posted
You know what, though, I would gladly vote for someone as scummy as Gingrich if he/she were a committed, consistent liberal.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You couldn't trust they were actually, nor that they'd remain, a committed, consistent liberal if they were. I'm actually surprised at you, Destineer, I wouldn't have thought you'd say that. I couldn't vote for someone who lied straight to my face, knew I knew he was lying, and still insist I like it or else I'm some sort of elitist or socialist or want the terrorists to win or something.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't. The way he conducts himself on a professional level as well as his personal life is a profound indicator of what personal motivations and mentalities drive his political career, and how these mental states would be the framework for how he would compose himself and make decisions once he got his way.
What am I saying, though? I shouldn't be dragging him down right now. I should be trying to promote his victory in the primaries. He can only aid my cause.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You couldn't trust they were actually, nor that they'd remain, a committed, consistent liberal if they were.
The same pretty much goes for every supposed liberal in the Democratic party these days (and certainly for BHO). But also, I don't think that's true. You can trust Newt to remain conservative. So my imagined Democrat version of Newt could be trusted equally well to stay liberal.
Anyway, I just don't see that big a difference between him and Bill Clinton, on the integrity front. The main difference I see is that shit doesn't stick to Clinton as much, because he's so charming, whereas Newt is more of a mutant toad who no one wants to like.
Give me a guy who's a little slimy but can accomplish good things. That's the best we've been able to get in America for a long time.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What am I saying, though? I shouldn't be dragging him down right now. I should be trying to promote his victory in the primaries. He can only aid my cause.
Sam, I think you can speak the truth in hushed tones, here among friends.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can trust Newt to do things that are outwardly, to appearances, conservative. That is very different from trusting him to remain a committed, consistent conservative.
Not-so-out-there example: taking payoffs if the outcome will appear to be ideological consistency, liberal or conservative. When we're in Newt (and I would say also Clinton) levels of dishonesty, the question becomes not what will they do, but what won't they do.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What am I saying, though? I shouldn't be dragging him down right now. I should be trying to promote his victory in the primaries. He can only aid my cause.
Sam, I think you can speak the truth in hushed tones, here among friends.
Ok. I want to elect Gingrich, because he is the candidate that will sweep me off my feet and leave me two years into his term. For a country with a younger, sexier economy.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey! Everyone knows he's gotta have at least five or six publicized marriage-wrecking infidelities before you can make jokes like that, you media hack!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
That's the stuff. I especially like the part where Gingrich could negotiate strongly with other countries because he had the balls to serve his sick wife(s?) with divorce papers.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strangely, infidelity means something quite differen when a liberal, Democrat, or especially a liberal Democrat, does it! I guess I could take Tea Party popularity without thinking it reflected quite badly on Republicans in general. They were, after all, also antagonistic to Relublicans in many cases. But the better Newt does, the worse my opinion of Republican Americans gets.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's .... lol, that's Ablow. That's the guy who flipped out at the J. Crew ads where a mom was painting his boy's toenails, the dude who basically said that watching chaz bono on dancing with the stars puts your kids at risk of The Gay (or I guess The Transgender, something he compared directly to heroin addiction or whatever) and who co-authored that book with glenn beck about the seven wonders that change your life or whatever
It really is remarkably apt. Hi, Ablow. Welcome back to being you again, we missed you, please tell us more about how to use pop psychology to save marriage and society from the scourge of confusing gender messages, possibly with the help of unrepentant serial philanderer presidents
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Ron Paul has appeal with independents and some Democrats too.
How much appeal have you been coached to think he really has with independents and democrats? What, honestly, do you think Ron Paul's general prospects in the presidential election are? Do you think he would beat Obama if he won the Republican primary?
I can speak to this a bit, I wouldn't Paul to win, but then again he strikes me as the only honest politician who wouldn't abuse his powers to get his agenda done. It would be 4 years of nothing happening and the debt ceiling would probably result in a default but it would be awesome to watch.
IP: Logged |
posted
On the one hand, Paul strikes me as honest. On the other, I don't trust fanatics-not just that I don't trust them to do the right thing, I don't trust them not to get downright bat-crap irrational nutty.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That wouldn't be awesome to watch, unless you cut out the punchline where the linked western economy, of which you are a part, goes into a double-strength retry of the last economic crash, widening the income gap even more unsustainably, rotting out infrastructure, and making today's kids the hard luck generation of living memory.
That, and not even Paul as president would cause a debt default for the united states.
