No child or hooker left behind

NOTE: This post was done yesterday at my place, and I tried to cross post it here. My ISP went bonkers, shortly after I got it up, and I could not connect here until 30 minutes before I had to leave to work. Not enough time to get ready and post too. When someone comes and comments about us all just getting along, remember this one. If they dare to say we should get beyond this, just remember this one. This is not just hypocriscy, it’s insanity! For all those parents that had your kid’s personal info given out to people without you knowledge, till you finally found out about the opt out option, which is a farce at best, remember this! Give a great big thank you to the “family values” and “moral majority” man that brought it to you!

E. J. Dionne Jr., at WaPo, has an interesting Op-Ed up today. On David Vitter, Dionne claims we should “Hold Your Fire and Brimstone” and offers a “qualified defense of Sen. David Vitter, the socially conservative Louisiana Republican who faces a bit of a problem.”

Perhaps because no one else will do it, I want to offer a qualified defense of Sen. David Vitter, the socially conservative Louisiana Republican who faces a bit of a problem.

Vitter admitted Monday night to a “very serious sin in my past” after his phone number was found on the client list kept by Deborah Jeane Palfrey, known as the D.C. Madam. This would not be good for any senator, but it’s especially troublesome for someone who campaigned on family values and the importance of marriage.

E.J. goes on to say how his “defense of Vitter is qualified because I believe that married guys have a moral obligation not to seek the pleasures of “escort services.”” In the very next paragraph, Mr. Dionne goes on to say:

Nor do I like hypocrisy. During the battle over the impeachment of Bill Clinton, Vitter wrote in the New Orleans Times-Picayune that if no “meaningful action” were taken against the president, “his leadership will only further drain any sense of values left to our political culture.” Vitter, then a state representative, suggested that Clinton was “morally unfit to govern.”

Hypocrisy? You better believe it is! Mr. Dionne ponders a time when we “chose to pay little attention to the extracurricular sexual activities of our politicians.” That is obviously not a part of Vitter’s thinking now is it? What I find ironic, is Mr. Dionne’s claim that “For liberals, there’s something satisfying in demonstrating that the sex lives of certain right-wing moral crusaders turn out to be less than exemplary” and in the next breath, claim that “if we are to get out of this habit of destroying the distinctions between public and private lives, liberals need to give the conservative hypocrites a break.” May I remind you sir, that David Vitter is not only a hypocrite, but a full fledged neocon that falls in step with the party over the country? Take a look at the second to last paragraph you wrote.

In turn, the rest of us might agree to keep the public conversation focused on the larger questions — how to proceed in Iraq, how to fix the health-care system — about which elected officials can actually do something. As voters, wouldn’t we forgive a politician many private sins if he or she handled those two issues successfully?

Lets take a look at how Vitty-cent has done on the Iraq issue for an example. In step with his party, and not giving up on the stubborn take on Iraq, Vitter has been nothing but a meat puppet for the GOP. A perfect example of how Vitter goes to new levels to push the neocon agenda, needs no further look than the No Child Left Behind Act. Tell me anyone can talk to this man, and have a dialog with someone that would do this.

Sharon Shea-Keneally, principal of Mount Anthony Union High School in Bennington, Vermont, was shocked when she received a letter in May from military recruiters demanding a list of all her students, including names, addresses, and phone numbers. The school invites recruiters to participate in career days and job fairs, but like most school districts, it keeps student information strictly confidential. “We don’t give out a list of names of our kids to anybody,” says Shea-Keneally, “not to colleges, churches, employers — nobody.”

But when Shea-Keneally insisted on an explanation, she was in for an even bigger surprise: The recruiters cited the No Child Left Behind Act, President Bush’s sweeping new education law passed earlier this year. There, buried deep within the law’s 670 pages, is a provision requiring public secondary schools to provide military recruiters not only with access to facilities, but also with contact information for every student — or face a cutoff of all federal aid.

