Captain's Quarters -

MSM see scandal in the GOP as worse than those in Dem. FDR and ER, JFK and BC, were given a free run. GOP are expected by the MSM to behave differently. Vitter would not be in any trouble if he was a Dem. Double standards by the Dems and MSM. This is not news.

The sex act itself shouldn't have been cause for impeachment

Hardly. It wasn't illegal. And, unlike Thomas, the attraction was mutual. There was no harrassment involved. The sex was consensual. And while most everyone would say the married boss having an affair with an intern is wrong, it's not illegal. Impeachment is for "high-crimes and misdemeanors." And this does fall into realm of a personal affair.

It directly related to his performance as an executive.

A lot of things directly relate to his performace as an executive. If he got into a heated argument with Hilary in the oval office, would that be cause for impeachment?

But Dionne is right. In general I don't believe what a person does with his or her private affairs should be grounds for them losing their job (unless it's illegal).

I won't call for Vitter to step down (though he may have broken the law). People are imperfect. It's unreasonable for Americans to hold their politicians up to that perfect standard. It's said all the time, and I think it's true, Washington loses a lot of good men and women because of the intense scrutiny their private lives get.

People need to focus more on the job at hand and less on private affairs.

Yeah, Stack, MSM didn't make a big deal out of the Lewinsky scandal. That flew under the radar.

Dionne has it wrong. This was poor judgement and opens the Senator up to blackmail. He should resign.

DoD doesn't give a hoot about "privacy" when it comes to sex or finances when it comes to security clearances. And that's for mil-level bureaucrats. I'm sure a Senator has access to the highest classification of intelligence.

Senators and their staffers should be held to the same standard. They all have access to classified information. Therefore, they can all be bribed. Maybe we wouldn't have so many "leaks" if the Senators and staffers were held to the same standards an E-5 is.

If politicians want to act like jackasses, then revoke their access to classified information. Vitter can amuse himself with the coloring books the Democrats use.

If he got into a heated argument with Hilary in the oval office, would that be cause for impeachment?

If he lied about it under oath, yes.

Clinton vs. Vitter

Aside from all the other things Bill Clinton did, he callously broke a naive young women's heart. One thing you discover from Linda Tripp's tapes of Monica Lewinsky, is that Monica Lewinsky was almost childlike in her understanding of love and romance. She was on an emotional rollercoaster over what she thought was true love with the President of the United States, and Clinton let it happen. Obviously he was smart enough to know that he was turning Miss. Lewinsky into an emotional basket case--a short voyage for her--and Clinton didn't give a rip. If Lewinsky made a fuss, he'd just deny it like he did the hundred times before. At least Senator Vitter wasn't breaking any hearts.

Republican Morals Flowchart

Is he a Republican?

If no ---> Then, he's a scumbag Democrat. They're all hippies and surredocrats, so what can you expect?

.....If yes ---> Does he preach Family values?

..........If no ----> Then, how mistresses, divorces? Count number of visits to prostitutes. Proceed to rehab.

..........If yes ----> Is he against Gay marriage?

...............If yes ---> Check the Page dormitory. Proceed to rehab.

...............If no ----> Check nearest public restroom. Proceed to rehab.

If he lied about it under oath, yes.

Checksum,

If you go back and read my post you'll see I'm responding to Ed's assertion that the sex act alone was grounds for impeachment.

Tom, I rather clearly wrote that it shouldn't have been cause for impeachment.

Oh yeah, you did. My eyes aren't working very well this morning. Thought it was an odd thing for you to write.

Allow me to repeat James Taranto quoting one of his readers, Andy Phillips Emphasis mine.

"Hypocrisy does not mean saying one thing and doing the opposite. It means saying something that one does not believe. Let's take the example of getting drunk. Let's say that I believe that getting drunk is immoral. Does it make me a hypocrite if I get drunk? No, it makes me weak. I could believe that it is immoral but still not be able to resist the temptation to get drunk. It doesn't make my belief any less true or my actions any worse.

"Now let's say that Larry Flynt doesn't believe that getting drunk is immoral. What are his consequences of getting drunk? Your comment on his living up to his own low moral standards hits the nail on the head. Objectively, my getting drunk is no more or less immoral than Larry Flynt's.

"If Larry Flynt attacked me for getting drunk, that would be hypocrisy, because he doesn't believe that getting drunk is immoral. It's hypocrisy for him to say that it's OK for him to get drunk but not OK for me to get drunk.

"We saw the mainstream media's reaction to Rush Limbaugh's addiction to pain killers and Bill Bennett's gambling problem. These men were not hypocrites. I guarantee you that neither of these men wished for their own problems, and, after having gone through what they did, they most likely feel even more strongly about them than they did before. Again, weakness, not hypocrisy. "

Now , if only the DC City Council would outlaw presstitution....

chsw

It means saying something that one does not believe.

Let's stop this right here. This is NOT what hypocrisy means.

