They finally found a porn star to run against David Vitter.
An advertisement on the website Craigslist seems to imply that the search for a “female candidate with a history in the adult entertainment industry to challenge Senator Vitter” in the GOP primary has been fulfilled.
Several months ago, a curious ad went on the Internet swapshop page searching for a registered Republican woman with experience in some area of adult entertainment that would be willing to run against Vitter in the 2010 Republican Senatorial primary.It was a blatant attempt to dredge up media attention on the Senator’s past trysts with prostitutes for public view, both as a State Representative and later as a Congressman.
At first, many observers considered the ad a joke, yet indications came that the postings promises of financial compensation for a porn actress or exotic dancer to challenge Vitter were serious.Insiders within the Democratic Party began to admit that some senior members of the party were behind the plot.Sources within the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) began to express their approval and complicity with the idea.
Then, late on January 19, 2009, this posting was added to Craigslist, “Seeking Energetic Field Organizers for Senate Campaign (New Orleans)…After an exhaustive review process, we are announcing that we are no longer accepting applications for a female candidate with a history in the adult entertainment industry to challenge Senator Vitter. We want to thank all the talented candidates who applied and endured through our rigorous application process. We furthermore apologize for any inconveniences the applications or interviews may have caused. We are certain many of you will go on to achieve long and accomplished careers in public service, and wish you well in your future endeavors.”
The posting continued, “An announcement pertaining to the final results of our selection process is forthcoming.We are, however, now accepting applications for energetic and personable field organizers for our grassroots campaign. Past or current affiliation with a political party is unimportant, this is a bipartisan effort of civic minded citizens with a desire to change Louisiana and the nation.”
Organizers, the ad went on, should be at least 18 years old with two years of campaign experience, or put another way, WE HAVE FOUND OUR PORN STAR, AND SHE NEEDS A STAFF.
Several senior Democrats have admitted to The Louisiana Weekly that they relish the thought of Senator Vitter attempting to defend himself against charges of hypocrisy with socially conservative GOP primary voters as a sex worker dogs his steps.
In a story first broken by the author in The Louisiana Weekly in 2002, allegations were made by senior Republicans that Vitter, then a State Rep., had carried on a nine month affair with a known prostitute working under the alias Wendy Cortez at a French Quarter apartment at the corner of Dumaine and Dauphine Sts.Subsequently, this newspaper interviewed the lady in question, actual name Wendy Yow Ellis, about the details of the trysts, and why she came forward.
(She outlined a twice weekly meeting that ended when Vitter discovered that her real first name was Wendy, the same as his wife.She had used the alias Leah.Over a year later, as Vitter was running for Congress and campaigning in Lakeside Mall, Wendy Yow came up to him to say hello, and by her description, “he ran away as fast as he could”.She branded the State Rep. a hypocrite, and went to staffers of his GOP Congressional opponent Dave Treen to tell her tale.The former Governor, though, refused to allow the information to be made public.At the time, Wendy Yow refused any compensation for her story by supporters of Gov. Treen.Only after revelations were made that caused her to lose her certificate as an Accountant in Texas did she agree to be paid for her story by Hustler Magazine.)
Then, in the summer of 2007, Vitter’s phone number was found on a call list for the DC Madam Deborah Jane Palfrey by investigators for Hustler Magazine Publisher Larry Flint, leading to a public apology by Vitter but a refusal to admit that the now Senator was guilty of any further solicitations of prostitutes.
This that time, the Senator has refused to talk about the allegations, and for the most part, has kept a low public profile, at least until this past fall.Vitter very vocally challenged the first bailout package, and later, was one of the sole opponents to the appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, moves set to appeal to his conservative base electorate.
In recent weeks, the Senator has hit the national conservative talk radio programs citing his opposition to several moves of the new Obama Administration, and in the words of host Laura Ingram, “becoming the leader of the conservatives in the Senate”.
Would the presence of a woman who has sex for money as a primary challenger endanger that new status, or could the gambit backfire?
As he rehabilitates his the reputation, the incumbent Junior Senator from the PelicanState has also become a target of opponents both within his own party and from the opposition.