/edit - though I guess THOR would have an awesome time gloating a lot about how right he was for like, months
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing to remember is that there is little if anything the US does that's good for the world, economically, politically, philosophically, much less militarily. That's what you've got to remember when thinking of whether or not it'd be fun to watch America tumble.
Anyway, THOR has been gloating about his accurate predictions almost forever even when they're really wrong, as far as this forum is concerned. I daresay if he were ever proved right, much less spectacularly right, it'd be forever in a less metaphorical way.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:"There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and that things happened in my life that were not appropriate," -Newt Gingrich
For the sake of Newt's third marriage we must not let him become president!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or maybe he'd slack off! Small government at its best, that's what a true conservative would do. Best is least and all that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh I've never felt Newt was lazy. Honestly I'd prefer his being lazy to his being actively engaged in the policy agenda he's laid out.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to a poll mentioned in a Time magazine article "as much as half of Paul’s support in the state [of Iowa] is coming from non-Republicans."
This isn't "being coached" to believe; this is real polling data.
Different people are fed up with government excess and bungling: unnecessary wars, high taxes, and excessive intrusive regulation into their personal and business lives. Ron Paul is a real alternative to Obama because Obama has done all of these things that people are fed up with, so he could win against Obama.
As events in South Carolina show, the Republican nomination is still up for grabs, and Ron Paul still has a fighting chance.
Posts: 338 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You can trust Newt to do things that are outwardly, to appearances, conservative. That is very different from trusting him to remain a committed, consistent conservative.
Not-so-out-there example: taking payoffs if the outcome will appear to be ideological consistency, liberal or conservative. When we're in Newt (and I would say also Clinton) levels of dishonesty, the question becomes not what will they do, but what won't they do.
Yeah, well, I loved Clinton, so I don't feel that I can be consistent and still have a problem with Newt's sliminess.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
An insightful grad student from my department posted this on Facebook:
quote:Leave aside Gingrich's obviously ridiculous allegation that this was just CNN "protecting Barack Obama". I think that he's exactly right to condemn the media for taking such an intense and obviously prurient interest in the details of a candidate's sex life.
In comparison to some of the recent responses by politicians who have been found to be doing the wrong things with their genitalia - I'm thinking mostly of Anthony Weiner's contrite apology and bashful plea for forgiveness in response to the national media raiding his personal sexual affairs with a fervor and fascination unmatched in any of their coverage of America's sanction of torture - Gingrich's response was quite refreshing. This is exactly how political officials should respond when the media begins to act as though it is entitled to the salacious details of their sex lives: by shifting the shame. It's not Gingrich, but John King who should feel ashamed for treating the issue of whether or not Gingrich wanted an open marriage or not as though it were relevant to who American citizens should vote for.
quote: As events in South Carolina show, the Republican nomination is still up for grabs, and Ron Paul still has a fighting chance.
I definitely agree with the former. But for one thing, as you say, a lot of Paul's popularity comes from outside the party, and a lot of primaries are closed to non-registered Republicans.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I couldn't disagree more with what your colleague posted, Destineer. Had we been speaking of, say, Hugh Hefner's presidential bid that would be one thing-he has not ever claimed to be traditionally virtuous, he almost certainly wouldn't be trying for the nomination of the party that lays claim to better morality, and he didn't make a large part of his past fame about bringing down someone else for lying about infidelity.
Newt's infidelity isn't relevant in and of itself. He has made it relevant.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure which (if either) of these two things you're saying:
(A) It's relevant because Republican voters believe in "family values," and therefore they do in fact care whether their candidates are promiscuous.
(B) It's relevant because it makes Newt a hypocrite, since he's claimed (implicitly or explicitly) to have "good family values."
Also, would you say it was wrong of the media to come after Weiner, because he's not a member of the "family values" party?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I meant to say 'isn't just relevant because...', you're right to point that out.
Basically my stance is that serial infidelity in a major politician is troubling, and potentially an issue, for a variety of reasons. Integrity might be called into play, but there might be an open marriage, heh. Impulse control might be an issue, or they might just be quite liberated and adult towards sex.
There really aren't very many politicians at this level who publicly have open marriages or who could be called-according to their outward reps-sexually liberal. So there's a problem, to me, when a politician isn't who they say they are.
It becomes even more serious when they specifically and loudly claim to be apple pie and baseball in terms of sexuality, AND they castigate those who aren't, and then it turns out they themselves want, say, an open marriage.
You cannot reasonably claim to trust them if they do that-oh, he'll just lie about sex, because it's nobody's business anyway. You can trust him on the real stuff. Well how do you know that? You trust him because you trust him.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I definitely don't agree about the trust thing. I have several friends who have cheated in relationships or marriages, who I otherwise consider to be completely trustworthy people. Including some who I'd be happy to have as president.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, you know them and have personal experience with them. You cannot say the same of Newt, or even Clinton. You might be able to say you trust him to lie only in ways that wouldn't upset you, but that's not really the same thing as trusting him.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask: According to a poll mentioned in a Time magazine article "as much as half of Paul’s support in the state [of Iowa] is coming from non-Republicans."
This isn't "being coached" to believe; this is real polling data.
Different people are fed up with government excess and bungling: unnecessary wars, high taxes, and excessive intrusive regulation into their personal and business lives. Ron Paul is a real alternative to Obama because Obama has done all of these things that people are fed up with, so he could win against Obama.
As events in South Carolina show, the Republican nomination is still up for grabs, and Ron Paul still has a fighting chance.
Do you realize that while a Ron Paul Presidency would be a fascinating thing to watch is an utterly horrible idea that would accelerate the war on the poor and the middle class?
Gold Standard is also a horrible idea.
IP: Logged |
posted
I love how many Americans expect First World standards of living, but somehow think we have high taxes. It's just so strange to me.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Sure, you know them and have personal experience with them. You cannot say the same of Newt, or even Clinton. You might be able to say you trust him to lie only in ways that wouldn't upset you, but that's not really the same thing as trusting him.
But I also think my personal experience with these guys has taught me something. Namely that, except for those who actually suffer from a compulsion, there's no such thing as "a liar," period. There are people who (sometimes) lie about relationships, and those who lie about other things, and there's not that strong a correlation.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you saying that, absent other information, you would trust someone you knew to be a serial adulterer who you also knew spent time deploring modern sexual immorality-that you'd trust to be, say, just as honest in for example business as you would trust someone you didn't know to be an outright hypocrite?
I'm not asking if you think there'd be a correlation or something-I'm asking who you would trust or mistrust more. C'mon Destineer, it's actually OK to trust someone less when you catch them in a lie, man! That is, in effect what you're saying-that it isn't rational to mistrust someone more when you know they have lied to you.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I were entering into a business deal with Jerry, a Southern Baptist, and I learned that Jerry had gone behind his wife's back... that wouldn't have any appreciable effect on how much I trusted him to deal fairly with me, no. I might refuse to deal with him out of a sense of moral disgust, but I wouldn't expect him to betray me.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, dishonesty isn't the primary issue, it's the extraordinary hypocrisy. Gingrich is a man who has been outspoken in condemning other people for sexual behaviors. He preaching family values and marital fidelty, but he doesn't live it. And he told one of his x-wives it didn't matter whether he lived it. While he was leading the effort to impeach Clinton because he was getting blow jobs from a young woman on his staff, Gingrich was having an affair with a young member of his staff. And now, after having lead an effort of appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton's sex life and making that an issue in every paper, he's saying his sex life is his private business and the media should but out?
The problem isn't that he is a liar, it's that he is the worst kind of hypocrite. Gingrich believes he is above the rules. In a society built on the Principal that no one is above the rules, that should be a political issue.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did he really preach it, though? I remember him being pretty clear back in the day that the offense of Clinton's that mattered to him was the "perjury," not the affair.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask: According to a poll mentioned in a Time magazine article "as much as half of Paul’s support in the state [of Iowa] is coming from non-Republicans."
This isn't "being coached" to believe; this is real polling data.
How much is "as much as half of Paul's support?"
Does the fact that what support Paul has is divided so only half of that support is allowed to participate in many of the primaries is a positive? (no, it screws him)
If you take both halves of Paul's support, is it enough to float him in a national election against Barack Obama? (no, he'd go down in a landslide)
You are exactly the sort of person I was talking about earlier in this thread. I explained in detail why polling shows that Paul does not have even remotely enough popular support or primary support to win either the primary, nor the presidency. Yet hardcore libertarians like you all across the country form this very strange social phenomenon of people who are absolutely convinced that not only does he stand a shot at the republican primaries, but that he could or would beat Obama in a national election.
And all of these ideas are false, but well coached.
Paul supporters really, really like to listen to and believe the idea that Paul's ideas have broad national support — and by extension, that their libertarian ideas have large national support. To the extent that they listen to and don't challenge the narratives that let them think that way. But they're wrong.
And you are acting as a pretty straightforward example of that. Did you look and see the numbers you were citing indirectly? You didn't. I'm looking at the PDF now. If you had looked at it too, you would realize that in response to a question about Paul's viability in the election, you were handing me a valid voter survey which, like all of them, forecasts Obama beating Paul in a national election. And you were doing so to try to argue the opposite.
Opinion Research. Public Policy Polling. Susquehanna. SurveyUSA. American Research Group. Rasmussen. All of 'em. They all have Obama well above Paul — I think universally at least twice over the MoE. Paul is the Dynast-King of Fringe Political Non-Contenders. Like a long-lasted conservative version of Kucinich, in that he likes to show up and stump in the national election because it gets him gobs of cash and publicity, but is so brazenly far out into the fanatical netherworld of his own political extreme that he won't actually win the election unless pretty much every other candidate is eaten by raptors.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's some amusement, sorta courtesy of our host.
quote:Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today congratulated GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich on his victory in the South Carolina primary.
...
Gingrich, Santorum and Romney have each signed NOM's Marriage Pledge, which commits signatories, if elected, to taking specific steps toward preserving the institution of marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Rep. Ron Paul is the only remaining Republican presidential candidate not to have signed the pledge, and he is not considered to have any realistic chance of becoming the Republican nominee.
"It is now clear that the Republican Party will nominate a candidate who is strongly committed to preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman," Brown said. "We have succeeded in making the preservation of marriage a key issue in this race, and we will continue to do so throughout the primary season, and into the general election against President Obama."
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: If I were entering into a business deal with Jerry, a Southern Baptist, and I learned that Jerry had gone behind his wife's back... that wouldn't have any appreciable effect on how much I trusted him to deal fairly with me, no. I might refuse to deal with him out of a sense of moral disgust, but I wouldn't expect him to betray me.
If Jerry the Southern Baptist was in the habit of porking secret mistresses and then, without missing a beat, hopping back up on the bully pulpit to preach about how horrid adultery and infidelity is and using this to destroy his opponents, and talking about himself as a Family Values Man and a great defender of real morals in this country, how can this express dishonesty, hypocrisy, and complete duplicity of character lead you to expect that there's no additional risk of him being artificial and unfaithful in his business dealings? He'll break his promises and fidelity to a person he married, but you don't expect any additional risk whatsoever of this crookedness and infidelity being present for mere business partners?
It's an interesting question to me, not least because I don't know to what degree it's been tested how much that serial infidelity can be reliably comorbid to being a snake elsewhere in life.
But, in the end, I think it's looking at the issue wrong. I don't distrust Gingrich inherently because of his infidelity. I just see his infidelity and his transparent duplicity in preaching morality all as pretty classic and potent demonstrations of the larger moral failings that are certainly not constrained to his bedroom(s). He just acts like a sociopath. Someone with glib, superficial charm and bombastic egocentrism. Someone who has been impulsive and irritable his entire political career, to the extent that even his staff would respond with gallows humor to the fundamental nature of Newt, and to say "He's a sociopath, but he's our sociopath." A person who has waved away or otherwise rationalized all the extremely callous and hurtful things he has done to wives and friends alike. Him being cheating, lying scum in the bedroom is all just a natural and expected extension of that. Ultimately irrelevant given all else we already know about him, but certainly a nice little cherry on top of the case against his trustworthiness. To say nothing about what it would say of what the character of our nation has degenerated that we could ever abide electing him to president — that the morals n' values n' defending marriage crowd would sign on with him cause he would "reach out to congress" or whatever. What morally huckstered rubes. What lost and guileless lambs. It's amazing.
/edit
quote:Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today congratulated GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich on his victory in the South Carolina primary.
... "It is now clear that the Republican Party will nominate a candidate who is strongly committed to preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman," Brown said. "We have succeeded in making the preservation of marriage a key issue in this race, and we will continue to do so throughout the primary season, and into the general election against President Obama."
hahahahahahahahaha
A storm is coming indeed. Are they doing this to themselves on purpose?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:... the issue of whether or not Gingrich wanted an open marriage ...
I'm kinda disappointed in the reporting actually. Wanting an open (or a same-sex) marriage is one thing.
It's rather a different thing to go have an affair for seven years and then confront your wife with it asking to retroactively legitimize it as an "open marriage" or have a divorce.
As that previous FoxNews article says, it certainly takes an excess of *something* to do that. We just disagree on what that something is.
The whole hypocrisy angle is just another layer on the, well, Double Big Mac of fun.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Technically he didn't break any of those NOM rules. He was in fact only married to one woman at at time, and they apparently don't have any rules about auditioning new wives before making the switch, or about how many times you get to trade them in for an upgraded model.
Only heterosexual couples get to make a mockery of the sacred bonds of marriage.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Technically he didn't break any of those NOM rules. He was in fact only married to one woman at at time, and they apparently don't have any rules about auditioning new wives before making the switch, or about how many times you get to trade them in for an upgraded model.
Only heterosexual couples get to make a mockery of the sacred bonds of marriage.
I'm borrowing this. And by borrowing it I mean I will just plagiarize it wholesale.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pretty much what Samprimary said, Destineer. Infidelity alone is enough, for me personally, to start thinking, "Hmmm. Trustworthy?" about a person absent other evidence. Infidelity coupled (pun intended) with pronouncements on the value of traditional familial morality pushes towards the, "Alright, this person needs to demonstrate their trustworthiness in other areas before I'll accept it."
Adopt an expedient political attitude if you like-after all, getting stuff done is important to everyone, and I can't fault you for saying that on the balance you might vote for such a politician, if their record reflected useful things for your vote in other ways. But you'll be trusting them in spite of big hypocrisy in one area-in spite of it. Because, again, other things equal, who would you do business with if possible?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that it's hypocritical for him to explicitly align himself with something like NOM. That doesn't fit with the conception I had of Gingrich, actually. I sort of thought it was an open secret that he's not really religious and considers the religious right expedient allies rather than fellow travelers.
quote:Because, again, other things equal, who would you do business with if possible?
Well, again, this muddles the issue a bit by bringing in the question of whether I'd want to deny my business to someone I disapprove of morally, not out of distrust but out of shame or disgust.
Other things being equal, I'd vote for the white knight to avoid putting my stamp of approval on the sleazy guy. But sleazy politicians like Clinton (and, if we're being honest, Kennedy and Nixon) have done a lot for this country, and I would rather vote for a sleazy guy who's on my side rather than a virtuous moderate.
That's really my original point: I can see why those on the right are glad to align with Gingrich. They're fools to do so, because he's not electable, but I can understand why they look past the slime.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's really inexcusable about Gingrich being a horny imp is that I assume he's against abortion.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before all of his affairs? In fact, he's had children from different marriages if I'm not mistaken.
It feels like you're dodging the question, Destineer. Neither I nor I think anyone else has been asking questions such as 'did Gingrich/Kennedy/Clinton/Nixon do worthwhile things', or 'does marital infidelity mean a person is written off as untrustworthy', but rather 'does marital infidelity coupled with a public attitude of respect for marital fidelity and family values, as well as criticizing those who aren't, do anything to ding up a person's trustworthiness?'
It's late, so perhaps you've responded to that and I'm forgetting it or I missed it. I apologize if I have. The criticism isn't that there's no reason to align with the sleazy partisan one agrees with, the criticism is that the sleazy partisan one agrees with is, at least a little, less trustworthy.
Example: you've been friends with two twin brothers for decades. You've been friends with both their wives for years, and know all four of them as well as close friends know each other. Both are preachers who thumps the Bible pretty hard from the pulpit, talking among other things about the whore of Babylon and sodomites. In all aspects of their lives, they're known for being honest, fair dealing people.
One brother walks his talk so far as you can tell-he's monogamous, didn't have sex before marriage, and has been faithful and happily married for years. The other brother, while also being known all around for being honest and fair dealing, you happen to know he's been having affairs with men and women for years, before and during his marriage. You have no reason to think he's got an open marriage.
If you had to buy a car or a house from one of these brothers, and the conditions of the property relied on their word, are you really telling me you'd scrutinize both to the same extent?
It's an extreme example, but I think it illustrates what I'm getting at: you don't trust someone quite as much when you know they have lied.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought he only had daughters from his first marriage, and it's been a major point made by Fox News, among others, that they're steadfastly in his corner, despite the fact that he cheated on their mom.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But sleazy politicians like Clinton (and, if we're being honest, Kennedy and Nixon) have done a lot for this country, and I would rather vote for a sleazy guy who's on my side rather than a virtuous moderate.
A faustian bargain. One that a party's political base can quite easily get lured and habituated into accepting. Pay no mind, of course, to what this tends to metamorphose it into, or what the 'sleazy guy on your side' turns 'your side' into over time.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