Hypocrisy is conveying an image about yourself that's not true or holding others to a standard that you yourself don't abide by.

IE... a parent who tells their kid not to smoke because it's bad for you while they themselves smoke.

IE... I'm a minister who campaigns against homosexuality while engaging in homosexual acts.

IE... Gingrich promoting Republicans as the party of "family values" while cheating on his wife.

IE... a congressman who sits on a committee that protects kids from sexual predators who himself makes advances at underage kids.

For sure it makes them weak. But it also makes them hypocrites.

hy·poc·ri·sy 1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude

The main word Mr. Tarano is missing in the definition of hypocrisy is "pretense". You can NOT preach family values and then have affairs with hookers - that doesn't make you weak, it makes you a hypocrit. It also weakens the arguement for people who actually believe and practice strong family values. How can one follow a way of life if the leaders of that life style don't practice what they preach? (Think about the Catholic church, the pedophile scandal and why attendance is in historically low numbers).

Considering Mr. Vitter's actions - Is this the kind of example you want your kids to follow? Its OK to say one thing and then do the complete opposite because you're "weak". I have more respect for my children then that.

Frankly, I don't care what consenting adults do in their private time but if you're going to be throwing stones you better make sure you have a very strong glass house.

Can't and shouldn't elected representatives who sit on classified sub committees have their security clearances denied based on extra marital affairs? What's the cost to the taxpayer to have to clear a new member to replace the adulterous one? Regardless of the moral hypocrisy argument isn't it just a sheer waste of taxpayers dollars in the end?

hy·poc·ri·sy 1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude

The main word Mr. Tarano is missing in the definition of hypocrisy is "pretense". You can NOT preach family values and then have affairs with hookers - that doesn't make you weak, it makes you a hypocrit. It also weakens the arguement for people who actually believe and practice strong family values. How can one follow a way of life if the leaders of that life style don't practice what they preach? (Think about the Catholic church, the pedophile scandal and why attendance is in historically low numbers).

Considering Mr. Vitter's actions - Is this the kind of example you want your kids to follow? Its OK to say one thing and then do the complete opposite because you're "weak". I have more respect for my children then that.

Frankly, I don't care what consenting adults do in their private time but if you're going to be throwing stones you better make sure you have a very strong glass house.

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

Hear, hear!

Unfortunately, this voyeuristic holier-than-thou nonsense is much easier to understand and discuss than actual policy and legitimate differences of opinion.

But on another note (I'm not immune! Gosh, I'm such a hypocrite!) ...

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

Do married women have a moral obligation to agree to sex with their husbands?

Must be more democrats on the list than republicans.

James Hymas:

If your spouse won't have sex with you for a period of time (e.g. one year), that's grounds for divorce in most states, even "no-fault" states.

Don't know if you were just being provocative, but that's a common and lame excuse that men use for infidelity. Darn, it's just so hard to go ahead and accept the blame without excuses! I will give Vitter credit for seemingly doing that. It would be worse if he hadn't - but he should not expect to be out of the woods, let alone exonerated for his actions. When it comes time to take your lumps, accept that it won't be up to you how and when those lumps are administered.

biwah - It may surprise you to learn that people choose to live their lives in many different ways. There are many sexless and many loveless marriages - even marriages in which the partners despise each other - that hang together for some reason or another. The reason may not make sense to you; it may not make sense to me; but it doesn't need to. Nobody's asking us. And in this particular case, where Vitter gets his nookie makes absolutely no difference to the price I pay for eggs.

Trying to be provocative? Perhaps a little. Mr. Dionne is asserting absolute certainty over the correct manner in which one should live one's life; I'm just wondering how far it goes.

If only the price of eggs was the only thing men like Mr. Vitter are trying to legislate. I'm afraid they have a considerably more "comprehensive" agenda.

Dionne pines for a time when major peccadilloes - like the habitual drunkenness and womanizing of certain political leaders, were actively shielded from public scrutiny by the Washington press corps. Were we nobler then, or do we just yearn to regain that illusion? It seems that society becomes more closed as it becomes more etiquette-bound. That's because the etiquette exalted by Dionne and, say, Brooks, is a form of whitewash that excuses poor behavior.

That said, etiquette makes society run smoother. The question is where you draw certain lines. So goes my circular argument.

"And in this particular case, where Vitter gets his nookie makes absolutely no difference to the price I pay for eggs."

Really? Well somebody needs to tell the DoD this.

Because a sergeant can get his security clearance revoked and get tossed out of the Army for "where he gets his nookie". Or for being a few payments late on his mortgage, etc. Happens all of the time.

This is because people with poor judgement (i.e. perverts, whoremongers and deadbeats), are often blackmailed and bribed into giving up classified information. These rules weren't made because puritans don't like prostitution and deadbeats, they were made because years of experience showed that perverts and deadbeats tend to be the people who peddle secrets.

Meanwhile, Senator Whoremonger here, has access to Top, Top Secret information.

