Resign, Senator

Ruth Marcus is right about David Vitter, and E.J. Dionne and David Ignatius are flat wrong: Making use of a prostitution ring isn't a private matter, and Vitter should not be sitting in the United States Senate while the "D.C. Madam" is facing up to 55 years in prison for selling what he was apparently interested in buying. I hope Deborah Jeane Palfrey does call him as a witness, so that he can explain how his phone number ended up on her call list, and whether the "very serious sin" he admits to committing includes, you know, breaking the law. Sure, maybe he only got a massage - you know, just like Ted Haggard - but at the very least his constituents have a right to hear him explain himself.

"What about the thousands of other people whose phone numbers are on the D.C. Madam's call list?" Ignatius asks. "Are they fair game?" Um, well, insofar as being on her call list suggests that they solicited sex for money, then the answer seems to me to be yes. If a politician were caught with his name on the "call list" of a prominent drug dealer, he wouldn't be able to wriggle out of it by admitting to a "serious sin" and leaving it at that. And unless prominent Republicans are prepared to join Matt in supporting the repeal of laws banning prostitution - which I certainly hope they aren't - then they shouldn't be backing Vitter's "it's a private matter" line. It isn't. It's a crime.

Comments

Maybe it's just because I've given up cable news, but it seems to me that this scandal isn't hitting Vitter particularly hard.

I get the sense that, for whatever reason, people just aren't up for a witch hunt at the moment, at least as it pertains to this guy.

It's peculiar given the circumstances, conservative senator outed as whore monger, seems ripe for some good outrage, but as far as I can tell, even Democrats are having a difficult time mustering any actual anger beyond the hypocrisy of it all. Maybe some kind of fatigue has set in.

Posted by Ben | July 19, 2007 6:50 PM

Ditto, Ross Douthat. And, like Ben, I have a hard time understanding why this isn't more of a scandal. Is it the Louisiana connection? Is is that the Madam is known to have lots and lots of names on her list and media figures and politicians don't want to take a position that would force them to go after a friend later.

Posted by Adam Greenwood | July 19, 2007 7:27 PM

I think you are lacking charity and perspective on the matter.

Vitter committed a sin of weakness. It isn't an offense that involves planning or premeditation; its an offense that gained him nothing but the temporary satisfaction of his lust. He was probably lonely and stresssed out in DC and made a bad decision. Drugs, alcohol, sex, gambling, and so appeal to our more base desires, and occasional lapses in those is just human nature. Those who hold it against them are lacking in charity and empathy.

In a case like this, the proper response is to forgive the guy.

Hiring a prostitute didn't affect his ability to represent his constituents. He hasn't claimed he shouldn't be prosecuted or that what he did wasn't illegal or wrong. On a list of crimes, i'd put it below drugs and drunk driving, crimes our last two presidents probably were guilty of. I'd also put it below having an affair with a married person, which isn't a crime. We'd have no Senators left if this standard were determinitive.

You write: If a politician were caught with his name on the "call list" of a prominent drug dealer, he wouldn't be able to wriggle out of it by admitting to a "serious sin" and leaving it at that.

How about Limbaugh?

unless prominent Republicans are prepared to join Matt in supporting the repeal of laws banning prostitution - which I certainly hope they aren't - then they shouldn't be backing Vitter's "it's a private matter" line. It isn't. It's a crime.

Vitter didn't say it was a private mater. He apologized and said he wasn't going to say anymore for the sake of his family.

You should be smarter than buying into the hypocrisy thing. I can simultaneously be in favor of 55 mph speed limits while sometimes failing to fully follow the policy I believe to be correct.

Posted by Reg | July 19, 2007 8:55 PM

Reg: Three points. First, neither our last two presidents used drugs or drove drunk while they were in office. That's a big difference. Second, of course what Vitter did required planning and premiditation. One doesn't make arrangements like that without taking steps to avoid being discovered. Third, the "hypocrisy thing" is almost literally biblical! The only difference is the whore faces prison rather than stoning. I don't think Vitter should necessarily resign, but he and other social conservatives cannot support harsh criminalization of the madam (and prostitutes generally) if they're going to let the powerful johns off easy. As the Man said: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Posted by Led | July 19, 2007 9:30 PM

Reg, it's that he's letting a woman go to jail for providing him with a service. If she weren't facing prosecution, I'd be more inclined to agree with you, but here he's demanding that his participation be regarded as private while allowing her to face very public punishment. Take her jail time out of it and I'm with you.