Increasingly Republican Louisiana should list as full of safe re-election potential for a sitting GOP Senator, but Vitter is listed as the number one target of the National Democrats seeking to pad their majority beyond the possibility of a Senate filibuster.Vitter is considered weak enough that their has been an active attempt by New York Senator Chuck Schumer, Chairman of the DSCC, to recruit the Democrats strongest potential challenger Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-Napoleonville), the current Third District Congressman.
Hailing from Acadiana with a moderately conservative voting record, Melancon could influence centrist swing voters away from Vitter, so Schumer believes, and it is a truism of Louisiana politics that all things being equal, Cajuns vote for Cajuns.Social conservatives in Southwestern Louisiana, who have trended Republican in the last few cycles, may come home to the Democrats if a pro-life alternative from their community was a possibility.
Currently, Melancon has denied an interest in challenging Vitter despite outside pressure.If he should demur, the Democrats do have an alternative, Shaw Group CEO Jim Bernhardt.The head of Louisiana’s only Fortune 500 member that is not a public utility, Bernhardt is a loyal Democrat itching to spend millions of dollars to defeat Vitter, according to sources close to the corporate magnate.
Meanwhile Vitter has his opponents within the State Republican Party who worry that the incumbent might not be strong enough to win re-election.Their hopes center around GOP Secretary of State Jay Dardenne as a challenger to Vitter for the Republican nomination next year.
Dardenne has repeatedly expressed his interest in running, but has worried that considering Vitter’s continued popularity with Christian Conservatives, would he have a chance in the new created closed primary.As one friend of the Sec. State put it, “Jay would run in a second if there was an open primary, where everyone could vote.But, limit the vote to just Republicans, and he’s worried that Vitter may be able to carry it regardless.”
Whether the presence of a porn actress as the third challenger in the primary would make Dardenne more of less likely a candidate remains unknown, yet the embarrassment for Vitter would be acute.
Since the now infamous press conference where the Senator apologized for mistakes (but continued to deny there was any truth to the allegations of solicitation of prostitution in New Orleans), Vitter has avoided any conversation on the prostitute scandal or further defense of his name.Having the latest incarnation of Mary Carey as an opponent would mean that Vitter would have to confront his recent past publicly.
Interestingly, while the porn star would thrust the prostitute tale back onto the minds of independent swing voters, most of Vitter’s base is well aware of the details.One interesting scenario, that some have suggested, surrounds conservative voters rushing to Vitter’s defense.
As one senior Republican put it, “The porn star could just cause conservatives to become more motivated to vote, while the rest of the public just doesn’t care.”
Democrats hope that by branding Vitter a hypocrite so publicly, though, swing voters will.
Bayoubuzz has been requested to publish this story that will appear in the Louisiana Weekly.
Call in your responses to this story on the radio this afternoon.Christopher Tidmore hosts GulfCoast Today on WBSL 1190 AM from 3-6 PM Monday-Friday.Call in your replies toll free, 877-622-1190.He will be discussing the topic throughout the show on Friday, Jan 23.
Well, Written by, you certainly did add to this verbal exchange with your 2 cents, by all means, please do, crow on! Written by Gabriella
on 1/31/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Y'all 'blow' my mind....... What a bunch of unfocused cackling hens.... Written by
on 1/30/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Obama can do nothing without congress. Congress "tends" to be "a bit wasteful" with spending. They build planes the military doesn't want, add hospital beds not where the VA says they are needed, but instead in their own districts to help their reelection chances. Keep the Helium Reserve going for our fleet of non-existant Zeppelins (good grief!). This is not a "one party problem." Bush being replaced by Obama doesn't make it go away. The problem with much of congress' spending it that it is either only intended to repay special interest groups or aid those in congress' chances to retain power; it is never intended to "do good" for the country. Just like the bailouts, only a small group bebefits as the costs are borne by many. That's redistribution, not creation. The more this country moves away from consumer choice to government managed economics, the lower the standard of living will become. The more deficit spending that takes place, the more limited will be our children and grandchildren's financil futures. Written by kpf
on 1/27/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
kpf, I don’t mind paying taxes - they are intended for the common good. On my own I cannot build bridges, assure the safety of food, educate the children, protect our country from those who may do harm, etc. As Jerry Seinfeld said to George Costanza, "If every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right." We have tried “trickle down” supply-side economics with Hoover, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. It failed our economy. We know the engine that runs our economy is consumer-based, the more money in the hands of the lower and middle class, the more they spend on goods and services, the stronger our economy. Many folks refer to the post-war era, 1951-1964, as the start of an economic boom, the tax rate for married couples making $400,000+ was 91%. Do I think someone should be taxed at 91%? No. But, I do think the taxes need to go up on the top 5%, and considerably increased on the top 1%. We need to raise revenue and cut spending. The middle class has carried the burden too long. Not all deficit spending is created equal. If we increase our deficit to create jobs for the short and the long term, I am for it. Employed people pay taxes and build revenue. If Obama can eliminate non-safety net, unnecessary programs, I am for it. He should eliminate all tax breaks to companies that ship jobs outside of our country. I would have single-payer health care for the benefit of all citizens and American companies would be more competitive in the world market. We have been trickled down on far too long, it is time to reverse course and build our economy from the bottom up, a “Rise Up Economics”, if you may. Written by Gabriella, “short” is relative, right?
on 1/27/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
In the interest of keeping it short.. yes, taxes were increased on the middle class, and cut for the upper class. However, "spending" is a problem with our government. No... spending is "THE" problem with our government. Obama says he will cut unnecessary spending. If he does and can provide an increased safety net for both the lower AND middle class, the Democrats will retain power for the forseeable future. If he adds expensive programs without cutting those programs who have outlived their usefulness (if they ever had "usefullness") then the crippling effects this will have on our economy will result in something besides his party maintaining power. Written by kpf, sorry... "short" was my intention
on 1/26/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
kpf, reasons for bringing in revenue during Reagan’s two terms, first he had the largest tax cut in our country’s history, but then recognized the budget projections used for justifying the 1981 tax cuts were way too rosy and increased taxes in 1982. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 tax increase eliminated about 1/3 of the 1981 cuts (TEFRA- raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year). The tax rate under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act was increased. Excise taxes on cigarettes were doubled, and phone excise taxes were tripled. Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan adviser, wrote in 2003, “TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year”. (http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp) The Highway Revenue Act of 1982 (raised $3.3 billion) - Reagan more than doubled the US gas tax for 6 years. With the Tax Reform Act of 1986 he increased taxation on businesses by about $120 billion. In 1986 he also decreased the top tax rate 50% to 28%, while the BOTTOM RATE WAS INCREASED from 11% to 15% - never before in the history of our income tax have taxes been lowered for the top bracket, while taxes were raised on the lower bracket. Guess those lower income folks had too much money burning a hole in their pocket. Oh, yeah, from the article above, Reagan raised taxes with Social Security in 1983, the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 raised taxes to the tune of $18 billion per year, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, yep, raised taxes –again. And we should not overlook the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, uh huh, raised taxes. Reagan did not raise taxes in 1988. Most of Reagan’s tax increases hit the lower and middle classes the hardest. As I said before, Reagan came into office with the desire to dramatically lower the tax rate on the wealthiest and with this he did succeed. Maybe we should call him The Great Taxer of the Less-Than-Wealthy. Kpf, I will get back with you on “Deficit spending” another time, I need to call it a night. Written by Gabriella
on 1/26/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I won't look for and provide the link again... but Federal revenue from taxes INCREASED each year of Reagan's presidency - so "tax cuts" was not the problem. "Spending" was the problem. Deficit spending - AT UNPRECIDENTED LEVELS - is exactly what Obama and Congress is proposing. So.......... explain something to me here ..... is deficit spending "always bad" or is it "always good" or is it "sometimes good/ sometimes bad." Or is it GOP deficit spending "bad" - Democratic deficit spending "good." Call me simple minded, but to me, ALL deficit spending is "bad" because it is "taxation without representation." It is this because we are passing these future costs to generations unborn. It is wrong, and irresponsible... period. Doen't matter who does it, or for whatever reason. Don't tell me it's only for emergencies... unless we live in a constant state of emergency, decade after decade. Written by kpf
on 1/25/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
jackamo says, "This is why the banks are 'sitting' on their bailout money."...... So sad... The president of WHITNEY BANK was quoted on Bill Moyer yesterday saying, "We got $300,000,000.00 from the federal gov't, and we're not giving-out any loans." Three-Hundred-Million... Shame. Written by KjunLady
on 1/25/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Fiscal conservative/social liberal: What a contradiction in terms (or just another tired example of trying to "...have one's cake and...")when it was social considerations through government edict that forced the banks to provide loans to those who had no intention of living up to their contractual obligations. The Community Re-Investment Act is still in full force. This is why the banks are "sitting" on their bailout money. They know they are about to be forced into another round of destructive lending "worst" practices that will continue to threaten our financial system. Written by jackamo
on 1/25/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
kpf, yes, the Congress does hold “the purse strings" of “our government's ability to spend money”. But, what starts the budget process each year is the President submitting their budget request to Congress on or before the first Monday in February. Reagan’s campaign promise was to lower taxes and shrink government spending. He certainly succeeded with the first, but he raised deficit spending to an unprecedented level. When Reagan came into office we were the largest international creditor nation in the world, when he left office, we were the largest debtor nation. As Richard Darman, a Reagan advisor stated, in “the Reagan years, more federal debt was added than in the entire prior history of the United States." I find it curious, sir, (I do not see the need to refer to each other in demeaning terms like, “Sweetheart”), that in a 1980 campaign speech, Reagan said "Mr. Carter is acting as if he hasn't been in charge for the past three and a half years; as if someone else was responsible for the largest deficit in American history." Carter left office with a deficit of $252 billion, when Reagan left office it had sky-rocketed to over 1.4 trillion. Apparently, what is good for the goose, is not good for the Gipper. Yes, I have read how Republicans have tried to lay Reagan’s deficits at the feet of Congress, but this is creative re-writing of historical fact. It is true that over Reagan’s two terms, Congress, on average, spent 2.8% beyond Reagan’s budgets. When a President’s budget pictures an overly rosy scenario, the shortfalls must be paid by Congress. For example, if the unemployment rate turns out to be greater than what was projected and covered by the President’s budget, then Congress must pay for the higher rate of unemployment costs, this is done automatically without Congressional action. Reagan came into office with the desire to dramatically lower the tax rate on the wealthiest and with this he did succeed. Reagan’s Office of Management and Budget Director, David Stockman, resigned after he spoke truthfully to a reporter about Reaganomics, he said “But, I mean, Kemp-Roth was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate. .. It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle-down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle-down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." This Trojan horse is still a financial burden today and will be a burden to your children and grandchildren. I will leave you with words of wisdom, no, of facts, from Forbes Magazine. Certainly you cannot claim Forbes as a liberal magazine. After comparing “the economic performance of the ten postwar presidents” their finding was “the top three performing presidents - Clinton, Johnson, and Kennedy - were all Democrats while the bottom three performers - Nixon, Eisenhower, and Bush the Elder - were all Republicans. The middle of the pack was a mixed bag of all the rest: Reagan; Ford; Carter; and Truman”. (George W. Bush is not included.)(http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0927-03.htm) Please, sir, own up to the consequences of your "cut taxes and spend” party. Written by Gabriella
on 1/25/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I can't understand how feminists ould support Bill Clinton - even go so far as saying that it's okay for a man to grope a woman "one time" (Gloria Steinhem on Meet the Press). ould it be that both the left and the right willoverlook personal failings and even hypocrasy if that is the only way to have someone in office who suports their viewpoint? Or is this only a failing of those who do not share your viewpoint? Written by kpf
on 1/24/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I find it unique that Christian conservatives would support a man who openly confesses to having sex with prostitutes in DC (yet remains silent about having sex with prostitutes in his home state) would support Vetter. The image of a Christian conservative is one who is a strict literalist of the Bible, and no where is having carnal knowledge of a prostitute condoned--for even Jesus said to the fallen woman "go forth and sin no more" yet the prostitutes continued to sin with Vetter and he continued to seek them out--even as a married man. How is this morality? How can Vetter stand up for family values while he destroys the very values he preaches he practices? Written by Dr Arthur Frederick Ide
on 1/24/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
See I do not have to do anything because even you are admitting religion is false and only a tool to control the voters. The young are not stupid and with this election it is all the proof that is needed to show them religion is a lie and they have no need to follow the false teachings of their false leaders. I repeat evil does not have to do anything as long as their leaders like Vitter and the religious right who support him. Written by Please re-elect Vitter
on 1/24/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
As an atheistic fiscal conservative, I agree that Vitter is a hypocrite. However, with little or no chance of anyone becoming elected to office without having their picture taken holding a bible and attending church, do you really think there are not many, many elected officials who only PRETEND to believe there's a God and that they're practicing Christians? The answer to that question will - in my mind at least - determine just how smart you are (or aren't). So we have elected officials who are hypocritical about their belief in God, religion is largely used to control the populace. Wow, how earth shattering, dude. What's your next big scoop for us, Mr. Please re-elect Vitter, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning? Written by kpf
on 1/24/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Two questions Gabriella, how is it when the deal worked out between House Speaker Tip O’Neal and Reagan - where for every $2 in increased military spending there would be $3 in increased social spending - how does this $3 in spending the Democrats wanted for every $2 in spending the Republican wanted become "the Reagan deficit"? Also, it is the House of Representatives that "holds the purse strings" of our government's ability to spend money (which is why Reagan had to deal with the majority <Dem> House leader). So why then during Clinton's first two years in office - when the Democrats held the majority in the House - was there deficit spending? Why is it that ONLY when Newt Gingrich and the Republican took control of the House did this country have 6 years of surplus? To truly understand this one must think "reality" not "which party is good." Because the "reality" of it is that when government is split, it spends less. But when ONE PARTY holds power (either party Sweetheart) then it's spend -spend - spend. That's why W had deficit spending, that's why we'll have deficit spending until government is once again split between the two parties. Written by kpf, the truth is rarely partisan
on 1/24/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
See how phony religion really is, they are blaming anything from bill Clinton to Larry Flynt. Never blame the man Vitter, that is making them prove religion is all a lie. See evil never has to do anything because the false Christians will drive more young people away from God than anything else. If you look at how vitter voted for farm subsidies and ethanol mandates you find out he is not even a conservative. Now I could care less what Vitter does politically because he has done more than any other Louisiana leader to prove that all religion is just a bunch of lies to control the voters. Please re-elect Vitter and watch as your churches start dying. Vitter proves God morals and laws do not apply to the rich and the leaders of the religious right.The people who are quick to throw stones and tell others they will go to hades, show they are above judgement of any kind. Written by Please re-elect Vitter
on 1/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
kpf , if you want fiscal responsibility, why vote Republican? Since Reagan, you cannot link the words “fiscal responsibility” and Republican together without being oxymoronic. Hoover first tried the cut taxes on the rich and the wealth shall “trickle down”. There is a reason the Great Depression was also known as the Republican Depression. Then along came Reagan with a repeat of “trickle down” economics, then Bush I, followed by Bush II. Reagan’s tax cuts plus spending spree managed to increase our debt greater than the accumulated debt of all prior presidents combined. The legacy of Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, this legacy of “borrow and spend” is an unconscionable burden passed on to future generations. And here we stand at the edge of another Republican Depression. When you want to strengthen the economy, put more money in the hands of the lower and middle class through tax cuts, higher wages and rebates. That was the idea behind the last Stimulus Package. When people buy products, more workers are needed to make products, who then in turn by more products. If you want money to go to trust funds, give tax breaks to the wealthy. Vitter supports this idiotic trickle-down-to-nowhere-economic-scheme. He strongly supports making Bush’s tax cuts permanent and voted for Bush’s spending budgets. Though I give Vitter credit, he did support the Stimulus Package. In the last 30 years the only time spending was brought under control and the increase in debt ceased was with Clinton. Darn those tax and spenders. Written by Gabriella
on 1/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Very interesting, Mr. Tidmore, dear. However, one thing is certain, although we are furious with David for his stupidity, we will not fall for Mr. Flynt and others' machinations to detrmine who will represent the state in the Senate of the U.S. Written by RhettsWife
on 1/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
KjunLady, no I'm not happy. Honestly do you really believe that David was the only one???? I want to know who is hiding and why. I think if we know who they are we will know why they are hiding. I seriously believe that if the two LISTS were made public you personally would know at least half of them, not personally but they had been in the news for one reason or another.
Face it Larry Flynt is only looking out for Larry. How many democrats do you think he came up with before he hit on David's number??? I guess if you have enough money you can find anybody anywhere. Now Larry says that his industry needs a bail out. What's the deal there??? Should the taxpayers have to support a bunch of degenerates?? Oh, I'm sorry we already do we have the House of Representatives and the Senate. And I could go on and on of who else is a degenerate at the public troth. Written by UpperUS
on 1/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Here's the thing... maybe Vitter's a sleezeball.... I do not support the causes of the religious right, Vitter's playing up to them is disgusting (as well as transparent). However..... besides Ron Paul and a few others in the House and Senate, who else holds the viewpoint that all this bailout and planned deficit spending is FAR WORSE than the "economic crises" that these plans are supposed to help? Just as a feminist (Stein?, oh whoever) said on "Face the Nation" that it was okay for a man to get "one free grope" to excuse her preferred President's actions during Wild Bill's tenure in the office, so too I will vote for Vitter (won't be the first time I had to "hold my nose" to vote for a La. official) unless his opponent holds the same views towards government fiscal responsibility as I do. I do not want to elect a virgin, flag waving, Christian who is just another tax and spender, I'd rather elect Vitter. Of course, I would prefer a fiscal conservative/social liberal holding this seat, but.... between the two, I think we need as many fiscal conservatives as possible, despite their other faults. So, I do not care if he's caught with BOTH a dead girl and a live boy - really don't give a $#it - he'll probably get my vote. Written by kpf
on 1/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Having a porn star for a competitor instead of a customer could not happen to a more deserving creature. Shame on Diaper Dave for politically grandstanding in the futile hopes of diverting attention from his law-breaking, prostitute habit on 2 or more coasts. But shame on him even more for voting against the Senate cloture motion to allow debate on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009--especially since he has 3 daughters of his own. Scalise voted against the House version and he is the father of a daughter. What's wrong with these deadbeats? Written by gildareed
on 1/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Pay attention class, because if you are a leader for the religious right, you are above the judgement that the leaders place on others. The religious right and there
false christian values are only for the common man and not their leaders.Re-electing Vitter will prove their religion is all a Lie. They will cry , that they are being attacked because the truth about them is coming out for everyone to see. They will cry we pointed out the sins others and that makes it OK for us to sleep whores and lie about our beliefs. Please re-elect Vitter and be proud to put a nail in the coffin of a false religion. Written by Please re-elect Vitter
on 1/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
KJ, that’s twice today you had me laughing out loud, thanks! Out of curiosity, I cleared my browser cache and googled “David Vitter”. The dropdown categories were as follows: David Vitter, diaper, senator, scandal, email, prostitute. Hey, that is almost a sentence if you remove “email”. David Vitter (the) diaper (wearing) senator (in) scandal (with) prostitute. Now there’s a record to be most proud. Written by Gabriella
on 1/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
THE LIST:::: Dr. Harry Horndog, Ten patrons of Hooters, Tricky Dicky, and 23 more dudes who swear nobody else would have them. (Happy, Upper?) Written by KjunLady
on 1/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Let me see if I understand this. Bob Livingston chastised Clinton, but then retired when his extramarital affairs were disclosed. Livingston was about to replace Gingrich as House Speaker. While Newt pursued impeachment of Clinton, well, it is alleged Newt was, at the same time, involved in an affair with a staffer. Vitter won the 1999 special election to replace the adulterous Livingston. Mean while Vitter’s phone number is listed on a prostitute’s phone record, his first call made on October 12, 1999. Rumors have swirled of Vitter’s prostitution habit going back to the mid 1990s; all the while he is running for office(s) on family values and the sanctity of marriage. Apparently, Vitter believes the sacred vows of marriage are between a man, a woman and a prostitute. Why is it that the politicians that most fervently espouse “family values” are, often times, so morally corrupt? Written by Gabriella
on 1/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I'll be the first to say what he did was wrong but only after the LIST is out. Don't you see the political aspects of only David being outed??? How many of the people who we supposedly hold in high esteem are actually on the LIST. So let's see who is hiding. It's a matter of if its wrong for David to do it, and it is, then it is equally as wrong for the rest of the LIST to do it. They are the ones who should be blasted as soon as we see the LIST.
