It’s OK if you are a republican… Frankly, someone who lies to his wife and cheats on her, would do the same to us…. but than again, Bush II, is faithful to his wife. So, I don’t really know. but my gut tells me to still not to vote for the liars and cheaters. They have at least proved themselves as being deceptive and unworthy.

I don’t buy the notion that the media might think the adultery angle, as applied to presidential candidates, is old news.

The reason I say this is that a week doesn’t go without some kind of a snide reference to Gary Hart in the 1987 context, despite all that has happended in his life in the twenty years since, including a survived and much stronger marriage going on fifty years now.

In the current presidential context, given the marital instabilities exhibited by Giuliani, McCain, and Gingrich, it is being joked that the only leading GOP candidate to have been married to only one woman, ironically, is the Mormon.

It will be interesting to watch how the media deals with various personal and moral issues during this campaign. Through out the years, the supposedly “Liberal” Media, has seemed to be more willing to attack Democratic or Independent cannidates, and rather shy when it comes to criticizing Republican Conservatives. One can only hope that they will be more even handed this time around. The adultery issue is a typical “red herring” issue to distract the voters from the real issues that they should demand their canidates talk about.

When Clinton first ran for office, I remember reading about a study where people who identified themselves democrats and people who identified themselves republicans were asked whether or not they had cheated on their spouses. These were not politicians mind you. The results indicated that more republicans cheated on their spouses than did democrats. (I don’t remember the difference between the two groups, but I do remember being quite surprised by the numbers.) Interestingly, Massachusettes—that terribly liberal state—has one of the lowest divorce rates (if not the lowest) while the south (my stomping grounds) and evangelical Christians, in particular, have the highest.  Hmmm…  Ho hum indeed. 

It seems that if you are a member of the Christian Right and right with the Lord, then all is forgiven even if you are now married to and living with the woman/man you gave up your family for.  No, unbelievable but true, living with this new spouse is not an ongoing sin even though the 2nd marriage, while one’s first spouse is still alive, is contrary to Biblical directives. Interestingly, it IS an ongoing sin if you ask forgiveness for engaging in homosexual acts and continue engaging in homosexual acts. I guess if I were to have to defend that it would be because adultery is natural while being gay is not.  Oh no, it’s because homosexual acts are an abomination while wearing cloths of mixed materials or eating shellfish is not, er, I have that wrong don’t I? Hee, hee.

Let me see…Clinton, according the the Right, was immoral even though he was a church-participating (and not just attending) Baptist who worked out his marital difficulties with his wife, attended counseling, and asked forgiveness from God, seeking the counsel of his and other ministers.  (Note: Reagan did not attend church regularly and he was divorced and remarried.) I think I see a double standard. 

How convenient that people who are a part of Religious Right can twist their beliefs to suit their prejudices and the press acts like they are so so so…pious, religous.

Me…I’m not a Clinton defender. Regardless of the witch hunt, he lied under oath and therefore brought shame to the office of the presidency. Also, he just had to fool around with a subordinate while he was also being sued for sexual harrasment (it does not matter whether there was any truth to the charge), displaying such recklessness and stupidity that he didn’t deserve to be president IMO. Men can and do keep their pants zipped. When my president is being sued for sexual harrassment, regardless of the relationship between him and his wife, I expect him to keep his pants zipped around any person in his employ.

Of course, all the above pales given the crimes in violation of our constitituon and against humanity that have been commited by our current True Believing President.

Nobody really gives a flying rip about the sex lives and marriages of these corny politicians. No one cares whether or not Slick Willie actually enhaled. No one could care less how often Hill sees slick in the Ozzie-n-Harriet context of feigned marital happiness.

However, folks are concerned about Hill’s right-leaning war interests. Folks wonder how someone with her IQ could be duped into supporting the Iraq Invasion by the likes of pinheads with Shubya’s IQ. Folks care that 11.Sep.2001 happened in Hill’s district on her watch, and she hasn’t noised it up more that the case needs reopening and thorough investigation. It bothers a lot of folks that she isn’t onboard a little more fervently with impeachment proceedings. Many resent that she is so moderate, and so quick to pretend that left leaning members of the Democratic party are so infinitely tiny in number. 07.SEP.2006 set forth the demands of her party, and she’s still acting as if the voters did not mean what their votes told these elected representatives. Meanwhile, she has found time to get into a petty catfight to maintain her funding hold on Hollywood, who seems a lot less impressed with her than they once were with Big Bill. Now, Hollywood is California. She was elected in New York. Who the hell does she really represent here?

