Hypocrisy All Around
Scandals come and go on Capitol Hill. Every generation of legislators seems to have its own scofflaws, rogues, rou√©s, rakes, and rapscallions prowling the corridors of The People’s House by day while slinking along the darkened streets and back alleys by night, partaking in the city’s more delectable and usually harmless illegalities.
Then again, every once and a while a real criminal like ex-Congressman Duke Cunningham comes along to prove every bad thing the American people believe about their representatives. Cunningham’s conviction on bribery charges – spectacularly unprecedented bribery I might add – was actually the exception to the rule of Capitol Hill shenanigans. Most scandals involve what might be considered minor influence peddling or, even more commonly, sins of the flesh. Wilbur Mills being caught with the Argentinian stripper Fanne Fox, or more recently, salacious emails sent by Mark Foley to underage pages where no crime was committed but the incidents reflected badly on the Congressman’s moral character.
So goes the latest Capitol Hill sex scandal involving Louisiana Senator David Vitter and his use of Madam Palfrey’s escort service for purposes unrelated to constituent work or his position in the Senate. The tawdry details make for rather boring reading. It seems that prior to his Senate run in 2004, Vitter was something of a regular “client” of Palfrey’s business, paying young women $300 to engage in sexual acts. Palfrey herself called the then Congressman at least 5 times during a two year period, twice while roll call votes were underway. The Madam herself explains that she routinely called potential clients back to confirm their identity and satisfy herself that they weren’t law enforcement before setting up appointments.
This was headline news this morning. Meanwhile, the Senate is currently in the midst of debating the Iraq War. The President is being cut off at the knees by his own party on war policy. Earmarks are sneaking back into budget bills that haven’t passed either chamber. Talk of impeachment is being bandied about by Democrats who have yet to pass one major piece of legislation – save funding the war – in more than 7 months.
Al-Qaeda is on the prowl, perhaps even in this country. The earth’s climate is sizzling (or not). The President is defying a Congressional committee with executive privilege. I could go on and on listing issues that have some bearing on the nation’s health and well being or are just huge stories of national and international import.
And yet, David Vitter gets caught with his pants unzipped and a media frenzy erupts. We’re all grownups here. We know that sex sells newspapers and rivets eyeballs to the cable news channels. But in this case, as in any case involving a Republican, the even more delicious scent of hypocrisy is in the water where the sharks are feeding. Vitter’s strained non-apology apology with its references to God and his loving wife mask the fact that the Senator was a prominent exponent of “family values” and saving the “sanctity of marriage”, ostensibly from the ravaging and destructive practice of allowing gays the opportunity to wed.
I will say to my Republican friends that it does no good to whine about double standards. You’re going to have to concede the hypocrisy point to our Democratic friends on this one. If you’re going to lecture people about the sanctity of marriage as it relates to banning gay unions or campaign on a platform stressing “family values,” it would be best if you didn’t go whoring around on your wife, wetting your wick at $300 a pop.
In addition to the rather mysterious Madam Palfrey, another character actor has stepped forward to take on a role so nauseating in its implications for our politics that the question of why the gatekeepers in the press haven’t stepped forward to condemn this man and his tactics is beyond me.
Larry Flynt, smut peddler and avowed Democratic partisan, offered the sum of $1 million for verifiable information about Congressmen visiting whores. This was before Palfrey’s client telephone list was released, but dovetailed nicely with the event when Flynt unearthed Vitter’s phone number from those records and contacted the Congressman on Monday asking about his business with Palfrey.
Flynt, however, is not finished. His $1 million bounty on the sex lives of Congressmen was first offered in an ad he took out in the Washington Post last month. Since then, he has received approximately 20 leads that he is currently following up. He has promised to only publish the names of people who “deserve it” – that is, Congressmen who are “hypocrites.” Since Democrats don’t make a habit of speaking about the sanctity of marriage or even family values, the implication of Flynt’s threats are clear; if you’re a Republican who’s been straying from the straight and narrow with ladies of the evening, it would be best to start thinking of that offer from a supporter to open a law firm back home.
