It’s good that Charlie Melancon is going after David Vitter’s love of prostitutes:
But why no mention of his love of wearing diapers?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
19 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
This ad is brilliant for Louisiana. It takes it out of the naughty boy, colorful character frame that Louisianans seem to love in their politicians – Huey Long, Edwin Edwards…
It also takes it out of the “chacun a son gout” moral values frame. It hints at his political hypocrisy but does not go there.
Lawmaker breaks law. That’s the bottom line.
And what is the “I was $300” about? That he’s not just a lawbreaker but he is not necessarily a big spender?
“And what is the “I was $300″ about?”
It was to reiterate that he hired her for sex. She testified (and is introduced in the video) as a “former prostitute”…which leaves a bit ambiguous. Bringing up the dollar figure is to flat out say – he hired a hooker to bang in a hotel room.
It makes it more taudry than the average affair.
Why no mention of diapers? Geez Booman!! Are you trying to give Andrea Mitchell or Katie Couric a heart attack? Trying to give Sally Quinn the vapors? He can only put so much in an ad before Versailles goes really nuts.
Does everyone already know about the diapers? Maybe he’s going to build up to it.
Good looking hooker! I would have spent more than 15 minutes. Just saying, maybe he’s quick on the trigger.
Glad to hear the candidates name in the ad. I was pronouncing it “melon conn”.
The pictures of that hooker were quite appealing. I was thinking “Man, I would LOVE to get that hot little Momma to put a Pampers on ME!!”
M
Really? That’s what you were thinking?
Yeppers, that’s the ticket. Been talking to Dave Vitter, that I have.
Vitter is one.
Another one is Roy Blunt. Roy decided that Wife #1 was too old, and, to be frank, she was kinda frumpy and dumpy. What to do? What to do?
Well, for the frisky congressperson, there are lobbyists aplenty looking to upgrade from calling on offices to hosting parties and being in the “Washington scene”. In Roy’s case, the hot little lobbyslut was named Abigail Perlman. She was pretty cute, and 24 years younger. Plus, she was from Altria (Phillip Morris). So, while Roy was having “wife’s away” fun in Washington, he was ALSO getting big money from Altria.
What did he do in return? Inserted special language into the Defense Authorization Bill to help Abigail.
Then, just after the Nov election in 2002, he dumped his wife and married Abigail. The people of his district are apparently as stupid as they get, and re-elected this toad. Now, he is running for Senate.
Will this scummy history come out?
So long as there is more rejoicing in heaven over the one lost sheep than the 99 who never strayed, and the sheep in question has (R) after its name, there’s a limit to the damage even such an ad can do.
Team spirit, and Vitter’s running in Jesusland, should just about do the trick between them.
Melancon has the additional ‘give ’em a choice between a real Republican and a fake Republican’ factor going against him.
Who knew that’s how you pronounce “Melancon?”
My wife for one, and anyone who speaks French and knows that “Melancon” is really spelled “Melançon” in which the “c” is the “c-sedillo” with the little hook. Another butchery by the English language.
Indeed.
This New Orleanian did!!!
New Orleaans and much of the mississippi river land was french owned, so much of our culture and sayings, and surnames, businesses, streets, etc are all french names.
I may not be able to speak much conversaionally, but I can pronounce the hell out of most French words.
Laissez les bon temps roulez – Let The Good Times Roll
Let me ask you: do you really think this ad is effective? (Assuming it’s a real ad and not a web ad…at 2+ minutes, I am doubtful this is really going to run on television.)
Although the “crime show” set up is creative, I personally found it rather distasteful to have these sordid details shoved in my face. I suspect many viewers, especially those who are not committed to either candidate, would feel the same way.
But perhaps the aim of the ad is not to convince undecideds to vote for Melacon, but to give Republicans second thoughts about pulling the lever for Vitter.
What do folks think?
It’s aimed at true “values voter” Republicans. And like most attack ads, it’s aimed at second feelings not second thoughts. In this view, folks would have to distribute the ad virally like the infamous conservative cannned emails.
Or it’s a web ad aimed at getting contributions from folks who want to see tougher Democrats.
It’s always too bad when political “discussion” goes to this level, but that’s reality. I think anyone who sees the start of the ad will stay for the ending. It taps into the same lowdown inclinations that make crap like Cops and Dateline successful. It will do nothing to motivate Dems to get out and vote, though, so I hope Melancon is also doing something more substantial.
My major question is about the “crime” theme. Do Louisianans really think hiring a hooker is criminal, or is it just a boys will be boys thing? I guess the real point is to discourage the “religious” right vote.
What is “distasteful” is having family-values turds like Vitter and Blunt and Latourette in OH tell us how families are important and then fuck around and dump their wives. That is “distasteful”.
What I find “distasteful” is pieces of shit like Vitter getting re-elected after he is outed as an adulterous jerk.
I disagree. What Vitter did was not distasteful. It was appalling. And the fact that he did not resign in shame was even more appalling.
But there is no contradiction between disliking Vitter and disliking the ad. It’s not like we have to choose between them.
Also what Vitter did was against the law right? So not only did he do something “distasteful”, he also broke the law.
What makes Vitter any different than William Jefferson?
BTW, being from NOLA, the sex aint’ nothing to us, it’s the hypocrisy that pisses us off