David Vitter Confronted by Rape Victim at Town Hall Meeting Over Franken Amendment Vote
By Heather Tuesday Nov 03, 2009 6:00am
From Think Progress-- Rape Victim Confronts Vitter Over His Vote Against Franken’s Amendment Holding Contractors Accountable:
Last month, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts if companies “restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” Although the amendment passed, 30 Republican senators voted against it.
One of the Republicans singled out for especially harsh criticism following the vote was Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), who has a track record of siding against women’s rights. The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports that at a town hall meeting this past weekend, a constituent confronted Vitter about his vote. The woman, a rape victim, demanded that he explain why he opposed Franken’s amendment. Vitter refused to give her a straight answer.
As Sam Stein noted at the HuffPo--"The exchange was contentious, heart wrenching, and potentially damaging."
WOMAN: It meant everything to me that I was able to put the person who attacked me [behind bars]. And what allowed me to do that was our judicial process. I showed up in court every day to make sure that happen.
VITTER: And I'm absolutely supportive of any case like that being prosecuted criminally to the full extent of the law.
WOMAN: But there are rape victims who are being kept silent.
WOMAN: But how can you support [a law] that tells a rape victim that she does not have the right to defend herself?
VITTER: Ma'am The language in question did not say that in any way shape or form.
WOMAN: But it is unconstitutional to have a law that says a woman does not have a right to defend herself.
VITTER: You realize Mr. Obama was against that amendment that his administration was against that amendment
WOMAN: But I'm not asking Obama. I'm asking you.
VITTER: Do you think he's in favor in rape?
WOMAN: I'm asking you Senator. What if it was your daughter who was raped? Would you tell her to be quiet and take it? Would you tell your daughter to be silent?
Login or Register to post comments.
Did he sprout a woody?
so he wasn't interested.
And she didn't have any Pampers.
Vitter always struck me as a Huggies kind of man. I would be disappointed, but willing to accept the facts, if you can offer proof he prefers Pampers.
That woman has more moral fiber in her little finger than Vitter has in his whole body. She should go after him like Cindy Sheehan went after George Bush. Everyone deserves equal protection under the law. Let's all make sure the 30 who voted against a womans rights to justice are all defeated.
I totally agree.
"That woman has more moral fiber in her little finger than Vitter has in his whole body."
Cindy Sheehan spent several hundred thousand dollars trying to go after George Bush, everything she had, everything her supporters could rake in, and everything paid out from her son's death. That's what it takes. The world today is still that world where le Marquis de Shittybotham can drive his coach over the little unwashed plebian boy, leave him broken and bleeding on the cobblestones, and never have to pay or even look back. America likes it like that. It's the reason we treat each of our preznits like a royal family. We like it. We got it.
that's one brave survivor.
anyone else here knocked over by the compassionate response of diaper dave? I didn't think so.
I hope LA runs him out on a rail.
Only in a"moral" southern backwater could a Republican family values hypocrite who gets caught cheating on his wife in a pair of diapers with a prostitute get re-elected. Fortunately for Diaper Dave it wasn't a male prostitute or he would have been given the Larry Craig treatment instead of a standing ovation by his Republican colleagues upon returning to the congress after Diapergate. Being gay is still the unforgivable sin in GOP ranks, hypocrisy not so much.
Trust me, my fellow Louisiana residents are not the people upon whom we can depend to vote a lying, sexist, homophobic, hypocritical religious zealot like David Vitter out of office. I live in the absolute stupidest state in the country and thus predict that I will be stuck with six more years of this complete a-hole as "my" senator.
I gotta move out of this deranged country; the stupidity is killing me.
I beg to differ with you, Murray Rizberg. I would have to claim that dubious distinction for MY state--Texas.
Has anyone else been wondering why Baby Bush is no longer living in Crawford?!?
'cause LA is ass backwards in EVERYTHING.
They just had one of their own judges REFUSE to marry interracial couples with his bigoted ass.
Not one word about impeaching that judge and getting him off the bench.
