Dionne says it’s “traditional” to ignore sex scandals
by Owen Courrèges · 07/13/2007 8:44 amLiberal Washington Post Columnist E.J. Dionne, Jr., comments on the Vitter scandal today by insisting that we should have a “wall” between the personal and private lives of politicians:
[I]f we are to get out of this habit of destroying the distinctions between public and private lives, liberals need to give the conservative hypocrites a break.
We should acknowledge that the outing process is erratic and leaves many falls from grace safely shielded from public view. We should also admit that we are tougher on the moral flaws of politicians who belong to a party other than our own.
The essential point, however, is that believing in a wall between the public and the private makes you a traditionalist, not a libertine. The traditionalist embraces a strict moral code but sees it as best enforced in the personal realm. We should judge public figures by how they meet their public responsibilities, and leave it to spouses, pastors, children and friends to praise or punish their private behavior.
Dionne never justifies this argument with the historic record, and that’s because he simply cannot. Sex scandals have been harming the reputations of public officials since before the founding of our republic. Alexander Hamilton was brought down by his affair with Maria Reynolds, which left him open to blackmail. He was then accused of corruption, and decided to publish a confession outlining the grisly details of his affair. While he was being investigated, he was forced to resign.
Andrew Jackson’s cabinet was later scandalized by the “Petticoat Affair,” which surrounded the young wife of the secretary of war, Margaret “Peggy” Eaton. She was married only eight months after her prior husband slit his own throat while at sea, leading to rumors that she was an adulteress and her husband had committed suicide over her infidelities. The scandal ultimately led to the resignations of cabinet officials.
Grover Cleveland was chastized during the 1884 presidential campaign for allegedly having fathered a child out-of-wedlock while he was a lawyer in Buffalo in the mid-1870s (he admitted to paying child support).
True, from the 1930’s onward, the press began covering up for the pecadillos of the president and other public officials. That brief tradition was strained by the Watergate Scandal, and dissolved completely by the time of the Lewinsky scandal with President Clinton (as evinced by the Gary Hart scandal). However, the “tradition” is one of having the public judge these things for itself, with political ramifications generally following.
Moreover, this is the way things ought to be. As I mentioned before, we should be able to trust our politicians and public officials. It is impossible to trust them when they are willing to lie to us and betray their own families. There is no point to imagining some artificial wall between their personal lives and their professional lives; it would be comical to believe that they would show such careless disregard for their wives and children while maintaining steadfast fidelity to their constituents. It doesn’t work that way; politicians aren’t schizophrenic, and if they betray their families then it has probably occurred to them to betray us as well.
In truth, I’d already seen it in Vitter. Vitter recently came out in support of Giuliani for the Republican nomination, which was considered to be a major slap in the face to his socially conservative base in Louisiana. I kidded myself by saying that he probably just admired Giuliani’s leadership and honestly believed that his presidency would not have a negative impact on social policy. Now I wonder if, perhaps, Vitter just wanted the VP spot and didn’t give a damn what happened on abortion, gay rights, gun control, et al. After all, he was willing to lie to his family — who is to say that he wasn’t lying to me then?
That’s my biggest problem with this. Our actions evince our character. What do Vitter’s actions say?
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Character is what you’re doing when no one is watching…. we’re watching and they still do it. Gofigger………..
“We should also admit that we are tougher on the moral flaws of politicians who belong to a party other than our own.”
Not true. I abhore infidelity in any man or woman, regardless of political affliation. And Vitter offends me greatly. He should resign.
They [those more liberal] are tougher on moral flaws of Republicans than Democrats, because they view it as hypocrisy for a conservative to have no morals, where as it’s the status quo for many liberals.
I don’t need social cripples making decisions for me!
Do I think someone that would lie to his wife lie to me? Hmmmm?????
Naah, how someone conducts ones self in his/her personal life surely won’t spill over in to their business/public life now will it?
Is dcgirl E.J. Dionne? That sounds exactly like the argument she was making.
I blame all of this on the wives.Thats why they always take the guy back.They feel guilty. If they were taking care of business the men would stay home. Period end of story. You know it and I know it.™
#6 - gregg
Sounds sexist to me. Unmitigated guilt makes one blame others.
Let me see … someone’s bad behavior is someone else’s fault?
Talk about accountability.
Owen the Courageous strikes again.
That’s what I love about LST — not only do you get a great daily dose of snark, Chronicle-bashing and liberal idiocy exposé, but every now and then you get a great lesson in American history. Wonderful post, Owen!
As StacyE said, that’s not necessarily true. With many libs (especially those in big media), it does apply. But it’s mostly the hypocrisy they are pointing out for political gain, not a true objection for moral inadequacies such as infidelity — to them, that’s not really a problem.
With most conservatives, however, morality is part and parcel of the whole person — whether it’s my guy or yours doesn’t really matter. If someone can’t be trusted to be true to their family, who should be the most important ones in your life, how can we trust them to be faithful to those they see as “the ignorant masses”?
gregg,
Don’t blame the victim. Staying together for the sake of your family and out of a willingness to forgive is virtuous, not crass. Moreover, there is no excuse for adultery.
