“…and how could you see him with that gray thing covering your face?”
The Daily Caller is breathlessly promoting this as a sex scandal, so I should let it speak for itself:
“Two women from the Dominican Republic told The Daily Caller that Democratic New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez paid them for sex earlier this year.
In interviews, the two women said they met Menendez around Easter at Casa de Campo, an expensive 7,000 acre resort in the Dominican Republic. They claimed Menendez agreed to pay them $500 for sex acts, but in the end they each received only $100.”
Assuming that the story is accurate, which we cannot know at this point (if ever), what does it signify regarding Menendez’s fitness to be a U.S. Senator? Well, he didn’t break any laws: prostitution is legal in the Dominican Republic. The Senator wasn’t betraying his wife: he is divorced.
The incident reflects badly upon his character if, as the women allege, he agreed to pay them one fee and stiffed them (poor choice of words, sorry) cheated them by paying them less, with a “take it or leave it, I’m a U.S. Senator” brush-off. That’s truly unethical and mean behavior, and would demonstrate actual contempt for women (as opposed to much of what Menendez’s party has been labeling as such this election season) as well as a penchant for abusing power and breaking his word.
However, the Senator could also be a victim of some women seeking a pay-off after a commercial dispute, or a failed shakedown. Given the uncertainty, I don’t believe it’s fair for this incident to hurt Sen. Menendez’s standing with his constituents or the public, and The Daily Caller was wrong to publicize it.
_____________________________
Facts: Daily Caller
Graphic: Daily Caller
Ethics Alarms 
I subscribe to a number of conservative websites, Jack, and the references to this have been, thus far, pretty rare and fleeting. I’d imagine that, given Menendez’s long standing notoriety, this is considered minor news on both sides. For Republicans, it’s just another confirmation of what they’ve come to expect from the man. For Democrats, it’s a plus!
For Democrats, it’s a plus!
Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean liberals do.
I dont care if its legal there or not . If he were a member of the United States Military he would have broken laws under the UCMJ that prohibit the troops from engaging in prositution in a country no matter if it is legal in that country or not. I would also like to know how our SOFA agreement with that country covers American nationals under the employment of the US Goverment and or military hiring prostitues.
I forgot to say that if we expect our troops to not do it then our Congressmen shouldnt do it.
I mostly agree, but see 2 unmentioned issues:
First, I think that legislators should generally follow U.S. laws abroad where following the laws woudn’t contradict local laws or customs. It just feels icky to me. If you don’t like the U.S.’s laws, fight to change them. If you do think the laws are good, it’s not right to avail yourself of what you deny others.
Second, if Menendez is anti-prostitution in the U.S., this could be a scandal. I don’t know that he is or isn’t. Just a possibility.
Good issues. Of course, prostitution of this sort isn’t illegal everywhere—it is legal in Nevada, and last I checked, Rhode Island. Is a legislator obligated to follow his own state’s laws abroad and domestically? That seems like a tough standard.
I could argue that a politician could be anti-Prostitution as a matter of social policy without it being hypocritical for him to partake of it himself where the policy is otherwise. I think casino gambling in every state is a scourge, but I’ll play poker in Vegas. But I don’t have the energy to argue that right now, so forget I said anything.
In 2009, prostitution in Rhode Island was officially outlawed.
Thanks—I thought I had heard that, but wasn’t sure.