Dear Senator David Vitter

So much has come out these past few days about you that this Seething Mom is having a hard time digesting it all. Now normally, I would not give a hoot about your personal transgressions as I am firmly entrenched in the camp that feels government should stay the hell out of people’s private lives, and visa versa. But (and this is a big but) all of that went out the window the day you chose to grandstand on “moral issues” and the “sanctity of marriage” using the promise of permanently ripping rights away from one of my children.

The irony and the hypocrisy are just so rich and certainly not lost on those whose lives you tried to permanently impact with your sanctimonious idiocy. And unfortunately for you, I don’t think any of this is going away anytime soon. It’s just too fun to watch the high and mighty fall from their high and mighty perches. I guess you should have taken all those skeletons in your own closet into account before getting up on your pulpit to preach morality, wax poetically about sanctity of marriage, and demonize others. And even more unfortunately for you, people just don’t like hypocrites and frauds especially ones whose whole shtick is protecting everyone else’s marriage while destroying their own.

And speaking of irony, let me just throw your very own words back at you:

Some current polls may suggest that people are turned off by the whole Clinton mess and don't care -- because the stock market is good, the Clinton spin machine is even better or other reasons. But that doesn't answer the question of whether President Clinton should be impeached and removed from office because he is morally unfit to govern.

The writings of the Founding Fathers are very instructive on this issue. They are not cast in terms of political effectiveness at all but in terms of right and wrong -- moral fitness. Hamilton writes in the Federalists Papers:

(No. 65) that impeachable offenses are those that "proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."

Huh.

Maybe it’s time for you to put your money where your mouth is. If “sanctity of marriage” is, to paraphrase you, an issue more important than any other facing this country, then don’t you think your own transgressions have risen to the same impeachable levels you thought President Clinton’s offenses did?

Resign sir. Show us that not everything that comes out of your mouth is complete and total bullsh*t. And look at the bright side, you’ll be walking away without a job, but at least all your body parts will be intact.

Sincerely,

Seething Mom

P.S. There are others who are better able to stand back and look at your situation much more objectively than I can and they have some thoughts and/or questions for you. Here are just a few.

From Mark:

1. Hiring the services of a prostitute may or may not be a sin, and God may or may not have forgiven David Vitter. (Apparently he has a direct line to Heaven, but I don't.) But it's certainly a crime. It's bad for lawmakers to commit crimes.

2. If Sen. Vitter thinks that hiring prostitutes shouldn't be a crime, does he plan to propose repealing the law? (Even under Home Rule, Congress has the power to change the laws in the District of Columbia.) If he thinks it should be a crime, does he plan to confess and plead guilty?

3. The Bush Administration is so fervently opposed to prostitution that it opposes providing HIV-prevention services to workers in the sex trade, putting them, their customers, and their customers' spouses at risk of what remains an incurable disease. Does Sen. Vitter think he and his wife deserve to get AIDS from his interactions with prostitutes? If not, would he like to reconsider his support for that stupid and vicious policy?

From Ann:

[Senator] Vitter situates his misdeed in the realm of religion and private morality ("This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible"...), but Palfrey [the D.C. Madam] can't say God has forgiven her and walk free. In fact, 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.