NOW– why don’t you denounce Al Gore ?

Yeah… just another political movement posing as a functionary legitmate group ..

Hm, I wonder if they felt the same about serial cheater and accused rapist, Bill Clinton.

Even Clinton was not so cynical as to employ a man who abuses woman to be in charge of woman’s issue in his administration. Obviously abusing woman does not bother Vitter, nor does living a secret life with prostitutes while promoting family values.

Vitter is just one of many conservatives who have redefined the meaning of “family values”. I think “family values” is now as laughable a term when applied to conservatives as is the word “fair and balanced” when applied to Fox News.

MichelleF said:
Hm, I wonder if they felt the same about serial cheater and accused rapist, Bill Clinton.

NOW has no problem whatsoever with men who are philanderers, cheaters, womanizers, abusers,misogynists or sexual deviants as long as they are DEMOCRATS. Actually, they feel the same way about racists too.

MichelleF said:
Hm, I wonder if they felt the same about serial cheater and accused rapist, Bill Clinton.

You’ve convinced me. Since Clinton is an adulterer and Gore may be, it is completely justifiable that Vitter made use of prostitutes and lied about it. In fact, I think we all, male and female, should visit prostitutes (there are male prostitutes, you know) or at minimum have adulterous affairs and lie about it. It can only make strengthen America’s family values and confirm our respect for the institution of marriage.

Call_Me_Ishmael ,
Did I say either was justiable? No, I didn’t. I’m just sick of groups like NOW’s selective outrage. If they really cared about women, they would denounce ALL who abuse them.

Call_Me_Ishmael said:
You’ve convinced me. Since Clinton is an adulterer and Gore may be, it is completely justifiable that Vitter made use of prostitutes and lied about it. In fact, I think we all, male and female, should visit prostitutes (there are male prostitutes, you know) or at minimum have adulterous affairs and lie about it. It can only make strengthen America’s family values and confirm our respect for the institution of marriage.

The difference is, Clinton did not run as a family values republican, and Vitter did.

timzank said:
It can only make strengthen America’s

Timznnk….Did you just list the categories over the name? Actually that is a smart move on your part…that is unless you wanted a Permanente case of writer’s cramp!!!!

Here are a few more categories you may have forgotten…Tax Cheaters, Tax Evaders, Taking bribes, Filing false tax returns, racketeering, and forcing aides to perform chores, embezzlement, keeping cold hard cash (payoff’s) in the freezer….I have to quit….now I have writers cramp.

Val, the old, we don’t claim to have values so we can do whatever we want and not be hypocrites schtick is getting old.

MichelleF said:
Val, the old, we don’t claim to have values so we can do whatever we want and not be hypocrites schtick is getting old.

Vitter used bait and switch to get elected. Don’t get me wrong, I am not a Bill Clinton fan. I consider his act despicable. But Vitter used his superior religious values as a hook to get people to vote for him. Clinton did not do that. And now Vitter has lied about permitting a staff member who abused woman to handle woman’s issues for his office. I do not think that scandal should get him fired, even the prostitution thing should not get him fired, but that hypocrisy could cause him to not get elected.

@MichelleF: Who are “we”? The OP is about David Vitter and you invoked Bill Clinton. David Vitter is David Vitter and Bill Clinton is Bill Clinton, neither are a “we” and as far as I know, neither are commenting to this site.

Magister, the “we” are those who use the argument that since they don’t claim to have morals, they can’t be hypocrites.

Well, it seems to me that the current awareness of domestic violence and the outing of aides with such problems cut across both sides of the aisle. There are now questions about Sen. Vitter’s response, as there were questions about the way Gov. Paterson of New York handled a somewhat similar situation with a member of his staff.

“The fact that Vitter knew about the crimes and continued to have the staffer in his office, she argues, ‘shows such a disdain for the women of Louisiana and really the women of the country.’ ”

Good grief: Vitter’s an ass but saying something that extreme ruins the credibility of the criticism against him.

There’s something absurdly anachronistic about NOW. They should change their name to THEM. Ba-dump-bump!

Ugh. Make that “THEN.” Oh well, ruined that joke. Rate away, anonymous internet people.

valkyrie101 said:
The difference is, Clinton did not run as a family values republican, and Vitter did.

So, in your (small) mind, because Vitter has values that he struggles to live up to, & Clinton has no values & is even eager to pork easily star struck young girls, not much older than his own daughter, Clinton is the better man?!

That makes sense. But only to an ethically challenged moron.

Here’s the deal.