Would you go steal a car if you had a perfectly good one at home?
Men go to hookers to get something they are not getting from their spouse. They are willing to risk everything.
I defy any man to tell me this isnt true. You can blame the man too if he is a jerk at home and thats why his wife doesnt take care of him. But, that void is why he strays.
This is also true with women. If the man doesnt fulfill her needs she will find someone who can. Cuts both ways. Men go to hookers, women go to the pool guy.
#11 - gregg…maybe you should speak for yourself on the above. Some people are smart enough and will seek counseling instead of coping out for their own instant gratification.
Yes, some people will, most wont. Guess thats why the oldest profession is the oldest profession. When mankind is in its last throes, radiation off the charts and the end is near, some guy will pay for sex before the lights go out.
Gregg is doing his level best to stir the pot, but never really answers the question. The question isn’t who’s to blame for infidelity. That many people engage in infidelity is sad but true. There is no reason to accept it from our elected officials though. If they don’t want their personal lives under a microscope then they should stay out of politics.
I disagree with the implication that just because a politician will lie to his spouse about adultery, that politician will lie to the voters about things. First of all, all politicians lie to voters about things, so the adulterous part is irrelevant. If you accept a politician at all, you accept the lies he tells you. Heck, look at all the lies Bush and Clinton have told, and their supporters continue(d) to accept them.
I agree with those who say that monogamy is an unnatural state of affairs. Adultery is normal and natural. All surveys indicate that adultery is almost as common as lying, which is universal (we all know that people who pretend not to lie are the biggest liars of all).
Where I draw the line is with the posturers who pretend to one attitude, but live another. Such folks are untrustworthy by any standards. Vitter is despicable, as was Livingston and Gingrich. Clinton is/was only slightly less so.
BTW, concerning Clinton, if I was married to Hillary, I would cheat too. She clearly put up with his infidelity because it was a Faustian bargain: if he had been kicked out of office, she would have been too and would never have had a chance to run for president. Obviously she is only a presidential candidate because she married well. Outside of that accomplishment, it is hard to say what qualifies her for anything except serving cookies and tea.
Ghost Rider,
I disagree with the implication that just because a politician will lie to his spouse about adultery, that politician will lie to the voters about things. First of all, all politicians lie to voters about things, so the adulterous part is irrelevant. If you accept a politician at all, you accept the lies he tells you. Heck, look at all the lies Bush and Clinton have told, and their supporters continue(d) to accept them.
It’s difficult not to lie, particularly as a politician, but some politicians are far more honest than others. For all his missteps lately, Bush has actually been pretty honest in office. Sure, he spins, but you rarely get outright lies. In any case, there is a difference between the normal human failing of lying on occassion to save face and the tendency to betray others in particuarly immoral fashion.
I agree with those who say that monogamy is an unnatural state of affairs. Adultery is normal and natural. All surveys indicate that adultery is almost as common as lying, which is universal (we all know that people who pretend not to lie are the biggest liars of all).
No, surveys show that about 1/3 of men and 1/4 of women have committed adultery, which is far, far less prevalent than lying. As far as monogamy being “unnatural,” we’ll simply have to disagree on that. Human history has trended towards monogamy in most major cultures (and certainly in the most successful cultures), and that can’t be a coincidence.
Where I draw the line is with the posturers who pretend to one attitude, but live another.
Why draw any line at all? You first come out saying “all politicans lie.” Then you go on to say “all people cheat.” Why not go on to say “all people are hypocrites” and we can have one gigantic cynical love-fest with everybody justifying everything everyone does? You’re cutting the baloney mighty thin there. If lying and cheating are natural human tendencies, why not hypocrisy?
My point is that your views lower the bar so unbelievably far that the one standard you actually do want to establish is VERY hard to justify.
Altogether now,
Let’s rut!!
That is a great line, borderplex!!
Like Clinton, Vitter, et.al.
“Would you go steal a car if you had a perfectly good one at home?”
So a man’s word is only good if he’s sexually fulfilled?
There is no clause in a marriage vow that says “forsaking all others unless you don’t give it up every night in a manner that pleases me forever.”
If a man wants sexual fullfillment more than he wants his wife - who is worth more than just her ability to have sex - than that is the fault of the man, not of the wife.
And you prove only how selfish and base and sex driven our culture has become. If a man isn’t sexually fulfilled, put the old cow out to pasture as she must be past her use by date.
And telling the truth and being faithful are not impossible. Breaking your vow to your spouse is a choice … it’s not a societal constriction forced upon you when you enter the new bed. We have created a culture that pushes away responsbility at every turn. Only you control your actions, and if YOU decide to leave YOUR marriage bed for someone elses … that is no one’s fault but YOUR own. Bad behavior should not excuse more bad behavior.
There is no perfect man or woman, and mistakes happen. But there are consequences for everything we do.
I’m sorry I could go all day about this - I really, really hate how society is making infidelity acceptable and marriage inconvenient and laughable.
The great thing about our system of government is that if someone like Vitter, William Jefferson, Bill Clinton or George Bush for that matter, don’t live up to people’s expectation, then by golly, the people can vote for someone else the next time.
