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 7/10/2007 - 6:01 pm
Excellent point by Ryan:
Vitter should just take a page out of the Al Gore book
Let’s take JadeGold’s comment and revise it, just a wee bit:
The fact is Gore is now basing his entire political career on telling others how they should conduct their personal lives.
Now, we’ve had numerous threads here about how Gore talks the talk but won’t walk the walk - how he wants you and me to sacrifice our lifestyles but he has no intention of changing his in the least. How many times did we see the current trolls on this thread show up to accuse al-Gore of hyprocrisy? Answer: none.
Bottom line: the leftists have no problem with hypocrisry per se. They’re enthusiastic practitioners, in fact. Their presence here is evidence of only one thing: they can and will politicize everything and anything if they think it can help them control all our lives.
Comment by Great White Rat @ 7/10/2007 - 6:05 pm
“But as you can see, AF still hasn’t learned how to follow a link.”
Do you care to point out wtf you’re talking about? Who drops in for a quick troll you say? Have you read what I put in this thread without having to click a link?
“Are gil, Angryflower, Brian, JadeGold, MaryC, gttim, and the rest of these trolls hypocrites? Unless you can produce some evidence you also condemned Clinton, YES.”
Your point therefore is that unless I condemned Clinton, I cannot call Vitter a hypocrite?
Seriously?
Becuase Clinton did something amoral, that makes Vitter’s actions with a hooker … which is contrary to his legislative actions and political message .. not hypocritical?
What are you smoking?
Comment by Angryflower @ 7/10/2007 - 6:11 pm
Ryan:
So typical, isn’t it? I was thinking about that on my way home.
Heheh. You’re on a roll
I wouldn’t be surprised to see a resignation in the near future.
NewKevin:
You got it! Too bad today’s left can’t claim the same thing.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 7/10/2007 - 6:13 pm
How many times did we see the current trolls on this thread show up to accuse al-Gore of hyprocrisy? Answer: none.
Um, yea.
I wrote “You’ll make the same distinction with Al Gore etc. using any power whatsoever and brand him a massive hypocrite, so why isn’t Vitter?”
This was the point I made many posts ago - just in case you didn’t see it or can’t read.
Comment by Angryflower @ 7/10/2007 - 6:14 pm
I was hoping for something a little more intellectually honest than a rush to the extreme edges of Eric’s statement, but I guess a “no it wasn’t/yes it was” argument was easier.
Comment by PBI @ 7/10/2007 - 6:22 pm
AF:
You’d have a bit more credibility on the ‘generalities’ point had you not said this in the next sentence:
On to the rest of your comment:
I’m sure to some people on the left, their criticism is genuine, but for most, I don’t believe it for a second.
Funny how the comment “that’s not exactly what they said” doesn’t apply when something AC, who I am no defender of, is taken out of context. Careful, your selective criticism slip is showing, AF.
It DOES matter, because not only do these people have just as much, if not more influence on the people than legislators themselves, but they also poison the political discourse.
Don’t get your hopes up.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 7/10/2007 - 6:26 pm
Then perhaps right-wingers could kindly stop acting like they own the Morality Rights to the universe?
Maybe…not get so hysterical if a liberal or Democrat drives a biggish car or gets an expensive haircut?
Isn’t going to a prostitute ..or leaving your wife for another woman in a cruel kind of way …just a little bit bigger than those things?
Okay, then. Could y’all please stop whining after just one day? Damn.
Comment by Miss O @ 7/10/2007 - 6:26 pm
What, like taking care of the poor? What, like taking care of the poor? Respecting creation? Accepting and loving your neighbor for who he or she is? Turning the other cheek? Honoring the gifts of reason and empathy that God gave us?
That is today’s right wing in America?!
You got it! Too bad today’s left can’t claim the same thing.
Wow. Just, wow.
1) taking care of the poor: LINK
2) respecting creation - Bush EPA Rolls Back Endangered Species Act, Pesticide Protection.
3) Accepting and loving your neighbor for who he or she is? - Indeed, unless they’re a liberal, or an atheist, or god forbid, a muslim.
4) Turning the other cheek? - Preemptive war.
5) Honoring the gifts of reason and empathy that God gave us? - Gay marriage. (empathy) Reason (Kansas)
What a joke.
Comment by Angryflower @ 7/10/2007 - 6:28 pm
Actually Brian, the post I quote was gil’s, not yours. Sorry for the confusion. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 7/10/2007 - 6:31 pm
You mean like Pelosi promising “The most ethical Congress in history”????
This, of course, a few months before “Frozen money” Jefferson was indicted.
I guess both sides do a little moralizing, huh, Miss O?
Comment by NC Cop @ 7/10/2007 - 6:34 pm
Sister Toldjah, the people I trust who talk to me about morality in my life are those that have the right motives. For an example about bad motives, when I go into a car lot and the salesman preaches to me about great his cars are, I don’t trust him, because he has such a great motive to lie. Republicans have too great of an incentive to lie about any moral lapse they have. It’s that motivation to lie about their morality which makes them untrustworthy.
Now there are people I trust about morality, in regards to issues about prostitution and adultery in a marriage, I trust marriage counselors, because it’s their job to make things work, they know what is right and wrong and they don’t have to lie about their own problems, it’s their job and they do it well. I trust our judges, they have to make difficult ethical decisions every day. I trust my friends, my family and my community when they tell me when I’ve made moral and ethical mistakes in my life.
Now that I think about it, the people I trust don’t go around preaching about how rewarding it is to lead a moral life, I guess you’re right, I’ve taken the easy way out.
Comment by eric taylor @ 7/10/2007 - 6:34 pm
Right, except for the fact that Maher never said he was disappointed that Cheney wasn’t killed in an attack. That’s another of Coulter’s distortions. What he said was, “But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow.” An inconvenient truth, huh righties? You’re here crowing about sexual morality. Never mind the tens of thousands of corpses.
Comment by Kevin @ 7/10/2007 - 6:37 pm
Wow, someone doesn’t deal with the criminal justice system very much.
Comment by NC Cop @ 7/10/2007 - 6:39 pm
“I guess both sides do a little moralizing, huh, Miss O?”
True, but one side is dismantling the Constitution of the United States of America.
Comment by Kevin @ 7/10/2007 - 6:39 pm
taking care of the poor: Indeed, the right does this, especially through the church. The left does this by advocating higher taxes, because they think it’s the gov’t’s lifetime job to take care of the poor.
respecting creation : Yes, by respecting life at conception, which is the greatest gift to ‘create’ that God gave us.
Accepting and loving your neighbor for who he or she is? Yup, unless that person/group has given me some reason to be suspicous and/or untrusting. The left typically only accepts ‘like minded individuals’ in spite of their supposed ‘big tent, all are welcome’ facade.
Turning the other cheek? Yep, unless we’re backed against the wall and engaging what all humans can and should do instinctively: act in the interest of self-preservation. (aka “self defense). The left’s version of this is, to borrow a phrase, “can’t we all get along?”
Honoring the gifts of reason and empathy that God gave us? Indeed, knowing full well that even God’s reason and empathy had limits.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 7/10/2007 - 6:39 pm
It’s not about the sex. Sex scandals are bad, but they are, at worst, a matter of personal morals and ethics.
It’s about the prostitution. Which is not merely morally/ethically wrong, but illegal.
You should be outraged, not apologetic. These views clearly aren’t yours, are they?
Stop defending someone because they (pretend to) share your values.
Comment by pd @ 7/10/2007 - 6:45 pm
You’re right - the left has been doing this for decades. Bravo for pointing that out.
Comment by Ryan @ 7/10/2007 - 6:46 pm
Yes Kevin, but since the conversation was the attempted assassination of Cheney, us “righties” can put two and two together.
Apparently Barney Frank thought he had said it. Or is Barney Frank part of the right wing conspiracy?
So much for an inconvenient truth, huh?
Facts can be fun! Try them sometime!
Comment by NC Cop @ 7/10/2007 - 6:47 pm
You should do the research before hitting ‘enter.’
Here’s what Vitter said last year WRT a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage:
Not more than Iraq, tax policy, WoT, the price of tea in China.
Of course, I suppose what Vitter believes and what he practices may be two separate things–given recent events.
Comment by Jadegold @ 7/10/2007 - 6:48 pm
So now we’re switching gears from morality to constitutional violations?
Right out of the lefty playbook.
Comment by NC Cop @ 7/10/2007 - 6:49 pm
That’s strange, because earlier in your post, you said this:
So someone’s talking to you about morality, then, aren’t they?
The best thing you can do if you are a person of good morals is to lead by example more by word (and obviously there are people like Vitter who fail to do either), but if you’re in a position of leadership, whether it be politics, the church or something of that nature, naturally you’re going to have people base some of their support on you on whether or not you live and approve of that kind of life.
Of course politicans are going to talk about morals, and moreso preachers, because the Bible is all about morality and doing what’s right by God. So it is not wrong for people to preach about the benefits of a moral lifestyle. And I don’t just mean in the pulpit or on the floor of Congress or in an op/ed, but I mean via friendship - like counseling a friend who has a drug or drinking issue, or trying to talk someone out of doing something they shouldn’t do.
There seems to be this subcontext of “morals=bad” whenever the discussion of morals pops up, when in actuality morals in general are good things (that should go without saying, but …). For example: It’s moral to be courteous to the elderly, it’s moral to alert a cashier as to when she’s given too much change, things like that. We come into situations almost constantly that cause us to act based on morals.
It’s certain morals (like the sanctity and definition of marriage, for example) that, for some odd reason, get the right and left at odds with each other. But again, morals, in general, shouldn’t be equated to ‘evil’ or ‘bad.’
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 7/10/2007 - 6:51 pm
I think what’s being missed here is the fact that most, if not all of us here on this site on the conservative side of the issue are upset with this guy. I’m sure you’ll see a resignation soon, and we won’t cry about that. Good riddance.
What you on the left, or “progressive” side as you like to call yourselves, should be doing is calling for him to not resign if it comes to that. You should be defending him - keep him in office along with ol’ Ted Kennedy. I’m sure both of them can have a few drinks, woo the young ladies, and perhaps teach swimming lessons together.
Comment by Ryan @ 7/10/2007 - 6:51 pm