Yawn another Republican sex scandal

[bascule]

(LOL Faux Noise and D/R)

 

So it seems the South Carolina governor who disappeared a few days ago on an apparent hiking trip has been found!

 

Has been found... having an extramarital affair with some Argentinian woman.

 

Yes, those Republicans, they sure know how to preserve the sanctity of marriage.

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sc-governor-quits-gop-post-in-wake-of-affair

 

Oh, and he quit.

 

Is it me or is "Republican hypocrisy" just completely redundant at this point?

[Mokele]

Honestly, the affair is besides the point. He could have been there building shelters for orphaned puppies with leprosy, and that still does not justify simply vanishing for six days. What if there had been a natural disaster or major industrial accident? Or anything else that actually required the person elected to run the state to actually be there and do his job?

 

And of course, if he genuinely thought that a Governor could simply go missing for six days without anyone noticing, he's a total moron.

[ecoli]

Is there any news event that you [bascule] won't turn into a partisan issue, namely to bash republicans? How is this any different than John Edwards cheating? And the many many instances of Democrat hypocrisy?

[Mokele]

John Edwards didn't vanish for almost a week, in clear dereliction of his duty. Not that pillaging public funds was OK, but it's certainly less incompetent.

 

Of course, there's the hypocrisy angle, too - we're harder on Republicans because they're always winging about 'sexual immorality, just as we'd be harder on Democrats for failures on issues of equality and social justice.

[Pangloss]

I wouldn't be harder on Democrats for failures on social issues of equality and social justice.

 

You know, concurrent with the statement that you're harder on one party for failures on certain issues is the implication that you're lighter on them for certain other failures. Are you sure that's how "we" should be doing things?

[SH3RL0CK]

Well leaving aside the pointless question of which party is worse, democrat or republican (they both seem very corrupt), I am sorry for the family and for the citizens of South Carolina.

[Fuzzwood]

Some American had sex, the world as we know it is ending. Shees, Biblistic retards...

[Mokele]

You know, concurrent with the statement that you're harder on one party for failures on certain issues is the implication that you're lighter on them for certain other failures. Are you sure that's how "we" should be doing things?

 

IMHO, we should be harder on anyone who demonstrates hypocrisy. If any candidate constantly harps on about "the sanctity of marriage", then undermines it in his own, we should hold his feet to the fire and demand he justify his prior positions in light of his behavior. Ditto for a candidate who constantly champions safer working conditions, but made their fortune by opening a sweatshop overseas. Ditto for a candidate who always promotes saving your money, but then splurges himself into bankruptcy.

 

If any politician proposed to hold us to a certain standard or behavior, it's entirely appropriate to require them to uphold the standard they promote. If they fail, it's entirely appropriate to ask both how genuine they really were in their claims and how their plans can be feasible for all of their constituents if they can't make it work themselves.

[Pangloss]

What about a candidate who constantly harps on about the importance of global warming but drives a Hummer? Should we be harder on Al Gore because of his electrical bill due to the fact that he supports warning people about the dangers of global warming, or should we overlook or lighten his transgressions because his views are politically correct?

[John Cuthber]

"Yes, those Republicans, they sure know how to preserve the sanctity of marriage. "

Yep, Ask that Clinton bloke.

Rich powerful men are generally successfull at getting their rocks off. It doesn't matter how they came to be rich and powerful. Lots of politicians will end up playing away from home and lots of them will get caught.

I really can't see how it matters if they are left or right wing.

 

(and BTW, my views are a long way to the left of any mainstream US political party)

[iNow]

(and BTW, my views are a long way to the left of any mainstream US political party)

Is that "left" as in conservative? I seem to remember that the concepts of "left/right" are reversed.

[Mokele]

What about a candidate who constantly harps on about the importance of global warming but drives a Hummer? Should we be harder on Al Gore because of his electrical bill due to the fact that he supports warning people about the dangers of global warming, or should we overlook or lighten his transgressions because his views are politically correct?

 

Yes, we should be harder on him, and press him to hold himself to the standard he espouses for others.

 

IMHO, the tolerance of hypocrisy by both parties has contributed to the public view that all politicians are liars, hypocrites, etc., which in turn leads to a general "why bother" attitude towards politics. I'm not saying holding hypocrites responsible would fix everything, but IMHO it would probably foster a more involved public, higher voter turnout, etc.

 

I really can't see how it matters if they are left or right wing.