If your side of the aisle is going to maintain such low standards that you are willing to support the absolute scum of the earth (Gay Hooker-Gate Barney ~the~ Frank comes to mind, so does Char-Lie ~the tax cheat~ Rangel, & Alcee ~the impeached former federal judge~ Hastings, & Elena ~I’ll find a way to keep killing the unborn legal, even if it takes lying & cheating to do it~ Kagan, along with thousands of equally despicable lying worthless low lifes within the Dem Party), just to advance your evil political agenda, we’re done hanging our own pols, just because they let us down a little, every once in a while.

Hell, the Right isn’t perfect, but when it comes to ethics & values, we’re light years ahead of you scum.

valkyrie101 said:
The difference is, Clinton did not run as a family values republican, and Vitter did.

Irrelevant.

Let’s hear NOW talk about how Clinton raped an intern’s mouth in the “oral” office.

Just Tex said:
So, in your (small) mind, because Vitter has values that he struggles to live up to, & Clinton has no values & is even eager to pork easily star struck young girls, not much older than his own daughter, Clinton is the better man?!
That makes sense. But only to an ethically challenged moron.

One guy says: Vote for me, I’m a Christian and you can trust me because I subscribe to Christian family values. Oh by the way, did I mention that I have a running relationship with a prostitute? The other guy does not brag about his superior morality, and does not seek votes from the Christian family values crowd by claiming to be of superior morality. Yes, there is a difference. Vitter was running a prostitute while he was campaigning as a family values “superior morality” candidate. Similar to Newt Gingrich who was boning his secretary while married, while calling for Clinton’s resignation over his affair with Lewinsky.

valkyrie101 says:
July 10, 2010 at 8:30 pm

And here I thought saying anything, or doing anything, was allowed in terms of political aspirations. Isn’t that the excuse given to the Obama/Wright connection? It’s okay because that was a popular church, and he was trying to “make it” in Chicago?

Or how about a more recent example? Wasn’t it Bill Clinton who said Robert Byrd spent time in Klan, not because he was a racist, but because he was a “country boy” just trying to get elected!

I guess, according to the Democrats, you’re allowed to say or do what you want prior to the election, if it’s only in an effort to get elected. I guess that means Vitter is off the hook for misrepresenting himself, right Val? After all, he was just a “country boy” trying to get elected!

ImNotBlue said:
valkyrie101 says:
July 10, 2010 at 8:30 pm

After all, he was just a “country boy” trying to get elected!

Are you folks doing an experiment to see if you can use all types of logical fallacy (in this case Tu Quoque) in your responses? If that’s the case, your responses make more sense.

ImNotBlue said:
valkyrie101 says:July 10, 2010 at 8:30 pm And here I thought saying anything, or doing anything, was allowed in terms of political aspirations. Isn’t that the excuse given to the Obama/Wright connection? It’s okay because that was a popular church, and he was trying to “make it” in Chicago? Or how about a more recent example? Wasn’t it Bill Clinton who said Robert Byrd spent time in Klan, not because he was a racist, but because he was a “country boy” just trying to get elected! I guess, according to the Democrats, you’re allowed to say or do what you want prior to the election, if it’s only in an effort to get elected. I guess that means Vitter is off the hook for misrepresenting himself, right Val? After all, he was just a “country boy” trying to get elected!

It is not polite to disrepect your elders before their body grows cold in the grave. Byrd, like most of our elders, was flawed. By your way of thinking we should be despising Jefferson because he owned slaves and subscribed to racist notions. Byrd overcame.

Suffice to say, no one will ever get dems to admit they give a pass to other dems. It’s kind of similar to how prison inmates won’t rat each other out.

Same moral fiber, that being none of course. Dems just crack me up, they don’t want my kids to have happy meals but they want teachers to teach our kids to have happy endings.

timzank said:
Suffice to say, no one will ever get dems to admit they give a pass to other dems. It’s kind of similar to how prison inmates won’t rat each other out. Same moral fiber, that being none of course. Dems just crack me up, they don’t want my kids to have happy meals but they want teachers to teach our kids to have happy endings.

There is a loyalty factor, and the benefit of the doubt that goes with that, for sure. Of course you and I both know that the same factor applies to both sides. I am an advocate for progressive thought, I certainly confess to that.

and you?

valkyrie101 said:
calling for Clinton’s resignation over his affair with Lewinsky.

So, Clinton just had an ~affair~?

Nope. What he did was an abuse of power, closer to child abuse, or incest, considering that Lewinsky was easily young enough to be his daughter.

And, he tried to pay her off with HIGH PAYING publicly funded federal jobs & other goodies too, and, perhaps worst of all, he perjured himself numerous times trying to cover it all up.