As for the other two, Bush's DWI happened a long time ago -- although I note that he signed a law as governor removing the record-sealing provision from which he so clearly benefited -- and Clinton was never caught or prosecuted within the statute of limitation for his marijuana use.

Posted by Karen | July 19, 2007 11:32 PM

"here he's demanding that his participation be regarded as private"

Where is Vitter saying this? I have heard many people say Vitter said this but I haven't seen this statement anywhere. Am I missing a quote somewhere? His statement apologizing and saying he won't discuss it is entirely appropriate. To construe it to say it is a "demand" that the matter be regarded as private is uncharitable.

If he said this I would disagree that his crime is a private matter.

Refusing to talk about it is appropriate. If he were to give some weepy statement, it would be criticized as a show for constituents. If he wasn't weepy, he would be criticized for lacking remorse. What else should the guy say? He did something wrong, and was busted, and he apologized and admitted his wrongdoing, noting the harm to his family. That is sufficient.

Posted by Reg | July 19, 2007 11:56 PM

"of course what Vitter did required planning and premiditation"

Possible, but I don't think we know this. If sat there in his office all week saying, I can't wait till Friday night, I'm gonna call my hooker, sure. If he sat there in his empty DC apartment, alone and trying to fight the temptation to call the hooker, (the temptation coming from the apparently abundant availability of DC escorts), and eventually succumbed, waking up the next morning remorseful and full of shame, I'd say that's not premeditated and less deserving of blame. Of course, the reality is probably somewhere in the middle, and that's why most of us aren't in a position to judge exactly how blameworthy his conduct was. He broke the law, so clearly, it is blameworthy, its just a matter of whether or not its great enough to call for the guy's resignation.

Posted by Reg | July 20, 2007 12:03 AM

The "hypocrisy thing" is almost literally biblical! The only difference is the whore faces prison rather than stoning. I don't think Vitter should necessarily resign, but he and other social conservatives cannot support harsh criminalization of the madam (and prostitutes generally) if they're going to let the powerful johns off easy. As the Man said: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Why can't conservatives support harsh criminalization of the madam if they're going to let the powerful johns off easy, if there are good policy reasons to do so. The "user" and the "seller" are not usually equally immoral (the user out of weakness of will and the seller out of desire of cash), and policy issues, such as effectiveness of deterrence, cost of enforcement, or whatever, might suggest that prostitution would be minimized by punishing the seller more, and the madam the most. Its utterly silly to suggest that policy should be based on how well our policymakers are able to conduct themselves. Should Washington have fought to extend slavery because he was a slaveowner? Our policymakers, like everybody, should accept the consequences for their failings, but their failings are never a good reason to change policy.

Look, in a perfect world, our will would be strong enough so that all of our actions would accord with our reason. It's not, and nobody's does. When we find we can't at all times live consistently with what we've reasonably concluded to be moral conduct, is that a good reason to think our moral reasoning is faulty? It's not. This should be obvious to anybody who is reading this blog.

When Christ said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." he wasn't saying, if you were more consistent, then you could throw stones, and he wasn't saying, it's bad policy to punish prostitutes. He was saying you are all sinners, and so, give others the same charity and forgiveness you would like if your sins were exposed to the world.

I should note that my consideration of Vitter is based on a charitable assumption that his failings were out of weakness of will and not out of reasoned, casual, disregard of law and his marriage vows.

Posted by Reg | July 20, 2007 12:37 AM

Reg, that's just pathetic. The hypocrisy is so multi-faceted that it's hard to know where to begin -- but let's start with his vocal demand that Clinton resign because he was morally unfit. Vitter has none of the sympathy for sinners that you call for.

And it was Giuliani in NY who demonstrated that the most effective way to curb prostitution was to go after the johns. It's obvious -- they have the most to lose.

Vitter is a powerful legislator who admits to repeatedly breaking the law. As an added bonus, it's a law that he not only supports, but is central to his campaigning platform. This is not Washington and slavery, it's like the chief Prohibitionist -- one who wanted tougher laws and harsher penalties for alcohol posession during Porhibition -- being a regular patron at a supper club.

It's odd how many Republicans suddenly equate personal "forgiveness" with "there should be no consequences for his actions." It's predictable, but pathetic.

Posted by nolaboyd | July 20, 2007 9:00 AM

Why Vitter won't resign: Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco

Posted by Peter | July 20, 2007 9:44 AM

I was watching Lou Dobbs when Diaper Dave and his cuckolded wife (who, as you remember, told the press that she would do a Lorena Bobbit on Diaper Dave if he ever cheated on her) and after that pathetic press conference, Lou Dobbs made a comment about how now he was going to leave it alone because it was a personal issue to be dealt with between Diaper Dave and wife. Right Lou - just like the whole Clinton situation was a private matter between Bill and Hillary. More than the crass hypocracy displayed by Diaper Dave, I was disgusted by the hypocracy displayed by the press. Lou Dobbs just reinforced the rules that the press play by - IOKIYAR (Its OK if you're a Republican). Jim DeMint made a comment about how Washington is an isolating and lonely place. Setting aside for a second the well-sourced allegations about Diaper Dave's assignations in New Orleans, this comment reveals an interesting mind set among the Christian Right - Men cannot control themselves and can be excused if sex is easily available and they are "lonely". This is exactly the same mind set that puts women in the veil in the Middle East. I am a staunch liberal, haven't been laid in a couple of years, unmarried, live in DC and YET I am still able to control my natural sinful urges and not hire hookers.

Posted by calipygian | July 20, 2007 10:33 AM

I do not think it is a stretch in any way to assume that Vitter broke the law. But did he admit to breaking the law?

Palfrey's defense is that she ran a legitimate escort service. If Vitter had hired an escort -- but did not engage in prostitution -- that would not necessarily be breaking the law. It would be a sin and a violation of his marital vows, but it would not be breaking the law. We may assume he broke the law but we do not have the evidence presently, do we?

Having said that, and, again, assuming he did break the law in addition to committing a gross sin against God and his wife (and others), he should resign if for no other reason than he believes people who break laws are unfit for higher office. It's what he claimed when Clinton was impeached and he has not explained any change of heart or reasoning since then.

Posted by Mollie | July 20, 2007 11:14 AM

Wait, lemme guess Reg, you approved of going after Clinton for getting a blowjob.

Posted by Bill | July 20, 2007 11:35 AM

How many drug users are sitting in prison right now for "sins of weakness"?

Peter nails the real issue, however. Even the Dems don't want to stand up for Blanco.

Posted by Anderson | July 20, 2007 11:43 AM

On a list of crimes, i'd put it below drugs and drunk driving, crimes our last two presidents probably were guilty of. I'd also put it below having an affair with a married person, which isn't a crime

It really doesn't matter one tiny bit where you or anyone else would place buying sex "on a list of crimes." Prostitution is illegal. Buy and selling sex is illegal. There is no slide rule of law here, just the statutes that ban the buying and selling of sex and the punishments meted out to those found guilty of either. Your moral relativism doesn't enter into the equation.

Posted by Sam Hutcheson | July 20, 2007 11:47 AM

Led writes:

... of course what Vitter did required planning and premiditation.

Reg responds:

Possible, but I don't think we know this. If sat there in his office all week saying, I can't wait till Friday night, I'm gonna call my hooker, sure. If he sat there in his empty DC apartment, alone and trying to fight the temptation to call the hooker, (the temptation coming from the apparently abundant availability of DC escorts), and eventually succumbed, waking up the next morning remorseful and full of shame, I'd say that's not premeditated and less deserving of blame.

So, Reg, if that's "not premeditated," how does it happen he has a prostitute's phone number handy while sitting there alone in his DC apartment? How did he get the number? Why did he keep it?

And what was he thinking when he picked up the phone -- dialed the number -- started speaking to the person who answered -- explained what he wanted -- and gave his address? How about while he waited for the prostitute to show up? When she knocked on the door? When he let her in? When they ...

Impulsive, it may be. Unpremeditated -- nonsense.

Posted by Califlander | July 20, 2007 11:48 AM

The real problem here is adultery. The man broke a promise to be faithful.

Maybe his wife forgives him, but that's not the issue. I too forgive him for cheating on his wife, and in fact, if he wants to continue cheating on her, that's no skin off my teeth. But I wonder: if he cheats on his own wife, what stops him from cheating on voters?

"Take it from me, the President knows what he's doing in Iraq!" No, Dave. I don't take it from you. Not now. Not ever again. I figure, if he can lie about a marriage, maybe he can lie about a war.

Posted by Joe Schembrie | July 20, 2007 12:09 PM

A couple of thoughts.

I'm ok with Vitter staying on, just as I was ok with Clinton staying on.