 

It's about what they've said previously. By analogy, imagine we have two Senators, an absolute pacifist who publicly opposes all violence even in self-defense and me, who views violence as sometimes necessary. Both of us are at a bar, and get involved in a bar-room brawl. Both of us are charged with assault. While we both did a bad thing (hitting someone), I didn't contradict my professed beliefs and the code I believe others should follow too, while the pacifist did. As such, they should be judged more harshly for failing to live up to their own rules as well as society's.

 

Is that "left" as in conservative? I seem to remember that the concepts of "left/right" are reversed.

 

IIRC, "left/right" means the same thing on both sides of the Atlantic, but "liberal" and "conservative" have different meanings (though not exactly swapped, either).

[Kyrisch]

To discuss further, a hypocritical politician has the same effect on the populace as a politician who does not follow through on their campaign promises. Both are contradictions between what they say and what they do, and both are simply due to the fact that people believe that in those kinds of positions, politicians ought to be held responsible for what they say.

[GutZ]

That's a huge problem with the republican platform. It's very black and white and absolute. People do make mistakes. I think they deserve to be called outed on it (hypocrisy, since they created it).

 

Who really cares if some guy is getting special time somewhere, obviously if he can still do his job properly, whatever.

 

If you preach about morality and stuff, the republicans are going to get smacked back by reality. We all are animals in our own right. No sense denying the beast. They need to take the approach of this whole thing differently.

 

 

LOL did fox place him as a Democrat?!!?!?

 

That's gold.

Edited June 25, 2009 by GutZ

[Mokele]

LOL did fox place him as a Democrat?!!?!?

 

Yes, and it's a frequent occurrence on Faux News.

 

So much for "Fair and Balanced".

[bascule]

Is there any news event that you [bascule] won't turn into a partisan issue, namely to bash republicans?

 

Well, they've been making it so easy for me lately...

 

How is this any different than John Edwards cheating?

 

Two wrongs make a right!

 

But to reiterate from my first post, John Edwards isn't out there trying to "protect" the "sanctity of marriage" from those lewd and unseemly gays. He's still adamant about this position despite being caught in an act of adultery:

 

http://www.sanford2012.org/

 

Why do I believe that gay marriage is wrong? Simple - because I believe, based on what the Bible says, that homosexuality is a sin. Further, I believe that it is also a choice that people make and it is not something that you are born with.

Edited June 25, 2009 by bascule

[Pangloss]

IMHO, the tolerance of hypocrisy by both parties has contributed to the public view that all politicians are liars, hypocrites, etc., which in turn leads to a general "why bother" attitude towards politics. I'm not saying holding hypocrites responsible would fix everything, but IMHO it would probably foster a more involved public, higher voter turnout, etc.

 

It's an interesting point, and I think you're right about the impact this sort of thing can have on voters. But I think that kind of generalizing does more harm than good, supporting and perpetuating the divisiveness that routinely runs roughshod over more important issues. And there's no functional reason for making the association -- as I'm sure you'd agree, you can't predict whether a politician will commit adultery based on what party they're in. So additional scorn doesn't seem to really gain us anything of value. As you said yourself, it doesn't fix anything.

 

I think if we were less generalizing about politicians we'd be able to make a lot more progress. One of the main reasons President Obama struggles with conservatives is simply because he's a Democrat -- we all know this intuitively, right? The party brings a whole bevy of baggage to the politician, and our society is busily and happily teaching every citizen that that baggage is important. He could make exactly the same statements he's been making on a number of issues if he were a Republican and more conservatives would support him -- and fewer liberals would, for exactly the same reason. This makes no sense at all and we should be doing everything in our power to change it as fast as we possibly can, IMO.

 

(This problem, by the way, is, much to my surprise, the central theme of President Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope", which I've been reading recently.)

[ecoli]

But to reiterate from my first post, John Edwards isn't out there trying to "protect" the "sanctity of marriage" from those lewd and unseemly gays. He's still adamant about this position despite being caught in an act of adultery:

Well he was getting thousand dollar haircuts while claiming to represent the "regular people"?

 

And what about his "personal corporation" which he set up to get out of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in medicare taxes, while purporting to support expanding medicare and supporting universal health care? Edwards is a firm believer in rich to poor redistribution policies, but apparently only for rich people not himself (or he wouldn't have set up the tax shelter).

 

Or does that "D" after his name prevent Edwards from being a hypocrite in anything he does?

 

I'm no fan of the republicans, but the R-D, Evil-Good mentality is completely ridiculous.

