Originally Posted By DAR <<<Your point being? Is this an attempt to excuse Newt's behavior?>>> <<No, I don't think so...I think he's just not too shocked by badly behaving politicians (on either side) anymore.>> Bingo.
Originally Posted By ecdc I guess I've just noticed that this is your typical response, DAR. Anytime someone says a politician did something wrong - you respond and say they all do it. If it's not to excuse the behavior, then I guess I don't understand. I genuinely don't get why you keep posting it (and I honestly don't say that as a criticism). Is it to say there's no value in having the discussion at all? All politicians suck, so let's all hang up our keyboards and go home? Or is it something else? Truly, I don't get it.
Originally Posted By DAR Honestly ecdc, I'm quite bored by the overall bad behavoir in our society. A politician is caught having a sexual affair with a page, boring. A famous starlet has to go to rehab and was caught with a sex tape, boring. A pro athelete is accused of firing a loaded weapon into a crowded night club, boring. Eventually I've just become numb to this stuff. Now I'm not excusing this behavoir, but let's for once see good and honest behavoir by someone with influence in this country. The problem is good and honest doesn't sell in the media. Each media outlet has some sort of agenda. Whether it's the NY Times railing against the Bush administration or Hannity blathering on for three hours about the evils of Hillary. I'm sorry but I'm just going to work up some fake outrage over things that have just be common place in our society.
Originally Posted By ecdc Thanks for the explanation, DAR. It's interesting - until I just read your post I hadn't thought about how negative and scandal-obsessed we seem to be. I guess I'm numb to it too. It's a shame it's that way.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> Any attempt to distinguish who's the better person but still a cheat is, well, comical. I'm sorry ... did I say which one was BETTER? They're both stinkers. There are those on the left taking glee at Gingrich's admission. My point is they shouldn't. Their guy was not only a womanizer ... he ABUSED women, which the left still can't come to grips with. >>> it's not my place to tell someone else they're wrong for who they sleep with, or how often - as long as it's consensual. There are SO many things wrong with that statement. Consent does not give license to anything. For starters, Gingrich consented to marriage vows. Consenting to break them, even with a consenting partner, is NOT okay. When someone goes before the state, and witnesses, and a marriage company, and makes a public declaration to uphold his marital vows, it becomes EVERYONE'S business ... BY HIS OWN CONSENT. Divorce costs all of us, you know. You may not take the opportunity (we can't offend anyone, can we?), but it IS your place to expect people to remain faithful to their spouse. After all, when a marriage goes wrong, who picks-up the pieces? We ALL do. >>> We've said it before, but GOP scandals always resonate more because of the posturing of moral superiority that they adopt. You don't see that in democrats. Didn't we just see that with Al Gore's hypocrisy regarding global warming? Moral superiority is in generous quantities on the left, too, and there also will hypocrites be found. One might say that right wing scandal gets more attention because the left (generally speaking) has lower expectations regarding personal behavior. If I were politically left, I wouldn't take any comfort in that. Why would anyone WANT a reputation where poor personal behavior is par for the course?
Originally Posted By HyperTyper I read this morning that Jerry Falwell is basically saying he accepts Gingrich's apology, and thinks it would be a mistake to kill his presidential chances over this. I know from where this is coming: There are those on the right who are not comfortable with the politics of Giuliani or McCain. And Falwell, I'm sure, doesn't want a Mormon in the White House, even though he is (literally and figuratively) a Boy Scout. So he wants a more 'conventional' candidate, and he's willing to give a pass to Gingrich's abominable behavior and half-baked apology to provide one. I don't think most right-wing Christians feel this way, and it's going to come back to haunt Falwell and other right-wing leaders who have hangups over petty political or theological differences. I'm not saying Gingrich shouldn't be forgiven. But we don't need to reward his record on personal integrity with the highest office in the nation. That he is being presented as a good alternative to Giuliani, McCain or Romney by the likes of Falwell bugs the living heck out of me. What an embarrassment.
Originally Posted By jonvn It is fake outrage, too, really. People looking for things to get upset over because they are on the other side. In this case, it's not the affair that Newt had that bothers me so much as the attempt to smear someone else doing the same thing he was. That's why our government is failing us. Behavior like that. Not affairs.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < he ABUSED women, which the left still can't come to grips with.> Perhaps because nothing was ever proven to this effect. <it's going to come back to haunt Falwell> It won't, because the man has no shame, and his followers have no end to their gulllibility. If the man had any shame, or his followers cared a whit about hypocrisy or transparent political expediency (not to mention far more outrageous and vile statements uttered by him), his career and influence would have been over long ago. <That he is being presented as a good alternative to Giuliani, McCain or Romney by the likes of Falwell bugs the living heck out of me. What an embarrassment.> Indeed. But it should be noted that Guiliani cheated on his wife too, more than once.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka << Divorce costs all of us, you know. You may not take the opportunity (we can't offend anyone, can we?), but it IS your place to expect people to remain faithful to their spouse. After all, when a marriage goes wrong, who picks-up the pieces? We ALL do.>> Oh brother.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka <<No, it's true. I'm having to pay my neighbor's alimony.>> Well, you should have been a better neighbor and made them stay together.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Well yeah, because the state of their relationship is "EVERONE'S BUSINESS". So go ahead, cast that first stone.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The point here isn't that Newt was cheating on his wife. I mean, that matters in terms of a person's character, but the larger point is the hypocrisy of him going after Clinton at the same time. Newt might say "Well, I didn't lie under oath about my affair, so it's different." But it does re-open the question as to why Clinton was even asked about Lewinsky in the first place in relation to the Whitewater investigation. It exposes the true motive behind the investigation -- Get Clinton, somehow, someway, no matter how. I bought into the the point that the President shouldn't have been lying under oath no matter what, but this latest revalation makes the whole business that much slimier and suspect -- something critics of the Starr investigation had been saying all along and I'd been rather slow to absorb.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It exposes the true motive behind the investigation -- Get Clinton, somehow, someway, no matter how.> How does it do that?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>How does it do that?<< For many, it is baffling that an investigation into the Whitewater land deal ended up airing Clinton's repeated trysts with an intern. The only reason it resonated at all is because Clinton had the bad luck to lie about it under oath. Otherwise, it would have likely been no more than another blip in the Washington scandal-meter. It is the nature of these investigations to eventually go for broke when it starts to become obvious that nothing is going to pan out. More recently, for example, Fitzgerald was going after high ranking members of the Bush administration for leaking Valerie Plame's CIA status; he ended up with an aide who perjured himself...