Vitter is doing EXACTLY what they want him to do on their behalf.
And I wondered why my relatives who live there still choose to live in such an ass-backward state. I no longer wonder - they're as ass backwards as the state of Loosiana is.
I'm grateful for the small buffer that Mississippi and Alabama provide...
The man was a JP, not a judge. He's not on the bench. (He's also not a JP anymore.)
And that's what Republicans do to their constituents...turn their backs on them.
just like Obama and the White House had, just like the DOD had, and apparently just like Dem. Senator Daniel Inouye has, who, as of last reports, may completely strip that part of the bill.
Why is this woman a hero for attacking someone who has no part now in what happens to this bill, like Obama, the DOD and Inouye do?
She's attacking the wrong person and she doesn't care that the president she likely voted for is against the same things Vitter is against in that bill. Or I should say....WAS against. His vote makes no difference now.
Doesn't make a bit of sense, but I guess it makes for great red meat here.
And please produce documentation showing that Obama is against this Franken Amendement.
That they didn't know if they could enforce the law. (I don't have the exact link, but I've seen it out here...)
Which is a joke unto itself. The US Government has all kinds of stipulations placed in contracts regarding labor laws that they keep track of and enforce.
in here.
There are some things I wished I haven't had seen. :)
But I'm not sure that saying "I don't know if it can be enforced" is actually the same as saying "I'm against it."
and liberal blog that is peddling this red meat video is refuting it, why don't you do your own research and report back, LeftandLeft. Would you be satisfied with what I provided for you, anyway? You're a lawyer, go to work.
Show us how Obama's view differs from Vitter's and why Vitter is the evil one here in this case. Or was I wrong to assume you knew both sides of the argument before you started in with your usual vulgar ad homs?
...how conservatives (if I've mis-labeled you, Dennis, my apologies) always claim that there are 2 sides to an issue when it is something they need to (or feel they need to) embarassingly defend, but when it is one of their pet issues -- abortion, gay marriage, sex offender registration -- there is only one side and no other views are even entertained.
I wasn't the only one that didn't think dennis' argument was rather disingenuous.
He wants us to consider both sides of a story. However, the amendment would allow both sides of a story to be told in an assault case, but dennis doesn't seem concerned about that, he's worried that Vitter may be a victim.
Maybe vitter got stuck with a diaper pin.
Do you not recognize C&L's resident troll, conservatoire? He is often a fly by troll, but sometimes he'll engage and post more than one defensive (or offensive) comment...
for his vote.
I don't think most "here" who voted for Obama are going by what he supports anymore. If Obama is "against the same things Vitter is against" in anything, what does that change about whether it's wrong? The argument that such-and-such republican position "is the same as Obama's" still knocks some into floundering denial or confused silence, but most of us, nahh, not anymore.
No reason for Vitter to get his diapers in a wad . . .
David Vitter's full of crap.
had a bad odor about it. Change your diaper, Dave! In fact, change Vitter for a better senator next time.
Mr Vitter had a great explanation. She can prosecute her rapist criminally, she just cant get any compensation from him or the company that cultivated an atmosphere in which the rape took place.
That was pretty cold.
Correct me if I am wrong, but if a contractor (not an enlisted person) raped an Iraqi woman, they have immunity from even the criminal prosecution.
We are a nation of (circumstantial) laws.
If laws were supposed to be upheld, Dick Cheney would be nearing his one-year anniversary with cellmate Scooter Libby; David Vitter, Larry Craig, and John Ensign would have used their free time to turn C Street into a swingers' club; and George W. Bush's first speech after his presidency would have been at the Hague. Unfortunately, the law is just to keep the little people in line.
I believe he signed it in 2002, as we were getting ready to invade Iraq.
Among other things, it says that no American, or American corporation, can be held liable for anything they do in Iraq. I'm sure Blackwater was aware of it when they were gunning down Iraqis in the streets.
It's Obama's fault! Because Obama voted against it - even though Obama had no vote on this amendment, and even though Vitter wouldn't be caught dead bragging about voting with Obama.
But still, when confronted with his own bullshit, it's Obama's fault. It must be - certainly no Republican will take responsibility for the damage they cause.
God help us - and that man is on the public payroll - we're paying him, we're providing him with the best health care in the country.
Unless it is a veto, Obama doesn't have a vote but Vitter didn't mention "vote" did he? Just that the president was opposed top Franken's amendment.
although we both know Vitter was attempting to deflect by blaming Obama instead of dealing honestly with that woman.
No worries roooth and thanks for the reference above. But vitter really has me wondering. Did Obama make a statement that these righties get to use for cover?
to the Franken amendment to make a straight line to Obama. I can't find any evidence of Obama making a personal statement.
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009...
It would be great if Obama would make a statement clarifying his position here, regardless.
So.....if Vitter had simply told that woman the bullshit excuse that he voted against the bill for certain aspects, but he supports "the intent of the amendment,", would everyone here be cool with that?
Color me skeptical, but I somehow doubt it.
Big senators protecting big business. The dems do it on a lot of other issues as well.
Its sad she is essentially making an appeal to get her right to sue back from her representative, but we know representatives almost unanimously support business interests.
Politicians and big business are raping the consumer every day and you want to prevent on the passage of a law that prevents it.
edited
I'm just telling you Vitter's not the only one that had problems with this bill.
You want to boil it all down to victimization and not caring about someone who got raped, fine, that's what liberals love to do. If you think that anyone who has issues with the bill doesn't care one wit about the victim, why not go after the people who have control over the bill at this point who may strip that language out of it? What good does it do you to idiotically rail on a Senator who has no influence at all over it now, besides a somewhat soothing of the soul for you?
Seriously, you accuse me of cheering on a law that facilitates rape, but just what are you doing to try to prevent it? Griping about Vitter does nothing but make you sound like an old lady in a quilt club fretting about the weather that day. (No offense to the old ladies in quilt clubs who fret about the weather who post here, either).
where Vitter has supported everything Bush did for 8 years, including allowing this to happen in the first place.
It isn't as if this issue just suddenly appeared - but, as we all know now - conservatives love to ignore the effects their legislated violence and cruelty have on those who don't have the corporate resources or the ears of Congressmen to protect them.
Pretty sad, Dennis, pretty pathetic. Bush made this type of crime above the law in Iraq, I've known about it for years, including the damage it has done to the poor and defensless - where have you been? Cause you seem to be doing nothing but griping at liberals for even bringing it up - even to the point where you want us to prevent it ourselves without bothering your pretty little head with complaints when a conservative Congressman tries to perpetuate the violence, vote aginst the victims and then - like you - find a way to assign blame on liberals.
Quel lame.
why would you vote against it?
because there were flaws in the bill. Go ask Daniel Inouye that question or look on his website.
If you support the intent of a bill would you vote against it?
why are you such an ardent supporter of diaper Dave? Do you have the same M.O?
Mommy Orgasm?
for defending Vitter. I don't know him from Adam and I'd prefer to see him gone from office, truth be known.
your argument was that Obama agreed with Vitter without being able to prove it.
not come back with a version that eliminates the flaws but protects citizens against crimes of such heinous violence?
Oh yeah, cause the party of No doesn't do that, that's why.
Now, are you skeptical that we'd all be "cool" with Vitter if he said that? Or cool with Vitter obviously lying to a rape survivor and saying he supports the intent of the amendment when he clearly doesn't?
Or should we be cool with him saying whatever he wants even though he voted against it?
I don't even care - this is what they do, they throw off chaff to distract. They want us to turn away from the issue at hand and spend time and energy doing the research they never offer to back up their claims. Then, if there is even the tiniest iota of anything that can be connected to their original statement, everyone can devolve into argueing about that instead of the original issue.
And, by that time, they've thrown off another outrageous, unsubstantiated claim to keep their chaff machine chugging along.
They do this so the lazy 80% of the population which has no intention of doing any active research on their own can say, "Both sides just argue all the time, that's why I don't like politics.".
This is how they keep the false equivelency arguements going - and it's all crap based on lies based on their hate, greed and fear.
to understand the issue any better, rooth, you resort to calling everyone else lazy. That's called projection.
You don't know why Vitter voted the way he did and you can't differentiate between his reasons and Inouye's reasons and the DOD's reasons for their objections to the amendment.
I don't want you to turn away from the issue at hand, I'm just asking you to actually understand the issue at hand.
You seem to have some resistance to that idea, though.
Inouye didn't vote against it, though, did he?
she didn't want a rational explanation. She just wanted to make sure he and everyone there knew she was a victim; which was totally irrelevant to his vote.
Vitter gave ten times the effort to explain [Deleted. Off topic. This whole compare and contrast is tiresome. Whatever the purpose, the reality is that it turns every thread into a long drawn out off topic flame war-Sitemonitor]
Vitter's the real victim here?
Damn nasty woman - doesn't she know she should keep her shame a secret? All raped women should. Then Dennis wouldn't have to resort to such specious arguements.
pennis is here!
And he knows exactly what was going on in this woman's mind.
He doesn't mind.
trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
That's all you do, every damn day.
besides your view that you think Vitter loves seeing women getting raped and not being able to prosecute, libNmod?
Seriously, what research have you looked in to to understand what problems or flaws there are with this bill?
I'd think you'd know both sides cold if you truly wanted to see something positive come out of it. The easy thing to do is take pots shots at someone who is completely out of the loop on the bill now, but that's pretty much the intent of the blog post, so don't let me stop you. Just ignore my 'spin' if you prefer, then.
such contractors too much to consider the rights of the victims.
I'm accused of pretending to know what's in the woman's mind in that video, but it's ok for you to just pull that out of your ass pretending to know what was in Vitter's mind, even though it conflicts with what he said. You just know.
But that's not you 'spinning', is it, libNmod.
I never should've picked you up and dusted you off that day you thought all was lost for Obama. I don't know why I felt concerned for you, then. Moment of weakness, I guess.
what's in Vitter's mind is reflected in his vote?
And in his complete lack of action to correct the flaws in the amendment by, oh, gosh - and I'm just spiffballing here - but how about Vitter do some legislating and offer an amendment which would fix the flaws and protect citizens from situations like this?
He hasn't, of course, and he won't.
I just love Republicans screeching when Dems take action that benefits ordinary Americans. The Repugs screech and whine and lie - everything but actually do their jobs.
Pathetic
Yooo hoooo.
Where are you with the truth on this matter?
I'll get back to your sorry @$$ ASAP.
The woman who asked Vitter this question was a regular citizen and Vitter placed himself out there to enjoin public discourse.
Jenkins is a stalker for a political opposition group who acosted Grayson in the halls of his workplace (congress).
Nice try, but your twisted defense of Vitter will not wash with educated people.
"So.....if Vitter had simply told that woman the bullshit excuse that he voted against the bill for certain aspects, but he supports "the intent of the amendment,", would everyone here be cool with that?"
He's not that sophisticated.
That's what frosts me; we, the public, are paying for his diaper rash and any STDs he may have contracted.
He was voted down. It's out of his hands now. Obama and the DOD and Inouoye have more influence on its passage than Vitter does at this point.
or are you obfuscating to make some wierd point?
WHY did he vote against it? THAT is what that woman was asking him.
YOU offered a lame excuse that he objected to "flaws" in the amendment.
I asked why, if that were true, Vitter didn't do his job as a legislator and offer corrections to the flaws? Or an alternate amendment?
Instead of answering that, now you want to pretend it's all moot becuase the asshats who voted "no" were only a small minority - so where's the harm?
Feeble attempt at circumlocution.
The question was; why did he vote no? The subsequent question is; if he voted no because he had concerns about the amendment BUT he supported the intent, what did he, AS A LEGISLATOR, do to correct the flaws so he could support an amendment whose intent he supported? The answer is: he did nothing to correct the flaws - and doing something about things like that are his job.
