Why is Adultery a Sin Only For Republicans? State, National, International, posted by Whata Crock, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Dec 12, 2011 at 5:13 pm
I note with interest how the media is doing everything they can to create an identification of Newt Gingrich as "The Adulterer"; with the inference that he consequently can't be trusted to be President. This is the same media that for decades covered up the adultery of Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Bill Clinton. In the last couple of years it has come to light that the media covered up the fact that John Kennedy had a paid staff member, both during his campaign and during his Presidency, whose sole job was to line him up with a "female companion" in virtually every city he visited. Adultery didn't seem to be an issue at all for Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden or John Edwards (until he purportedly committed a crime) when they were running for President. Isn't it amazing how adultery is so heinous for a Republican, but not an issue at all for a Democrat?
Posted by Terry, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on Dec 12, 2011 at 8:12 pm
Yeah, I think they should lay off of Newt. After all, while he was having an extra-marital affair during the impeachment proceedings of Bill Clinton, I recall Newt repeatedly coming to Clinton's defense. Don't you all recall how Newt stepped up boldly, confronted his GOP colleagues, and insisted that they retract their effort to impeach Clinton on grounds of infidelity? All the GOPers clamored for Clinton to step down, but not Newt. I recall him standing shoulder to shoulder with Clinton and facing down all the detractors. Don't you?
So how utterly hypocritical for the corporate press to make an issue of Gingrich's infidelities. Good thinking "Whata Crock." You've really got a good mind.
Posted by Real Republican, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Dec 12, 2011 at 10:33 pm
We have a country to save !. All this chatter would be irrelevant if we went with the clean family man, Mitt Romney, who has been married to his high school sweetheart for 42 years ! Mitt doesn't screw around, break vows and contracts, and doesn't throw verbal bombs as routine.
Posted by joanna, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Dec 12, 2011 at 10:35 pm
I don't believe that only Republicans get slammed for adultery or other "crimes of immorality." It's just that they always present themselves as representing family values, Christianity, apple pie, etc. I'm a Democrat and am much more disgusted by John Edwards--fooling around on his cancer-stricken wife, getting the "other woman" pregnant, using campaign funds to pay for it all, and then lying, lying, lying, arrogant enough to think he could get away with it. He let everybody down--his wife, children, supporters--ugh. I remember how unrelenting Newt was in going after Clinton in Monicagate. He is a hypocrite. If I were Republican, I'd be supporting Romney.
Posted by it is the republicans who make it an issue, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Dec 12, 2011 at 11:27 pm
It is not the democrats who have issues with the adultery stuff; the republican "base" is the one that makes a big deal about issues like this.
Look how quickly the republicans, especially the extreme ones, dropped their support for Cain - just because of allegations of an affair.
The GOP runs on family values nonsense. They also complain about too much government, but they are the ones who want the government to interfere with a woman's right to choose, etc.
I will vote for Romney if he is chosen as the GOP candidate because he is imo better than Obama. But the other candidates, Newt included, will not get my vote, especially not the "new Palin" (aka Bachmann)
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on Dec 12, 2011 at 11:40 pm
Curious said: "Simple answer - none of the Democrats ran on a platform of family values, holier than thou religious right conservatism."
That's right. There are certainly philandering Democrats and no Republican will ever match the excesses of Bill Clinton. The problem with many Republicans, though, is that they want to be not just our political leaders but also our "moral leaders", preaching to us about the importance of their "family values" or the importance of their religious values. That's where they get into trouble. No one likes a hypocrite. For all of his faults, Bill Clinton never presumed to preach to us about morality. But that's not true of Newt Gingrich. Either you've got to walk the talk or you've got to shut up. Gingrich seems unable to do either.
Posted by Fair is Fair, a resident of the Mission Park neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2011 at 8:30 am
Since the GOP preaches "family values", thumps the bible, and tries to regulate what we do in our private lives (like who we can/can't marry, what we can do with our unwanted unborn) they are setting themselves up for incredible hypocracy when they do human things like adultery. So don't be surprised when America and the press call Republicans out more than the more socially-liberal Democrats.
America dislikes adulterers but we hate hypocrites and liars more.
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2011 at 9:05 am
Regarding the issue of Americas declining values, if we can't look to our leaders to set an example, who do we turn to? The past 20 years have seen further declines in morals, even from the debauchery of the 60's. Who should lead us out of the sewer (don't wanna hear who shouldn't suggest morals--you've already pontificated about that position)
Posted by barnstormer, a resident of the Danbury Park neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2011 at 9:42 am
So, I gather from these conversations that we are all suppose to forget about any moral guidelines simply because someone espouses moral values but falls short in there own lives. If one is to follow that logic then there should be no moral law in our society at all because there is not one human being alive that can claim that they havenít been guilty of some hypocrisy at some time in their life.
Posted by Kathleen Ruegseggerthle, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2011 at 9:43 am
P. J. O'Rourke said: "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." There's a new book tackling a similar topic that is controversial for its contents and one of its authors: "One Nation Under Sex," by Larry Flint (Hustler fame) and David Eisenbach, Ph.D., who teaches American political history at Columbia University.
With both sides of the aisle succumbing to the temptations of money and power, I think there are very few saints who walk among us, and the religious right is dead weight the Republican party needs to leave behind.
Posted by This is silly, a resident of the Ridgeview Commons neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2011 at 10:15 am
Seriously? The media ignored Clinton's adultery? Anyone who has been alive for 20 years or more knows exactly who Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinski are. I'm sorry, the media is not partisan when it comes to the sex lives of our elected officials.
Thank you for Kathleen for steering this conversation in the right direction . . . why do so many elected public officials of all political parties engage in this behavior?
Posted by John, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2011 at 10:45 am
Isn't it written somewhere... "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" ?
As many have noted, it is the hypocrisy of the Republican adulterers that garners the attacks. They put themselves forward as protectors of family values, Mom and apple pie. When they turn around and seek gay sex in airport bathrooms, send sex text messages to congressional interns, have extramarital affairs, etc etc, then they have earned severe criticism. Of course the Democrats aren't any better. We're all human. John Edwards was a good example. So was Clinton right there in the White House (what a dope, he jeopardized his whole agenda because he couldn't keep it in his pants).
I do not think that therefore there is no moral ground on which we can stand. I do think, however, that morals require an open mind, tolerance and compassion for our basic humanity. And the Republicans repeatedly fail on that by standing up and demanding people behave according to their own narrow moral compass (dare I say Evangelical Christian?), when they can't live by their own rules.
Meanwhile, President Obama hasn't been accused of any kind of sexual pecadillos (yet). He also doesn't preach how you and I should live our private lives. He is merely quietly leading by example. His White House seems highly disciplined, at least on this account.
Posted by michaelfox, a resident of the Amador Estates neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2011 at 11:23 am
I know, right? It's like the Democrats and Media are all, we support gay rights. But then a Republican congressman gets picked up for soliciting gay sex in an airport bathroom, and they're all, no gay rights for you! You have to be straight because you married a woman. Now if you'll excuse us, we need to get back to tweeting pictures of our underwear to co-eds. Typical Liberal Media hypocrisy!
Posted by Hannah, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2011 at 11:41 am
I'd rather have a competent president in the White House who dallies occasionally in infidelities (e.g., Clinton) than a "solid family man" who lays off tens of thousands of workers without batting an eye in order to make a few bucks (e.g., RoboRomney). Yes, sex-related issues are titillating, but there are more fundamental issues that pertain to one's character.
The attempt to deflect well-founded criticism of the right with the blanket statement that sexual lapses occur on both sides is only that: an attempt to deflect. As many point out, it isn't the lapses that are significant as much as are the hypocrisy among those on the right who have led the charge against those who don't fit their repressed conception of being "family oriented."
Clinton was unfaithful to his wife. Gingrich, at the same time that he was being unfaithful to his wife, spearheaded a campaign to have the "moral degenerate" Clinton removed from office. This isn't a 50-50 proposition. Clinton was a cad, to be sure; Gingrich showed himself to be a cad and a hypocrite, and was willing stop the workings of govt in order to take down the country's leadership simply because Clinton was doing what Gingrich was doing at the same time. They are not comparable. One constitutes a character flaw; the other constitutes evil personified.
Posted by Kathleen Ruegseggerthle, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Both Clinton and Gingrich have character flaws. I don't think it's "evil personified," just a lot of people giving into baser instincts. And the giving in requires another party responding to their own baser instincts. It's not just the sex, it's the power one has or that another is drawn to or someone believes they will gain. All the while, everyone is justifying their own actions as being acceptable or different than the same actions of someone else. "My wife is cold." "Yeah, well my wife is old, and I might have a shot at the White House." "But his wife can't love him like I can, and I'll make a better first lady." And maybe we are all just a little too disappointed because we expect our leaders to be above it all.
Posted by Hannah, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Gingrich spearheads an effort to have Clinton removed from office because of Oval Office hanky-panky, and does this while he himself is having an extramarital affair. The hypocrite Gingrich takes the low road, effectively halts the workings of the Executive Branch, and does so without giving two hoots about the welfare of the country.
Obama has a good amount of evidence to hold trials on Bush, Cheney, et.al. as war criminals. Obama takes the high road for the sake of the country and tells Justice Dept to back off. Yes, we're all flawed, but some leaders don't succumb to temptation as do scumbags like Gingrich.
Saying Clinton and Gingrich have character flaws (implying equality) ignores the fact that one set of character flaws is clearly worse than the other. One is clearly evil personified.
The tired old 'the Democrats do it too-ooo' mantra usually doesn't work, and certainly doesn't work here in this instance, as many posters have already pointed out. The true character flaw is in the personality that is attracted to Republican agenda. The agenda is without moral foundation, and those who are attracted to it are themselves walking moral deficits who are untroubled by his or her party's lack of morals. See, for example, how the majority of Republicans are supporting either the nation killer Gingrich or the job killer Romney.
Posted by Hannah, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Yes, let's follow Stacey's lead and ignore moral differences between the parties and their leaders. Then she and those of us who are uncomfortable talking about morality can minimize all criticism of Repub thugs. Sure 'nuff.
Note how she doesn't attempt to argue that Gingrich, through his actions, was or was not evil personified. Instead, the embittered old prune attacks the messenger. Par for the course.
Posted by Hannah, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Stacey, once again in pursuit of the mythical 'Jane' that figures so prominently in her shallow life, attacks the messenger. It's easier for her to do so rather than defend the scumbag Gingrich. And she thinks posters here care whether she, the obsessive one, takes them seriously? What a riot!
Posted by Kathleen Ruegseggerthle, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Is Obama taking the high road if he is protecting known criminals? Isn't it possible that he is rowing the same leaky boat and is now guilty too? Guantanamo is still open; we aren't officially out of Iraq; we invaded Pakistan just long enough to kill an enemy we could have just grabbed. Lots of sins to mark Clinton and Gingrich: greed, wrath, envy, pride, lust . . .
Hate the sin, not the sinner? Big leap from Clinton is no better than Gingrich to Republicans "are themselves walking moral deficits." But you relish those kind of black and white arguments; always poking the "elephant."
I don't believe we held an election yet. The polls have rolled high and low on most of the Republican candidates. Even ignoring Obama's low approval ratings, he's likely got the presidency locked for another term unless he's found with a body and a smoking gun. It's a wild guess on my part.
(As an aside "Hannah," any thoughts on the Occupiers keeping part of their 99% away from their jobs and earning their salaries right before the holidays and making that square with calling Romney a job killer?)
Posted by Hannah , a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Here it is again. Where even to begin??? KR is unwilling to state that Gingrich's "sins" are worse then Clinton's or Obama's.
Clinton = infidelity.
Gingrich = infidelity + hypocrisy + willingness to shut down govt for sake of political gain
Both the same, right? So says KR.
Then she goes on to Obama. His "sins" are not yet shutting down Guantanamo (no mention of Repub obstruction); not yet out of Iraq (no mention of how we will be out in a matter of days); invading [?] Pakistan "just long enough to kill an enemy" (yes, Osama bin Laden). This is a superb example of the enfeebled moral thinking of the right. KR holds up Obama's incomplete policies up as examples of "sins" against Gingrich's clear moral failures, and wants us to assess them as if they are equal. You see, on KR's enfeebled view, not shutting down Guantanamo is, morally speaking, on a par with Gringrich's infidelities + hypocrisy + willingness to shut down govt for political and personal gain. Obama and Gingrich, she tells us, both equally "sinners." Can't make this stuff up, folks!
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2011 at 2:56 pm
And now with the twisting. I didn't say Obama sinned; I asked you a point blank question--is Obama obstructing justice? YOU drew the Obama to Gingrich line: "Obama has a good amount of evidence to hold trials on Bush, Cheney, et.al. as war criminals. Obama takes the high road for the sake of the country and tells Justice Dept to back off. Yes, we're all flawed, but some leaders don't succumb to temptation as do scumbags like Gingrich."
