Anyway, this time he's defending Vitter against the "desperate" attacks by mud-flinging Democrats.
With the issues preferences of the Louisiana public solidly on [Vitter's] side (as well as his continuing to hold comfortable poll leads a year out from the election), Democrats have engaged in the age-old strategy of coming up with as many implausible accusations as possible and throwing them all at Vitter, desperately hoping some mud sticks that portrays him as some insensitive weirdo.
First off, "insensitive weirdo" would describe most politicians. But even most Republicans who've had contact with Vitty-cent would tell you he's the Lizard King of the Insensitive Weirdo political club. You're not going to hear a lot of people say "Vitty? Aw he's a helluva chap. A man's man. Life of the party-- so comfortable in his own skin! He loves to share credit and pal around with his many friends. Great guy to have a beer with." No. When you ask connected politicos about Vitter, the person, you often get a reaction that begins with a deep, unsettling shudder, then a thoughtful pause, and then a statement along the lines of: "Remember in the Conan the Barbarian movie where the evil priest Thursa Doom transforms into a serpent...?" In my opinion, portraying Vitter as an "insensitive weirdo" is much more a descriptive act than a slinging of mud. But I'll admit I'm a bit biased. Anyway, Sadow continues:
The latest effort was a coordinated attempt to make Vitter appear, in the words of the Democrat operative, to “support a law that tells a rape victim that she does not have the right to defend herself.”
This is the story to which Professor Sadow refers. Vitty is confronted on camera by a rape survivor (who was recruited by the Dems) about his "nay" vote on the Franken amendment. Vitter responds to her questioning by getting legalistic and professorial, answering her questions with questions, showing no real empathy, and turning his back on her and walking away. About par for the course for Vitty-cent. No big whoop. Then Sadow writes one of the most willfully ignorant and bizarre statements I've ever read.
(It is shameful that Democrats took advantage of a woman with personal tragedy to try to score political points this way. More to the point, if Democrats continue this line of inquiry, they’re going have to agree upon how they regard Vitter’s temperament. Because he said he committed a “serious sin” and his phone number turned up on a list of calls received by an escort agency, although he never has confirmed this, it is suggested by his political opponents that he paid for sexual intercourse.
I suppose this is where we all pretend to be total morons in some naive alternate universe. Fine, I'll play: Great point, Sadow! It's only Vitter's "political opponents" who dare suggest that he paid for sex. Everyone else with half a brain gives him the benefit of the doubt. Because: Who's to say what happened? Time and Hustler magazine contact Vitty one afternoon asking about his calls to hookers, and Vitty quickly issues a statement apologizing for a "sin", and hides from the media in an undisclosed location for days. Eventually, Vitty reappears with his wife to make another apologetic statement admitting to a "serious sin". But (like ya said Perfesser!) Vitter didn't specifically admit to anything, so we shouldn't assume anything. Perhaps the serious sin was Vitty leaving his phone unattended multiple times over umpteen months, and allowing some mischevious imp to take it and make calls to a Washington escort service. Yeah, that's the ticket. And another imp did the same grab-and-call maneuver with Vitty's phone in D.C.. Who can really say? Maybe Vitty-cent is just unlucky like that. Clearly, given the sequence of events, only political opponents would rush to conclusions and "suggest" that Vitty paid for sex. Who can possibly say what the "sin" was, unless Vitter admits to it in detail?
As Sadow continues, please attempt to follow his indomitable logic:
So Democrats are hinting that the same guy who allegedly paid for sex also would countenance rape by an unwillingness to let women defend themselves from it? Doesn’t seem consistent if he’d go so far as to pay for it, implying he would not want to prevent rape – if he didn’t think so, why pay for it?. But trying to figure out how and why liberals think the way they do has baffled even the wisest, keenest, and best-informed observers for decades.)
Good Grief! I'm sure in his mind Sadow thinks he's presented a stinging, ineluctable dilemma for Democrats. But really he's revealed more about his own mind's inner-workings rather than anything else. Once you untangle his awkwardly worded argument, I think it boils down to the following claim: why would someone who approves of rape pay for sex? In Sadow's mind, that' s a real conundrum. But what other inhabitant of planet Earth sees that as obviously contradictory? I'd like to know.
Umm, Dear Professor: Rape is about power and control, among other things. It's not some free market problem where economic agents opt to rape rather than pay for sexual
Labels: Cons, Dems, Vitty-cent
