Two things that pissed me off today

First, more comically: Predictably, the Federal Marriage Amendment is back, and David Vitter and Larry Craig are among the ten original sponsors in the Senate. Family values, kids! Hat tip to Ta-Nehisi Coates - and yeah, follow that link, because the Chris Rock clip is sweet.

Second, more angering: the brouhaha over something Wes Clark said yesterday. First, watch the actual video:

Or, if you're really pressed for time:

Clark: "Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable.

"John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world.

"But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded -- that wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle this publicly? He hasn't made that calls, Bob."

Bob Schieffer: "Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down."

Clark: "I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”

Immediately, McCain and friends flipped a shit about how Clark was smearing McCain and disrespecting his military service and probably hates baseball and apple pies and motherhood. (Oh wait - that last one would be the GOP.) This in itself is ridiculous. For starters, the idea that Wes Clark, a decorated veteran with thirty-five years of military service, would in any way devalue military experience - John McCain's or anyone else's - is simply incredible. Add that to the fact that one of the loudest critics has been Colonel Bud Day, who was active in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and you have a thoroughly bogus accusation. But most tellingly, Clark went out of his way to acknowledge McCain's service to the military, both in active duty and in his position in the Senate. Unless I've suddenly forgotten how to read, I'm pretty sure Clark said nothing that could be reasonably construed as an insult to McCain's military service.

But what frustrates me the most is that Clark is getting in trouble for something that is absolutely true. Factually, riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is not a qualification to be president, and I doubt that you can find a single person who's been through the experience who will make that claim. Maybe I've missed something, but John McCain doesn't make that claim; neither do the people who have jumped to his (imaginary) defense. Moreover, what Clark said was a response not to anything McCain has argued, but to what Bob Schieffer said might be an argument on McCain's behalf. In essence, the Republicans are grasping at straws, trying to find something that they can get offended about, and I'd say it's not working except that the media sure is all over this non-story. Diversions from actual issues, anyone?

The Incredible Shrinking Senator

Fifty bucks and a bag of donuts says you hadn't heard of Senator David Vitter, pictured right, prior to this little incident. (Or should I say, David Vitter '83, Ec concentrator, Rhodes scholar. Seriously.) In fact those of you who do interesting things with your time may not even have heard of him today, in which case, executive summary: HE'S A MAN, AND HE HAS NEEDS, DAMMIT.

But here's what gets me: the way this story was covered. When it first came out that David Vitter liked hookers there was a great collective shrug among the media; it sat on the Washington Post's page A3 alongside the National Hurricane Center and an obtuse story about executive privilege. Considering that we are talking about a SEX SCANDAL here, this is rather surprising, don't you think? It's like you offer Wimpy a free hamburger and he says "ehh, how about a salad?" Headlines focused on Vitter's solemn apology for his transgression, the bestowing of forgiveness by his sainted wife, and just generally the genteel Southern grace with which they handled it all. (In unspoken contrast, of course, to a certain other down-home politician, who apparently had the special Democrat kind of sex and thus unfortunately could not be saved.)

(...Maybe you get bonus points if you pay for it, because then, at least, it's capitalistic.)

IN FACT there seemed to be an active attempt to beat the story down altogether -- Tucker Carlson, of all people, gave a vigorous and slightly unhinged defense of Vitter on the radio that morning, culminating in this interesting statement:

Men when they lived apart from their wives and children tend to commit adultery as you know. That is just the way men are.

Well, then, that makes it all better! But Tucker's odd c'est-la-vie defense was dwarfed by Senator Jim DeMint, who (presumably with a single tear running down his cheek) said:

I think all of us have to look at it and say, ‘We can be next'... This can be a very lonely and isolating place.

To which the only possible response is "Uh, Senator, is there something you'd like to tell us?"

Between Tucker and Jim Boy there seemed to be more than a little irrational, fevered desire to defend Senator Horny McWhorehouse from any kind of moral condemnations--- of course, far be it from me to make insinuations about our respected leaders' private lives, but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck---

Anyway. Here's where it gets interesting. As the news week went on, the story slowly picked up steam, gaining traction on the blogs and the regular media as more and more info leaked out. TPM dug up those deeply ironic campaign ads to coincide with Vitter's being linked to a New Orleans brothel that specialized in something I really don't want to think about. Then they started talking about Vitter's wife -- not so sainted, apparently, comparing herself to Lorena Bobbitt -- and the suddenly questionable future of Vitter's manhood. By the time the blogs were writing about a potential impact on the Louisana governors' race and rising young star Bobby Jindal, you knew the damage had been done and this was, for better or worse, A Story! Today I saw Wolf Blitzer sitting behind a chyron that screamed "SEX IN POLITICS!", and the Louisana Republicans are fiercely denying rumors they're planning to have Vitter replaced. It has become a full-scale public roasting that shows no signs of abatement. For his part, Vitter has made the wise decision to bugger off until things quiet down; but you have to imagine that, down there in his Louisiana bunker, he's more than a little shell-shocked.

After all, this is NOT how it's supposed to happen. Republicans have been getting away with this kind of stuff for decades; when their guys say "let's put a lid on the story", they PUT A LID ON THE STORY and that's that. It was working here for a day or so, too, before for some reason things started sliding and then went all to hell -- now Vitter might actually be finished, kaput, and heaven only knows who's next. Any one of their senators or congressmen might be weeping on Larry King within weeks. (They are all perverts, after all, that's been understood in Washington for some time. Democrats too. The problem comes when the usual quiet recourses don't work, and that may be what's happening now.) Simply, the Republicans no longer have control of the narrative.

And so the most serious consequence of this whole incident is: if you can't be confident in the Republican media machine, you can't be confident in the party. Certainly, if I'm a big-time GOP donor, I'm not going to be cutting a check to Jim DeMint anytime soon; and this is probably just the first incident of many. Republicans already lag in fundraising -- money follows winners, after all. From here it's not far to a chain reaction that has the big money totally drying up, and friends, you can guess what happens from there. We saw in the spanking of 2006 that the wheels had come off the Republican bus; but now there's black smoke pouring out of the engine and cops catching up at the back.

Anyway I'm straying from the point. The fact that Republicans, as an organization, are in trouble is not exactly news these days; let's just take a moment to appreciate the thought of conservative senators being publicly emasculated (metaphorically and physically). I'll give James Wolcott the last word:

I wonder if Mrs. Vitter has given thought to what she will do with her husband's penis once she lops it off. Tossing it out the car window a la Lorena Bobbitt is a bit declasse and unworthy of a senator's spouse. Perhaps she should consider packing it in ice and preserving it in a Baggie before deciding on final dispensation. Perhaps she could have it bronzed and carry it around in her pocketbook as an admonitory keepsake, though the unseemly bulge of a bronze penis might conflict with the sleek contours of her designer bag. Then again, she may simply wish to hold it hostage. Should they divorce, Vitter's lawyers will certainly fight on their client's behalf to regain and retain custody of his penis for possible reattachment later after a suitable "cooling off" period.

Male solidarity would seem to dictate that I harbor some sympathy for Vitter and his endangered penis, despite his trespasses, but when I read in the ABC story, "Vitter quickly became the Louisiana delegation's most conservative member... against abortion even in cases of *rape and incest*," (my emphasis), I thought, Even a hypocrite needn't be that backward and hateful. So cheers to Larry Flynt and let the penises fall where they may.