That being said, if Vitter decides he wants to continue down the 'legislate morality' path at this point, then he really hasn't learned his lesson and should be voted out at the first opportunity.

And I'll point out that people lie about their own personal life and still be effective in other matters, But in Vitter's case, can he be effective if he continues to lie to himself and rationalize away what he has done?

No rush to judgment here, just a lot of questions and debates...

Posted by Mark | July 20, 2007 12:21 PM

I don't see what charity and forgiveness have to do with it. For one, we're talking here about Vitter should do. He should resign, and whether we forgive him or not is irrelevant. For another, Vitter does not have a right to high office and forgiveness and charity don't require we keep him there. Reduction ad absurdum: if Nixon announces after Watergate that he was sorry do we have to act as if nothing has happened? If Hoover says he's sorry about the Great Depression is it the Christian duty of the voters to re-elect him?

Posted by Adam Greenwood | July 20, 2007 12:22 PM

Does everyone remember that LA has a DEM govenor? Who would appoint a DEM Senator if he steps down.

THAT is the only reason any of his fellow GOPers are defending him.

It is all about politics,

Posted by lilybart | July 20, 2007 12:38 PM

Wow. Having watched others be clubbed for years by morals and values Republicans like Vitter and his sycophant, koolaid swilling, faith-based followers I am hardly going to let this pass. He is what we call a "John". Here in Illinois they even seize the cars of "Johns".

Whatever happened to personal responsibility and accountability in the Republican party? Did they just use those catchphrases as meaningless political slogans to appeal to brainless or gullible followers? Of course they did. It comes out again and again. Every week there is a new Haggard, Vitter or Duke Cunningham who hide their sins and crimes behind Jesus and family values.

And for the fool who said using a whore is not as bad as having an affair? Need I remind you that promiscuous behavior these days with a whore (no matter how high class or expensive) is a real good way to give your wife HIV or any number of wonderful itchies and scratchies. Not to mention it's against the law.

Posted by davisss13 | July 20, 2007 12:43 PM

>>>>

You got that right.

lil bart? From cspan?

Posted by davisss13 | July 20, 2007 12:51 PM

Reg- Is it or is it not a crime to pay for sexual services? It is as simple as that. A public official broke the law. Crime.

The hypocrisy--'defending marriage'--is another matter.

And, Adam, it seems that that absurd forgiveness thing has been at work for years when it comes to George W Bush now. Maybe one just has to be a Christianist and a Republican to receive that treatment.

Posted by eamon | July 20, 2007 1:03 PM

Suppose one is a conservative, and disfavors prostitution.

What to do about it?
A. Make the seller's life still more miserable, and create an environment that intensifies her need for a pimp's protection.
B. Go after the buyer first--give priority to penalizing the johns who are the agents of exploitation.

I think there are good solid reasons to find prostitution a practice that is inherently so degrading to women that it should discouraged. But the fairest and most fitting way to do so is to go first after the David Vitters of the world.

Posted by Bitter | July 20, 2007 2:39 PM

It's a crime, but it's a victimless one. It's nobody's business if he wants to see a hooker.

I suppose if homosexuality was still illegal and Viter was gay, you'd be calling for his head as well.

Typical conservative bull--we have to obey the law because it's the law.

Posted by Mark | July 20, 2007 2:54 PM

Reg writes:
"The "user" and the "seller" are not usually equally immoral (the user out of weakness of will and the seller out of desire of cash)"

If anything the moral offense of the john (choosing to use another person for money) is worse than that of the prostitute (providing a service to make a living).

Posted by Steve | July 20, 2007 3:27 PM

"unless prominent Republicans are prepared to join Matt in supporting the repeal of laws banning prostitution - which I certainly hope they aren't"

While not a prominent Republican-only my family thinks I'm prominent and I'm certainly no Republican-put me in the camp that supports the repeal of laws banning prostitution. I can't take of a bigger waste of time and money to enforce such laws.

It's Vitter's obvious hypocrisy that's the issue. I think Dionne and Ignatius are flat right.

Posted by Bigterpfan | July 20, 2007 3:38 PM

There's no outrage because they're afraid they might be exposed also. This type of "sin" is probably quite common among Washington politicians and powerbrokers, unlike having a homosexual relationship with a teenage intern. Most probably won't get blamed for being a hypocrit for that one.