If Flynt is going to be arbiter of public sanctimony, perhaps he should look inward for starters. This is a man whose magazines and videos, promoting gratuitous and consequence-free sex now sits in judgment of people who have simply followed his formulaic lifestyle and engaged in a little slap and tickle with a willing partner. Despite his magazine’s clear message that there’s absolutely no downside to having easy morals, that in fact, it is a preferred way to live one’s life, Flynt is about to lower the boom on people for living up to his own misogynistic credo.
Why should whether they are “hypocrites” matter to him at all? In Flynt’s moral universe, you’re only a hypocrite if you don’t screw anything that moves three times a day. The idea that anyone who visits a prostitute – married or not, spouting allegiance to family values or not – should be held up as an object lesson in sanctimony by the purveyor of a publication that features the most nauseating racist, homophobic, and chauvinistic cartoons while showcasing women in the most degrading way imaginable is beyond funny, beyond satire – is beyond belief.
I may be old fashioned in my view of political combat. Politics is after all a blood sport and not for the squeamish or the thin skinned. But this kind of thing goes so far beyond the normal eye gouging and kidney punching of political brawling that it’s amazing to me no one has stepped up and suggested that a line is being crossed here. The Clinton imbroglio (where Flynt also played a prominent role) was tame compared to this kind of checkbook scandal mongering. Does anyone doubt that if a Democratic Congressman’s peccadilloes were on his list of the “Terrible Twenty” that those sins would be forgiven by Mr. Flynt and the information buried?
If a line indeed has been crossed with Mr. Flynt’s actions, how far behind can a similar GOP operation be? Skeletons in the closets of the high and mighty may make good copy when they come out. But has anyone asked what this does to the way politics is conducted in America?
Certainly not Mr. Flynt, who is laughing all the way to the bank after being given reams of free publicity for his porn empire by an all too willing media who don’t mind feeding on an almost irrelevant scandal while the world catches fire and burns around them.
Rick Moran blogs at Right Wing Nut House.
I suspect you mean Fanne Fox, the Brazilian Firecracker, aka the Tidal Basin Bombshell. Fanny Flagg is a novelist who had no connection to Wilbur Mills.
It was Fanne Foxe, not Fanny Flagg. Flagg used to appear on Match Game and wrote “Fried Green Tomatoes.”
I am a married and monogamous male of the old-fashioned ilk, but I have to take issue with your assessment of this. Larry Flint has every right to hate hypocrites and I don’t see how that conflicts with his philosophy at all. He advocates freedom from sexual mores and resents those who preach while petting.
As for the congressman, I find it disgusting that a legislator would issue a statement that avoids the legality issue altogether while trying to tell us that his mistake was a moral one and is really between himself, God and family. -His family had nothing to do with his transactions and should not be brought into the vocabulary of his defense no matter what threat he faces.
Why should whether they are “hypocrites” matter to him at all?
Hey I think Larry is a low-life. You think Larry is a low-life. Even Larry probably thinks that he is a low-life.
So what ?
Frankly I LOATH hypocrisy. Loath,loath,loath it. Hypocrites deserve everything that comes to them. Do as I say,not as I do sets my teeth on edge each and every time.
Can’t stand Flint — can’t stand hypocrites. I don’t have to agree to abide the one because the other is distasteful. Republicans had best not journey too far down the road of ‘victim’ on this type of matter. I don’t care what Mr. Vitter did or does with his personal time as long as he is not using his public time to pontificate on ‘moral lifestyles’. Perhaps if Republicans stopped their support for STUPID drug and/or sex related STATE involvement in personal matters, they would not be susceptible to this type of ‘exposure’.
Sure the Congress should be dealing with the BIG issues but it never does. It is a useless waste of time and space and has been for years. What it ‘should’ be doing is also not an argument against what Flynt has done here. Sure things would be better if guys like Flynt had more ‘class’ and a sense of decorum but they don’t.
Until the advent of a ‘perfect world’, perhaps guys like Mr. Vitter might try a little harder to simply keep it in their pants, if they are worried about the ‘exposure’.
Argumentum ad hominen
Rick, I think you hit on the core issue, hypocrisy as it relates to posturing on gay marriage and other issues, such as Pornography, Larry Flynt’s profession. Does his campaign make more sense in that light?
As an independant who usually votes Republican, I support Larry Flynt in these efforts. How can anyone who loves freedom object to the political lynchings of politicians who attack gay marriage and pornography by day, and go around whoring or to gay clubs by night?
And if you can’t find more than a handful of politicians who take those moral stands and are NOT hypocrites, what does that tell you?
… and Fanne Foxe was Argentinian, not Brazilian.
Still, full marks for this column. An all-round embarrassment for the MSM.
Wait a sec. The whole point of Flynt’s $1mio bounty is to expose hypocrites, ie people asking us (often demanding us via laws) to live our lives one way, while not adhering to their own lofty moral standards in their own private lives. He’s not seeking to make moral judgements on any of these politico’s, he’s not calling them bad or evil or immoral, simply that they’re liars and that therefore they should be exposed and ridiculed as such. The counter argument to this could be that because Democrats are less likely to take moral stands on issues, they are therefore far less likely to be found out as hypocrites, but that doesnt reverse or excuse the original hypocrisy.
Well, we all know why Flynt is doing it, and it’s not because he’s a hypocrite (which he is). It’s because these revelations WILL deeply offend and demoralize a large part of the conservative base that believes in moral standards and holds our conservative leaders to the moral standards they preach. I myself am not part of the Christian right, though I sympathize with them. I’m offended by Vitter. I’m still not offended enough to ever vote for a Dem, though, but that’s not the goal, either. It’s to demoralize us to the point that we don’t vote at all.
While I disagree with Mr. Flynt’s tactics, I do think that it’s appropriate and fair to point out such gross hypocrisy. This isn’t simply a matter of “boys will be boys” (or “girls will be girls”, for that matter).
People are going to jail, having their lives and livelihoods ruined, and their reputations destroyed every day for commiting the same acts as these congressmen. The same congressmen who MADE THE LAWS. If they can’t play by the rules they made, why should I? More to the point, why should I play by any of their rules?
Hypocrisy is a rank stench in any situation, but it is truly foul when the scent comes from on high, whether it be Denmark or DC.
Why should whether they are “hypocrites” matter to him at all? In Flynt’s moral universe, you’re only a hypocrite if you don’t screw anything that moves three times a day.
Um. Isn’t it obvious? The “family values” crew are the people that attack Flynt and his business. So he fights back by trying to show that they are secretly “no better” than he is (of course, you can see a few prostitutes while your wife is away and still be saint compared to Flynt). Meanwhile he gets tons of publicity. It’s just good business. You can understand that, can’t you?
Flynt is about to lower the boom on people for living up to his own misogynistic credo.
I’m with you up until Flynt…
“Why should whether they are “hypocrites” matter to him at all?”
Just a guess, but probably because the religious right have a history of attempting to censor his magazine. He’s got a stake in getting Republicans out of office, they’re more likely to shut down his business.
What’s more, I actually think we need more of this. If a politician is going to make a stand that “X should be banned,” well, maybe the fact that he himself is using “X” shows that his idea isn’t so great after all. For example, wasn’t there a pro-gun control senator caught with a gun not too long ago? We need light on this – if he himself doesn’t follow his own teachings, it may be a sign of a problem with the message.
“showcasing women in the most degrading way imaginable”
I’m no fan of Mr. Flynt’s magazine, but if you think showing a photograph of a woman with her legs spread, vulva exposed is showcasing her in “the most degrading way imaginable” you might want to send in your moral compass for a recalibration, or at least check to see if you haven’t absent-mindedly left something large and ferrous on the binnacle.
To your list of dirty laundry, you might want to add another pro-family values Repulican congressman from florida arrested while trying to solicit sex for money in a public restroom. Did I mention he was trying to solicit sex from a man?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/12/politics/main3050621.shtml
I think Republican is becoming synonymous with hypocrit at least on matters of a sexual nature.
As much as I deplore Flynt and his publication, I think this is much the same as John Edwards’ haircut. How can the guy have the audacity to even pretend to know anything about poor people when he pays $400 for something the rest of us pay less than $20 for?
Unfortunately, unlike sex scandals, $400 haircuts and sprawling mansions don’t seem to put off poor Democrats they way immorality puts off right wing Republicans.
Why should whether they are “hypocrites” matter to him at all? In Flynt’s moral universe, you’re only a hypocrite if you don’t screw anything that moves three times a day.
