Funny how the party that touts morality at every street corner is faced with an endless stream of revealing breaches of moral code by its leaders. The most recent, Senator Kent of Nevada and now Gov. Sanford of South Carolina.

This is the same party that spent 40 plus million public dollars trying to find something to impeach Clinton with durring his presidency. I am continually amazed that anyone in their right mind could take these clowns seriously. But nothing seems to stop the ditto heads from putting these guys in office. You would think that Republicans would pause and maybe just once question those they elect to public office and the leadership of their party...maybe just once.

we were on the same track Joe ;)

Indeed we were Pie and at the same time too :)

Funny how the party that touts morality at every street corner if faced with an endless stream of revelations about it breaches of moral code by its leaders. The most recent, Senator Kent of Nevada and now Gov. Sanford of South Carolina.

This is the same party that spent 40 plus million public dollars trying to find something to impeach Clinton with durring his presidency. I am continually amazed that anyone in their right mind could take these clowns seriously.

Yes, I hope they burn his butt good, but you don't have anything to point fingers over, aren't you one of those who defended Billy (Hide the Cigar) Clinton?

Kinda of like;

Gary (Monkey Business) Heart

Barny (Run a Brothel out of my House) Franks

Bill (Blue Stained Dress) Clinton

Eliot (Client Number Nine) Spitzer

forget sex.. how about

Phil (fuck over the country) Gramm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm)

forget sex.. how about

Phil (fuck over the country) Gramm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm)

OK, then I raise you break the bank Obama;

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090618/...icits_analysis


By JENNIFER LOVEN and LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writers Jennifer Loven And Liz Sidoti, Associated Press Writers –
Thu Jun 18, 6:12 pm ET

WASHINGTON – The solid armor of President Barack Obama's popularity may have a crack — a nearly $2 trillion-sized one.

There's continued and considerable public restiveness over eye-popping federal budget deficits, a potential danger for both Obama's ambitious agenda and his political fortunes.

About $1.3 trillion when Obama took office, this year's deficit now is on track to soar to a record $1.85 trillion after his massive influx of federal spending to stimulate the moribund economy, help struggling homeowners, stabilize frozen credit markets and bail out troubled banks, automakers and insurers.

To use your own word's (fuck over the country)

after the damage was done.. sweet pea

Gramm was co-chair of John McCain’s presidential campaign and his most senior economic adviser

think it is bad now.. imagine if McLame got in

after the damage was done.. sweet pea

Gramm was co-chair of John McCain’s presidential campaign and his most senior economic adviser

think it is bad now.. imagine if McLame got in

After the damage was done? so Obama dumps a Hydrogen Bomb of $1.85 trillion dollars of deficit on the problem, more than doubling the Deficit in 100 day? and you want to point at Phill Gramm?

Obama has added $1.85 trillion dollars of new deficit, Phill Gramm had nothing to do with that at all, it all belongs to the Democrats.

Yes, I hope they burn his butt good, but you don't have anything to point fingers over, aren't you one of those who defended Billy (Hide the Cigar) Clinton?

Kinda of like;

Gary (Monkey Business) Heart

Barny (Run a Brothel out of my House) Franks

Bill (Blue Stained Dress) Clinton

Eliot (Client Number Nine) Spitzer

they weren't outspoken against that behavior though.

Yes, I hope they burn his butt good, but you don't have anything to point fingers over, aren't you one of those who defended Billy (Hide the Cigar) Clinton?

Kinda of like;

Gary (Monkey Business) Heart

Barny (Run a Brothel out of my House) Franks

Bill (Blue Stained Dress) Clinton

Eliot (Client Number Nine) Spitzer

The difference is the Democrats are not preaching the right wing moral code from every street corner, not to mention having a major scandal break every few months. You really had to go back to find a Democratic scandal.

Gary Hart 1984 (25 years ago)
Barney Frank 1990 (19 years ago)
Bill Clinton 1998 (11 years ago)
Elliot Spitzer 2008 (1 year ago)

Let's do a little sampling of Republicans wrestling with their well touted moral code:

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/october172007/repub_scandals_10_17_07.php

Yes, I hope they burn his butt good, but you don't have anything to point fingers over, aren't you one of those who defended Billy (Hide the Cigar) Clinton?

Perhaps it is too subtle to qualify as significant in your view, Mr. Roam, but the primary reason a Republican's sexual affairs are of any interest to liberals is that, as Joe noted, the GOP is "party that touts morality".

