Republican Political Rule: Return Adulterers to Office Immediately

I remember in the middle of the Clinton/Monica scandal, a conservative talk show host said, “Hey, Mr. President, cut it out.  We’re trying to raise children out here.”

He’s still a talk show host, but he doesn’t use that line anymore.  His own party has a host of not-for-family-viewing issues.

The Mark Sanford turn around has become commonplace.  Newt Gingrich operates in the top circle of Republican Party politics. Larry (wide stance) Craig served out his term after being arrested for solisciting gay sex.

This is not to say Republican politicians have worse track records than Democrats.  It’s that Republicans claim to be the “family values” party.

That Republicans make such a dubious claim takes cheek.  It is a meaningless term.  It could have many meanings including endorsement of gay marriage.

The reelection of South Carolina’s Mark Sanford gives us an insight into the term “family values”.  It doesn’t really mean stable family life with one man and one woman and children.

Instead, it is code language for the idea, “We’ll always vote for a Republican and never for a Democrat.”  It is the code language of a clan.

The only consquence of Republicans reelecting and supporting liars, cheaters and adulteers is that they need to stop referring to themselves as the “family values” Party.  They need different code language.

If Democrats used as their code, “We are the Party for liberatarians,” they would have the same problem.   Fortunately,  Democrats have not been that dishonest.

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/mark-sanfords-god/

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years. There is more about me at Wikipedia.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to Republican Political Rule: Return Adulterers to Office Immediately

  1. Brad says:

    “This is not to say Republican politicians have worse track records than Democrats. It’s that Republicans claim to be the “family values” party.”

    That’s the key point in all of this. Republicans have won multiple elections on that false premise. They have bamboozled generations of church going zealots into voting for them time after time just by them claiming to be something they are not.

    The sickening thing is that even after the “family values” claim has been proven utterly false, these religious right wingers simply ignore it and continue to assume Republicans have a moral high ground simply because they say so.

  2. Dan says:

    The Dems must have a different genetic code. They don’t appear to be morally corruptible like those republicans. The fact is, all people have a genetic sequence. All people are corruptible and susceptible to sexual immorality. To say that the Dem’s genetic code is someway different from a Republican’s is completely illogical. A human is a human regardless of political standing. What is morality and who defines it? Could an atheist not agree that sexual immorality is purely based on what society views as right and wrong at the time. What if sexual immorality became socially accepted? I believe that it already is so why the fuss about who Mark Sanford is with? I’m lectured about being judgemental and intolerant if I say homosexuality is wrong so why aren’t you for saying Mark Sanford is wrong…he just happened to be with another female.

    • Formerly Fargo Bob says:

      Dan, you’ve missed the entire point of the post. Republicans tout themselves as being the party of “family values,” whatever that’s supposed to mean. Democrats do not parade around with that same holier-than-thou attitude. That’s the point being made, not that Democrats don’t commit sexual indiscretions.

      • Dan says:

        My point is that both parties are corruptible. Okay, the Republicans say their pro family values…the Dems say their pro-middle class…really? Thanks to Obama care, my special needs son won’t be receiving therapy after June and I’ll be in a higher tax bracket… The flex spending account was capped at 2,500.00 this year. Don’t mean much if you don’t have many medical expenses…it stresses families who do. But if I speak out against Obama care, I’m a damn racist. But my 10 year old son can’t speak out since he can’t talk. So screw the Dim’s and their Obama care. They’re not for the working class. They are elitists who fill their pockets with tax payer money while telling us we need to pay our fair share. Both parties are a bunch of corrupt a-holes in my book. Only those politicians that uphold the U.S. Constitution and demonstrated courage of character are worthy to hold office in my book…and they are few and far between.

        • Henry says:

          Both sides are pretty much worthless. What ever happened to the Trumans or the Kennedys? We had natural leaders. Now, we have a fossil fuel burner.

