Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Would it be opportune to note here that Sen. David Vitter is still the Southern Regional Chairman of Giuliani's cratering Presidential campaign?
Rudy thinks Muslims are "perverted", but Vitty's serial whoring is perfectly jake? Is that it?
Update: After a second viewing of the ad and some reflection, I think TPM is pressing the scale a bit on this one. In context, the ad seems to indicate that the "people perverted" designation applies to extremist "enemies" versus, say, pro-democracy Muslims or Pakistanis. The ad is more ambiguous than I'd like, but it doesn't cross the line like TPM seems to suggest.
And these bumper stickers are popping up on various autos around town (Thx to Ashley and JD for the image).
In the MSNBC video clip below, Dan Abrams interviews Larry Flynt and Wendy Cortez about Vitty-cent. Abrams plays the infamous radio exchange between the Flaming Liberal and Vitter, where Vitter denied the Cortez rumors in a public forum (despite a Freudian slip). In the video, Cortez mentions Vincent Bruno, who recently raised some new questions about Vitter's past on nationally syndicated radio.
COme on Smidge the pervert is on the other side of people. Your the writer it is not that the people are perverts it is that small group of them are misuing the peoples culture, distorting their religion(many small groups have done this in all religions) misconstruing the peoples history etc. Yes they are a "people perverted". I hope that the people can reclaim and reappropiate thei heritage, history, religion back from the extrimists. I am afraid that they dont really want to though; at least not right now.
per·vert (pər-vûrt') Pronunciation Key
tr.v. per·vert·ed, per·vert·ing, per·verts
To cause to turn away from what is right, proper, or good; corrupt.
To bring to a bad or worse condition; debase.
To put to a wrong or improper use; misuse. See Synonyms at corrupt.
To interpret incorrectly; misconstrue or distort: an analysis that perverts the meaning of the poem.
By 6:25 AM, at
This is tiresome. I bet you hated it when Repubs went after Clinton for Lewinsky. Are you a hypocrite or are you just stooping to a level that you once despised?
By 8:43 AM, at
Steve: The problem with your analogy is this...
Clinton never raised himself up on the high moral pedestal of "family values". Vitter did.
Clinton never said that someone who committed adultery on his wife (let alone with a prostitute) should resign his job immediately. Vitter did.
We are only holding Vitter to the standards that he set for himself as an elected official.
Do you think it is unfair to hold people to the standards that they set for themselves?
Steve: The GOP went after Clinton for 5 years on Whitewater and came up snake eyes but spent $70 million of our tax dollars and eventually lucked into the Lewinsky thing. Clinton was impeached for lying about it.
At the time, Vitter got on his superior high horse and called for the President's resignation, then engaged in criminal activity by paying whores for sex. When not lecturing us about "marriage", he has lied about his whoring ever since, and continues to lie about it, and goes after the people who are telling the truth about his lying.
Vitter's GOP colleagues give him a standing ovation for this behavior.
He hasn't offered an explanation, resigned, been censured, or even had an ethics investigation. He is the Southern Regional Chair for a candidate warning us of "perverted people".
Sorry you find my choice of personal blog topics "tiresome", Steve. I'll endeavour to orient my future commentary towards something you might find more stimulating.
But, I must say that you're not obligated to read YRHT, or tire your gulliver speculating about how I viewed the Lewinsky scandal in the nineties.
I got an idea that might help: Why not take a break from the YRHT and go rest your head?
Oh I see. So, he lied?
By 5:02 PM, at