Democrats continue desperate tactics against Vitter

You can tell that Louisiana Democrats do not think much of their chances to defeat incumbent Sen. David Vitter when they continue to reinforce their only line of attack on him based on the strategy that he’s “evil.”

With the issues preferences of the Louisiana public solidly on his side (as well as his continuing to hold comfortable poll leads a year out from the election), Democrats have engaged in the age-old strategy of coming up with as many implausible accusations as possible and throwing them all at Vitter, desperately hoping some mud sticks that portrays him as some insensitive weirdo. The latest effort was a coordinated attempt to make Vitter appear, in the words of the Democrat operative, to “support a law that tells a rape victim that she does not have the right to defend herself.”

(It is shameful that Democrats took advantage of a woman with personal tragedy to try to score political points this way. More to the point, if Democrats continue this line of inquiry, they’re going have to agree upon how they regard Vitter’s temperament. Because he said he committed a “serious sin” and his phone number turned up on a list of calls received by an escort agency, although he never has confirmed this, it is suggested by his political opponents that he paid for sexual intercourse. So Democrats are hinting that the same guy who allegedly paid for sex also would countenance rape by an unwillingness to let women defend themselves from it? Doesn’t seem consistent if he’d go so far as to pay for it, implying he would not want to prevent rape – if he didn’t think so, why pay for it?. But trying to figure out how and why liberals think the way they do has baffled even the wisest, keenest, and best-informed observers for decades.)

Of course, as Vitter himself pointed out, opposing the amendment (that would set a precedent in the government’s ability to intervene in internal corporate relations) doesn’t prevent a defense against alleged crimes, and the amendment isn’t even necessary since the courts recently ruled in a universal way that in those kinds of cases they would be adjudicated in the U.S. courts regardless of whether they occurred on U.S. soil or whatever contractual arrangements apply. All the useless amendment really did was to prevent arbitration from being used in any legal circumstance for Defense Department contractors, increasing business for trial lawyers and costs ultimately to be paid by the American public. As Vitter also noted, even the Pres. Barack Obama Administration opposed the amendment initially, although after its successful passage has expressed neutrality about it. The empty amendment will have nothing to do with the ability of employees to seek judicial relief.

Stunts like this, creating an issue that doesn’t exist, to date seem the only trick in Democrats’ bag against Vitter. Perhaps the foreknowledge that a huge wave is building against their candidates in the 2010 elections is driving them to such longshot tactics. If this is the best they can do, a year from now Vitter will have cruised to an easy reelection.