Is that really any creepier than Bill Clinton having Monica Lewinsky shove a cigar in her vagina, and then he smokes it?

Seriously, your schadenfreude is showing.

Yay! More shadenfreude! Yay big smarmy words on the internet and vaguely-concealed cynicism about government and behind-closed-doors sexy shenanigans!

I loves my shadenfreude!

*calls Shadenfreude into the room, gets out grooming brush, and little packet of Shaden Biskits*

Is that really any creepier than Bill Clinton having Monica Lewinsky shove a cigar in her vagina, and then he smokes it?

Not necessarily, but so what?

Not necessarily, but so what?

That's exactly my point. Who fucking cares who is fucking who, and doing what? Seriously. While the LTs of the world shout with glee over something like this, they ignore the whole policy fiasco going on in Washington as we speak. Why be concerned and speak up about health care when you can shout about the moral failings of yet another politician. We hear this talk about lobbyist influence for example, and yet the lobbyists are still shoveling money into congress as they write some pretty important legislation. Once again interests with large money will get their influence while the general public gets the shaft yet again.

Of course, it's much more fun to talk about fucking.

It's all too much like this while this is going on.

But hey, the politics of the least common denominator and all...

You know, at this rate, I don't think he's going to make Lieutenant.

"Is that really any creepier than Bill Clinton having Monica Lewinsky shove a cigar in her vagina, and then he smokes it?"

I say HELL YES! I don't give a fuck about John Ensign but demanding hush money not to tell the world your wife fucked another man? That's messed up. And having mommy and daddy pay out your hush money? That's messed up too.

Still, this is not so much a news item as it is pointing and laughing at the half wit freak show.

Who fucking cares who is fucking who, and doing what?

Fair point, and in general, I don't, but it's special evidence of profound dissociation and hyposcrisy when it's happening within the same party that has trumpeted concepts like "family values," "traditional marriage," "reverence for life," and other such spurious concepts. We can't look at this behavior in absence of the ideology that's presented alongside it. The Republicans have traded upon their supposed adherence to conservative mores, yet it's becoming abundantly clear that all that was never anything more than pandering to the values of the lower middle class in an attempt to garner votes. As such, it definitely deserves callouts, censure, and genuine honest laughter at the pathetic, shallow, and narrow attempt to assert that somehow they were better than the rest of us.

It is indeed much more fun to talk about fucking.

That's exactly my point. Who fucking cares who is fucking who, and doing what? Seriously. While the LTs of the world shout with glee over something like this, they ignore the whole policy fiasco going on in Washington as we speak. Why be concerned and speak up about health care when you can shout about the moral failings of yet another politician.

Okay, Eekacat, normally I don't want to start popcorn threads - but you called me out and now you need to know some serious shit:

First of all - here's the real deal about what I am doing about healthcare:

I am a community organizer with the Change That Works campaign which is currently advocating Congress to pass a public health care option.

I have hosted house meetings, done numerous one-on-one interviews with community members about their health care needs, and even:

Done (so far) a dozen interviews with the television and print media on adopting a public health care option.

That is, when I'm not TRAVELLING TO WASHINGTON D.C. OVERNIGHT ON A BUS to talk WITH MY SENATORS DIRECTLY ON THIS ISSUE.

I also serve on the New Hampshire For Healthcare Reform Leadership Committee and talk about healthcare on my radio shows here: wscafm.org.

Eekacat - you don't know shit about what you're saying about me in this thread, and that problem goes way farther back than this post.

Know this and drop the "I Hate LT" bullshit, to you I'm everything you can't stand on the internet. To me, you are a WORD on the internet.

Mmmkay. Miko, it's not like Democrats run on a kink platform. . .they trot out the wives and families and if they fuck up by fucking around, the gen pop is just as outraged. I also don't get "assert that somehow they were better than the rest of us." Of course they think they are right. I think my politics (liberal) are right, why should I assume that someone with the opposite view thinks they are any less right? We simply disagree. If they think they are better than me, it seems to follow I think I am better than them. I (usually) don't.

