Just asking
March 13th, 2008 at 02:10pm Pat Cunningham
When Democratic New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer was found to have patronized hookers, he was quickly hounded into resignation — and rightly so.
When Republican U.S. Sen. David Vitter (above) was found last year to have patronized hookers, he was greeted upon his return to the capitol with a STANDING OVATION at a GOP Senate caucus. None of his colleagues demanded his resignation, and he’s never tendered it.
My question: Why the difference?
Just asking.
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
10 Comments Add your own
1. Mike Carroll | March 13th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Well lets see
1. Violation of the Mann Act
2. Allegations of Money laundering to hide the financial transactions
3. His history of out of control prosecutions
4. Even his so called friends don’t like or trust him
Other than that-no difference.
2. Pat Cunningham | March 13th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
OK, Mike, point by point: 1) No such charge has been brought. 2) No such charges have been brought. 3) His reputation as a prosecutor won him 70 percent of the vote in the election. 4) His lack of friends is not cause for resignation. But don’t get me wrong. I say good riddance to Spitzer. I’d like to say the same of Vitter, who is every bit as hypocritical if not more so. He’s a family-values guy, remember.
3. Kaus | March 13th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Pat, I guess that means you were a supporter of Bill Clinton impeachment precedings….countless lawsuits by women privately settled…on and on and on.
4. Pat Cunningham | March 13th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
I did, in fact, call for Clinton’s resignation (I was doing talk radio at the time). But I was lukewarm, at best, with regard to impeachment, and I was strongly opposed to conviction in the Senate. A lot of people don’t understand that impeachment is a political process, not a criminal prosecution. The rules of evidence are completely different. The whole deal is different. The late Henry Hyde, one of the leaders in the House impeachment of Clinton, predicted that a conviction would not be obtained in the Senate unless most of the American people wanted it. Well, most people DIDN’T want it, so it didn’t happen. You see, criminal trials should not be swayed by public opinion, but impeachment trials should — and usually are.
5. Pat Cunningham | March 13th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Getting back to the Spitzer-Vitter comparison, I wonder about the differences on several fronts. Why wasn’t there the same kind of public outcry in the Vitter case. Actually, the biggest reaction, as I sensed it, was among joke-tellers. Most people just laughed at his hypocrisy, but otherwise didn’t much care if he was sleeping with goats, let alone hookers. The Spitzer case probably is different in big part because of his reputation as a fearsome crime-fighter. In short, his hypocrisy was perhaps more profound and troubling. I don’t think the cheating on his wife was what offended people most. I think it was the commission of crimes for which he used to put people in prison. If it weren’t for the laws he seems to have broken, I don’t think the sex angle or the betrayal of his family would be cause for resignation or impeachment. See, I’m sorting out this crap as I write. Amazing, isn’t it?
6. Kaus | March 13th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Amazing. Also amazing is the fact that Kennedy and Clinton were not hypocrtical….but definitely flawed and brilliant at the same time. I think the reason Vitter isn’t compared to Spitzer is because Spitzer happened in an election year and his close ties to Hillary regarding illegal aliens and being from New York….one more nail in Shrillary’s coffin.
7. Mike Carroll | March 14th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Pat-Point by Point
1. Charges can be brought and will depending on his plea agreement.
2. See above
3. You are right but most voters didn’t know or didn’t care that he abused the power of his office to build that record and, by the way, won very few cases at trial. He bullied defendants into accepting pleas which is where that 70% comes from.
4. Finally-”I don’t think the cheating on his wife was what offended people most. I think it was the commission of crimes for which he used to put people in prison. If it weren’t for the laws he seems to have broken, I don’t think the sex angle or the betrayal of his family would be cause for resignation or impeachment. See, I’m sorting out this crap as I write. Amazing, isn’t it?”
You got it and glad to see the cathartic process.
8. Mike Carroll | March 14th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Pat-a comment on your thoughts regarding Clinton and impeachment.
Party elders should have approached Clinton and urged his resignation. Given his all encompassing ego I doubt it would have happened but it should have been done.
Had he resigned, or been removed by the Senate ( as I believe should have occured) Gore would have been President and would have easily defeated Bush in the election not having the millstone of Bubba around his neck.
Democrats only have themselves to blame for W. Painful isn’t it.
9. Pat Cunningham | March 14th, 2008 at 9:35 am
You say “Democrats have only themselves to blame for W.” No, we can blame the Supreme Court, too.
10. Samal | March 15th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
“You say “Democrats have only themselves to blame for W.” No, we can blame the Supreme Court, too.”
If Gore had won his home state of Tennessee, which he may well have done if the items Mike mentioned above had come to pass, then Florida would not have mattered.
Also, let make sure your on the record here. Are you saying you disagree with the 7 justices who determined there was a violation of equal rights and that you believe in the future your own ballot can be devalued after the vote if the circumstances change? Or with the 5 justices who determined the constitutional “save harbor” provision was actually the law of the land?
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed