Republican Sex Scandal!!! (formerly: Don't cry for me Argentina)

102 posts / 0 new

Thu, 2009-06-25 08:36

josh

"South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, whose mysterious disappearance last Thursday prompted national headlines, acknowledged this afternoon that he had an extramarital affair.

"I've been unfaithful to my wife, and I developed a relationship with what started as a dear, dear friend from Argentina," he said.

Sanford said he would resign as chair of the Republican Governor's Association.

. . . .

Sanford's office initially explained Sanford's disappearance from the state by saying the governor was hiking on the Appalachian Trail.

. . . .

This morning, however, the Republican governor said he had considered going hiking as a break after the state legislative session, but then changed his mind at the last minute. Upon arriving at the airport, he told The State newspaper that he had been in Buenos Aires."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/24/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry...

Wed, 2009-06-24 15:03

josh

This follows on the heels of the revelation last week of Nevada Republican, and "Promise Keeper," Senator John Ensign's affair with a staffer:

"Known as a critic of other pols' peccadilloes, Ensign was forced to admit he had an affair with ex-campaign staffer Cindy Hampton of Las Vegas, whose husband, Doug, and teenage son also were paid GOP aides.

. . . .

Ensign reportedly told political allies he went public after he was confronted with a demand for money from golfing buddy Doug Hampton.

. . . .

The Washington Post in 1999 said Ensign "will not be alone in a car with a woman" to avoid misperceptions. ""

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/06/18/2009-06-18_holier_than_thou_goper_quits_post.html

http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20090619/NEWS/906199997/1061/NONE&pa...

Thu, 2009-06-25 07:06

josh

Sanford the theologian:

"I am here because if you were to look at God's laws, they are in every instance designed to protect people from themselves. . . . It's not a moral, rigid list of do's and don'ts, just for the heck of do's and don'ts. It is, indeed, to protect us from ourselves."

"And the biggest self of self is, indeed, self."

And Sanford the comedian:

"About a year ago, it sparked into something more than that. I have seen her three times since then. During that whole sparking thing."

"Everybody ready? I won't begin in any particular spot."

"My love of the Appalachian Trail."

"It was interesting how this thing has gone down."

Asked if he and his wife had separated, Sanford responded, "I don't know how you want to define that. She's there; I'm here."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062403581.html

Thu, 2009-06-25 07:29

Maysie

josh, the thread title needs some sparking up. It doesn't scream "Republican sex scandal!" Let me know, I'll make the changes.

Quote:

Mark Sanford says that marriage is between a man and a woman. Where have we heard this before? And he’s “against” gay marriage. But apparently he hasn’t come out against infidelity.

From resist racism.

I'm only shocked that this isn't a gay sex scandal. He IS a Republican isn't he? I guess there's always that one straight exception.

Thu, 2009-06-25 08:29

josh

Yeah, I guess I was trying to be too clever. Go ahead and change it to something catchier.

Thu, 2009-06-25 08:37

Maysie

I've done what I can. Hopefully babblers will be along momentarily with some pithy comments.

Thu, 2009-06-25 08:54

Ghislaine

This is such a weird story. He was literally missing for 4 days, which was reported in the media. Then, he comes out with false story after story which culminated in the strangest press conference I have ever seen yesterday. It is amusing to watch on youtube. Especially the part where he says he spent the last few days "crying on a boat off the coast of Argentina". anyways, I feel for his wife and kids, especially as it notes that his wife "started his career for him". Perhaps she should have focussed on her own career.

There is a story on the gossipy tabloid sites that Bill Clinton was in Argentina at the same time being amused by high-priced strippers. Funny coincidence if true.

Thu, 2009-06-25 09:46

Michelle

Maysie wrote:

I've done what I can. Hopefully babblers will be along momentarily with some pithy comments.

I'm thocked and pithed off at thith whole thing!

Okay, dumb joke.

Seriously though - this is just so...I don't know. I feel kind of sorry for them. This really has nothing to do with his career, or at least it shouldn't. American politics is so seamy in that regard.

For comparison's sake - Mike Harris carried on an affair for years while he was in office, and the only media that gave a damn was Frank Magazine. If you didn't read Frank, you'd never know, because no one gave a shit, so the mainstream media didn't report on it.

Juxtapose that with online mainstream news sites in the US publishing all the e-mails between this couple. Having read them, it just makes me feel sorry for them, even though the guy's a scummy Republican.

Now, I don't know much about this guy - if he's one of these Bible-thumping family values types who campaigned hard on that (and it looks like that might be the case from josh's quote upthread), then I understand why the press and the public would want to pounce all over this. But I much prefer Canadian political culture, where for the most part, personal life is just that - personal.

Thu, 2009-06-25 09:58

josh

I don't know about being a bible thumper, but he considers himself a "Christian conservative." And South Carolina is chock full of them. So, the hypocrisy factor is big.

Thu, 2009-06-25 11:03

#10

Unionist

Ghislaine - you feel sorry for his wife and kids???

You'll need a huge heart if you want to weep for every family where someone is having extramural sex.

I'm with Michelle here (not literally, of course, given her refusal of a recent offer...). I feel sorry for two people whose personal lives have been turned into public scandal by voyeurs and so-con hypocrites. His politics are irrelevant here, because this could happen to anyone.

Thu, 2009-06-25 11:08

#11

Michelle

On the other hand, I can see the point that it's people like this guy who CREATE such a political culture of spying in people's bedrooms and personal lives.

I'd love to see politicians in the US standing up, even when they "misbehave" in their personal lives (or even better, when they don't but are asked to comment on other politicians' personal lives), and saying, "It's really none of your business what's happening in my marriage. I have a job to do, and I'm doing it."

But to do that, they would also have to admit that it's really none of THEIR business whether society accepts different "family values" than the ones they hold.

Thu, 2009-06-25 11:34

#12

Tommy_Paine

But to do that, they would also have to admit that it's really none of THEIR business whether society accepts different "family values" than the ones they hold.

And that would just take too much fun out of politics.

So far, it doesn't look like we will have to surf our fingers off to avoid the tearfull wife "standing by her man" routine.

Thu, 2009-06-25 12:18

#13

martin dufresne

I'd love to see politicians in the US standing up (...) and saying, "It's really none of your business what's happening in my marriage. I have a job to do, and I'm doing it."

I could understand this if there was no lying and cheating involved. But there usually is in such matters, especially in conservative circles. So I imagine that constituents and the press are justified in wondering if this behaviour extends in the public sphere.

Sanford was elected by projecting the image of a "good family man". If he had come clean as someone who cheats on women, a sex tourist or even just a single man who doesn't believe in marriage before sex, would he have been elected?

Ghislaine, I have to say I winced at your "Maybe (his wife) should have focussed on her own career" comment. Isn't this shifting the blame to her? 'nuff said.

Thu, 2009-06-25 12:25

#14

Ghislaine

martin dufresne wrote:

Ghislaine, I have to say I winced at your "Maybe (his wife) should have focussed on her own career" comment. Isn't this shifting the blame to her? 'nuff said.

Not at all! I meant it in a way that she may regret devoting her intelligence and time all of these years to her husband's career, rather than her own when she has now been backstabbed.

And who is being blamed here? The comments seem to agree that cheating is no big deal and we should not judge policiticans for breaking marriage vows.

Thu, 2009-06-25 13:03

#15

martin dufresne

Maybe it's a thin line between pitying a woman for being back-stabbed and criticizing her allegiance choices. Remember the hoopla around the Clintons. She instantly seemed to be on a hotter seat than he was about his philandering. Could it be that women serve as a kind of moral screen where men's (im)morality tales are played out?

Thu, 2009-06-25 13:13

#16

Ghislaine

martin, I wasn't implying anything about her being blamed for anything. Obviously she is a victim of a lying, cheating spouse.

All I meant by my comment was what I said. Maybe she should have not devoted so much time to someone's else's career rather than her own. It was a feminist statement and it also reflects the reality of politics in the US. I am extremely glad we have no such titles as " first lady" or "first gentleman" and spouses are not expected to campaign (except maybe Olivia Chow :) or give up previous employment to fulfil the role for First Spouse.

Thu, 2009-06-25 13:13

#17

josh

Well, I'm glad to see that the men have started to stop trotting out their wives to these confessionals.

