SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Vitter: There Are *some* Hookers I Haven't Slept With

THE PLANK JULY 13, 2007

Vitter: There Are *some* Hookers I Haven't Slept With

BY TNR STAFF AND TNR STAFF

So, Louisiana Senator David Vitter has been outed as having availed himself of the prostitution service run by D.C. madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey. And the Times-Picayune has spoken with a prostitute back in Louisiana who claims that he was a client of hers back when he was a state legislator.

Vitter's response? His office, according to the newspaper:

issued a statement that referred to his Monday apology regarding the Washington escort service and reiterated that he was not implicated in a federal investigation that led to the closing of a Canal Street brothel in 2001.

So, yes, he frequented prostitutes in D.C., but he didn't back in Louisiana. Except that, well, he probably did there, too. The paper continues:

Two of the attorneys cited by [Vitter spokesman Joel] DiGrado -- U.S. Attorney Jim Letten and defense attorney Vinny Mosca -- said Vitter's name did not surface or show up in documents during a federal investigation of the operation but did not go as far as to say that he had never been a client.... On Tuesday, Jeanette Maier, the "Canal Street Madam," said Vitter was a customer at her Mid-City brothel but that his business there predated the federal investigation.

Still, I'm confident that Vitter aides will soon be able to track down some prostitutes--perhaps even within easy commuting distance of Vitter's DC or state offices--whom he can be conclusively shown never to have slept with.

In the meantime, I found this passage from the piece irresistible:

[Prostitute Wendy Yow's] former boyfriend Tait Cortez, contacted by The Times-Picayune, said he has seen several photos of Yow and Vitter together.... In another photo, that same dark-haired man [allegedly Vitter] appeared with Yow at a waterfront party, he said. The man was wearing shorts and a T-shirt next to Yow in a bikini, Cortez said. "She had her hand on his crotch," Cortez said. "They were smiling."

Cortez said the photo stung him. It was "more sexual" than any others, and he felt that Yow and the man exhibited more than a business relationship, he said.

Indeed.

--Christopher Orr

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 29 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

29 comments

Sen Vitter, why all the hookers? I mean, I remember the day where if you want a little of the shush-the-bad, a little something something, a little boom-shaka-laka, all you had to do was have an chubby intern bring a pizza to your office when the government was shut down. Free o' charge.

- adamvaught

July 13, 2007 at 10:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What's better than sex? Sex plus capitalism. Throw in apple pie and a handgun and you've got everything that makes America great.

- adaglas

July 13, 2007 at 10:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Apple pie and handguns? Now you're just getting freaky.

- adamvaught

July 13, 2007 at 10:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- mghogwild

July 13, 2007 at 10:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Yard decided to blow this popsicle stand several days ago, seemingly for good.

- drdannyu

July 13, 2007 at 10:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think Vitter's difficulties mark a step in the right direction. Unlike Slick Willie, he actually paid a presumably fair wage; unlike some other Republican notables, he wasn't molesting teenaged boys while blasted on crystal meth. Besides, he's well within the bounds of traditional Louisiana norms for politicians. As F. Edwin Edwards said when running against David Duke in the great "Crook vs. Nazi" election, "the only way I can lose this is if they catch me in bed with a live boy or a dead girl."

- Robert Powell

July 13, 2007 at 10:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

At risk of cross-posting, let me make a point yet again: How should all of us proud and self-righteous liberals feel about this scandal? Other than giggling about it, of course? Well, we should be clear why we find the behavior worth commenting about. It's not because he used the head without the brains. (If it were, none would 'scape hanging.) It's not because he used hookers: he actually should get credit for that---nobody gets to be a senator without a damn strong ego (=sex drive) and since his wife isn't with him it was actually damn decent of him to use a sex worker rather than risk screwing up his marriage. It's not because he's a hypocrite. Hypocrisy is the courtesy vice pays to virtue. It's because it demonstrates that he is too damn stupid to learn, and we shouldn't be governed by anyone that damn stupid. He has had solid, irrefutable proof that the heart wants what the heart wants, that the flesh will out, and that willpower cannot overcome biology. And he STILL tries to legislate as if none of this were true. If he cannot learn from such basic personal truths, how on earth can we expect him to make sensible judgments about health care? military funding? the Easter bunny? Against stupidity the gods themselves labor in vain.

- AlanK

July 13, 2007 at 10:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Did he say something? Or just stop posting?

- adamvaught

July 13, 2007 at 10:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How come no mention of McCain's Florida co-chair getting busted for solicitation. Apparently he went up to an undercover cop and offered to perform sexual acts for $20. Yeah, that's right, the co-chair offered. Oh, and McCain apparently has $250,000 left. (2 mil on hand minus 1.5 mil in outstanding debts.)

- adamvaught

July 13, 2007 at 11:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was wrong. Apparently the co-chair only offered the money for an act to be performed on him. Nevermind, nothing to see here.

- adamvaught

July 13, 2007 at 11:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's confusing, but he offered to pay $20 in order (per the police report) to perform the act. Confusing, no? And Mr. Yard posted an "I'm outta here" message on one of the Kirchick threads. I can't recall which one.

- drdannyu

July 13, 2007 at 11:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's not that freaky. Clearly you've never heard of a little game I like to call "Naughty William Tell"

- adaglas

July 13, 2007 at 11:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

He was attempting to do his part for McCain's flagging fundraising.

- miceelf

July 13, 2007 at 11:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- teplukhin2you

July 13, 2007 at 11:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

- mghogwild

July 13, 2007 at 11:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We should encourage Vitter to do a reverse Lieberman. Join the Immoral Majority party.

- teplukhin2you

July 13, 2007 at 11:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why does sleeping with a hooker mean you DON'T risk your marriage? I have to say, I'd be very upset if my husband were having an affair that involved a relationship, but I'd also be pretty upset if he betrayed fidelity vows, spent our money sleeping with a stranger, and risked exposing me to disease. Can't speak for Ms. Vitter, but from my point of view, I'd say he risks the marriage either way.

- epicciuto

July 13, 2007 at 11:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have heard of "naughty william tell" but I know it is freaky: McCain's Florida co-chair offers to pay extra to perform it. Thanks for the explanation dr. dan. To William Yard: You will be missed. Especially now. When we're talking about hookers.

- adamvaught

July 13, 2007 at 11:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr Yard, that good soul, felt there was too mcuh vitrol on the site. We were talking about Castro and the Nation, and I seem to recall sleepavl telling all the Commies (i.e people who didn't like Jamie's post) out there to fuck their dogs, which they already do anyway. There were a lot of "fuck you" coming from Sleepy's subtle pen. Mr. Yard decided he didn't need this anymore, this kind of anger. It is sad.

- boneill

July 13, 2007 at 12:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I honestly don't blame him. I think Kirchick's posts tend to bring out the worst in a lot of us--either in defense or disagreement. It gets old. I don't blame Kirchick, per se, it's just what happens. I think it might be best to avoid those threads lest we lose more valued contributors. I'm not calling for a Kirchick boycott, mind you. Only to suggest those whose blood pressure spikes upon reading those posts--I for one--should take care to consider that before cracking thier knuckles over the keyboard.

- adamvaught

July 13, 2007 at 12:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think what AlanK meant, in his very insightful post (I really liked that "too damn stupid" to learn part), was that there wasn't much of a chance of the dude leaving his wife for a cheap and common hooker (sorry, I wanted to sound all dectective-novel like). There isn't always the emotional attachment you get with mistresses or strippers ("I think that one really likes me!"). That yes- he strayed. The flesh is weak, my love, but the heart remains true. Also, those high-class girls at the DC Madam probably have been tested and are clean- nothing ruins a close and familial business than when John Boehner is walking around, gathering votes with a noticable case of herpes. Not saying that thier marriage is fine, but I read somewhere that women are less offended by physical straying than emotional, whereas it is the opposite for guys.

- boneill

July 13, 2007 at 12:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Agreed. The Iran one drove out, at least for now, purcellneil.

- boneill

July 13, 2007 at 12:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I saw that; although Kirchick's statements drove neil to depart, as opposed william yard farewell which was due to the totality of the vitriol spewing forth from everyone. The onus is on TNR for the former, the latter on everyone. But, regardless, they will both be missed.

- adamvaught

July 13, 2007 at 12:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We really do need to cool it sometimes. If williamyard wanted to tech us anything, it is that politics are important, but simple decency is more so.

- boneill

July 13, 2007 at 1:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Less offense, yes. I would rather my husband slept with someone with whom he did not have a relationship than I would if he slept with someone with whom he did have a relationship. I just wouldn't quite call it a kindness to the wife. I would rather get just my hand cut off than my whole arm, but that doesn't mean I'm relieved my hand gets cut off. Oh, and I quite liked the rest of AlanK's post, too. Was just nitpicking, is all. My goodness! I've been busy for three weeks and the level of vitriol has chased away two regulars! That's too bad. I do like that most posters on this site are smart, funny, and level-headed (which is why this is the only site I post to), so I can see getting irritated if that changed. But really...what have you guys been doing?!

- epicciuto

July 13, 2007 at 1:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

(We could all invest a little less of themselves personally on the groups. That goes to anyone finding themselves (myself included) tapping an angry note or taken aback because someone posted something we ideologically or temperately disagree with.

I mean, think of the heat Kirkchick has taken; several posters have demanded his head on several occasions. He's still posting. JZ took heat from the entire planet last year for misquoting a letter. He's hasn't quit writing. We should be able to do the same, after all didn't Chait lavish heaps, no mountains of praise on us in his article on the blogsphere and it's contribution to politics earlier this spring (I think he said we were thrifty, brave, loyal, cheerful, obedient, kind and wise beyond our years; or something not quite like that)?

At one point a while back, I took somewhere between a four to six month break from posting and just read the posts. It helped. I don't post nearly as often anymore, but instead spend most of the time reading the posts.)

neil did leave an email address in the subject line of his "farewell statement". It's back on the Iran threads.

- jet

July 13, 2007 at 1:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yeah, it isn't good in any event. But at least he went to a pro, so he wasn't just throwing money away on some kind of amatuer. Some people were getting irritated at the implications they were dog-fucking Commies (I wish I was kidding) or that they were ok with Iranians killing US troops (though Jamie clarified that isn't what he meant). There were a few heated debates.

- boneill

July 13, 2007 at 1:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I missed Commie dog-fucking? Look what happens when I try to get work done! All right everyone, be just nice enough so everyone stays, and just mean enough so it isn't an echo chamber in here.

- epicciuto

July 13, 2007 at 2:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tonight at 3 am, only on Animal Planet.

- adaglas

July 13, 2007 at 3:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close