Two Cheers For The Hypocrites
Public Virtue and Private Vice
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in Culture — Comments (48) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
A few weeks back, Washington DC buzzed with the news that Louisiana Senator David Vitter, a conservative Republican, admitted (a step ahead of public disclosure, possibly by hard-core porn magnate Larry Flynt) that he had frequented a prostitute. The response on the left was numbingly predictable, attacking Vitter not for his immorality but on grounds of hypocrisy because of his socially conservative campaign themes and voting record, such as his opposition to same-sex marriage. A common theme was the idea that Vitter should not be able to argue again for such positions, because his private sins compromised his public positions. Even Glenn Reynolds got into the act, suggesting "How about moving to make prostitution legal in the District instead [of apologizing]? It would be an appropriate penance, and D.C. would be a . . . fitting . . . place to start."
This is wrong, and dangerous. Our politicians and civic leaders have never been saints, but the punishment for their sins should not fall on the rest of us. I would much prefer to see a wicked man be a hypocrite and vote for what is right and good, rather than choose consistency and advocate for wrongdoing.
Read On...
The left's argument on this front - usually implicit, sometimes made explicitly - is that immoral behavior, especially in matters sexual, proves that moral standards are impossible to satisfy, and thus that the whole project of promoting virtue is a fool's errand. Go and do what feels good, you can't be expected to know better.* But nobody ever said that moral standards are easy, or the history of human behavior and philosophical and religious thought wouldn't be littered with battles over what is right and wrong and how to get people to choose the former.
Moreover, the critics set an impossibly high standard when they claim that a moral failing in one area should cause a man to abandon the advocacy of virtue in others. Thus, we hear that Bill Bennett, because he has had a gambling problem, should not be heard to speak on other issues of public and private morals, ranging from sexual mores to drugs to obstruction of justice. But with rare exceptions, the same logic isn't applied to the champions of vice. The left never argues that figures like Madonna or Hugh Hefner, just to pick two examples of people who have built decades-long careers on championing sexual immorality, are hypocrites because they don't also have gambling problems. Pursuing this asymmetrical line of reasoning can only have the result of unilaterally disarming one side. If only saints can defend right and good and virtue, they will be undefended, while the ranks of the defenders of wrong and sin swell to bursting.
In any event, the left's champions are no less frequently guilty of advocating standards they don't follow or impose on themselves. They call for limits on the use of energy, while galavanting around in private jets and high-powered SUV motorcades. They argue that society benefits from keeping poor kids in public schools without a choice to leave, while sending their own kids to expensive private academies. They hire picketers and leafleters to protest low wages and benefits, and pay them a pittance and no benefits. They press for strict gun controls, then hire armed private bodyguards of their own. The greatest moral controversy in recent memory, the Clinton impeachment, came about when a variety of rules created by moralizing liberals - the independent counsel statute, sexual harrassment litigation, liberal rules of discovery in civil litigation - were turned against one of their own, with predictable howls of outrage.
None of this is to suggest that a man's private immoral or illegal behavior is irrelevant to his fitness for public office. Voters certainly have to judge the totality of a candidate's character - moreso in the case of candidates for executive or judicial positions, who exercise broader individual discretion, but it's not irrelevant for legislators either - and the private and public behavior are all a part of this. The fundamental question Louisiana voters will need to ask about Sen. Vitter is whether this changes their view about his ability to do his job, keep his promises and avoid misusing his office. You don't take the public man in isolation, but neither do you take the private man in isolation; the whole must be examined and judged as one.