People, including people in power tend to fuck in various fun to talk about ways that ruin their careers and families. Would a Hollywood sex scandal rate a post on metachat? I kind of doubt it.

LT, yes, you do things. You are active and work for what you believe in. This is true. But I think the repeated gloating over Republican scandals doesn't do anything to help your cause. Don't forget the shades of gray and the whole "there but for the grace of god go I" thing.

Also, I agree with box.

RB, I'm just not willing to let Republicans off the hook because their party platform has for a decade or more been explicitly built around their assertions of family values. They have engaged in a systemic approach of currying favor by attacking gay marriage and gay relationships in general, promoting abstinence-only sex education, opposing the availability of birth control in and near schools, adapting federal foreign policy in ways that make it harder for women to do family planning, and so on. It's not just a question of image, it's one of wrapping the party itself, and its candidates, in a cloak of moral superiority and conservative values that condemn sexual freedom. They were able to be very successful with it for quite some time, as their supporters imagined (and asserted) that the candidates, as individuals, really embraced those values.

It's definitely satisfying to note that the image of purity and superior morality, ever false, is finally crumbling due to the frequency and visibility of sex scandals among the very people who draw a public salary while voting for programs and laws that restrict others' freedom, curtail their constitutional rights, and harm their health. That's the difference, to me, between sex scandals involving Democrats and those involving Republicans. Sex scandals are always pathetic and gross and embarrassing. But the hypocrisy is missing. The Democratic platform does not oppose sexual health efforts and candidates within the party are generally more supportive of gay rights. The platform generally supports more in the way of family law that aids the development of healthy, happy families, rather than cynically suggesting that the problem is low morals, lack of a father in the home, not enough religion, etc. Yes, there are definitely scandals on both sides of the aisle; but it's much more often that on the Republican side, they aren't just a fallible human act; they ooze with the hypocrisy of preaching one set of values - and running for election on them with the overt support of a national party - while living another.

think the repeated gloating over Republican scandals doesn't do anything to help your cause.

I don't think it hurts the cause, either. It's just conversation. Eekacat tried to say that people carp a lot but don't pay attention to actual policy. LT's response is to point out that it's possible to carp a lot and be very active in actual policy.

No really, Miko's right when she says:

The Republicans have traded upon their supposed adherence to conservative mores, yet it's becoming abundantly clear that all that was never anything more than pandering to the values of the lower middle class in an attempt to garner votes.

When it turns out that a Democratic politician is, for example, secretly gay and fucking an intern, it may be a scandal, but it's not the same as when it comes out that a Republican is gay and fucking an intern, because the Republicans court the homophobe vote.

I also don't get "assert that somehow they were better than the rest of us." Of course they think they are right.

There's a difference between thinking one is right and the kind of moral posturing the Republicans have been rocking since they invented the Moral Majority, and I can't see how anyone could miss this difference.

The whole "there but for the grace of god go I" thing...

...is only applicable if the "I" in question is also screwing the pooch.

And the only context in which an honest person could bring up Bill Clinton in this affair is to justify the joking, not to point out the schadenfreude; they don't remember the jean-creaming parties the right threw when all that impeachment bullshit went down? They were overjoyed, and crowed about it for... well, they haven't stopped crowing about it since.

If LT's gone overboard here (and I kinda think maybe everybody does go overboard in this stuff, but in politics respectful silence goes unnoticed so what choice is there?) it's something he learned from the Republicans over the course of his lifetime, and if he gets distinctly irritated by conservative shushers, he has every right to be; nobody has the right to escape criticism for hypocritical peccadillos, especially not America's Party of God.

If I've said anything really hurtful here, please understand that I'm reacting to a specific case, a specific conversation, and specific comments here, but there's also a greater overlay of decades of voices saying such things; where my rhetoric is harsh, I hope the individuals involved in this discussion can see that it's not personal, and that I see this as an extension of a long-running conversation involving, well, the entire country, more or less.

I've given up on the idea that anything can be taught, as far as politics are concerned. People can learn, but leading by example doesn't really work when people are so conditioned to turn and walk the other way. So all there is left to do is mock. Now it's the good guys' turn, and the bad guys are crying, "Boo hoo hoo."

Ha, I say: "Ha, ha, ha!"

I should have previewed. Miko's right.

Let's say:

Young Republican is interested in politics twenty years ago. Truly believes the conservative agenda. Marries, has a family. Gets elected to higher and higher offices. Now, twenty years later, this individual changes their mind. They find themselves in a situation where their personal choice goes against everything they built their career on. They get stuck.

People find Jesus. People loose Jesus. It's just life.

I'm too much of an empath to gloat.

Most Democratic officials don't advocate hot button issues like gay marriage and choice - yes they are friendlier, but still try to keep everybody happy by not going to far. Again, today's Democrats are not the Sex Positive Party.

I'm too much of a sociopath to not gloat.

Now, twenty years later, this individual changes their mind.

Then they should also change their politics.

I'm too much of an empath to gloat.

I'm too much of an activist not to point out the political problems that arise when the stance of the right conflicts with their lived reality. It should be noticed, because it points out the problems in the stance itself - not because of the problems in the individual, which as you say are common to all humanity.

today's Democrats are not the Sex Positive Party.

But there is a world of difference between their legislative activity and that of Republicans. Ask anyone who works in sexual health or family planning and has endured the Bush era. Ask global aid charities who were stifled by gag rules. That whole 'they're all the same' idea breaks up into timber on the rocky shores of legislative reality and public funding.

Right. They should change their politics, but have their lives to consider. It takes courage most people lack.

I'm not saying all politicians are the same, Miko. I get it. That's why I vote Democratic. You can save your rhetoric on this issue for me, and probably everyone else who might be reading this saga.

Right. They should change their politics, but have their lives to consider.

I don't understand why the lives and families of (Republican) politicians deserve compassionate respect when the lives and families of other politicians (and plain old citizens in general) aren't extended the same courtesy. Again, it's plain hypocrisy.

muddgirl, I'm trying to advocate extending the same courtesy to everyone. I'm not saying oh, poor Republicans, I'm saying, oh, poor stupid wonderful humanity. And I'm saying it poorly, I admit.

This has been keeping Oregonians atwitter for the past few months. It's interesting that calls for Adams's resignation do not really fall on party, or even ideological lines.

But it's also refreshing to see a different type of sex scandal. I mean, Clinton, Hart, Edwards, Spitzer, Kennedy (several of 'em) and I am sure some other Dems that I have forgotten about, have done pretty much the same thing, and the family dynamics have played out in a similar (boring) way as the Republicans. It's more a personality type than a party thing, obviously.

I would like to see a real kink scandal, or at least something other than the male politician being caught, or told upon, while being with another woman.

Maybe a foursome, or some gender stuff. I mean the Larry Craig stuff was fun. Let's have some more imagination.

I'm saying, oh, poor stupid wonderful humanity.

I just don't share this laissez-faire stance; these are all acts of will. Sure humans are a crazy mess. But these people have asked for and accepted power, and it's not unreasonable to expect them to use it responsibly, rather than trumpet one set of values and create rule sets accordingly, and then, for whatever reason, allow themselves the freedom to ignore those values and rules entirely in their personal lives.

Social progress is important to me and I think it's worth speaking up about. Not everyone wants to be a political activist, and that's fine. And I certainly share the maternal head-shaking feeling about 'poor wonderful humanity'; but that is entirely separate from the arena of politics, which is all about the use of power to shape the lives of people. It's serious business, in my view. Compassion, on a personal level, is a good and kind thing to offer, but these personal acts take on a separate meaning because of the political level. I'm definitely happy to see accountability for transgressive actions - accountability which includes the experience of shame and embarrassment about the acts undertaken. Again, if it's frequently true that people campaigning on a specific set of social values actually don't live by those values, as a citizen, I want to know it - not because I want to laugh at them, but because it's useful in showing how impractical, shortsighted, restrictive, fearful, and downright harmful those values can be when applied in politics.

Let's have some more imagination.

With rare exceptions (Vaclav Havel is one), I'd say that imagination and political success are inversely proportional.

Miko, I respect you very much. You are quite strident about this. It's part of who you are. Please allow me to disagree with you. Politicians are people, so to me humanity and politics are inseperable, and people fail, despite the best of (their) intentions. Whether or not I agree with those intentions in the first place has nothing to do with it.

For the record, I'm not maternal in the least, I'm just part of the beautiful crazy mess.

You probably have a very strong will yourself. I don't. I'd vote for you. And I wouldn't gloat or wring my hands if you failed.

Please allow me to disagree with you

I'm not not allowing you to disagree. I can see that you disagree, but it's not in my power to allow or disallow it. It's fine. I simply don't see this the same way you do. You are, of course, entitled to feel any way you like about politics. I'm also entitled, which is why I spoke up when you suggested that it was somehow inappropriate or uncharitable for others to criticize public servants about their scandals.It's not inappropriate, it's part of political discourse. Some choose to engage in it, some don't.

I continue to feel it's not only appropriate, but necessary, to take notice of scandals that reveal the gap between values and legislative action. Your use of the word "strident" indicates that you're having a strong reaction to it; but that's not about me. Sure, I am strident about this - I'm comfortable with that - though I might suggest 'ardent' is a better word. I have strong and exhaustively-thought-out beliefs about public service and about the way politics and values interact. I'm not insisting that you adopt them, too, and I hope you're not insisting that I adopt yours.

There's nothing wrong with my willingness to hold politicians to the standards that they themselves are saying they believe in, and using to get themselves elected. They're public servants. If they're lying about their beliefs and values, the public deserves to know, because those stated beliefs and values are reflected in their policy and are being used as an avenue to power.

I wouldn't gloat or wring my hands if you failed.

That's very generous, but it's absolutely not what I would expect if I went into politics. I'd expect to be held to some high standards and for most of my acts to be scrutinized.

What I'm hearing you say is that you prefer to take a humanitarian view and not make judgments about politicians' behavior as it relates to their work. That's fine. I don't. I feel that I can certainly view them in a humanitarian way as human beings, but as politicians, there is no need to cut them any slack at all.

I'm certainly not heartless; I actually posted a Facebook comment about Mark Sanford after the emails to his mistress came out. As I read them I saw him as a really pathetic figure, unable to prevent himself from falling into a stupid and classic peccadillo, because his need to feel loved and special was greater than his other needs. This powerful person, and yet so mushy and vulnerable. Yes, it's a sad human story. Very Shakespearean. And yet, I don't think that any of that human frailty, which is fairly evenly spread in the world, should obfuscate the fact that this is a man who used his supposed 'family values' to campaign against gay marriage, civil unions, and adoption by gay couples on the basis of respecting "traditional marriage" rights; wanted teachers to be able to lead classes in prayer at school; wanted the 10 commandments to be displayed in public schools; voted to restrict access to abortion; and voted to redirect welfare funds to faith-based programs. He has won power by taking these stances as part of creating a 'family values' image, and then shown that he himself is not capable of living within those values. It is sad, on a personal level. But it's also perfectly reasonable to suggest that the stances themselves are untenable, unrealistic, inhumane, and shallow; so much so that even those who have won public support and built a career on pretending to live according to those stances can't do it.

If I weren't concerned about his use of his power and image to harm conditions for families, I would shrug my shoulders too. But politicians aren't harmless. Their actions and decisions change the conditions of people's lives. When we have an opportunity to examine the stated values vs. the lived values of politicians, we also have the opportunity to examine the stated values, and to think hard about what we're hearing from politicians when they talk about them.

Actually, I'm very comfortable with this discussion, not riled up at all.

I'm simply taking issue with your stance that Republican scandals are somehow different that Democrat scandals. You do make a point that using them for negative publicity might help the Democrats. It might, but I find it unseemly. You don't have to keep repeating what Family Values campaigns are and how distasteful they are. I get it.

I wouldn't gloat or wring my hands if you failed.

That's very generous, but it's absolutely not what I would expect if I went into politics. I'd expect to be held to some high standards and for most of my acts to be scrutinized.

Of course you wouldn't expect it. Of course you would be confident that you could execute your duties as promised.

Life happens. People change. How can you possibly know what situation you might find yourself in in the future and predict how you would react?

And if you did have a moral failing, it would be ok, because your political agenda was Correct?

You keep saying that you get it, rainbaby, and then you keep proving that you don't. I hate to jump in on others' behalf, (who am I kidding, I love it!) but I think these Family Values campaigns are absolutely central to the reason Republican sex scandals are unlike Democratic ones. You keep saying you take issue with the idea that they are "somehow" different, and when Miko explains exactly how they are different (dispelling this "somehow" with specifics) you tell her that's not the point, you know all that, you don't need her to tell you blah blah, and you do it in a hurt tone, see I'm on your side, that kind of thing. I'd be frustrated with you if I were her, but she's a lot cooler than I am.

Seriously, she just explained again, and it looks like you ignored her again. It's cool to think what you think, it's cool to remain unpersuaded, and I guess it's even cool to write whatever you damn well please in response to anybody else, I ain't gainsaying your right or ability to think and do as you please (as you can see, I have no pressing reason to jump in here and write this but I did it anyway), but it's pretty obvious you're not listening, so why are you insisting other people explain themselves?

I'm simply taking issue with your stance that Republican scandals are somehow different that Democrat scandals.

That's an over-generalization. Eliot Spitzer, for example, was a Democrat who was embroiled in a scandal that I would put in the same class as John Ensign's scandal - Spitzer privately had sex with prostitutes while publicly calling for harsher punishments of prostitutes and johns. Putting aside the fact that what Spitzer did was illegal and what Ensign did was technically legal, Ensign's party would have nothing to do with this if Ensign didn't publicly support the so-called "family values" portions of the platform.

I'm simply taking issue with your stance that Republican scandals Republican scandals are somehow different that Democrat scandals.

I know you said you 'get it' about this point, but I'll have to repeat it because this is the difference: They aren't 'somehow' different. They are different, because of the Republican Party's lengthy history of consciously employing a rhetoric of moral purity and a legislative agenda designed to limit sexual freedoms. You may not be impressed with the Democrats as a pro-sex party, but they have not pursued this strategy or employed this consistently applied and tightly controlled rhetoric. That's what makes the difference.

Now, each individual case may be considered separately, of course - I really deplored the Spitzer incidents, precisely because he was indulging in a very behavior that he, as Atty General, had investigated and prosecuted. He embodied the same hypocrisy I object to in Craig, Sanford, et al. But in his case, it was his specific job description that shaded the event in that way; not his party's overall platform and rhetoric. The Republican Party is the group that has made a focused effort to establish itself as the go-to group for social conservatives, so there is material difference where that party is concerned: Republican scandals can be seen not just as individual mistakes, because they occur within the context of an ongoing rhetoric of moral conservatism that us being used for political gain. If you really do get it, then I'll stop explaining it - but that's the difference.

You do make a point that using them for negative publicity might help the Democrats.

I didn't say that anywhere.

Life happens. People change. How can you possibly know what situation you might find yourself in in the future and predict how you would react?

I can't. It's certainly possible I'd fuck up. But if I fucked up, I would fully deserve the censure I got.

And if you did have a moral failing, it would be ok, because your political agenda was Correct?

No, it would not be OK. But I would be especially deserving of censure if I had campaigned and governed in such a way as to punish others for that failing.

I think we agree that everyone has moral failings. So there's no 'if' about that - all politicians have failings of one kind of another. The issues I have arise when a politician has a stated agenda, gains support for that agenda, and then behaves in a way exactly opposite to that agenda, having taken dishonest advantage of their supporters. For instance, someone might run on a platform of cleaning up corruption in a city government. If that person is found later to have taken bribes under the table, then they deserve additional censure because of the discrepancy between their words and actions, and the dishonesty of their presentation to the public.

In the case of Republicans, we have an entire party which has developed and accepted and promulgated a socially conservative platform to run on, and yet evinces a widespread failing to live up to that stated ethic. For this reason, anyone using that rhetoric deserves the additional censure that comes when we consider the behavior in the context of the person's - and their party's - political rhetoric.

Well, I was worried something might be wrong on the internet, but I see people are taking care of it.