« Arguments You Don't See Every Day | Main | Smart For One, Dumb For All Problems »

July 10, 2007

Poor Vitter

On the heels of revelations that Republican senator David Vitter frequented prostitutes, Charlie directs us to this old quote from his wife:

Asked by an interviewer in 2000 whether she could forgive her husband if she learned he'd had an extramarital affair, as Hillary Clinton and Bob Livingston's wife had done, Wendy Vitter told the Times-Picayune: "I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me."

Anyone know if he's been singing soprano lately?

July 10, 2007 | Permalink


Castrati sing soprano. Having one's dick cut off doesn't affect one's voice.

Unless Vitter has only one nut, and that that was the one thing that his missus threatened to sever.

Posted by: binny | Jul 10, 2007 11:36:26 AM

Maybe a better question would be whether he cancelled his Viagra prescription?

Posted by: Glenn | Jul 10, 2007 11:59:09 AM

Sure, she may have said she would reappropriate the senator's nutsack, but, in the face of actual evidence that he did in fact bang around on her, she has shown no particular desire to do what she promised to do. Cheap political theater, disregard for factual evidence, macho posturing: Lousiana Republicans, you have elected the wrong Vitter!

Posted by: diddy | Jul 10, 2007 12:16:12 PM

Castrati sing soprano.

IIRC, they also have to be castrated before puberty-- before their vocal cords thicken, IOW-- to actually sing soprano. Castrating an adult might change his voice some over time, but not that much.


It's much easier to make statements like Mrs. Vitter's with blind, arrogant confidence, isn't it? Guess she'll rationalize it by saying that frequenting prostitutes is only about sex, while Clinton professed some [minor] emotional attachment to Monica. Or something.

Posted by: latts | Jul 10, 2007 12:34:54 PM

Amusing as it is to hoist the puffed-up on their own hypocrisy, I'm not sure liberals can have it all ways on this either - if you've got a problem with Vitter hiring hookers and catting around on his wife, well, let's just remember that the next time we're arguing about the "traditional values" crowd. Personally, I suspect it's the usual case of being sure you'd be opposed to infidelity until it happens to you. Mrs. Vitter appears to have found a way to accept her husband's behavior, and in the end, what I think of Vitter hiring hookers isn't going to matter to their marriage. Infidelity happens. People aren't perfect. I thought the point of liberalism to allow for that.

Posted by: weboy | Jul 10, 2007 12:53:34 PM

weboy, I don't have a problem with anyone hiring hookers and catting around on their wives, although I think their relationship(s) with their wives (let's include polyamorists in this) might be in trouble if there's not some honesty going on.

What I do have a problem with is puffed up little conservatives who harp on about moral issues while behaving hypocritically relative to what they're harping on about.

If a liberal went around saying there should be only public healthcare and no one should use private health insurance, and then it was discovered they themselves used a hefty amount of private insurance, that'd bug me, too, even though I personally have no problem with people using private health insurance.

That analogy's a stretch I suppose but the point is:

It's the hypocrisy, stupid.

Posted by: Adam | Jul 10, 2007 1:10:27 PM

I have never heard of a man threatening to mutilate his wife's genitals as the result of infidellity. This woman, like Bobbitt, is insane.

Posted by: Rich | Jul 10, 2007 1:12:13 PM

weboy, the whole point IS hypocrisy. Check out Glenn Greenwald today for an excellent rundown on all of Vitter's venom directed against gays and same-sex marriage, all in the name of the sanctity of marriage, pure morals, etc. In the abstract, I don't care who or what he sticks his dick in (as long as I don't have to hear or see the nasty details). But as part of a class of people routinely on the receiving end of vitriol from assholes like Vitter, I take great pleasure and satisfaction in the demonstration (yet again!) that these fucks' one argument against us -- God's supposed pronouncements -- is something that even they don't believe in.

Posted by: Glenn | Jul 10, 2007 1:14:53 PM

Or, what Adam said.

Posted by: Glenn | Jul 10, 2007 1:15:35 PM

And adding to Adam's point about hypocrisy, the real issue is that people like Vitter, ones who hold political power, want to use that power to limit others' ability to engage in exactly the same behaviors they themselves are pursuing behind closed doors. That's a particularly craven and dangerous form of hypocrisy, and it calls for a stronger response than the amused contempt that ordinary hypocrites warrant.

Posted by: latts | Jul 10, 2007 1:17:13 PM

Rich: you've never heard of it in the U.S., or arguably, the first world. But you have a point.

Also, what latts said.

Posted by: Adam | Jul 10, 2007 1:23:45 PM

To add to Latts' last point. To the extent that Vitter and his like succeed in using their political power to impose legal limits on "others' ability to engage in exactly the same behaviors they themselves are pursuing behind closed doors," they will, of course, not actually prevent people from engaging in those actvities, but only insure that the number of unwanted pregnancies, preventable STDs and illegal abortions goes up. On the plus side, however, they will be contributing to the climate of hysterical cretinism in which modern day Republicanism thrives.

Posted by: J | Jul 10, 2007 1:36:11 PM

Someone should do a new version of that Adam Samburg / Justin Timberlake Saturday Night Live parody featuring Mrs. Vitter. Just change it to the second person singular.

Posted by: Dilan Esper | Jul 10, 2007 2:12:32 PM

It's always funny how someone always manages in this sort of situation to point out what liberals should or shouldn't feel on a subject based on their view of what liberals should or shouldn't do. Being liberal doesn't mean we don't get to laugh at hypocricy, and it certainly doesn't mean we have to be above it all.

Posted by: akaison | Jul 10, 2007 2:58:31 PM

No Rich, men don't generally mutilate their wives genitals for infidelity, they tend to kill them or beat the crap out of them

Posted by: Eric | Jul 10, 2007 4:49:17 PM

I was just asking. :)

I agree, I think as long as we're talking hypocrisy, and previous statements, Vitter's surely fair game. I don't necessarily take a lot of glee in his downfall to merely mortal, though; I'm sure it's not a happy day for anyone to be exposed in quite this way. I don't necessarily wish that on anyone, even someone as moralistic and antigay as Vitter.

Posted by: weboy | Jul 10, 2007 5:22:28 PM

The point of liberalism is to allow for infidelity?

Anyways I don't care at all about Vitter, one way or the other.

Posted by: Korha | Jul 10, 2007 5:46:10 PM

"I don't necessarily take a lot of glee in his downfall"

Well, I guess I can't ever be truly liberal because I am definitely the dance on the grave type. And, I am laughing while doing it. Maybe it's a bit of that Southern gene in me.

Posted by: akaison | Jul 10, 2007 6:34:46 PM

I met Vitter when he was still in the House when I was in Baton Rouge at a Louisiana Association of Broadcasters Convention. I had read his bio and thought he might be a smart guy, despite the fact that he was a right-winger.

As it turned out he impressed me as the emptiest of empty suits: long on bromides and platitudes, short on substance.

Posted by: Randy Paul | Jul 10, 2007 8:39:34 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.