Reactions to the David Vitter Sex Scandal
“Well, now more problems with this Vitter guy. You got to go on his Web site, like he’s Mr. Religious, Mr. Family Values. Well, now a second madam has come forward and told The Associated Press that he was also a customer at her brothel. This guy was cheating on his hooker with another hooker.”
Beaver County Times
Wow, I come back from vacation to find Wendy Vitters on TV telling us that God forgave her husband David Vitters, Republican U.S. senator from Louisiana, for hiring a prostitute.
She also stated that it was a private matter between her and David. I suspect by the look on her face that she lied about the one-on-one conversation with God.’
Isn’t it amazing that Republicans can be forgiven in a day or two but they still sing the “but, but Clinton” song from eight years or so ago?
Perhaps Vitter, like that Rev Ted Haggard who lied about his drug use and relationship with a gay prostitute, can go into rehab to regain the moral stature on which he ran his campaign.
Then I change the channel and find out that Republican state Rep. Bob Allen, U.S. Sen. John McCain’s Florida campaign co-chairman, was arrested for offering an undercover male officer money for a sex act.
Last month, South Carolina Treasurer Thomas Ravenel, the state chairman for Rudy Giuliani’s campaign, was indicted on federal cocaine charges.
Of course, we can’t forget another moral Republican, Rep. Mark Foley and his penchant for congressional pages.
One conclusion is that these Republicans are nothing but two faced gas-bags, just like the Limbaugh, Hannity, and the Spin and Hose shows.
Louisiana David Vitter: Sex, Crimes and Evasions Written by: BayouBuzz Staff
The Republican politician now derided in prominent blogs as “Louisiana’s Greatest Whoremongering Senator David Vitter” and his attorney wife, Wendy, put on quite a show this week as they came out of hiding—not to face genuine inquiry about Vitter’s implication in two prostitution rings, but to blame their troubles on the press.
I am not saying Vitter should resign. Not yet.
I am saying that his resignation will bring about the media inattention that both he and his wife insist they now desire.
To live well, live in hiding, and resign.
Or stay, live a public life, and face the music. And music there will be here in south Louisiana. The press is just tuning up the band.
Vitter’s hypocrisy—and hypocrisy in general–tantalizes the media because it indicates something’s amiss. So it’s fair to ask, “What’s wrong with David Vitter?” especially because Vitter’s publicly apologized profusely but obliquely, refusing to say exactly what he’s apologizing for.
“Can’t you figure it out?” sneered a Vitter supporter at Old Metairie’s Royal Blend Coffee House, just a stone’s throw away from Vitter’s church and home. “The man’s saying he’s gone out with hookers. Who cares?”
Indeed, in some circles, what passes for Vitter’s sexual prowess with women-not-his-wife can only enhance his masculine image–an image which for Vitter has always come across in Louisiana as somewhat faltering–a little too “preppyfied pretty-boy” as opposed to “good old boy.” But the real question for genuine “Moral Majority” conservatives is, “What exactly did Vitter do with those hookers?”
Prostitution forms the underlying basis for the “racketeering” crimes now being investigated in the Washington, D.C. brothel case where Vitter admitted only to a “sin” in his “past,” and previously in the New Orleans’ brothel case in which Vitter evasisively denies involvement. Giving money or anything of value to a person charged with racketeering (such as a Madame) makes Vitter more than just a “john.” He could be considered a co-conspirator—a criminal—in bad acts like money laundering, drug-dealing, and tax evasion.
But as both Vitters know, being lawyers licensed to practice law in Louisiana, Vitter could also be considered a co-conspirator to any brothel sex crimes. New Orleans and, by extension, Vitter’s “hometown” of Old Metairie may be the nation’s “sin city” and the setting for the notorious film, “Pretty Baby” in which the then-teenaged Brooke Shields played a child prostitute. But we aren’t Nevada or The Netherlands. Call us hypocrites if you like, but many of the “sins” for which we’re so notorious are in fact crimes here.
So one must ask not only whether Vitter paid prostitutes for sex, but for what kind of sex? Many men don’t go to prostitutes to get what they can get at home—even from busty wives with good haircuts who stuff themselves into slinky, animal-skin print dresses tight as a homemade sausage skin. What exactly was Vitter…into…when he allegedly visited prostitutes?
Even if Vitter engaged in sex acts while “away” in the District of Columbia, can he continue to legitimately represent the people of Louisiana if he committed acts that would be prosecutable here? One can fairly ask whether Vitter really believes in Moral Majority conservatism, or whether he’s just a two-faced opportunist talking the talk.
Illicit sex often combines with other crimes. In the New Orleans’ brothel case, U.S. Attorney Jim Letten charged at least one man with “installing dominatrix equipment” in the brothel. And if “dominatrix equipment” is illegal to install, it surely must be illegal to use, n’est pas? Vitter indirectly denies any involvement with the New Orleans brothel, but Jeanette Maier, the Madame, says otherwise.
Maier was also charged with dealing marijuana as part of her brothel business. Is Vitter going to next tell us he “didn’t inhale?”
A lot of Louisianians voted Republican because they were tired of that.
Does the Vitters’ studied silence hide other bad acts? The press must ask: Did Vitter and his hookers ever watch any videos (a common brothel pastime)? If so, did any video portray illicit sexual activities and, most seriously, sex with minors? We don’t want scurrilous details for their own sake. Vitter needs to disclose details about his “sins” not (as he flippantly suggested) to help the press “sell newspapers,” but because such details determine Vitter’s fitness to continue his political career.
If he refuses, he can abandon public life and live happily in hiding.
Or unhappily, if the government decides to investigate and prosecute him. Merely viewing pornography involving minors can result in draconian penalties in Louisiana. And as a “brothel” customer and co-conspirator, Vitter might not even directly know of such practices, but the government could still charge and find him guilty of them in the broader context of conspiracy.
Do we in Louisiana want to be represented by a senator so vulnerable to legal sanction, political censure and, more ominously, blackmail?
“Hustler” publisher Larry Flynt was open in his condemnation of what he called Vitter’s hypocrisy. But what about someone equally knowledgeable of Vitter’s proclivities who may seek something…private…in return for their silence?
What would happen if someone in the president’s administration or elsewhere had information about Vitter’s illegal proclivities, and used it to pressure Vitter to misuse his Senate votes, powers and authority? Would that be good for Louisiana?
Both Vitters invoked their children during their press conference—David blamed his week-long disappearance on the Vitters’
concern for “our children,” and Wendy described Vitter’s week in hiding as “incredibly trying and sad…for our children” supposedly not because of anything the Vitters themselves had done, but because of “the media.”
The Vitters aren’t the only ones in Louisiana with children, and protecting children is a forefront conservative issue. How odd that Vitter insists, “I’m not going to answer endless questions about it all over again and again and again and again,” when he and his wife refuse to answer any questions at all.
They want to live in hiding. And we Louisiana citizens deserve leadership better than that.
by Sarah Whalen who is a free-lance writer and a contributor to Bayoubuzz.com. The opinions stated are not necessarily those of Bayoubuzz, its writers or staff.