          • entech says:

            Henry what you are displaying is hypocracy.
            I would wager that if Dan had been “The Atheist” you would have picked up on and berated him for expecting assistance.

          • Henry says:

            entech, have you no shame? I didn’t comment on dan’s specific personal situation. I will now. My sympathies go out to him.

          • entech says:

            My suggestion was that you would have said something derogatory if he had been an atheist. You will do anything to score points like that.

            Even though I am not a Christian I do have sympathy for his situation, in fact I do think he should have state assistance. Unlike your individualism I do love my neighbor and would like to see a society that was organised for mutual benefit.

          • Henry says:

            entech, I won’t speak to Dan’s situation.

            If the government sticks its hand in your left pocket and pulls all the cash out and in turn sticks its hand in someone else’s left pocket and pulls all their cash out. Then it gives a fraction of the “someone elses” cash and sticks it in your left pocket. Wouldn’t you have been better to have just kept the original amount and pay outright for your needs?

            I suppose in response I will hear you now carry on about the exceptions that liberals use to become the rule.

          • entech says:

            Quite rightly Dan’s situation is his own and personal, I merely observe that if he had been “the atheist”, you would have found some way of being derogatory. That is OK. that is who you are.

            If you could get rid of British tyranny all those years ago, what kind of pussies did you turn into if you allow what you describe?

            In response I can only say I am thinking of an ideal world, this is far from that. Progressives and conservatives make mistakes, they even compound each other’s mistakes. Utopian ideals have been demonstrated, up to now, not to work, doesn’t stop you from having a dream.
            1 Corinthians 13:13
            And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
            - King James Bible “Authorized Version”, Cambridge Edition

            Charity is something that seems to elude you. I give to charity (admit it is mainly to research into heart, diabetes and arthritis all of which I have, as a saving grace I can say that any benefits are more likely to accrue later as well over 70 it is probably a little late for me).
            For me the greatest is hope, and I do hope that those utopian ideals someday come to fruition.

      • entech says:

        Bob what you are describing is hypocracy.

  3. Henry says:

    Jon:“It’s that Republicans claim to be the “family values” party.”

    Jon, I think you have it all wrong. Evidence the democrat party is the party of family values:
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/14/pa-abortion-doctor/2159193/

    • Brad says:

      Henry, when Republicans stop destroying human life after people are born, then and only then will I believe they give a rat’s rear end about a fetus.

  4. Brad says:

    The problem with Obamacare is that it is a corporate insurance lobbyists dream come true. Obamacare is really just a recycled Republican idea from the 1990s.

    That’s the shame of today’s Democratic party. They somehow think they can still be Democrats while implementing Republican ideas.

    It may turn out to be better than what we have had, which was an extremely expensive, inhumane system. Hopefully it is a stepping stone to a true single payer universal healthcare system.

  5. Wanna B Sure says:

    (1.) IRS targeting conservatives. (2.) Bengazi (3.) Who knows, Justice department? tracking AP and other reporters. Systemic. S-N-A-F-U

    • Brad says:

      These are great sideshows for Republicans and their corporate puppetmasters. It provides a great distraction so the right wingers can do their dirty work without anyone watching.

      • Wanna B Sure says:

        “Puppetmasters”; Has the ring of something from the vocabulary of Marxism or Lennin. Now to reverse the favor in the other direction, “spymaster” would seem to fit. Especially with #3. Going back to my 6:58; All three have the sense of a “puppetmaster” behind it as it is so systemic. When one looks at history, both sides have had their moments. Hence the S-N-A-F-U.

        • Henry says:

          (4.) Wiretapping of the U.S. House of Representatives Cloakroom.

          Bad Obamba.

          • Henry says:

            If it were a little peon like me, no big deal. This involves democrat representatives as well as republicrats that were wronged.

            Collin Peterson? What do you think? Do you like having your private conversations monitored, which can be later used to manipulate you within the party during key votes? Inquiring minds want to know. I think we are beginning to see the brilliance of Obamba’s genuinely political genius and success emerge. He has had a little help in achieving this success.