"The solo confessional marks a recent shift in what had been a well-honed political playbook.

. . . .

The traditional rule book for adultery damage control always recommends something like this: cheating candidate confesses, sheds a tear if he can (and it has always been a he), and then pleads for mercy with a pained, tight-lipped wife standing mutely by his side.

. . . .

But increasingly, say feminists, communications experts and political consultants, political wives are not only staying home - they're speaking out."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24175.html#ixzz0JSkD3ci2&D

Thu, 2009-06-25 13:16

#18

martin dufresne

If you don't see the blaming, there is nothing else I can say.

Thu, 2009-06-25 13:20

#19

josh

I don't see it either.

Thu, 2009-06-25 13:29

#20

Ghislaine

martin dufresne wrote:

If you don't see the blaming, there is nothing else I can say.

Well, please point out where I blamed her? As well, please point out where anyone is blaming anyone but the cheater himself here?

Thu, 2009-06-25 13:43

#21

Stargazer

I took Ghislaine to be saying that the wife had suppressed her career in support of his and that now this wife has wasted all the years "standing behind her man" when she could have been in a great career of her own. I see no blaming going on here, just feeling bad that yet another woman sacrificed her career for a cheating ass. This is apparently common in neo-Con "Family Values" circles. Pointing out the obvious does not make Ghislaine dense, as Martin is implying.

Martin, do you think you can possibly stop attributing nefarious things to women who don't see the world as you do, in all cases, at all times? That would be swell. Thanks.

Thu, 2009-06-25 13:46

#22

josh

Yeah, it seemed pretty obvious to me that that's what she was getting at.

Thu, 2009-06-25 14:08

#23

Polly B

I took it that way too. It IS too bad she supported him instead of building something for herself, what a waste of time.

She's going to have a hard time with the kids - the steamy oh how I love you and you breasts and your tan line emails are out there, and her kids are going to be picked on and teased mercilessly.

The guys a real shit.

Thu, 2009-06-25 14:09

#24

Polly B

martin dufresne wrote:

If you don't see the blaming, there is nothing else I can say.

That'll be the day.

Thu, 2009-06-25 14:15

#25

josh

"The guys a real shit."

What makes him "worse" than any of the other recent male politicians who were unfaithful? Reading the e-mails, he comes off more sympathetic than most of them.

Thu, 2009-06-25 14:54

#26

Sven

Unionist wrote:

I feel sorry for two people whose personal lives have been turned into public scandal by voyeurs and so-con hypocrites. His politics are irrelevant here, because this could happen to anyone.

Yeah, this guy struck me as an economic conservative (in contrast to Sen. Ensign in Nevada who was a social conservative -- a "Promise Keeper", no less). So, the hyprocracy angle really isn't that sharp here, in my opinion (and, so, I do feel sorry for both of them). But, I also feel bad for his wife because it strikes at the most fragile thing in a relationship (trust) and I just feel sad whenever someone (whoever that might be) has trust rewarded with untrustworthiness.

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Thu, 2009-06-25 15:02

#27

Sven

Stargazer wrote:

I took Ghislaine to be saying that the wife had suppressed her career in support of his and that now this wife has wasted all the years "standing behind her man" when she could have been in a great career of her own. I see no blaming going on here, just feeling bad that yet another woman sacrificed her career for a cheating ass.

I agree. So many women have sacrificed their own career opportunities to support the male "bread winner". But, if Martin doesn't like approaching it from that angle, perhaps this one would be more palatable: Not enough men sacrifice their own careers to support female "bread winners". Either way, it's basically two sides of the same coin.

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Thu, 2009-06-25 15:20

#28

josh

Sanford's lucky the affair took place outside South Carolina:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/25/adultery-criminal/

Thu, 2009-06-25 15:43

#29

Sven

martin dufresne wrote:

Let me phrase it another way. Does it bother anyone that the (excellent) why-have-sacrificed-herself-to-him argument never comes out in support of wives whose husbands don't cheat? Isn't this true of all political wives? Yet, it seems to me that it is only when Mr.'s wrongs somehow emerge into the limelight that the focus rapidly switches over to her reaction, previous bad choice, etc.

To answer your two questions: Yes and Yes.

I've long ago concluded that women will not generally be equal to men (at a macro-, societal-level) until there are as many men staying at home taking care of the kids (or being "the good husband" to a career woman) as there are women doing that.

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Thu, 2009-06-25 18:29

#30

martin dufresne

No, I don't think anyone is being "dense", Stargazer, but I am surprised that no one reads "maybe she should not have done whatever" as blame, as shifting the moral contest over to her while Sanford's own choices (although much ampler) are simply dismissed either as those of a "shit" or as "nothing to it, it's his personal life", or even boys-will-be-boys according to one's moral ideology, all of which ending up bypassing the contradiction between promises and deeds and letting famous men off the hook.

Let me phrase it another way. Does it bother anyone that the (excellent) why-have-sacrificed-herself-to-him argument never comes out in support of wives whose husbands don't cheat? Isn't this true of all political wives? Yet, it seems to me that it is only when Mr.'s wrongs somehow emerge into the limelight that the focus rapidly switches over to her reaction, previous bad choice, etc.

I still see this as Ceasar's wife being the scene where morality is played out, albeit as condescension, while Ceasar is spared such examination.

Thu, 2009-06-25 18:31

#31

Unionist

Ghislaine wrote:

The comments seem to agree that cheating is no big deal and we should not judge policiticans for breaking marriage vows.

I've been to many a marriage, and I vow I've never heard anyone chant:

Quote:
[i]I swear I'll screw, No one but you.[/i]

Cheating is no big deal, Ghislaine. It's a private matter. It's like falling out of love, or spoiling the kids, or divorce. It's for individuals to work out.

Thu, 2009-06-25 18:37

#32

Unionist

The gossip and value judgments in this thread is making me shudder. This kind of stuff goes on every day in every community and neighbourhood in every social circle. Some people here are very quick to lay blame and condemn based on no information whatsoever. What's wrong with simply pointing out that it's none of our business and sticking in a principled way to that position?

Thu, 2009-06-25 19:12

#33

martin dufresne

Unionist, how can you ever hope to defeat Conservative politicians unless you are ready to point out that even they don't live by the rigid principles they use for political credibility and to shame people who live in a more honest fashion even if that bucks prejudices?

Thu, 2009-06-25 19:21

#34

martin dufresne

It can be argued that Sanford cheated not only his wife but his constituents by taking off for a week and lying about it. And if he had been a wife or child abuser, would that remain a private matter, "going on every day in every community"?

Thu, 2009-06-25 20:01

#35

Doug

Unionist wrote:
What's wrong with simply pointing out that it's none of our business and sticking in a principled way to that position?

The cheating in itself is not the business of anyone not involved in it, but other things are. Disappearing for days and not telling his staff where he was and not arranging for a stand-in has to be of some concern to the people and officials of South Carolina. Another matter for the public is that Governor Sandford ran on policies that he claimed were meant to promote and respect the sanctity of marriage. Obviously when he got caught with another woman, that became a problem.

Thu, 2009-06-25 20:04

#36

NorthReport

I suppose it's because of his track record. Did he not vote to impeach Clinton for his sexing Monica, etc.

Unionist wrote:

The gossip and value judgments in this thread is making me shudder. This kind of stuff goes on every day in every community and neighbourhood in every social circle. Some people here are very quick to lay blame and condemn based on no information whatsoever. What's wrong with simply pointing out that it's none of our business and sticking in a principled way to that position?

Thu, 2009-06-25 20:17

#37

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

I suppose it's because of his track record. Did he not vote to impeach Clinton for his sexing Monica, etc.

Don't know. But if he voted for the death penalty, we wouldn't hang him. We should practise what [b]we[/b] preach, not what he preaches.

Thu, 2009-06-25 20:19

#38

Unionist

martin dufresne wrote:

It can be argued that Sanford cheated not only his wife but his constituents by taking off for a week and lying about it.

Big deal. That's not what the prurient discussion here (see thread title) and in the media is about. They want to dock him pay or fire him for that? I'm fine with that. But this is about [shudder] [b]ADULTERY[/b].

Quote:
And if he had been a wife or child abuser, would that remain a private matter, "going on every day in every community"?

Uhhhh, no, martin, criminal behaviour is the business of the whole society. It is exposed publicly, no names withheld, public trials, and punishment on conviction. Far more serious when the culprit is a public servant.

"Cheating on the wife" = none of your business or mine.

"Abusing the wife and kids" = behaviour which should be punished to the full extent of the law.

It's actually a bit scary when you put these two unrelated behaviours in the same context. It shows how far we have yet to go to protect personal affairs that are no one's business.

martin dufresne wrote:
Unionist, how can you ever hope to defeat Conservative politicians unless you are ready to point out that even they don't live by the rigid principles they use for political credibility and to shame people who live in a more honest fashion even if that bucks prejudices?

Because the scariest ones are those who do live by those rigid principles, or (more likely) who don't get caught. If people are genuinely attracted by those horrendous "principles", then showing that some proponents are hypocrites will only reinforce the principles.

Thu, 2009-06-25 21:42

#39

martin dufresne

First, adultery was and probably still is illegal in most constituencies. (Not sure about South Carolina, but I have found that women who "commit adultery" there are barred by S.C. law from receiving alimony, so there is clearly a legal impediment to it.) I am not saying it should be but I can recognize a logic to it being so, given the usual devastation of dependents' lives when a man (or a woman) decides to do that rather than abide by marriage commitments. Regardless, the point is that it aspparently still is, even if if we agreed that it shouldn't be. (If not, why would we pity Mrs. Sanford?). So your point fails on that account until adultery is legitimated everywhere, which shouldn't happen anytime soon given the prevailing political winds.

As for your argument whereby "showing that some proponents are hypocrites will only reinforce the principles", no, I don't think it's necessarily so. For instance, if I exposed a fundamentalist Christian preacher (e.g. Jimmy Swaggart) as womanizing like crazy in his spare time, that wouldn't be supportive of his stated values. Au contraire.

Thu, 2009-06-25 21:59

#40

Sven

I have a hypothetical question that touches directly on the Sanford matter (i.e., is cheating on one's spouse relevant regarding public officials?).

Let's say an individual is running for office for the first time and, so, has no public track record. Let's say that you know that the person is a habitual liar (the person cheats on her or his spouse, the person frequently claims one thing is true when the person knows it's false, the person often promises to do one thing but does another, etc.).

Is the fact that the person is a habitual liar relevant? In other words, when the candidate makes promises during the campaign, will you believe what that person says, knowing that the person frequently lies in all aspects of his or her life?

I have long held the opinion that what a person does in her or his private life is irrelevant. But, I've been thinking about the fragile and important quality of trust in relationships (and by "relationships" I mean human relationships generally: personal, professional, community, etc.). Trust is such an important factor in any relationship (including a constituency's trust in elected officials).

So, now, I look at the question with less certainty and with a bit more ambivalence.

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Thu, 2009-06-25 22:10

#41

Sven

One additional thought: People often view a concern about whether a person cheats on their spouse or not as simply being overly interested in someone else's "sex scandal" (i.e., a prurient interest in someone's private sex life).

But, I think a person can respect the privacy of someone's sex life but still have concern about a person's character.

For example, if a new candidate for public office was single (or in an open relationship) and was sexually promiscuous, I couldn't care less. The sexual practices of the person are irrelevant.

So, the fact that a person is cheating on the person's spouse isn't so much about the person's sexual practices as it is about personal veracity. And that, it seems, is relevant, no?

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Thu, 2009-06-25 22:37

#42

Michelle

Unless you know everything about a marriage (including all the ways that both partners have "cheated" or "broken vows", and I'm not just talking about sleeping with other people), there is no way for anyone to be able to draw conclusions about someone's character because they have fallen in love with someone else or had sex with someone else.

That's only one way people "cheat" or "break vows". There are lots of other ways too. And I would be willing to bet that in most marriages where sexual infidelity occurs, there's probably lots of other vow breaking and infidelity happening as well. By both partners.

Thu, 2009-06-25 23:03

#43

Sven

Michelle wrote:

Unless you know everything about a marriage (including all the ways that both partners have "cheated" or "broken vows", and I'm not just talking about sleeping with other people), there is no way for anyone to be able to draw conclusions about someone's character because they have fallen in love with someone else or had sex with someone else.

That's only one way people "cheat" or "break vows". There are lots of other ways too. And I would be willing to bet that in most marriages where sexual infidelity occurs, there's probably lots of other vow breaking and infidelity happening as well. By both partners.

If a person is otherwise know for honesty and there has been an incident of that person cheating on his or her partner, I think the incident has much less relevance than if the cheating is part of a pattern of deceitful behavior.

For example:

Person X has told you a lie.

Person Y is cheating on his or her partner, but has otherwise been honest with you.

Person Z has told you a lie and is cheating on his or her partner (i.e., there is a possible pattern of deceit).

I can see viewing Person X more negatively than Person Y.

But, I can also see viewing Person Z more negatively than Person X.

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Thu, 2009-06-25 23:14

#44

Unionist

Sven, you think the crimes and betrayals committed by politicians are related to some personal flaw of individual character?

I go by what public figures say and do in public life. I have never heard of a meaningful link with their private life. One may be filled with vice, the other with virtue, and vice versa (no pun intended). History is replete with instances.

Thu, 2009-06-25 23:19

#45

Sven

Unionist wrote:

Sven, you think the crimes and betrayals committed by politicians are related to some personal flaw of individual character?

I go by what public figures say and do in public life. I have never heard of a meaningful link with their private life. One may be filled with vice, the other with virtue, and vice versa (no pun intended). History is replete with instances.

Well, like I said, I'm ambivalent about the subject. I don't think cheating on a spouse is determinative. At the same time, if it is part of a pattern of deceitful conduct, I don't think it's necessarily irrelevant, either.

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Fri, 2009-06-26 00:21

#46

martin dufresne

It is only to the extent that a conservative politician attempts to control or exploit people's personal behaviour (in the private sphere) that I find it reasonable to hold him accountable for his own and to further discredit his views and policies when he himself is shown to have been lying about his own behaviour. I find Unionist's position a little "angéliste"...

Fri, 2009-06-26 00:50

#47

Polly B

And then there's the fact that he used taxpayer dollars to visit his friend in Argentina. I think that qualifies as reason to trust him a wee bit less than the next guy.

Fri, 2009-06-26 00:55

#48

Sven

Polly B wrote:

And then there's the fact that he used taxpayer dollars to visit his friend in Argentina. I think that qualifies as reason to trust him a wee bit less than the next guy.

Well, if he used taxpayer dollars for personal use, that -- by itself -- should result in his resignation.

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Fri, 2009-06-26 01:11

#49

Polly B

Well he says that the trip was necessary for he and his staff, but admits that while he was there he took the opportunity to hook up. He has offered to pay it back I understand.

Fri, 2009-06-26 01:19

#50

NorthReport

It's usually a dead give-a-way. Those who bray the loudest usually are covering up some bad behaviour by themselves.

The Love Story

First of all, we may want to consider the possibility that the governor's decision to reject the federal stimulus money was not a mighty stand against government spending but instead an early sign of total nuttiness.

Second, perhaps it is time to rethink the idea of constantly electing middle-aged heterosexual men to positions of high importance.

Third, although the governor-run-amok thing is worrisome, South Carolinians can take comfort in the fact their state gives its chief executive slightly less power than a game warden.

Fourth, before this search for a presidential nominee goes any further, I'm thinking it's time for the Republicans to apologize for putting us through the Clinton impeachment. We seem to have pretty well established that sexual stone-throwing is a dangerous sport

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/opinion/25collins.html?_r=1&em

Fri, 2009-06-26 01:29

#51

Sven

NorthReport wrote:

Fourth, before this search for a presidential nominee goes any further, I'm thinking it's time for the Republicans to apologize for putting us through the Clinton impeachment. We seem to have pretty well established that sexual stone-throwing is a dangerous sport

Sometimes it is "sexual stone throwing". But, I disagree that the Clinton impeachment was "sexual" stone throwing. He wasn't impeached for having sex. He was impeached because he lied under oath in court.

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Republican Sex Scandal!!! (formerly: Don't cry for me Argentina)

Pages