KING: "One senator especially?"
Over at the link, they're slavering over the possibilities, naming the names of the Senators they'd most like to see connected to prostitution. It's all about the hypocrisy -- don't you know? -- so it's okay to slaver.
July 18, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
35 comments:
I don't think it's Hillary. But that would be shocking, wouldn't it?
Flynt will only reveal social conservatives, right? If he likes the politics, he'll keep the secret, I think.
We all know the one he's shocked about. And he will never reveal his name: Sen. Ted Kennedy.
By the way, today is the 38th anniversary of Chappaquiddick.
R.I.P. Mary Jo Kopechne
My money is on a Republican. It isn't considered hypocrisy if done by a Democrat, so isn't considered newsworthy. Besides, you have Larry Flynt involved.
Once a panderer, always a panderer.
Flynt will only reveal social conservatives, right? If he likes the politics, he'll keep the secret, I think.
It would depend on who it is. There are a lot of anti-porn lefties out there that I'm sure Flynt would love to nail to the wall. Al Gore would have been on that list of Flynt-hated politicians once upon a time, for example.
Why assume he's only targeting Republicans? Plenty of Dems voted for the Defense of Marriage act; the South is full of conservative Democrats. I wouldn't bet against Flynt exposing a Dem just yet.
Regardless of the alleged transgressors' partisan identities and whether that influences Flynt's release (my bet is that it sure does...) of the information, short of first party witnesses, much of this iterates to "...have you stopped beating your wife?" accusations.
Robert Byrd
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
I didn't say "Republicans." I said "social conservatives."
Indeed you did.
Okay, then. Yes, it's fine to slaver.
If adultery is so horrid a crime that it warrants impeachment, then surely Flynt is doing the conservative movement a favor by exposing the adulterers currently serving in Congress. People whine that Flynt may expose only his political enemies; but the motivation for Clinton's impeachment was precisely the same.
And after the howls of rage over the prosecution of Scooter Libby, we know that the Republican Party and its followers don't think perjury, obstruction of justice, or lying to the FBI should be crimes, or punished, so I don't suppose anyone will suggest that Clinton's impeachment was really about but "the cover up." No one bought that at the time, and after the Libby affair, no one will buy it now.
The problem is that Flynt is probably just blustering. We'll be lucky if we get one more name out of him.
Is anyone that surprised by this? We find out, someone comes off as a hypocrite and then what?
They are either voted out of office or continue as a senator but perhaps not the "family Values" senator that they previously were.
I do think the "family values" thang will likely pass with some of these senators anyways. The gay marriage issues has likely passed.
I don't think Flynt will ever disclose his list -- he gets reams of publicity from it while keeping it private. Why would he take away his source of publicity?
If adultery is so horrid a crime that it warrants impeachment
It's not. I don't think anyone ever said it was.
If it shocked Larry, my bet is it's a female Democrat.
Nick, you're wrong. Someone has called adultery an impeachable offense. Here's the text, of an opinion piece published in Oct. 1998 in the New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper:
"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 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 or public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."
The author? David Vitter.
I guess I should have explicitly qualified that I mean nobody here has so stated.
Leaving aside, of course, the fact that the text you posted doesn't say what morally problematic act it is talking about - adultery? Or perjury?
Good catch, Nick. Dollars to do-nuts Vitter you're right.
Is "Beth" the same person as "Elizabeth" who used to post here?
Shady, I didn't "used to" post here. I've posted here pretty consistently for years. Did you used to post here?
Nick, perjury is a crime, and was the basis for Clinton's impeachment. Vitter was arguing against those defending Clinton against being punished for his adultery. He also later argued that if Bob Livingston stepped down because of accusations of adultery, Clinton should, too.
Yes, but you'll recall there was a lively debate about whether perjury was a serious enough offense to warrant impeachment, which was constitutionally reserved for "high crimes and misdemeanors."
If there was more to the article that makes it clearer, I'll just have to take your word for it.
Nick, I do recall that, and you're right to bring it up. But the question of perjury in that context was likewise not cast in terms of morality but legality, and whether perjury about adultery was worthy of impeachment. It wouldn't be unfair to argue that Vitter's editorial is in response to both, but Vitter specifically honed in on whether a president's immorality made him unfit to govern, not his crime of perjury. He didn't use the words crime or criminal offense; he focused on morality.
As an aside, Vitter is guilty of both things he found Clinton morally culpable of: committing adultery, and lying about it. He lied in a radio interviews during his campaign for the Senate, when asked whether he'd ever used a prostitute; to campaign supporters and GOP leadership in the state on the same question; and to a committee of religious figures who wanted an answer on the matter before endorsing him.
Beth:
Nick, you're wrong. Someone has called adultery an impeachable offense.
Was he calling adultery an impeachable offense? or perjury?