            Is this the man? Ish.

          • Henry says:

            Wholder. Tsk. Tsk. The clay is crumbling from the weight.

          • Henry says:

            Maybe Obamba can give him a pardon for his already standing contempt conviction. He may need a little more help for other things. His good works for the team make up for his sins apparently.

          • Henry says:

            And let me share this little tidbit. Four years ago, I was told by a federal agent at a private gathering that when Obamba took office, they could no longer open a case on a person of interest until they first faxed the name of the individual to Washington and received approval. Prior to that, the federal agents could begin a case locally. Sounds rather political. The old saying of “who you know, not what you know” comes to mind. The resources of the federal government that I am paying for used for political purpose? That is ballzy.

  6. Simple says:

    I have heard the theory that these parties are exactly what they accuse the other one of being. I believe there is truth to it.

    Big spending – big gov’t (judging by what they do in power and not what they say) and no family values. That is the GOP.

    In bed with big business/big money and don’t care about middle class working families. Sounds like the Dems. Again judging by actions when in power, not words.

  7. Simple says:

    I have heard a few interviews with Sanford. The guy is sickening, he cannot stop invoking god.

    These “family values” politicians are usually about judging and condemning others until they get caught doing something. Then it is all about forgiveness and second chances.

  8. Henry says:

    The internet is abuzz with negative Obamba news, including his prying into people’s personal lives. Maybe he is tracking this site, too. A good reason for special spellings.

    • Brad says:

      He is starting to resemble the fascist Bush-Cheney administration. That of course is assuming all of these claims are true. Probably half of it is hogwash.

    • entech says:

      I bet you started half the rumours, for some reason you hate him more than gay
      people. Oh, I forgot you accuse him of being one of them as well!

      Do you like anyone except yourself.

      • Henry says:

        Personal attacks from the atheist. That seems to be all that they have left. Mix a little lie in with a little truth. That is the mark of Satan himself.

        • entech says:

          Not really, I am a just a foreigner and know nothing of what is going on. I only observe what you have said over time, you repeat rumours, reference some dubious sites and so on.

          I don’t know what is truth and what is lie, I just probe what you say to see what is behind it all.

          Mark of Satan, where on earth does that come from, did your creator create that as well?

        • entech says:

          Reading:
          “internet a buzz with negative … ”
          How much is “news” how much “speculation”, I don’t really think you go around starting these stories, just a bit of exaggeration to see the reaction, I learned that one from you. But, you do do seem to search for them and repeat them without any sought of verification (except your 4 year old private conversation with a federal agent, different thread and wouldn’t seriously call you a liar, it just sounds dubious but then I am a skeptic).

          Prying, is that something new? I am sure I read something as far away as here about Bush and Co. and illegal phone tapping, Hoover was supposed to have had a file on everyone, looking at the history of government he would be remiss if he wasn’t following precedent.

          Tracking this site. :lol:

          The “special” spellings are just foolishness, a schoolyard gimmick, (cletinist clap ;)

          Your reaction seems very defensive.

          • Henry says:

            Read, my son.

            I was just recently informed by a friend that Billy Bob Klinton was impeached because he had an extramarital affair. My friend apparently didn’t read either, but rather just relied on the focus of the news media.

          • entech says:

            Who are you talking about? I keep reminding you it is over 25 years since I was in America (couple of Hawaiian holidays don’t count) and am not really up to date which is why I avoid political specifics (that and not having voting rights).

            Good old Wikipedia, tells me that only 64 proceedings of impeachment have been implemented with only 19 actually being passed. As we are talking essentially about you criticising Your President I checked the charges against two of them one in 1865 for some constitutional violation. And one William Clinton who was charged with perjury and abuse of power. Both were acquitted.