To try and deflect now that his vote was irrelevant because only a tiny minority of Republicans voted no is a bit much, even for you.
Only a tiny minority voted no because a no vote was an immoral thing to do, and only those Repugs so steeped in their own immorality to even notice how immoral their vote was, actually voted no - and their names read like a roster of self-aggrandizing, immoral, corporate-owned, self-serving, greedy....Republicans.
But you keep grasping at straws to defend the indefensible.....
Was vitter's statement true that Barack Obama was against the amendment?
If so, that makes him the only democrat beside Inouye. It also makes him an incredible putz.
There is no justification for his vote and he knows it. All of those who voted against Franken's amendment know in their heart that vote was inexcusable from a humanitarian point of view. They are cold hearted, distastful sub-human beings.
What's Inouye's beef, then. Is he a cold-hearted, distasteful sub-human being? Is Obama?
Tell me what distinguishes those two from Vitter on this bill?
I said "All of those who voted against Franken's amendment..." All means all. The President did not vote against the amendment.
Would you have voted against the amendment? Remember, all means all.
Like the lady said, dennis, she was taking to him, not to Obama. If Vitter were acting like a man he would have at the very least taken responsibility for his actions, as opposed to passing blame.
The man's a coward, dennis, though I find it interesting that you are expending so much energy defending him, when Sen. Vitter clearly isn't secure enough to defend his own actions.
And by the way, how dare you compare a victim of rape to those mind-rapists on the O'Reilly Factor.
That's almost as cowardly as our aforementioned senator.
Sorry folks. But the woman has the same ignorance we attack in the Glenn Beck Teabaggers.
The Franken amendment simply says that any of these military contractors who have employment matters can't make their employees sue them in private arbitration. The effect of the amendment would be that if the military contractors want to engage their services with the government, their employees who have employment law matters may sue them in court. That's it.
I support the amendment as I oppose most arbitrations in such circumstances. Here in CA, they are no longer as fast nor are they really less expensive in many instances as a court case. And at least a plaintiff can get to a jury (and yes, sometimes corporations want a jury trial too).
Why Vitter did not explain that to her is probably because he hasn't read the bill summary either. We are really entering Idiocracy, aren't we?
Have been for almost two decades now. Though the slope has sure gotten steeper these last ten years.
Almost a 1:1 change with the rise of Faux news. And no, FOX is not the only purveyor of this bile, just the first and still the best(?) at this brand of opinion making posing as news.
I've eaten at your restaurant a few times before, don't know if it's still there or not, though.
If Fox is responsible for the Idiocracy, why is it that apparently almost no one here knew about the problems with this bill? Why doesn't the reality-based community know it cold, both sides?
What's going on with the Left these days? [Deleted-Sitemonitor] Why does this one have most of you stumped?
Dennis, ALL bills have "problems," it's whether one is able to look passed the "problems" to see if the legislative intent will solve the underlying issue. With Franken's bill the intent is to prevent people being paid by OUR tax dollars from being able to escape financial punishment when they provide/condone a working environment where rape is just collateral damage. That effort is well worth working through any "problems" the bill might have.
I would like to see though where Obama has said he's against this.
"What's going on with the Left these days? You have Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and digby you keep you completely informed."
Yeah and keep on believing we don't carry either. It's no wonder debating you is so easy.
Well I also use the BBC and The Guardian since American MSM is essentially worthless.
Of course there's also my Political Science and Paralegal degrees, and some military experience.
but you keep clinging to that hair you're determined to split while you ignore the reality of this situation - you are typical of what is going on with the Right today - this is a very clear, very simple, very obvious situation, including the solution - which is why only a small fraction voted no, and they were all from the self-indulgent, self-serving, self-aggrandizing far-right fringe of the Republican Party.
