I posted this last night at my pad, but it still has entertainment value today…
Pull out the tiny violin for the Republican Senator from Louisiana and DC Madam customer, who puts his wife before the cameras (and doesn’t take any questions) at the news conference. He firmly denies the Louisiana brothel tales (and ostensibly the diaper fetish rumors, though he didn’t bring that up).
Since then, I’ve gotten up every morning, committed to trying to live up to the important values we believe in. If continuing to believe in and acknowledge those values causes some to attack me because of my past failings, well, so be it.Blah, blah, blah — important values like protecting the sanctity of marriage from ho-mo-sexuals…All I know is the woman’s body language speaks for itself:Unfortunately, my admission has encouraged some long-time political enemies and those hoping to profit from the situation to spread falsehoods too, like those New Orleans stories in recent reporting. Those stories are not true.
Feel free to write your own caption.
WENDY VITTER: To those of you who know me, are you surprised that I have something to say? You know, in most any other marriage, this would have been a private issue between a husband and a wife — very private. Obviously, it is not here…Last week, some people very sympathetically said to me, “I wouldn’t want to be in your shoes right now.” I stand before you to tell you very proudly, I am proud to be Wendy Vitter.
Vitter’s performance yesterday — with that absolute denial about the NOLA prostitution rumors — almost begs for a fishing expedition by the media. It’s not as if there isn’t a lot of smoke…Check out this Salon piece on Vitter from 2004:
There is a house in New Orleans
Rumors involving a prostitute and a secret alliance with neo-Nazi David Duke trail the Republican Senate candidate in Louisiana.
In Congress, Vitter became a reliable vote for the extreme right, earning a 100 percent rating from the American Conservative Union in 2002. He vowed to outlaw abortion in almost all cases, even when pregnancy results from rape or incest; his only exception was to save the life of the mother. And — with an eye on the governor’s office — he continued the crusade against gambling that he’d started in 1993 with the ethics complaint against Gov. Edwin Edwards.…The Louisiana Weekly newspaper followed up. Bruno told the paper that the young woman had contacted the Treen campaign in 1999 because she was upset that Vitter was portraying himself as a family-values conservative and trotting out his wife and children for campaign photo ops. Bruno, who declined to comment for this story, and John Treen interviewed the woman, who said she had worked under the name “Leah.”
But after nearly a year of regular paid assignations with Vitter, the lawmaker asked her to divulge her real name, according to Treen, citing the account he said she gave him. Her name was Wendy Cortez, Treen said. She said Vitter’s response was electric. “He said, ‘Oh, my God! I can’t see you anymore,” John Treen told me, citing the woman’s account to him and noting that Vitter’s wife is also named Wendy. And Wendy Vitter does not appear to be the indulgent type.
Vitter, Bruno and others interviewed the alleged prostitute several times in 1999. She also met with a respected local television reporter, Richard Angelico, the Louisiana Weekly said. But Angelico declined to run with the story after she would not agree to go on camera, the paper said. Vitter denied the allegations. But shortly before the Louisiana Weekly was set to publish its story, he dropped out of the governor’s race, saying he needed to deal with marital problems. “Our [marriage] counseling sessions have … led us to the rather obvious conclusion that it’s not time to run for governor,” Vitter said at the time.
Chris Tidmore, the author of the Louisiana Weekly story, said he interviewed the alleged prostitute by telephone and reviewed the notes of her sessions with Treen and Bruno before publishing his story. He said she had moved away from New Orleans and is now living under an assumed name. Salon could not locate her.
Amid Vitter’s denials and the reluctance of his accuser to go public, no newspapers in Louisiana reported on the allegations.
I would feel sorry for Wendy Vitter if she hadn’t painted herself into a corner with the Bobbit remarks. But really, if she thinks that a long history of visiting prostitutes and (apparently) having unprotected sex with them is something that just stays private, she needs to talk to a good divorce attorney.
Of course, you might be able to trace some of her dilemma to the wingnut (and especially Catholic wingnut) divorce-woman-as-failure meme: the first time around, she could say she’d divorce him, because that would be a sin. So she had to say she’d commit a sexually-oriented felony instead. And then things just got out of hand…
Every picture I’ve seen of her since all this was revealed does NOT say she’s fine and their marriage is okay. She looks like a woman in great pain.
My sister is going through this dame thing right now and so have friends (both of whom have left their marriages because of serial adultery). If you look at the websites that deal with the pain of spouses who find out their spouse was cheating everything is generally not fine, espeically right after the revelation. Generally after the revelation the spouse is in a state of shock that can last for weeks.
Here’s a few to check (Christian and not - and I hope Mrs. Vitter does go to counseling, and not the kind that puts all blame on her)
http://www.marriagebuilders.com/ubbt/ubbthreads.php
http://www.survivinginfidelity.com/
http://www.infidelity.com/
http://www.dearpeggy.com/lbc.html
I feel sorry for her, but I also think she should address the irony of her comments about the Clintons. Even if it was just to acknowledge that something can seem clear cut in the abstract when it’s someone else’s marriage, but much less so when it’s your own. That she didn’t do so seems hypocritical.
Why does Vitter need to see whores since he married one?
Vitter ran on one man/one woman, but he runs on one man/one woman/one more woman/one more woman/one more woman/one more woman/one more woman/one more woman/one more woman/etc., etc., etc.
A senator who is dedicated to morality but occasionally falters– like Vitter, who is working hard to protect marriage– is far superior to a senator devoted to destroying society, such as all those who oppose the marriage amendment.
And you are basing that absurd and cruel non sequitur on what, exactly?
That was directed to Sirkowski, by the way.
Because fucking around on your wife protects and respects marriage.
Yet another reason why I’d never marry a man with political ambitions. Only someone on crack–or someone hugely entitled–would think for one minute that I’d get up and publicly save his ass in PR land after pulling something like that.
A woman who fucks around is a whore and a slut. A man who does it is just a man, deserving of forgiveness (and to some, pats on the back in laudatory articles about his virility and how it’s the mark of a true alpha-male leader who takes risks).
Fuck that noise.
Yes. Of course. It is hard work keeping track of which houses of prostitution you went to in order to keep it from the wife.
