{Originally posted at my blog Senate Guru.}
Hookerlover David Vitter is having a pretty rough week. And the week didn't even feature the sleaziness of soliciting prostitutes and cheating on his wife and children or the cowardice of turning constituents away from a town hall event in favor of stacking the audience with Teabaggers.
First, Vitter came off like a Senator Strangelove in declaring that he wanted to import prescription drugs from Canada specifically to destroy Canada's health care system. Got that? Yeah, me neither.
Second, Vitter came off like a mindless partisan zombie by attacking Democratic Congressman Charlie Melancon for taking the exact same position on legislation as Vitter did:
Vitter compared his stance on health care to that of his likely future opponent, U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-Napoleonville.
Melancon voted against certain amendments in the health-care bill that Vitter plans to support, such as a provision requiring all members of Congress to enroll in the proposed government-run program, Vitter said.
But Melancon then voted against the entire package, something Vitter said he would be likely to do with a senate version.
Vitter "took swipes" at Congressman Melancon for not supporting amendments to legislation that both Vitter and Melancon are planning on voting against anyway. Vitter must work awfully hard to make this little sense.
Third, the Louisiana Democratic Party has filed a complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee against Vitter for using public funds for events that were more political than official in nature, which would violate Senate standards. By using public funds for events at which Vitter politically attacked a likely political opponent (Congressman Melancon):
Senator Vitter has likely violated 31 U.S.C. § § 1301(a) and has engaged in activity that reflects poorly upon the United States Senate.
Once again David Vitter has given into the temptation to cross an ethical and legal boundary.
Hookerlover David Vitter does seem to have a recurring problem resisting temptations that cross ethical and legal boundaries, doesn't he?