Posted by Don | July 20, 2007 3:51 PM

Ross,

I disagree with you from a Catholic perspective. Following Aquinas, prostitution should be decriminalized. See here for the argument:

http://www.vox-nova.com/2007/07/drugs-sodomy-and-hookers.html

Posted by Morning's Minion | July 20, 2007 6:28 PM

No one's attacking him because hookers are fun.

Posted by Charley | July 20, 2007 6:42 PM

I wholeheartedly agree that he should resign. I have no problem with prostitution mind you, but this guy is a scumbag. I recall that he called for President Clinton to resign not because he broke the law but because he was "morally unfit to serve".

Posted by Roland | July 21, 2007 1:08 AM

I can't tell if some posters here are just offering parody, but I'd just like to mention, as a Christian, that I find this idea that a prostitute and her John are not "equally immoral" to be one of the most offensive, morally repugnant statements I've ever read. Of COURSE Vitter's actions were premeditated. What? Picking up the phone and making arrangements to meet a prostitute at a certain time and place is just "succumbing to temptation"? Gotta call bullshit on that one.

Posted by steve davis | July 21, 2007 9:16 AM

I would prefer a man with morals and no faith, over this man of faith and no morals.

Posted by St. Augustine | July 21, 2007 9:17 AM

The outing of Vitter and those like him is a plus for honesty in politics and public discourse, but it reflects no credit on those who want to send him to prison or the guillotine for being a sad sack and a hypocrite.

Neither should the D.C. Madam be behind bars. In this society, she won’t be. More likely is that she will get a large advance for her memoirs.

When people are dying in a senseless war, there are better targets for moral indignation.

http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2007/07/stoning-sinful-senator.html

Posted by Robert Stein | July 21, 2007 9:42 AM

two things.

first, what happened at abc? they supposedly already had the list. they hyped this story and their report ended up being almost completely void of any new information. now larry flint claims he has 30 names, including a senator?

so did abc know and not report it or did they just drop the ball...(or pass the hot potato)?

second, vitter should resign. but he won't, at least not until after the november elections in louisiana.

he called the line five times. one may not be premeditated but five certainly is. he said it was appropriate for his predecessor to resign and also said clinton should resign, yet they had extramarital affairs, not prostitutes. there are multiple levels of hypocrisy here. he will last until november but he will probably be under constant pressure to resign.

the final irony would be if a democratic governor was elected in louisiana. democrats there should campaign against a two for one election

that's what you do if your brand is down - you have a sale...republicans are half price until november!

Posted by lonesomerobot | July 21, 2007 12:54 PM

wjbm rinzbd xank xfrtnsplg ziybs yeoqzg wlynfp

Posted by dwasqvim qhfndw | August 27, 2007 4:21 PM

Deborah Palfrey deserves the Pemberton Award for Good Governance.
Palfrey list is like the black book of 1918.
That trial of the century is deleted from all books.
The list there had 47000 names.
The list here is 46000 phone records.
The listed are not womenizers or machos or ordinary sinners.
They are power brokers, gay lutheran agitators of all wars.
These wretches are only one dirty cover for the real pimps deep underground.
A curse on kingpins, Justice Charles Darling then and judge Adolph Kessler now.

Noel Pemberton-Billing
Trial of the Century 1918

Posted by Billing | October 6, 2007 6:45 AM

SONG OF DEBORAH
..they chose new gods then was war in the gates.. awake awake deborah utter a song.. the Lord gave you dominion over the mighty.. curse you bitterly the inhabitants thereof who came not to the help of justice against the mighty.. they divided the prey, to every man a damsel or two.. let all thine enemies perish o Lord and the land rest forty years..

Deborah Palfrey deserves the Pemberton Award for Clean Governance.
Palfrey list is like the Black Book of 1918.
That trial of the Century is deleted from all books, cursed be reporters.
The list there had 47000 names.
The list here has 46000 phone bills.
The listed are not womenizers, machos or ordinary sinners.
They are power brokers gay lutheran shock and awe agitators of all wars and all panics.
These wretches are one dirty cover to the real pimps deep underground.
A curse on the kingpins, Justice Charles Darling then and Judge Adolph Kessler now.

Noel Pemberton-Billing
Trial of the Century 1918

Posted by Billing | October 7, 2007 11:03 AM

muriform venoatrial anaclitic spatula stereophotomicrograph nunbird puzzlepated brunneous
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/3588/index.html >Organic Gardening Information and Advice
http://creativetoursasia.com.au

Posted by Bryan Hill | December 21, 2007 6:18 PM