This is an old ploy, but it has not yet been spelled out in this comment thread. To the Dem’s, there are no moral standards. In this world, the transgressor is whomever asserts that there are, in fact, standards. If there are no moral standards, anyone without morals is morally superior to anyone who hypocritically asserts there are moral standards, because that person may be many things, but at least not a hypocrit. And the sleaziest bastard on the block wins the morality beauty prize by shining the strong pale Diogenes-light on this fallen world.
Yes, that is internally inconsistent. Who cares, Larry is post-modern politics at its finest.
“If a line indeed has been crossed with Mr. Flynt’s actions, how far behind can a similar GOP operation be? Skeletons in the closets of the high and mighty may make good copy when they come out. But has anyone asked what this does to the way politics is conducted in America?”
If memory serves me right, didn’t GOP supporters conduct just this sort of well-financed operation to dig up dirt on Clinton (the Arkansas Project)? It’s wildly disingenuous to pretend that Republicans haven’t been down this path themselves before.
Too late. The similiar GOP operstion has been around for years. Note John Edwards anti poverty platform, and his “outing” as a wealthy man. See Al Gore, preaching conservation, and his “outing” as a waster of natural resources. This stuff has been going on for years.
“Wet his wick”? I heard he wet his pants.
“Since Democrats don’t make a habit of speaking about the sanctity of marriage or even family values…”
You had me going there for a moment Rick. Don’t accuse Flynt of waging a partisan crusade against Republicans while you furtively snap at Democratic ankles. Hypocrisy all around, indeed.
It is news if a family values politician frequents prostitutes, although what “lesson” people learn from it should equally be news. Does that information invalidate the family values message or merely the messenger? Since he is hypocritical, does that mean we want no social prohibitions about prostitution? At what point might prostitution weaken family bonds?
Hypocrisy is the contemporary equivalent of the fall from grace. It is currently the highest of secular sins. It has been elevated to being the worst thing possible. Is it? Yeah Vitter himself is subject to the same temptations he pontificated about. Maybe the possible damage he caused to his family was worse than the damage caused by the hypocrisy. The fact that hypocrisy seems to have become the worst thing possible these days testifies to the level of narcissism in the culture. Hypocrisy involves violating one’s own professed standards–there is no higher standard (outside of oneself) than what you publicly declare.
How interested is Flynt in discovering whether any anti-pharma Democrat takes drug money on the side, whether some raise-the-minimum-wage-at-all-costs Democrat pays a pittance to illegal aliens to tend their lawns, whether some campaign finance reform zealot has a slush fund, etc., etc. Flynt is only interesting in targeting certain forms of hypocrisy, not any form of hypocrisy. Might he have business motives involved or are we to believe that he is simply a champion of free speech? The only time we ever here about Flynt these days is when he tries to “expose hypocrisy”. Gee, I wander what the quarterly financials look like at Hustler. Might he need the publicity to keep his ship afloat? That couldn’t be.. he’s surely only interested in the public good, right?
You mean the law isn’t a solution for everything? Who knew?
Hypocrites are worth a laugh, but I don’t think this will get much political traction. I’d trade Schumer or Clinton for Vitter in a second. Chuck of the illegal credit report search. Hillary of the concealed law firm billing records which mysteriously appeared in her closet. Yes, those paragons of virtue and legality.
We’ve got a war on drugs, and a war on poverty. Why not declare victory, since both were so successful we’re now importing poor people and drugs?
You know the world has gone insane when anybody tries to defend the work of a man who admitted having sex with chickens.
Mr. Comstock:
Have you seen Mr. Flynt’s publication recently? His obsession with bathroom sex can be considered “degrading” by many, I suppose.
As for my “large and ferrous binnacle,”, I’m hardly a bluenose as my extensive collection of classic porn from the 70′s and 80′s would attest. And Flynt’s publication in the 1970′s and 80′s was actually pretty cutting edge as far as porn is concerned. It is not the naked female form spread eagle on a fur rug that makes Flynt’s publication degrading to women. It is the scatological situations he has his models pose in.
BTW – your referencing “binnacle” is pretty obscure. Creative to be sure but I’m wondering about the context.
I disagree with your assessment of the situation. Mr. Flynt’s motives are clear: Republicans are bad for his business.
I’m not suggesting that they don’t buy his magazines and his videos; I’m sure they do. But he was repeatedly subjected to obscenity investigations in the 80s by Republicans, and as I recall was put in that wheelchair by someone who objected to his smut-peddling. So you can kind of understand why the guy would have a grudge against people who criticize his, er, “lifestyle”.
That said, you have a point about it being a bit ominous that someone is offering million dollar bounties for politicians who can’t keep their pants on. I’m not sure what the solution to this is — background checks for politicians, maybe?
Whatever Republicans might be doing with their pants around their ankles, I can’t remember last time one of them got caught with $100k in their freezer. Dems should be careful how much they gloat about this, for sure.
A better way to descirbe the must add to your list of Vitter et al is “a ‘family values’ campaign chairman trying to be a male Monica in a roadside restroom in Flordia!!!”
Barry – you ask; “Does that information invalidate the family values message or merely the messenger?”
Your or the religious right’s definition of family values is not in question here. The hypocrisy is that Vitter, and the long, long list of others like him, want to codify a certain definition of family values into the Constitution and then proclaim Godly absolution when caught.
The Judeo-Christian Traditional Family Values supporters should go ahead and preach and counsel the transgressors according to their religious views and leave the Constitution alone.
So, if we all agree that we can expose the hypocrites, I think that should be ALL hypocrites.
Let’s see: All the man-made global warming freaks asking us to reduce our consumption, yet not doing so themselves. Al Gore, Babs Striesand, Leonardo, John Travolta and various others. THEY also fit this hypocrite label indeed.
Then you have the hypocrisy of Hillary and Edwards going to faith based religious leaders for support and talking openly about their faith, yet I’d like to see the last time they went to church.
It goes on. We are ALL hypocrites in one way or the other. Talking to people about living more moral lives is a good thing, and we will all fall short.
But, pointing fingers is only a way for some to feel superior, and I hate that way more than hypocrites!
Didn’t Jesus say “Ye who are without sin, throw the first stone?”
If someone falsely drapes themselves in the Bible, aping morals purely to manipulate and sponge votes off of well-intentioned Christian voters; if they pretend to support faux legislation that would force Christian behaviour onto non-Christian people, but which legislation somehow never quite passes; if they live their actual lives in opposition to the spoken values they wish to impose on others, why shouldn’t people call them on it?!!!
What appalls me is that a porn-king like Larry Flynt ends up being the reality check for people who espouse Christian values.
The past few years have seen a number of self-identified “Christians,” in political life who have wholly failed the public trust, even commited crimes, yet who were still publicly supported by Christian partizans.
Think of that Florida Congressman that a ton of people knew was chasing young male pages while simultaneously pursuing “save-the-children” legislation, but they kept silent, protecting a pedophile out of political expedience.
The only thing worse than being told by an authority how to live your life, is discovering that said authority doesn’t consider themselves subject to the same rules as the rest of us voters.
Too late! There has been a similar GOP operation fpr years.”Outing” John Edwards for championing the poor while being wealthy, “Outing” Al Gore for championing the environment while living large. The hypocrisy police patrol both sides of the street.
The “family values” crew are the people that attack Flynt and his business. So he fights back by trying to show that they are secretly “no better” than he is (of course, you can see a few prostitutes while your wife is away and still be saint compared to Flynt.
According to MW, hypocrisy means “a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not.” Vitter never said he was a saint, as far as I know, so scratch that first half of the definition. Vitter believes whoring around is wrong. He whored around. That means he is weak and has failed to live up to his own moral standards – but he is not a hypocrite unless in reality he secretly believes whoring around is A-OK. Flynt, on the other hand, believes that whoring around is OK, but calls Vitter on it as if it’s wrong – which ironically in this case makes Flynt the hypocrite…
I guess, in short, I’m saying I’m freakin’ tired of people’s lazy use of the word “hypocrite.”
One other thing I would like to add. Sometimes politicians don’t believe in what they vote for/against. They might personally support gay marriage, but they aren’t voting for THEIR beliefs, they are voting for their CONSTITUENTS beliefs.
If I were an elected official for the district I live in now, there would be several votes that I would have to compromise my values on, because I’m not voting these issues for myself. I would be a representative to my constituents who put me in office and don’t have a voice.