People's bedrooms have long been one of the places the "party of small government" wants to extend intrusive governance. If they get the hell out of people's bedrooms, the GOP will get the same deference from liberals that we give Democrats.

Considering your list, for instance:


• Gary Hart — Sealed his own doom by daring reporters to come after him when he knew damn well he had skeletons to hide. How stupid can a politician get? More than the affair itself, that stupidity questions his qualification to be president.

• Barney Frank — This one doesn't carry much traction because unethical prostitutes are unethical prostitutes. While liberals may have salivated over the demise of Ted Haggard for instance, even famed sex columnist Dan Savage had a few things to say about the hooker's betrayal of his client. A whore whose revelations are made for money? Nobody really cares. Oh, except conservatives trying to hide from hypocrisy. ("Look at the birdie! Look at the birdie!")

• Bill Clinton — So a smear project run by a magazine owned by a known vindictive conservative manages to get Congress to investigate a land deal on which the Clintons lost money, and the investigation finally settles on an extramarital affair? The amount of work that went into that one makes the whole thing laughable. We might impeach a president over a blowjob, but concocted lies to lead us to war, or authorizing torture aren't a big deal? The whole Zippergate episode is a laughable tragedy.

• Eliot Spitzer — People's problem with Spitzer's downfall is that the investigation appeared to be politically motivated. The former New York Attorney General did not simply appear on the radar and get busted. Rather, it appears that investigators were after him specifically in retaliation for certain outcomes of how he did his job.

That said, I don't see a whole lot of point in giving Sanford shit over this one. The relevant issue, as Joe noted at the outset, is,


"This is the same party that spent 40 plus million public dollars trying to find something to impeach Clinton with durring his presidency .... You would think that Republicans would pause and maybe just once question those they elect to public office and the leadership of their party...maybe just once."

And even that is of questionable value because, as you demonstrate, some people simply refuse to consider the idea that conservative persecutors and attack hounds should give any attention to integrity.

Perhaps it is too subtle to qualify as significant in your view, Mr. Roam, but the primary reason a Republican's sexual affairs are of any interest to liberals is that, as Joe noted, the GOP is "party that touts morality".

People's bedrooms have long been one of the places the "party of small government" wants to extend intrusive governance. If they get the hell out of people's bedrooms, the GOP will get the same deference from liberals that we give Democrats.

Considering your list, for instance:


• Gary Hart — Sealed his own doom by daring reporters to come after him when he knew damn well he had skeletons to hide. How stupid can a politician get? More than the affair itself, that stupidity questions his qualification to be president.

• Barney Frank — This one doesn't carry much traction because unethical prostitutes are unethical prostitutes. While liberals may have salivated over the demise of Ted Haggard for instance, even famed sex columnist Dan Savage had a few things to say about the hooker's betrayal of his client. A whore whose revelations are made for money? Nobody really cares. Oh, except conservatives trying to hide from hypocrisy. ("Look at the birdie! Look at the birdie!")

• Bill Clinton — So a smear project run by a magazine owned by a known vindictive conservative manages to get Congress to investigate a land deal on which the Clintons lost money, and the investigation finally settles on an extramarital affair? The amount of work that went into that one makes the whole thing laughable. We might impeach a president over a blowjob, but concocted lies to lead us to war, or authorizing torture aren't a big deal? The whole Zippergate episode is a laughable tragedy.

• Eliot Spitzer — People's problem with Spitzer's downfall is that the investigation appeared to be politically motivated. The former New York Attorney General did not simply appear on the radar and get busted. Rather, it appears that investigators were after him specifically in retaliation for certain outcomes of how he did his job.

That said, I don't see a whole lot of point in giving Sanford shit over this one. The relevant issue, as Joe noted at the outset, is,


"This is the same party that spent 40 plus million public dollars trying to find something to impeach Clinton with durring his presidency .... You would think that Republicans would pause and maybe just once question those they elect to public office and the leadership of their party...maybe just once."

And even that is of questionable value because, as you demonstrate, some people simply refuse to consider the idea that conservative persecutors and attack hounds should give any attention to integrity.

And if you care to notice we punish those who denigrate that Morality, seem to me to be moral is a good thing or are you touting immorality as a norm, as you seem to be with your post.

We did find something to impeach Clinton on, Perjury, but as usual people like you and joe, and the Democrats in the Congress don't seem to be bothered by your politicians, lying stealing, cheating and having no moral compass.

We did find something to impeach Clinton on, Perjury, but as usual people like you and joe, and the Democrats in the Congress don't seem to be bothered by your politicians, lying stealing, cheating and having no moral compass.

Yes he perjured himself though technically you could say Bush also perjured(perjury is the breaking of an oath) him self and also the question that Clinton lied about was in fact illegal to ask.

And if you care to notice we punish those who denigrate that Morality, seem to me to be moral is a good thing or are you touting immorality as a norm, as you seem to be with your post.

Punishment coincides with political need.

As to immorality? I live in a country where a notable proportion of the culture thinks two adults consenting to have sex with one another is immoral.


We did find something to impeach Clinton on, Perjury, but as usual people like you and joe, and the Democrats in the Congress don't seem to be bothered by your politicians, lying stealing, cheating and having no moral compass.

What is it about you and other conservatives that ignoring the counterpoint and simply repeating the allegation over and over again is considered a useful argument? The response (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonperjury.html) to the issue of Clinton's "perjury" has been presented at least three times (once by Spidergoat (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1996838&postcount=13), and I've offered it up at least (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2134124&postcount=67) twice (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2167372&postcount=31)). And every time the argument comes up, conservatives just push it aside without any substantial consideration, only to raise it again a while later, pretending they've never seen the counterpoint.

Of course, maybe they haven't. If they simply ignore it—if they don't read it—they can claim they haven't seen it.

Nothing new about that dishonesty. We see and hear it from your ilk all the time.
____________________

Notes:

Huppi, Tom. "Myth: Clinton committed perjury". Huppi.com. Accessed June 24, 2009. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonperjury.html

Yes he perjured himself though technically you could say Bush also perjured(perjury is the breaking of an oath) him self and also the question that Clinton lied about was in fact illegal to ask.

Sorry but;

As Judge Wright ruled in her contempt holding against Clinton, Clinton made "intentionally false" statements. Clinton also enlisted others to lie for him

Can you show the same for President Bush, a legal ruling.

Technically is not germane to the issue, and your technical opinion is worth squat.

Sorry but;

As Judge Wright ruled in her contempt holding against Clinton, Clinton made "intentionally false" statements. Clinton also enlisted others to lie for himUm ok but that really doesn't respond to my point. arguing a point conceded isn't the brightest idea.


Can you show the same for President Bush, a legal ruling. Their wouldn't be a legal ruling because perjury is only a crime in one kind of perjury and not all kinds.


Technically is not germane to the issue, actually technically it is.
and your technical opinion is worth squat.
So i'd still be ahead of since your opinion period is worth squat.

And if you care to notice we punish those who denigrate that Morality, seem to me to be moral is a good thing or are you touting immorality as a norm, as you seem to be with your post.

We did find something to impeach Clinton on, Perjury, but as usual people like you and joe, and the Democrats in the Congress don't seem to be bothered by your politicians, lying stealing, cheating and having no moral compass.

Show me just one instance in which I was not bothered by politicians lying, stealing, cheating and having no moral compass...just one. If you have read my posts I am very much against all of those behaviors. That is why I favor the Democrats. I find them ironically a much more ethical group of individuals. In my association with Democrats and liberals I find them often questioning their behaviors to make sure they are acting ethically...something my Republican friends rarely do.

And let's not forget the all so unethical White Water Investigation....a huge misuse of the judical system to pursue political goals of the Republican Party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_McDougal

It is quite a leap to go from lying about a sexual relationship to corruption and stealing. And as for your punishment, doesn't look to severe to me. Rebublicans have and continue to destroy their credibility.

They are for small government and then the oversee the largest expansion of government since FDR. They claim to be for fiscal responsiblilty, then they go from budget surplus to more than a half trillion dollar deficit and double the national debt. They claim to be for family values and then their leaders are out double dipping their peckers. Ironically Sanford was scheduled to speak at the Republican Values Summit. How funny can you get?

I am not sorry, it makes me feel dirty to be with Republicans who see nothing wrong with that kind of behavior.

Perhaps it is too subtle to qualify as significant in your view, Mr. Roam, but the primary reason a Republican's sexual affairs are of any interest to liberals is that, as Joe noted, the GOP is "party that touts morality".

People's bedrooms have long been one of the places the "party of small government" wants to extend intrusive governance. If they get the hell out of people's bedrooms, the GOP will get the same deference from liberals that we give Democrats.

Considering your list, for instance:


• Gary Hart — Sealed his own doom by daring reporters to come after him when he knew damn well he had skeletons to hide. How stupid can a politician get? More than the affair itself, that stupidity questions his qualification to be president.

