I don't know much about the guy and what I do know of his views tells me I don't agree with any of them, but I don't see any evidence that he's done anything he took a public or legislative stand against, such as visiting a male prostitute while opposing gay marriage, so no, I don't think this is all that interesting. Given his wife's threat to perform a d***-ectomy in the event of unfaithfulness, as she said to a journalist several years ago and reported in the article you linked above, I think the poor S.O.B. will be talked about enough. I can imagine the sorts of jokes and questions he's going to endure on Capitol Hill for a while. Now if he's seen limping any time soon, that's another matter.

Sent by Sioux | 5:46 PM ET | 07-10-2007

I agree with Sioux. Vitter will get discussed elsewhere (ie cable news). How can BPP do something different with the story?

Perhaps you could have segment in which two people argue about whether one's personal life truly reflects upon their life as a public servant. That brings us back to the brouhaha surrounding former President Clinton during Monicagate when the French thought that we were nuts since they couldn't care less about Chirac's mistress.

Sent by Steve Petersen | 9:52 PM ET | 07-10-2007

It's not the sex, it's the illegality. Employing the services of a prostitute, unless you're in certain counties in Nevada, is very much AGAINST THE LAW. So what you have here is a senator who has publicly made many moral arguments, but in his spare time has been doing something that's illegal. When people break the laws they're sworn to uphold, that's news. The titillation factor doesn't enter into it.

Sent by Stewart | 1:34 AM ET | 07-11-2007

I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to find gambling in this establishment.

Sent by tertullus | 11:11 AM ET | 07-11-2007

Possible ideas: The telling details are in his apology, he talks of God and religion a number of times, do his constituents forgive him for his sins, to what extent is moral language and moral action out of sync for politicians, does it work for them in sounding moral even when they are not, does it change the way people view the Republican party? It's interesting that while people have very strong opinions about gay marriage, prostitution gets swept under the rug. It would be interesting to hear from someone who is not appalled by his actions/an on the opposing side someone who is angered by it -- or on a more creative front, come up with what his diary would look like if he had create an 'entry' confession, insight into his world...most of all curious to know why it is not shocking, when did news like this stop becoming shock worthy? do more politicians have secret lives than we think? what kind of excuses do they use-- where does he fit in on the timeline of politicians who have cheated on their spouses, does it lower their ratings, but perhaps the list would be too long and not enough time on the show.

Sent by Elyse | 11:27 AM ET | 07-11-2007

I think these are all interesting approaches to the story, but I especially like Stewart's point about people who break the law that they were sworn to uphold. It's the betrayal of public trust that resonates. The question is, then: Are we okay with mistresses? Should we be like the French and not bat an eyebrow at these sorts of things? I think we're going to have a discussion about this on Friday's show.

Sent by Matt Martinez | 11:57 AM ET | 07-11-2007

Yeah, I like Stewarts point as well...but one more note on moral conservatism...as a senator, Vitter co-authored a Constitutional amendment designed to define marraige as between a man and a woman. He also campaigned for continued funding of abstinence education programs.
A letter supporting abstinence education is advertised in a recent press release on Vitter???s Senate Web site. The letter reads, ???These programs have been shown to effectively reduce the risks of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases by teaching teenagers that saving sex until marriage and remaining faithful afterwards is the best choice for health and happiness.??? -- speaks for itself

Sent by Elyse | 3:47 PM ET | 07-11-2007

David Vitter has given my home state a black eye on top of the black eye over William Jefferson's graft, on top of the black given to us by Bob Livingston, Edwin Edwards, etc.

Some may see it as tabloid in nature, however this scandal does effect us in vastly negative manner from a business perspective.

What company will invest in the future of a state where it seems like every politician is notoriously corrupt?

Mr Vitter should resign post haste and allow us to salvage what little we have left of both our dignity and reputation.

Mr. Vitter's vanity will keep him firmly entrenched in Washington. He will only step down if the burden of his illegal deeds become more than his vanity can handle.

Therefore I'm all for continuing to publicize this disgusting spectacle in the hopes that the short term damage it does will be outweighed by benefits of ridding us of yet another politician whose deeds has brought dishonor to himself, his family, and the state I love and will always call home.

Sent by Curt Bryant | 3:31 PM ET | 07-16-2007