Alternate: Protect marriage from what? People like Vitter who take marriage so seriously that they pay for sex in at least two states? What do his actions say about how he treats the sanctity of marriage? “Occasionally falters” my *. Can you see a pattern here?
Oh, why do I bother?
You know, in most any other marriage, this would have been a private issue between a husband and a wife — very private.
Am I supposed to feel sorry for her? I think I’ll save my sympathy for the people who HAVEN’T chosen a life in the spotlight, whose lives her husband (and those like him) are intent on making as difficult as possible.
See, I think that a senator devoted to destroying society is one who votes in favour of unwinnable wars and policies that help put people in positions so desparate that committing terrorism seems like the only thing they can do. That’s destroying society. So is allowing people to die because they can’t afford medical treatment.
Who can marry whom has little to do with society’s continued existence. I would actually argue that not allowing same sex marriage is more harmful than allowing it. But that’s just one of the reasons I’m happy to live in Canada.
I hereby nominate Lurker for bunnification.
Start a campaign to send Wendy Vitter scissors.
Compensatory personality types need lots of adoration, even if they have to pay for it, which is probably the only way they are going to receive it.
If I hadn’t read lurker’s comments in the past, I would have thought that it was satirical. It sounds like something out of Dr. Strangelove.
It just goes to show you that these days you can’t tell the difference between satire and right wing rhetoric without a guide.
How tactfully phrased of you. It would be better, however, if you phrased it less politely and more accurately:
something can seem clear cut when you have a political point to make, no empathy for another human being and you’re possessed of a smug, religion-based self-righteousness that DEMANDS that you talk about publicize and condemn somebody else’s private pain even though it’s none of your business.
Sympathy for the lady, my ass. Like a mafia wife she is only too content to revel in ill-gotten gains then pretend to innocence when she has to pay some sort of price for it. To hell with her.
Geh. Yeah, shouldn’t have even responded to that guy.
Regarding the actual topic of the post though, I do feel sorry for his wife. Not because it’s more public than she’d like but because she was cheated on. That’s gotta suck.
As you say, the body language says it all. That photo is so telling. She looks beaten down, sad, annoyed, angry.
I finally figured out how to translate fundie-speak:
“god has forgiven me” means “f__k you, you can’t do a thing about this!”.
Sirkowski,
I’m offended by your misogynistic comment.
Lurker,
There’s so much hypocrisy in your statement i don’t even know where to begin with it. The Republican “defenders of morality” played their hand when they spent years investigating whether or not Bill Clinton had sex with Gennifer, Paula, or Monica, even while overlooking the affairs their own leaders Bob Livingston and Newt Gingrich were having at the same time. In the years since, they have yet to reclaim any right to tout themselves as moral stalwarts. What you call “defending marriage” represents upholding second-class citizenship for many families who are struggling to raise children — my own family included. How about some values for my family too, eh?
Caption:
“but the good news is, as you can see, Wendy’s finally agreed to wear animal-prints, and she even gonna let me try to piss on her so I don’t need them Depends.”
“I am proud to be Wendy Vitter.”
Yeah. Like I’m proud to be an American.
Caption:
David Vitter makes his demands known to the media. Hostage Wendy Vitter is seated to the right.
I second the bunnification of Lurker Da Troll…
Bunny Him! Bunny Him! BUNNNNNNNY HIMMMMM!
Yes and in Lurkers world 1+4=36
seconded
oops guess I third it
You know greensmile I have often wondered how they “know” God has forgiven them . . . I mean does it say in the Bible “David Vitter, I, God, forgive you!” ????
Or is he hearing voices?
Lurker:
You missed Wendy Vitter’s complaint. She said that these sort of issues should be dealt privately within a family, and she is angry that the press is prying into her sex life.
Do you agree with her? Should consensual sex between adults be private, or should we all have a say in the relationships of other people? Are you monogamous? Have you ever had sex outside of marriage? Do you have sex for fun or only for procreation? Do you find these questions to be intrusive?
This is not about Vitter sinning. This about whether these issues should be public or private. Do you agree with Senator Vitter that these are proper issues for public discussion, or do agree with Wendy Vitter that this should be dealt with privately?
Well, yes, in most families this would be a private matter between husband and wife. That’s because in most families hubbie isn’t a hypocritical pontificating godbag fraud with a big media megaphone through which to lecture the sinners.
I live in Louisiana and the citizens here are pretty well split down the middle on this issue. Of course, this is the home of Edwin Edwards and we like our politics to be as spicy as our food.
My take is Vitter will be reelected when he runs. Louisiana voters have short attention spans and, while Vitter previously ran on a platform of morality, family values, anti-homosexual marriage, etc., it’s obvious nobody takes that stuff seriously - unless you’re politically opposed to the transgressor.
Vitter’s platform will soon transform into “Look what I’ve done for Louisiana while in D.C.” In his press conference (where he took no questions), he stated he had to get back to D.C. to take care of some important issues for our state. He’s already morphing (and wisely so, for his political life is at stake). The prevailing opinion will soon be, “So what if he poked some high dollar hos…look what he’s done for our state.”
So, yeah, he’s a scoundrel whose public persona got shattered. The overwhelming attitude down here is, “Big whup.” I don’t agree with that attitude, but it’s reality.
He’s not the mouthbreather some pundits have portrayed him to be. Actually, he’s a typical shrewd Louisiana politician. Again, I don’t agree; but that’s reality. Get used to it.
You know, in most any other marriage, this would have been a private issue between a husband and a wife — very private.
No, in most any other marriage this would have been a public issue between a man and a court of law… very public.
In many places - Chicago, Denver and Witchita at least - the police PUBLISH photos and names of solicitors of prostitution (convicted or not) in newspapers, websites and/or on TV.
epist: He’s a public figure who has campaigned against the sort of behaviour he engages in. This is a private issue, how?
Hell, technically speaking the behaviour he engaged in is illegal, even if johns are rarely prosecuted.
I know I’m repeating myself, but I’ve got no sympathy for this woman. Her humiliation is karma coming back to bite her in the ass for every time she stood up and backed up the bigotry that came out of hubby’s mouth, stood beside him at a campaign event so that he could be elected to make law out of his prejudices, or didn’t look him square in the face, publicly or privately, and say “you’re being a prejudiced, disconnected-from-reality asshole, sweetie”. No, she believes the same things he does, in all probability.
I repeat: mafia wife.
I could feel bad for Wendy Vitter if it weren’t for the fact that she KNOWS her very public statement regarding the Clintons in 2000 has had so much play recently. Yet she chose not to address that and do the exact same little “Stand By Your Man” song and dance that she derided Hillary Clinton for.
She complained of the media attention instead. Boo fucking hoo.
Agreed. But we know that he won’t be referred to as “admitted sex offender” or even “serial adulterer” (the one they were so fond of throwing at Clinton). Nope. Won’t happen, and we all know it.
And note the stunning lack of contrition for her earlier lobbing of First Stones. Very un-Christian, but that’s no surprise. Most fundies tend to avoid the New Testament the way in rather the same way they cut out their pacifist relatives at family reunions.
Same goes for Lady Bird.
Ann Althouse (I know she’s not too popular around here, but this time she’s right for a change) absolutely nailed this issue:
epistemology Jul 17th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Lurker:
You missed Wendy Vitter’s complaint. She said that these sort of issues should be dealt privately within a family, and she is angry that the press is prying into her sex life.
Do you agree with her? Should consensual sex between adults be private, or should we all have a say in the relationships of other people? Are you monogamous? Have you ever had sex outside of marriage? Do you have sex for fun or only for procreation? Do you find these questions to be intrusive?
This is not about Vitter sinning. This about whether these issues should be public or private. Do you agree with Senator Vitter that these are proper issues for public discussion, or do agree with Wendy Vitter that this should be dealt with privately?
Does anyone else agree with me when I say that those who hypocritically say that these sort of issues should be dealt privately within a family, and get angry that the press is prying into their sex life, yet pried into others’ sex lives to publicly call them unfit for office should be held to the standards that they imposed upon others? And that those who have avoided using this type of smear should be the ones whose sex lives are private?
Inquiring minds want to know…
If you mean taking the benefits of the LBJ “legal corruption” you are inarguably historically correct. The Austin TV station springs to mind.
If you mean to draw a sexual or morality comparison you talking through your ass. Neither LBJ nor Lady Bird ever made Christian sexual morality a (if not The) central component of campaigns.
Lurker’s comment seems to reflect the new meme that the wingnuts are trying to get started: publicly condemning sin, but sinning in private, is superior to accepting sin.
So while it’s not OK to cheat on your wife, it’s better than taking a “live and let live” stance when it comes to others’ homosexuality or promiscuity. And if you ask for forgiveness when you’re caught, then everyone should forget your transgression and you can go back to being a public scold. Unless you’re a Democrat.
It just goes to show you that Republican morality isn’t about moral behavior– it’s about finding an excuse to hate your fellow Americans.
“You know greensmile I have often wondered how they ‘know’ God has forgiven them . . . I mean does it say in the Bible ‘David Vitter, I, God, forgive you!’ ????”
No, but it does say “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
Sarcastro, is your name a reference to The Tick?
The only reason why she made a public statement is because of her earlier statement about Hillary.
She should apologize to the Hill for making judgments about her behavior in light of scandal that she has just repeated.
I’d feel bad for her if I didn’t hate female republicans more than male ones.
She will. Right after she shits a magical pony.
She’s probably just had the first HIV test of her life.
I see lurker has contributed his usual meaningless comment to the thread.
Vitter broke the law, something Mr Clinton did not do.
And I somehow doubt that Mrs Vitter has learned that the best thing she can do is keep her mouth shut about other people’s mariages
Deep6: I hope so, but I have my doubts.
No, but it does say “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.�
The way I read that is that it is still no guarantee from which a 100% statement can be made from.
The Catholics have it right: there is no one precondition of absolution, but rather a a three-part requirement: confession; contrition; change. Just saying you’re sorry when you’re not don’t cut it.
And to move from Church to State, why the hell isn’t he sweating it out in a police interview room, being squeezed for testimony as price for a deal? (Naive, I know. I don’t really expect it.)
What’s your interpretation Clytemnestra?
Applause to Jake Squid.
Wendy looks as though she’s thinking back to the boyfriends she could have married, SHOULD have married.
Caption: “Today Sen. David Vitter (R-La) unveiled his animatronic RealDoll(r) “Wendy Vitter”. The model, custom-made for the Senator, incorporates a series of recordings made by noted celebrity voice imitator Allie Wandie.”
I will not condemn Wendy Vitter. Yes karma has come back to bite her in the butt and I think she knows this. From being there for the late night calls of my sister and my friend they are or have been in absolute hell.
Those of you who cite karma and then go one to be nasty to Wendy Vitter over this, have forgotten that karma can come back and bite you too.
Clytemnestra: no voice louder than a wish. The way to dodge when you know you don’t deserve what you wish is to just posit Infinite Mercy Gives Out Dispensation. [Im God] Hearing voices gets most people locked up or put on antipsychotics so don’t expect straight answers from people on this topic.
Shorter Lurker: He hates homos. I loves him.
The next time I get pulled over for speeding, I’ll tell the cop that God has forgiven me.
Bitter scribe - why not … I’ve already heard lawyers arguing that their clients shouldn’t go to jail because scooter didn’t
Hear that everybody? Schadenfreude over bigot-enabling, smug self-righteous jerks getting their comeuppance is now officially off the table. Might as well close the comments thread.
In any event, even if I did stand up and accept the fact that it was right that hypocrisy karma struck me, people like this do not believe for a second that it striking them is fair. The double-standard is the engine of their so-called faith and existence; they accept the notion that your sins and mine are worse than theirs (even when they are actually sinning and we are not) as easily as they breathe air, , so I waste no tears on them.
At a more practical level, I’ve got news for ya, Clytemnestra. If you don’t revel a bit in the downfall of your enemies then a curious psychological dynamic sets in: you weaken your own impetus to defeat them, and pretty soon you never do.
Anyways, Clytemnestra, I won’t continue because I don’t want to delay you. Aren’t you late for going to your kids’ soccer game and ticking them off for cheering their team’s goals?
Ahhhh … another proud privacy for me but not for thee moment.
Why is wingnut criminality by the standards societally set out in constitution and the penal code something the croney elite presume to regard as their own personal business …
But the actual constitutional rights under law of the “wrong” people (98% of the population) get continually farted and shat upon according to the rumblings of the First Gut and First Ass?
Sorry, Mitt: you don’t get to decide your own guilt, sentence and dues in a land where the law serves the people rather than the crony.
And someone please web cam that asshole’s zipper just so he can wonder who’s watching his pathetic hypocritical freedom crushing life for a change. Who cares about the show; it just might distract him awhile from telling everyone else how to live.
(:tom:), I am partial to that line of argument: let he who cast the first stone catch the avalanche he kicked off hell for his hypocrisy. I don’t know if Dante is considered much of an authority on how the church [whichever tarnished den of fornicators houses the esteemed senator’s monogrammed pew shall go unnamed] ranks the various sins but as he had it, the lowest rung of hell was reserved for hypocrites. Adulterers were less harmful to the cosmic balance of forces I suppose.
From a different tradition, the man who never knew better than to “sin” and earnestly regretted his former ways and turned from them [made tshuvah] was held to be more righteous than the man who had never done wrong or suffered temptation in all his life [the Tzadik]. But more important than that bit of score keeping is the aftereffects: it is held to be a serious sin, a harm done to a person, to bring up their past if they are converted or reformed and to gossip is similar to murder for it kills the reputation. I would be no more interested in Vitter’s infidelities or Gingrich’s than I was in Clinton’s EXCEPT that Clinton has not wasted the public’s attention pointing out anyone else’s dirty laundry and these Republicans, rather typically of their ilk, have. Not one of us on this thread and hardly any in congress are completely innocent by that value teaching but Vitter is easily the vilest of us all. You need a Mark Foley or an archdiocese form Boston of Los Angeles if you would smear worse dirt on a political party or a religion.
I tire of this.
Clytemnestra
“I didn’t attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it.” — Mark Twain
I call foul on the software. The preview correctly rendered my strikethrough on “the avalanche he kicked off” but it was eaten in the final output. WAAAHHHH
6079 -
No actually I’m in my own Leslee Unruh “doesn’t exist” hell right now.
I just wanted to point out that to cite karma biting one in the butt and then to go one to be nasty right back is a bit hypocritical …. be nasty all you want, just don’t use the concept of karma to excuse or promote it.
I’m not going to trash her right now, and I told why. I have been dealing with this issue with my sister since Sunday night. I have written several emails hoping that my sister’s love for husband of 19 years doesn’t cause her to forget that his serial adultery is HIS problem, and she should not let him back into her life, least he continue to abuse her heart again.
I was upfront with my reasons for not condeming Wendy. I am really too close to this.
I saw a clip of this last night on AC 360 and it really looked like she wanted to stab him in the face with her shoe.
First of all, my sympathy for the bitter situation your sister is in.
Fair enough. Consider karma withdrawn if you like. I used it as a shorthand, not because I believe in it. I’ve seen too many shitbags get away with too much and too many good people have miserable outcomes to believe in it for a second. I’ve always been more comfortable with playing fair and clean, but, when played dirty, turning to Shylock’s maxim of “The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.”
If I were the Dems I’d be working hand in glove with Larry Flynt on this sort of thing until the Republicans stop waving MOOOOOORALLLITYYYYY!!!! around on a flagpole.
Caption:
Well, at least it was a female prostitute…sigh.
6O79 -
Thank you.
It’s not like I haven’t danced on a grave once or thrice myself . . . and believe me I love when a Haggart type get’s hoisted on their own petard.
But some how, and this may be a fault of mine, this strikes me as different.
6O79-
I know in the grand scheme of things this correction of the time line really doesn’t matter (except in my own head) but I have been dealing with this issue with my sister since Thursday night.
This summer is already going by way to fast.
Because Mrs. Vitter is a whore. She speard her legs for the Reich Wing, changing the diapers of a homophobic, racist, fascist piece of shit. She’s an enabler to that fucking mascarade of pseudo-family values. I only wish she could be dragged in the street and forced to shave her head like the French collabos.
I’m sure Jesus loves you too.
And for proper measure, Vitter himself should be raped by animals.
Thank you.
I think part of it may be an unconscious double-standard on our parts. As progressives we recognize the indispensable value of the Wife And Mother as opposed to simultaneously fetishizing the position while treating those women who fill it with disdain, condescension and contempt, as the conservatives tend to do. We recognize that such women are vital players and partners in their husband’s success. However, our reluctance to see wives as merely adjuncts of their partners leads us to “hold fire” on such women unless their loathsome views are actioned independently, a la Lynn Cheney. Fact is, these men could not be where they are without these women being a part of the political army and for the women (or their defenders) to claim some sort of bizarre political non-combatant status for them is hypocritical in the extreme.
Thus, when a creepy bigot like David Vetter rises to the top, enabled by a Wendy Vetter who also trumpets and reinforces — on the public record — his views and moral worldview I refuse to hold my verbal fire. She isn’t entitled to a magical June-Cleaver’s-apron-based immunity merely because of her gender or marital status. It would be condescending of me to extend that to her, and I refuse to do so.
Put bluntly, Wendy: If you don’t want to be punched in the face, don’t climb into the ring.
Sirkowski, that was gutter and contemptible. For the first time ever I believe that somebody should be bunnied.
You know it just struck me as to what she didn’t say:
she said
She didn’t say “I am proud to be Mrs. David Vitter.”
hmmm, how much is she really standin by her man?
More to the point, Sirkowski, I think you’re a smear troll. I think that your whole point is to put posts up like that for the sole purpose of having scummy right-wingers repeat them as representing progressives and liberals in general and the people on this site in particular.
6079-
That may be true, I’ll have to think about it . . . but I was basing my “feelings” more on the public entity in the marriage/relationship and the private entity in the marriage/relationship…
Since I really don’t know much about Wendy Vitter, other than her statment regarding Bill and Hillary, which could be counted as her (here-to-fore) 15 minutes of fame, I think of her more as a private entity.
I may be equating too much to Gary Hart and his wife.
My thoughts as well — I wonder if BillO is planning a Daily KOS type “expose” of Pandagon later this week.
Please, please, PLEASE don’t bunnify Lurker. He’s not some subhuman that we should all just sigh at and cast away. He/she is misguided and it’s our responsibility to explain to him/her exactly why, as many times as possible.
People can be talked out of bad ideas. It happens every day.
And where the fuck where you when I started dating the California girl. Yeeesh, talk about too little, too late.
Kyle, 6O79 -
gee thanks both of you … now I gotta clean ice tea from my computer screen
:-)
Why hasn’t Sirkowski been bunnied or banned yet?
Caption: Hmmm, is that sharp enough to cut though human flesh? How do I control the bleeding?
Why hasn’t Sirkowski been bunnied or banned yet?
Because I like him 95% of the time and he’s just trying to provoke you with that stuff. He’s a provocateur, more than anything. If you don’t get provoked, he’ll probably drop it.
I take issue with Wendy Vitter saying that the Deb Palfrey case is a private matter. Dave Vitter is an elected official, meaning that everything he does is in the matter of public interest. I posted that on my Facebook notes. So Wendy, if it is privacy you’re looking for, then fuhgetaboutit. Unless of course, you’re gonna tell your hubby to resign from the United States Senate immediately.
People who touts ‘family-values’ are supposed to be 100% perfect. So Lurker, Dave didn’t falter, the Louisiana Junior Senator intentionally sought out these women for his own pleasure. All the more reason as to why the word family-values is a dirty word in the black community and should also be a dirty word in all other communities.
Family values means promoting misogyny, homophobia and racism. Nothing else.
six-oh-seven-nine @ 5:43:
This has occurred to me also, on lots of occasions. We on the Left do seem to be deficient in good old savage persevering malice, and I’m not being sarcastic.
When operating against the utterly vicious and unprincipled rightwing noise machine, which has a pretty fair chance of bringing our country to ruin if it’s not bitterly opposed at every turn, I honestly think that cultivation of the metaphors and passion of violent detestation really is important. Principled outrage is well and good, but I am coming round to the view that principled rage is what resonates with the American zeitgeist. I wish it were otherwise. Maybe someday it can be.
But Sirkowski’s obnoxious remarks point up some of the obvious hazards of working in the medium of hateful speech. He does say things that sound like smear troll work. (Amanda, I think your use of the word “provocateur” to describe Sirkowski was intended in its more generic sense of a pot-stirrer, a shit-disturber, an impulsive lets-see-if-we-can-gross-out-the-grownups prankster; but it’s also a shortened form of agent provocateur, which IINM is French for “smear troll”.)
Still, if you strip away the crude and cruel expression, his point that Mrs. Vitter is deeply culpable does hold up. It’s even a point of view shared by six-oh-seven-nine, who found the comment offensive…
I don’t know. This Rhetoric shit is fucked up.
W. Vitter sez:
“Oh, Dear GOD! Now I know what those little crusty sores on my ladybits are! ”
Seriously, though, I do feel for her in a way. The comment upthread about her having her first HIV test is probably pretty close to the truth. Sure, she’s a hypocrite, but nobody deserves to be exposed to STD’s via a cheating partner. HE is the the big asshole here, not her.
Well, of course David Vitter wants to “protect marriage”. It stands to reason that he would be eager to “protect marriage”. Without marriage, whither prostitution? What decent red-blooded American male could stand idly by and watch prostitution die? Nay, it’s unthinkable!! The oldest profession must be saved, at however high a cost (I mean, after all, conservatives stand for tradition, right? And what could be more traditional than a profession which can plausibly describe itself as the oldest? Hunh?) If this means that our lackadaisical American males just have to man up and marry women they’re Just Not That Into and toward whom they have no intention of remaining faithful…so be it. It’s a cheap price to pay. (The prices exacted by employees of escort services are probably much steeper.)
P.S. bekabot cat alert, like ya didn’t know that already…
I think it speaks ill of me as a person that — quite honestly — reading those words gave me a contented feeling, like a taste of ice cold oh-so-just-right beer.
Of course, that may have something to do with having been a litigator. (Ponders this objectively and dispassionately.) Naaah…. I’m just a gleeful shit.
Caption: “Is this a kitchen knife I see before me?”
Me finding him “offensive” is an inaccurate characterization, in that is a subjective measurement and the world is full of other people who are oh-so-offended by things that aren’t offensive. No, Sirkowski’s problem is an objective one: a creep who wipes shit all over himself to be “provocative” is a scummy little nothing covered in filth whether or not I find him offensive. It’s not a matter for an ongoing debate, but rather the responsibility of the very large white-clad lads with the butterfly net.
So where’s the picture of Mrs. Vitter holding up her husband’s severed penis?
Like it or dislike it on a personal level, six-oh-seven-nine, my point is that the Left probably needs to work it up some on a movement level.
Why do people think, in the teeth of the evidence, that Republicans will be “strong on defense”? Because they know that Republicans are mean, ugly, nasty, unrepentant sons of bitches, who will cheat and lie and suckerpunch and backstab. Stupidly (I think), these characteristics are considered signifiers of warrior mentality, and predictors of combat success.
We need — electorally we need — our own will to violent conflict, albeit better controlled and more intelligently exercised than the rightwing hate-and-lies mindset; and we have to stop deferring to the pearl-clutchers and the Priss Police when they come round wagging fingers, as is their wont.
(I’m not talking physical violence here, just to be clear. I honestly think that if we get to the point of physical violence in our national politics, then the Bad Guys have won.)
…and now, damnit, you have put me in the mood for an “ice cold oh-so-just-right beer”.
If deserved, me likes ti just fine, sorr.
I am paid very well indeed to Communicate. And I just mis-spelled “it”. (Goes off to mortify his flesh.)
Caption:
I threw it out of the window, officer.
I can’t believe David Vitter pulled a Kobe Bryant! Trotting out the wife….bush-league!!!
Because I like him 95% of the time and he’s just trying to provoke you with that stuff. He’s a provocateur, more than anything. If you don’t get provoked, he’ll probably drop it.
Is this Marcotte’s First Law or something? If Amanda likes it, it’s not really sexist or at least not importantly so?
It’s your blog, but for fuck’s sake, the “I was just being a Witty Provocateur” horseshit was old when the whiny boys on alt.feminism used it. Calling a woman a whore and suggesting she be treated like a Nazi collaborator would get the bunnystick on pretty much any other poster.
Damn. For a second there I think Sirkowski was channeling Labyrus.
I just watched the video clip of David and Wendy. I think the saddest thing was listening to her talk about how much it disturbs her to have the media camped on her front lawn and follow them to church - all in front of her kids, now knowing their dad fucks prostitutes.
Dude should have kept it in his pants.
I think that photo can only be expressed through traditional cat macros.
DO NOT WANT.
Maybe. Does Arkansas or DC (or Louisiana) have an adultery statute? Here in MA, it can get, officially at least, get a person up to three years in prison, two years in jail, or a $500 fine.
I disagree. For people to be talked out of bad ideas, they need a conscience, and a brain. Lurker has consistently demonstrated a lack of both.
Don’t just bunny him, ban the fuckwit.
“For people to be talked out of bad ideas, they need a conscience, and a brain. Lurker has consistently demonstrated a lack of both.”
Let’s not conflate education with salvation. You might need a conscience to go to heaven, but you certainly don’t need one to engage in discussion of controversial topics. I notice that “conscience” is a favorite term of George Bush’s in his inauguration addresses, and don’t see why anyone would want to sling it around here.
As for brains, we all have them. Science dicates this is so. Some of us may have smaller brains than others, or less conformist brains than others, but we all do share this instrument.
I didn’t read Lurker’s comments, but am relieved that Sirkowski gets to stay. His or her use of visual imagery is quite original, and I appreciate the laughs. (Although I do feel badly for Ms. Vitter, who somehow seemed more likeable as a potential Loreena Bobbitt than as a supportive Tammy Wynette).
But as people point out in speaking from personal family experiences, this could happen to any of us. It’s just more sordid and more enjoyable when it happens to a public hypocrite whom we hate.
To what degree are political wives, corporate wives, the wives of sexist assholes collaborators, and to what degree are they victims or hostages? When someone grows up in a sexist society and is furthermore raised in a conservative family, “protected” from feminist thought and social progressivism, where does her responsibility begin for fixing that?
How easy is it to change one’s conditioning since birth, when sheltered from material that would convince you away from it?
I don’t like letting people off the hook too easily, but I also don’t like blaming people who’ve been brainwashed, especially those who have been brainwashed into a subservient position.
I haven’t been able to find information about Wendy Vitter beyond her smartass Bobbitry comment, so I’m withholding judgment. But I won’t ask that anyone else do so. Vive la difference of opinion.
Sirk is saying in stronger language what several others are saying, and those comments have passed without objection. Say what you will about him, but Sirkowski is an artist; react to him in conditioned ways and you are merely illustrating his point.
APS
If there is a “Marcotte’s First Law” then the second law should be that you only get to complain that someone should be banned once a month or so, otherwise it becomes a tedious and repetitive catch-all. (The third law of course should be that Amanda must protect her own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. )
We’re big boys and girls, people are going to disagree and even be rude. There’s a better way of dealing with that than constantly whining to teacher.
Given the large amount of Amanda Marcotte as Stern Teacher with a Ruler fanfiction out there I’m sure that there are many who beg to differ. Reaaallly beg.
Is this Marcotte’s First Law or something? If Amanda likes it, it’s not really sexist or at least not importantly so?
Uh, yes. See also: Dan Savage.
Amanda, every time you do this it loses you credibility for the next time you want to point out some offensive thing that other people think is trivial. (Remember how maddening that is? When misogyny is treated as trivial?) Because, you know, every sexist is liked by somebody. If you only call people on offensive shit when they’re not your friends, it looks completely petty and meaningless.
Wendy Vitter: ” Can I make it to the end of this press conference without screaming? My Valium should be kicking in soon…”
I don’t see how Lurker is Amanda’s “friend.” I don’t think she knows him. Same with “Sirkowski.”
It is not Amanda’s job to patrol this blog, banning the people you tell her to ban. I realize I say this after having been granted the privilege to exist here despite my own bouts of bad behavior. Still, honest to god, get a life or something. I can’t count the times MAJeff has whined about banning someone for some relatively personal reason like he is a gay man.
So what? I’m a woman and Sirkowski’s remarks seemed pretty innocuous to me. Lurker’s even more so: I totally skipped over them due to their boring and cliched nature.
In the “real” world, we learn to tolerate or ignore people who do not share our opinions and modes of expression; I don’t see why the Internets should be any different.
I don’t know…
Wendy Vitter is complicitous in her husband’s right-wing hate-mongering, and has been enabling a horrible bit of American Hypocrisy. I agree with all of that.
But when I look at that picture, I see someone who got hit with all of it at once. I think she was dead solid sure of her husband, her public life, and her life–and it all went up like flashpaper.
My caption, and it’s not a funny one, is “Wendy Vitter, three days before she slit her wrists in a bathtub.”
That’s what I see.
Per Sirkowski: Although an individual’s personal dysfunctions shouldn’t enjoin the behavior of an entire group, I find it offensive at the very least that his/her horrendously misogynistic comments be allowed to remain.
A feminist site it seems would be aware of the power of certain words that have been and still are used to degrade, dehumanize and disable girl children and women. That awareness should include exercising the power to remove them as still, most all women are powerless to remove their repeated use in regular social settings.
Frankly, I don’t give a rat’s ass if he/she is all nice 99% of the time, the comments posted on this thread contradict feminism and add to the disgusting tolerance/enabling the widespread problem of misogyny among liberal commentary everywhere.
As for Wendy Vitter, she is a woman stuck in an institution that puts women on the losing end every time. Marriage is a losing venture for a woman, I don’t care what her views are (and neither really, does anyone else). She speaks and lives hypocrisy just as much as any married subservient woman who blathers on and on about women’s rights.
I wish to fuck she would stab him with her shoe and leave, take the kids, go on welfare, get a grant to go to college and work at McDonald’s part-time. I’d pay double in my taxes for that.
Not that any woman can go on welfare to support the kids while she gets an education. Live by the patriarchy, suffer by the patriarchy.
Interesting. Saying that someone is whoring themselves out is an awful affront to women and feminism. Saying that supporting a gay-bashing moral scold is no different than simply being married is however fine and to be encouraged.
Shorter me: I find the concepts you espouse mildly offensive, or at least inane. Ban pls kthxbye.
You don’t know me. For more check the link on my alias.
The only person I attacked in this thread were Vitter and his wife. And unlike what you seemed to suggest, I do not wipe shit all over my self; Vitter does that. Now am I gonna get complaints from the diaper community to get banned for hate speech against diapers?
I just wrote one little post to express my hate of people like Vitter. And yes, I hate his wife too. And it got all blown out of proportions. Meh, I’m not gonna drag this into a flame war since I like this blog. But if I ever comment on a post about religion, maybe you should cover your eyes. :-p
Was I banned or I posted too many links and got modded?
What I see in Wendy now: The shock, the fear of what happens next, the pain of remembering all of the lies. Back when she said what she said about Clinton, she probably believed him when he said he was faithful, a devout Christian, all of that. Why not? Vitter was really guilty of the sin of the double standard: nice girls (who he married) aren’t all that interested in sex, so he probably never even hinted at his fetish, or would even consider marriage to a woman who would be a partner in it (since by his lights she would be “not nice”). So he went to Paltry’s girls (women he would never marry) for it.
I believe she was just the kind of sheltered woman that believed it all and had kids by him. And that what she’s also worried about: her kids.
Sirkowski:
Scrub yourself with the links all you want, that smell isn’t coming off. The fact that, for whatever reason, Amanda has pretended not to notice won’t change that.
I didn’t say he wasn’t being sexist. Just that he’s not a smear troll so much as a curmudgeon who’s getting a rise out of you. And yes, I do tend to have a broad view of human nature and tend to judge people on the whole instead “one infraction and you’re out” rule. I’d probably have my feminist card revoked long ago if the rule was never, ever say a nasty, sexist thing when you’re pissed off. I’m judging him from what I know of him, which is both more than most people here; people do get farther if they’ve already bought a little goodwill, it’s true.
It’s like Foucalt; if she hadn’t had a past of being an interesting commenter, I would have sent her off as a troll the first time she trolled the comments. But if you’ve proven to be an interesting commenter in the past, I’m more forgiving, I suppose.
That’s not curmudgeonly, Amanda; that’s just plain vile and sick. Call it what it is. When was the last time you gave a pass on somebody who indulged in violent anti-women fantasies? I can’t ever recall one. The other posters who have called you on bending your own principles for this bipedal feculence are sadly spot-on.
Is this Marcotte’s First Law or something? If Amanda likes it, it’s not really sexist or at least not importantly so?
It’s your blog, but for fuck’s sake, the “I was just being a Witty Provocateur� horseshit was old when the whiny boys on alt.feminism used it.
I never said “witty” or “not sexist”. Complaints lose points with me if they aren’t accurate. To make it excrutiatingly clear what I was saying: I know he’s not a smear troll. I ban because people have nothing to add to the conversation, and I don’t think this is such a situation. If you feel someone is trolling, it’s probably best not to feed the troll.
If you can find “not sexist” in there, be my guest.
Thank you, Amanda! I am glad you gave me a second chance. And I am really glad that Sirkowski gets to stay. He’s like Picasso: colorful!
It’s your blog. You are free to give a pass to whoever you want, whenever you want, for whatever reason(s) you want; a lack of a one-strike rule is probably best. But let’s not write off what he said as if it were harmless. And there’s every eason to ban somebody for comments like that with the admonition of “likable curmudgeon or no, that’s beyond acceptable in this thread and you’re banned/bunnied from this thread”.
One of the real engines of this blog is its moral consistency. I don’t wish to be a scold (and I’ve NEVER asked for somebody to be banned before, in the many years I’ve been here), but loathsome comments can’t be given an “oh, it’s okay, Amanda likes him pass”. And frankly, anybody suggesting that the “whore” be dragged out into the street and assaulted is spouting contemptible slime, baffling excuses from you nothwithstanding.
I think it’s possible to judge Wendy Vitter AND feel sorry for her. This woman’s pain is palpable, from her “Hey, lookit me, I’m fuckable too!” dress to the pain lines between her eyes. She is NOT “over it”, not one bit. Forgiving and being over it are two very different things.
As for the pain this is causing her children, well, the person to blame is not the press, but the man standing next to her — and she seems unwilling to do that. This is a man who used his kids as the FOCAL POINT of a campaign ad. All candidates like to show themselves with their kids to humanize them, but Vitter put them front and center as the “filmmakers” of a campaign ad. At that point, all bets are off. The one who caused pain to their children is David Vitter, by fucking prostitutes.
I wonder how long it’s going to take for people to realize that the more a politician talks about morality and family values and protecting marriage, the more skeletons he has in his own closet. Out ‘em all, I say.
I agree, Sirkowski is one of the reasons I haven’t actually read Liberal Avenger in a while. We may agree on political matters, but sexism is horseshit, no matter how you dress it up as devotion to some higher cause. I would say he’s less a provocateur and more of an asshat.
“One of the real engines of this blog is its moral consistency.”
If you’re reading blogs as moral compasses, then you REALLY need to get a life. Go to church or something. You are no better than Vitter if this is why you are reading Pandagon.
And to Jack Goff: your own veiled threats that you won’t read Pandagon anymore if Amanda doesn’t ban those whom you don’t approve of are the *true* indicators of asshatedness. Grow up.
“This woman’s pain is palpable, from her “Hey, lookit me, I’m fuckable too!â€? dress…”
That’s so interesting: I thought exactly the same thing as Jill when I saw that dress.
Possibly. But what really is baffling is some of the borderline-condescending comments that she is somehow some sort of brainwashed innocent, wholly bereft of any agency whatsoever. I don’t get those.
I hate to see anyone banned.
Smear trolls, who can be used by the mainstream media to denigrate the sites they troll, can be handled by the proprietor of the site deleting the comments, or, as was done here, by the denizens of the site disavowing the offensive speech.
I prefer the latter.
oh goody, Foucault’s decided to stop going after history mom and chosen me instead…wheeeeeeee
I’m not attacking you, MAJeff. I’m simply acknowledging the fact that you frequently request other peoples’ banning. This makes you a whiner.