Face it, Clinton’s scum.

At least Vitter had the decency to pay for his sexual deviance with his own money, not yours & mine.

valkyrie101 said:
I am an advocate for progressive thought

What’s ~progressive~ about a huge, overpaid, pampered, heavy handed bureaucratic business & individual stifling govt, that tries to control absolutely everything?

That’s regressive, and it has failed miserably, led to enormous human suffering, even genocidal death & extreme violence, every time it’s been tried.

Just Tex said:
So, Clinton just had an ~affair~? Nope. What he did was an abuse of power, closer to child abuse, or incest, considering that Lewinsky was easily young enough to be his daughter. And, he tried to pay her off with HIGH PAYING publicly funded federal jobs & other goodies too, and, perhaps worst of all, he perjured himself numerous times trying to cover it all up. Face it, Clinton’s scum. At least Vitter had the decency to pay for his sexual deviance with his own money, not yours & mine.

I’m pretty sure Monica was of the age of consent. Bill always checks on that first. And people who know me here know that I am not a Bill Clinton fan in any way shape or form. We really don’t know if the Monica scandal would have prevented Clinton from another term, but we will get to see if another Vitter scandal effects his.

I wonder if the Republican Senate caucus will give diaper Dave another standing ovation, showing their appreciation that his predilections don’t involve public restrooms, boy toy teen pages, or his parents paying off any former employees?

Maybe Newt Gingrich can go down and campaign for him. Based upon his daughter’s Secret Service Detail report of what he was receiving in the front seat of his car in the driveway as they escorted his daughter home from school one day, while he was impeaching a President, after he served his cancer stricken wife with divorce papers in her hospital bed, I’m sure he has some words of wisdom on how to soldier on in the face of such unfair media coverage.

valkyrie101 said:
I’m pretty sure Monica was of the age of consent.

Yup. She was 21. But in Leftist held DC, the age of consent is 14. So, I guess you wouldn’t condemn him, if he’d had boned his daughter Chelsea at the same time (she was 14 then) too.

Jim R said:
while he was impeaching a President

for lying under oath, and other actual crimes…

Jim R said:
another standing ovation

You mean like the House Democrats did, after Democrat House member Gerry Studds was lightly censured for taking an underage male Page on several Official House Business trips, out of state & even out of the country, all at public expense, feeding the kid booze, and boning & sodomizing him, all along the way?

Studds was even reelected by the people of his Leftist leaning gerrymandered Massachusetts district 4 or 5 times at that. And retired from the House with full pay & all the benefits too, before he became a highly paid DC Lobbyist, pushing for tax breaks & other benefits, all at public expense, for his Leftist paymasters. .

Naw. That won’t happen.

valkyrie101 said:
We really don’t know if the Monica scandal would have prevented Clinton from another term

How old are you? 12??

Clinton was the 1st Democrat to be reelected to a second term since FDR, & term limited from running again, despite all the numerous scandals that broke.

The Lewinsky scandal didn’t become public until Clinton was already in his second term, but that was just the icing on the cake so to speak.

Al things considered. with all the various scandals, both before & after he became president, Bill Clinton was undoubtedly the most unethical absolute low life, to ever occupy our presidency.

Just Tex said:
Nope. What he did was an abuse of power, closer to child abuse, or incest, considering that Lewinsky was easily young enough to be his daughter.

That’s the most ignorant thing I’ve read in awhile. When I first read the topic of this article I wondered how long it would take some nitwit RWer to bring up Clinton. Well Michelle F didn’t disappoint, it was the second comment on the thread.

Hey Michelle and all you other nitwit RWers, did Clinton have a prostitute put him in diapers?

Just Tex said:
0 0
valkyrie101 said:
We really don’t know if the Monica scandal would have prevented Clinton from another term
How old are you? 12??
Clinton was the 1st Democrat to be reelected to a second term since FDR, & term limited from running again, despite all the numerous scandals that broke.
The Lewinsky scandal didn’t become public until Clinton was already in his second term, but that was just the icing on the cake so to speak.
Al things considered. with all the various scandals, both before & after he became president, Bill Clinton was undoubtedly the most unethical absolute low life, to ever occupy our presidency.

I am sorry that you are reading impaired, tex, or you would know that “We really don’t know if the Monica scandal would have prevented Clinton from another term” since that scandal broke during his second term.

the real john t said:
That’s the most ignorant thing I’ve read in awhile.

What, you don’t bother to “read” your own comments?

