The Rude Pundit - Advice to Democrats: You Wanna End the War? Destroy David Vitter First

[meegbear]

As we gear up for the post-summer BINO (Battle In Name Only) over the "supplemental appropriations" for the war in Iraq, it seems like Democrats, in the name of compromise (read: "ass-reaming"), are going to roll over on it with some kind of deal with "antiwar Republicans" that says, more or less, "Boy, Mr. President, sir, we really, really want troops to come home. Could you do that, pretty please?" Once again, with a large majority of the nation wanting the goddamn war over, we gotta ask, "Why the hell not just end it?" If Congress passes an appropriations bill with timelines and shit and Bush vetoes it, well, then there's no funding. If the Republicans wanna filibuster it, well, then there's no funding. It's the girly-named "Power o' the Purse" (which, seriously, sounds more like a Lindsay Lohan movie), and the nation's behind the presumptive antiwar position.

The Rude Pundit believes, to the bottom of his nutsack, that Joe Lieberman is the reason that Senate Democrats don't just play chicken with the President on the war, on torture, on anything related to Lieberman's idea of homeland security. The viciously pro-war "Independent Democrat" has faded into the background in the past few months, but you can fuckin' bet the ranch that he has Harry Reid's balls in a vice.

It's a simple equation - follow the bouncing ball of dishonor and deceit: Lieberman wants this war, wants it like a hard cock wants to do some fucking. If Democrats actually do something to stop the war, Lieberman will call foul, make a big goddamn show of embarrassing the Democrats, and jump ship to the Republicans. Then ya got a 50-50 Senate, with Tim Johnson back, and, factoring in the hulking, heavy-breathing presence of Dick Cheney as a presumptive tiebreaker, ya got split committees, probably with Republicans as chairs, as in early 2001. The ability to set the agenda is gone. The investigations are gone. All up in smoke in the fire started by a little man with a grudge. (No, the Rude Pundit ain't with the "Fuck Lieberman" crowd because...well, shit, he just said why.)

So Senate Democrats have gotta get rid of the Lieberman factor. With one more Democratic Senator, Lieberman will no longer control which way the wind blows until 2009.

And that's where David Vitter comes back into the equation. The oughta-be-disgraced, whoremongering Republican Senator from Louisiana has been embraced back into the Republican fold, as if he's a big goddamn hero for having kept his crimes hidden until after the statute of limitations had run out on him being arrested for soliciting hookers. Of course it's the basest sexual hypocrisy that Republicans went after Larry Craig because the Idaho Senator's case involved gay fucking and because Idaho's got a Republican governor and Louisiana's got a Democrat.

But here's the deal on Vitter: Republicans only have to stand by him until the end of the year. Louisiana elects a new governor this year, in 2007, with an open primary in October and a general election, if needed, in November. And you can sure as shit bet a Republican's gonna win post-Katrina and Rita, probably Bobby Jindal. So, in as much as the Rude Pundit does the prognosticatin', Vitter's gone in January, so that no Republican running for President has to deal with questions of Republican sexual hypocrisy (at least as relates to current scandals). And, barring any other surprises, the same Lieberman-centric Senate until 2009.

So here's the deal: Democrats have to go Rove on Vitter. They have only a few months to get him out of there, so it's time to bring out the political demons in a savage way that pussies like Bob Shrum have nightmares about. Get the prostitutes out in front of the cameras, talking to Larry King about how Vitter likes to shit himself in diapers and then get spanked while getting wiped by big-titted sluts. Get front groups to make ads about what a sleazy motherfucker Vitter is. Get outraged Senators talking to the pumpkinhead of Tim Russert about how it's just impossible to work with a man like Vitter. Take different angles: Barbara Boxer can talk about his exploitation of women, Mark Pryor or Ken Salazar can talk about how Vitter demeans the Senate by his presence and how can they be expected to hold their vomit in while working with a man like that.

Chase that motherfucker out of town and do it for a good cause: to end the war. You get rid of Vitter, you save American lives. Surely Democrats can wallow in the mud for a little while for such a noble end.

(By the way, the Rude Pundit doesn't give a fuck who Vitter and Craig want to fuck or where they want to fuck them and he thinks it's bullshit that we spend time and money on such shit, but because they cared so much about who we fuck and where we fuck them, well, then fuck Vitter and Craig.)

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

[Jim__]

1. The repukes won't get rid of Vitter.

They understand the numbers.

[BOSSHOG]

2. I love the rude one but I believe

even if the dems or republicans get rid of vitter, the gop will provide fresh scandals and examples of hypocrisy (sexual or otherwise) that their presidential candidate will have to deal with next year. Some gop senator(s) or congressmen have yet to have their dalliances revealed. I have every confidence in their ability to provide news which should embarrass any member of the party of integrity and responsibility (but probably won't.)

[meegbear]

4. Is the part about the Gov going repug this year valid?

What's the mood there?

[Ediacara]

6. After Katrina all the Democrats moved away

And all the Republicans viewed Katrina as 10000000% Blanco's fault.

They're of course wrong.

[BOSSHOG]

10. I'm being cautiously optimistic

lil shit bobby jindal is the frontrunner and has somewhat of a teflon veneer about him (for reasons I do not understand.) He was planning on running against Blanco based on nonsense as dinoboy lines out but she fucked up the knuckleheads plans by gracefully withdrawing from the race meaning jindal now has to run for something. His ads are all blathering on about not tolerating corruption. Which politician running for office does? The dems have trashed him for his religious beliefs (allegedly anti-protestant) and there are a couple of dynamic dems running for the seat. Louisiana has an open primary so hopefully lil shit won't get 50+% in the first go around. If he wins, louisiana will deserve what they vote for.

Per your question, the gop has done a great job of trashing anything democrat relative to Katrina, conveniently taking the spotlight off the major cause of damage in Louisiana, the failed levees which are maintained by the Corps of Engineers. The ninth ward was in pretty good shape after the hurricane and before the levees broke. A fact known mostly only to locals.

[Time for change]

3. My understanding

is that current Senate rules specify that once the leadership is selected it is set until after the next election and the new group of Senators take their seats. That would mean that the Democrats will have control of the Senate until the next group of Senators take their seats in 2009, no matter whether or not Lieberman (or anyone else) jumps ship. That new rule was enacted by the Republicans in response to Jeffords jumping ship in 2001 (but too late to do them any good before the new Senate took their seats in 2003.) If that understanding is correct, then this scenario doesn't make sense.

[sandnsea]

5. It would hurt Hillary - so it won't happen

Barbara Boxer is supposed to talk about exploitation of women - after Bill seduced his intern?? Pssht. Hillary will never let the Dem Party go near a sex scandal.

Just one more reason I don't want them in office.

[madfloridian]

7. Good point.

I never thought of it that way. I remember living through those days here in my conservative fundamentalist area...I was teaching and I learned not to bother to defend the Clintons. It was almost a dangerous thing to do.

I once at lunch at school did say something about some good things he was doing...they had their talking points all ready. Two teachers got up and left the table.

I doubt it would have mattered it I had spoken up. The Democrats here love and adore them, the Republicans hold them up to ridicule.

[Maribelle]

8. Bill seduced his intern?? lol

There's of negative things you could say about President Clinton - - but the truth is that she seduced him - - and had planned on doing that even before she went to work in Washington.

[sandnsea]

9. It was sexual harrassment

First of all, my point is that there is no way Hillary will let Dems go near a sex scandal because of the backlash, no matter what your opinion of the circumstances. It just will not happen.

Regardless of that, you've really got to be kidding that poor old Bill, horn dog of the century, was duped into sex. Puhleeze.

It is sexual harrassment for a boss to have sex with a subordinate. The potential for abuse is too great. It's been accepted in most women's rights circles since at least the 80's. The only reason women supported Bill was because of the witchhunt nature of the right wing. If it had been anybody else, with the same history, he would have been long gone.

[Maribelle]

12. Would you agree that being seduced is different that being duped? You said seduced.

It is NOT sexual harrassment for a boss to have sex with a subordinate. It is only when it causes negatvie effects to coworkers or things of that nature that it might be considered sexual harassment.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment

[sandnsea]

13. No I wouldn't

You have to be duped to be seduced and I'm not for one second going to pretend Bill Clinton could be duped and/or seduced against his will.

And if we want to use your definition, of "negative effects", I would think it is quite clear Monica Lewinsky suffered serious negative effects and stupidly believed Bill "loved her" and was going to marry her. Using the extraordinary power of the Presidency to create an atmosphere of trust and to then lie about marriage - I really don't know how anybody defends his behavior. It was sexual harrassment and if it weren't for the fact that the right wing doesn't believe in it, that's probably how they would have made their case. They chose to go on a political withhunt of epic proportions instead, which is why they got shot down. It wasn't that people really think someone's sexual behavior is totally irrelevant, it's that they find this kind of mob rule even more repugnant.

[Quantess]

11. The average American has no idea it was kinky diaper sex.

They may have heard Vitter solicited prostitutes, but most people don't know that he had a diaper fetish.

Soliciting prostitutes is bad enough, but the particular details are really damning. (My apologies to any DU readers who might enjoy diaper sex.)

I try to tell everyone I know that David Vitter got kinky diaper sex from a prostitute. Spread the word, folks!

[Kelly Rupert]

14. Yeah, let's take up the mantle of Party of Family Values,

this will not backfire in the slightest.