• Barney Frank — This one doesn't carry much traction because unethical prostitutes are unethical prostitutes. While liberals may have salivated over the demise of Ted Haggard for instance, even famed sex columnist Dan Savage had a few things to say about the hooker's betrayal of his client. A whore whose revelations are made for money? Nobody really cares. Oh, except conservatives trying to hide from hypocrisy. ("Look at the birdie! Look at the birdie!")

• Bill Clinton — So a smear project run by a magazine owned by a known vindictive conservative manages to get Congress to investigate a land deal on which the Clintons lost money, and the investigation finally settles on an extramarital affair? The amount of work that went into that one makes the whole thing laughable. We might impeach a president over a blowjob, but concocted lies to lead us to war, or authorizing torture aren't a big deal? The whole Zippergate episode is a laughable tragedy.

• Eliot Spitzer — People's problem with Spitzer's downfall is that the investigation appeared to be politically motivated. The former New York Attorney General did not simply appear on the radar and get busted. Rather, it appears that investigators were after him specifically in retaliation for certain outcomes of how he did his job.

That said, I don't see a whole lot of point in giving Sanford shit over this one. The relevant issue, as Joe noted at the outset, is,


"This is the same party that spent 40 plus million public dollars trying to find something to impeach Clinton with durring his presidency .... You would think that Republicans would pause and maybe just once question those they elect to public office and the leadership of their party...maybe just once."

And even that is of questionable value because, as you demonstrate, some people simply refuse to consider the idea that conservative persecutors and attack hounds should give any attention to integrity.

Tiassa, I actually agree with the first part of your post (the Republicans literally beg for this kind of treatment), but then you start rationalizing ridiculous behavior and almost wishing it away with words and circumstances. It reminds me, since I'm reading the Final Days, of Nixon crooning about how he didn't do anything that Kennedy and Johnson hadn't done and that the whole Watergate thing was just politics. Maybe so, but I'd retort that ill-beginnings can lead to satisfying and acceptable ends (sometimes).

Take, for example, Barney Frank's case. This is probably the most morally egregious of the lot. I mean, I could care less about Hart on a boat, but this was a guy who let an illegal criminal organization operate from his home. That's beyond the pale.

And yes, the Republican witch hunt against Clinton was a politically-motivated, tiresome waste of cash, but so too was the Clinton mentality of lying, playing hardball (See Hitchens account of Sydney Blumenthal), lying some more and then trying to absolve oneself from the results of the mountain of dishonesty by crying about the nastiness of the dishonest game he had already mastered.

Spitzer, most clearly, falls into the category of "party that touts morality," as he was a man who set himself up as an "upright" fellow, fighting for the "law," when, in fact, he was immoral, unethical and on the wrong side of the law. Was the investigation that led to his downfall politically motivated? I don't know. And I'm almost prone to say I don't care. He was clearly well in the wrong and therefore cannot hold his hand up and bicker about the circumstances that led to his exposure. Good riddance to him and all the other charlatans.

Oh, and Buff's list isn't complete without your golden boy: John Edwards. I believe he's under investigation right now for misappropriating campaign funds (something the Times all but proved years ago) and a few other slippery dealings. But it all comes out in the wash? His wife wrote a book and went on television, right? And I actually felt sorry for her, before that, of course. Now she's just another part of the American obsession with other people's sex. Kind of boring, if you ask me.

Perhaps it is too subtle to qualify as significant in your view, Mr. Roam, but the primary reason a Republican's sexual affairs are of any interest to liberals is that, as Joe noted, the GOP is "party that touts morality".Indeed, it's much better to tout decadence, sin, and vice. That way, you get a free pass. Since Jesus was the only human who is said to have lived a sin free life, I suppose anyone else who favors virtue over vice is a vile hypocrite.

Everyone is human, Tiassa. Even conservatives. To expect perfection of anyone who would even start down the road to virtue is nihilism. Warren Zevon had a song about the quest for perfection:


Don Quixote had his windmills
Ponce de Leon took his cruise
Took Sinbad seven voyages
To see that it was all a ruse

(That's why I'm) Looking for the next best thing
Looking for the next best thing
I appreciate the best
But I'm settling for less
'Cause I'm looking for the next best thing

Looking for the next best thing

All alone on the road to perfection
At the inspection booth they tried to discourage me
You can believe what you want--that'll never change it
You'll have to come around eventually

(And you'll be) Looking for the next best thing
Looking for the next best thing
I appreciate the best
But I'm settling for less
'Cause I'm looking for the next best thing

Looking for the next best thing
I'm looking for the next best thing

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Looking-for-the-Next-Best-Thing-lyrics-Warren-Zevon/ED147C6719B726F848256C95000BAD98

We're all flawed. So go ahead and enjoy making fun of this guy. Just be glad the media's not there checking up on everything you've ever done. Oh, I know, you're not conservative. So the rules don't apply. But, seriously, have you never failed to live up to your own values? Even once in your life? Has your every action been in accordance with the grand ideals you espose?

Everyone is human, Tiassa. Even conservatives. To expect perfection of anyone who would even start down the road to virtue is nihilism.

You know, dude, if you're not going to bother to read and pay attention to what people write, don't be surprised if they wonder whether you're dishonest or just stupid.

Yes, everyone is fucking human, Madanthonywayne. So you know what? Get your fucking political party out of people's bedrooms. Period. Everyone is human. So let them be.

I don't understand why you conservatives have such a problem understanding that simple idea. I mean, you're perfectly happy to point it out when it's, oh, a Democratic AG like Eliot Spitzer, right? So how come it's so hard for you to understand the fact that people are responding to the hypocrisy of identity politics? Oh, right, because it's Republicans.


We're all flawed. So go ahead and enjoy making fun of this guy.

Oh, cry me a river. And when you're done, try getting a real issue. Or, in other words, to reiterate:


That said, I don't see a whole lot of point in giving Sanford shit over this one.

Did you miss that, Madanthonywayne? Or was it simply inconvenient to acknowledge that point?

I'm sorry, but the party that won't let people just be human doesn't get to hide behind, "Everyone is human," or, "We're all flawed."


Just be glad the media's not there checking up on everything you've ever done.

That's one of the advantages of being a nobody in this society. And it's also one of the advantages of not going out of my way to persecute people for having consensual sex.


Oh, I know, you're not conservative. So the rules don't apply.

Get honest and quit whining. For heaven's sake, man, you're embarrassing yourself. Pack up the zeal and put it away for a day when it's relevant. I mean, really, this whole thing about inventing fake issues in lieu of dealing with real ones just reminds everyone that even among politicians, Republicans are still sleazier than the rest.


But, seriously, have you never failed to live up to your own values? Even once in your life? Has your every action been in accordance with the grand ideals you espose?

You know, sir, there's a difference between the average person failing to live up to their own standards, and, an authority figure who would persecute others for the same things he does. Lots of people have affairs, but it's absolutely ridiculous that a bunch of Republican adulterers should have hounded Bill Clinton from here to perdition over it. Lots of people have done cocaine, but it's especially offensive that George W. Bush should see people locked up for snorting a line. Are you capable of understanding that basic difference? Because I'm the college dropout stoner, and you're the freakin' optometrist who finished school. So why the hell can I figure it out? And what the hell is your excuse?

Your petty hatred is sickening, sir. How can you sit in front of this forum and expect people to respect you? I mean, really. What kind of twisted delusion is that?

Everyone is human, Tiassa. Even conservatives.

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.

Funny how the party that touts morality at every street corner is faced with an endless stream of revealing breaches of moral code by its leaders. The most recent, Senator Kent of Nevada and now Gov. Sanford of South Carolina.

This is the same party that spent 40 plus million public dollars trying to find something to impeach Clinton with durring his presidency. I am continually amazed that anyone in their right mind could take these clowns seriously. But nothing seems to stop the ditto heads from putting these guys in office. You would think that Republicans would pause and maybe just once question those they elect to public office and the leadership of their party...maybe just once.

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

Tiassa, I actually agree with the first part of your post (the Republicans literally beg for this kind of treatment), but then you start rationalizing ridiculous behavior and almost wishing it away with words and circumstances.

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 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1780239&postcount=3) (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 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1780670&postcount=10) 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.


Take, for example, Barney Frank's case. This is probably the most morally egregious of the lot. I mean, I could care less about Hart on a boat, but this was a guy who let an illegal criminal organization operate from his home. That's beyond the pale.

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.


And yes, the Republican witch hunt against Clinton was a politically-motivated, tiresome waste of cash, but so too was the Clinton mentality of lying, playing hardball (See Hitchens account of Sydney Blumenthal), lying some more and then trying to absolve oneself from the results of the mountain of dishonesty by crying about the nastiness of the dishonest game he had already mastered.

