It honestly takes a lot to get me to feel sympathy for David Vitter, (R. La.) Like most of the world, I was floored by the voters of Louisiana returning Vitter, a religious right politician, to the Senate after his scandal involving high-priced prostitutes. However, that is precisely the unique skill of the current Democratic leadership — they seem eager to win any race to the bottom. Vitter this week opposed an Obama regulation that gives an exemption of members of Congress and their aides under Obamacare. The regulation allows Congress to pay for its own generous subsidies to avoid having to live under the new law like normal citizens. While there is a definite appeal to Vitter’s view that the Congress should live under the same law applicable to average citizens, there may be some legitimate argument that I am missing. What should be clear is that some Democrats reacted in worse possible way. Politico is reporting that it has legislation drafted by Democrats that would eliminate health care benefits for lawmakers where there is “probable cause” to believe they patronized prostitutes. If true, this is really a sophomoric act of retaliation. Politico is reporting that this is not a joke but something actually raised as a meeting of Democratic members.
Apparently even Republicans are mad at Vitter for exposing the hypocrisy of Congress imposing a law on the country while (yet again) creating an exception for itself. The law actually has language barring exceptions, but the Obama Administration issued an order during the August recess to require the Office of Personnel Management to retain the subsidy for members and their staffs.
Even if you believe Congress should be able spare itself from having to get insurance like other Americans, this alleged proposal (and other retaliatory measure directed at Senators supporting Vitter) would set a new low for Congress. I still find it hard to believe that any Democrat would draft such an openly retaliatory and vicious response. Yet, there has been no denial that a draft was circulated that I could find.
Vitter has demanded an investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee, specifically naming Sens. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). A Reid spokeswoman said Vitter’s aim is a “desperate attempt to change the subject from his previous ethics issues.” That statement is troubling since I fail to see why we are discussing Vitter’s ethics at all in this context. He has a perfectly valid point in seeking to block an exception for members under this controversial law.
What do you think about the effective subsidy that Congress will continue to give itself under the regulation?
Blouise,
“. . . look for trouble from Russia next year . . .”
Yeah, people forget that Russia’s only direct naval access to the Mediterranean is a base in Tartus, which Russia is currently rebuilding.
http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/PRN-russia-s-support-for-assad-regime-228392.aspx
Blouise,
I did say courage was subjective, but past courage doesn’t always translate to current courage.
And FWIW, I agree Russia is long term trouble so long as we continue to do the Saudis dirty work (and in some respects the Israelis dirty work, more accurately the Likud’s dirty work) in the ME, but I think the timeframe is somewhat malleable at this point. The one thing we have in our favor at the moment in that regard is that a nuclear Iran is just as much a problem for Russia as it is for us and our allies. Containing the general theater is as much in their best interest as it is in ours but we will eventually come to loggerheads over methodology if nothing else.
Gene,
You have my sympathies regarding Vitter and thus the lack of even basic representation in your federal government.
As to John’s lack of courage … talk to me after you’ve faced guns, dogs, clubs, fire hoses, mobs of spittle spewing deputies, and dank, dark jail cells armed with nothing more than a determination to better the conditions of your fellow men and women.
BTW … look for trouble from Russia next year … this Syria thing is NOT going well and I suspect Russia is getting fed up with our destabilization of the region that impacts so heavily on their border countries. Russia’s willingness to “in your face” us with Snowden was just part of the message … in my opinion.
I submit that the asshat is both in the eyes of the beholder – a subjective standard – and in the objective facts.
Lewis, whose record is in pretty much total contradiction to his recent actions, is over all about as admirable as a pol can be under our system. However, while it would be simply Pollyanna to think that the reasons for his about face might not be financial (whore) there are other equally likely scenarios where non-financial political pressures caused his incongruous actions. But because of his contradictory positions, I think the pejorative of “coward” can be somewhat justified on the record as could the term “hypocrite”. These do carry a large subjective component though. That being said, “whorecoward” as it relates to Lewis was I think an overstatement and speaks to a possibility rather than a probability based on the evidence.
In contrast, by any and all reasonable objective standards and the evidence to date, calling Vitter an “asshat” (or worse) is perfectly justified as a statement of objective fact rather than mere subjective opinion.
It’s reasonableness, objective evidence and subjective reaction colliding.
And that is all I have to say about that.
pdm,
“whorecoward” = John Lewis (Darren)
“assh*t” = Vitter (pdm)
The humor is in the reality of whoredom and the blinders steadfastly in place as to the assh*ts who actually use them. 😉
pdm wrote:
“And it’s a pretty funny reminder about “civil discourse” coming from someone who called a very respected congressman a whore – not once, but several times.””
I don’t know pdm you tell me: (your own quote)
“Vitter is being a complete assh*t.”
So what is it? If one particular member of congress is (from your point of view) bad, it is ok to call them a complete assh*t, but it is not ok to call one something else if you respect them.
pdm:
Just listen to yourself. You go around denouncing Professor Turley and others here for not being straight shooters or otherwise objective and you fall right into the same type of behavior with your rancour. You call the Senator and others as*holes and then you engage in the same type of behavior when someone says something you disagree with. You imply that others who write in disagreement with the president or Democrats are being right wing and wrong and you seem to feel you can declare what publications that some cannot quote as sources. So tell us, is motherjones.com completely right or is spiegel.de or what others?
I said essentially how it is bad practice for congress to retaliate against a fellow member and I also mentioned that people need to beware about the dangers of retaliating against someone who is out of favour and not expecting it to happen to those who are in favor if this was allowed to continue; to which you wrote:
“As for what the Dems did in a threat of retaliation. Good on them! It’s about time somebody showed some spine around these treasonous thugs”
So there you go. Congratulating those who retaliate against others, as long as those others are those you disagree with. And you pride yourself in being the fair one. You don’t come across as being very objective. I get the feeling that you are one that cannot stand if someone disagrees with your political leanings. Professor Turley writes favorable and unfavorable articles about individuals, including presidents or other politicians, based upon their actions. Well, if those two perform actions that the professor disagrees with, guess what, it is likely he will write about it? This is the professor’s publication and he is within his right to post what he chooses.
As for Joe Wilson yelling out “you lie” I really didn’t care much about it either way. Having watched Prime Ministers Questions over the years, the you lie remarks is rather insignificant compaired to Parliament’s debates or presentations:
Especially from 08:45 onward:
And it’s a pretty funny reminder about “civil discourse” coming from someone who called a very respected congressman a whore – not once, but several times.
Got to go with Blouise’s and pdm’s political read on this situation.
Vitter, who it shames me to admit is my Congress-critter, is an utter bottom feeder but this is just him acting out his narcissism and the opposition taking advantage of it.
SOP with the group of greedy children we routinely have
purchasedelected in to office.Darren
Read up on the full story. Vitter is being a complete assh*t. Even the Repubs are pissed at him. He is being a jerk, nothing more. You’ll find several articles on it. Be my guest….read them on Politico. As for what the Dems did in a threat of retaliation. Good on them! It’s about time somebody showed some spine around these treasonous thugs! And by the way….it will never come up for a vote. I don’t think it has even been presented in committee. The Dems are just giving Vitter a “poke” in return for his stupid threat to screw the Dems with a Republican’s usual regard for the consequences to people who cannot afford his stupid stunt. You’re getting on your high horse for a JERK. And please stop referring to it as having been done. Nothing has been done…there is no rule or regulation. Most SANE people who have read up on this will easily understand what is going on here. Too bad you and Turley don’t. But then again, it is clear where both of you stand when it comes to Democrats and this administration.
And just another thought….what were your feelings about Joe Wilson yelling out “you lie” at a State of the Union? Were you as offended by that?
I think we can all agree that VItter is an SOB, that aside does anyone see any problem with how some in the Senate are retaliating against him and some of those actions yet?
Professor Turley wrote:
“Even if you believe congress should be able spare itself from having to get insurance like other Americans, this alleged proposal (and other retaliatory measure directed at Senators supporting Vitter) would set a new low for Congress. I still find it hard to believe that any Democrat would draft such an openly retaliatory and vicious response.”
Have we lost sight of congress drafting retaliatory rules against other members of congress might be a grave concern. So many of the responses here have been forgetting the core issue here and getting on a soap box to declare how lecherous this man is. So what would the response be if the targeted member of congress was a saint and 100% in political alignment with those posting here? I would suspect there would be a lot of people going after those others in congress who are on the attack and engage in retaliation. But it seems like if the Senator is to be scorned well he deserves what he gets even if the process is fundamentally wrong and arbitrary.
People seem to have a tendancy to look away when the SOB is being attacked and talk only about the bad things he has done, regardless if the actions taken against them are wrong. But if you premit this to continue, that is give license for Senators to retaliate against other senators as was done in this case guess what happens. You’ve empowered them and the next thing you know the “good” senators are next. And that certainly is not a situation that fosters dissenting opinions to have a voice in a civil discussion of the issues.
Nicely done, Blouise. Said ever so much more elegantly, cleverly and colorfully than I.
pdm,
Grassley does the original amendment that screwed all those fine folk who work for him and his colleagues, Vitter loudly trumpets the whole Republican mess instead of leaving it quietly swept under the rug and the Prof suggests we might want to feel sorry for Vitter and his nappy sexual fetish.
Throw up? … maybe from laughing too hard and long.
Somebody needs to put a diaper chapeau on ol’ shat for brains Vitter ’cause without one he’s going to keep pushing the handle and flushing his Republican buds down into the bowels of their porcelain thrones.
raf
When was the last time he wrote something supportive of Obama? Or of any Democrat? And if you come up with a couple, I will cite 50 where he eviserates them/him. He writes opinion pieces, uses partisan sources, and ample slugs of propaganda. Fer instance here…. he mentions Vitter and prostitutes. Commonplace sins. Did he mention the diapers? How about “sink so low”? How about “eager to race to the bottom”? How about “the worse possible way”? Really? Has he not been reading about the WAR the thugs have been waging against ACA? Has he not read about the 4,000 votes the Thugs have taken to repeal ACA. How does he feel about the rumblings about impeachment? What does he think about the efforts to end food stamps for families of felons? Where’s his piece on the budget? the default on the debt ceiling? His rhetoric isn’t quite up to Jill’s skills, but it is not far off.
Further his sources are often terrible…The Daily Mail=right wing conservatives, The Hill and Politico are right leaning. And just a couple of days ago it was some Christian right wing broadcaster. Didn’t he even use that crazy Alex Jones some months ago? And you call that a stright-shooter? A straight shooter wouldn’t be caught dead using those sources.
pdm,
Prof. Turley is a straight shooter and pokes both sides of the aisle.
And I look forward to a blistering blog from the Professor when something BIG happens – like the shut down of the government or the default on the debt. Let’s see what he then thinks about a comparison between the two parties.
Oh yeah. Forgot to mention that diapered creep Vitter is just making ANOTHER right-wing political effort at killing ACA by screaming that this is some sort of horrible Democratic scheme. And Turley takes this opportunity to call the Democrats for beating up on Vitter.
Pardon me while I throw up.
Here is a piece that explains it in greater detail.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/08/14/20021898-congress-isnt-exempt-from-obamacare?lite
It is disgusting that Turley would publish such cr*p.
Careless, partisan bullsh*t, Professor.
Back during the writing of ACA, Grassley amends ACA that Congress must eliminate their present (subsidized)federal health care coverage and go on the exchanges. This is an EXCEPTION. No other American citizens are FORCED to drop their present employer paid for health care coverage.
Much to the Rethugicans surprise, that cute amendment sticks and is part of the passed ACA. However, nobody ever decided what to do with those federal subsidies.
Now most SANE people understand that employer based health care coverage is part of employee compensation.
Further Most staff people do not make a fortune and to have to pick up all the costs of health care that had previously been paid for by their employer, was a real killer and equated to a huge pay cut. So the administration fixed the problem in August and decided the amount that had been previously been going to payments for their federal health care coverage woulld follow them to the exchanges.
Vitter has asked for an ethics investigation into Reid and Boxer, who is the chairwoman of the Select Committee on Ethics. He wants a probe into another Democratic proposal to deny Obamacare subsidies to lawmakers that back Vitter’s Obamacare amendment, even if it fails.
“Senator Reid and Boxer have apparently led an effort to employ political scare tactics, personal attacks and threats that would affect each Senator’s personal finances (i.e. bribery),” Vitter wrote in his letter requesting an investigation.
“All he accomplished was another round of stories bringing up his own ethics issues. You have to wonder what he was thinking,” said a Senate Democratic aide. […]
But it remains unclear why Boxer was named in Vitter’s letter and Vitter aides wouldn’t say, declining to respond to phone calls and emails. Boxer’s staff pleads ignorance, too. Meanwhile, the dust-up has become the talk of the Hill, with aides shaking their heads at how quickly things spiraled out of control between the two lawmakers.
“I’ve never seen anything like it,” said one House GOP aide.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/17/1239525/-David-Vitter-s-kamikaze-anti-Obamacare-crusade-gets-even-nbsp-weirder?detail=facebook