"They haven't "jumped" to a conclusion at all, merely come to one, if Vitter admitted paying for sex-- which a quick romp through Google clearly shows he did:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288868,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/09/AR2007070902030.html

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/16/vitter/index.html"

I read each and every cite you provided and I have not been able to locate a single instance where Vitter admitted to paying for sex. Not one.

In fact, Vitter has denied the allegations from Louisiana since they first surfaced several years ago and the only thing I've been able to determine from that story is that the woman making the claim has no proof and the woman who allegedly was his mistress cannot be located and was last seen someplace in Florida after flim-flamming a boyfriend. IOW, she has zero credibility.

In my last post I accused you of creating cognitive disonance as a buffer for Vitter, and you responded by arguing that Vitter should be driven from the Senate for hypocrisy.

So perhaps your sympathies don't lie with the GOP. If that's the case, I find your posts about this article much more disturbing for what it reveals about supporters of the Democratic party.

First, there's the left's habit of parsing, arguing and otherwise navel-staring over matters that don't amount to a hill of horseshit. Practically the entire political left is convinced of their own genius, and so, rather than build political concensus, waste energy and attention on matters than mean a great deal to them and not a damn thing to anyone else. Or as Will Rogers once said more charitably, "I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." But such wit wears thin when that incompetence facilitates the slaughter of ten of thousands in the Middle East.

Second, from a tactical standpoint, your argument reveals what a bunch of chickenshits many on the left are. As one of his constituents, I want Vitter convicted. And I promise you, if the GOP were in power in the Congress and a Democrat was on the madam's list, there would be significant investigations going on at this moment about the matter. This statement is not a matter of conjecture. One only has to review the history of the last decade to find numerous instances of the GOP inflicting the maximum possible penalty on their political foes, without concern for the justness of such a penalty. Off the top of my head, some names that come to mind are: Cynthia McKinney, Susan McDougal, and of course Bill Clinton.

I was raised a fundamentalist Southern Baptist Republican in the deep South; fortunately, I saw the light and became a liberal. But often, I don't know what sickens me more: watching the ruthlessness of the GOP's policies and their pursuit thereof or observing, again and again, the Democrat's inability to comprehend what they're up against.

[To Jebbie:]In my last post I accused you of creating cognitive disonance as a buffer for Vitter, and you responded by arguing that Vitter should be driven from the Senate for hypocrisy.

So perhaps your sympathies don't lie with the GOP. If that's the case, I find your posts about this article much more disturbing for what it reveals about supporters of the Democratic party.

Since this is a dead thread, probably neither you nor Jebbie will ever see this, but anyway...

I believe (but could very likely be wrong) that Jebbie is one of many Libertarians who post here -- hence, your confusion over his political allegiances. For the record, I am also confused about the point being made. To me, Vitter has admitted to a sin, but since that sin involves paying a prostitute for diaper sex, he has also IMPLICITLY admitted to a crime. Jebbie, if you read this, please clarify.

And I agree with you, Mr H, that Dems need to play hardball here. They play by Marquess of Queensberry rules, while the Republicans are wearing brass knuckles.

beebop-o/GoodCelery, if you hadn't invented yourself, Salon or Glenn Geenwald would have to invent you. Thanks for your comments which must take a fair amount of time to compose.

Who the heck cares about what McCain did or will do??? The guy's a loser...

P.S. I'm a Republican.

If he IS just referring to what is recognized as a "traditional" marriage by the courts, no-fault divorces and children from multiple marriages are certainly not illegal.

No-fault divorces are a fairly new concept. The "traditional" method of divorce was both sides blaming each other. IIRC no-fault was introduced in California in the 70s, or something like that. Before that there was no such thing as a no-fault divorce under the law.

This thread is only lost if we pull out of it.

How committed are these people to subject themselves to this kind of scrutiny? I started reading the first page of the comments and wanted to be sick. Can't we be nice and if we disagree be polite? And why in the heck does McCain want his family subjected to this junk?

Dorothy from grammology

http://grammology.com

Since President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage bill into law in 1996, the new law has done nothing to protect traditional marriage. President Clinton continued to have sex with Ms. Monica . Who knows how many politicians have committed adultery since 1996? And what about all those adulterers who are not politicians ? It is clearly time to admit that the Defense of Marriage law is not working, to repeal it and to pass a tough anti-adultery law to protect traditional marriage. How about making adultery a crime, punishable at least as severely as trafficking in crack cocaine? If former President Clinton realized that he faced the prospect of a 5 or 10 year jail sentence every time he had sex with some bimbo who was not his wife, he might think twice about taking his next roll in the hay.

...the deceased's brother.

Otherwise, remarriage is adultery. Thus, any fundy who is remarried is an adulterer, by their book. And any fundy who attended a second wedding celebrated adultery. By the Bible, McCain only has one wife: his first. His second "wife" is his adultering mistress, as was Nancy Reagan to Ronnie. Heck, the Bible asserts that contemplating adultery is the same as committing adultery. Therefore, any married woman or man who's swooned or pined for a Hollywood hunk or the pool boy or Pamela Anderson is a profligate adulterer and deserving of stoning.

The Bible's gonna get us all killed.