            There does not seem to be any one impeached for having and extra-marital affair, actually if that were an impeachable offense it would probably be difficult to find a candidate. It seems that most men who attain a position of power like to rule with a rod of iron, so to speak.

            Working my way through spelling I am assuming you were referring to Clinton, I can only hope that as you write with such authority you are less ignorant than your friend.

            On the question of media focus and similar;
            Reading:
            “internet a buzz with negative … ”
            How much is “news” how much “speculation”

            I was only asking for elucidation, for example, I see suggestions that Obama should be impeached – what on earth is that about and all the idiots suggesting he is not really American, is really a Muslim and wants to turn the current <1% into a majority. Blind hatred is a strange thing which leads down some strange paths.

          • Henry says:

            entech:“There does not seem to be any one impeached for having and extra-marital affair, actually if that were an impeachable offense it would probably be difficult to find a candidate.”

            My son, I think you may need to read a little more, but let me help you out. I feel charitable tonight.

            1. In America, being impeached is just merely having the impeachment charges being brought against you. It doesn’t necessarily mean you are convicted. Billy Clinton was impeached, but not convicted.

            2. It is obvious for those paying attention that one cannot be impeached for an extramarital affair. I am unaware of any civil law against such. My friend, however, thought Billy Clinton was impeached for an extramarital affair. That is a testament to the focus of the reporting being on the affair, not the perjury committed by the top US political official. It is also a testament to the ability of the average American to really care about their politics. I really don’t think they do. They vote how their pappy vote or whatever. Political convictions are a little soft from my perception. This is great advantage to the democrat party. Rah-rah, good-time, rock and roll, ready to party, but not really wanting or able to take on the huge problems we face. The republicrats are on this same track as well. They had several years of majority in the last decade with the problems slowly building. These building problems were pointed out by the republicrats, but nothing was done by them, so they are to blame as well. In essence, it seems our country has no vision and the citizens as a whole do not really care. Some are pretty passionate one way or the other, but most do not care. All they know is that politically, Billy was impeached because of his relationship with Monica.

          • entech says:

            Henry, thank you for your guidance.
            1. In a simplified way what I see is:
            There is an accusation of wrongdoing, there is a vote in the house of representative as to whether the accusation should be heard. A simple majority is all that is needed for the accusation to go forward, the accused is impeached.
            After due process a two thirds majority is required to convict.
            Conviction means expulsion from office.

            A little different but it seems the formal accusation remains if there is no conviction. An interesting point in Scottish Law is a third verdict available Guilty, Not Guilty and Not Proven. A not proven verdict and a not guilty on impeachment both seem to quite different from a declaration of innocence. Nixon appears to have resigned on the mere threat of impeachment his successor Had previously defined the grounds for impeachment as “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” under that definition Obama better be sure he ties his shoelace correctly :) .

            2. I agree it would require the introduction of some Christian version of sharia to make that an offense. I wonder, do you think the penalty should be removal from office or an all out stoning? I think you might agree with me, just this once (you did say you were feeling charitable), when I said if such charges were possible it would be difficult to find candidates.
            The rest of the paragraph is local politics from which I am excluded. But, in a general vein it seems to be pretty universal, the media has far more influence than it should, The right always accuse the press of being pinko, socialists and the left accuses them of being fascist propagandists. Don’t want to sound too much like a conspiracy nut, but this seems to be encouraged by those behind the policies and allows them to slip quietly into positions of influence.

          • Henry says:

            entech:“the media has far more influence than it should”
            They’re rights are explicitly constitutional. Few special interest groups have that right spelled out. The theory is that a unrestricted, free press will keep the people informed. They utterly fail at that. Their focus is off, and minor details get overemphasized by them. They get an F at their constitutionally charged position. Even the local paper is sliding from its triumphant and esteemed past. I still get the paper. I can now read it in about 5-10 minutes. It used to keep me engaged for 15-20 minutes. The content has decreased. The business section is a shadow of its former might. The content has also changed. A significant portion has shifted to content similar to a women’s magazine. Regional news seems to be less. Sports has probably maintained its competency for the main interests. The outdoor section has been neutered. The weather section is now buried in the sports section where it used to be on page two. Slowly sliding and shifting just like all the news.

