Letters to the Editor
-
Missing the Point
Elephantman,
As you point out, nearly every politician campaigns on the issue of family values. It is ridiculous to think that Democrats wouldn’t. The “family” (however you define it) is the foundation upon which society is built and I think that everyone can agree that ensuring family stability is important.
As you point out however, each politician has a different definition of family values. The question you should be asking is not, “do democrats campaign on this issue”, but “do politicians deserve to held accountable if they are found to be blatantly hypocritical in their personal lives when judged against the standards they advocate on the campaign trail”. My hope is that they will be judged for their actions.
Vitter has campaigned on the idea that the institution of marriage is sacred and needs to be protected. He has condemned sex outside of marriage and called for the “protection” of marriage against the “threat” of homosexual unions. These stances are based on his Christian faith. However, he clearly forgot Christ’s parable in which people were warned to take the plank out of their own eye before pointing out the speck in their neighbors. Vitter has been pointing out specks for a long time and is now being called to account as his plank has become obvious to everyone.
You seem to have completely missed the point of Glenn's post. This isn't a shooting war over the morality of individual politicians and which party can point out more flaws in the other party’s leadership. The controversy Glenn points out is the blatant hypocrisy of the republican establishment defending Vitter and calling this a non-issue after having attacked all of the Democrats that you name in your post for similar failings. This is about Vitter’s obvious inability to show understanding about people’s failure to live up to an idealized sexual morality that he himself has failed to live up to. This has nothing to do with repealing prostitution laws or event the legality of the acts in question. It has to do with holding people accountable to the standards that they have set for others.
-
Elephantman
Packwood is a republican.
But then, you already knew that.....
It always amazes me the lies republicans will attempt to get away with--to see if anyone is watching.
And they'll tell the most outlandish lies. Lies that are easily disproven.
Elephantman, stick with stuff no one can ever disprove--like Clinton murdered Vince Foster. That's an oldy but goody the Republicans still like to drag out when things aren't going well.
-
Karen on Viter
Shouldn't the public be allowed to make an "informed choice" on whether Senator Vitter's public policy/personal values are really good enough... or even adequate... not for him, since he's an adult and can decide for himself, but for themselves-- before they vote for him. Or before they vote for those he would similarly endorse, such as Candidate Giuliani? More importantly, before he votes on anything of substance, but I guess we're already past that threshhold.
-- Karen M
To me it isn't as much about the subject content as it is about the guy was brazenly lying in our faces. Not for just a blip in time, but for nearly the entire span of his political career. Plus he was living a lie while, for political purposes, promoting another lie. Putting aside the ever useless excuse that all politicians lie, I'm talking about degrees here that are equal to that of Dick Cheney...off the map. If one is that bold and that dishonest, and for that long, then what is left?
-
Elephantman
I actually think he has a not unreasonable point. There are Democrats who embrace the same sort of moralistic agenda. Virtually all prominent national Democrats favor restricting marriage to a man and a woman. Bill Clinton signed the odious Defense of Marriage Act into law. I've never heard any politician of any note advocate the legalization of prostitution, and I heard none defend the proprieter of this escort service from persecution.
Still, though, there is a difference -- in both degree and kind -- between the extent to which the David Vitters of the world tout seuxal morality as the centerpiece of their worldview and the way the average Democratic politician does. I'd say there is a direct relationship between the extent and importance of the politician's moralizing and the relevance of their private moral conduct.
Prostitution, though, is a different case from standard adultery. Whether one believes it ought to be or not, prostitution is a crime, and it's hard to argue that criminal acts by our highest public officials isn't a legitimate subject to report. One can argue that it shouldn't matter, that for the politician in question it ought to be disregarded, etc. But it is seems clearly fair game given its criminality, even for politicians like Barney Frank.
-
I'm not clear
But it is seems clearly fair game given its criminality, even for politicians like Barney Frank.
-- GlennGreenwald
On the particulars of Barney's case but I don't think he was engaged in the criminal exchange of funds for sexual favors. If I'm not mistaken his SO was doing a little freelancing on the side without his knowledge. Of course this has been morphed by the RW Noise and Smear Machine into Barney running a prostitution ring out of his home. Barney is too smart for that.
Frank's blunt stance on outing certain gay Republicans has become well-publicized, dubbed "The Frank Rule" — that it is acceptable to out a closeted gay person, if that person uses their power or notoriety to hurt gay people.[7] The issue became especially relevant during the page scandal of 2006, during which Frank clarified his position on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher:
“The fact is, yes, the Republicans do think [homosexuality] should be a crime. And I think there’s a right to privacy. But the right to privacy should not be a right to hypocrisy ... people who want to demonize other people shouldn't then be able to go home and close the door, and do it themselves.