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.


Spitzer, most clearly, falls into the category of "party that touts morality," as he was a man who set himself up as an "upright" fellow, fighting for the "law," when, in fact, he was immoral, unethical and on the wrong side of the law.

Indeed.


Was the investigation that led to his downfall politically motivated? I don't know. And I'm almost prone to say I don't care.

Predictable.


He was clearly well in the wrong and therefore cannot hold his hand up and bicker about the circumstances that led to his exposure.

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.


Good riddance to him and all the other charlatans.

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 ....


Oh, and Buff's list isn't complete without your golden boy: John Edwards.

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


His wife wrote a book and went on television, right? And I actually felt sorry for her, before that, of course. Now she's just another part of the American obsession with other people's sex. Kind of boring, if you ask me.

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 (http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp090624president_obama_and_) 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_

OK, then I raise you break the bank Obama;

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090618/...icits_analysis



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.

....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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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


forget sex.. how about

Phil (fuck over the country) Gramm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm)

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

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, 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.

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.

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

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.

Again look to PAS, I was just responding to his post, so who brought the orange into the oranges into the thread?
.
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 shudder to think that Republicans wanted him to be Vice President or President.

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.


How does one know what Republicans really belive as they are so good at saying one thing and doing another.

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.

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.

Amen Slysoon!

they got a new one waiting in the wings

Barbour has been accused of personally profiting from Hurricane Katrina recovery

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/Haley_Barbour_at_FEMA_conference%2C_Apr_14%2C_2006 .jpg/225px-Haley_Barbour_at_FEMA_conference%2C_Apr_14%2C_2006 .jpg

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 :rolleyes:


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".

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 :rolleyes:


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.

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:

I don't understand why you conservatives have such a problem understanding that simple idea. I mean, you're perfectly happy to point it out when it's, oh, a Democratic AG like Eliot Spitzer, right?No, I'm not. I don't generally start threads about any sex scandal involving politicians (left or right) because, I don't care about the sex lives of politicians. I'm sure I would have discussed the Clinton situation because of its political implications. But the fact of the blowjob, no surprise, no big deal. I really don't expect our politicians to be paragons of virtue. The sleazy process we call politics just doesn't attract that kind of person. I don't really know the details of any of these scandals because I don't care to learn them. My comment was on the shear Schadenfreude going on over these scandals. They're just humans being human. No great consequence. Nothing to be learned in the discussion or analysis of these stories that couldn't be learned by watching a soap opera.

Oh, cry me a river. And when you're done, try getting a real issue.That's my point, this isn't a real issue. It's a side show, a distraction. Meanwhile, real issues are ignored. Pay no attention as we spend the country into oblivion, but look! That guy cheated on his wife! And he's a conservative!!!:eek:

That said, I don't see a whole lot of point in giving Sanford shit over this one.
Did you miss that, Madanthonywayne? Or was it simply inconvenient to acknowledge that point?Yes, I missed that one. I've discussed these kind of issues with you before and am familiar with your line of thought on the issue and just kind of skimmed. But damn, you sure got worked up about it. You sounded like I'd just insulted you mother. Settle down. As I said, this whole issue is bullshit of no consequence to anyone but the people involved.

madanthonywayne, I di find it funny that all of these type threads are started by the liberal.

joe has a plethora of them, and the rest of the mud slingers on the left.

I love the way they get all full of themselves when you point out the same foibles on their own side of the isle and go on the attack and want to dismiss it out of hand.

That's my point, this isn't a real issue. It's a side show, a distraction. Meanwhile, real issues are ignored. And one of the real points of the rest of us is that this issue has always been a side show, a distraction - and a major political weapon of the modern Republican Party in particular. Sanford's Party.

This deflection of debate about real issues into side shows of self-claimed virtue, family values, personal sexual morality, and the like, is a major factor in how guys like Sanford got elected and re-elected, how guys like Rove framed public debate, how guys like W obtained their political base, how creations like the modern Republican Party gained enormous political power without demonstrating the slightest capability of governing the country, without showing the slightest comprehension of the public interest or the common good.

When you live by the sword, and have helped established through your own efforts the sword as a major means of living, you can't expect a pass when it's your turn to die by it.

And getting rid of the people who have been living by that sword is a real issue in American politics right now.

I think the real issue is being missed. The real issue in my mind is credibility. How can you believe Republicans when they say one thing and do the opposite? There is an old saying, "actions speak louder than words" and it has never been more true of the Republican Party than now.

When you live by the sword, and have helped established through your own efforts the sword as a major means of living, you can't expect a pass when it's your turn to die by it.

And getting rid of the people who have been living by that sword is a real issue in American politics right now.I don't agree that this particular sword is wielded solely or even mainly by Republicans. Both sides use "the politics of personal destruction" (as Clinton described it) as a weapon against the opposition.

I don't agree that this particular sword is wielded solely or even mainly by Republicans. Both sides use "the politics of personal destruction" (as Clinton described it) as a weapon against the opposition. The Republican Party depends on it more, uses it more diligently and obsessively, and has anchored much more of its political power on such tactics and the threat of them.

There is no national Democratic equivalent of the loyal Republican media attack dogs, or the modern national standard Republican campaign strategy with its innuendos and falsehoods and obsessive slander.

And someone like Sanford, who has benefited from his Party's approach, is getting off very easy by simply being pilloried for what he actually did.

My comment was on the shear Schadenfreude going on over these scandals. They're just humans being human. No great consequence. Nothing to be learned in the discussion or analysis of these stories that couldn't be learned by watching a soap opera ....

.... That's my point, this isn't a real issue. It's a side show, a distraction. Meanwhile, real issues are ignored. Pay no attention as we spend the country into oblivion, but look! That guy cheated on his wife! And he's a conservative!!! :eek:


• • •

I don't agree that this particular sword is wielded solely or even mainly by Republicans. Both sides use "the politics of personal destruction" (as Clinton described it) as a weapon against the opposition.

You're still overlooking the underlying point. The Democrats may be political cowards in refusing to stand up to certain forms of Republican tyranny, but they're not the ones openly campaigning against sex, sexuality, and civil rights.

That people are humans being humans is one thing. And if that's all there is to it, that's fine with me.

But the Republican Party has made adultery and sexual morality a very visible and impacting part of their platform. This is the issue people are pointing out, and you seem utterly blind to it.


But damn, you sure got worked up about it. You sounded like I'd just insulted you mother. Settle down. As I said, this whole issue is bullshit of no consequence to anyone but the people involved.

You know, back during the election, you made the point that during the season you step up the rhetoric. And that's it's own issue, but you've also kept it up to a certain degree since.

So there is some irony in the fact that you can deal hyperbole, but not accept it of others. Unfortunately, it's a sad irony.

The Republican Party depends on it more, uses it more diligently and obsessively, and has anchored much more of its political power on such tactics and the threat of them.

There is no national Democratic equivalent of the loyal Republican media attack dogs, or the modern national standard Republican campaign strategy with its innuendos and falsehoods and obsessive slander.

And someone like Sanford, who has benefited from his Party's approach, is getting off very easy by simply being pilloried for what he actually did.

Remember The Moral Majority championed by Republicans? Remember that Sandford was scheduled to speak at the Values Summit.

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/06/sanford_also_vanishes_from_values_voter_summit.php

I don't agree that this particular sword is wielded solely or even mainly by Republicans. Both sides use "the politics of personal destruction" (as Clinton described it) as a weapon against the opposition.

Show me one Democrat speaking at any of the many morals forums the Republicans regularly attend and you may have a point.

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

I'm all about larger pictures, but there comes a point when the picture is so large that the original point becomes lost in the vast size of the expanded canvas and it begins to seem, I'm only saying it seems mind you, like the point of expanding the canvas in the first place was to achieve some sort of muddying. I have no idea whether that's what you're after here and won't speculate. I will only say that you seemed to breeze through the moral failings of the Democrats quite quickly.

Of course, in the overall scheme of things, where a politician puts his penis is much less important than how he votes or who he takes money from, so perhaps this is the perspective you were trying to make us think about?


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.

I have no doubt Frank's homosexuality played a major role in his being targeted, but I also don't buy his pleas of ignorance or excuses about the company he was keeping. That is, just as is the case with heteros, there are the sort of people you should be hanging around and the sort of people you shouldn't. It gets back to that old notion my mother drilled into me about picking my friends very carefully.


Clinton? The idea that a sitting president should give a deposition in a civil lawsuit was certainly novel at the time.

I agree, and it also set a terrible precedent.


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.

I don't dispute any of this.