  9. Henry says:

    This is great, Brad. Obamba’s failings are coming to light with the ice tong just ever so gently tugging away at the tip of the iceberg. Meanwhile, based on a number of your comments on this web page, you are blaming his problems and illegalities on Republicans. This sounds so much like the political banter that occurred during the Russian Revolution. Your targets of businessmen closely match that sad chapter of history.

  10. Wolfy32 says:

    Jon, you’ve been there, in the political hotseat.. I think the issue you’re describing, is not so much the soap box issue you describe. But, more the expectation that politicians and political parties must adhere for some reason to a higher code of ethics than is humanly possible. Yes, Republicans expect a lot of their politicians, they expect them to be “mini popes” that uphold biblical principals, and dems to want to fight that at a super human level.

    If both parties were above being human we’d have an interesting war on our hands, yet, they are both human with human motivated agenda’s and plans. And that agenda includes selfish appeasement and gratification and given their power it comes out pretty selfish and pretty self gratifying. The truth is I don’t think any person in those positions would be immune to their misguided misgivings. We can say all we want, but, I have a tough time believing that any of us would do much better once in the position. Yes there are misguided hipocritical actions, and yes, we expect MUCH more of our politicians regardless of their party.. In the end both parties are only human that can only do the best with the pressures, stresses, and temptations they have.

    I’m not at all condoning their hurtful actions of others, I’m simply stating a fact that yes, they are human therefore vulnerable to human tendancies. I don’t know what to do about that other than force the really bad ones out of office by not electing them, and hoping the next person is any better.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Wolfy 12:37 “..they are human therefore vulnerable to human tendancies.”

      I agree. The problem is they sometimes portray themselves, and the Party they represent, as being on a higher plain. Both parties have done this at times. But, in most recent decades it has been Republicans claiming family values. If they would stick to they claim of being for smaller government, which they really are not for, they would not find themselves in such an indefensible position.

    • entech says:

      Sounds similar to the situation where I live and vote. The galling part though is the way they portray themselves as superior, they are only there for our benefit doing what they can for us and us alone in a totally selfless manner. The only time you see a unanimous vote is for the politicians pay rise.

      They would be more honest as stand up comedy stars.

  11. Brad says:

    “‘Puppetmasters’; Has the ring of something from the vocabulary of Marxism or Lennin.”

    “This sounds so much like the political banter that occurred during the Russian Revolution. ”

    I just love the conservatives. The minute you rebut them on anything, the references to communism, marxism, etc come out.

    Here is their logic: Karl Marx breathed air. Therefore, anyone who breathes air is a Marxist.

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      “Rebut”; Terribly weak for what’s in the news, and a knee-jerk. Maybe if you pinch your lips, close your eyes, puff out your cheeks it will go away. If it walks like a duck…. it’s a snafu.

      • Brad says:

        I know you guys are just itching for scandals that can take down Obama, but let’s slow down a minute and look at the facts:

        1 – Benghazi – this is REALLY old news. No scandal here, and if the GOP couldn’t get any traction on it during the election, how will they now?

        2 – IRS – Obama has already replaced the head of the IRS, and so far there is absolutely no evidence that Obama has anything to do with targeting Tea Bag people.

        3 – Secretive tracking of AP news media – not enough facts have come out yet, so it’s very premature to start hanging Obama with this. And besides, this is the “liberal media” we are talking about. I would think you conservatives would be loving this.

        The fundamental problem is that since January 20th 2009 Obama has been defined by the right as evil, corrupt, criminal, or whatever, and all conservatives have been doing since then is trying to find anything to confirm that predetermined conclusion. At the end of the day, I think Obama will prevail and all these phony scandals will do is make the GOP look like the witch hunting power hungry zealots they are.

