...about whether he had committed adultery. Which most people who commit adultery do.
Republican Sex Scandal!!! (formerly: Don't cry for me Argentina)
Fri, 2009-06-26 07:23
#52
Fri, 2009-06-26 08:34
#53
Funny, America can impeach a president for lying about sex, but doesn't dare touch one who lied to the nation about the necessity for war.
Fri, 2009-06-26 08:39
#54
"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?"
No.
Fri, 2009-06-26 08:43
#55
Funny, America can impeach a president for lying about sex, but doesn't dare touch one who lied to the nation about the necessity for war.
That's the best one-sentence summary of this topic (and this thread) that I've seen. And it shows why a politician's personal virtues/vices - his sex life, whether he gives to charity, whether he lies about chopping down the cherry tree - ought to remain really low on the scale of public interest.
Fri, 2009-06-26 09:02
#56
Why so few women in the club.
"I guess men in power are terribly attractive to some women, but I don't think that women in power are attractive to some men," said former Rep. Pat Schroeder (D-Colo.), who was co-chairwoman of Gary Hart's scandal-plagued presidential campaign in 1988.
And that means, according to relationship expert Suzie Johnson, that male politicians may be lavished with sexual attention they are unprepared to handle. "Most of these politicians were the high school boys that couldn't get the cheerleader," said Johnson, whose website GoAskSuzie.com specializes in issues of infidelity. "Now the situation is reversed."
. . . .
"The tendency or willingness to transgress sexual boundaries in general is much more likely in men than in women," said Paul Abramson, author of the forthcoming book "Sex Appeal: Six Ethical Principles for the 21st Century."
Abramson, a psychology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, added that "women are socialized to be much more cautious about sexuality due to the fact that they can get pregnant. Having an affair is a sexual risk, and women are much less inclined to do that."
. . . .
And, of course, there is always the possibility that female politicians have their own sexual indiscretions the public simply doesn't know about. Those secrets may stay hidden for a while. According to Johnson, "women are way more clever at covering [affairs] up."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24236_Page2.html
Fri, 2009-06-26 10:40
#57
"women are way more clever at covering [affairs] up."
Isn't this instant alibi akin to what we hear from reactionaries about domestic violence"? "Women do it just as much, it's just that we don't hear about it..."
I think there is a knee-jerk reflex among some parties whenever questionable "private" male behaviour that hurts women and/or children is brought to light, challenging the man's power base or image. (Witness the angry attempts to dismiss or justify Michael Jackson's pederasty on blogs the world over today.)
"The Lord told me it's flat none of your business." - the Reverend Jimmy Swaggart to his congregation after his second arrest for solicitation in 1991.
Fri, 2009-06-26 10:40
#58
"women are way more clever at covering [affairs] up."
Isn't this instant alibi akin to what we hear from reactionaries about domestic violence" "Women do it just as much, it's just that we don't hear about it..." I think there is a knee-jerk reflex among some parties whenever questionable "private" male behaviour is brought to light.
You are comparing apples and oranges, as unionist aptly pointed out above. Domestic violence is not a private matter. It is a criminal matter. Yes, some few women do abuse, but the overwhelming majority are men.
However, men adn women do cheat in probably more equal numbers and it is a private matter. He should not resign over this specifically (the usage of public money to fund his trips to visit his mistress are a diff't story and relevant for public discussion). I feel bad for the family for having all of this out in the open, for the breakup and for all of the emails being printed.
However, when will we move past politicians getting a "scarlet letter" for things irrelevant to their job performance?
Fri, 2009-06-26 10:44
#59
...about whether he had committed adultery. Which most people who commit adultery do.
Mst people who commit adultery do lie about it. But under oath?
Fri, 2009-06-26 10:50
#60
I might, if I felt that it was a question that had nothing to do with what they were prosecuting me for - which is exactly what they did with Clinton. Whether or not he had consensual sex with Lewinsky had nothing to do with anything, and it was merely using the courts to politically smear him based on his private sex life.
Fri, 2009-06-26 11:06
#61
Sven
Funny, America can impeach a president for lying about sex, but doesn't dare touch one who lied to the nation about the necessity for war.
Not a bad point, Stargazer. However, Clinton was not impeached for "lying about sex"...but for lying about sex [u]under oath[/u] (it's a critical distinction). While it is certainly understandable that a human being would do that -- the fact of the matter is that it is not an excuse for committing perjury. It's not a legal defense to say: "I lied under oath but I had a good reason to lie."
