Posted on 07/09/2007 11:28:34 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
WASHINGTON — Louisiana Sen. David Vitter apologized Monday for his telephone number showing up on the old phone records of Pamela Martin and Associates, the alleged prostitution ring run in the nation's capital by Deborah Jeane Palfrey.
"This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible," Vitter said in a statement.
"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," he wrote.
The acknowledgment from Vitter, a Republican who recently won praise from conservatives for his opposition to the immigration reform bill, comes days after U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler lifted a restraining order, allowing Palfrey, 51, to distribute pages of phone records that she and her attorney said contains up to 15,000 names.
On Monday, she released the numbers on her Web site.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
There's nothing wrong with anybody denying anything...if they didn't do it. ;)
On another note, I assume the incident you posted about (with a French Quarter hooker) and this DC based hooker are different.
Ah...the "Any Thread" reply.
</thread_hijack>
What’s the difference between Vitter denying he had sex outside his marriage several times and President Clinton denying he had sex outside his marriage several times?
Well ... Clinton was President and being a President and the commander in chief one expects certain code of superior conduct. Vitter is not the President.
Also Clinton perjured himself in a court of law and hence impeached and lost his law licenses, Vitter adulterous behaviour does not include perjury in a court. So the differences are profound and obvious.
In some cases, in some not. But my point was that I believe this to be the reality.
A man I admired once told me that he occasionally used prostitutes, which surprised me because this was not something he needed to do. Women were crazy about him. Maybe the reality of life, pertaining to such things, would surprise me even more.
I'm not trying to debase moral standards, but the fact is that adultery is and has always been a very, very popular sin.
And, I think, for good reason.
First of all, sex is pleasurable, if done correctly. :>)
And second, most of us realize that to some extent variety is the spice of life. Anything, repeated ad infinitum, becomes dull and boring.
A man's wife can walk around naked in front of him for hours without him paying much attention whereas if a "strange" woman exhibits a bit of cleavage, he will find that his eyes and attention have a mind of their own and cannot resist a general perusal.
And I don't know that paying a woman for sex is as bad as having a 'lover'.
Except for emotional attachment, neither do I. When I was younger I could have happily banged a walnut tree. It may just be a question of maturity. And I say this not in a judgmental fashion but as a matter of fact.
Emotional estrangement would be more serious in terms of hurting one's marriage. Obviously both are very bad.
I'm not as certain as are you about the goodness of the issue.
I have been faithful to the same woman for the past twenty-five years but that is my choice, not because I think it a requirement of life nor a guideline for everybody else.
Very succint analysis in you post
That is a real problem.
I refer people to Fr. Corapi from S.O.L.T. Media. I couldn’t add anything to what he says.
He has a series going right now on Saturday evenings on EWTN TV. The second of four parts is coming up this week.
He’s in Boston for this. He’s wearing BDU’s (black for the priesthood) because, he says, Massachusetts is a war zone. He knows this by looking at whom they elect to public office. Check it out. He talks about acceptance of immorality in America.
Mr. Vitter came to Washington in 1999.
But this is because Democrats don’t mind immorality. They are looking for “health care”, “social programs”, and “help” with the high cost of living.
I don’t think so. People just aren’t thinking when they enter into this kind of destructive behavior. I respect people like Vitter who can get out of it and go on with their lives. And good on his wife for being part of his healing process!
In a perfect world, I’d agree with you. But our world, morally, is getting worse. When someone gets mired in this type of behavior and then gets out of it and asks forgiveness for it, I believe that we are compelled to give it to them. IF the behavior in question is indeed behind him. That was always the problem that I had with Clinton. Not that he had bad behavior in his past, but it continued into his present while he was in the WH. That, to me, is the question in this day and time.
Because he is a Republican! That is a sin beyond forgiveness or redemption!
“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
...And Nancy Pelosi winds up for the pitch (having beat out Hitlery, Schumer and Teddy the Swimmer for the coveted position)!
You make good points. But I also believe he’s a talented leader. Should that be off limits? Maybe. I could see a case either way. The country is better off for his leadership and given what LA has been producing, so is his state. Is his posistion solely for his ego? Maybe. I don’t see a clear-cut answer to your questions, but I believe that they are the type of questions we as conservatives should be asking ourselves.
What is “hypocracy”, a word that appears here so frequently? And is “hypocracy” worse than illiteracy?
Ouch!
He was quoted as saying, “I’m really sorry I got caught.”
Almost all politicians are sleazy crooks and liars. One should take everything they say with a grain of salt. If the polls showed that voters favored euthanizing everyone over the age of 60, the vast majority of politicians would start pontificating on why this would be a good and moral thing to do. Just because someone spouts conservative or moral principles in order to get elected, doesn’t mean he believes it. It’s all about power and money. Two notable exceptions to this of men who have principles and hold to them (whether you agree or disagree with them) are Tom Coburn and Ron Paul.
There are CAtholics In Name Only as well as RINOs; believe me.
he should have used the same line the aids guy used: “its just like ordering pizza”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.