“With his adviser Karl Rove, Bush snared the right with his opposition to abortion and gay rights and his advocacy of an intolerant and puritan form of family values. The religious-right voters powered him to victory in two elections.  They seemed to be the monolithic base Rove had envisioned. ” 

I would say the monolithic base Rove CREATED since I cannot be sure that votes were accurately counted, I cannot say that Bush got the winning number of votes the Supremes say he did.

Besides, everybody knows that the religious right is saving all it’s energy on the subject of adultery for obstructing Hillary’s campaign - they would be giving aid and comfort to the enemy if they did the right (?) thing and raised hell about the adulterous 3 Repugs right now…anybody knows that.

I was posting on a blog and a few fellow Democrats were dismissing Mrs. Clinton, on the grounds that she stayed with her husband.

Then it’s fair to point that out.

“As for bring up the Clinton’s marriage? I’m sorry, but who am I to judge what is between two people I don’t even know? We spent years and millions searching through Bill Clinton’s underwear. Somehow?, I’m not proud to hold the result in the air and say Eureka!

Did Kenneth Starr find wrong doing in Whitewater? As was his charge to look into? No. Instead we had a multimillion dollar fishing expedition, ending in tawdry testimony and underwear clue hunts perjury and impeachment hearings.

What exactly does it really have to do with politics and policy?”

Boyarsky is always a great read. He knows politics and helped make the L.A. Times a powerful force under Otis Chandler in the paper’s golden age before Tribune Co. began destroying it.

The media completely forgives the Republicans for everything—not just adultery.  One need only imagine what would happen if any one of the current Bush atrocities had occurred under a Democratic President—ANY ONE of them!  It would be all over for him or her.

Clinton was impeached for lying about having sex with a woman other than his wife.  I argue that at least..at least 90% of the men in this country who have cheated on their wives lie about at least until they are caught.  I did, and every man whom I know who cheated, lied about it.  When it comes to emotions men are the weaker sex.  When it comes to infidelity, and honesty about it, woman are way stronger and more honest than men.  The upshot of it is, “adultery” is so common that most people don’t care about it.  The Republican candidates are piss poor prospects because of their pandering and their god-awful republican policies and advocacies.

During the 1996 elections, I worked as a volunteer for Michael Coles, who was running against Newt in the 6th Distric of Georgia.  Newt was making a speech at the town square in Marietta, Ga and after the speech, a fellow vounteer and I walked up to Bob Franken (CNN) and asked him why the media would not report on Newt’s relationship with Calista Bisek?  We knew of it and most of the press knew of it.  Bob’s answer was simply a wry smile as he walked away.
Michael Coles chose not to bring it up during the campaign and took the high road.  A lot of the people who voted for Newt either knew or had heard rumors.  Right wingers don’t seem to care if it is one of their own.

Lying under oath, eh?  Then stick to the elusive GOP standard: Bush, Cheney, Rove, Armitage, Powell, Rice, et al—-let’s see those fascists testify “under oath”. Are you in favor of THAT?  Didn’t think so.

Can anyone spell HYPOCRITES!!!!!!!

Never ever trust a Republican!!!!!!!

I look forward to that cousin-marryin’, screwin’-his-mistress-in-one-room-of-Gracie-Mansion-while-his-wife-and-kids-were-sleeping-in-other-rooms, multiple-adulterin’, bunkin’-with-gay-guys-when-his-wife-kicked-him-out Rudy Giuliani being the Repig presidential nominee. Adultery will most DEFINITELY be an issue…

“that’s not the point the point was Bill was sexually harassing women in the workplace and then he lied under oath about it !!!”

Yet another mis-representation by a troll.  The only LIE Clinton told was about Monica Lewinsky—and she was not harassed, she PURSUED him! 

Paula Jones had no case, it was all BS.  She said no, he said OK, and she did not suffer in her job for it.
The case was settled, but Sciafe and Gingrich persuaded her not to accept the settlement—and her lawyers ALL quit in protest.

The POINT is that Republicans all over the place are treating their marriages like dirt.  You think Gingrich wasn’t doing the same damn thing as Clinton when he was boffing that woman during the impeachment.

The POINT is that the so-called family values liars were cheating on their wives with other women, with men, under-age boys, and taking drugs.

The POINT is hypocracy solely to gain power and money.

Why do you make these absurdly false statements so EASILY proven false?  Do you REALLY believe them?

adultery has always been ho-hum !! people will cheat on their mates!!  its the dirty secrete we all know !!! monogamy is a joke !!!

that’s not the point the point was Bill was sexually harassing women in the workplace and then he lied under oath about it !!! the left says, its about sex, to minimize his miss-deeds !!! its all an elaborate subterfuge !!  It was about lying under oath not about sex !! and Hillary is still lying today in her book and in her interview’s !!! she also slanders any women who dares to tell on Bill !!

look its none of our business what kind of relationship the two have, so say that !!! say that’s none of your business !!! but she says “i was upset, i was betrayed, i didn’t know what he was doing” ???

Hillary !! in all honesty!! if you were too stupid to know Bill has been cheating on you for the last 25 yrs over and over and over again then Hillary your to stupid to be president !!!

illgramaticus knee o’kaun

Nothing is “ho-hum” regarding this topic.

We’ve never elected “bachelor presidents”.
(I know, James Buchanan, blah, blah blah…)
It’s been some time, anyway…
There are a number of disturbing facets to cheating
on your spouse while in elected office that jump to mind.

First, divorcing a spouse and then finding
someone else is not what we’re talking about.
We’re talking blatant disrespect for the spouse,
with the spouse still under the assumption that
the marriage/relationship is being honored.
One question I have is if a person is willing to “cheat”
on someone within a close relationship, what will that
same person be willing to do without regard for people
significantly more distant from them?

If when former president Clinton was running for his
first term we had seen that his wife were a ranting
lunatic, would he have been elected? Probably not.
We vote for the spouse and family along with the
candidate whether we like it or not. The president
has his “dalliance” and decides to divorce the first lady.
Do you vote for him with the intern at his side?

This was the first time we were confronted with a potentially
different presidential “family package” than the one we elected.
We had reasonable assurance that the wife and daughter of the
president would act in accordance with his elected office. We
had no assurance with the intern. We didn’t know she was there.
That’s a problem.

This was not friend or family on a social visit. That would have
been above board and monitored for appropriate distance from
the decision-making by and information targeted to the president.
There should never be a situation leading to:
“hold on a minute honey, I’ve gotta take this call from senator so-and-so”.

By far this was not our first president with a dalliance but it should
be our last. Like it or not the people you associate with reflect on you
and help us determine whether we will vote for you. We can probably
deal with a “bachelor president/senator/congresswoman” but not a poser.
Ask Jim McGreevey.

Welcome to Bill!  The Los Angeles Times is not the same without him and Bob.

I’m all for forgiveness - and not just for politicians, either. It seems too many demand “justice” until their own hypocrisies are discovered and then they desire “mercy” and forgiveness for themselves. But is there true repentance and sorrow, or simply being “sorry” that they were discovered - even if to the point of tears?

I think forgiveness ought to be extended, in the realisation that “evil” is not just “out there” but within ourselves too, each one of us, and the beginning of the law and prophets is to treat others as we ourselves would wish to be treated.

I don’t think being orange jump-suited, manacled and hooded is what any of us would want for ourselves either pre-trial, post-trial or no trial.

Is the one seeking forgiveness forgiving towards others, (returning good for evil) or is the forgiveness selfish without evidence of repentance and restitution?

On the other hand, even genuine forgiveness and repentance doesn’t have to mean being suckered into giving someone a position of responsibility that they’ve previously shown a weakness in character in being unable to handle. That’s just plain stupidity - and one will discover very quickly how real the repentance was, perhaps unable to correct a possible error in any meaningful way, post-election, when democratic oversight disappears.