I think the moderators of this blog should make their own decisions about whom to ban and whom not to ban. They don’t need a bunch of people with personal agendas telling them what to do.
You can’t show kids in beer commercials; it’s against the law. Maybe it’s time that we had a similar political ban.
Foucault’s decided to stop going after history mom and chosen me instead…wheeeeeeee
Trust me, she’ll probably get to all of us eventually. [spins in chair]
You’re too boring for me to even contemplate going after, JackGoff. I mean, look at your food choice: “Tomatoey Goodness.” That says a lot right there. You eat ketchup.
Whewwwwww! I thought you were going to say he was missing something in the head.
I do have some sympathy for her. i had a fair amount of sympathy for Mrs Haggard. This must be an awful time in her life. Maybe she’s reliving what took the Vitters’ to marital counseling previously. Maybe she wants out of a bad marriage. But my sympathy is diminished by the cruel words she said.
Personally, I feel that a woman who was publicly critical of Hillary Clinton ’standing by her man’, and made a joke about cutting off…well, I suppose she should expect the same kindness, respect, privacy and dignity she showed a few years back. I would have a lot more respect for her now if she had said ‘ I think that is a private matter’, instead of making a Bobbit joke. Shit happens. There but for the grace of God (the sky fairy/Bob/fate/whatever your preference) go I. It seems to be a hallmark of small minded people that they don’t stop to think ‘that could happen to me’, and then pontificate about what they would do in that situation. The lack of sympathy and empathy she showed (as an adult ) is amazing. Maybe she was feeling smug that day. Maybe her husband told her to say it. Or a PR hack. I’m sure it scored a political point somewhere. It doesn’t excuse it. Show me her apologizing, a statement of retraction, something saying she was taken out of context, and I’ll say, Wendy Vitter is not a hypocrite.
Is it right to be publicly humiliated for standing by a cheating spouse? No.
Is it right to be publicly humiliated for being openly critical (when interviewed) of how a public figure handled her husbands affair, and then standing by a cheating spouse. Maybe.
Is it right to be publicly humiliated for doing the above, and then saying ‘ this is a private matter’? Sure.
It’s not a perfect comparison. Hillary Clinton, was and is, a more public figure than Wendy Vitter. But as it was said previously, Wendy Vitter does not get immunity from the public because she wants it. She campaigned with David Vitter. She helped him campaign on ‘family values’. She publicly complained about a woman who stayed with a cheating husband. If she doesn’t want this to be a public matter, she shouldn’t be at a press conference.
Ah, but you had to throw in the bits about being a gay man, too. I suppose that, based on the same amount of evidence you used to call history mom anti-semitic, we can deduce that you’re anti-gay.
wev
I didn’t write it off as harmless. My fault in this is weighing a bunch of factors and deciding that on the whole, I’m not really interested in getting into the nastiness of a blog fight over this or banning someone. Maybe if I wasn’t already in a foul mood and maybe if people hadn’t misrepresented what I said, I’d feel differently about this, but right now, that’s not how it’s going.
Foucalt, I gave you another chance. But if you keep lashing out at people for no good reason, I will ban you. I’m truly, deeply sick of it.
You’re too boring for me to even contemplate going after, JackGoff.
Awesome
I mean, look at your food choice: “Tomatoey Goodness.� That says a lot right there. You eat ketchup.
Ooops. You almost made it.
Smooches, all. Gotta run!
And to Jack Goff: your own veiled threats that you won’t read Pandagon anymore if Amanda doesn’t ban those whom you don’t approve of are the *true* indicators of asshatedness. Grow up.
Jesus, do you ever stop?! I never said or implied any such thing. Sirkowski is a contributor to LA.
And this must be why Amanda has consistently said that she relies on commenters on such issues because it’s such a big task to administer this site.
In learning to deal with my friends and now my sister, I read a lot if the sites I listed above. I encourage reading now and was very happy to see on Olbermann last night that they got the possible reasons Wendy wore the dress spot on.
Some of the counselors and posters compared the emotional devastation a spouse who has been cheat on similar to that of being raped (if you disagree, or don’t understand how, don’t flame me – go read) . . . In trying to explain why a cheated on spouse acts the way they do toward the spouse who went astray one person talked about being raped and how this was some what harder to deal with because she wasn’t trying to live with her rapist.
remember with the haggard scandal that assclown hipster evangelist guy from that seattle came forth and decreed that Mrs. Haggard was partially at fault for her husband’s philandering? according to him, she had let herself go and so naturally her husband was balling male hookers and snorting crystal meth. but of course! what red-blooded american christian male wouldn’t respond to his wife’s cellulite by screwing a male hooker and doing meth.
maybe mrs. vitter is trying to head that kind of thinking off at the pass. if she presents herself as fuckable, she won’t have to hear about how she’s just an ugly slag who caused her man to stray. i can’t blame her for trying to spare herself that kind of pain.
correction, i meant seattle church
The sad thing is that Wendy thinks she is doing this in the best interest of her children, which seems unlikely, as this guy Vitter comes off as strict father morality type who is most probably absentee due to his busy schedule.
Yeah, the fuss over his hypocracy(sic) is probably damaging his kids, maybe he should have thought of that before the fact.
I do rely on commenters to alert me to crazy goings-on. Please don’t stop sending emails, even if I’m crabby. Dealing with trolling is a balancing act is all. I might have good, if complex, reasons for my decisions on this, though.
I don’t appreciate the sexism of Sirkowski’s comments, but I get his point underneath his inflammatory rhetoric. I think it’s a good point, and I wish he’d have phrased it in a non-sexist manner. I’d say that wives in these situations have probably had a long history of being used as political props, and thus when stuff like this goes down, they keep doing their jobs. Political wifehood is a complex and disturbing phenomenon. And doubly so with Republican wives who are used to cover up the vile hypocrises of men who run on “family values”. They’re being used, sure, but they also need to be held responsible for continuing the cycle and the problem.
[…] Update:Â For another posting on the first image, go to David Vitter trots out wife to cover for him at Pandagon; on the second image, go to The Pained Political Wife at Cheat-Seeking Missiles. […]