Another affair for the ever so moral Republicans!

The neoconservatives who constitute the power sphere of the GOP today can trace their intellectual founders to the New York Intellectuals and other radical leftists who shifted parties in order to oppose Soviet opposition to Israel (and other accusations of Soviet anti-Semitism). It takes a lot of imagination to refer to the neoconservative members of the GOP, given their radical leftist history, as "conservatives". The GOP has a few traditional conservatives remaining, but they have been on the outside of the power sphere looking in since Barry Goldwater's defeat to Lyndon B. Johnson. To be clear, the GOP is chock-full of liars and hypocrites due to their dishonesty regarding their social identity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is it any less surprising when Dems do it? No. See: Edwards.

It's not like the Republicans are saying "Our people NEVER do this..." and the Democrats say, "Our people ALWAYS cheat on their wives...".

SHIT! They all morally posture as the best guy in town. And when they all get caught plugging the nanny it usually comes as a bit of surprise to most dense people.

I for one say, "Well, um... great! But let's look at how he/she acted in office. Did he/she run a good show because if so, then CHRIST keep him/her in office and let the whole affair go already!" But nobody listens to me. But, maybe when I'm world dictator.

~String

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The larger picture and not-so-subtle differences, among other things

It's not a matter of wishing it away. Rather, it has to do with looking at the larger picture.

With Barney Frank, it's the idea of being a gay congressman in the 1980s. I won't dwell on the irony that it was Larry Craig who led the charge for Frank's expulsion in the Gobie scandal, but as the Ethics Committee found no evidence to support the hooker's claims, I would suggest Mr. Roam is a bit overzealous in rehashing the issue.

Clinton? The idea that a sitting president should give a deposition in a civil lawsuit was certainly novel at the time. And with Congressional Republicans and conservative voters falling in line behind Scaife in vicious pursuit of something—anything—to bring a president down? That whole circus, driven by a media whose first priority is ratings instead of truth, was laughable. What kills me about that whole scandal is the necktie. I don't know whether to give Bill the finger or just laugh and raise a glass to that one. David Brock, one of the key mudslingers for the Arkansas Project, has since called their operation "political terrorism". In the grand scheme of things, that is a more vital blow to our political discourse than a president diddling an intern with a cigar.

With Spitzer, I can only reiterate that people's problem seems to be the nature of how he got caught. Like Clinton, if he had blundered into being caught, that would be one thing. But, like I noted at the time (and you disdained then, too), (A) there are questions about the investigation and the leaking of Spitzer's name, and (B) he was busted under the freakin' Mann Act. Beyond that, as I explained to Asguard at the time,

The point is that prostitution is illegal and Spitzer's a professional moralist. Therefore:

illegal + professional moralist = big f@cking deal​

Seems to me I was holding the same standard in regards to his conduct as I'm applying to Republicans.

Tell it to the House Ethics Committee of the 101st Congress. And the 101st Congress itself. With 167 Republicans, the House voted 390 to 38 against expelling Frank, and 287 to 141 against censure. Rep. William Dannemeyer (R-CA)denounced Frank for "knowingly condoning a house of prostitution being run out of his own residence". His colleague, Rep. Julian Dixon (D-CA) responded, "Follow along, Mr. Dannemeyer, on page 49 of your report. Look at it, Mr. Dannemeyer, it's on page 49. Page 49, Mr. Dannemeyer, take a look at it!"

The Ethics Committee absolved Frank of being, as you put it, "a guy who let an illegal criminal organization operate from his home". And that was good enough to win some votes from across the aisle. At least 129 in the case of expulsion. And at least twenty-six in the question of censure. So take it up with them.

I'm of the opinion that Clinton took what risks he thought necessary in the face of such a ludicrous and dishonest venture. And it's not like he hasn't paid a price for it, either. He lost his law license over that and resigned from the Supreme Court bar. Then again, I think he's doing better work these days than he would as a lawyer, so it's not the worst thing in the world. But given that David Brock has admitted the whole thing was bullshit—and, therefore, it was bullshit that brought Clinton to the point of being deposed in the first place—I'm not about to blame Bill.

And, quite clearly, the Zippergate scandal didn't hurt his political stature too badly. His highest approval rating came in the wake of the impeachment. And he left office with a better rating than Saint Ronald.

Indeed.

Predictable.

Oh, I think even the guilty have some rights. Then again, if you're busted under the Mann Act, you're in good company. They bludgeoned Charlie Chaplin with that one, too.

The thing I can't figure out, though, is why we, the People, keep electing new charlatans. I mean, the Republican Revolution of '94 was a disaster. We followed Teflon Bill with George W. Bush. And how the hell did the Democrats end up with Pelosi and Reid leading the Congress after the '06 election? Even my local favorite, Baghdad Jim, manages to get himself into trouble from time to time. But all things considered, he's not particularly high on the list of bad guys in Congress. If only I could figure out why the Rainier Athletic Club needed the federal money ....

He made his choices. Obviously, there are things more important to him than being president.

I admit it's often hard to tell with you whether the vitriol and disgust are about the damage people do to our society, or simply making yourself feel better.

You know how I responded to Edwards' mounting scandals? I stopped paying attention. He's clearly, unquestionably, finished. Life goes on.

Not that you would care, of course. But, still ... he's done.

I'm not sure whether Sanford's done. The worst I can say of him right now isn't all that bad. But Warren Olney talked with Lee Bandy, a former political columnist for The State (Columbia, SC) on KCRW's To the Point yesterday. Bandy asserted that Sanford has been largely ineffective during his tenure in the state house, and also that rumors of an affair have been swirling for months. I don't know whether the governor intends to recover politically from this, but by the sound of his press conference, it's possible that he's simply tired, knew the jig was up, and is playing for a book deal. And I can't knock him for that, especially if he's able to write a useful memoir that helps people understand his—and, by proxy, their own—human condition. Sanford is not useless yet.

Hell, in that context, even Edwards isn't useless yet.

But the irony of Sanford's apparent downfall is that he has been part of a political machine that has made much hay and good fortune out of exploiting bedroom issues. If some choose to revel in the irony and hypocrisy, it's understandable.

It's not about keeping a scorecard. That's another thing that puzzles me, as conservatives especially seem incapable of understanding this. As I told Mr. Roam, if Republicans get the hell out of people's bedrooms, the GOP will get the same deference from liberals that we give Democrats. Allen? What do I care that he likes to sell blowjobs? Except that he made his career in part from bedroom issues. Vitter? What do I care if he likes diapers? Except that he was part of the culture that focused on bedroom issues. Craig? What do I care if he likes gay quickies? Except that he was part of this bedroom-issue machine. Haggard? Well, okay, he chose to be a goddamn preacher, so he's on his own.

Madanthonywayne got up on his high horse, pointing out that, "Everyone is human". And, "We're all flawed". Well, yeah. But that's just the point. It's enough for him to say that in defense of Republicans, but it's never good enough for Republicans. That is why people are actually enjoying the spectacle of all these angels tumbling from the sky with their wings aflame.

What business does the government have meddling in consensual sex? What business does it have promoting Christian morality? Especially when that morality isn't good enough for its advocates?

So two different guys cheat on their wives. I could care less, except that one of them was a professional moralist who capitalized on haranguing other people about sexual immorality. What was the point of all that, then?

And this is something the culture needs to understand in a substantial way. Consider for a moment the fall of the Soviet Union. In its wake, many gleefully proclaimed the failure of socialism. The question of whether the USSR was legitimately socialist notwithstanding, the underlying suggestion is that there is no point in advocating a failed policy.

This post-Christian moralism has also demonstrated its failure, and the question of whether it was ever actually moral notwithstanding, the underlying suggestion is that there is no point in advocating a failed policy. Hell, there are some parts of the movement (e.g., abstinence education) in which prominent organizers admit—proudly proclaim, even—that they don't care whether the policy works. Is this healthy behavior? Is pushing a failed policy, exploiting emotion and fear in pursuit of political power, healthy for our society? No, it is not. This is what conservatives are overlooking when they accuse liberals of hypocrisy. Clinton may have signed a piece of veto-proof legislation that I don't like, but for heaven's sake he never went out and read a comedy piece into a government record as if it was serious with the intent of scaring the holy living shit out of people. Barney Frank may have hired prostitutes, but he's never built his career on attacking civil rights and demanding sociopolitical supremacy on the basis of religion.

Can you help us understand why that difference is so hard for conservatives to grasp?

Please?
____________________

Notes:

Berke, Richard L. "House, 408 to 18, Reprimands Rep. Frank for Ethics Violations". New York Times. July 27, 1990. NYTimes.com. Accessed June 25, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/27/us/house-408-to-18-reprimands-rep-frank-for-ethics-violations.html

Wikipedia. "Bill Clinton". Wikipedia.com. Accessed June 25, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

"South Carolina Governor Turns up in Argentina". To the Point. KCRW, Los Angeles. June 24, 2009. KCRW.com. Accessed June 25, 2009. http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp090624president_obama_and_

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I find it hilarious that Buffalo Roam tries to compare stimulus spending to moral affairs.
It's like comparing apples to oranges.. just a lot more obvious, I mean they're the same size right... but this, is an illustration of how severe this is.

Hell, we all do it., You just do it more stupidly than others.

 

how many female politicians have been in the media for being unfaithful?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You don't hear about female infidelity, probably because there are much fewer female politicians than male politicians.

 

Buffalo Roam's response is a typical Republican response...throw up a lot of dust and chaff.

