Was Vitter ever an astronaut? or "I don't think Larry Flynt should release the thirty names..."

Bucky

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-19-07 12:26 AM
Original message

Was Vitter ever an astronaut? or "I don't think Larry Flynt should release the thirty names..."

Edited on Thu Jul-19-07 12:31 AM by Bucky

I don't think Larry Flynt should release the thirty names all at once. If we get it in one big info dump it won't be very fun. I'm really looking forward to the list coming out in a slow trickle, keeping this story alive for month after month while we wait to see who the "surprising" name on the list is. He was smart to lead off with Vitter. It's a big name and a shocking (but not all that surprising) contrast to the guy's typical profamily Republican charade.

But when he says he's thinking about releasing the names all at once, I'm thinking the story will be a nice scandal, but a few of the lesser offenders (say a recently divorced congressman who's boinking the wife of a friend) may fall off the radar while the intern seducers and male-prostitute-patronizing fundamentalists hog all the headlines. I want to savor each and every tawdry revelation before moving onto the next one--like a five course meal at a large table surrounded by dear friends who, like me, enjoy the sheer artistic irony of hypocrites twisting in the wind. If the "Flirty 30" are exposed all at once (good Texas Democrats will know why we aren't calling them the Dirty Thirty), the public may become inured to the shock of serial infidelity. Why, just look at France where people actually think who you sleep with is your own business--such Gaul!
Now what's got us all rubbing our palms with

Snidely Whiplash like enthusiasm is the anticipation of just who the member of Congress is on that list who seemed so squeaky Osmond clean that even a jaded pornographer like Larry Flynt would be surprised by his fall from grace. Really, think about that for a second. Somebody shocked Larry Flynt. The mind reels.

Of course, everyone hates a good mystery. Several DU threads here have gurgled with excited speculation about who's zooming whom in the mighty halls of Congress. Who could it be? Joe Lieberman? Very unlikely. I don't like his walk, but he doesn't just talk it. Lindsay Graham? Well he's not married, so any sex scandals about him won't surprise people. Orrin Hatch? A bit too obvious. Cheney? No, Flynt said members of Congress and since Cheney drinks their blood afterwards, I doubt there'd be any witnesses. Maybe one of the women senators?

That this group of thirty would be majority Republican seems a safe bet, even if it weren't Larry Flynt raking the muck. Regular readers of the Top Ten Conservative Idiots column know Democrats have long suffered from a looming sleaze gap. Poor Sean Hannity has been forced to make do with just two counter examples of Democratic sleaze in his nightly screaming match against reality: there's William Jefferson and, oh yeah, Bob Byrd was a klansman... half a century ago.

Compared to the unrelenting parade of Republican pornographers, pedophiles, coke heads, and homophobes living on the down low we've giggled and glowered at these last six years, I'm relieved to say there's one race we'll never win against them. So however agonizing the wait may be, I hope Flynt is slow on the delivery.

Not too slow, of course. One name a month, or even two names a month would be too obvious. It might also provide enough time for a few of the accused to arrange their cover stories. Plus a good number of the scandals are bound to be "old" stories--one time flings from previous decades. Any politician worth his salt will be able to apologize his way out of that one ("This is a painful chapter in our marriage, Barbra," Congressman Hotrod says holding his wife's hand on their couch, "But Bunny and I have prayed on this terrible mistake and I asked for her forgiveness twelve years ago" as Mrs Bunny Hotrod dabs the tears with her kleenex). A scandal like this only works if it's big in scale, if it's tawdry in the details (e.g. "diapers") and if meat is still fresh. If it turns out that John Warner was playing water sports with Tallulah Bankhead at the 1956 Republican National Convention, the story will lack traction.

Once a month is too slow and too slow a release will rob the story of its shock value too. ("What, aging frat boy Trent Lott has a thing for dog collars and dirty Sanchezes? Hmmm, must be time to pay my water bill again.")
Not technically a dirty Sanchez

Besides, it is the nature of sex accusations to occasionally fall flat. Once a couple of the Flirty Thirty get exhonerated (as some are sure to be), the story will die. Logistically, a release of four to six names will ensure enough hits to keep the strike outs from being a problem. To stay shocking and suspenseful people have to be guessing week after week who's gonna get it next... all building up to the show's final "surprising" climax during sweeps month. Kind of like American Idol, but without the option of voting for Sanjaya (he's literally not Tancredo's type).

As the Vitter and Foley (and even the Imus and McCain shopping spree stories) suggest, the science of news cycle scandals currently measures the shelf life of a fall-from-grace shocker at about three weeks. A week of no comment, a week of praying in seclusion with my family, and a week of "thanks for the opportunity to let me set the record straight, Tucker." Then it's off to drug rehab and time to move onto a new story. Assuming no blondes get kidnapped, that next story should be the next batch of 4-6 names off the Flirty Thirty list.

If my calculations are correct then, Flynt should take about 18-20 weeks to burn through his list of all 30 names. That takes us to about the middle of Thanksgiving week. And that that timing would perfect. First off, that's sweeps month. But more importantly, if all goes according to plan, we'll have a lot to be thankful for this year.