David Vitter: Scumbag extraordinaire

Post Reply New Topic

Recall when the corporate media, RNC, and DNC drove Weiner out of office? Recall how Eliot Spitzer had to resign in disgrace and even CNN worried about the negative flack hiring him might cause? Well, David "brothel" Vitter, who was cheered by his fellow country club conservatives when re-entering America's finest halls of power, is outraged at being asked about his past.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxT4DYzI9w8&[/youtube]

The American Media certainly does have a double standard. Democrats who do naughty things get canned, but Repugnicans can commit the most sordid and repugnant acts, and they get cheered on for it.

The fat guy hosting the segment hates prostitutes and himself.

That is a lie. Just go here: newsbusters dot org for proof it's actually the reverse of what you say.

Both sides get hit with sex scandals. There is no real favoritism in the media over, it's just whatever is a hot story and if they're worth keeping around to weather the storm. Vitter was a US Senator in a state with a Democratic governor at the time, Weiner was just one of 435 and became more of a distraction than he was worth. Another difference was that Vitter owned up to it while Weiner got himself caught in a lie as well as the whole "weirdness" factor.

"Newsbusters" is full of morons who don't fact-check.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt156167.html

They do fact check, but it's usual for you liberals. When you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.

There's a term for that: IOKIYAR. It's OK if you're a Republican.

Case in point: Newt Gingrich gets so offended now during debates when he gets asked about the extra-marital activities he actively pursued while railing against Bill Clinton for the same exact thing and pretending to be the voice of traditional family morality. And the worst thing is, the crowd in South Carolina actually cheered when he told off John King for asking about it.

The problem is the media is liberally biased. Since you seem to have ignored my Newsbusters link, here's another.

From what I understand, Weiner was generally disliked by other Democrats, and it was pressure from them that caused him to resign.

Yeah, okay. So... let me get this straight. Bill Clinton breaks his marital vows, and he's unfit to lead, and his affair becomes the biggest media feeding frenzy of the last decade of the 20th Century. Newt Gingrich breaks his, twice, roughly around the same time as Clinton, while simultaneously claiming to be Mr. Family Values and being outraged at Clinton's behavior, and not only is it irrelevant to his ability to be President, but he gets applauded for berating John King on national television for even suggesting that it might be relevant. And John King spinelessly lets him get away with it.

And there's no double standard there, and it's just evidence that the media is biased to the left.

...

Does not compute.

Why do you hate America

Why, because I'm an evil liberal, of course. We all hate America, and want to see it become a godless pot-smoking socialist homosexual gulag like Norway and Canada.

The problem is it isn't relevant. The media was just trying to get the Republican candidates fighting amongst themselves. Also, where, before this post, did I say that was proof of the media being biased? I said,Get it? It's the problem, not proof.

In most cases, I would likely agree with you. It shouldn't be. And honestly, I don't give a damn what happens in a candidate's personal life-- so long as they aren't guilty of incorporating "do as I say, not as I do" into their executive or legislative platforms. Then it becomes an actual political issue, and I do care. Newt abandoned not one but two infirm wives, yet he claims to have the authority to moralize about what does and doesn't constitute a family. He has been an outspoken opponent of gay marriage, as well as Roe v. Wade, and back in the 90s he took the notorious stance that women were biologically unfit to serve in the military. The latest incarnation of this moral superiority attitude has come in the form of campaign pandering; he knows he's got to get the evangelical vote, so he gets up on stage and talks about how important traditional marriage is. But it's all an act-- by his previous actions it's clear that his view of marriage is that it is disposable when it becomes inconvenient. The hypocrisy of his facade is bad enough, but I don't want to be governed or represented in international affairs by a man who, for all his pious posturing, obviously doesn't respect women or alternative lifestyles.



The Republican candidates don't need any help from the media to stoke in-fighting. They're doing a perfectly fine job of that themselves this election cycle, particularly Mitt and Newt. My parents live in Florida, and they just had their primary. My mother's been telling me about being bombarded by non-stop negative campaign ads for weeks. And she's not alone in recognizing that it's been a particularly brutal campaign. --> Link



I'm sorry, did you not say that? I suppose I must have misinterpreted you then. I didn't see you mention anything about how Clinton got treated one way and Newt gets treated totally differently (which is, you know, what I was originally talking about). All I saw was your assertion that the media is biased to the left, supported only by what appears to be a conservative agitprop site. I just naturally assumed that you were trying to respond to my points about a double standard, rather than making a random contradictory accusation and expecting me to buy into it and reverse my position just on the merits of you having said it.

Yeah, sorry about that.