Via WaPo: Senator’s Number on ‘Madam’ Phone List
Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) apologized last night after his telephone number appeared in the phone records of the woman dubbed the “D.C. Madam,” making him the first member of Congress to become ensnared in the high-profile case.[...]
“This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible,” Vitter, 46, said in a statement, which his spokesman, Joel DiGrado, confirmed to the Associated Press.
“Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling,” Vitter continued. “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 is in his first Senate term after serving six years in the House. During his Senate campaign, Vitter was accused by a member of the Louisiana Republican State Central Committee of carrying on a lengthy affair with a prostitute in New Orleans’s French Quarter.
In a radio interview, Vitter then called the allegation “absolutely and completely untrue” and dismissed it as “just crass Louisiana politics.”
One always wonders why people in these kinds of positions engage in these kinds of self-destructive behaviors and seem to think that they will never be caught.
Of course, no doubt, there are many, many out there who never are.
The Politico has the following background info of relevance:
In 2000, Vitter was included in a Newhouse News Service story about the strain of congressional careers on families.His wife, Wendy, was asked by the Newhouse reporter: If her husband were as unfaithful as Livingston or former President Bill Clinton, would she be as forgiving as Hillary Rodham Clinton?
“I’m a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary,” Wendy Vitter told Newhouse News. “If he does something like that, I’m walking away with one thing, and it’s not alimony, trust me.”
“I think fear is a very good motivating factor in a marriage,” she added. “Don’t put fear down.”
Vitter briefly considered a run for governor, but bowed out in May 2002, citing strains on his marriage. He announced that he and his wife had entered counseling.
“This wasn’t in response to any dramatic issue or event, but to the cumulative stress from working in a high-pressure job, living in two cities, building a house, raising four young kids including a newborn, having our campaign activities based at home and traveling the state considering running for governor,” Vitter said in the 2002 statement.
A week after the announcement, Vitter was forced to publicly address allegations that he had visited a New Orleans bordello, according to the Daily Advertiser in Lafayette, La. He denied the charge, calling it “a rumor and attack campaign” led by enemies to destroy his character and name.
Ann Althouse makes an interesting point about Vitter’s apology:
Vitter’s statement hurts Palfrey because it strongly implies that Palfrey was doing what she’s accused of. Vitter’s confession — intended to move us to mercy — links him to criminal activity, but only she is facing criminal punishment.Shouldn’t the expiation of Vitter’s sins wait until he has introduced a bill that would create a federal right to engage in the business of prostitution? It’s not a matter to be resolved within the realm of church and family as long as Palfrey is being prosecuted.
A legitimate point.
James Joyner raises the following question:
The real question, it seems to me, is why any of this is illegal.[...]
We’re not talking here about impoverished runaways being forced into a crude life walking the streets and selling their bodies by cruel fate. Nobody’s pimp is beating them up. These are college educated women making an informed choice about how to make a living. Given the prices that have been bandied about, their clients aren’t victims, either. And, considering how long the business was in operation, they apparently weren’t even creating a nuisance in the neighborhood.
Surely, there are more substantial problems in the District of Columbia than well-off people deciding to exchange money for sex?
One would think. While I personally am opposed to the behavior in question, I concur with James’ assessment (as I noted back in April).
Sphere: Related Content
