Jim Stillman
NevarA matter of hypocrisy
July 18th 2007 22:46
Years ago when our children were young, my wife and I swore that we would never say, “Our child will never. . . “. Anything could complete that sentence, “marry out of our race or faith” or “drink and drive” or anything else. The theory was that a statement such as this could, actually would, come back and bite us someday. Since then, many of our friends have had reason to understand that concept!
And now we come to David Vitter, United States Senator from Louisiana, and his wife, Wendy. It happens that Senator Vitter is a conservative Republican and has been a strong supporter of the Federal Abstinence Education Program which provides $50 million in grants to promote sexual abstinence. In a letter in support of the program, Senator Vitter wrote, “We must reauthorize this program so we can continue the incredible strides we have made in teaching teens about both risk avoidance and protecting themselves from potential abuse.”
I described Senator Vitter as a conservative Republican, but what follows is an attitude prevalent in politicians of all ideologies.
Senator Vitter has been identified as being a patron of a Washington, D.C. “escort” service. In addition, he has been identified as a customer of at least one brothel in his home state. He has publically asked forgiveness from his family, colleagues and constituents and it is likely that all will acquiesce to his request. In the meantime, the Senator and his wife are asking for privacy during their very personal crisis. Under ordinary circumstances, I would agree; these were after all, actions not directly related to his job or job performance.
However, the Senator and his wife have, in the past, taken the opposite position and here is where the policy adopted by my wife and me comes into play.
Senator and Mrs. Vitter are asking for privacy. Too bad they didn't demand the same privacy for Bill and Hilary Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky Impeachment Spectacle. People may also recall the resignation of Bob Livingston as Speaker-elect of the House of Representatives. Larry Flint of Hustler (not my favorite person or publication) received evidence that Livingston had strayed outside of his marriage and he, Flint, was preparing to publish this information. The future Speaker got word that the article was pending and during debate over the Clinton impeachment resolution on December 19, 1998, Livingston surprised everyone by stepping down as Speaker-elect and announced he would resign from the House in May 1999. He was succeeded by David Vitter, then a state representative, who later went on to become the first popularly elected Republican senator from Louisiana.
When it came to President Clinton, Vitter wrote that Clinton was “morally unfit” to be President. He continued. “Some current polls may suggest that people are turned off by the whole Clinton mess and don't care -- because the stock market is good, the Clinton spin machine is even better or other reasons. But that doesn't answer the question of whether President Clinton should be impeached and removed from office because he is morally unfit to govern. The writings of the Founding Fathers are very instructive on this issue. They are not cast in terms of political effectiveness at all but in terms of right and wrong -- moral fitness. Hamilton writes in the Federalists Papers (No. 65) that impeachable offenses are those that ‘proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust’." He continued, “Congress had to judge Clinton on moral terms.”
So Clinton deserved impeachment and conviction because of moral lapses. Vitter asserted that Clinton, if he were honorable, should resign in shame.
Mrs. Vitter says that their marriage is strong and that she has forgiven her husband. That is a personal decision, one that cannot be criticized, except she was not so understanding when it came to Mrs. (now Senator) Clinton. Mrs. Vitter suggested that she would perform rather drastic surgery on her mate: “I’m a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary [Clinton]. If he does something like that, I’m walking away with one thing, and it’s not alimony, trust me.” Last week she stated, “Like all marriages, ours is not perfect. None of us are. But we choose to work together as a family," she said. "When David and I dealt with this privately years ago, I forgave David. I made the decision to love him and to recommit to our marriage. To forgive is not always the easy choice, but it was and is the right choice for me. David is my best friend. ... I am proud to be Wendy Vitter."
Perhaps Mrs. Vitter owes Mrs. Clinton an apology if not a bit of understanding.
Ultimately, the people of Louisiana will decide whether this hypocrite should remain in the Senate. It appears that the talk of a possible Vice-President opportunity is dashed. In the meantime perhaps there is a lesson not to be too judgmental; it might come back to bite you in the rear.
And now we come to David Vitter, United States Senator from Louisiana, and his wife, Wendy. It happens that Senator Vitter is a conservative Republican and has been a strong supporter of the Federal Abstinence Education Program which provides $50 million in grants to promote sexual abstinence. In a letter in support of the program, Senator Vitter wrote, “We must reauthorize this program so we can continue the incredible strides we have made in teaching teens about both risk avoidance and protecting themselves from potential abuse.”