Now that I can respect! That’s what they are there for. So, before we go and cast stones about these “morally superior” politicians, or for that matter, those that are hypocritical in other ways, first you must look at who elected them.
Though I have to agree. A man that cheats on his wife, no matter what their constituents feel about it, is a scumbag. But, this affects Democrats and Republicans alike. I guess since Democrats talk about lax morals it’s okay for them to do whatever they please. Maybe that’s why they don’t tout the values of regular Americans, because even if they can’t live up to the rhetoric, they will immediately be forgiven as they don’t much mind the sin?
GlenK:
Yeah – but the GOP isn’t offering $1 million bucks to “out” anyone. Those guys outed themselves.
However, the point about “The Arkansas Project” made earlier is valid.
Mr. Moran might have asked: “But has anyone asked what this does to the way politics is conducted in America?” when the republican hatchetmen were detailing to the tune of $40+ million “Clinton’s imbroglio,” replete with all the juicy cigar details and stained blue dress. Talk about hypocrisy.
Had the Clinton imbroglio not ended in the wasted effort of impeachment, perhaps Flynt’s recounting of Vitter’s dubious “family values” would not bear so much weight. What goes round, comes round, as they say. Perhaps the high crimes and misdemeanors of true criminals would be “on the table” today, as it should be.
But after the Foley indiscretions, Vitter, and now also Florida Rep. Bob Allen’s, Florida co-chair of the McCain campaign, offer to the Titusville plain clothes police officer…for 20 bucks no less… is there are pattern emerging? The party of Family Values? My arse!
Why is it that whenever I am forced to view the countenance of Larry Flynt I am reminded of Jabba the Hut?
Since sdemetri is okay with get backs, then let me just say that Clintons impeachment (which was NOT about a bj!) might have been a “get back” for Nixon.
Are we even yet?
Sheesh!
Rick:
You said “Your or the religious right’s definition of family values is not in question here.”
You missed my point. The “codification” of those values is either justified or not on the basis of Constitutionality, the democratic process, the view of what’s best for the republic, etc., regardless of whether Vitter is a hypocrite or not. Vitter’s hypocrisy has no bearing on whether any particular law should be passed or not. That’s the point. Hypocrisy-mongering is simply about swaying the emotions of people, not about whether the policies are good or not. So Vitter is a hypocrite, therefore his policies are bad on that basis? But Flynt is a hypocrite too–does that invalidate his “discovery” about Vitter?
Let’s not let Clinton off the hook to easily. The Democratic lawyer who led the investigation in the house was said to be livid that they only proceeded with what they did. The evidence was there of far more egregious crimes.
Rick,
As you probably know, a binnacle is the housing for a ship’s compass, and must be made of non-ferrrous material, lest it interfer with the compass giving a true reading.If something large and ferrous is left on the binnalce, that will also cause the compass to give a false reading.
As to the content of Hustler, I really couldn’t care less. It has no berring (pardon the pun) on whatever dirty Mr. Flynt’s offer manages to dig up. These hypocrits, nearly, but not always from the Republican party, make their political way on my back, and can’t even manage to live by the moral rules they seek to enforce by law on other. They’ve earned whatever damage Mr. Flynt sends their way. His shortcomings or the benefit it might bring him are irrelevant
I’ve no particular affection for Mr. Flynt, his magazine, or his videos. But I’m happy to see him take a bite out of these hypocrits’ asses. Ad hominem attacks on Flynt, or hysterical criticism of his “art” just make you sound like a shrill, slightly stupid partisan.
Expose the democrats also! If they preach anti-bigotry but get caught at being bigots point it out… if republicans get caught whoring around and condem WE THE PEOPLE for whoring around then expose them!
Let he with no sin cast the first stone… and so let the stones rest where they lay forever. We are all just human beings… stop the pontificating.
Should one hypocrite be given a pass to sit in judgment on another?
I guess if you’re a “silly, slightly stupid” (and myopic) partisan the answer is yes.
I’m sorry you missed that point. And you call me a shrill partisan when you completely ignore the messenger – a man who even if you forget he’s a smut peddler – has issued what amounts to an invitation to extortion in order to get the goods on his and your political enemies?
Nope. No partisanship there. My mistake, sorry…