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Fri, 2009-06-26 11:10
#62
It was not an impeachment-worthy offense. Not that it wasn't Clinton's fault. Had he settled the Paula Jones suit when many, except his wife, wanted him to, he never would have been in that desposition having to face that question.
Fri, 2009-06-26 11:18
#63
Sven
No.
Personal veracity is not relevant?
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Fri, 2009-06-26 11:22
#64
Someone's private romantic life is no one's business. It's between him/her and the people involved.
Fri, 2009-06-26 11:23
#65
Sven
I might, if I felt that it was a question that had nothing to do with what they were prosecuting me for
But then you'd be committing perjury, right. As an individual, you don't have the right to determine which laws apply to you and which laws do not -- nor the right not to be punished when you do violate a law.
Same with Clinton.
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Fri, 2009-06-26 11:26
#66
Sven
Someone's private romantic life is no one's business. It's between him/her and the people involved.
I'm not disagreeing with that. But, like I said in my hypothetical above, if a new candidate was running for office (and had no public track record) and you knew that the person was a habitual liar in her or his personal life, wouldn't it be natural and reasonable to think, "Well, if the person lies in her or his personal life, maybe the person will do the same in other (professional, community, public, etc.) relationships", no?
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Fri, 2009-06-26 11:29
#67
Well, now you're switching to "habitual." Even so, no. It shows that they're human. Says nothing about how they would perform in office, or how deceitful to the public they would be. Richard Nixon and George W. Bush didn't have affairs, yet they lied left and right to the people.
Fri, 2009-06-26 11:29
#68
Sven
It was not an impeachment-worthy offense. Not that it wasn't Clinton's fault.
While I think committing perjury is impeachment-worthy -- had I been a Senator voting at the impeachment trial of Clinton, I would have voted for no punishment. The impeachment, itself, was a hand-slap (a public shaming) for committing perjury -- and I think that was appropriate (other people often go to jail for committing perjury). But, removal from office for that? Absolutely not.
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Fri, 2009-06-26 11:34
#69
Sven
Richard Nixon and George W. Bush didn't have affairs, yet they lied left and right to the people.
Not engaging in affairs does not mean that a person is honest and trustworthy. That hardly needs to be said.
Likewise, having an affair does not mean that a person would be dishonest and untrustworthy in other areas of life. But, look at my X, Y, and Z hypothetical above (post #43) as to whether it may be relevant (as opposed to determinative).
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Fri, 2009-06-26 11:40
#70
I don't think it's relevant either way.
Fri, 2009-06-26 11:43
#71
Sven
I don't think it's relevant either way.
Because it relates to sex?
What if a person is running for office and you know the person is a liar in her or his personal life (the person has no public track record). The person has never lied about something sexual. Is the fact that the person is a liar in her or his personal life relevant?
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Fri, 2009-06-26 11:47
#72
Yes, if they lie as to their qualifications, academic or otherwise, or, say, their experience in business. But everybody lies about sex in one form or another.
Fri, 2009-06-26 11:53
#73
Sven
But everybody lies about sex in one form or another.
Really? And are all such lies of equal magnitude? In other words, if a person says, "I slept with X" when, in fact, the person did not (i.e., a lie about sex), is that of equal magnitude to someone who cheats on a spouse or lies under oath?
In other words, should a person get a pass about a lie if the lie has anything to do with sex?
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Fri, 2009-06-26 11:55
#74
Yes, I think every woman who has faked an orgasm should be disqualfied from running.
Fri, 2009-06-26 11:57
#75
Well, that would be just about all of us!
Fri, 2009-06-26 11:58
#76
Well Sven, why don't you answer your own questions.
When Clinton said "I have never had sexual relations with that woman", did you care?
If a journalist asks a politician, "Do you bed partners of the same sex" and they reply falsely "No" (instead of saying "none of your prurient business"), does that tell you what kind of public servant they will be?
Fri, 2009-06-26 13:52
#77
Sven
Well Sven, why don't you answer your own questions. When Clinton said "I have never had sexual relations with that woman", did you care? If a journalist asks a politician, "Do you bed partners of the same sex" and they reply falsely "No" (instead of saying "none of your prurient business"), does that tell you what kind of public servant they will be?
As an initial matter, the questions are irrelevant (regardless of what the honest answers to those questions may be). It's nobody else's business.
