tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post1626632338503824947..comments2024-03-17T08:07:12.695-05:00Comments on Between The Lines: Spurious claims show Vitter still drives opponents crazyJeff Sadowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03972004592729833310noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post-45846368257619994112011-06-23T09:09:17.992-05:002011-06-23T09:09:17.992-05:00Vitter has done an outstanding job for the state a...Vitter has done an outstanding job for the state and his constituents. He screwed up and his wife has forgiven him. That's good enough for me. The Weiner incident is different, check the facts. But since he is an effective conservative who is not afraid to confront the liberal Republicans and Democrats, unsubstantiated innuendo convicts this man, typical left wing hypocrisy.Sidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post-18321512630020942112011-06-22T19:34:30.317-05:002011-06-22T19:34:30.317-05:00First, where is the indisputable proof that Vitter...First, where is the indisputable proof that Vitter made a call on the floor of the House using a House phone during House business to the number in question?<br /><br />Also, you fail to notice the principled differences, even after reading the post. We know Weiner lied -- not only did he admit it, but even if he hadn't there was evidence all over Twitter and then the web. We also know it appears he used taxpayer resources, stalled a congressional investigation, and may even have committed a crime by sending such materials to somebody underage. Vitter didn't do any of this -- he admitted nothing specific, we have no evidence he abused taxpayer resources in all of this, and when he initially was queried about this in the early 2000s, the worst we can say is he was evasive. Even the Cortez accusations never were confirmed.<br /><br />Again, Vitter has done nothing to show he abused the powers of his office in this affair. As long as somebody does not do that, until they are convicted in a court of law of a crime -- or we can even be harsher and include just an indictment -- there is no reason for them to resign their office.<br /><br />Actually, I take back my first sentence of the second paragraph. By complimenting me, you do realize the differences but your hatred of Vitter and/or his conservatism won't allow you to admit the rectitude of what I've written, and restated here. Perhaps one day I'll communicate with him in some way -- I've never had any whatsoever with him.Jeff Sadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03972004592729833310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10214951.post-28886563150385336762011-06-22T13:10:42.679-05:002011-06-22T13:10:42.679-05:00No formal charges against Weiner, either.
At leas...No formal charges against Weiner, either.<br /><br />At least one of Vitter's calls was made while was in session in the House. Is that an abuse of office?<br /><br />"Vitter came forward when caught", so your standard for behavior is that unless you are caught, it's fine?<br /><br />Weiner lied. Are we expected to believe that in the years that went by when Vitter was calling hookers (I'll leave it at that since you seem to think there is some valid reason for calling them other than to use their services) he didn't at some point lie, probably even to constituents, to cover his tracks.<br /><br />It seems to your mind, behavior that justifies the resignation of a public official doesn't matter unless they are caught and specifically that pictures to prove the behavior exists. Oh, that and the name of their political party.<br /><br />Yes, Vitter was returned by his constituents. One major point of this controversy is that folks like you were unwilling to allow Weiner the same chance to be vindicated by his constituents. That's just more hypocrisy from the "moral high ground" held by folks like you.<br /><br />Good luck on the future job, you've covered for Vitter better than his paid flacks. Hope he appreciates your blind loyalty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com