That’s odd.

the real john t said:
did Clinton have a prostitute put him in diapers?

Who knows?!

But, with his track record, it’s certainly not beyond him.

Maybe Hillary does it for him??

All things considered, that’s not out of the question either.

Just Tex said:
Yup. She was 21. But in Leftist held DC, the age of consent is 14. So, I guess you wouldn’t condemn him, if he’d had boned his daughter Chelsea at the same time (she was 14 then) too.

LOL that a guy who’s name is tex is talking about age of consent.

valkyrie101 said:
I am sorry that you are reading impaired, tex, or you would know that “We really don’t know if the Monica scandal would have prevented Clinton from another term” since that scandal broke during his second term.

Just like a Leftist. Trying to rewrite history after the fact won’t work here slim, your own words are right on this thread.

Here’s precisely what you said, verbatim:

valkyrie101 said:
We really don’t know if the Monica scandal would have prevented Clinton from another term, but we will get to see if another Vitter scandal effects his.

That’s it. That’s all you said.

Now move along and go back to playing with real toys.

Computers are for the adults.

Call_Me_Ishmael says:
July 10, 2010 at 9:14 pm

Well… it appears the tu quoque argument was not fallacious in this particular instance. So while I applaud you for knowing the Latin, this isn’t an example of its incorrect usage.

My statement shows the hypocrisy of Valkyrie’s initial thesis, where by Vitter is “more guilty” or “more reprehensible” because he (allegedly) used “family values” to get elected. However, we recently (as I quoted) saw how a Democrat was excused from far worse, using the “he just did that to get elected” line. So apparently, doing or saying something while campaigning cannot be held against someone.

That’s not a logical flaw… that’s consistency of criticism.

valkyrie101 says:
July 10, 2010 at 9:17 pm valkyrie101

It is not polite to disrepect your elders before their body grows cold in the grave.

Am I disrespecting Byrd by making factually correct statements about his history? No. Moving on.

Byrd, like most of our elders, was flawed. By your way of thinking we should be despising Jefferson because he owned slaves and subscribed to racist notions. Byrd overcame.

Well, two points… first off, aren’t there many on the left who criticize and attack the founding fathers regularly for being “racists” and slave owners? Yes, they do.

But anyway, that’s not really the point. The point is how the political left excused his behavior. Remember, it was Bill Clinton not more than a week ago saying he only joined the KKK to get elected (which is a fallacy itself, and does not comport with history… but that’s another story).

My point (as I said above) isn’t really his action, rather the defense of his action being “he was just trying to get elected.” Therefore, as a representative of the left, Clinton essentially says, “In a campaign, people have to do and say things that they might not always believe, and that’s acceptable.” In that world, where Byrd’s actions were excused as stumping for votes, then Vitter’s actions and his words are equally excusable.

Personally, I think Vitter is a slime ball, and should have walked away a while ago. But his staying is hardly unique to him or his party, and far worse has been excused by important political figures.

Jim R says:
July 10, 2010 at 10:35 pm

Maybe you should ask John Edwards. Whoops… sorry, Democrat… I forgot. No need to criticize him, or remember that he did far worse than Gingrich.

My mistake, I’ll try to stay out of the way of your selective outrage.

the real john t says:
July 10, 2010 at 11:15 pm

Hey Michelle and all you other nitwit RWers, did Clinton have a prostitute put him in diapers?

Hmm, interesting point. Wait, hold on, I wanna light my cigar…………………

Hey TEX, it came out in public that Vitters had prostitutes put him in diapers. Get over it little man. This article is about Vitters not about Clinton.

valkyrie101 said:
a guy who’s name is tex

Has a much better “name” than a know nothing pimply faced kid, furiously typing away about things he doesn’t have a single clue about, from a dank space deep inside his Mom’s basement, that named himself after a fictional starship, from the fantasy, Battlestar Galactica.

I told you before, I’m one of a very few people that have actually sat in the cockpit (but not flown. There’s even fewer of those around) of an North American XB-70 (Valkyrie) high performance (Mach 3+ -70,000+ altitude) prototype US Bomber aircraft. So, there’s not much about it (the plane & it’s name) that I don’t know.

the real john t said:
This article is about

whatever I wanna make it about. And that’s a fact.

ImNotBlue said:
ImNotBlue says:
July 10, 2010 at 11:39 pm ImNotBlue(Quote)
Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Call_Me_Ishmael says:
July 10, 2010 at 9:14 pm

Well… it appears the tu quoque argument was not fallacious in this particular instance. So while I applaud you for knowing the Latin, this isn’t an example of its incorrect usage.

My statement shows the hypocrisy of Valkyrie’s initial thesis, where by Vitter is “more guilty” or “more reprehensible” because he (allegedly) used “family values” to get elected. However, we recently (as I quoted) saw how a Democrat was excused from far worse, using the “he just did that to get elected” line. So apparently, doing or saying something while campaigning cannot be held against someone.

That’s not a logical flaw… that’s consistency of criticism.

valkyrie101 says:
July 10, 2010 at 9:17 pm valkyrie101

It is not polite to disrepect your elders before their body grows cold in the grave.

Am I disrespecting Byrd by making factually correct statements about his history? No. Moving on.

Byrd, like most of our elders, was flawed. By your way of thinking we should be despising Jefferson because he owned slaves and subscribed to racist notions. Byrd overcame.

Well, two points… first off, aren’t there many on the left who criticize and attack the founding fathers regularly for being “racists” and slave owners? Yes, they do.

But anyway, that’s not really the point. The point is how the political left excused his behavior. Remember, it was Bill Clinton not more than a week ago saying he only joined the KKK to get elected (which is a fallacy itself, and does not comport with history… but that’s another story).

My point (as I said above) isn’t really his action, rather the defense of his action being “he was just trying to get elected.” Therefore, as a representative of the left, Clinton essentially says, “In a campaign, people have to do and say things that they might not always believe, and that’s acceptable.” In that world, where Byrd’s actions were excused as stumping for votes, then Vitter’s actions and his words are equally excusable.

Personally, I think Vitter is a slime ball, and should have walked away a while ago. But his staying is hardly unique to him or his party, and far worse has been excused by important political figures.

Jim R says:
July 10, 2010 at 10:35 pm

Maybe you should ask John Edwards. Whoops… sorry, Democrat… I forgot. No need to criticize him, or remember that he did far worse than Gingrich.

My mistake, I’ll try to stay out of the way of your selective outrage.

the real john t says:
July 10, 2010 at 11:15 pm

Hey Michelle and all you other nitwit RWers, did Clinton have a prostitute put him in diapers?

Hmm, interesting point. Wait, hold on, I wanna light my cigar…………………

Need a light?

Or, does that thing need to dry for a while, first?

Just Tex said:
whatever I wanna make it about. And that’s a fact.

OH! Another tough talking Texas boy. As long as he’s sitting at his keyboard.

OK — In his lame attempt to mimic the current style of over-explaining the news like he’s talking to preschoolers, the guy in the clip mentions the Vitters/prostitute story for a few seconds in his setup and it doesn’t come up over the rest of the video, but somehow this comment thread is almost entirely about the prostitute thing and Bill Clinton?

Vitters’ marital indiscretion is thirty seconds out of an eight minute clip! The bulk of the content is about an aide who held a knife to his girlfriend’s throat and asked if she wanted to die. The woman from NOW has suggested that Sen. Vitters be censured or reprimanded by the Senate for continuing the aide’s employment, something I’m sure she doesn’t believe will really happen, but the request does help point the spotlight on the issue of domestic violence and it helps illustrate that the problem isn’t restricted to any social group.

Other than the fellow’s setup, it has nothing to do with prostitutes, Bill Clinton or the Governor of South Carolina. The clip and the scandal raises questions about domestic violence and whether those convicted of the crime should be barred employment, or whether their employment opportunities should be limited and to what standard an employer should be held in regards to crimes committed by persons on their payroll.

the real john t said:
As long as he’s sitting at his keyboard.

Is that anything like you, believing yourself to (somehow) be witty, & even somewhat ~intelligent~, as long as you’re sitting at your keyboard?

Yup. That’s it.

Magister said:
The clip and the scandal raises questions about domestic violence and whether those convicted of the crime should be barred employment, or whether their employment opportunities should be limited and to what standard an employer should be held in regards to crimes committed by persons on their payroll.

Initially, Vitter believed Furer’s song & dance, & gave him another chance. When the other allegations became public, Furer resigned, & we don’t know if Vitter asked him to do so, or not.

Regardless, Furer’s gone. So, should we lynch Vitter now, for believing Furer’s song & dance routine, & for bothering to give Furer a second chance, or move on?.

I say we just move on. But, the never forgiving Left, will only “forgive”, whenever a fellow Leftist has troubles, & even when they’ve done something terribly wrong.

That’s why this issue has gobbed so many electrons. It’s the hypocrisy of the Left, that the Left won’t quit doing, or even acknowledge.

Just Tex said:
Is that anything like you, believing yourself to (somehow) be witty, & even somewhat ~intelligent~, as long as you’re sitting at your keyboard?

Hey, I’m not the one sitting here saying I’ll make the thread anything I want it to be about, little man.

Just Tex said:
I say we just move on. But, the never forgiving Left,

OH! Is that why you RWers bring up Byrd being in the KKK over 50yrs ago, which he apologized to many times keep bringing him up when there’s anything about race on here?

the real john t said:
Is that why you RWers bring up Byrd being in the KKK

Ok. Which is worse, setting up & running a recruiting station for violent racist thugs, for at least several years that we know of, who’s recruits will be instructed to intimidate & perhaps even lynch, people who Byrd himself called “uppity Blacks”, & a few things that I can’t type on this page?

Or,

A guy who saw some prostitutes, and had the audacity to not fire an aide, as soon as he found out about his employee being accused of “domestic violence” allegations?

I’d say that’s a no-brainer. And, with your response here, you’ve already proven that for me.

Did you read what the hell you posted?

Just Tex said:
I say we just move on. But, the never forgiving Left,

AW! But it seems you RWers can’t move on if it involves a Democrat. You’re a bunch of hypocritical idiots.

@Just Tex: I personally feel that declaring people unemployable because of past events is a slippery slope, but as I understand it, the domestic violence conviction occurred while he was on the Congressman’s payroll and we maybe we should hold those serving an elected official or in law enforcement to a higher standard.

IOW: The fellow probably should’ve lost his job or gone into some kind of leave status until his probation was complete or until he had completed an anger management course. Perhaps that is what happened here, I haven’t been following the story, but it wasn’t stated in the clip and any way you look at it, naming the fellow the Women’s Issues liaison was pretty stupid.

The woman from NOW says that Vitters should be disciplined, but as I said before, I doubt that would really happen and I don’t actually see any grounds for it. But by highlighting the crime and the issue, they are serving some type of public service by pointing out that domestic violence isn’t just a problem among the poor and uneducated, not to mention that they’re also putting the rest of Congress on notice, if anyone else has an aide with a similar issue.

NOW needs publicity; MSNBC, TalkingPointsMemo and Mediaite needs content. It’ll be up to the voters in Louisiana whether this lapse is one too many for David Vitter, but unless there’s another shoe to drop, I really just think it’ll cost him a few points in a poll and nothing else. Just like Bob Etheridge, I expect him to be re-elected.

the (un)real john t said:
Did you read what the hell you posted?

Of course, fool.

the (un)real john t said:
But it seems you RWers can’t move on if it involves a Democrat

You left out the best part “can’t move on if it involves a Democrat” that has committed unholy evil.

the (un)real john t said:
You’re a bunch of

Morally & intellectually superior individuals? That’s so so true.

the (un)real john t said:
hypocritical idiots

Agreed. You are.

BTW (For the Record): I have definitely tweeted and I’ve probably commented somewhere that I don’t like the way Rep. Vitters has often tried to politicize the oil spill issue and because I’m a liberal Democrat, he’s way down on my list of politicians. But I don’t care that he was a regular client of a prostitute and it has no bearing on my position.

Just Tex said:
You left out the best part “can’t move on if it involves a Democrat” that has committed unholy evil.

Okay Tex, since you want to go back in time. Did Robert Bryd produce a black child like Strom Thrumand did while preaching racism aginst the blacks?

Magister said:
@Just Tex: I personally feel that declaring people unemployable because of past events is a slippery slope, but as I understand it, the domestic violence conviction occurred while he was on the Congressman’s payroll and we maybe we should hold those serving an elected official or in law enforcement to a higher standard.

Possibly so, & if so, you may have a very good point. However, to what “standard” is the most difficult question to answer? NOW has about as much credibility as a two year old with a chocolate stained face & fingers, denying getting into the candy.

With that so, more reasonable people need to discuss this very openly, look at all sides & past histories, then, come to reasonable conclusions.

Magister said:
The fellow probably should’ve lost his job or gone into some kind of leave status until his probation was complete or until he had completed an anger management course.

Agreed.

Magister said:
Perhaps that is what happened here, I haven’t been following the story, but it wasn’t stated in the clip and any way you look at it, naming the fellow the Women’s Issues liaison was pretty stupid.

Agreed, &, I also can’t disagree on his positioning.

Magister said:
The woman from NOW says that Vitters should be disciplined, but as I said before, I doubt that would really happen and I don’t actually see any grounds for it.

NOW has zero cred. As to “discipline”, that’s another matter altogether. If we weren’t in such vitriolic times, that would have been an internal GOP matter.

I’m specifically recalling a very famous & long time Dem pol, that was well known to abuse his wife, & after she passed he openly & publicly frolicked with known high paid prostitutes, & was involved in a myriad of other truly serious scandals (this was in the late 1970′s & ended in the early 1980′s) but I won’t name right now. He was stripped of his committee chairmanship, but not even publicly censured for any of his most serious actions.

Magister said:
NOW needs publicity;

Indeed. They’ve got to keep those checks coming in, from their inflamed Amazonian & cult like followers.

Magister said:
MSNBC, TalkingPointsMemo and Mediaite needs content.

That’s true. But in all honesty, all have few, if any employees with gumption, that aren’t biased to the point of absurdity.

If any of them wanted to cover something of truly international importance, they’d assign someone to research the issues being discussed at: http://climateaudit.org/ .

Just there, there is enough truly earth shaking “content” to blow ~Anthropogenic Global Warming~ (man-made climate change_ right out of the water.

And, what’s being discussed there also shows that the two ~Official Investigations~ into the so called climate-gate emails, have been frauds!

But, without an energetic unbiased reporter, with an understanding of physics, or at least of the parameters that surround the long established principles of the scientific method, the public will continue to be left fully in the lurch, with no way (other than to spend years doing their own research) of knowing the truth about any of these very important issues.

Magister said:
It’ll be up to the voters in Louisiana whether this lapse is one too many for David Vitter, but unless there’s another shoe to drop, I really just think it’ll cost him a few points in a poll and nothing else.

Agreed.

Magister said:
Just like Bob Etheridge, I expect him to be re-elected.

But wouldn’t have as much as a snowball’s chance in Hell of getting “re-elected” if the media focused on his misdeeds, at anywhere near the level they have with Vitter, & for that matter, anyone that’s within conservative circles, or inside the GOP.

Magister said:
I don’t like the way Rep. Vitters has often tried to politicize the oil spill issue

To my way of thinking, & in all honesty considering the slash & burn job done on GW Bush for Katrina (which was actually a damn good job, if all things are considered) Team Obama has dropped the ball repeatedly, & bungled the entire reaction to the “oil spill”.

MMS (Minerals Management Service) has had a long established protocol in place, that Bill Clinton insisted be modified, and it was.

That protocol includes the president immediately declaring a Gulf wide environmental emergency, & using every available vessel (public & private) to keep the oil contained & either captured or burned off, far out at sea. Then, sending the bills to the responsible party(s).

Team Obama, (just like Mayor Naggin & Governor Blanco during the Hurricane Katrina events. But, this isn’t the time to get into that) had at 1st refused to follow that long established protocol, but has been implementing portions of it in fits * jerks, long after the facts have been known.

Considering the damages already done to the Gulf environment, that’s simply unforgivable.

Magister said:
I don’t care that he was a regular client of a prostitute

However, I do “care”, & if we weren’t living within such an incredibly toxic political environment, I’d be happy to see him gone. But, being where we are where we are, I can’t & wont do anything to force that call.

the (un)real john t said:
Did Robert Bryd produce a black child

I can’t be certain if he did, or he didn’t.

Can you?

Just Tex said:
To my way of thinking, & in all honesty considering the slash & burn job done on GW Bush for Katrina (which was actually a damn good job, if all things are considered)

Are you actually saying Bush did a good job with Katrina?

Just Tex said:
I can’t be certain if he did, or he didn’t.
Can you?

Well there’s proof Thurmond did.

the real john t said:
Are you actually saying Bush did a good job with Katrina?

I am. And if you bothered yourself enough to read the Coast Guard after incident report, indicating that 36,000 people were removed from rooftops by CG helicopter & CG surface operations, & that Mayor Naggin & Governor Blanco BOTH failed to evacuate the city, despite the long established (with studies paid for by millions of $ spent by the fed govt) protocol to evacuate in the face of any hurricane approaching a cat 3, so if you could get past your politically motivated bias, you’d have no choice but to agree.

the real john t said:
Well there’s proof Thurmond did.

Only because he finally admitted to it, towards the end of his life.

If you knew much of anything about Thurmond, you’d know he was a true war hero, & that his initial race positions were really no different than Byrd’s.

But by Byrd’s own racially decisive actions & comments, very late in his life, it looks like he carried much of his prejudice to the grave. Which can’t be said of Thurmond.