Edited June 25, 2009 by ecoli

[Sisyphus]

The hypocrisy, though glaring, is not very interesting to me, when compared with the wackiness of a governor disappearing for a week to South America without telling anyone. Anyway, if you want to make news for hypocrisy these days, you have to be a prominent morality police blowhard and be soliciting sex from other men in the sleaziest way you can manage. This? Yawn is right.

 

(I am still waiting for the GOP to formally apologize to the American people for the Clinton impeachment, however.)

[bascule]

Well he was getting thousand dollar haircuts while claiming to represent the "regular people"?

 

And what about his "personal corporation" which he set up to get out of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in medicare taxes, while purporting to support expanding medicare and supporting universal health care? Edwards is a firm believer in rich to poor redistribution policies, but apparently only for rich people not himself (or he wouldn't have set up the tax shelter).

 

Or does that "D" after his name prevent Edwards from being a hypocrite in anything he does?

 

I'm no fan of the republicans, but the R-D, Evil-Good mentality is completely ridiculous.

 

And really quick, how many lives do those escapades have a negative impact on versus denying gays basic civil rights?

 

Are you having trouble understanding why hypocrisy is meaningful in this case? You're comparing a politician getting expensive haircuts with denying gay partners all over the country hospital visits. It's apples and oranges, dude.

[ecoli]

And really quick, how many lives do those escapades have a negative impact on versus denying gays basic civil rights?

 

Are you having trouble understanding why hypocrisy is meaningful in this case? You're comparing a politician getting expensive haircuts with denying gay partners all over the country hospital visits. It's apples and oranges, dude.

Are you having trouble understanding that politicians are all hypocrites, no matter what letter they have after their name?

 

Why don't you stop strawman-ing me and realize the points I'm actually making? I understand Sanford's alleged hypocrisy. However, you're presenting this as somehow being exclusive to republicanism.... am I the only one who has a problem with this? (and I'm not even a repub.)

[iNow]

Why don't you stop strawman-ing me and realize the points I'm actually making? I understand Sanford's alleged hypocrisy. However, you're presenting this as somehow being exclusive to republicanism....

Speaking of strawmen, come on. Just because bascule has had more opportunities lately to point out republican hypocrisy does NOT mean he claims it's exclusive to their party. You know this, ecoli... don't you?

[Pangloss]

am I the only one who has a problem with this? (and I'm not even a repub.)

 

No, you're not, but bascule does not automatically extend his anti-Republican bias to each individual Republican. As I see it, he has a problem with the party, but he keeps an open mind about its members. I enjoy the challenge and appreciate the transparency of that approach.

 

You have to bear in mind that something like 80% of this country feels exactly the same ways as Bascule (about one party or the other). Most of us just aren't willing to admit it. Gotta respect that, and it serves a useful purpose here in terms of discussion.

[bascule]

Are you having trouble understanding that politicians are all hypocrites, no matter what letter they have after their name?

 

I guess we're talking past each other at this point. Do you understand that all humans are criminals, but littering isn't as bad as murder?

 

I understand Sanford's alleged hypocrisy. However, you're presenting this as somehow being exclusive to republicanism....

 

If by "this" you mean they wax eloquent about the sanctity of marriage as they commit adultery, well, that is fairly exclusive to Republicans as most Democrats support gay rights.

[ecoli]

I guess we're talking past each other at this point

Ok, you're probably right here.

 

I'm just observing here that you see this issue of sex scandals as being particularly bad for the republicans (with the whole 'sanctity of marriage' line) and that may be true, but I don't really see how being hypocritical about sex is worse than being hypocritical about providing health care to sick people. In fact, you could make a pretty convincing argument that Edwards hypocrisy on this point is quite a bit worse (demonstrating that there's little excuse to push the partisan angle, besides for petty politics).

 

Meanwhile, let me introduce you to another politician who had some notion of the "sanctity" of marriage and exclusive relationships. In fact he made a career out of "making ethics and integrity the hallmarks of [his] administration." Including prosecuting and shutting down several illegal prostitution rings.

 

Or have you forgotten about Eliot Spitzer?

 

 

In fact, have there been any politicians caught in sex scandals that haven't felt marriage was sanctimonious and sacred (regardless of their views on gay marriage)? They're all hypocrites, regardless of party. Unless, of course, if Democrats care less about exclusive relationships and marriages than Republicans do... which I doubt (at least they wouldn't admit it).