But in asking that question, Sen. Vitter's continued willingness to fight for the things he campaigned on should be a plus. If you are a Louisiana voter who thinks prostitution is bad for your community, why should you have to live with it because of a Senator's private sins? If you are a Mississippian who thinks racial preferences are bad policy, why should you have to live with them because of Trent Lott's mouth? In fact, the courage to stand up for the right thing to do even when it exposes you to the hypocrisy charge is one of the most important attributes of a leader, the facet that makes it possible to pursue justice and virtue without constantly checking to trim your positions to fit your own failings. Consider the "chickenhawk" charge, the assertion that Presidents Clinton and Bush should have been hesitant to use military force, not having served in combat themselves. It was apparent, watching Clinton at work, that while he sent the military hither and yon on 'humanitarian' interventions, he was nonetheless hypersensitive to the argument that he should avoid using the military, precisely because of his own personal history; it is equally obvious that Bush does not put stock in such arguments, and makes his calls as he sees them. I much prefer to see Republicans who will stand up against abortion, for example, regardless of the state of their private lives, than those who feel that they have to take a squishily pro-choice position because they fear the scrutiny of the anti-moral scolds.
It takes a truly twisted perspective to see a man who commits private sins while arguing in public for virtue, and choose to take issue with the latter.
So, two cheers for the hypocrites. Even if they don't do right by themselves or their families - even if, at times, they deserve to be punished by the law or defeated at the polls - they should still be proud to have done the right thing in their time in public service.
* - This is another day's argument, but this attitude is a major reason why so many people drift politically leftward in their teens, when the search for a justification for rejecting prevailing moral standards on sex, drugs, etc. is literally seductive.
« Hating James Dobson: To Heck With His Qualifications, He's a Meanie — Comments (14) | *Cyndi Lauper* Made the Filthy Fifteen? — Comments (3) »
Two Cheers For The Hypocrites 48 Comments (0 topical, 48 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
We will now refrain from criticism of Al Gore because even though in his personal life he manages to spew more CO2 than 10,000 Amazon villagers, He Really Does Care About The Rainforest.
And Vitter? Well, He Cares Too.
The act of legislating morality has always been a fools errand. We have had Prohibition that failed in spectacular fashion, and the War On Drugs that has on average 500,000 people in jail for drug offenses on any given day. The fact is if someone wants to take drugs, drink, have sex with a prostitute, etc they will do it even if its against the law. No law will ever fix the problem.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0808-06.htm
If prostitution were legal at least the industry could be regulated, and the situation would be safer both for the "consumer and the seller", and because of this safer for society as a whole.
The same could be said about Drugs. If they were legal people could seek treatment when they need help, the product will be safer because its regulated, and the money spent on drugs would suddenly be taken from drug dealers and put into the hands of the community instead.
Prohibition led to the rise in mafia influence, and made bad people richer. People died because of poor quality alcohol (tainted moonshine), and criminal activity rose dramatically because of the law.
The act of legislating morality has always been a fools errand.
Only to those intent on participating in vice.
The fact is if someone wants to take drugs, drink, have sex with a prostitute, etc they will do it even if its against the law. No law will ever fix the problem.
Substitute to rape, murder, molest children, etc. for to take drugs, drink, have sex with a prostitute, etc, and your statement is no less accurate. It begs the question of why or why not the activity should be legislated.
If prostitution were legal at least the industry could be regulated, and the situation would be safer both for the "consumer and the seller", and because of this safer for society as a whole.
This does not follow. Prostitution was de facto legal during great swaths of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, and this somehow never helped alleviate the disease vector it became. Similarly, if you look at the great STD vector sources, you'll find huge arrows coming out of Thailand and the Netherlands. What do those two have in common? (Hint: Not climate.)
The same could be said about Drugs. If they were legal people could seek treatment when they need help, the product will be safer because its regulated, and the money spent on drugs would suddenly be taken from drug dealers and put into the hands of the community instead.
Your second sentence is utterly inane.
Prohibition led to the rise in mafia influence, and made bad people richer. People died because of poor quality alcohol (tainted moonshine), and criminal activity rose dramatically because of the law.
I'm floored by this. The mafia rose because of prohibition? Who knew? That would explain why they fell apart after Prohibition was repea...
Oh, wait. Never mind.
Any more for this threadjack, or are you done?
