Democrats backing off Vitter humiliation vote
September 17th, 2013
05:50 PM ET
9 years ago

Democrats backing off Vitter humiliation vote

Washington (CNN) - Democrats will probably not force votes on proposals meant to shine an unusually ugly spotlight on Louisiana GOP Sen. David Vitter's alleged past solicitation of prostitutes, a Senate Democratic aide acknowledged to CNN Tuesday.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and other top Democrats have been considering holding the votes in response to Vitter's attempt to force a politically tough vote on whether to strip federal healthcare support from lawmakers and staff.


Filed under: David Vitter • Harry Reid
soundoff (8 Responses)
  1. Sniffit

    This is pretty simple. Considering Vitter was originally found not guilty of ethics violations by the Senate because his number appeared on the DC Madame's lists before he became a Senator, its pretty obvious that any new legislation about taking away health care benefits from Senators for whom there is "probable cause" to believe they've been going to prostitutes would operate only prospectively, not retroactively. Vitter claims it was an attempt to bribe or blackmail him. For that to be the case, Vitter would actually have to get something out of it if the exchange occurred, i.e., he dropped his amendment in exchange for them dropping theirs. For him to be getting anything out of it, he would have to be subject to their amendment and at risk of losing his health care benefits. In other words, Vitter is essentially admitting that he continues to see prostitutes and is worried he'd be caught.

    September 17, 2013 06:08 pm at 6:08 pm |
  2. rs

    Vitter is clearly wrong on this line of action- and I have no idea what Ried is thinking with his line of action. If Vitter can convince his constituents of his credibility after his highly publicized prostitute scandel, so be it-it's none of Reid's business.
    On the Healthcare front however: given that Senators get not only a better than decent salary, gold-plated health care (for life), plus retirement, he might make a better argument against whatever it is he is trying to do by trying to take away such largess offered to Senators and Congressmen, rather than take away benefits from their underlings which simply smacks of GOP meaness and a disdain for their employees.

    September 17, 2013 06:21 pm at 6:21 pm |
  3. Evergreen

    Mr. Vitter was able to keep us job after a sex scandal but Mr. Weiner had to step down. Why are democrates harder on their offenders than the GOP?

    September 17, 2013 07:11 pm at 7:11 pm |
  4. Talkin Bout a Revolution

    Would the GOP back off if they smelled blood? Of course not! It's time the Democrats gave up using the Marquis of Queensbury Rules and go after these rabid dogs!

    September 17, 2013 07:21 pm at 7:21 pm |
  5. Ron L

    GREAT IDEA!! Nice to see one of the political parties not waddling in the mud. Now if we could only get some REAL work done!!!

    September 17, 2013 08:31 pm at 8:31 pm |
  6. belinda

    I say it's time to play hard ball . That Vitter is still in office, is wrong. Others have done less and have had to resign. Why not him ? Are certain people, besides Police Officers, allowed to do whatever they want in Louisiana ? They should realize exactly where their money is going, they know what part of town it is. (sIc)

    September 17, 2013 08:52 pm at 8:52 pm |
  7. S. B. Stein

    Vitter should have been tossed out of the Senate. There is no reason why he should be allowed to stay. Apparently the people of LA are more tolerant of their senator doing that rather than NY of their governor.

    September 17, 2013 09:25 pm at 9:25 pm |
  8. Neutral Observer

    Just think if they did do this vote. Vitter? Who is this guy? I have never heard of him. But then think of all the democrats who would then come under the same embarrassing light,...they are all their most powerful. Bill Clinton, Kennedy (last name says it all; multiple and gross examples for this name), Hart. Heck, I'd think it's a rite of passage for influential democrats.

    September 18, 2013 05:50 am at 5:50 am |