Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Monday, October 24, 2016

It’s been more than six years since Senator David Vitter (R-LA) admitted that he had engaged, regularly, in the crime of soliciting prostitutes.

“This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible,” Vitter said in 2007.

Though he received no jail time and was ostensibly forgiven by his wife and then the voters of Louisiana, he hasn’t — as far as we know — committed the “sin” since.

Prostitution — unlike Vitter’s legislative record — is often called a “victimless crime,” because we like to imagine the horrors and abuses sex workers endure don’t really matter because these workers aren’t typically rich white senators. But it’s an actual crime that often funds other crimes, and it’s helpful for society that this wayward husband has, seemingly, been successfully averted from it.

So good for David Vitter. He’s proof that mistakes made in our youth — he was only in his mid-40s! — shouldn’t have to haunt us for the rest of our adult lives.

Regrettably, however, I have to call out Senate Democrats for what is clearly a bit of a low blow.

And by a “low blow,” I don’t mean something the old Vitter would dress in a diaper and pay extra for.

Politico‘s Manu Raju and John Bresnahan explain:

Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, has infuriated Democrats this week by commandeering the Senate floor, demanding a vote on his amendment repealing federal contributions to help pay for lawmakers’ health care coverage.

But Democratic senators are preparing a legislative response targeting a sordid Vitter episode. If Vitter continues to insist on a vote on his proposal, Democrats could counter with one of their own: Lawmakers will be denied those government contributions if there is “probable cause” they solicited prostitutes.

LOL. Okay, I shouldn’t LOL at that.

It’s cheap. It’s nasty. It’s a tactic so virulent that it’s something I’d expect from a really vile lout — like, say, David Vitter.

In May, the senator proposed banning certain convicts from receiving SNAP benefits, formerly known as food stamps, for life. Because there’s nothing that makes America safer than a bunch of starved ex-criminals roaming the streets.

But that doesn’t excuse Democrats from anonymously seeking vengeance against Vitter just because he’s trying to use legislative sabotage to try to stop tens of millions of Americans from getting health care, or at least slow the process.

There’s a real risk in this sort of taunting because we can see from the senator’s reaction that he’s not a well man.

After the story came out, Vitter decided that one day of horrible headlines wasn’t enough — he wants to make this story go on and on.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2013 The National Memo
  • Lynda Groom

    If I had been his wife this fool would have been tossed from office long ago. Perhaps he would have required that diaper from then on. The man is a fraud and still in office because the voters of his state have been fooled again.

    • Sand_Cat

      For the most part, you hit the nail on the head, but the people who elected and re-elected him weren’t “fooled” into doing so. This is where the Republican virtue of personal responsibility comes into play.

      • CrankyToo

        Republican virtue? That’s an oxymoron…

        • Sand_Cat

          Well, yes, most of the time.
          Let’s not adopt their position of automatic opposition to everything their opponents propose. There is something to be said for personal responsibility, so long as it is dealing with reality, and not just an excuse to abuse others.

  • johninPCFL

    I’m a bit confused. “Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, has infuriated Democrats this week by commandeering the Senate floor, demanding a vote on his amendment repealing federal contributions to help pay for lawmakers’ health care coverage.”
    Isn’t this an amendment saying that Congressmen will have to pay the same HC insurance rates FROM THEIR OWN PAYCHECKS that the rest of us do? Why is this so objectionable?

    • Allan Richardson

      As I understand from reading other references, Congress itself, just like AT&T and Costco and many other employers (OK, not as many as 30 years ago, which is part of the problem) has an employer-subsidized health plan for its employees — not just the Congressmen and Senators, but their staffs, who are basically working stiffs like the rest of us, except that they have to pay DC prices for daily necessities. One of them escaped this fate last year, fortunately, when he became a Jeopary! (TM) champion, just before his boss failed to be re-elected.

      What the Republican caucus is trying to do is DEFUND the Congressional employee’s health plan, just as some private companies are doing, using the ACA as an excuse. Personally, I believe that the lawmakers THEMSELVES ought to pay for their own, but I would cut their staffs a bit of slack on it.

      • stcroixcarp

        Good point. I didn’t see the impact on staffers who actually do the research work and have to graciously answer the phone tirades from constituents like me.

  • Allan Richardson

    It’s getting harder and harder to tell the LOL news items from the REAL ones.