<p>^^ OMG I had forgotten about the Appalachian Trail/Argentina incident! That one stood out for its utter and hilarious chutzpah. Another “family values” guy BTW.</p>
<p>HUGE “family values” proponent R. Santorum, currently running for President, was involved in the Ensign scandal - tipping off Ensign right before the story of his affair was about to go public (as revealed in the recent Senate Ethics Committee report).
Never ONCE did Santorum call for the resignation of Ensign, OR of Vitter.</p>
<p>Veddy interesting.</p>
<p>(for those who are interested, Rachel Maddow’s June 9 show has some great quotes from Rick himself about family values and what Weiner should do, and also details his Ensign involvement - google “The Holier Than Thou LIE That Is Rick” S.)</p>
<p>The various family-values anti-gay political figures who are exposed as gay tend to lie, too. (He wasn’t a politician per se, but remember the anti-gay guy who hired a rent boy to “carry his luggage” on a vacation?) I just think of lying as part and parcel of the original sex shenanigans.</p>
<p>Larry “Wide Stance” Craig finished out his term, and he had pled guilty to soliciting sex from a male police officer.</p>
<p>I’d like to hear more about Vitter’s “diaper sex” thing and the prostitutes (illegal). Why did THAT get so little press coverage, and virtually no discussion here? I’ve seen plenty of weiners before, but know virtually nothing about diaper sex…</p>
<p>And of course, there was Ted Haggard, the anti-gay gay meth-head pastor. Not a politician, but evangelicals have been the backbone of Party B for 30 years.</p>
<p>The sex doesn’t bother me anymore. The hypocrisy still infuriates me; that and the determination to foist a set of values onto me which they refuse to practice themselves.</p>
<p>ahh, yes - the “rent boy” guy, George Alan Rekers, was a prominent anti-gay activist, and founder of the Family Research Council (now classified as a hate group)!!
you just can’t make this stuff up! The Family Research Council! - How much more “family values” can you get??</p>
<p>(gotta love The Google, eh?)</p>
<p>MomCat2, I have wondered the same thing. Vitter admitted to arranging “meetings” for sex with the prostitutes he used, while sitting at his desk in the Senate chamber. And I never quite got the diaper thing. Pretty strange, really. Plus illegal.</p>
<p>The only reason I can think of for why Vitter is still a senator, but everyone is calling for Weiner to resign, is pictures. If we had pictures of Vitter having sex while wearing a diaper, I imagine he would not have survived the outcry either. I can’t think of a single other reason why he is still in office - and got a standing ovation for surviving the scandal from the members of his party.</p>
<p>I think that the reason some politicians survive and some don’t has more to do with popularity than with the details of what they did. For example, Rangel is very popular with his colleagues. Weiner is not well-liked and, furthermore, comes from a district which is very safe for his party (and which might disappear). It took about 5 seconds for his party to turn against him.</p>
<p>Rachel Maddow and posters here should give up trying to bring Vitter into this discussion. Vitter represents Louisiana. Louisiana has a heavily FRENCH culture. That means they’re playing by Strauss-Kahn rules down there. That means if the worst you can say about the guy is he visited an occasional prostitute, you got nuttin’ on him.</p>
<p>Are the French into diaper sex too? I did not know that.</p>
<p>(and R. Maddow was talking about Ensign, not Vitter - months went by and not even the most holy of holy family values guys, Rick Santorum, called for his reisgnation. That came about only after the Senate Ethics Committee report. Senator Coburn, also heavily into “family values” arranged the PAYOFF in the Ensign matter - and there he sits, still in the Senate.)</p>
<p>For those who are so hung up on the hypocrisy of the family values guys, how about the hypocrisy of sensitive-progressive-males’ mysogany? How about Clinton using an intern as a plaything, Ed Schultz calling Laura Ingraham a “sl*t,” and Chris Matthews blaming Mrs. Weiner (he retracted it a few min. later, but it seemed clear he meant it when he said it and was trying to cover his rear)?</p>
<p>I saw Maddow do 20 minutes on an anti-Vitter rant in the last few days. I think I know the difference between the names Vitter and Ensign.</p>
<p>Who campaigns on being a “sensitive progressive male”? - I sure the heck have never seen it. Anyone? Anyone?
But the list of those who run on “family values” is quite long indeed. And their hypocrisy is incredibly huge.
Chris Matthews progressive??? on what planet??</p>
<p>I thought that you were referring to the R. Maddow episode that I linked above, which was about Santorum and discussed the Ensign scandal. Sorry.</p>
<p>And there is no “Mrs. Weiner”. The Congressman’s wife is Huma Abedin.</p>
<p>hayden, there was way, way less of a media frenzy over Vitter and Ensign and other scandals mentioned here. (I still want to know more about diaper sex - the media failed me!)
There are various explanations of why there are huge discrepancies in media coverage of such things. One of them that some people use is “IOKIYAR”.</p>
<p>(Agree that the presence of pictures has increased the titillation factor)</p>
<p>"Who campaigns on being a “sensitive progressive male”? "
“Chris Matthews progressive??? on what planet”</p>
<p>Are you serious?? What guy from one side of the aisle DOESN’T bend over backward to gush about he and his ilk being sensitive, nurturing, and pro-female while blasting the other side for dragging knuckles and being anti-female?</p>
<p>I think that Chris Mathews suffers from something like ADD, or verbal Tourette’s. Sometimes really absurd or outrageous things come out of his mouth. He constantly interrupts his guests, too, and this is annoying. I think that the only reason he stays on the air is that he has a deep knowledge of history, particularly from the Tip O’Neill era when he was participating in government. Progressive? Hardly.</p>
<p>There is much bad behavior among our elected officials, and seemingly no rational basis for who stays and who goes. I don’t think anyone here condones Bill Clinton’s actions, which I agree constitute sexual harassment, or Coburn’s facilitation of Ensign’s coverup, to mention two of many examples.</p>
<p>Examples, please? Gushing about being sensitive, nurturing, and pro-female?
Who and when?</p>
<p>Schmaltz, I want to know too. Who campaigns on being a sensitive progressive male? Names and documentation.</p>
<p>And when we say “campaigns on,” we mean “campaigns on;” not some throwaway remark, but a campaign platform plank. On the right, there are numerous political organizations promoting so-called family values: Focus on the Family, the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, the Traditional Values Coalition, to name a few. Many conservative politicians emphasize their family values when they campaign. On the left, I can’t think of a single organization which focuses on sensitive maleness.</p>
<p>Schmaltz, perhaps Louisiana was french 200 years ago, but it is not now. The state is not all New Orleans - it’s not exactly a hot spot for liberal beliefs or behavior. Not only that, but even if you were correct, that would not explain the general approval and support his national party gave Vitter. </p>
<p>The reason some of us find this confusing is that what Vitter did was illegal, while what Weiner did is not. I don’t approve of either, but I am consistent in being against the activities of both. What I find puzzling is why some supported Vitter, but are against Weiner. The only difference I saw was the pictures made it more explosive. Although NYMomof2 had a good point - Weiner doesn’t appear to be very popular among his colleagues.</p>
<p>And as for “they’re playing by Strauss-Kahn rules down there”. Are you a man? Strauss-Kahn had nothing to do with sex. Rape is not, and never has been, about sex.</p>
<p>gee, hayden, there you go, sounding all nurturing and pro-female! Rape isn’t about sex???</p>