When you have got a list of bad judgment calls by any number of people, why bother looking for the trump card? There is no moral high ground when everyone is standing in the same moral deficit hole. As for bin Laden, no love lost; but the president did give the order to kill even though the enemy apparently could have been captured alive. I've heard the reasoning, even agree with some of it, but there is no moral high ground there either.
I hope Obama succeeds with Guantanamo and Iraq and even Afghanistan and the unemployment rate and any host of things that are impacting the well being of this country. Why wouldn't I?
Posted by Hannah, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2011 at 3:14 pm
KR states: "There is no moral high ground when everyone is standing in the same moral deficit hole."
There it is again. More sloppy thinking that is matched only by her twin-sister Queen of Cuckoo. You see, Obama isn't a "sinner"; KR simply mentions Obama to support her view that "everyone is standing in the same moral deficit hole." If that's your position, as it appears to be KR's, then there simply exists no grounds upon which moral judgment may be made. We might as well give it up and simply play partisan politics, which of course is exactly all the Republicans are good for. On this view, Gingrich stands in the same moral hole as Obama. Very convenient position to take if one wants to deflect negative light being cast upon Gingrich. The only problem is, everyone does not stand in the "same moral deficit hole."
Hence, back to the original equation:
Clinton = infidelity.
Gingrich = infidelity + hypocrisy + willingness to shut down govt for sake of political gain
When you take a morally twisted, partisan viewpoint like KR, you end up putting both Clinton and Gingrich on the same moral plane. From a _moral_ point of view? Not even close.
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Again, you brought up Obama. Still no answer on whether there is an obstruction of justice in order that, what, no one has to work OT in DC?
Clinton, Gingrich, Kennedys, others just like them, all the women involved--same moral deficit hole. If one is fifty feet down in the morality hole and others are standing on that person's shoulders looking up . . . well, you get the visual.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2011 at 4:11 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Jane is going about it all wrong. She keeps comparing moral holes rather than striving for equality. Gingrich can't help it. He should be helped by the social services paid for with our tax money so that he can achieve an equal outcome with Clinton.
Posted by Hannah, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2011 at 4:40 pm
There is some peculiarly distinctive about 'true believers' like the Cuckoo Queens, Stace and Kath. They appear not able to grasp the hypocrisy argument that so many including myself have raised here. Despite a good deal of argument and evidence that shows the hypocrisy of the right, which compounds their moral difficulties, all they can do is honk out the idea of parity-between-parties like a couple of gullible geese. Exposed as the geese they both are! (p.s., Everybody get a load out of Stacey's multiple-post obsessions! Pretty comical stuff!)
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Never disagreed there is hypocrisy on the right; you don't, however, win brownie points as a philanderer because your politics happen to be on the left. One cheater is no better than the other. It's like saying "A" only copied 5 test answers as opposed to "B" who copied 10. Student A is probably getting the same detention as B.
You skipped answering about OWS and the ports too.
Posted by Hannah, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2011 at 5:19 pm
Kath says, "One cheater is no better than the other. It's like saying "A" only copied 5 test answers as opposed to "B" who copied 10. Student A is probably getting the same detention as B."
Unbelievable. She _still_ doesn't get it.
Then the goose chides me for not responding to her: "Still no answer on whether there is an obstruction of justice in order that, what, no one has to work OT in DC?" An obstruction of justice? Clearly, this confused goose doesn't know what she's talking about.
Still, I'll try to penetrate the fog of conceptual confusion (that almost always accompanies moral deficit). On the one hand, here we have the lying and hypocritical sneak Gingrich waging a vendetta against Clinton for his marital infidelity while Gingrich is not only himself cheating on his wife, but rah-rah-ing the Repub impeach-Clinton mad dogs looking for red meat, and by so doing effectively shutting down the Executive Branch of the govt.
On the other hand, we have a group of protesters engaging in an act of civil disobedience as part of their overall effort to be heard beyond the walls of a largely silent corporate media and the day to day reality of big-bucks corporate lobbying. There is no "obstruction of justice;" rather OWS constitutes an active effort by citizens to violate the law, conscientiously, on the belief that being arrested for the violation will draw attention to their cause. See the Martin Luther King-led boycotts throughout the south during the left-based quest for civil rights. There was nothing conscientious about Gingrich's slimy actions, at all. He clearly has no conscience. He is a failure of a human being.
