Once again, and I know I'll be saying this for many years to come, what Clinton did is irrelevant.

In any case, the constant obsession with what Clinton did is not only pathetic, but in this case it is patently inapposite.

and its about whoever.

Someone who has fallen but knows the truth and ask for forgiveness, is much different then someone who lives fallen doesn't believe in the truth and pleads innocent when caught red handed and then blames every thing on someone else instead of asking for forgiveness.

And That's the important point about the later and any who defend any one or themselves with these types of character traits. Whatever else he or she does, if he or she so much as opens his mouth about moral values at this point, someone needs to at least point out how full of &$#! he or her really is. Not only that, but it casts very serious doubt as to his or her sincerity in other issues. He or she can, of course, say whatever he wants, but people should know better than to listen.

To answer your previous questions, people who don't speak on moral issues do NOT get a pass when it comes to things like breaking the law, or lying. However, if it were to come to light that someone who doesn't make a point of discussing how government should legislate morality leads, for instance, a non-traditional sex life, it really isn't an issue.

On the other hand, when you have someone who makes his career holding himself out to be a paragon of virtue and carrying the "traditional values" torch who engages in the very behavior that he proposes to punish other people for, you have a very different issue. At such a point, whatever gravitas the hypocrite had when pontificating about moral issues is forfeit.

That's the important point about Vitter. Whatever else he does, if he so much as opens his mouth about moral values at this point, someone needs to at least point out how full of &$#! he really is. Not only that, but it casts very serious doubt as to his sincerity in other issues. He can, of course, say whatever he wants, but people should know better than to listen.

As is typical in similar cases, we now have others suddenly jumping in to claim the supposed malfeasance was not unique. Now a Madam in Vitter's home state of Louisiana is claiming him as a client. But she says it was before the FBI starting surveillance on her business, which apparently the latest scurrilous New Orleans scandal. I'm just wondering why the FBI is keeping track of New Orleans brothels? Are there no higher crimes, like terrorism? And what is the Federal issue for the FBI to get involved (cough, cough, the interstate commerce clause?)?

Apparently, the FBI is now working for Larry Flynt. Are we as a people, really ready to allow the likes of Larry Flynt to dictate to us who it is that is moral enough to be in office?

Also I am amused at your claim that running a petition for the removal of someone from office, doesn't constitute advocating a forcible removal.

You were saying?

I was indeed:

When someone who defended Clinton for lying under oath calls for the forceable removal of Vitter from office, you might have a case.

A petition for voluntary resignation doesn't exactly foot the bill, does it?

Now, answer me this question: does the presence of some hypocrites who espouse a certain political viewpoint affect the validity of that viewpoint? I just want to make sure I'm reading you right.

Just because he did whatever it is seeded as far as I'm concerned at least doesn't disqualify him from speaking on things that are right or wrong.

Do you actually read the comments you respond to? The quote you plucked about calling for Vitter's removal was written exactly because no one has actually done that.

Beg your pardon. I was just making sure that's what you intended to say. Now that we're nice and snug in the box, I'll close the lid for you.

Does Democratic Underground count as a source for such? Does MyDD count?

You were saying?

From the beginning of his political career 16 years ago, Senator David Vitter has been known for efforts to plant himself on the moral high ground, challenging the ethics of other Louisiana politicians, decrying same-sex marriage and depicting himself as a clean-as-a-whistle champion of family values.

. . .

Through it all, Mr. Vitter’s consistent themes have been family values, morality and ethics — his own, in contrast to what he has depicted as deficiencies in the local political culture. In Louisiana, where the well-documented infidelities of the onetime governor Edwin W. Edwards were all but a political asset, Mr. Vitter could easily survive any disclosure about adultery. Insincerity, however, is another matter.

It's all about how the man cast himself as a paragon of moral virtue, and disparaged those around him as not living up to those standards. Those who live in glass houses...

No it is not. Try again.

No sale.

Do you actually read the comments you respond to? The quote you plucked about calling for Vitter's removal was written exactly because no one has actually done that. Just because you seek to find a call for his removal by imparting your ideas onto the words of others does not make it so, and allow me to assure you that you're no psychic when it comes to what I think.

In any case, the constant obsession with what Clinton did is not only pathetic, but in this case it is patently inapposite.

No it is not. Try again.

No sale.

Once again, and I know I'll be saying this for many years to come, what Clinton did is irrelevant.

So was Clinton.

Totally awesome.

Who did this? Seriously - if someone is actually calling for Vitter to be removed from office, I'd love some proof.

You mean...

When someone who defended Clinton for lying under oath calls for the forceable removal of Vitter from office, you might have a case.

... isn't a statement of desire?

No it is not. Try again.

Vitter was caught, and saw the writing on the wall.

So was Clinton.

Next?