A Tale Of A Seemingly-Confused Blogger

“Phoenix Woman” writes breathlessly scrawls:

If you Google “David Vitter prostitute“, you get around 30,000 references to the sex scandal that broke last July involving a sitting Republican Senator known for his straight-arrow “family values” image.

Wow – that’s ironic, isn’t it?

Senator Vitter has yet to resign.

(Perhaps he’s trapped in William Jefferson’s office freezer?)

If you Google Larry Craig prostitute, you get just under 48,000 references to the sex scandal that broke last August involving another sitting Republican Senator known for his straight-arrow “family values” image. Senator Craig has yet to resign.

And all 48,000 of those references must be to stuff written by morons; Craig didn’t consort with a prostitute; it was a “consensual” pickup, the kind that happens all night, every night over around Loring Park; the guy happened to be an undercover cop.

But if you Google “Eliot Spitzer prostitute“, you get over 261,000 references to the sex scandal involving a sitting Democratic governor with a straight-arrow image, and that scandal isn’t even 48 hours old yet.

Clearly, Spitzer could be free and clear right now if he’d only been a Republican. It’s really the ultimate Get Out Of Jail Free card.

Tell it to Randy Cunningham, Marc Rich or William Jefferson.

And then there’s the little matter of the accusations of racketeering and money laundering (of which Mr. Spitzer is innocent until proven guilty). I don’t believe Vitter or Craig were accused of any any felonies – were they?

No?

Because the real ultimate “get out of jail free” card is to not commit felonies.

“Phoenix Woman” – perhaps the only leftyblogger in town less clear on the law than MNob…

While in no way do I buy into Vox Day’s case to repeal the 19th Amendment, “Phoenix Woman” could actually be circumstantial evidence in the affirmative. Ladies – you might wanna do something about her.

That is all.

36 thoughts on “A Tale Of A Seemingly-Confused Blogger

  1. Racketeering? Don’t think so. And money laundering is at the far edge of the possibilities in this case.

  2. Another Lefty attempt to show a conservative bias in an industry where the vast majority of editors and writers are liberals.
    You have to an incredible idiot to believe this. This is the equivalent of saying that the US armed forces, despite voting records showing it is staffed by mostly conservatives, is promoting a liberal agenda because like NPR it is a non-profit government agency.
    The Larry Craig scandal (as Mitch noted) did not involve a prostitute. Craig is also a Senator from a state with a small population that most people can’t find on a map. Craig had no national ambition.
    David Vitter is the junior senator from another fly over state. What’s more, the Vitter scandal may have “broken last July” but the scandalous action itself — Vitter’s last known contact with the “DC Madam” was in Feb of 2001.
    The Spitzer scandal involved a Governor of a populous state that is home to the national news media. Not only was Spitzer a high profile backer of a presidential candidate in a heavily covered primary fight, he had national political ambitions of his own. He sought the limelight of the national media. Also, as prosecuter Spitzer had put people who ran prostitution rings in prison, and must have known that the people behind the Emperor’s Club were connected with organized crime.
    The liberal bias we see in the Spitzer coverage has nothing to do with the amount of news coverage it has received. As Phoenix Woman demonstrates, the bias is that the coverage of the Craig & Vitter scandals are presented in such a way that they reflect badly on conservative politicians and the GOP while Spitzer’s whoring is depicted as personal failing.

  3. Terry said:

    “the coverage of the Craig & Vitter scandals are presented in such a way that they reflect badly on conservative politicians and the GOP while Spitzer’s whoring is depicted as personal failing”

    Excellent point!

  4. I kinda like Vox Day’s idea re the 19th Amendment. I have said that I would give up my right to vote to keep the swooning, screaming, air-head Oprah-watching, romance-novel-reading NINNIES from voting. Women really can be dumb as rocks.

    And the one standing next to her husband in the last couple days has no pride whatsoever. Is it the money, prestige? Even if you didn’t want to divorce him (for those poor daughters), you don’t have to stand there “supporting” that ass. What kind of diseases has Spitzer brought home?

  5. Racketeering? Don’t think so. And money laundering is at the far edge of the possibilities in this case.

    Don’t look at me. I’m just repeating what I’ve read from journalists writing about what lawyers have said.

    I’d sooner trust a circus clown to be accurate.

  6. So, knowing that they are likely just blowing smoke, and considering most of your ‘sources’ are the profoundly biased platforms of right-wing trumpeteers (like Washington Times), you STILL promulgate their wild speculations.

    Knowing now that such allegations are as hollow as OJ Simpson’s claims to be looking for the killer of his ex-wife, will you now show some integrity and pull down your specious words, correct your blog, and apologize for trying to draw a distinction between this and that of Republicans, which both doesn’t exist, and even if it did, makes no difference whatsoever?

    If you’d sooner trust a clown, perhaps you shouldn’t have printed it in the first place?

    Also, just a comment, but strike-through words still carry weight, and are a fairly ethicless dodge of responsibility for writing them. Mark Rich, Larry Craig, Jimmy Swagart, Ted Haggerty, Strom Thurmond, Mark Foley, Bob Livingston, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Guiliani, Mark Guckert, Bernie Kerik, and on and on and on, the list of “Do as I say, not as I do,” social and political conservatives is pretty long. I think it comes from demanding a standard of conduct which is unreasonable to expect, from a puritanical view regarding sex (and highly judgemental view of the sexual preferences of OTHERS), and so they walk with clay feet.

    There IS no higher moral ground for you to cut out here Mitch, and that you’d try, is only an indictment of you. It says you believe in judging where you are admonished not to, it shows you are interested in thumping your chest, in short, again, it shows you to be both a hypocrite, and hollow, and while I know you are very sensitive to being called a hypocrite, perhaps if the conduct ceased, the accusations would too.

    The irony is that you all claim to be for individual liberty – but revel in the pain and frailties of others. You claim to be about decency, yet brush off the failures and frailties of your champions. Liberals rarely claim to be ethically perfect, claim to want to run and rule the sexual conduct of other people’s lives, so the reverse hypocrisy doesn’t exist (other do, however, to be sure).

    I visited the Lincoln Memorial last night, and his second innagural speech moved me pretty profoundly, his point, in STARK contrast to your conduct and words was simply this:

    While we have warred upon each other, and claimed God as our own, our COMBINED failure lead to this war, we are both (North and South) being held to account by providence, and it is our challenge, to seek healing and show compassion – rather than to blame.

    His words, obviously, were far more eloquent. But I would ask you, knowing you respect Lincoln like I do, do you think your words and conduct reflect the tone he was able to show toward the South, even after 4 years of bloody conflict? Or, are your words much more akin to Lee Atwater – seeking only to create separation and contempt?

  7. I’d be surprised if anyone said racketeering, except possibly in relation to the ring. Not Spitzer, though. Mann Act is rarely applied to johns. And the structuring charge is kinda weak too. Unless there are significant facts we don’t know about, Angryclown suspects the feds may kick this down to local prosecutors in New York or D.C. and that Spitzer will plead to a misdemeaner solicitation count or something similar. Just a guess.

  8. Okay, class, who here except Mitch is starting to see a Peev comment, and just scrolling past while rolling your eyes?

    *raising hand*

  9. Pingback: Truth v. The Machine » Archives » Google Math

  10. Peev paraphrased: “While we have warred upon each other, and claimed God as our own, our COMBINED failure lead to this war, we are both (North and South) being held to account by providence, and it is our challenge, to seek healing and show compassion – rather than to blame.”

    Well to be fair, Peev, Lincoln won his war. Could be the current Republican president is a little touchy over the fact he’s 0-2 so far.

  11. “””While in no way do I buy into Vox Day’s case to repeal the 19th Amendment, “Phoenix Woman” could actually be circumstantial evidence in the affirmative. Ladies – you might wanna do something about her.”””

    Sayeth the greatest feminist ever!!

    “””You claim to be about decency, yet brush off the failures and frailties of your champions. Liberals rarely claim to be ethically perfect, claim to want to run and rule the sexual conduct of other people’s lives, so the reverse hypocrisy doesn’t exist”””

    Ding ding ding, one is dog bites man, the other is man bites dog. It is not bias, just that one is news, the other isn’t as newsorthy!

  12. Well to be fair, Peev, Lincoln won his war.

    It cost him 360,000 dead Union soldiers.
    You libs would have surrendered after Bull Run.

  13. The libs wanted to free the slaves. The conservatives, then as now, were simpering about the rights of racist states to do whatever they wanted.

  14. The libs wanted to free the slaves.
    I’m sure the fact that you wrote ‘libs’ instead of ‘Republicans’ was one of your clowny jokes.
    The conservatives, then as now, were simpering about the rights of racist states to do whatever they wanted.
    You mean Democrats, don’t you? How’s ol’ Grand Kleagle Byrd doing these days? Do you think Bill & Hillary will show that boy Obama his proper place?

  15. Funny how things can change in a brief 140 years, ain’t it Terry? Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, though Republicans, wouldn’t have much to say to you silly wingnuts of 2008.

  16. Terry –

    Your comment that ‘libs would have surrendered’ is both a denial of fact, and highly offensive.

    I served, as have MANY liberals. I’d have been afraid in battle, as would any sane man or woman.

    As AC rightly pointed out, it was the liberals who were abolitionists, rather than belly-aching about property rights. I’d go further, it was liberals who advocated for rebellion against the British, and it was the liberals who worked to confront Hitler and the Nazis prior to WWII – including getting a country ready for war despite the efforts of the banking/business types (dare I say Republicans) to stymie such efforts. It was a view of liberty and egalitarian rights and democracy that superceded profits and free market/business control of government. It was the liberals who argued against rampant anti-semitism both before and AFTER WWII, it was the liberals who stood up to similarly hollow and vapid anti-communist witch hunts in the 50’s.

    Terry, this isn’t a winner position for you (or conservatives) – bravado in the face of easy challenge is one thing, standing up to hard challenges (like oh, say in Bosnia) is clearly another.

    MY point, however, was that Lincoln showed enormous integrity and strength of character. At a time when it would have been EASY to blame, to preech hatred – to revel and succumb to the desire for revenge, Lincoln stood apart. Most historical experts I’ve talked to in fact point to the fact that had Lincoln lived, and HIS view of reconstruction been implemented, rather than the initial apathy, followed by radical reconstruction, our on-going diviciveness between north and south AND our issues of racial bias (including counter discrimination) would have been FAR less in magnitude and length. Read that point again please – HE AVOIDED AND ESCHEWED diviciveness – this is the hero that many of you like to point out was a Republican, yet his conduct is anything but similar to the conduct you embrace. He didn’t blame, he took responsibility for being part of the problem and SOUGHT TO IMPROVE AND CHANGE rather than embrace his failure/bias (as Mitch does).

    Terry- I would ask, when judged in the lens of Lincoln’s overall tone and intent, do you think saying things like “liberals are cowards who would have freely lost the Civil War” is consistent with that tone? Beyond that, do you think it’s realistic? I know a great deal many people who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan who are both liberals and ANYTHING but cowards. Do you wilfully choose to insult their service simply because you don’t like their politics? Are you so callow as to rationally think that not just anyone, but EVERYONE who disagrees with you does so because they are afraid whilst YOU are the brave soldier? It is clear your contempt, and the contempt of people like Mitch – stems from this all consuming need to pump yourself up while putting others down – but such a worldview is both doomed to failure – and utterly insulting. The real irony is, you don’t get how completely it indicts you as an out-of-step extremist – not interested in truth, and unable to see it, but rather interested in self-rationalized hatred and aggrandizement.

    Bada – I don’t exactly see why I should ‘lighten up’ about specious claims of “no no but that’s different” about the obvious double-standard Mitch is trying to foist off here. Craig, Vitter, Dick Fox etc.. are no different than Spitzer. The real issue is answering WHY you (conservatives) feel the need to try to foist this lie? Why you feel the need to claim that you’re better, that your poop doesn’t stink, that you don’t engage in this kind of thing, that your moral compass points more true. If it did, then when looking at your conduct in the lens of contrast to a message like Lincoln’s, you wouldn’t look so crass and shallow. If you don’t like the comparison, perhaps it’s the conduct, not the messenger, that is the real issue for you. I get that you may not like being shown the clay feet of your stance- but it is highly instructive to contrast your conduct against the INTENT of someone as brilliant and profound as Lincoln. Perhaps the response to you should be “Get real”? or maybe just ‘think’.

  17. Oh!

    *raises hand*

    I usually don’t have enough time, and when I do, I rarely count that time well spent. :-/

  18. Peev-
    A simple point:
    Lincoln was willing to endure 360,000 casualties to achieve victory in the Civil War.
    Libs think 3500 dead Americans are far too many to free the millions of brown folks in Iraq.
    Not my fault you side with moral cowards.

  19. Cost/benefit, Terry. Lincoln freed the slaves, preserved the Union, guaranteed that the U.S. would one day become a world power and not a collection of feuding states. Bush botched a war intended to rid Iraq of WMDs that didn’t exist. Not my fault you side with immoral incompetents.

  20. Your comment that ‘libs would have surrendered’ is both a denial of fact, and highly offensive.

    Oh, jeez, Terry, you “highly” offended Peev, the most easily offended nattering couch fainter this side of Helen Lovejoy on the “The Simpsons.”

    I hope you’re happy now, Terry.

  21. Cost/benefit, Terry

    That, coming from an apologist for a party that’s show itself singularly incapable of calculating costs and benefits.

  22. Ah, Peev… always using 12,000 (frothy and foamy) words when perhaps only 50 are necessary.

    You simply don’t like the fact that someone (or a group of folks) have pointed out the classic Tic double standard.

    You also don’t like it when folks poke at you for taking yourself too effing seriously. Let your hair down, pally. For Christ sake, you look like an ass.

  23. “Your comment that ‘libs would have surrendered’ is both a denial of fact, and highly offensive.”

    Tell that to the troops that trusted Jimmy Carter in Iran and Bill Clinton in Somalia. I’m guessing the response you’d get would exceed your wildest dream in the offensive department, slapnuts.

  24. “That’s where you’re wrong, Mitch. Angryclown makes apologies for no one.”

    How about a peanut butter and jelly sandwich?

  25. just WTF are you doing reading Sphincter Woman

    There are days when you wake up and ask yourself “Could I actually ride a bike down the steps of the Supreme Court building without crashing?”, or “Could I juggle three bowling pins and keep ’em up?”, or “Could I read Phoenix Woman without getting explosive diarrhea?”

    Yes, no, and so far so good.

  26. Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, though Republicans, wouldn’t have much to say to you silly wingnuts of 2008.

    Can’t help but notice, AC, that the only three Republicans I’ve heard you praise are Lincoln, TR, and McCain. The neocons love these guys, too, for what should be obvious reasons. I think you like them for the same reasons the neocons do.
    You’ve got to face the reality of what you are or your chi will get all kapa-kai.
    Ever thought of going to work for the Weekly Standard?

  27. AC sez:

    The libs wanted to free the slaves. The conservatives, then as now, were simpering about the rights of racist states to do whatever they wanted.

    Now I would think a gu as well-versed in history as AC would know the Democrats overwhelmingly supported slavery. The Republican party was originally the anti-slavery faction of the Whig party before splitting away.

  28. Paul-
    AC buys into the Nation/Krugman idea that the GOP became the party of racism in the 70’s & 80’s when they went after & got the non-union working class white vote (aka the rednecks, aka the blue collar democrats).
    There’s a grain of truth in this, of course, but it misses the larger reason behind the shift in party identification: in the 70’s the Dem’s dropped the interests of working class whites (racist or not) in favor of representing non-working minorities. Not a bad move, considering the drumming the unions have taken since then, but more than a little cynical given the racist policies of still respected dem figures like Wilson and FDR. Being a liberal, however, means that you have no history to answer for. Not that AC hasn’t dissed WFBuckley for his states’ rights based support of segregation of a half century ago.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.