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Rape, murder, molest children, etc. vs drugs, drink, have sex with a prostitute, etc... Lets not overlook at one does harm to others while the other generally only does harm to the person committing the offense.
And as for prostitution and the middle ages... please at least compare it to something logical like the present day... Amsterdam, and Las Vegas would be good places to start.
As for the mafia not falling apart after Prohibition was repealed... well thats obvious the Drug war was in effect at that point so they had something to fall back on.
I'm sure Thomas can handle himself here, but you realize you just brazenly switched your argument:
First it was that morals legislation is worthless because it cannot achieve a complete end to the vice in question (a perfectly ridiculous standatd). This argument refuted, you switch to the old "only hurts the sinner" argument.
__________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Rape, murder, molest children, etc. vs drugs, drink, have sex with a prostitute, etc... Lets not overlook at one does harm to others while the other generally only does harm to the person committing the offense.
I note you've dropped the deterrence angle. Smart move.
If I slept with a prostitute tonight, you can be darned sure there would be harm to my wife and kids. I'll tell my client that the fellow blasted out of his mind on coke who smashed into her wasn't harming anyone else. His wife and kids would like to know, too, given that he's now in prison and can't support them.
Profoundly silly.
And as for prostitution and the middle ages... please at least compare it to something logical like the present day... Amsterdam, and Las Vegas would be good places to start.
Yeah, like Amsterdam and Bangkok. Oh, wait, I already mentioned them...
As for the mafia not falling apart after Prohibition was repealed... well thats obvious the Drug war was in effect at that point so they had something to fall back on.
The Drug War was in effect in 1933.
Right.
End this threadjack now. If you want to carry on this way, go play in the diaries. Dan's piece had a point. This is utterly beside it.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
I assumed since the article was related to morality legislation (prostitution) that talking about the futility of such legislation would be on topic.
I never left the deterrence angle.. I still say the laws have no effect on the sinner committing the offense.
"For example, sociologist John Pandiani noted that "a major wave of crime appears to have begun as early as the mid 1920s [and] increased continually until 1933 . . . when it mysteriously reversed itself."[50] Theodore Ferdinand also found a "mysterious" decline that began in 1933 and lasted throughout the 1930s.[51] How could they miss the significance of the fact that the crime rate dropped in 1933?"
I assumed since the article was related to morality legislation (prostitution) that talking about the futility of such legislation would be on topic.
It is not. Go write a diary if you like. You are wasting the time and energy of commenters on this thread. Your next comment discussing your preferred topic, on this post, is your last on this site.
Do we understand each other?
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Fair enough and i apologize if my posts were off topic. I honestly did not intend to thread jack as you put it. I do indeed enjoy the civil discourse around here, and did not intend to offend anyone.
"If I slept with a prostitute tonight, you can be darned sure there would be harm to my wife and kids."
Since they would also be harmed if you suddenly quit your job, we need laws preventing people with wives from quitting their jobs. We can use the power of government 'for the kids.'
"I'll tell my client that the fellow blasted out of his mind on coke who smashed into her wasn't harming anyone else." He was harming others by driving impaired. Getting stoned at home harms no one. Oh, but what about the kids!! Why don't we outlaw smoking in private homes as then?
Are conservatives for private property, or not? It seems like they are ok with it, as long as they are allowed to use it how they please. But the second that someone does something they think is 'immoral', or something they don't like, then you the screams of "there outta be law!!!"
Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.
Maybe you should ask the children of an alcoholic or drug abusing father if there habits only hurt themselves. Or ask a spouse whose partner uses a prostitute if it only hurts them.
Since "legslating morality" is wrong, why is it ok to legislate your version of morality?
Maybe you should ask the children of an alcoholic or drug-abusing father if their habits only hurt themselves.
So why is alcohol legal, then? And tobacco, for that matter? They cause just as much if not more harm than the illegal drugs.
( My apologies for continuing the threadjack. )
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
"So why is alcohol legal, then? And tobacco, for that matter? They cause just as much if not more harm than the illegal drugs."