I described Senator Vitter as a conservative Republican, but what follows is an attitude prevalent in politicians of all ideologies.
Senator Vitter has been identified as being a patron of a Washington, D.C. “escort” service. In addition, he has been identified as a customer of at least one brothel in his home state. He has publically asked forgiveness from his family, colleagues and constituents and it is likely that all will acquiesce to his request. In the meantime, the Senator and his wife are asking for privacy during their very personal crisis. Under ordinary circumstances, I would agree; these were after all, actions not directly related to his job or job performance.
However, the Senator and his wife have, in the past, taken the opposite position and here is where the policy adopted by my wife and me comes into play.
Senator and Mrs. Vitter are asking for privacy. Too bad they didn't demand the same privacy for Bill and Hilary Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky Impeachment Spectacle. People may also recall the resignation of Bob Livingston as Speaker-elect of the House of Representatives. Larry Flint of Hustler (not my favorite person or publication) received evidence that Livingston had strayed outside of his marriage and he, Flint, was preparing to publish this information. The future Speaker got word that the article was pending and during debate over the Clinton impeachment resolution on December 19, 1998, Livingston surprised everyone by stepping down as Speaker-elect and announced he would resign from the House in May 1999. He was succeeded by David Vitter, then a state representative, who later went on to become the first popularly elected Republican senator from Louisiana.
When it came to President Clinton, Vitter wrote that Clinton was “morally unfit” to be President. He continued. “Some current polls may suggest that people are turned off by the whole Clinton mess and don't care -- because the stock market is good, the Clinton spin machine is even better or other reasons. But that doesn't answer the question of whether President Clinton should be impeached and removed from office because he is morally unfit to govern. The writings of the Founding Fathers are very instructive on this issue. They are not cast in terms of political effectiveness at all but in terms of right and wrong -- moral fitness. Hamilton writes in the Federalists Papers (No. 65) that impeachable offenses are those that ‘proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust’." He continued, “Congress had to judge Clinton on moral terms.”
So Clinton deserved impeachment and conviction because of moral lapses. Vitter asserted that Clinton, if he were honorable, should resign in shame.
Mrs. Vitter says that their marriage is strong and that she has forgiven her husband. That is a personal decision, one that cannot be criticized, except she was not so understanding when it came to Mrs. (now Senator) Clinton. Mrs. Vitter suggested that she would perform rather drastic surgery on her mate: “I’m a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary [Clinton]. If he does something like that, I’m walking away with one thing, and it’s not alimony, trust me.” Last week she stated, “Like all marriages, ours is not perfect. None of us are. But we choose to work together as a family," she said. "When David and I dealt with this privately years ago, I forgave David. I made the decision to love him and to recommit to our marriage. To forgive is not always the easy choice, but it was and is the right choice for me. David is my best friend. ... I am proud to be Wendy Vitter."
Perhaps Mrs. Vitter owes Mrs. Clinton an apology if not a bit of understanding.
Ultimately, the people of Louisiana will decide whether this hypocrite should remain in the Senate. It appears that the talk of a possible Vice-President opportunity is dashed. In the meantime perhaps there is a lesson not to be too judgmental; it might come back to bite you in the rear.
| 74 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by PopulistConservative
Angry Electorate
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by Jim Stillman
I do not believe that the GOP has a monopoly of those who break the law or are generally sleazy. Bill Clinton, for example, was a president who, in his personal life, was certainly a sleaze; I feel he was, notwithstanding, a good president in his political views. We can argue this forever.
My problem with Senators Vetter and Craig is not with their personal life. If Senator Vitter consorts with prostitutes, this is not my business; if his wife is OK with it, so be it. By the same token, if Senator Craig is homosexual, that is between his family and, perhaps, God, and himself.
However both men have gone out of their way to condemn those who choose another personal lifestyle. Both men, and their party, have held themselves out as superior and arbiters of societal conduct. Senator Craig has been one of the most outspoken politicians condemning civil unions and employment protection for gays; Senator Vitter has gone out of his way to criticize men who break wedding vows.
The issue here, SL, is not of morals or principles or legality; it’s hypocrisy.