Trust has to be re-earned, not bought through cynical political tradeoffs with interest groups, no matter whom they claim to represent, even ones that claim religiosity. It is also a cynical misunderstanding of the grossest kind to depend on any human “religious” figure having the power to forgive someone’s sins against other third parties on their own say-so, like some medieval political pope figure freeing them from purgatory upon making the right payoff, or kissing the right ring.

Maybe it’s all just a matter of perception, but I think the religious right is far more irrelevant than they, and the politicos want us to believe.

Clinton for example. When he cheated we were all offended. We found it believable. We had grown to like him. He was attractive. His cheating hurt us all. This was not a victory of the so-called religious right. We all felt cheated!

When Gingrich cheated (and a good many of us new about it long before his confession last week) the general reaction was and is, big deal. Gingrich can not grab the hearts and imaginations of people like Clinton did. Even more base, Gingrich is a large pug-nosed baby. Neither sexy nor exciting. We all like to fantasize to a slightly higher standard.

The same can be said for Giuliani. A man whose pointed bald head only emphasizes his large ears and small stature. Difficult to imagine him as anybody’s heart-throb. Then there’s McCain. The once masculine jaw looks puffy and out of proportion. The bravado seems hollow and irrelevant. Proving even old hero’s can lose their charm.

Whether or not the Christian right is offended by these gentlemen is not important. They probably are, but need to keep their indignation to a low roar given the sexual stink coming from within their own movement. Its getting to where a good Christian fruitcake cant turn anywhere these days without finding dirt under their own fingernails.

The unholy influence Christian nuts have on some in our military and a lot of, previously seen as intelligent, politicians is undeniable. So we should give their insanity just enough attention to try and prevent their behavior from hurting others. But please lets not give their insanity more credit than it deserves.

G.H.W. Bush lost his bid for a second term in the White House, because efforts to fix the outcome failed. The Christian Right had nothing to do with it. G.W. Bush moved into the White House because the corrupt machine had eight years to perfect (and avoid getting caught) their cheating. G.W. Bush stayed in the White House for a second term because they successfully cheated again.

The only thing equally, or more insane than the Holy Roilers is the stupid, stubborn determination of spineless politicians to deny the provable. The hard evidence of the depth of cheating the Bush-style repubs have and will stoop to is now on the record for all to see!

Crediting the Christian Right with their “success” is a convenient idiocy main-stream media embraces, because they don’t want us to know their soul has been completely bought and paid for!

If you’re a determined to stay republican, you almost have to accept immorality as ho-hum. If you’re a determined to stay democrat, you already have. Everybody else worries far more about who will be the next American Idol.

Screwing a woman not your wife? OFF with his HEAD! Screwing the entire country of what’s left of citizens’ savings, livability, and an independent future, and taking over a foreign country for their oil holdings? It’s ALL good!

Riiiight…

The condition of political living in D.C. is dirtiest ones, not only on sexual atmosphere.

Adultery became OK when it was clear all the Republicans were doing it, but were feeling guilty about it “Sob, I’m human!(sniff) I am weak and have human failings! (snivel)”

Of course this was overshadowed by the adulterers who were doin’ it with other guys and under-age boys, and doin’ drugs at the same time.  Makes “politician seduces young woman” seem tame.

See, if a Re-thug does it, it’s human, it’s forgiveable, it’s not big deal, it’s “Get Over It!”

If a Democrat does it, it’s “IMPEACH THE BASTARD! HE’S THE BEAST!  BEWARE 666!”

Not that I think the right is hypocritical or anything…..

The Democrats should not give the Maritally Challenged Republicans a pass on behavior that goes beyond their personal lives and marriages. Remember Bush and his ‘youthful indiscretions’.Anyone still screwed up at fifty+ is a poor risk for any job. It’s not about forgiveness. It’s about flaws that impact a person’s ability to make sound decisions, use good judgement and not assume that admitting guilt makes everything go away. It ain’t HO-HUM.

“Thou shall not kill.” Has become Ho-Hum too.  We are traing a nation of killers.  We are developing a mentality of, “if your have a problem kill it.”  If you suspect someone of causing trouble, send a drone airplane and wipe him out without a trial.  That is the end of your problem.  I suspect the some of the other commandments are in deep trouble too by the very people that want to plaster them on every wall.