Now that Anthony Weiner is gone, why is David Vitter still around?

 

Because Weiner led the authorities and the media on a wild goose chase for over a week by trying to obfuscate the source of the pictures and lying about having his computer system "hacked" by someone. You get the Feds and media against you and it don't matter how "Left" you are -- they are going to make sure you are destroyed.....

Vitter was just as slimey -- he just had enough political awareness to know that when the jig is up, the jig is up and you're better to "come clean and beg forgiveness".....

 

I just don't know why he's not gone when he actually had sex with hookers and anthony weiners was just photos.....

It was the lies that brought Anthony down but if Weiners has to go then this guy should get booted

 

It's one of those things - if you admit wrongdoing, and beg forgiveness when you've been caught doing a bad thing, it seems people everywhere are happy to oblige. Confession seems to be good for more than the "soul".

Is it right? Not in my book. Wrongdoing should always have "consequences", I think.

I also don't think the MSM is quite as "left" as is generally assumed. *gasp* Mostly, MSM is looking for "juicy stories". Once the story is "out", and the person has admitted to doing wrong, there's really no more story.

Finally, once someone has admitted to doing wrong, it's human nature not to "pile on". We somehow think they've "owned" their guilt and should be left alone in their misery. This is all a total crock in my opinion.

- Jack

 

David Vitter's number was found on the list by hustler Mag, they called to ask him about it. The next day he admitted to to being a regular customer, he did not send anyone on a wild goose chase to investigate if the number was actually his, or accuse Keith Olbermann of cloning his phone and making the calls.

Anthony Weiner someone caught his tweet of the picture, the moment it went up, and he took it down, the straight away the lies start,
( FB or Twitter ?? )

Then on to more media outlets, interview with Bret Baier,, he would not confirm that it was not himself captured in the picture.

Then comes accusing Andrew Breitbart ( considered part of the media ) of posting the picture.

So after accusing Twitter & Facebook both of poor business practices, then accusing a reporter of doing it, all the while lying to the media & public about it, it comes out it was him, he did it.

On the surface, he did not break a law, as Vitter was alleged to have done.

It is an unwritten rule that politicians lie.
It is expected, and just like the way Joe Kennedy Sr hid one of JFK's sisters, it is not talked about, just act like it is not there.

Then comes along Weiner to shine a big spotlight on this topic, and give a good 2 week example of how a politician will lie about anything, even if it is just inappropriate.
He did not step down to save the integrity of the office, this was a decision made by the DNC.
The DNC could not have this hanging around their neck.
Even if they loose the run off election, when the seat comes up for general elections, they will have a public that will have forgotten how the seat was vacated ( the voting public has bad case of ADD, generally speaking ).

The media was not going to let him up, not due to being more neutral than they are made out to be, they were going after him for accusing a person in the media of doing it.
Had he not tried that, the media would have left him alone.

Vitter admitted to being a regular customer of a notorious prostitution service. That is all I see him admitting to, and this was from 2004.
Few things wrong with the statement of "he actually had sex with hookers".
1. He did not admit to having sex with them, only a regular customer. ( it is supposition to say anything else )
2. In Washington DC & LA this is a misdemeanor.
3. The statute of limitations had expired, considering this happened in 2004.
4. The case with Barney Frank from 1990 kind of set precedence for not demanding a resignation for prostitution, he admitted to using a male prostitute in 1989. Misdemeanor charges were not filed in this case, even though the statute of limitations had not expired.

So when it comes down to it, Barney Frank did the same thing, do you have the same question of why he is still in his long term position ?

 

Vitter and Bawney Fwank should both be gone.

As I type this, I'm sitting here remembering how the MSM held on to the Monica Lewinsky scandal for 5 days before Matt Drudge broke the story for them on www.drudgereport.com

 

Of course he does

 

Glad you can see that Vitter should be gone, I do not know what Barney did But I guess it was pretty bad so he should be gone
Useless comment. I don't even know what Barney did and it is not what this thread was about, I am just wondering how Vitter is still around. I don't like Barney Frank in the first place.

 

The thread is about whatever comes up during the course of the thread, its not for you to decide what is discussed. Nice try though.

As SSCULLY pointed out, the two incidents were handled very differently by each Congressman.

Enjoy your popcorn...

 

My main thing with Vitter is that he stands for family values and he does that and there is no concequences for him, he's still in the senate.

I just looked up the Barney Frank scanal and.............
He should have been gone a while ago, and I do not like barney frank in the first place.

 

Put aside any moral thoughts on the topic, does a misdemeanor conviction mean a person cannot be in politics ?

How about no charge at all ?

Again, he did not apologize for what you said he did, he apologized for regular customer of a ( an alleged ) notorious prostitution service, back in 2004. Your statement was supposition, and nothing more.
You have no way of proving if he did what you said, or if he had the employee of that service read him house bills.

The GOP did not forced Vitter to step down, and the incident happened when he was in the House of Rep back in 2004.
The questions by Hustler mag were back in 2007 ( along with his apology the next day ) , and he was reelected in 2010.

The people he represents from Louisiana do not care about this, why should you ?

The DNC forced Weiner out due to the bad press he was bringing them. The Democratic party, a party for the people, until you cause them grief, then out the door you go !

The media is starting to go after the GOP for supporting Vitter and demonizing Weiner, the fact that Weiner lied, accused 2 companies of poor business practices and accused a person in the media of doing it are now gone, now that he is out of office.
This is what the DNC wanted, take the spotlight off them, and push it back onto the GOP for something that happened 7 years ago.
Those hateful GOP members...

The fact that the story now is about something that happened 7 years ago, shows a slant to one side.
The head on a pike was the fee to get them to forgive the false accusation of a person in the media of doing what he did.

It was not up to you to elect or not elect Vitter, it was the choice of the people that he represents, and they elected him.

 

Very good points as always, SSCULLY!

But somehow, in my naivete, I keep expecting our elected officials to adhere to a higher standard than the "common man". I'm always disappointed when they turn out to have "feet of clay".

But, regarding MSM, it's really hard to figure out who that is anymore. Anyone and everyone can blog/post/report, etc., and I doubt most have any real concept of the ethical imperative to stay neutral and simply report the facts. When a news organization says it's "balanced", it's a red flag to me that it is admitting to bias and is trying to do "damage control".

I vividly remember hearing David Brinkley say on live TV, when Bill Clinton was reelected for a second term, something like, "Four more boring years." At that moment, I thought journalism had crossed a line, and it probably would never go back.

I long for the days of Edward R. Murrow, and that style of reporting.

- Jack

 

I remember that too. And I also remember Tom Brokaw talking to Tim Russert on election night 1992 and saying, "Well, we got him elected."

Him = Bill Clinton obviously.

 

Considering elected officials are just common men with a different job than the rest of us, why would they have a different set of standards ?

They are not deities, they do not walk among saints and angles, they do not have some sort of special powers or abilities. Same as priests, politicians are just men, that are drawn to positions of "power". The power to pass judgment and rules, and hold common men in contempt, as they feel they are empowered to do.

They are temped and commit the same stupid acts as common men or worse ( remember it is not only a sin, but it is also a felony ), but this is due to them being just common men with a different vocation than the masses.

 

Screw Vitter. Why is that ugly scag Pelosi still in DC and demanding that she be a part of the political process? She needs to go home and stay there.