I’m surprised at the moral relativism being expressed by some normally conservative folks.
Human history has trended towards monogamy in most major cultures (and certainly in the most successful cultures), and that can’t be a coincidence.
I do not believe that is true — they tend toward marriage, not monogamy. Marriage, the family unit, is one of the great constants throughout human history — a good reason to avoid “gay marriage”, whatever that is. Except for the cultures noted for fundamentalist religiousity, which have been few, the use of prostitutes by married men has long been common and in many cases socially acceptable. There is a reason prostitution is called the oldest profession, and it is not simply a matter of the wife not taking care of her husband. Say what you will, wish what you want, but this sin is among the oldest and most pervasive.
Having said that, I never cheated when I was married. For me it was not about sex or even morality per se, but about trust. This is why I have always been skeptical about so-called open marriages. How can there be any trust?
Exactly! That statement right there renders all of the arguments about whether infidelity and prostitution is “normal” or not moot! If a man’s wife can’t trust him as a husband, then why should I trust him as a politician?
Don’t get me wrong, a guy who cheats on his wife may be an excellent electrician, programmer, professional athlete, delivery truck driver, etc. But politicians, as leaders, should be held to a higher standard.
The first and only time I knew of Sen.David Vitter is when the Amnesty Bill was killed,a couple of weeks ago. He and 4 or 5 other Republican Senators were being interviewed on C-Span immediately after the vote, and I was extremely impressed by him because he was the only one who gave direct, honest answers to the silly questions that were put to them by reporters. While the other Senators danced around the issues trying not to offend anyone, Sen.Vitter kept coming back to the mike to strengthen the statments made by the other Senators. At one point, obviously frustrated by the previous politically correct response, Vitter took the mike for the second time/same question,and
said the reason that the bill failed is because 80% of the American people did not want it and it was their job to do what the people wanted, and anyone who suggested racism was involved was arrogant and downright ugly. If we had more people with backbone like Vitter representing us,
I could overlook their personal flaws, which all of us have in some form or another. But there is a big difference between the office of the President and the office of the Senate, and there are big differences between selling out your constituents for cash and being an adulterer. It’s absurd to suggest that Vitter should resign.
Look, sex is such a goofy topic in America these days. It is everywhere in society…it has been proven time and time again that sex sells…porn is the best selling business on the net and the most searched for item. Yet it is among the most taboo subjects in our society. We will talk about a bowel movement with somebody before we talk about sex. My question is why?
Prostitutes have been around forever. They WILL be around forever. Whoever it was that talked about the last man on earth paying for sex before he dies was spot on. So why do we outlaw it and force it to hide in the shadows? Why do people insist that topless bars be shut down, yet go home and light up the net searching for pictures of naked women? Some of you need to get out a little more and recognize that not every person who sleeps with somebody besides their spouse is “cheating”. Sometimes people accept that their spouse is going to get some somewhere else and don’t have a problem with it. It isn’t my particular cup of tea, but I don’t have blinders on when it comes to what others may choose to do.
Just because Hillary turned on the made for tv outrage about Bill’s activities doesn’t mean she wasn’t well aware and unbothered by it before it started to affect his political career. What should bother people about Clinton and Vitter isn’t that they were out sleeping around, but that they lied about it. If Clinton had come out the first time he was asked and said “yep, I slept with her…Hillary knows about it…and what we do in our sex lives is none of your business”, I would have been fine with it. If Vitter hadn’t spent so much time denying it and angrily denouncing the “rumors” in the past, his latest revelation would not make much of a wave. I am not saying Vitter is in an open relationship, but his wife has made her peace with what he did and its really up to her about how to treat what he does. It should only be a problem for us if he is portraying himself as a paragon of virtue and then lying about it when he gets busted.
The real problem is that these guys feel like they HAVE to lie about it when it becomes public. Why? Why not either admit the mistake and apologize or explain that it wasn’t a mistake and that their spouse is ok with it? They are like little kids with chocolate smeared around their mouths claiming they didn’t eat the last brownie in the pan when they lie about it. If our society could come to grips with our obsession with sex and recognize that sexual relationships between two adults are not a one-size fits all deal, then these things would have less of an impact on politics and people would be able to spend more time on real issues than whether a guy likes to dip it someplace strange from time to time.
Prostitution in my mind should be legalized and strictly regulated just like it is in Nevada. There is no reason to keep trying to act like we can stop it from happening. The only thing we accomplish by keeping it illegal is to make it harder for police to regulate the human smuggling currently involved in it, and make it easier for pimps and other unscrupulous types to prey on the women involved in it.
#26 - But there’s reason to believe, at least, that Vitter DID lie about his use of a prostitute. Besides, cheating and hiring a prostitute is 2 entirely different things. One is ILLEGAL, whether you think it should be or not. I can’t justify having lawbreakers in office.
Also, your statement:
smacks of moral relativism. Last time I checked, sleeping/having sex with someone other than your spouse is cheating every time…
I feel the “victimless crime” defense coming on…
22
I tell you what, Bubba, these nihilists are taking over the world.
Some people like to have more than one spouse. It isn’t my particular cup of tea, but…
Some people like to have sex with animals. It isn’t my particular cup of tea, but…
Some people like to have sex with children. It isn’t my particular cup of tea, but…
Very slippery slope, IMO.
#29 Where’s The Dude with the Lebowski quote.
Seems like those conservatives who are defending Vitter here are only arguing degrees of wrong. In Bill F’s case it’s at great length. Does anyone believe that sex outside your marriage is right in any way? Hamous is right. Arguing degrees of wrong is a very slippery slope. Moral relativism isn’t my particular cup of tea.
#31,
They peed on my rug. ‘Nuff said.
Ok, back from the endoscopy, drugs are still kickin in.
If you want to see a fascinating show on sex watch the History Channels History of Sex documentary. Goes back to the stoneage. This is bigger than any mans word or vows. Other than hunger and survival, the sex drive is one powerful thing to try and overcome. The most powerful leaders the Earth has ever know were beat by that beast. Some lowly Senator from LA is no match.
The reason politicians seem to be at the mercy is because they lie as a normal daily function.
Gregg I just read #6 and let me tell you, you are way off base. Power is a magnate and a corrupter. Men with power are put into situations the normal Joe doesn’t experience with some spectacularly looking women…… that little voice says just this once. Some men prefer things……. their wives will not do…….so they live out fantasy with a prostitute. Their wife should not be expected to debase herself for a kinky man. Some men have such low self esteem they have to keep proving they can attract………. and they repeat cheat. Some men compartmentalize their lives. Home, wife, kids in one box,……… business, drinking, partying, and women in another box. For you to say it’s the womans fault is just wrong.
Vitter stood before a group of people, his wife dressed in white, he in a tux ( I assume) and promised things to her under God. At that point, I assume he loved her beyond measure. I wonder what Mrs. Vitter thought when she found out. How many tears? How much hurt? Doubt…….we wonder if we can trust him…… what about her. He risked his family, disease, and never gave a thought to her, and how this would hurt his family. I saw weak character.
Bill F,
If Clinton had come out the first time he was asked and said “yep, I slept with her…Hillary knows about it…and what we do in our sex lives is none of your business”, I would have been fine with it.
I wouldn’t have been. First of all, it’s arrogant. Most people think marriage is an important social institution, and frown on the notion of open marriages or marriages of convenience (i.e. staying together for political reasons). To come out and say “it’s none of your business” doesn’t end the story. If I don’t want to vote for a moral pervert because I don’t respect them, it’s damn well my business. I expect my politicians to honor certain social conventions if not moral rules, and it’s highly improper to be completely unrepentant about committing adultery regardless of your spouse’s knowledge.
Besides, in Hillary’s case I think she was humiliated. I’m speculating here, but I believe she probably knew of Bill’s indiscretions and wished he would stop, but it didn’t bother her too greatly provided he was discrete. He clearly was not. If Bill would have responded to the Lewinsky scandal in the fashion you advocate, it would have been even more humiliating.
<>The real problem is that these guys feel like they HAVE to lie about it when it becomes public. Why? Why not either admit the mistake and apologize or explain that it wasn’t a mistake and that their spouse is ok with it?
Do you really need to ask this question? The answer is that philandering politicians know that the public wouldn’t like it. They want leaders they can respect. If they can keep in under wraps, they want to do that to avoid embarassment. Moreover, the “guy in an open marriage” routine doesn’t bring respect, it brings disgust. You’re suggesting some libertine, French-style attitude. All I say is thank goodness we’re not the French.
Prostitution in my mind should be legalized and strictly regulated just like it is in Nevada. There is no reason to keep trying to act like we can stop it from happening.
We can’t stop it completely, but when can stem it to a large degree. In any event, society will continue to show its moral disapproval for practices such as this which it believes are demeaning to women and society.
How do you define fault? You want to know why the guy goes to the hooker? Its not for a new recipe. I simply say he is going there for the kind of sex he doesnt get from his wife. Call it fault if you will. If the wife satisfied him he would probably be at home. No man goes to the hooker for a good nagging.
AM, if your husband didnt take care of your business and the pool guy was. Whos to blame? Your husband or the pool guy?
gregg,
Keep blaming the victim. Nobody buys it. It’s the same pitiful excuses adulterers have used since time immemorial.
#26
Then gay marriage should be legalized and people should be able to have multiple spouses. As long as they are honest about it.
I can’t believe some of what I’m reading. Between the - “I blame the wives” and “free love for everyone” I’m really shocked that some of these are the same people who commented on the contraceptives for co-eds blog earlier this week.
Apparently it is not acceptable for 20-something women to be permiscuous but middle age men can sleep with a wild pig as long as they admit to it freely and without remorse and you’ll still vote them into office.
Amen #36.
#38 - Let me attempt to answer that question. Not that I think she would, but if AW was going to the pool guy because her husband wouldn’t “take care of business”, then it would be HER fault.
Sex drive may be powerful, but we ALL have a choice. Always.
Really, both are wrong. At least promiscuity outside of marriage isn’t automatically a violation of trust and a promise before God and your spouse…
Gregg,
Oh my gosh!
It’s the “she asked for it” defense. It’s really reprehensible.
“I’m sorry honey, but you shouldn’t have mouthed off, then I wouldn’t have smacked you into the wall.”
“I’m sorry honey, but you should have come to bed more often, then I wouldn’t have given $$ to that prostitute.”
Really? Are you serious?
30 Hamous,
Its not a slippery slope at all. We once outlawed alcohol. Once we realized that all it did was energize a criminal element by increasing the profits to be made on illegal booze, we ended prohibition. Prostitution is illegal…and that is the reason there are victims in that crime. Go ask the ladies who work in the Nevada brothels if they are victims? Prostitution is ALWAYS going to happen, and we are perfectly capable of drawing the line between prostitution and child sex. There is no slippery slope there. What happens between two adults and is consensual for both has nothing to do with me. In the case of animals, the animal can’t consent…so it can’t be consensual. With kids, we have set an age where we have determined that somebody can legally consent…there is nothing wrong with that law. The victim in the crime of prostitution is the prostitute who has to give her money to a pimp and get beaten up by customers…or the eastern european who gets smuggled into the country and forced to work as a hooker by criminals. Without the legal route, the black market is all there is and it is the same reason that we ended prohibition.
Owen, I didn’t say you had to vote for the guy. I just said that if we were more open minded about sex in general, we wouldn’t be so hung up about what people do in their private lives and they wouldn’t have to lie about it. You can still believe differently and vote differently if you want. Bill Clinton had the chance in the case of Gennifer Flowers to tell us where he stood before we ever elected him. He should have told the truth then and let us elect him or not based on the truth. At the time of the Lewinsky deal, I don’t personally care if Hillary lets him screw around…I just resent him lying about it under oath and then wagging his finger at me and lying again.
If people accepted that some marriages are open, it wouldn’t be humiliating for it to become public. If you take away the stigma of it, then it is no longer a threat that forces a lie when it becomes public.
You are still free to vote for somebody who claims to be all virtue and mom and pop goodness. I just wish that society as a whole didn’t talk out of both sides of their mouths about it. Instead, we expect our politicians to be clean and spotless choir boys and girls, then we go home from the voting booth and fire up the computer to search for porn or to watch desperate housewives to be titilated by somebody else’s adultery. We hold them collectively to a standard that only a minority of americans hold themselves to. I just wish a politician could be honest about his or her personal life and not get pilloried for it.
Its the dishonesty provoked by the double standard that is most disturbing to me than the fact that their personal life my be different than mine.
If my husband and I were at odds sexually….we would discuss, get councilling, and if that didn’t work….. seperate. I wouldnt do the pool guy while married. Marriage means something to me
“Without civic morality communities perish; without personal morality their survival has no value.” — Bertrand Russell
a politician presents a picture of loving family man, business man, church goer. He looks the part, talks the part, and gets elected……….. then we find out he cheats……….. I don’t have to accept that.
…open marriages aren’t marriages.
No we don’t. We expect them to be honest and not break the law. Vitter didn’t just cheat on his wife, he hired a hooker, an illegal act…
“Conviction is worthless unless it is converted into conduct.”
— Thomas Carlyle, Scottish historian
Bill F,
If people accepted that some marriages are open, it wouldn’t be humiliating for it to become public.
Well, there’s your problem. You accept open marriages, which places you in a small minority. Most people are as disgusted with open marriages as they are with the dishonesty it engenders.
We hold them collectively to a standard that only a minority of americans hold themselves to. I just wish a politician could be honest about his or her personal life and not get pilloried for it.
I disagree. Most people don’t commit adultery. Moreover, it’s not that I’m not willing to forgive, I just need sincere repentance for that and a termination of the bad behavior.
In any case, I think most people are willing to overlook some minor, more common indiscretions without a major public scandal, i.e. fornication, divorce, alcoholism, trying marijuana, etc. We just haven’t reached that point with using call girls and getting fellacio from interns in the White House. I, for one, hope we never do.
Nonsense. Politicians would still lie about it for the reason AW states in #47: they want to be elected. More people find extramarital affairs morally repugnant than don’t. Vitter’s was certainly not an open marriage.
This is a really bizarre thread…I’m speechless.
Stacy,
Promiscuity is a choice that some people make, and I personally didn’t choose that path, but I don’t see somebody as a lesser human being if they do. There are plenty of choices that I made when I was 20 that I would go back and change, so I don’t see why I should stand in judgement over somebody else’s bad choices. Lets face it, if we had a video record of everything that any of us had ever done, none of us could ever get elected for any office.
As for comparing things like gay marriage and polygamy…again, we can draw lines anywhere we want, and there are reasons to draw certain ones where they are. I think the value of a traditional family is well proven in society and good reason to discourage polygamy and gay marriage. I do however think that legally recognized domestic partnerships between gays and social contracts recognizing non-traditional relationships have their place in society.
Marriage is a unique institution with religious roots, and we should not degrade that heritage unnecessarily. There are mechanisms by which three people living together can be contractually bound so that they get most of the financial and legal benefits of being married, and that is how it should stay if they choose to live in that arrangement. There is no compelling societal benefit to drive opening the institution of marriage to gays or polygamy.
