There are just some stories that really grind me to do. Vitter is one of them. It's one of those stories whose titillation factor (some pun intended) will keep it in the headlines when far more important stories get ignored. However, I have to ask, based on his statements during the Clinton impeachment, inserting himself into national politics he was merely a state representative, when we will expect to hear Vitter's resignation:
(I)n an October 29, 1998, opinion piece for the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Vitter took issue with a previous article, written by two law professors who had argued that impeachment "is a process of removing a president from office who can no longer effectively govern; it is not about punishment." Given that Clinton was still a capable chief executive, they had maintained, impeachment was not in order.
Vitter [..] was aghast at this amoral position. He blasted the law professors for criticizing those congressional Republicans pushing for Clinton's impeachment. Their argument that impeachment is "not primarily about right and wrong or moral fitness to govern," he wrote, was utterly wrongheaded. He continued:
Some current polls may suggest that people are turned off by the whole Clinton mess and don't care -- because the stock market is good, the Clinton spin machine is even better or other reasons. But that doesn't answer the question of whether President Clinton should be impeached and removed from office because he is morally unfit to govern.