That’s right, it was in an education bill! No Child Unrecruited! One guess as to who this came from? If you gave Vitter as an answer, you hit it right! Vitter gave a way to let kids be bombarded by recruiters, and not even have the parents of those kids know that the private info of their kids was just handed over because of a threat to take away federal aid! So get this, an educational bill, gave threat to take away aid to schools. And David Vitter is the one that brought that to all those parents out there.

The military complained this year that up to 15 percent of the nation’s high schools are “problem schools” for recruiters. In 1999, the Pentagon says, recruiters were denied access to schools on 19,228 occasions. Rep. David Vitter, a Republican from Louisiana who sponsored the new recruitment requirement, says such schools “demonstrated an anti-military attitude that I thought was offensive.”

To many educators, however, requiring the release of personal information intrudes on the rights of students. “We feel it is a clear departure from the letter and the spirit of the current student privacy laws,” says Bruce Hunter, chief lobbyist for the American Association of School Administrators. Until now, schools could share student information only with other educational institutions. “Now other people will want our lists,” says Hunter. “It’s a slippery slope. I don’t want student directories sent to Verizon either, just because they claim that all kids need a cell phone to be safe.”

Make no mistake about it Mr. Dionne, Vitty-cent is a man of his party, and not of my state, or this country. He will follow party lines, to the point of hurting his own state, and the thugs love him for it.

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to No child or hooker left behind

  1. Darrell Prows says:

    Donnie: Over here in Utah I’ve got Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett. I’ll give you both of them for Vitter. At least he’s good for a laugh right now, and my guys are basically just pitiful.

  2. Ginny Cotts says:

    Donnie,

    I was a little anxious about this as well. Dionne should have introduced it a little differently. NOT to defend Senator Vitter for any reason other than to promote the concept that many of us found ridiculous in the Clinton issue.

    IMO it’s not unreasonable to point out that when they did it to Clinton, they opened themselves to the same standard and practice. What Dionne is saying is that if we truly want to take sex lives off public scrutiny, we should be careful about this.

    The catch for me is that Clinton was engaged in consenting sex. There is the sad ethical/moral issue of someone in power taking advantage of a much younger person’s awe and willingness to consent. In Vitter’s case and with Mark Foley, there is illegal conduct as well as the hypocrasy on values and morals.

    Dionne usually writes more cogently. I think the point he should have made is worth thinking about.

  3. Darrell Prows says:

    Now back to the real world (and I don’t pretend to have an answer). What Dionne is really advocating, then, is a situation where the left passes up any number of great shots at the hypocrits on the right and the right reciprocates by continuing with business as usual. Even if Vitter were let slide on the basis of principle, we would still be paid back by a thumb in the eye.

  4. Ginny Cotts says:

    I don’t think Dionne is advocating giving up the moral ground. I think he is cautioning Democrats not to be hypocritical themselves.

    I also think that Democrats can learn to have these arguments in terms that strike better than the GOP. Drew Westen has some great examples in Political Brain and Jim Webb has done an very good job doing basically what Westen writes about. Webb’s response to the SOTU this year is one of Westen’s examples of how Dems can do it.

    That said, it is the ever ironic situation of the GOP having blown up Clinton’s insignificant lie into an impeachment offense, to now downplay the acts of their own members that are illegal. AKA, the double standard for the GOP at work again. Everyone else has to suffer the full force of the law and their strict sentencing guidelines. Not them. Democrats have to live up to the GOP moral standards – that the GOP doesn’t live up to.

    I think the hypocrasy argument needs to be replaced with the double standard charge. It’s more damning.

  5. battlebob says:

    What damns all people who talk out of both sides of their mouths is hypocrisy. Vitter should pay a price; ridicule or being kicked out of office. For the rest of his career, whenever he speaks the audience will be thinking about his hooker time. He becomes irrelevant which is almost the cruelest price of all.