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          Zealots”???? You my friend are the poster boy of “zealots”. Wear it well.

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          Brad; From my 6:58, You failed to notice that I didn’t even mention Obama. I did say “systemic”. That would include sympathizers and activests of the party and philosophy that Obama is a part of. Your defensive zealoutry stands out loud and clear. SNAFU

          • Brad says:

            Well, we will see what happens. I don’t think it is “zealotry” to want all the facts to come out before drawing any conclusions.

            I think this is all going to backfire on the Republicans in the end, but like I said, we shall see.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            You may want to see all the facts, as do I, but you must be able to read all the words said, not just the ones you choose to see. Twice now you have failed to do so. We shall see how you do in the future.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Reference- My 11:27 pm, and my 12:33 am. We shall see.

          • Brad says:

            “You may want to see all the facts, as do I, but you must be able to read all the words said, not just the ones you choose to see.”

            I read everything you said, some of which was irrelevant, and I responded to the parts that were relevant.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Selective. Not very objective.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            But your is the way of a zealot.

        • Henry says:

          Brad,
          #1 I guess we don’t really know yet what the news fully is. The first emails released were 67 hours following the incident. The administration isn’t behaving. I guess we’ll see what is left following the shredders.

          #2 hasn’t been taken care of. Bad behavior is rewarded by Obamba.

          http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/irs-official-in-charge-during-tea-party-targeting-now-runs-health-care-office/

          #3 These weren’t the arguments during Watergate. The buck stopped at the prez back then. Now, we will see. Not looking promising. I am sure it is some junior staff’s fault. Fire them! That’ll fix it.

          • Brad says:

            1. Again, REALLY OLD NEWS. This is just a Republican witch hunt.

            2. Again, nothing to prove that Obama directed the IRS to target Tea Baggers.

            3. Actually, we are at the stage that Watergate was at about 5 months before the 1972 election where Nixon won by a landslide.

            The problem is that you and others on the right have already convicted Obama of every crime and wrongdoing in human history way before all the facts are out. Even O’Reilly on Fixed News has said as much.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Brad; THE WORD IS SYSTEMIC ! ! ! ! ! ! !
            Your defensive eye is only on Obama.
            For goodness sake, take the larger view.

          • Henry says:

            Glad to see you like facts. Speaking of facts, why is there a cabinet member still on his staff that has a standing criminal and civil contempt conviction? I would think that a good and honorable leader would dismiss him. You or I would be in prison complete with dripping, leaking sewer pipes with the same conviction.

          • Brad says:

            “THE WORD IS SYSTEMIC ! ! ! ! ! ! !

            Ok, fine. I don’t disagree.

            And my point is not simply a defense of Obama. I am just pointing out that the only thing that matters to most of the people on the right is destroying Obama, not justice.

            Let me put it this way. If Obama, or any president, is guilty of any wrongdoing, and I don’t mean wild accusations, I mean actual proven wrongdoings, then that president should be held accountable.

          • Brad says:

            “Speaking of facts, why is there a cabinet member still on his staff that has a standing criminal and civil contempt conviction?”

            I’m not sure who you are talking about (please enlighten me), but anyone who has a standing criminal and civil contempt conviction would imply that the person has already been through the court system, and has paid his/her due to society. If that’s not the case, then either the standing criminal and civil contempt conviction is a figment of someone’s imagination, or maybe the person’s sentence was dropped.

            In any case, ex cons have as much right to a job as anyone else.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Brad; Re. your 3:19; “I mean actual proven wrongdoings then that the president should be held accountable.”—-Yes, as should all those systemically connected to him, and not simply dismissed. I see the problem of surveylance of the AP reporters to be the most agregious, and sinister. Did the Pres do it? no. The disconcerting thing is, is that they most likely operated independently on their own without the Pres’. knowlege. Yet for his benefit. A rich ground for consperitorial theorists, of which I am not.