However, if a person is asked a question like that, then there are two "best" ways to respond: Either (1) answer the questions honestly - regardless of what the answers may be (assuming you're willing to answer the questions) OR (2) don't answer the questions ("Those questions are inappropriate" or etc.).
To answer your specific question (When Clinton said "I have never had sexual relations with that woman", did you care?): I don't think I could possibly care less about the answer to the question he was asked. Not only was the question irrelevant -- I just don't care about the question or the answer. But, at the same time, I don't appreciate being lied to. Clinton would have been better off with (1) or (2) above -- and I suspect that even Clinton regrets saying, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman - Monica Lewinsky" and, in retrospect, would probably have taken approach (2) if he could do it over again.
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Fri, 2009-06-26 13:58
#78
The point is that Clinton could not have gotten away with "None of your business" and kept his position. So the problem is not anyone's moral failing but politics as they are presently staged; a show of patriarchal fortitude and trustworthiness. That is the problem and that is why we must confront and bring down conservatives who can only maintain those represseive values by lying about their own behaviour.
Fri, 2009-06-26 14:05
#79
Sven
The point is that Clinton could not have gotten away with "None of your business" and kept his position.
Are you claiming that he would have been impeached (and convicted by the Senate) for not answering that reporter's question?!?
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Fri, 2009-06-26 14:10
#80
To answer your specific question (When Clinton said "I have never had sexual relations with that woman", did you care?): I don't think I could possibly care less about the answer to the question he was asked. Not only was the question irrelevant -- I just don't care about the question or the answer. But, at the same time, I don't appreciate being lied to.
Right - that's the trap that your view imposes. So if a reporter asks a governor, "Have you ever fantasized about having sex with sheep?", then the governor can't say "No, of course not", unless it's the gospel truth. According to you, if s/he had written an adolescent poem on the subject, s/he would have to either say, "Yes, but give me a half hour to explain the context", or, "That's none of your business."
If you "don't appreciate being lied to", then every door is open. It's just another less direct way of saying it's your business.
My point is different. An individual may lie, outright, about their adultery or sexual inclinations or "have you ever been extremely dishonest and never revealed it to this day?" or any other such bullshit, without casting any significant light whatsoever on the principles and stands they will uphold in public life.
Fri, 2009-06-26 14:32
#81
Sven
If you "don't appreciate being lied to", then every door is open. It's just another less direct way of saying it's your business.
Just because you say that doesn't make it true. I don't think I can be any more clear than this: I don't care about Clinton's sexual interests or practices.
My point is different. An individual may lie, outright, about their adultery or sexual inclinations or "have you ever been extremely dishonest and never revealed it to this day?" or any other such bullshit, without casting any significant light whatsoever on the principles and stands they will uphold in public life.
So, how might you answer the hypothetical question I posed in post #43?
[u]Also[/u]:
...if a new candidate was running for office (and had no public track record) and you knew that the person was a habitual liar in her or his personal life, wouldn't it be natural and reasonable to think, "Well, if the person lies in her or his personal life, maybe the person will do the same in other (professional, community, public, etc.) relationships", no?
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Fri, 2009-06-26 18:00
#82
Sven
Sven, how should a politician answer if s/he's asked, "Have you ever humiliated one of your children in public?"
Well, if it's your PM, then: "Yes, I have."
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Fri, 2009-06-26 18:00
#83
Sven, how should a politician answer if s/he's asked, "Have you ever humiliated one of your children in public?" Or: "Have you ever lied to your spouse about what you did the night before?" And if the politician lies in response instead of saying "F### off", what conclusions do you draw?
Fri, 2009-06-26 18:01
#84
Sven, how should a politician answer if s/he's asked, "Have you ever humiliated one of your children in public?"
Well, if it's your PM, then: "Yes, I have."
And if he lies and says "No?"
Fri, 2009-06-26 18:11
#85
Sven
And if he lies and says "No?"
If he lies, then he...uh...lies.
What's your point?
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Fri, 2009-06-26 21:35
#86
And they fell in each other's arms, sobbing like long-lost friends.
Fri, 2009-06-26 22:38
#87
And if he lies and says "No?"
If he lies, then he...uh...lies.
What's your point?
I thought it was clear, but I guess I'll spell it out:
[b]Who cares if a politician lies about a personal and private issue?[/b]
If people can't figure out whether a politician is good, bad, or indifferent except by reference to such irrelevancies, then they're dead in the water.