My initial post hinted at my disgust with the Republicans -- I will add the Media now -- and that disgust -- or dismay rather -- continues to this day. What they did was petty, dangerous and wrong. But that doesn't somehow let Clinton off the hook. To hell with cigars and blowjobs, I'm talking about his childish behavior and his war-room, kill or be killed mentality. The man made a mountain of lies, when, like Richard Nixon, he could have flushed the whole sordid thing down the toilet with a little honesty and some calculated mea culpa. But Clinton, of course, could not do that.


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 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1780239&postcount=3) (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 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1780670&postcount=10) 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.

Fair enough.


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.

The fact that Congress would essentially look after its own isn't terribly surprising to me. One of the only recent displays of bipartisanship I can remember came when Jefferson's office was raided by the FBI and the marked bills removed from his fridge. Like roaches with the lights cut on, the Congressmen from both parties denounced the entire thing and literally quaked with fear at the thought of having Feds in their offices. It was pretty amusing to watch.


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.

To reiterate, he could have just admitted it and moved on. I mean, I guess what I am saying is that just because some very bad people come after you doesn't give you a license to just behave anyway you want and then point the finger back at them and say, 'Well, they started it.' That's childish. Clinton should have been the bigger man. He was president for Christ's sake.


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.

They do have rights, and I never asserted they do not or should not. If Spitzer had his rights violated, then something should have happened to those who violated them. The problem is that proving political prosecution is tough, especially if lawbreaking was discovered through it. The law cannot ignore what is uncovered. And politically speaking, complaining about the merits of an investigation are tough when you've been caught red-handed. People tend to think you're obfuscating. So there wasn't much Spitzer could do but limp home.


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.

It's an issue of taste.

I respected Edwards' wife, and I saw first hand how he used her. It was the beginning of my disgust for him. This occurred at a fundraiser. He, or his people, had set up a "Get Well" card for her that included everyone's name and email address. This was a moment when the cancer was particularly bad. I was disgusted a few weeks later when I was told, by several of the people on the actual card, that they had been sent an email soliciting for donations. The card, in other words, was nothing more than a ploy to collect email accounts for donations. I thought then that any man who would trade on his wife's mortality was pretty low on the scale of humanity.

But I never applied this moniker to her. Heck, I felt even worse for her when his affair was exposed. But how can one continue to sympathize when her response is to take the shame, embarrassment and immorality of an obviously dysfunctional marriage and convert it into dollars? I mean, did she really need to go on EVERY television channel that would have her to "share" her emotions about the entire incident with the entire nation? This sort of public blood letting for cash just sickens me. And there is something distinctly shallow and unhealthy about it.


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 (http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp090624president_obama_and_) 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.

LOL. What are they going to explain? Hormones? Ego?


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.

And I agreed with this. Part of the reason I am not -- and never have been -- a Republican is that they are obsessed with reproduction in an almost child-like way. It boggles the mind.


That is why people are actually enjoying the spectacle of all these angels tumbling from the sky with their wings aflame.

The only thing I would add is that people love other people tumbling, generally speaking.


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

Please?

I'm not a conservative, but I cold speculate. . .

The Republican Party depends on it more, uses it more diligently and obsessively, and has anchored much more of its political power on such tactics and the threat of them.

There is no national Democratic equivalent of the loyal Republican media attack dogs, or the modern national standard Republican campaign strategy with its innuendos and falsehoods and obsessive slander.

And someone like Sanford, who has benefited from his Party's approach, is getting off very easy by simply being pilloried for what he actually did.

Ice, how much do you even know about Sanford? I doubt it's very much, because if you knew anything about the man, you would realize that he isn't very popular in the Party.

I think the real issue is being missed. The real issue in my mind is credibility. How can you believe Republicans when they say one thing and do the opposite? There is an old saying, "actions speak louder than words" and it has never been more true of the Republican Party than now.

And we can have more faith in the Democrats? Really :roflmao:

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.

Obviously the SC governor abandoned his post. I wasn't talking directly about that point, just the point in general of obsessing about where politicians stick their pokers. Who cares?

~String

Obviously the SC governor abandoned his post. I wasn't talking directly about that point, just the point in general of obsessing about where politicians stick their pokers. Who cares?

~String

Personally i think the fact that he flew off for 6 days should be a bigger story but this is what happens in a sexually repressed country.

Now Sanford admits he "crossed the line" with other women as well.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWExYzRiZGQyMjA5NDNlNThjNTQzMzMzMTc4ODJkZjk=

Far from wanting Sanford out as Buffalo Roam states, Republicans want him to stay inspite of his moral transgressions.

http://timesnews.net/article.php?id=9014814