I thoroughly cannot abide it either, NW. However, denying us our rights on moral grounds doesn’t go down easier for me when it comes from a faithful husband and father of 4 than it does when it comes from an unfaithful husband and father of 4.

Of course it’s wrong to violate personal trust. I believe that, too. Personal trust. But we, as citizens don’t trust politicians on a personal level, do we? Especially Republicans. And why should we, when we don’t have a “personal relationship” with them? My bottom line is the securing of my civil rights. Where any rights denier’s penis tends to wander makes not a particle of difference to the denial of my rights.

I advocate lettin his wifey and kiddlets beat the ish out of him
on the same teevee where he did that stupid announcement.

he betta hope she dont’ take his WHOOOOOOOLE ass;
when they get to the court phase, cause quietly the judges
are gonna make his ass into kansas city bbq.

Good Job!

now that I have that out of the way.

“My objection is not that Mark Sanford or John Ensign or any of these other cretins cheated on their wives, but that they did so while denying my peeps their rights on moral grounds. That’s what I cannot abide.”

yep, I think that definitely warrants a “fucking” in front of Hypocrite after their names.

kim g.

My objection is not that Mark Sanford or John Ensign or any of these other cretins cheated on their wives, but that they did so while denying my peeps their rights on moral grounds. That’s what I cannot abide.

That’s a phrase borrowed from math and physics. Roughly, it’s a technique used to probe the behavior of an equation or principle by making a parameter bigger and bigger and bigger until it’s close to infinity. Or equal to infinity. Doing that is often a good way to shed light on the validity of the way you’re looking at something in the up-close, non-infinite world.

Anyway, we’re talking about philandering or adulterous politicians and I usually get kinda quiet when this comes up. It’s because I have a hard time working up the steam nearly everybody I know, respect and interact with feel about the subject.

I automatically take n to infinity. I imagine, say, that Obama ends the Iraq War and comes out very strongly in favor of Marriage Equality, to the point where it has a huge effect on the legislation that eventually wins it for us. Then the boom drops. He’s discovered to have cheated on his wife. Would I go after him with tooth and claw? Or would I sit back and weigh the good he’s done against the personal atrocity he’s committed? I believe I’d argue for judging his professional merits separately from his personal faults.

You realize of course that your argument is that the Democrats are NOT hypocrites because nobody expected them to be moral in the first place? Priceless.

And now onto the part where I defend these guys: Oh wait, I’m not going to. Scandals like these, whether they are sexual or criminal in nature, have nothing to do with a person’s political party. I don’t know the exact numbers, and of course we don’t even know about the ones we haven’t found out about yet, but I’d say it’s close to 50/50.

And you’re right, If someone holds themselves up as a moral leader, whether it be religious or political, they do have a lot farther to fall. There crime isn’t any worse, but standing on that pedestal makes the trip a little longer.

What I find interesting is the way both sides react to these scandals. I’m actually going to study this and find out what percentage of Democrats vs. Republicans “do the right thing” and resign after news like this comes out. Of course, if they had only done the right thing before, they wouldn’t have to resign.

I was traveling today, and had an opportunity to listen to a lot of discussion of this on talk radio. And you know what? Everyone was calling for this guy to resign, none louder than the Right wingers (Okay, Hannity wasn’t as firm as the rest, but he still called for this guy to resign).

Funny how when Clinton did this, the view from the left was “It’s Just Sex”, or “It’s his private life”. Not that the left always rally around their disgraced, but they are more likely to. And I don’t know, maybe that’s admirable, but then again I think the “He made a mistake/It’s a private matter/It’s only sex” defense works if you’re willing to apply to each side equally.

I was intrigued by one comment: “And check it — as usual, whenever a Republican gets caught with his pants down, Fox “News” identifies him as a Democrat. They’ve done that so many times it’s become a newsroom joke.” Really? I was unaware of this, and a short and totally unscientific bit of research turned up only twice that I could find. This time, and once identifying McCain. Was it done on purpose? Hey, could be. We are talking about Fox News after all. But “They’ve done that so many times….” sounds like a bit of a misrepresentation.

Hey, I have an idea. Look up New York Times articles that initially report a story like this on five democrats, and five republicans. And use congressmen or state representatives, not national figures like Bill Clinton that every one knows. Then, count how many paragraphs it takes before they mention that the scumbag was a Republican, and how many before they announce the scumbag was a Democrat (assuming they ever announce it at all). Now THAT’s a newsroom joke.

But yes, Mark Stanford and Senator Ensign are scumbags. They do not represent my state, so I have no say in their futures, but I would encourage everyone to vote these bastards out.

And I completely concur here … in fact, isn’t part of the job description for politicians “must be able to talk about both sides of the mouth with equal ease and without breaking a sweat?”

i just think there’s a special ring of hell for those who hold themselves out to be arbiters of moral standards while they’re violating those standards right and left. and when their “moral standards” don’t include my people … well, we got a problem.

Politicians (and church elders and high-powered businessmen, ad naseum) all think the rules do not apply to them. Or they are too smart (narcissistic) to get caught. That somehow a bright light shines down on their beautiful self. They let their dicks take control and constituency be damned – because it really is all about them, not their service to those to whom they serve.

Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, no matter what if you’re a boxer briefs or tighty whitey kind of person. Lying is lying. Breaching trust is breaching trust – whether it is with your spouse or your constituents. It doesn’t take much of a leap to believe that if they cheat on their wives, they will cheat on us too. These things just prove the old axiom, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”