Vitter's Statement

Statement from Senator David Vitter's office:

U.S. Sen. David Vitter made the following statement today about his telephone number being on the old phone records of Pamela Martin and Associates prior to his running for the U.S. Senate. He respectfully requests that the statement be used in full without editing or paraphrasing.

This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible. Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there-with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way," Vitter said.

It's really too bad that when politicians get caught doing stuff that shouldn't be illegal, they never, ever, ever seem to respond by redoubling their efforts to reduce the criminalization of victimless conduct. Does Vitter think Vitter should go to jail? Does he think the hookers he had sex with should go to jail? If not, then doesn't he think he should use his authority as one of the guys who gets to write the laws to create a more just legal system?

Comments

Free the hookers!

Posted by Mumia | July 10, 2007 9:32 AM

Congress does occasionally consider legislation that affects sex workers here & abroad, often to their disadvantage. Perhaps someone will look into Vitter’s record on the subject?

Posted by KH | July 10, 2007 9:39 AM

What really gets my goat here is his insistence that he "received forgiveness from God."

First, putting words in God's mouth sounds presumptuous at best, and possibly blasphemous.

Second, so what? Saying that you've received forgiveness from God should have absolutely zero impact on whether or not your behavior should be pardoned. Imagine the following at a police booking station:

DESK SERGEANT: "So, what's the charge?"

PATROLMAN: "Possession with intent to distribute."

SUSPECT: "Sure, I was carrying a few bags of crack, but since then I've asked for, and received, forgiveness from God."

DESK SERGEANT: "Okay, you're free to go. Sorry for the inconvenience."

Posted by cminus | July 10, 2007 9:43 AM

It's worse than that, cminus-- I talked to God this morning, and he told me that He never knew Vitters.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 10, 2007 9:47 AM

Because of Pamela Martin's defense strategy, this is only going to get worse for Vitter. She is contending that she ran a "clean" escort service, no sex, just messages. She and her lawyers have been trumpeting their plan to call prominent clients to have them testify, in support of Martin's defense, they received only messages and not sex. So, Vitter is likely to be called to the stand by Martin (if the case goes to trial) and asked whether he contracted for sex, or just a message.

Here are the three possible answers by Vitter, none of them good:

1) I just received a message, no sex. This story would not pass the straight face test, particularly given Vitter's statement that he had apologized to his wife and God (I was quite amused to read that Vitter was certain that God had forgiven him). It would also open him up for a possible perjury investigation, which would just keep the story running.

2) I contracted for escort services, and reached an agreement with the particular escort for sex. He could say that he never explicitly mentioned sex in arranging for the services, but it was understood and he made the final arrangements when the escort arrived. This would require Vitter to provide graphic testimony about the conversation with the escort and the services that were actually contracted for.

3) I contracted for sex. The examination from Martin's attorney would be ugly, as he attempted to show all of the ways that Martin's website made it clear that contracting for sex was not allowed.

In short, Mr. Vitter should be hoping that the Pamela Martin case pleads out.

Posted by Ephus | July 10, 2007 9:47 AM

She is contending that she ran a "clean" escort service, no sex, just messages

I suspect you may mean "massages". Though I don't know. Maybe the deal was that a nice-looking young woman would leave you lots of voicemail.

Posted by ajay | July 10, 2007 10:24 AM

Ephus, if Vitter's answer were number 3, then I doubt Martin's attorney would call him to the stand. Since it's pretty clear from his statement that this is his answer, I don't think he is likely to be on the defense witness list.

The prosecution list, on the other hand...

Posted by Glenn | July 10, 2007 10:28 AM

Liberals always expect the hypocrisy in cases like this to just blow people away. Look at this guy! He claimed to be a holy Christian and pushed legislation to punish this or that "immoral" act and now here he is, caught with his pants down and a needle in his arm! Somehow we think a situation like this will prove, once and for all, that these holy rollers are just full of it.

Well, they are full of it, most of them. But the story never plays this way, at least not within the conservative Christian community. The only thing Christians love more than a story about a good, upstanding Christian man is a story about a sinner who found his way back to God. All these guys have to do is say that they asked God for forgiveness and all is well.

Thus, Limbaugh, Thompson, and so on, can get divorced as often as they like and parade around their trophy wives. This doesn't mean they support cheating on their wives. No, it means they sinned and God forgave them. The conservative Christians will never see it any other way. These guys can engage in any kind of behavior they like. It will never really stick to them. (The only reason Livingston and Gingrich had to resign was because of their pursuit of Clinton--barring that, their "sins" would have been no problem.)

The only people who have to worry about getting caught in scandals like this are liberals. God never forgives them!

Posted by Rob Mac | July 10, 2007 10:33 AM

What Senator Vitter is really saying is, do as I say, not as I do.

Posted by SLC | July 10, 2007 10:37 AM

The basic point of the post stands, but I think we might want to be a little circumspect about describing, without qualification, prostitution as "victimless behavior." It turns out that prostitution's actually sort of a bad thing for a lot of the women involved in it. . . .

Posted by Scott E. | July 10, 2007 10:44 AM

Smarmy religious humbug trumps secular humbug.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 10, 2007 10:47 AM

Actually, what I mind most about this is the claim that "God has forgiven me." How does he purport to know this?

He can know that his wife has forgiven him. But so many of these very publicly religious types (from Jom Bakker on down), when they get caught with their pants down, quickly repent and say that "God has forgiven me."

The repentence may be sincere or not, the "sinner" may in fact know whether his wife has forgiven him or not, but jus once I would like to hear these p.o.s. NOT speak for God. Then maybe I would believe them. But as long as they claim to speak for God, I will continue to hop ethat they get ridiculed out of public life.

Posted by Gene | July 10, 2007 10:54 AM

What kind of God would it be if She did not forgive only Republicans? An atheist God?

Posted by gregor | July 10, 2007 10:57 AM

In terms of being forgiven by God, he explains that in the statement.

"Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling."

Presumably Vitter is Catholic, and he went to confession (penance or "rite of reconciliation") and told the priest his sins. Catholics hold that confession actually does result in foregiveness from God, acting through the priest. So if he is Catholic, this makes sense. I also read that Vitter and his wife are both lecters, which also makes it sound like they're Catholics.

What I'd like to know is if Vitter also confessed to being a hypocrite.

Posted by Dave | July 10, 2007 10:58 AM

"It turns out that prostitution's actually sort of a bad thing for a lot of the women involved in it."

Is that true for legal prostitution?

Posted by too many steves | July 10, 2007 11:38 AM

Dave, do you think Catholics always need to confess hypocrisy when they confess their sins? Because, in each case, they must confess that they failed to live up to the standards they profess, so they must be guilty of hypocrisy. What would the hypocrisy be--that he proclaims monogamy, but isn't faithful to his wife? Or are you ignorant enough to think that the failure to live up to his political platform represents some sort of higher failing?

I am curious about what Matt has in mind for a "more just legal system." Does he think Vitter should introduce a bill in the Senate making prostitution legal nationwide, overriding the local laws of every state? Or just that he should have the Senate override DC's laws on prostitution? What sort of idiotic proposal is Matt making here? And when are we going to see the argument for the assertion that prostitution is a "victimless" crime?

Posted by Thomas | July 10, 2007 11:43 AM

I wasn't aware that prostitution was against federal law. I thought it was a state matter.

Posted by ed | July 10, 2007 11:52 AM

Gene, I have to disagree with this: "He can know that his wife has forgiven him." I don't even know if his wife can know if she has forgiven him. Unconscious anger is a powerful thing. And surely, from Vitter's record -via Greenwald in Salon - the boy is going to go back to prostitutes. He obviously find the whole prostitute setup - the illicitness, the danger, the payment for sex - much too attractive to resist. Vitter is like Jimmy Swaggert, another Louisiana boy, in that respect, with his fantasies oddly mirroring the division in the state, between your usual puritanical, protestant Southern culture in the North and the anything goes culture of New Orleans (or that used to be common to New Orleans, a city that is now dying).

Posted by roger | July 10, 2007 12:33 PM

Christians believe that forgiveness of sins is a promise God makes to people. That by confessing and repenting of sin, we can be certain that we are forgiven.

In a way, the conviction that he has 'received forgiveness' could be a statement of Senator Vitter's faith that God keeps God's promises. Could be.

Am I skeptical of his motives? Certainly. Is his his remorse genuine and his apology true? I have no idea. Does the promised forgiveness mitigate the legal and political consequences of his adultery? No.

But in a Christian worldview, I don't find it abhorrent to believe that God's promised forgiveness is true. I just wish such a worldview would more often engender the humility to take seriously the the subtleties of these issues such as Matthew raises--rather than appear as a cosmic get-out-of-jail-free card for the fallen elect.

Posted by olaf | July 10, 2007 12:33 PM

Thomas,

It's the public hypocrisy. If Vitter were my neighbor, that part wouldn't bother me. But he's going around telling other people how to live their lives, while he himself is failing. Plank in the eye and all that.

Posted by Dave | July 10, 2007 12:53 PM

Dave, I don't believe you. Can you tell me what Vitter has said about prostitution? Is there some famous speech in which he condemned it, and called for stiff penalties on prostitutes and johns? Honestly, I'd find it odd if a Senator or candidate for Senate were making speeches about prostitution per se, but correct me if I've got that (and you) wrong.

Maybe you mean it at a higher level of generality: He's "tough on crime", whatever that is supposed to mean, and he's engaged in criminal behavior. But that isn't more satisfying as a response--it's simply a commonplace observation. After all, most all of us favor some criminal penalties, and most all of us break the law from time to time. (Confession: I break the speed limit habitually; I did it again this morning.) That isn't enough to warrant a particularized denunciation for hypocrisy.

So, what is it you're getting at?

Posted by Thomas | July 10, 2007 1:13 PM

Maybe we're talking past each other. I'm not referring to his statements on prostitution: I'm referring to his whole anti-gay, pro-abstinence, family values agenda.

Posted by Dave | July 10, 2007 1:32 PM

So the fact that he takes positions on some issues (apparently not including prostitution) that differ from your positions means he's a hypocrite? How does that work?

Posted by Thomas | July 10, 2007 2:15 PM

You can't figure out how an anti-gay, pro-marriage, pro-abstinence married man who visits a prostitute is a hypocrite? Seriously?

Posted by Dave | July 10, 2007 2:42 PM

I'd think that most any married man who visits a prostitute is a hypocrite (making an allowance that some don't have the same understanding of marriage that I do). What does adding the rest do? If Vitter argued for gay marriage, saying it would strengthen all American families, that too would make him a hypocrite, right? If Vitter argued for so-called comprehensive sex education, saying it would help Americans make good decisions, that too would make him a hypocrite, right?

Posted by Thomas | July 10, 2007 2:58 PM

First of all, while the hypocricy may or may not be debatable, the sex-related policies advocated, designed, and administered by Vitters, Randall Tobias, and other erstwhile Palfrey clients are pretty clearly failures. And not failures because they haven't increased abstinence or decreased infidelity in anonymous teenage cohorts but because they didn't even work for David Vitters and Randall Tobias! And that, rather than any sex that may have happened, is the real scandal.

figleaf

Posted by figleaf | July 10, 2007 3:12 PM

I find it amusing how people like Thomas manage to pretend that they can't understand how visiting a prostitute is at odds with a claim to believe in "conservative family values."

Posted by Steve | July 10, 2007 3:53 PM

What Senator Vitter is really saying is, "do as I pray, not as I do".

"I also read that Vitter and his wife are both lecters, which also makes it sound like they're Catholics." Well, he is a lecher !

"God has forgiven me." Which God, and do hanging chads count ?

Posted by H-Bob | July 10, 2007 4:00 PM

Thomas,

"I am the only Senate Candidate to coauthor the Federal Marriage Amendment; the only one fighting for its passage. I am the only candidate proposing changes to the senate rules to stop liberal obstructionists from preventing an up or down vote on issues like this, judges, energy, and on and on.”

http://www.vitter2004.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=20

Also,
In opposition to same-sex marriage, Vitter recently stated, "Marriage is a core institution of societies throughout the world and throughout history. It's something that has provided permanence and stability for our very social structure."

Suck it.

Posted by Little Vitter | July 11, 2007 6:48 AM

In an attempt to revive this thread, it appears that (as I predicted), Palfrey is threatening to call Vitter. Not great news for Vitter, who hopes this story will just go away.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/17/163941/912

Posted by Ephus | July 17, 2007 5:55 PM

So...I have a 'lemons into lemonade' kind of an idea for bedraggled, "Whore-loving" Vitter...I would council Vitter to get an agent...to negotiate a guest appearance for Vitter on the Moonlight Bunny Ranch's cable TV show: "Cathouse: Season 2"...and the real beauty..Vitter's whoring would be legal...

Posted by gary in Oregon | July 19, 2007 1:27 AM

as always, the G-man hits his targets with wit and intelligence.

Posted by john | July 20, 2007 7:23 PM

In the Catholic church, confession allows you to confess your sins and hopefully, God will forgive you. It does not, in any way shape or form, forgive your crimes to society. So, in the eyes of the church, he's good in the afterlife. Right now, he should be heading to jail.

Posted by JT | July 21, 2007 11:11 AM