That's democracy for ya, go figure, if the number of heroin users increased to the point of current alcohol users, then possibly heroin could become just as legal as alcohol. I always knew there was a flaw in the plan. Damn our human nature. Oh, and on that thread (the Senator) which is to say I'm now no longer referring on anything you wrote Finrod, but rather to Mr. McLaughlin's original topic. Who amoung us has not given in to sin? Very few I suspect. Not sinning, when it is so obviously our nature to do so is an extremely difficult challenge. So if we fail even once or twice are we completely lost, I think not. Repentance is essential here, but if it is sincere, then why shouldn't the Senator continue to speak out against all forms of sin even the one that tripped him up? And if his repentance is truly sincere, then wouldn't he be more the hypocrite for not speaking out against prositution or any other form of sin? I think his input here would be just as useful and relevant as that of the reformed addicts who advises others to avoid drugs and alcohol, or who counsels other addicts in 12 step programs. We don't discount or write-off their insights and experiences as irrelevant simply because they were once actively abused drugs or alcohol too, so why are some so quick to write-off the Senator? I can only imagine they either doubt his sincerity, or their railing are more politically motivated in which case they'd have been against him whether he slipped up or not.
Advancing the status of unborn human beings one or more persons at a time.
"That's democracy for ya, go figure, if the number of heroin users increased to the point of current alcohol users, then possibly heroin could become just as legal as alcohol."
Heroin users aren't known for voting...
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
List of things that need to be outlawed based on your logic:
TV
movies
video games
golf
all professional sports
all softball leagues for adults
the internet
Redstate
working more than 50 hours a week
literally any hobby imaginable, because we need to make sure parents are not spending to much time or money on their interests and neglecting their kids.
We will also need the pass legislation forcing parents to attend every game, every concert, and every performance of any type that their kids are in. If they don't, we will send people with guns to lock them in a metal cage. That's progress (for the kids!).
Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.
Morality:
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
While some seem to think morality's reach is limited to sex, it isn't; every law that affects human interaction & activity is premised upon the community's standard of "right or good conduct."
Do you think tax rates have no moral implication?
That gun control laws, copyright & patent law, zoning law, food safety laws, etc.aren't premised upon their proponent's view of what is right, good & just? EVERY law is premised upon the lawgiver's sense of what is moral.
"Legislating morality" is a strawman used to avoid the merits of the question - rather than argue "This particular law is a bad idea because of X, Y, Z., etc.", people prefer to argue that the exercise of lawgiving is itself illegitimate.
Talk about hypocrites, you folks give the word "hypocrite" new meaning. You only believe in free speech for people who tow your party line. If anyone posts an opposing opinion on this site, their account is blocked and Redstate does something with their IP address to make it so the person can't even read Redstate. All they get is a blank page.
So, what are you afraid of. If you think you are right, why don't you allow opposing opinions? Why do you delete the accounts and block the IP addresses of people who post an opposing view on your site.
Liberals believe in free speech for everyone. I don't know of any liberal website that blocks people from posting other than when they get obscene or threatening. It makes a lot of the liberal sites rather annoying and messy, but that is the price the liberals are willing to pay to allow everyone the right to have their voice heard, no matter how inane that voice may be.
Countdown to this account deletion and IP blocking.....I'm betting on less than 30 minutes.
I think you have a typo, ypu wrote
"Liberals believe in free speech for everyone"
I believe you meant Liberals believe in free speech for everyone, as long as they agee with them, otherwise it may be a hate crime.
Just thought Id help
-----------------------
Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman
>>>I don't know of any liberal website that blocks people from posting other than when they get obscene or threatening.<<<
Ask Cindy Sheehan and your fellow KozKidz about that one...
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
"I don't know of any liberal website that blocks people from posting other than when they get obscene or threatening."
HA! Wrong answer. I've been banned from Kos and Americablog more times than you've been banned from anything in your life, guarantee it. And at Americablog they also delete whatever comments you made, leaving only the counter-arguments from their pet lunatics. The leading liberal blogs are police states.