Sat, 2009-06-27 02:03
#88
Rexdale_Punjabi
edit
Sat, 2009-06-27 10:41
#89
Sven
If people can't figure out whether a politician is good, bad, or indifferent except by reference to such irrelevancies, then they're dead in the water.
You're turning my position into a claim of absolute demarcation (i.e., people can't assess a polltician without referencing "personal character"). I've never said that. Most interaction is personal interaction with people. I think how people behave and treat others around them matters (it may not be determinative but it is something is relevant to take into account). I would knock, for example, a politician who declined to tip waitrons.
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Sat, 2009-06-27 10:57
#90
You're turning my position into a claim of absolute demarcation (i.e., people can't assess a polltician without referencing "personal character").
Agreed, and I didn't mean to do that. I'm really trying to get you to focus on the connection between personal vice and public virtue, or vice versa. I don't think there's a connection (for example) between private honesty and public trust. Perhaps you can point me to some people that never lie to their friends and loved ones, and we'll have the most trustworthy leaders, right?
Sat, 2009-06-27 12:10
#91
Polly B
I just can't get behind someone who identifies with guy in a fairy tale in order to justify a little extra marital fiddling about.
Sat, 2009-06-27 12:11
#92
Polly B
"About an hour after Jenny Sanford talked of her pain and feelings of betrayal, her husband brushed aside any suggestion he might immediately resign, citing the Bible and the story of King David _ who continued to lead after sleeping with another man's wife, Bathsheba, having the husband slain, then marrying the widow."
I STILL don't know how to work the quote function. And I suppose this is irrelevant but after I read this I thought, ya, he's a shit.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/26/jenny-sanford-how-i-found_n_221785.html
Sat, 2009-06-27 12:26
#93
Well, Jesus was born of the house of David - shall we visit upon Him the sins of His forebears?
Or upon Goldilocks, those of the threebears?
Sat, 2009-06-27 13:31
#94
remind
Jesus was born? Who knew.
And Polly that he identifies with the story about killing the husband to have the wife is well.....
Sat, 2009-06-27 18:28
#95
Well, at least, one Argentinian guy is being forewarned. Margaret Thatcher wasn't so generous at the time of the Falklands "show of strength".
Sat, 2009-06-27 18:38
#96
Not a bad point, Stargazer. However, Clinton was not impeached for "lying about sex"...but for lying about sex under oath (it's a critical distinction).
Why was Clinton in put a position where he had to take an oath to talk about his sex life?
Sun, 2009-06-28 04:10
#97
Why was Clinton in put a position where he had to take an oath to talk about his sex life?
He was sued for sexual harassment, in particular by Paula Jones. According to Wikipedia,
"Jones's lawyers decided to show to the court a pattern of behavior by Clinton that involved his allegedly repeatedly becoming sexually involved with state or government employees. ... During the deposition in the Jones case, Clinton was asked, "Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?" The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the definition. It included contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of a person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of that person, any contact of the genitals or anus of another person, or contact of one's genitals or anus with any part of another person's body either directly or through clothing.[14][15][16] Clinton flatly denied having sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky.[17] Later, at the Starr Grand Jury, Clinton stated that he believed the definition of sexual relations agreed upon for the Jones deposition excluded his receiving oral sex. It was upon the basis of this statement that the perjury charges in his impeachment were drawn up. Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998 on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. But despite Republican control of the Senate, Clinton was found not guilty on both charges."
Mon, 2009-06-29 12:17
#98
Sven
Excellent summary, torontoprofessor
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Wed, 2009-07-01 12:52
#99
Among the additional visits with Chapur that Sanford detailed was an encounter that he described as a failed attempt at a farewell meeting in New York this past winter, chaperoned by a spiritual adviser and sanctioned by his wife soon after she found out about the affair.
Sanford said he saw Chapur five times over the past year, including two romantic, multi-night stays with her in New York - one in Manhattan, one in the Hamptons, both paid for in cash so no one would know - before they met in the city again with the intention of breaking up.
Four months later, he got on a plane to Argentina for another rendezvous with Chapur when he made an important discovery. "I will be able to die knowing that I had met my soul mate," he said.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jVGOp2bl5_prbLYsoPOvD9...
Wed, 2009-07-01 13:25
#100
Sven
Good Lord. The very next person who posts in this thread will kick us into the dreaded "100-post territory"!!
[color=red]WARNING, WARNING, WARNING!!![/color] This thread is in imminent danger of being "closed for length"!!!
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Sat, 2009-07-11 17:52
#101