Hey Tex,

Here is what Bush was doing while New Orleans was drowning, but then he did a quick flyover at 30,000 feet.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×2803301

the (un)real john t said:
Here is what Bush was doing

Instead of having faith in (and posting links to) absurd Leftist propaganda, read an accurate, albeit incomplete time-line of Hurricane Katrina events here:

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/8879/BLI/misc/index.htm

And I’ll add, what isn’t mentioned in that time-line is how many calls Bush & other federal officials made days before the event, urging Naggin, then Blanco (both are Democrats) to order a mandatory evacuation, which would have been in full compliance with the well & long established protocol, which I read in it’s entirety prior to the hurricane’s landfall. But, both refused to evacuate, & Bush couldn’t have lawfully ordered it.

There are laws in place now, quietly passed by congress after the Katrina debacle, for the president to override local officials to order an evacuation, that were put in place specifically because of Naggin’s & Blanco’s inaction.

Just Tex said:
Which can’t be said of Thurmond.

When did Thurmond apologize for anything?

Just Tex said:
Instead of having faith in (and posting links to) absurd Leftist propaganda, read an accurate, albeit incomplete time-line of Hurricane Katrina events here:

Talk about a RW site. I forgot, if it’s not on some far RW site you RWers don’t believe it.

Good night. You’re too dumb to converse with.

the (un)real john t said:
When did Thurmond apologize

Oh, I see. A public “apology” (open self flagellation) is what you’re looking for, & would have made everything all better?

Why don’t you ask Thurmond’s Black daughter, Essie Mae Washington-Williams that question, who has declared that she loved & respected her father, despite his very early publicly admitted wrong & hateful racial positions?!

the real john t said:
You’re too dumb to converse with.

Hardly. The truth is, the very stupid & deliberately self cloistered Left, simply don’t have the mental capacity to comprehend anything that’s not shoveled into their empty minds, by smooth talking experts in propaganda. That’s why you’re so commonly referred to as being “useful idiots”.

And “Good night” to you as well. I’m certain you’ll sleep like a baby. Being that your intellect is very similar, nearly to the point of being identical.

Vitter is the Republican dream candidate – so oily, nothing can really stick to him. As long as he is opposed to a woman’s right to choose, even in the event of rape, incest and medical emergency, the Republicans will run to vote for him.

This is outrageous! It’s like putting a tax cheat in charge of the IRS.

the real john t said:
Talk about a RW site. I forgot, if it’s not on some far RW site you RWers don’t believe it.

Here, try this one. Debunking the Myths of Hurricane Katrina

valkyrie101 said:
Even Clinton was not so cynical as to employ a man who abuses woman to be in charge of woman’s issue in his administration.

True. All he did was be a man who abuses women in charge of everything in his administration.

Clinton is an ass, for sure, but what woman did he abuse while in the WH? Your serious problem is not being able to tell, or not caring about, the difference between real abuse, and the sheer animal attraction of Bill and his bent thingy. Lewinsky, already skilled in the art of knee padding, was not abused and was a “knowing” person, in the Biblical sense. Now if you want to talk about the abuse of woman that Clinton engaged in while he was governor, I am with you in condemning Bill for being a dick.

the real john t said:
Hey TEX, it came out in public that Vitters had prostitutes put him in diapers. Get over it little man. This article is about Vitters not about Clinton.

You are still in diapers, so STFU.

But tell, me, when you change your mind, do you change your diaper?

MichelleF said:
Hm, I wonder if they felt the same about serial cheater and accused rapist, Bill Clinton.

I would like you to tell me where it was written that Clinton was a rapist? Lewinsky looked old enough to decide for herself. You are a typical repug brain. Twist the facts to match your dreams.

NOW only represents Left-Wing radical Women…and they are sooooo 70′s! – and totally irrelevant today!
——————————————————————

Watch the votes this November – The NEW Representatives of the Women’s Movement are the MOMMA GRIZZLIES!!!!

The Real Royal King said:
Vitter is the Republican dream candidate – so oily, nothing can really stick to him. As long as he is opposed to a woman’s right to choose, even in the event of rape, incest and medical emergency, the Republicans will run to vote for him.

Considering that the Left worships & baths at the bloody alter of millions of dead unborn children, your thought is closer to correct than you may know.

Pablo said:
It’s like putting a tax cheat in charge of the IRS.

O-Bummer already did that one. It was a test to see what he could get away with.

Pablo said:
Here, try this one. Debunking the Myths of Hurricane Katrina

Good point. Forgot about that one.

Thanx

Just Tex said:
Considering that the Left worships & baths at the bloody alter of millions of dead unborn children, your thought is closer to correct than you may know.

But the real tragedy is all that wasted sperm, left oozing in the gutter. That sperm could have inseminated millions.