So where it it???? Think about who is hiding it???
Written by UpperUS
on 1/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I actually think we can discuss whether what Sen. Diaper Fetish (R-La) did was right or wrong WITHOUT seeing the list. Didn't everyone learn around the time they were in pre-school or so that two wrongs don't make a right, and that you can't excuse your behavior with "so-and-so did it too?" Apparently that very basic lesson that every 4 year old is taught is lost on Vitter's apologists. When you set yourself on a higher moral pedastal than everyone else, as Vitter had done his entite career, you get no sympathy and violins when someone knocks your ass off of it. Vitter is a national joke. Sorry if some people don't like that, but it is what it is. Written by UpperBS
on 1/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
UpperBS you are really original. Find your own name.
Let's see the list then we can discuss who is right and who is wrong.
Until then... Written by UpperUS
on 1/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Vitter may not have been the only one in the madame's book, but he was the only one we know of in the book who has made a career out of moralistic grandstanding. Vitter deserves every bit of the embarassment he's received. If there's a single right-wing politician more in need of a big, juicy slice of humble pie, it's Senator Diaper Fetish. Vitter is a charlatan and a fraud of the worst kind. Written by UpperBS
on 1/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Pay attention class:
I'm going to say this again and I'll continue to say it until those who attack David Vitter see the light.
There is no way that David was the only legislator or high government official who was involved with the D.C. Madam or the house on Canal Street. He was the only one outed by Larry Flynt as a political attack. So until you can show me the names of EVERYONE I will continue to defend David. If the list becomes public I'll be there with you to condem David and everyone else in the book or books.
Don't forget those judjes who surely were involved.
Written by UpperUS
on 1/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Could this lady be one of his friends fromt he infamous house on Canal Street who he went to for expertize and advice? Written by Titch
on 1/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I absolutely think this is fair game. Vitter is an embarrasment to Louisiana just as Jefferson was. Vitter is marrying the religious right and if they want to be smeared by moral trash, let them at their own risk. Also, Vitter is not a private citizen. He could have faced the media and told them details. He successfully insulated himself from criminal prosecution by being ready to take the 5th in the DC Madam case. If he did not think he might be incriminated, he would not have done this. If the republicans want to be associated with a person who recently hid his past so he could save his own hide, then, they should take the lumps. If there was not a risk of a crime, he would not have hid his past or would not have taken the 5th. In that respect, he is no different than Spitzer. They were both looking at crimes. Written by Clarence
on 1/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
How wonderful. Maybe he can pay her for services rendered providing him with personal family values experiences Written by Noladude
on 1/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I love this and Thank you Republican David Vitter for exposing the religious right and their false religeon for what it really is, A LIE. Not only will false Christians re-elect Vitter, they will do so in the name of God. They will claim we have to have Vitter protect us and our christian values from the evil whores. See evil needs not to do anything, because Christians work very hard to destroy their own religion. The hypocrisy of the religious right proves it is all lies and only a way for them to control the voters. Thank you David Vitter for forcing the religious right to choose between a lying whore chaser and a porn star. No matter the choice they prove God never really matter to them. LOL,LOL. Written by Please re-elect Vitter
on 1/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
"WE HAVE FOUND OUR PORN STAR, AND SHE NEEDS A STAFF."...........<giggling>... ahh- poetic justice, indeed.
Written by KjunLady
on 1/23/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
They finally found a porn star to run against David Vitter. 