Accepting what others choose in their lives without judgement doesn’t mean we have to agree with it and vote for them next time. Sometimes it just really is none of our business. I have the benefit of having had a friend come out to me that he was gay a long time ago. Prior to that time, I was somewhat homophobic in my youth and never would have guessed that the guy was gay. After he came out and told me, and we had a long talk about how he could reconcile his sexual preference with the teachings of his church (he was a very devout catholic), I had a whole new perspective on how his life was. He was still my friend…nothing that made us friends before had changed…so why would I judge him or think less of him now than before? The same can be said for many things people do in life…if it doesn’t affect you…and doesn’t change anything about why you originally liked somebody, why should learning about it change something now?
Final question. Totally hypothetical. What would you have done in 1984 if you had found out before the election that Ronald Reagan was involved with another woman with Nancy’s knowledge and acceptance? Clearly a totally made up scenario, but think about it for a minute. Reagan was the ultimate conservative on the issues that really matter to most of us. So would knowing he and Nancy had an unusual relationship cause you to suddenly decide you couldn’t vote for the guy again? What if he never tried to hide it when it came out? What if he didn’t lie and wag his finger at the person asking the question? What if he just said yes…its true…next question? Would that one admission change everything you believed about his politics and ability to lead the country after 4 years doing a great job?
If there is no problem with open marriage….. then why doesnt a politician run with that in the open? He doesn’t because he knows he won’t ever get the nomination. Just because you and I may have not had marriages that worked, doesnt mean we do not aspire to be like those little old couples who have been married 55 years and still look at each other with a twinkle. I think that’s a longing we all have. Most fail….. some make it.
IF I had found out that about Reagan, it would have affected my opinion strongly.
It jes’ gets bizarrer and bizarrer, Homey.
I hope it runs up to about 200 posts. We’ll have to send it off to some researcher.
Bill F: The Man Broke The Law By Hiring A Hooker. While In Office.
What about that don’t you understand? Even if you out aside questions of morality and whether or not an adulterer should be elected, what about a lawbreaker?
It goes to a man’s character. He knows better. Will he take this huge risk, or will he have enough strength of character to resist. He is weak. In what other ways will the weakness manifest itself?
jimb,
Where in anything did you see me say that I thought what Vittner did was ok? I have argued that prostitution should be legal and that we should be more tolerant of people who have relationships that are different than ours. I never once said he should get a pass for it. He broke the law and lied to his constituents. I am more upset that he lied instead of coming clean, but it doesn’t mean that I excuse his crime either. I believe the speed limits in a lot of places should be higher too, but it doesn’t mean I get mad when I get pulled over for speeding.
#54, Why do you assume that I have a failed marriage? I am married to my best friend that I met and fell in love with in college and have been for over a decade. We have been monogamous through good times and bad. But just because I have that as my marriage doesn’t mean that I look down my nose at somebody who chooses something different. It really is none of my business what they do. (yes jimb…except when they commit a crime).
“Our people are slow to learn the wisdom of sending character instead of talent to Congress.
–Ralph Waldo Emerson
#59 The ” we ” I used was a generalization because more than one out of every two fail…… don’t ask me how they get that statistic. It is none of my business on a level of general population life. When they run for office, it becomes my business. I pay their salary.
Knowing what you know about his first term in office AW, you would look back and say you might have changed your vote for Reagan over that? Wow! Just Wow! The greatest president in modern history could have been not re-elected for a second term if he had a sexual foible that we disagreed with. I am finally rendered speechless (I can see Owen smiling now).
I went into a club back in the ’80s on West Gray around Birraporetti’s. There was no sign, just a red door. I think it was called Marfala’s or something like that. It may still be there for all I know. Downstairs was a somewhat normal yuppie bar. Then I went upstairs. Wow! Quite an eye-opening experience for a farm boy. Lots of people up there who had “open relationships”.
“Daddy where did you and Mommy meet?”
“Oh we met at a drunken orgy at some bar in Houston. I saw her bent over the bar stool and I said, Yup that’s the girl for me!”
Laws control the lesser man. Right conduct controls the greater one. ~Chinese Proverb
Since the Reagan question was purely hypothetical let me submit this: if he had been an adulterer he most likely wouldn’t have been one of our greatest Presidents. It’s about character.
I am,
indeed,
a king,
because I know how
to rule myself.
~Pietro Aretino, 10 May 1537
I would have wondered how much of Reagan was an act and how much was sincere. It would have made me really concerned. Is Nancy going to stay, or will there be a scandal in the white house that takes his mind away from the country , etc.
Hamous thanks!
The only correct actions are those that demand no explanation and no apology.~Red Auerbach
Ok Shannon, since we are doing quotes, how about these…
Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself. Matthew 7:1
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. John 8:7
Those are just as pointless in the debate as anything else I guess.
AW, the hypothetical was that Nancy was fine with it. I didn’t say he was cheating and she found out…what if you found out he had a long time mistress that Nancy knew of?
Men’s minds are too ready to excuse guilt in themselves. — Titus Livius
I don’t play the “Let’s take a line of scripture out of context and use it in an argument game”.
I’d be more interested to hear if you have even a single response to the ones I have posted.
Reagan did NOT portray himself like that. He was a man of strong values etc. Question is, would he have made the primary cut? I would be suspicious of some one like that. It’s not of my belief system.
The bible is very clear about adultery and sexual sin…….. you cannot misunderstand it.
It doesn’t matter, Bill F.
As I told dcgirl yesterday, you have made your priorities quite clear. I don’t judge you for that. But I do disagree.
You said nancy was fine with it. I am saying, what if it continued. Would she continue to turn her head? How would that affect things. If she were fine with it, I would assume he would mess around in public. It wouldnt set well. If he covered it up….. what about blackmail? NO, there is no exception in my small mind.
If Reagan was an adulterer and Nancy was cool with it he most certainly would not have been one of our greatest Presidents.
Hamous, your assumption is that there IS somebody out there with perfect character. I assume you are a christian? Do you honestly believe that there is somebody out there who has no sins? No skeleton of any kind in their closet that they would be embarrassed if it were announced to the public? No acts that they regretted? No choices they made in life that others might disagree with? Your assumption is that if Reagan had committed the sin of adultery (even if it were condoned by Nancy) that he must be a lesser man and have insufficient character to be a great president. Doesn’t that tread awfully close to the quote from John that I posted above? Are there some sins that are more acceptable than others? Some that damage a person’s character worse than others? Or are you in fact implying that Reagan was without sin?
“Once integrity goes, the rest is a piece of cake.”
— J.R. Ewing
#70 - allow me to respond. The things that Shannon has posted are great words to live by. So are the Bible verses you posted (in their context, of course).
However, expecting a higher level of trustworthiness from an elected official is neither “judging” or “casting stones”. These verses are great for people in leadership positions:
Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 1 Corintians 8:9
Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach 1 Timothy 3:2
It’s the dcgirl argument!!
Eh, man, it’s like…uh…de ja vu all over again.
Actually, perfect character is not what we’re looking for. You can be far less than perfect and not cheat on your wife or hire hookers.
Pass the bong.
Here ya go…
#79 Bill F - I make no such assumption. And marital fidelity alone does not a great leader make. As an example you have to look no further than Jimmy Carter. But to suggest that we not question the character of someone who takes such a sacred vow as marriage so lightly is way out in left field, IMO.
If that man is willing to break those most sacred vows so easily, I’m saying he would be more likely to break lesser commitments he’s made.
Well said guys, Hamous, Jimb,Shannon. We are only discussing the ability to not committ adultery. I believe there are millions of men in this country who can honestly say they have that ability. If you run for office and win, then dishonor the office by hiring a hooker, what does that say about how you feel about the office you were elected to hold, or the people who put you there?
87
So you don’t buy the crap that we’re all a bunch of hormone driven maniacs, whose little problem with integrity should be over-looked for the greater good?
My goodness, what’s the matter with you, woman!!
/and by the way, thank you.
Shannon,
My answer to all of your quotes is that no man is without sin. All people sin…all people make choices that others would not at some point in their life. Having character and values doesn’t mean never making a mistake andnever asking for forgiveness. How a person addresses that with their family and their god is between them and doesn’t involve me.
If a politician runs as a strict fundamental christian and god fearing man who walks a straight arrow line between right and wrong, then obviously I am going to be upset if I find he isn’t what he said he was later on. If, on the other hand, he runs on a platform of cutting taxes, strong national defense (including strong borders), minimal intrusion by government, and tells me that he has made mistakes in his life and isn’t perfect, then I am not going to be too upset if it comes to life that at some point he made a mistake in his personal life. It won’t change that he is a strong conservative on the issues that are imprtant to me as a voter.
Each community will determine the moral values that it feels are important to be upheld. We are all free to vote for people whose values we agree with. I just hate to see people who may be really great conservatives and would be very effective legislators afraid to run for office because they are afraid that their past errors or personal details might be dragged out for everybody to see and discuss. I don’t doubt that many people who would have been wonderful conservative leaders have been stopped from even considering a run for fear of what it would do to their families and friends to have their past raked over the coals in the public eye.
That is the price of insisting on saints to represent us. The only ones willing to do it anymore are the ones willing to lie about it and hope that we don’t find out they are sinners just like the rest of us. The truly honest ones don’t want to lie to us to get elected, so they never run at all.
I don’t want a saint but asking for a man or woman that doesn’t cheat on their spouse, the one person they’re supposed to love above all other humans, is not too much to ask for Pete’s sake!
Like I said, this has gotten really bizarre. Think I’ll go join Hogfan and his Florida girl for a beer
#89 There is nothing wrong with truth. If a man or woman wants to run for office, and has had an affair 15 years prior, why can’t he tell us about it. An “I want to be honest with you approach is best”. GW had a drinking problem and quit. If a young college kid wants to enter politics as his choice, he better understand, he has to keep his nose clean, and for that college female, no girls gone wild.
I don’t understand why being monogoamous, and not committing adultery is now being a saint. Shannon do I call you St. Shannon now?
If you can’t keep it in your pants when your away from home, and you are an elected official, you have no business serving.
If we cannot agree on that, we’re going nowhere.
Y’all have a great weekend.
I’m going home. To a great vodka tonic.
And my wife of 20 years. To whom I have been effortlessly faithful.
Which, by the way, makes me nothing special or unique.
hamous, we DO insist on perfection! People who are honest with us about their past can’t make it through the primaries, because there is always some liar there ready to tell us that their past is indeed spotless. Lesser things than adultery have derailed political campaigns. I am not saying to excuse Vitter of hiring a hooker. I am not saying it was right for Clinton to screw around behind Hillary’s back. I am saying that the worse crime is the dishonesty that goes with it. If they make a mistake and are truly remorseful for it, then I judge them differently than if they lie about it and try to hide the truth of their errors.
I am not taking the biblical quotes out of context…I was offering up words taken out of their original context that added just as much to the discussion as the words divorced from their context that Shannon was offering up. Sure, all of them are good ideals to live by, but none of it gets any closer to how you take one flawed sinner and compare them to another flawed sinner when trying to determine which one should represent you in the Senate.
Of course we all want people of character, of course we all want a saint who has never told a lie in his life. But who we get is people who reflect our own imperfection. So in the end, we have to judge them according to how they represent our wishes, not how their personal habits jibe with our own. Obviously nobody wants a criminal to represent them. But what if their crime was a DWI at age 18? Is that worse than hiring a hooker at age 22? Is lying about how they will vote on an immigration bill during a campaign worse than lying to us about whether they slept with somebody besides their spouse after they are already elected? Sure, character counts, and we should all strive to have perfect character and elect people who we think have that. But when we savagely attack anybody found not to be perfect, we eventually resign ourselves to picking between a bunch of liars as candidates.
Well, theologically speaking, all us Christians are saints.
….a conversation for another day.
Have a good one, AW.
GWB made it into office being a recovering alcoholic. Everyone knew. It was also in the PAST, not while he was serving. Important difference there.
Bill Clinton was a well-known philanderer and was elected and re-elected.
Sainthood isn’t required. Some level of “walking uprightly” is. Otherwise, we’re as hypocritical as the Democrats would have us believe.
Um, I hate to say this, but you are. “Judge not” is one of the most often misused verses around, IMO.
Finally, you’re creating a false dilemma by saying that if we question the trustworthiness of a man who cheats with a hooker, then we must want nothing but saints and sinless people in office…
You all keep assuming that somebody who had sex outside of their marriage betrayed their wife or lied or broke a vow when you don’t know that. There are people out there for whom their marriage vows are very dear and for whom sex outside of marriage is an accepted form of personal enjoyment within their marriage. If a man’s wife says “sure honey, you can have sex with the neighbor”, then he is not betraying her. If she does the pool boy with his permission, she is not betraying him. It isn’t what I choose in my marriage, or what you might choose in your marriage, but how is somebody in a marriage like that less trustworthy or more likely to lie than anybody else if both partners in the marriage agree that sex with others is ok? Again, when you go hire a hooker, it is a crime…but if there is no dishonesty and no betrayal involved, isn’t it really their own business what they do?
Sure you might not agree with it, but is it something you think they should announce during the campaign if they are not otherwise running as a fundamentalist christian?
Bill F
It sounds to me like what you’re saying is we need move the line of acceptable behavior so adultery is no longer unacceptable.
I think that one of the reasons we have such a dearth of good candidates is because we’ve been too willing to accept such bad candidates. I refuse to buy the “everyone else is doing it” defense. It didn’t work for me as a kid and I won’t accept it in my elected officials.
BTW, I will seriously consider voting for Gingrich if he runs, and admitted adulterer, because I believe his confession was sincere and he is contrite. So that shoots your theory about me only looking for saints right out of the water.
“Hamous, your assumption is that there IS somebody out there with perfect character. I assume you are a christian? Do you honestly believe that there is somebody out there who has no sins?”
There are consequences for everything we do. It is not for us to judge the sin or the sinner, but there are consequences, like losing ones job. I don’t think that Vitter should be condemed, but I do think his actions have consequences.
And AMEN SHANNON! Being faithful to ones spouse has become something of a marvel. Which is ridiculous. It’s the cheaters of the world that want to believe everyone cheats … makes them feel better.
Marriage needs to be protected and fought for. If someone is on the ballot that does not feel that way, I will not vote for them.
As to the question of Reagan … Reagan was a great President because of his ethics and character, you can not take those away from him and be left with the same man. Had it been known that he was having an illicit affair - his legacy would be completely different.
Darn it jimb. That’s the phrase I was seeking the other day, when talking to dcgirl.
I called it the “straw man”.
Thanks.
” If a man’s wife says “sure honey, you can have sex with the neighbor”, then he is not betraying her. If she does the pool boy with his permission, she is not betraying him.”
Whoever this person in your hypothetical is … does not have my vote.
I won’t throw rocks at them or make ugly remarks as they pass in the street … but what you’re saying is every marriage doesn’t have to follow the same rules … which means po