That said, I will concede that Vitter is a complete hypocrite, and if I lived in his district I would never vote for him again...not because of the adultery, but because of the hypocrisy.
I just wish the left would punish their hypocrites also.
I just wish the left would punish their hypocrites also.
Sure, that sounds good. Got any suggestions?
Gahrie and Nick: I went to Lexis and looked up the editorial, and from that, I think we'll each be satisfied. The date is Oct. 30, 1998, if you want to look it up yourselves.
Here's a part that seems to clarify that he is addressing both the sexual immorality, along with unethical workplace behavior and perjury--and the opposition's argument that the investigation and involvement of Congress harmed the presidency more than Clinton's offense:
“Sager and Eisgruber conclude by savaging Congress, writing that ‘the only crisis of leadership with which we are threatened is (Congress') own’ in continuing to push the matter. Is that the level of moral relatively and vacuousness we have come to?
“President Clinton, having had a workplace affair with an intern in the Oval Office complex, having directly and repeatedly lied about it to the American people, having committed perjury on numerous subjects on at least two occasions and having probably obstructed justice and tampered with witnesses, has not created a crisis of leadership. But Congress, because it has carefully and soberly taken up the impeachment question in light of above, has.
“This kind of thinking is perhaps the most compelling evidence that some meaningful action must be taken against the president. If none is, his leadership will only further drain any sense of values left to our political culture.”
Beth:
I just wish the left would punish their hypocrites also.
Sure, that sounds good. Got any suggestions?
Well we can start with NOW and most prominent feminists and the way they reacted to the de jure sexual harassment by President Clinton in the Oval office. (The law that made this de jure ironically signed into law by Pres. Clinton at their urging.)
Then we can move on to Al Gore and his crusade on Global Warming, all the while using more resources and creating more carbon than virtually anyone else.
Next Rep. Pelosi and her attacks on corruption, while her family profits from her position, and she promotes Rep. Hastings and Rep. Jefferson to positions of power.
Would you like me to keep going?
Gahrie, the fact that none of what you list is news suggests that they are not overlooked.
Beth: Sure, that sounds good. Got any suggestions?
"Impeachment does not have to be for criminal offenses, but only for a 'course of conduct' that, while not particularly criminal, might be of such a nature that it destroys trust, discourages allegiance, and demands action by the Congress." Hillary Rodham 1974
"I'm a big believer in tipping. We should support working people." Hillary Clinton – who did not pay for her meal nor leave a tip for waitress Trish Trupo, a single mother who earns $2.90 an hour before tips.
And Gahrie, the right is not uniform in wanting to "punish" Vitter. There are plenty of conservatives here leaping to his defense, especially among his constituents, but there are others calling for him to resign. He's not particularly well-liked by GOP leaders--he's always been a bit of a selfish fellow. For instance, his big press conference Friday was scheduled at the same time Republican Bobby Jindal was to arrive at the airport and hold a press conference announcing his decision to run for the governorship. Rude, huh? But typical of Vitter.
I think if our governor will pledge to appoint another Republican, the pressure will increase for him to resign. Dave Treen is a likely candidate for that.
Beth:
I didn't realize you were from La.
Are you sure you want to start this arguement? I mean we are talking about the home of Huey Long, Edwin Edwards, Ray "Chocolate City" Nagin, Kathleen Blanco and William "Cold Cash" Jefferson...just off the top of my head.
Beth:
Gahrie, the fact that none of what you list is news suggests that they are not overlooked.
The reason none of the things on my list are news are because of Right wing attacks, not condemnation by the left (or the MSM for that matter)
The only lefty that can hold her head up when it comes to hypocrisy in my opinion is Tammy Bruce...and look what happened to her.
Gahrie, Jefferson hasn't gotten a pass from the MSM, or from Dems, and he'll be serving time soon enough. Edwards is halfway through a 10-year sentence; no one's demonstrating outside the pokie with "Free Edwin" signs. Remember Gary Condit? He wasn't a murderer, but the Dems sure didn't close ranks around him to defend him from the fallout of his seamy behavior.
Nagin and Jefferson both were re-elected with a healthy percentage of NOLA area conservatives and GOP voters' support, so neither is an effective example of easily categorized partisan behavior.
Jesse Jackson has no credibility left, the MSM is just as happy to report Pelosi's falling approval ratings as it is to report Bush's--Those are just a few examples, but we could do this for hours. Right, left, we're not getting anywhere. If you want to believe that conservatives are always being held to account while liberals aren't, go ahead. Nothing I say will sway you.
And look at what happened to Tammy Bruce? She seems to be doing quite well; in fact, if she didn't have the left to rail against, she'd be sitting at home knitting gun warmers. Making hay over her splits with liberal ideology was an excellent career path for her. Not unlike our gracious hostess.
Post a Comment