Originally Posted By alexbook >>I read this morning that Jerry Falwell is basically saying he accepts Gingrich's apology, and thinks it would be a mistake to kill his presidential chances over this. << This is what bothers me about the whole conversation. By openly confessing to his sexual misbehavior, I'm afraid he's setting the stage for a scenario in which his more serious, official misbehaviors will be forgotten about in a big forgiveness festival. Or is that too Machiavellian?
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "I read this morning that Jerry Falwell is basically saying he accepts Gingrich's apology..." Here's the part of this whole story that ticks me off - who the hell is Jerry Falwell to say he accepts Gingrich's apology? Does he think he's God or something? Oh wait...maybe he does.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> Perhaps because nothing was ever proven to this effect. So, when Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick ... all Democrats and former Clinton fans, mind you ... all give credible accounts of Clinton's abusive behavior, you would write it off because "nothing was ever proven" ???? One doesn't have to convict Clinton of anything, so proof isn't necessary. All one needs to correctly deem Clinton a serial abuser is the credible testimony of multiple witnesses, and hese women had nothing to gain and everything to lose by accusing Clinton.. Hearing them tell their stories, dismissing them, and defending Bill Clinton indicates a serious error in judgement. >>> It won't, because the man has no shame, and his followers have no end to their gulllibility. I don't know any of Falwell's "followers." The media makes him the default head of the Christian right because he's extreme and has a TV show. He is no more the leader of conservative Christians than James Carville is the leader of liberal Democrats. >>> But it should be noted that Guiliani cheated on his wife too, more than once. Yes, and that will be a problem for him. Which is why I back Romney, and I'm quite curious about Fred Thompson, who I admire greatly. >>> Oh brother. What, you think I'm joking? Do you have any idea what divorce does to kids? And how relatives, neighbors, teachers and schools have to take-up the slack and do some pretty serious damage control? My sister is divorced, and everyone from my parents and me to the schools and the state have had to jump in and do what the kids' parents should have done by fulfilling their marital obligations. A split family exacts a huge financial and emotional toll on many people, in and out of the family involved. It's dang serious, and people laughing it off like you did only exacerbate the problem. Sorry, but you've really got me going here. I'm so annoyed with people who get married, invite all their friends and family, and ask us to buy them these and those gifts for which they've registered at Macy's and Target. Then, two years down the road, they claim they've fallen out of love, one (or both) starts fooling around. Then comes the divorce, dividing property, and child custody and visitation. Each parent has their own rent or mortgage, and if they can't hack it, they demand welfare, and/or food stamps, and/or subsidized child care, and it goes on and on. Not to mention that kids, angry and hurt and without consistency in their home lives, turn to substance abuse, sex, crime, etc. to fill the void left by divorce in their lives. (Rates for all these problems rise dramatically in divorce situations.) And, of course, society gets the bill for cleaning up the mess left in the wake of a broken vow and a broken family. Casting the first stone? No... Others have cast it before me. But I'm not married yet. Waiting until I meet the one I can commit my life to, with no turning back. So am I walking the talk? Sure trying to. >>> Does he think he's God or something? No, just God's official spokesman. >>> This is what bothers me about the whole conversation. By openly confessing to his sexual misbehavior, I'm afraid he's setting the stage for a scenario in which his more serious, official misbehaviors will be forgotten about in a big forgiveness festival. Or is that too Machiavellian? Yes and no. Misbehavior of this kind is always more "juicy" in the media. But I really don't think Gingrich is going to go far, so it will be irrelevant. There is interest in him because some Republicans are wanting more of a "true conservative." I think they'll find a more likable candidate in Fred Thompson, if he runs. And I really do think Mitt Romney's inarguable fiscal ability and record of success, his ability to communicate and resonate, and his squeaky-clean personal life will win people over. It's already happening.
Originally Posted By jonvn "What, you think I'm joking?" You ought to be, or you're very seriously out of touch with society.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You ought to be, or you're very seriously out of touch with society.> I don't think he's out of touch with society. I suspect a lot more people feel the way he does then feel the way you do.