 

Actually you and joe need to look at one of your own for that, reference PAS;

Yes, read the whole thread, and then see who is "doing it more stupidly than others"

 

Again, referring to a politician who may have precipitated the crisis, and then attempting to tie on a stimulus that is badly needed (for god's sake man, your country is trying to stave off deflation, and you're worried about deficits?), is a failed attempt to compare two different things.

 

thanks for getting back to humping my leg Buff... i was beginning to feel left out

 

Again look to PAS, I was just responding to his post, so who brought the orange into the oranges into the thread?

And as to raising chaff, what does your post have to do with the Thread?

Now lets return to the subject of the morality of touting no moral value, and not even trying to live up to any moral standards, with out any censure, as championed by you and the Democrat.

Yes, living down to the lowest common denominator, and vice, that is what it seem you and the Democrats are defending.

The funny thing is that I have long ago realized that I am a sinner, and often don't live up to my own standards let alone those of the New Testament, but that doesn't mean that I just dismiss those Standard and Morality, I pray for forgiveness, pay my due, and vow to do better.

I am more far more inclined to forgive some one who tries to Live up to the Ideal, and fails, ( and if you do the crime, you have still have to do the time), than I am to forgive someone who touts no higher standard, judges by a double standard, and lives down to the lowest common denominator, and say it isn't necessary to do so.

Yes, the Great Liberal Double Standard.

 

In the case of Sanford, he deserted his state. As the chief executive for the state of South Carolina, he was no where to be found. In addition to betraying his wife and family, he betrayed the citizens of South Carolina. He deserted his post. In the military of which he heads in South Carolina he would have been prosecuted for desertion. And shudder to think that Republicans wanted him to be Vice President or President.

How does one know what Republicans really belive as they are so good at saying one thing and doing another. This is not about just one issue, morality. This is about a host of GOP/Republican deceptions (e.g. small government, fiscal responsiblility, public morals, etc).

How do you know what Republicans are serious about if not by their actions. If one uses their actions in which to judge them, they appeared to be concerned about nothing more and nothing less than that which puts money in their personal pockets.

 

But you, brought the largest orange. Attempting to compare economic policy to moral fiber.

The classical question, Who is the greater fool ?, The fool or the fool that argues with the fool. I've finally found a use for the ignore button..

 

In the military of which he heads in South Carolina he would have been prosecuted for desertion.

not a bad idea Joe

 

And where do you come up with the Idea that He is still in good standing to be a vice presidential candidate with the Conservatives?

Only in the Democratic party is infidelity not a bar to higher office, or removal from same.

Sanford is going down, He, may survive his term, and that will be doubtful, but His career is screwed higher office, or even as the dog catcher.

Versus the Democrats who just lie to your face, and do what ever is expedient to their political power, and are so good at saying one thing and doing another.

 

Amen Slysoon!

 

they got a new one waiting in the wings

Barbour has been accused of personally profiting from Hurricane Katrina recovery

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

ironic...lol...

2000 presidential campaign

On February 1, 2000, he won New Hampshire's primary with 49 percent of the vote to Bush's 30 percent.

The Bush campaign and the Republican establishment feared that a McCain victory in the crucial South Carolina primary might give his campaign unstoppable momentum.

The Arizona Republic would write that the McCain–Bush primary contest in South Carolina "has entered national political lore as a low-water mark in presidential campaigns", while The New York Times called it "a painful symbol of the brutality of American politics

McCain ran ads accusing Bush of lying and comparing the governor to Bill Clinton, which Bush said was "about as low a blow as you can give in a Republican primary"

An anonymous smear campaign began against McCain, delivered by push polls, faxes, e-mails, flyers, and audience plants.

The smears claimed that McCain had fathered a black child out of wedlock (the McCains' dark-skinned daughter was adopted from Bangladesh),

that his wife Cindy was a drug addict,

that he was a homosexual, and that he

was a "Manchurian Candidate" who was either a traitor or mentally unstable from his North Vietnam POW days

The Bush campaign strongly denied any involvement with the attacks

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

McCain lost South Carolina on February 19, with 42 percent of the vote to Bush's 53 percent, in part because Bush mobilized the state's evangelical voters and outspent McCain.

The win allowed Bush to regain lost momentum.

McCain would say of the rumor spreaders, "I believe that there is a special place in hell for people like those."

According to one report, the South Carolina experience left McCain in a "very dark place".

 

Yeah this kind of deception is what turned me off on the Republican Party. I was outraged that these guys most notably george II could do this kind of thing with a straight face. It is an blatent insult to the elecorate because it is so false. But it unfortunately worked for them...just too many ditto heads could not figure it out on their own. And with a little help from brother in Florida the 2000 presidential election was fixed.

 

and it's the Democrats who are the mud throwers????:shrug: