Vitter; Hookers

I am no fan of Sen. David Vitter, but this story is ridiculous, and it should never have been published.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune puts into print allegations against Vitter that one of its sources calls clearly into question, and which the newspaper admits its other source cannot or will not verify in any way.

The breathless opening paragraph suggests strongly that Vitter has had associations with prostitutes beyond the current scandal involving the so-called DC Madam.

U.S. Senator David Vitter visited a Canal Street brothel several times beginning in the mid-1990s, paying $300 per hour for services at the bordello after he met the madam at a fishing rodeo that included prostitutes and other politicians, according to Jeanette Maier, the "Canal Street Madam" whose operation was shut down by a federal investigators in 2001.

Well! The scandal certainly seems to be growing, doesn't it?

Not so fast.

Maier's attorney, Vinny Mosca, upon learning of his client's allegation on Tuesday, said he had never known Vitter to visit the brothel or heard Maier mention his name.

"Through all my association representing Jeanette in the case, his
(Vitter's) name never came up. It's not on the list. He was not caught on
the wiretaps. That doesn't mean he wasn't (at the brothel), but in all this
time I never knew him to be. To my knowledge he didn't go to the
brothel." Mosca said.

Beyond her assertion in an interview Tuesday afternoon that Vitter was an occasional customer, Maier offered no evidence or documents to support her claim.

So, Maier asserts in an interview that Vitter frequented her brothel, but is unable or unwilling to verify the claim in any way. To publish an accusation like this without verification is, frankly, as irresponsible as anything I have ever seen in journalism. Maier's claim at this point is nothing but gossip. Literally. Her own attorney is quoted calling her allegation into question. I suppose some might consider that "balance," but if it is, it is only in the Fox News "Fair & Balanced" sense, which is to say that it is meaningless. Meanwhile, an accusation is made that Vitter cannot disprove, yet which most people will be inclined to believe. Granted, that inclination has a legitimate basis. In the DC Madam case, Vitter's name and phone number actually appear in the records of the alleged brothel manager.

In the DC Madam case, Vitter's having associated with hookers is legitimate news, by the way, despite the arguments of right-wing bloggers like Sister Toldjah.

Contrary to the usual gum-flapping coming from the typical leftiots about how the ‘right’ has no room to talk about morals seeing as some of their own don’t hold up to standards they say others should, here’s a much needed clarification - which I’m sure will be ignored by the willfully ignorant: The right typically preaches about the goodness of leading a moral life - they don’t claim to be immune to the temptations of immorality, just that your life is more fulfilling pesonally, professionally, and spiritually if you don’t succumb to them.

The point, contrary to Sister T.'s argument, is not simply that Vitter preaches the "goodness of leading a moral life" while consorting with prostitutes. That certainly does make him a hypocrite, just as Rush Limbaugh was a hypocrite for calling for the imprisonment of drug abusers while he was indulging in the same behavior himself.

But what lifts Vitter's behavior above garden-variety GOP hypocrisy is that fact that he has been passing judgment on other people while his own behavior cannot stand up to scrutiny. It is particularly galling to have spent the last several years listening to Vitter preach about the "sanctity of marriage" only to learn that he defiled his own marriage by having sex with whores.

This is a legitimate indictment against David Vitter, and defenses such as that of Sister Toldjah are embarrassingly weak.

Be that as it may, the piling-on quality of the Times-Picayune story is an embarrassing failure of journalistic standards. It is gossip masquerading as news, and the editors of that newspaper should know better.

[Edited for clarity, 07/11/07]