I'm not surprised that Big Kath raises OWS. Because, sad but true, on her morally deficient view, Gingrich and OWS are standing in the same morally deficient hole. Nothing could be further from the truth. The one is transparently attempting to extend and deepen human rights for all citizens; the other is a low-down snake in the grass who cares only about himself. Republican constituents? Meet your prized leader: Newt Gingrich.
Posted by Hannah, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Sheeesh. I must continue to raise the moral issue, because the Fat Kath doesn't have the foggiest idea what a moral issue is. Notice her barndoor-wide blindspot regarding the sleezeball Gingrich. He's just another philanderer. Doesn't matter that he led the party of 'family values' or that he went after Clinton for personal and political gain. Nope. He's just a philanderer, and with that assessment she asks her readers to be a stupid as she is.
Obama's decision to go forward without prosecuting the war criminals Bush, Cheney, and others was based on careful, conscientious deliberation over what he thought to be in the best interests of the nation. This is not obstruction, in any sense of the word. He has signed no laws that might prohibit future administrations from pursuing a prosecutory path. (Note too that his deliberation did not lead to actively lying to the American public in order to send the nation's men and women off to engage in an unjust war.)
As for unions, now the Fat Kath is experiencing great angst re. unionized workers' "rights to earn a day's pay?" Get it? Let's pause in order to suppress our laughter. My response: The OWS protestors explain their occupation of the port as a conscientious effort to extend and deepen universal human rights across the nation's landscape and that civil disobedience is the political expression of last resort among a citizenry. Some unionists are in support; some aren't. Those who are in support seem to recognize the need for citizens to sacrifice for the greater good. Those who are not in support have suffered a loss of a day's wages; they have not, however, suffered any diminishment of their human or civil rights. If the money means that much, the capitalist owners are far more responsible for their relatively meager wages than are OWS occupiers.
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2011 at 6:20 pm
I wouldn't vote for Gingrich even if it got you off these posts forever, Gollum.
Oh, Obama is kicking the can down the road? Not going after war criminals is in the country's best interest? Yes, we should leave Afghanistan too.
So, could those union members who opposed OWS have passed the protesters to work? Of course not; so how is that not impinging on the rights of others? Are you saying they have no rights to be at the jobs they took the trouble to get?
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2011 at 7:10 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
It's quite incredulous that Jane is actually comparing moral decrepitude and trying to defend it. Some white male in a position of power goes around sticking his *ahem* into *ahem* of starry-eyed vulnerable females, cheating on his wife, and Jane says, "But that's ok because he's a Democrat and others have done worse!"
Posted by Mrs, B, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Dec 14, 2011 at 6:54 am
Does anyone really think that what happens in a politicians bedroom has anything to do with his ability to lead? I sure don't. These are issues between the politician and their spouse, not a voyistic society.
Perjury, is an issue. That does have an impact on their ability to lead.
Posted by Mrs. B, a resident of the Mohr Park neighborhood, on Dec 14, 2011 at 9:30 am
I have not checked that fact out. No politician comes to mind that has not lied about it. Toss them all out...start fresh. I would like to see the media leave their sexual escapades alone. Unless, of course, their spouse makes an issue of it. Does anyone really think Hillary Clinton had no clue about Gennifer Flowers? At the very least she knew from day one that her husband had a problem keeping his pants zipped. I was not a Clinton fan, BUT, I did not care that he screwed around on his wife. Wouldn't the country be better served to accept this kind of behavior in politicians( because it is going to happen accepted or not...these people do not play by the same set of rules as the rest of us)and start focusing on the issues that we have some influence on?
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Dec 14, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Personal opinion based on Gary Hart--Clinton may not have been electable had the public known about his dalliances (and using police/sheriffs to cover for him as I recall). Hillary, best guess, had her own political ambitions either on Bill's coat tails or under her own power; so if she knew, I don't think it outweighed her personal interests. Or maybe I'm completely wrong.
The problem is that we would have to ask the people in power to legislate against themselves. They agonize about giving themselves raises and do it anyway; they refuse to release their office budgets until forced; they make investments on information the public has not yet received. As long as the process to get into power remains the same, the problems will remain the same. Replacing everyone won't change it.