          • Henry says:

            Brad May 17, 2013 at 3:25 am

            You are speculating and not really knowing. The sitting US AG has been found in criminal and civil contempt. Hasn’t really been reported much. That must mean it didn’t happen. No one cares. He isn’t a republicrat and no sex was involved. Story done. Yet we hear some drone on about corruption in previous administrations. On and on.

        • Wanna B Sure says:

          An article in yesterday’s Christian Post; “George Soros funded groups prod IRS to investigate conservative organizations”
          “Gainer believes the scandal underscores what can happen when ideologically like minded people serve in federal dapartments and are pressured by outside groups of the same political ideology to investigate organizations deemed to hold an opposing view point”.
          How high is “low level”.
          Systemic.

        • Dan says:

          The “phony” scandals??? Are you on an acid trip or something? You need to stop living in the lies and wake up. Our government is corrupt. We need term limits on the senate and congress. Your wonderful government’s IRS led to a friend of mine to commit sucide yesterday morning. He has been harassed by the IRS for years. Of course he was a conservative. He lived in Mill Creek Illinois. His name was Ivan. He will be missed. Screw the IRS and their pupped master Obama. But I know people that will keep drinking the governments Kool-Aid. Brad, put the Koo-Aid down and use your head for a moment and think about your fondness of our government.

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      Re. my 1:07—–read last two sentences; “When one looks at history both sides have had their moments. Hence snafu.” You may not have noticed “both sides”, in your haste.

    • Henry says:

      Brad 12:15:“The minute you rebut them on anything, the references to communism, marxism, etc come out.”

      I guess the following would fall under the category of “etc”.
      Brad 11:41:“He is starting to resemble the fascist Bush-Cheney administration.”

  12. Michael Ross says:

    John McCain divorced his crippled wife who faithfully waited his 5 years as a POW. He married a lady 18 years his junior who happened to be a millionaire.
    The party of “family values” nominated him for president but rejected Ron Paul supposedly because he was unelectable. I believe it was because he has been faithful to the same wife for 55 years.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html

  13. David says:

    I wouldn’t suspect that Democrats are in favor of adultery. One might be hard pressed to find a Democrat that comes out in favor of adultery? You could label them the anti-adultery party – could you not? Yet how dare they, the anti-adultery party, stand by Clinton, during his well publicized adultery? What a bunch of hypocrites. They must be a bunch of liars and cheaters who are really in favor of adultery – or simply care not one whit about it.

    So do Democrats believe that an adulterer, to the same degree as Sanford, should not be punished for running for office as long as they have never condemned someone for being an adulterer? Jon I think you value hypocrisy or the lack thereof way too much. I have no issue with someone holding a high standard and failing to live by it. Don’t we tell our kids to shoot for excellence – even though many of us are not excellent? Well, then let’s knock it off. Kids – shoot for about average. Have a drink – I did when I was your age – can’t be a hypocrite. Are we allowed to fail? Are we allowed to hold others to higher standards? Are we allowed to say – even though I failed I find it important that society not promote adultery. Is it okay to learn from our mistakes? Should Republicans – who apparently hold high standards – be prohibited from voting for “sinner” candidates, while Democrats – who apparently hold no standards – can vote for any candidate they want no matter the moral decrepitude? Seems unfair. Hypocrisy seems to be the only sin that Liberals recognize these days.

  14. Brad says:

    Democrats and Republicans are roughly equal in terms of personal sex scandals, but the critical difference is that Democrats acknowledge that they are just human who sometimes fall from grace, whereas Republicans have defined themselves and have hung their entire existence on the notion that they are morally superior and stand up for “moral family values”.

    This is the point that the right just can’t deal with. They know they have been exposed as frauds time and time again, so all they can do is attempt to bring Democrats down to their level rather than just admit what they are (which itself would be the “morally correct” thing to do).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>