Oh, and go tell flyerhawk that no dissent is allowed at redstate.
At kos they also hide/delete the arguments of anyone winning a conservative argument.
Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.
The correct answer to the charge of "hypocrite" is "Guilty as charged, glad to have your confession of the same."
Unless, that is, you actually are someone whose every action lives up to your standards of right & wrong.
Which they don't (you being human & all).
You may peruse her previous conversational forays here. Not very interesting, but sufficiently fresh that I recognized her writing style.
Moe
PS: Toe the line, mademoiselle. Toe the line.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
"I believe you meant Liberals believe in free speech for everyone, as long as they agee with them, otherwise it may be a hate crime."
Oh really, then why do all the liberal websites allow people like you to post there but this site locks out anyone with an opposing view?
There are lots of people like you who post opposing opinions to liberal websites. Unfortunately most of them do nothing more than spout the right-wing talking points, many of which were debunked years ago. And then there is their fall-back plan which is "Clinton did it too".
Counting down to account deletion...it's been here 15 minutes. Any minute now.
You know what ALL the liberal sites do, thats AMAZING! I can think off the top of my head the Kos doesnt mind banning people, but there really just a front for us eviiiiiiil conservtives.
Ive read this site for a long time, and they allow all sorts of views. They generally try to keep the level of discourse civil, so when someone such as yourself begins to name call, and repeat endless cliches and talking points, all the while not even trying to defend your positions, well they have an answer.
But this is all besides the point, hurrly along so you can write your "They Banned Me" blog somewhere else.
I read Kos daily. The only people they ban are the people who are obscene, threatening or apparently there for no reason other than to disrupt the site. Those would be the people who respond to every situation with "Clinton did it" or by throwing out some other straw man. Anyone who posts there who wants to debate a point is allowed to stay. Then there are sites like Think Progress who allow anyone to post anything they want (except for when the trolls post as Pat Tillman post that they would like the people on TP killed like the traitor Pat Tillman was killed).
I still say that you are all a bunch of chickens. If someone posts something that threatens that bubble you have placed around yourself, then it's bye bye to that poster.
Counting down...it's now 30 minutes. Wow, my first prediction didn't come true. You've been so tolerant.
you are doing?
The only people they ban are the people who are obscene, threatening or apparently there for no reason other than to disrupt the site. Those would be the people who respond to every situation with "Clinton did it" or by throwing out some other straw man.
I count strawmen and disruption so for.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
It's just called speaking truth to power.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Your time on this line has expired.
Thank you for participating at RedState.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Go to Dkos and look up mason6883. I was there for a whole year. Find something "obscene, threatening or was apparently there for no reason other than to disrupt the site."
And then don't post here until you can.
Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.
Go to Democratic Underground and call the Democratic party the party of censorship, 'race' hate, and corruption, and see how long you last.
We all have our enclaves where we don't want intruders, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Not that any of this has anything to do with free speech, doofus.
You have to be kidding. The directors here or a lot of things, but they are not censors.
Of all of the sites, conservative and liberal, this one is the one that has the best track record of supporting a free exchange of ideas.
That does not mean that there are not users who would have it be more like other sites, with frequent bannings, but it is far from policy by the people actually in charge.
That is the biggest pile of you-know-what I have ever heard. I posted yesterday under a different moniker and I was very civil and not at all confrontational. All I did was to post an opposing point of view. Within two hours my account was blocked and my IP was blocked.
I am being confrontational today because I know that my account will be banned so I might as well tell you all what I think about you.
You are all a bunch of yellow-belly chickens. If you truly believe you are right, then why not allow opposing points of view?
You're being confrontational because you have a martyr complex. If you were genuinely interested in sticking around, you would actually try to be civil in engaging us. Instead, you show a lack of manners and taste, not to mention a lack of intelligence or a grasp of logic. "I'm going to be banned, so I'll behave like a jerk on a community website run by others so that they can ban me and so I can go around screaming 'See? I was right! They banned me.'"
How utterly ridiculous. And I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that you didn't even perceive the ridiculous position you placed yourself in from the outset.
By the way, check out my signature line below. It was meant for people like you.
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche
"We all have our enclaves where we don't want intruders, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Not that any of this has anything to do with free speech, doofus."
Please let me know what conservative website allows opposing points of view. I know of none. And of course it has to do with free speech. To the conservatives free speech only means that they are free to speak, opposing views are not allowed.
Cowards, every one of you.
But it frowns on the kind of Romper Room antics you seem to embrace as being clever and witty.
Still running around screaming about your martyr complex, eh? How cute. We might keep you around for the entertainment value alone. Every court needs a jester, after all.
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche
The first thing is that there are some very fervent liberals who post here. Mr. Flyerhawk comes to mind immediately. I have had some very intense debates with him.
However, what separates him from Mr. bilbobaggins1 is that Flerhawk is not filled with hate and anger. He is interested in competing ideas. Mr. bilbobaggins1 is one very angry individual.
I have just one question for Mr bilbobaggins1. Do you ever go over to a neighbors house, spit in their face and then get mad at them if they are not nice to you anymore? Well, that is what I see happening here. That is what is not appreciated.
Personally, I come from a very liberal Massachusetts home and my Dad and brother are very big liberals. I can talk to them even when we adamantly disagree, but we do discuss our view points and do not take it personally. I happen to like the debate.
What I don't like is having my face spit upon, and then being told I am the bad person because I won't be nice to you anymore. So, take a time out, breath deep and count to ten. Then come back and engage in a civil debate. One more pointer, when passing off information as fact, most of the people here take offense if you do not provide links to a credible source.
However, this is just my opinion.
I'm out
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
What exactly was his point?
" I posted yesterday under a different moniker and I was very civil and not at all confrontational. All I did was to post an opposing point of view. Within two hours my account was blocked and my IP was blocked.
I am being confrontational today because I know that my account will be banned so I might as well tell you all what I think about you."
Thats the biggest bunch of Barbara Streisand I've heard in a long time.
Talk about threadjacking...........
Think I'll head on over to Michael Moore or Barbara Streisand's blog and share the love with those fine, upstanding members of the opposition. I'm sure I won't be banned - they are such even-temered, open-minded individuals.
Whose were the other numbers in Madame's phone book, and why haven't we heard about them? Surely the clientele didn't consist of one temporarily horny Republican politician. If it did, we should be cheering, as the the Saints Have Come Marching Home.
Considering home is Washington DC, I kinda doubt it.
And really, given the activities of the politicos and their strong resemblance to prostitution, can one even be sure when one is entering or leaving a House of Ill Repute anyway?
Hello, I am a new poster here and find this story very interesting. It is definitely a breadth of fresh air to have a politician, R or D, admit when a mistake is made and move on from it.
However my concern comes from the following:
1) Sen. Vitter's beliefs are in the right place, but his actions are not. Often action are more powerful than words, especially on impressionable youths.
2) Sen. Vitter's hypocrisy really is not surprising, I doubt there are any politicians who could not be considered a hypocrite for one reason or another. On this note, it is his actions which themselves are illegal and supposedly when one commits a crime saying I am sorry and forgiven does not mean the crime itself is pardoned.
3) It is often easy to say what should be done and so very hard to follow that path when presented with the same problem. Sen. Vitter has made this more than apparent, as he was a champion of Pres. Clinton stepping down because he was morally unfit to lead this country.
Given this, what should we the people believe in Sen. Vitter going forward? In the most trying times he had the courage to admit he was wrong, but not to follow his own teachings. I don't care if he resigns or stays the course and lets his constituents decide his face come next election. But shouldn't we strive to have all politicians lead by action, not by shallow words? To be held to the same standards you and I would be?
Vitter lost his claims to ethos. That doesn't mean the other two-thirds of his argument are flawed.
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan