Douchebag Alert, Pt. II

By Loudoun Insider
 
NapoleonFrederick_copy 
 
 
Good luck trying not to barf when reading about him “toweling off”.  He may hate Bob McDonnell, but EVERYONE knows who won that battle.  By a HUGE margin.
 

 


Comments

  • Dan says:

    Cato, your presumption about my argument is completely incorrect. It most certainly is NOT that, “this guy used my tax dollar inappropriately.” Where the money came from that Vitter used to pay prostitutes isn’t the issue. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with it. It is simply that one who makes law shouldn’t be able to seriously violate it and retain office. And this guy is running for re-election.
    .
    Considering that scandals of various types likely played a part in the election results in 2006 and 2008 I would think smart Republicans (as well as those with a functioning moral compass) would do their best to give this guy the boot.
    .
    Vitter’s previous sanctimonious statements about the moral transgressions of others casts him as a major hypocrite, but that is irrelevant too. Being a hypocrite isn’t a crime. Buying sex from hookers is.
    .
    I agree that Ensign is a sleaze of much greater magnitude than Vitter. If I were a Republican I would be particularly outraged by Ensign’s case and I’d be looking for someone to demand he repay the money he funneled from the NRSC to the family of his mistress. Perhaps his mommy and daddy could write a check. I’m sure the folks who donated fifty or a hundred bucks of their hard earned dough to the NRSC would appreciate that.

    As I have said before I don’t view these things as a partisan matter. Crooks should be prosecuted. The fact that they are sitting Senators or powerful House Chairmen is not a reason to refrain from going after them. It is more reason to do so.
    .
    In some of the cases you mentioned it is unfortunate that the fact that investigations are in process was inadvertently disclosed. Both from the point of view of those being investigated who may be innocent and from the prosecutor’s view point. It doesn’t help an investigation when the subject knows they are being investigated.
    .
    Having said that, I think Rangel should step down immediately from his chairmanship. It can be temporary until the House investigation and any prosecution is complete. But you can’t have someone with the tax issues he has sitting in that chair. I don’t care how well liked he is among his colleagues or what else he brings to the table.

  • Cato the Elder says:

    So wait, Dan. Were you on the warpath for Bill Clinton’s head when he committed perjury about the blowjob? I suspect your beef with Vitter is a lot more about him being a hypocrite than him paying a hooker to put pampers on him. Frankly, I feel the same way about Vitter as I did about BC getting head in the oval office: BFD.

  • Dan says:

    Cato, I believe Clinton lost his law license over that didn’t he? So there were appropriate consequences for his actions.
    .
    I was appalled by Clinton’s behavior. I was also appalled that Ken Starr asked that question. Starr had spent years and millions of dollars investigating every aspect of Clinton’s life over a period of twenty-five years and came up with zilch that he could bring charges on. So he asked that question. Had Clinton told Starr to go f*ck himself rather than perjure himself he would not have been disbarred. And I think many Americans would have cheered such a response.
    .
    Perjury about a consensual blowjob is still perjury. But let me ask you a question. Do you think that rose to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors” that our founding fathers intended when they put the impeachment provision in the Constitution? Was it appropriate to put the country through an impeachment over that? Can Republicans say with a straight face that they had the best interests of the country at heart and not their own political aims when they put the country through an impeachment over that? Did the country not pay a pricew, particularly in area

  • Dan says:

    of foreign policy and security by the huge distraction of an impeachment?

  • Dan says:

    If I understand you position on Vitter it is that if the local prosecutor didn’t bring charges then he gets to stay. Fair enough. Let’s hope the voters of Louisiana send him packing next year.
    .
    Why not primary Vitter?

  • “Perjury about a consensual blowjob is still perjury. But let me ask you a question. Do you think that rose to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors” that our founding fathers intended when they put the impeachment provision in the Constitution”

    No Dan. I’m resting my interpretation of high crimes and misdemeanors on his OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

  • Loudoun Lady says:

    Dan, Why don’t you concentrate on picking off the perverts in your own party, or start with the 6 Dems that are under investigation on House ethics charges?

    You could blindfold yourself and spin around in a room of Democrats, take off the blindfold and BINGO – someone to denounce. Have at it.

  • Dan says:

    Loudoun Lady, as I have repeatedly said, this isn’t a partisan issue. I have candidly named Democrats I thought should be gone or who should be challenged in a primary because I felt they were unfit for office because of their actions.
    .
    Have you ever done anything but knee jerk defend Republican miscreants? Do you think John Ensign belongs in the Senate?
    .
    I know people who gave money to the Republican Party in good faith. They didn’t expect it to be spent seeing to it that John Ensign got laid on a regular basis. You may be blindly partisan, but don’t you have any feeling for those loyal Republican donors who were scammed out of their contributions by a worm like Ensign? Or does the (R) after his name allow you to forgive anything?

  • Loudoun Insider says:

    To those complaining about me bringing this up, I’m not the one giving an interview to the newspapers. This is a little ole political blog. We need to keep our eyes on morons like Frederick.

  • Loudoun Lady says:

    Dan, I don’t give money to the party – only individual candidates. I have given nothing to Ensign, I don’t support him and the people in his state can boot his ass out if they want. I advise everyone I meet to give to candidates.

    What exactly are you calling for, mobilization in the rank and file of the Republican Party to march down Constitution Avenue with a banner proclaiming their contempt for men than sleep with women other than their wife? All those marches and denouncements against Ted Kennedy are so inspiring, I mean, your party is really an example to us all about how to treat cheaters and murderers. It brings a tear to my eye just thinking about it.

  • Dan says:

    Loudoun Lady, infidelity is not the issue. I won’t recap all that Ensign did again. You can choose to brush it aside as merely infidelity if you like.
    .
    I am indeed shocked that no Republicans have expressed outrage at how Ensign abused THEM. And it’s not like he did a swell job as Chair of the NRSC. He presided over major losses. And at the same time was taking the money that rank and file Republicans (some of them my relatives) had donated and using it to pay off the family of his mistress.
    .
    Like I say, I am just more than a little surprised at the lack of outrage among Republicans. My Democratic friends are very candid about their feeling toward John Edwards for instance. He qualifies as a major sleaze too. And not because of simple infidelity. I would think Republicans would be appalled by Ensign and do something about it. Especially being the party that talks about moral values all the time.

  • Loudoun Lady says:

    John Edwards has been a major sleaze most of his career, as a lawyer and a Senator. Glad you and all your buddies finally caught on. Your candid comments are inspiring and heart warming.

    (Ted Kennedy….. Ted Kennedy… anyone, crickets chirping, 40 year old crickets…..hello?)

Leave Comment