Ridiculous. But since the American people take a "whatever floats your boat" attitude about this stuff, it's no wonder so many of our military secrets are in the hands of the Iranians, the Chinese (thanks Bill Clinton) and the Russians, etc. etc.

"Hypocrisy does not mean saying one thing and doing the opposite. It means saying something that one does not believe."

No.

The only reason this definition has any (deceptive) appeal is that Taranto’s drinking example is an exception that proves the rule. [The rule in this case being that hypocrisy is contradicting one’s statements by behavior, not beliefs.] Rush may not be a hypocrite because alcoholism and addiction can overpower the will to abstain from action. For many people the exceptional condition of alcoholism or addiction excuses the otherwise hypocritical behavior. But if Rush weren’t addicted to his pain killers, it would be hypocritical of him to take them just for fun, whatever his actual beliefs.

Now consider a politician who criticizes infidelity and then has an affair even while continuing to believe it's wrong. Under Taranto’s definition, no hypocrisy. Does anyone else honestly agree?

Tom Shipley said:

"And while most everyone would say the married boss having an affair with an intern is wrong, it's not illegal. "

Clinton's problem was a little deeper than that-Monica could also be considered a "subordinate employee" even though officially she was an intern.

By the way, I would recommend that you Clinton defenders read one of the very best books ever written about the impeachment. It's called "An Affair of State" and was written by Federal Judge Richard Posner (Chief Judge, 7th Circuit)

Among other scholarly observations, Judge Posner shreds the James Carville-generated bumper sticker that it was "all about sex", as he tried to divert the sheeple away from the actual legal issues (and facts) of the case.

And Posner also makes a persuasive case that Clinton committed perjury and obstruction of justice not just once, but several times.

To be fair, Posner is no less kind towards many of the President's accusers in his book (which was very well researched)..

And believe it or not, he concludes that Clinton could probably have pardoned himself if he had been convicted.

Vitter ran for, and got, Livingston's seat.

Maybe, the unnatural act is to run for public office and deny the truth. Not all sex is satisfied in marriage.

Of course, Livington got to the top seat; and got ejected because he "had an affair."

It's easier to explain to men, now that Monica' story got out; that WOMEN TALK. And, talk and talk.

You're not going to screw someone other than your wife, without leaving all sorts of vibrations out there. And, politicians? They want the sex lives of hollywood stars. And, they're ugly.

That's how you get men drawn into this.

And, the price of lying is unfortunately high.

While a lot of the stuff that was attritriubted to religion, and may have once been taken seriously; is now treated casually. EVEN IN ROME! How do I know? Well, Italians are still screwing. But they're having about one kid, before they call "procreation" quits.

The numbers favor honesty.

As to thinking Palfrey was "hot" ... Vitter must have been starving.

You could explain Monica the same way. Bill was starved to death in that White House. He took what fell into his lap.

And, he got an AMERICAN PASS. Stop with lawyering this thing. It's dead. And, James Rogan, a republican in the HOUSE who pressed impeachment, flew out of his seat in 1998.

This now has DeLay saying that pressing impeachment was his error. And, a whopper one at that.

NoDonkey: Because a sergeant can get his security clearance revoked and get tossed out of the Army for "where he gets his nookie". Or for being a few payments late on his mortgage, etc. Happens all of the time.

Used to be you could get tossed for being gay. Times change.

How does the tossing process work? I honestly don't know. Is it an automatic judgement dependent only upon the finding of fact, or do the men's officers have discretion?

It seems to me that such draconian punishments, while they may well decrease the incidence of such actions, will also increase the vulnerability of those who do it anyway to blackmail. Somebody who who would cheerfully tell a blackmailer to 'publish and be damned' when all that is at stake is marital problems and embarrassment might have second thoughts when public humiliation and loss of livelihood is also on the table.

biwah - Dionne pines for a time when major peccadilloes - like the habitual drunkenness and womanizing of certain political leaders, were actively shielded from public scrutiny by the Washington press corps. Were we nobler then, or do we just yearn to regain that illusion?

It's celebrity voyeurism and public standards have changed. Whether I think that's for the better or not ... ain't gonna make a lot of difference, unfortunately. The latest example to annoy me is the Prince Harry / Calgary bar thing. A guy in his twenties went to a titillating bar and flirted with the buxom staff! Shocking! Hell, his ancestors are rolling over in their graves because he hasn't fathered a dozen children yet.

President Clinton survived impeachment because the scandal, at its root, was based on things the electorate had already taken into consideration when passing on who should serve as president. The public that elected Bill Clinton knew that he had zipper problems, as well as problems with always telling the truth. The electorate nonetheless preferred Mr. Clinton to the first President Bush and to Senator Dole, these known character defects notwithstanding.

The more appropriate analogy to Senator Vitter, who notoriously associated himself with Eric Rudolph's side of the culture war, is Mark Foley, or perhaps Ted Haggard--public figures who did not walk their talk.

By the way, my favorite definition of hypocrisy is that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.