This is every bit as telling as Sarah Palin charging the state of Alaska for travel pay to drive back and forth from her office to her home, and then telling the women of Alaska that if they are raped, they have to pay out of their own pockets for the police to gather evidence to prosecute their rapists.
"The Franken amendment simply says that any of these military contractors who have employment matters can't make their employees sue them in private arbitration."
Nobody can sue in private arbitration - and that's the whole point; there is no opportunity for any kind of legal recourse in private arbitration. It's strictly a negotiation, no legal issues can be brought and no legal relief can be sought. All that can be addressed are matters of corporate policy. A corporate arbitration is not a replacement for a court of law, nor can an arbitration enforce the law or order legal remedies.
It's a contract negotiation, nothing more. Nobody gets sentenced to time in jail in arbitration. No legal recourse. And that's the point. The rapists could have lost their jobs, the corporation could have agreed to pay her money - but that's it - and, in return, the victim had to agree to remain silent - knowing that other women could then be subjected to the same thing.
She was gang-raped and held captive in a shipping container, for God's Sake. Should she really have agreed to an arbitration where she would have to sit through arbitration with the animals who did this to her, agree to remain silent, agree to let her attackers go free to do it again - for some hush money?
Who here would agree to that? And how sick is it that some would even consider that an acceptable solution?
I think what it boils down to here is corporations shielding themselves from liability and negligence. It continues to happen to both consumers and employees. We are losing our right to seek compensation. Arbitration is usually a joke and if the corporation is doing something that promotes an atmosphere of rape, we are losing our ability to make it right when we take away the right to sue.
. . . he left in such a hurry -- do you suppose he needed to change his diaper?
Ohhhhhhhh, barf!!!
Wassamattahyou,
Need a diaper for your face?
you can read minds too! damn, you are good! frankly, i thought she was pretty clear
vitter is merely an unvarnished, misogynist tool, who made no effort to really answer her question: why did you vote against the amendment? simple question, really.
as he walked out the door and what she screamed. Listen to her when she talked about her own trial and she started to break down. Vitter couldn't speak to her rationally and she wanted no part of a rational conversation, which is why she started screaming. No, I can't read her mind and I don't pretend to, but yelling out, no screaming out...
pretty much tells you that was what she wanted to get out, and Vitter had already explained that he was supportive of the rape case being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
So you're saying she was asking for it?
not here and not anywhere. Not ever before and not ever will I, about anyone. I'm sorry she was raped. I'm glad she got her day in court and was able to convict her attacker. I'm just saying her rape had nothing to do with this bill or why Vitter voted it down. He empathized with her and tried to explain his position on a complicated issue, and she only wanted to have it explained as his not caring about rape victims.
about rape victims? with the utmost decorum? fuck vitter and anyone who tries to justify his position.
HE couldn't speak to her rationally; he didn't give her the time of day. Instead, he turned his back to her. She didn't chase him out the door, like a Fux attack dog would.
what do you think he should have done if he was seeing that she was getting emotional and obviously hysterical?
Would you have had more respect for him if he just stood there in that gym and let her yell and scream? [Deleted. Sitemonitor]
You actually lump a single rape victim into the same group as low-information voters.
Vitter could at least shown some humanity, but apparently that's beneath him.
Classy.
if he said something like:
"I'm sorry you've gone through your ordeal. I'm not be able to answer all your concerns or questions here in this forum. Please contact my office or my website and I will try to assist you further."
Funny, if Al Franken were there instead of Vitter, I can picture Al reaching out to hug her. Not so sure about Vitter.
Funny thing is that was the same questions republicans would ask us when we laughed off Monicagate
Despite the fact that it was consensual
And always preceded by the statement that it wasn't about the sex.
Typical Republican piece of sh*t....
They couldn't care less about the plight of Americans who being victimized....
dennis, so i guess "what's the point" of facing up to the people who you've spit on, huh? you're a real piece of fucking work. maybe you should look into leasing some humanity.
Isn't that what hiring a hooker is?
He wasn't running from her. There was a $20 hooker on the corner and Pampers truck parked outside.
and a gutless whoremonger who hides behind sophistry and doesn't give a fuck about rape victims or anybody else. vitter is scum.
about Obama and Inouye, malmarti.
Do you? If not, why not?
ZERO. and inouye is scum, a pimp for the defense industry, pure and simple and he should have his ass tossed out of the senate. the defense dept put in a brief against franken's amendment; that's not obama.
why this blog and all the blogs peddling this video that has Vitter stating the Obama White House was against this bill too, is not categorically refuting his statement?
Enlighten everyone here, please.
Be the hero of the day.
You really don't care.
You really don't care if "this blog and all the blogs peddling this video" refutes one statement after the next.
You have locked on to one sentence uttered by a rather misinformed politician trying to defuse the blame from himself.
Others here have shown that it wasn't Obama himself that said he didn't support the amendment, but rather a disingenuous statement by someone within the White House and the DOD.
made that statement and it didn't reflect the views of the White House, why hasn't it been questioned by TPM, or TP, or C&L, directly to someone at the White House?
And if it's disingenuous, why hasn't the White House retracted it? They are obviously standing behind the DOD, no?
No matter what, ThunderMonkey, they deserve more of your attention than Vitter does at this stage of the game, without a doubt.
the ones making the accusation had to offer the proof. Where is your proof that Obama agreed with Diaper Dave, diaper dennis?
Okay...
At least you're admitting now that Obama didn't make the statement himself.
Okay. Someone within the White House is always quoted to say one thing or the next without a appropriate attribution within the story.
Myself and I'm sure some others tend to treat such quotes as junk and nothing more than perhaps a rumor.
You're right. Not only do the blogs need to tackle why it was said in the first place. However, there is no push back at this point, and thus no one in the White House sees fit to waste time on this for the moment.
The way DC works, more attention to details will surface once the amendment gets closer to being signed or not signed.
Great job by the way trying to distract us from what a pure douche and asshole Vitter really is for a few seconds.
Said the guy who cheated on his wife
Or was it his mother?
David Vitter's electorate:
http://whitewatch.files.wordpress.com/2009/08...
dennis got past the passcode to his momma's computer I see.
and I have several computers at my desk, all fully operational, all it tip-top shape.
When it comes to human sexuality vitter would have to evolve first
But since he's a conservative, what's the odds of that?
I have to go back to the thread a couple of days ago and repost my Ice Tbag rap. The first part of verse 3 is a shout out to you Diaper Dave! (ok, prostitute not mistress. whatever.) and replace Mark Sanford with Diaper Dave! Yo!
I'm a conservative
That’s what Im proud to be
We’ve conned the American people
From LA to DC
You think we're Country First?
That's the wrong impression
We stretched the military
And caused a global recession
Sanctity of marriage?
I’m married with a mistress
And I teabag all day
Against my own best interests
True morality?
I use a different meter
A drug addicted gas bag
Is my party leader
Dems running up the deficit
Trying to help the average man
But I’d rather go in debt
Bombing Iraq and Iran
Im not that smart
And I’m not too bright
Surpassed only by my cowardice
Pushing wars I won’t fight
I could go to war
But I'm a coward and a rapper
For the party of Diaper Dave
And Craig the toe tapper
Obama’s liked at home
And admired across the world
But I long for the president
For at whom that shoe was hurled
We're the White People's Party
The new KKK
This entire cheesy video
I made in a day
Bigots in the house!
Homophobes too!
The new GOP
Is the party for you!
Hey Sean Hannity!
Your waterboard is waiting
You said you'd strap on it
But I guess you were perpetrating!
I’ve rapped long enough
I’ve said all I can
Listening to Coulter now
Cause that's my man!
Peace out yo!
if you can, sixandseveneights.
Good luck to your candidate. Mine is likely to win by about 18 points, if the latest polls are accurate. Somehow Hope and Change hasn't brought hope and change to the Old Dominion.
the only thing that has brought change in the Old Dominion was the Emancipation Proclamation. None of the three can be credited to internal forces.
Not even a year to fix the damage done of almost a decade of the the GOP controlling all 3 branches of government? You're not giving Obama a whole lot of time now are you?
" Somehow Hope and Change hasn't brought hope and change to the Old Dominion."
No, but it's brought out a lot of racist white teabaggers and sore election losers!
You telling me the guys who invented the white primary didn't have someothing in mind when they scheduled state elections in odd years?
p>You mean the Land of Macaca?
I'm sure Hope and Change will take longer to get to the most hateful racist parts of the country - so, you may not see it for awhile.
.
Next time there's a thread on Genesis or Peter Gabriel, I'll try to meet up with you. At least we have that in common.
This case is also why conservatives scream elites so often at the political foes
It's a distraction
Because the real elitism is giving corporations working for the government essentially carte blanch for escaping the rights of the people for equality under the law.
Seems most corporations would argue they're already providing a safe working place, and would support the amendment as a matter of course.
He was called on his vote to protect the rapists of Halliburton/KBR.
That mean woman wanted to know why! And when vitter turned his back on her and walked away, she had the nerve to become angry!
Everybody knows that Obama supported the rapists - look at all of the links provided to document that claim.
And everybody knows that the Rape-publicans always vote the way Obama votes - it's that famous Rape-publican buy-partisanship!
Vitter has always taken a stand for Family Values. It's why he supported the JP who refused to marry a biracial couple.
Vitter is clearly the victim of a Feminazi who not only has a problem with rape - but seems to think that a Senator should somehow answer to her.
Or maybe take a Democratic presidents legacy of peace and record prosperity and turn into to record deficits and 2 failed wars.
a motivational speaker.
and you will have a headline cliche trifecta.
(Just feeling sporty cause RJ got his Mr. October record tied by
Mr. November.)
and you go and get your Huggies in a bundle?
Do your daughters know that you are in favor of rape?
Vitter is a great guy, and he showed that screeching feminazi how a compassionate conservative values families.
I mean, what about the so-called "rapists?"
These feminazis probably wouldn't date them or even give them the time of day.
Rapists are people too. And people have needs.
Go KBR/Halliburton!
Your main point is good, but I am more impressed that you have
shown agreement with me on the major question still unanswered
about Vitter: Huggies or Pampers. I go with Huggies because they are manly.
because they're not only traditional - they have that rugged addition of safety pins.
The cloth makes them durable and able to hold your firearm as well.
and my daughters know that.
Despite your obtuse in categorizing it that way, neither is Vitter. Neither is Inouye. Neither is Obama. Neither is the DOD. And neither are the 29 other Senators who voted against the bill.
I'm against everything about rape. I hope the guys who did are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I'm pretty sure I would've even voted for the amendment if I was in a situation to vote on it.
What I am against is ignorance. And liberal victimization defenses that are irrelevant to the situation so they can make their favorite kind of charges; that republicans don't care about people.
Unless it gets them (A) Money (B) Laid or (C) Re-elected.
Yeah, Rape publicans REALLY care...
sums it up.
Uh, yeah, that is going to bite him in the ass for sure.
He didn't have to pay someone to bite him.
only pays when the biter is wearing orthodenture applicances.
More power to him.
That's a man who knows what he likes. It's a bloody shame that he draws a public salary to support his habits.
Was against this amendment. I can't find any.
But here's the vote if anyone's interested.
To me, it was Vitters demeanor that set her off. And justifiably so in my opinion.
I looked for the evidence that Vitter used for his argument with this woman. I couldn't find any.
Maybe dennis can find it. Since he's the one using it.
adios folks.
be well.
been waiting for you. You're the only one here so far from your side brave enough to explain the bill and what the problems with it were. And you took heat for it, too.
Where's that fighting spirit, now?
Stand up and be heard, dude.
Have at it.I don't have time for this. I have to catch a plane.
I'm going to my Dads funeral. Perhaps another time dennis.
Vitter handled this poorly.
Login or Register to post comments.