Affairs and Consequences

[jonks]

Bill Maher (I've probably lost most of you already) had an interesting bit last week about Newt being viable for office despite his marital past. He ran through several politicians' scandals and pointed out it's confusing to figure out what the public is or would be ok with.

Bill Clinton, affair while president, got impeached, today is a beloved figure of dems/inds.

David Vitter, gop senator LA, affairs with hookers, apologized without really admitting, easily reelected, no real stigma in associations.

John Ensign, gop senator NV, affair with staffer, paid hush money to staffer's husband, will not run for reelection, somewhat toxic.

Elliot Spitzer, NY dem gov, affairs with hookers, resigned, got CNN show, generally not considered a pariah in political circles.

Larry Craig, arrested in gay sting, denies gay, kisses wife (on cheek), finishes term, not seen much since.

John Edwards, former dem senator, affair/baby while wife has cancer, ceases presidential run, wife dies, becomes the invisible man with no friends.

And Newt with his rather sordid history is not immediately discounted as a contender and frequents all levels of political circles.

So what's the story?

 

[Jaskalas]

So what's the story?

The story? Time and circumstances are all different. You're essentially comparing apples to oranges and then wondering if the mess left over 15 years ago is somewhat comparable to more recent events.

I haven't made myself familiar with the details of Newt's affair, though I certainly will if he tries to run. Not that I'm inclined to support any such GOP insider.

 

[Texashiker]

Affairs and Consequences

There are certain groups out there that preach no sex outside of marriage, only missionary position, and only for making a baby.

So what if someone had an affair, that does not make him / her a poor leader, it makes them human.

 

[Scotteq]

<snip>

So what's the story?

The story is that Philandering is a crime only insofar as one's political opponents are successfully able to vilify you for it.

 

[werepossum]

Dick Morris has the inside story. When all the political experts were saying that if the affair was true, Clinton was out by Monday, Clinton was having Morris run poles as to whether or not people would accept a President who was an adulterer. When the results came back overwhelmingly negative, Clinton told him that they would just have to persuade people that this was not a big deal. And they did, with a coordinated media campaign that effectively sold a separation between "public ethics" and "private ethics". Ergo today it's not such a big deal anymore.

There are exceptions of course. Spitzer was prosecuting and jailing people for exactly what he himself was doing; Edwards was cheating on a wife who desperately needed his support as she fought incurable, metastasized breast cancer. But probably the three most powerful factors in political survival are public image, circumstances, and constituency. Clinton had a reputation as a sleazeball going in, but enough charisma (and a massive media machine) to give him a rakish slant, and his affair was a pretty modest thing except for its timing and setting, and his constituency was the whole country. Ensign has less charisma, much less of a media machine, and a similar affair except that he screwed the wife of a friend, plus his constituency includes a conservative primary where he'd be massacred. Had he Clinton's public image going in he might have survived, but he had presented himself as a strong family values type.

Newt on the other hand is a brilliant man, but not particularly charismatic. He has dumped two wives via interoffice affairs. He has historically been a social conservative, family values type. And in order to become President, he must first run the gauntlet of mostly socially conservative Republican primaries. I suspect his viability is mostly in the minds of progressive pundits like Maher who look forward to destroying him and keeping Obama in power. Or so it seems to me.

 

[Siddhartha]

Dick Morris has the inside story. When all the political experts were saying that if the affair was true, Clinton was out by Monday, Clinton was having Morris run poles as to whether or not people would accept a President who was an adulterer. When the results came back overwhelmingly negative, Clinton told him that they would just have to persuade people that this was not a big deal. And they did, with a coordinated media campaign that effectively sold a separation between "public ethics" and "private ethics". Ergo today it's not such a big deal anymore.

There are exceptions of course. Spitzer was prosecuting and jailing people for exactly what he himself was doing; Edwards was cheating on a wife who desperately needed his support as she fought incurable, metastasized breast cancer. But probably the three most powerful factors in political survival are public image, circumstances, and constituency. Clinton had a reputation as a sleazeball going in, but enough charisma (and a massive media machine) to give him a rakish slant, and his affair was a pretty modest thing except for its timing and setting, and his constituency was the whole country. Ensign has less charisma, much less of a media machine, and a similar affair except that he screwed the wife of a friend, plus his constituency includes a conservative primary where he'd be massacred. Had he Clinton's public image going in he might have survived, but he had presented himself as a strong family values type.

Newt on the other hand is a brilliant man, but not particularly charismatic. He has dumped two wives via interoffice affairs. He has historically been a social conservative, family values type. And in order to become President, he must first run the gauntlet of mostly socially conservative Republican primaries. I suspect his viability is mostly in the minds of progressive pundits like Maher who look forward to destroying him and keeping Obama in power. Or so it seems to me.

Why is it so popular, at least on this forum, to blame anyone embarrassing* to the GOP on "progressives", leftist, left leaning media, etc? I seriously doubt that Mr Gingrich is basing his decision on running for POTUS on what people like Mr Maher have to say.

* for example: Ms Palin, Joe the Plumber.

 

[RedChief]

Bill Clinton, affair while president, got impeached, today is a beloved figure of dems/inds.

You may want to clarify that Clinton was not impeached for having an affair. He was impeached for lying about not having one in his deposition in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him.

Having an affair is immoral.
Lying about it under oath is illegal.

 

[rudeguy]

Why is it so popular, at least on this forum, to blame anyone embarrassing* to the GOP on "progressives", leftist, left leaning media, etc? I seriously doubt that Mr Gingrich is basing his decision on running for POTUS on what people like Mr Maher have to say.

* for example: Ms Palin, Joe the Plumber.

You are correct. Maher has proven himself to be a racist, sexist pot head who spews lies and hate.

Back on topic:
I think it all comes down to honesty. If the person fesses up to what they did, no big deal. If they continue to lie and deny the facts, then they are out.

 

[Texashiker]

Having an affair is immoral.

Says who? You? Society? Religion?

That is one of the problems with society, everyone things everyone else should live be their standards.

 

[Elfear]

So what if someone had an affair, that does not make him / her a poor leader, it makes them human.

I don't buy that. Why would I trust someone to to be a good leader for me and 300+ million other people that leader doesn't know, when they would betray the person they supposedly love more than any other in the world? That is not the best of humanity, in fact I consider that very close to the bottom of the list. Why would I want that in my leader?

I'm not saying people who have affairs need to be shunned from society or shouldn't be forgiven, but I would have serious reservations about trusting them to make good decisions for the citizens he/she leads.

 

[werepossum]

Why is it so popular, at least on this forum, to blame anyone embarrassing* to the GOP on "progressives", leftist, left leaning media, etc? I seriously doubt that Mr Gingrich is basing his decision on running for POTUS on what people like Mr Maher have to say.

* for example: Ms Palin, Joe the Plumber.

I'm not blaming anything within the GOP on progressives; that would be insane. Both Gingrich and Palin are running (if they do) on the basis on good ol' fashioned desire for power, with the best of intentions, like all politicians. What I am saying is that progressives have a vested interest in promoting such candidacies as damaging to conservative fortunes and therefore good for progressive fortunes. Neither Gingrich nor Palin have a better chance than, say, Kucinich, on whom we see the same forces operating. Knowing that Kucinich has no more chance in a national election than does Charlie Sheen, the progressives in media give him debate questions designed to marginalize him, to make him look foolish, and thereby to eliminate any chance of Kucinich gaining traction in the very progressive Democrat primaries. I'm missing though why Joe the Plumber is embarrassing to the GOP. Given the depths to which the progressives and Democrats (but I repeat myself) sunk trying to discredit him, including abuse of government resources and illegal release of personal data, I think he was rather more embarrassing to the Dems.

You may want to clarify that Clinton was not impeached for having an affair. He was impeached for lying about not having one in his deposition in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him.

Having an affair is immoral.
Lying about it under oath is illegal.

Very good point.

 

[Texashiker]

when they would betray the person they supposedly love more than any other in the world?

How do you know what kind of relationship the couple have? There are couples out there that have open relationships, swingers,,,,,.

Please do not use your own standards, and apply them to other people.

 

[Elfear]

How do you know what kind of relationship the couple have? There are couples out there that have open relationships, swingers,,,,,.

Please do not use your own standards, and apply them to other people.

Give me a break. If Hillary or Newt's ex's got on national TV and said they were totally cool with their husbands having sex with someone else it would be one thing. Me thinks Bill, Newt, Edwards, etc. were not in consensual swinging relationships when they had their affairs.

It's about keeping promises. If you can't keep such an important promise to the one you supposedly love most in the world, why would you keep your promise to millions of stangers? Is integrity a value that only religious people have?

 

[RedChief]

Says who? You? Society? Religion?

That is one of the problems with society, everyone things everyone else should live be their standards.

Since when your married, you normally take a vow to be faithful to your spouse. When you have a affair your break that vow, hence the immorality.

And says who? I would go with both Society and Religion. But your saying no-one should decide what is moral. If nothing is immoral, then nothing should be illegal. After all, most of our laws are based on morality.

 

[Patranus]

There are no consequences since the "progressive" installed this idea of "zero fault" divorce.

 

[xj0hnx]

It's about keeping promises. If you can't keep such an important promise to the one you supposedly love most in the world, why would you keep your promise to millions of stangers? Is integrity a value that only religious people have?

#lol@politicianskeepingpromises

#winning

 

[brencat]

Have we as a society become so desensitized to sleaze that we actually expect our politicians to be spivvy human beings in order to get the job done effectively?

Sorry, I won't be voting for Newt no matter how brilliant he might be as I want someone without the baggage as well as someone out of the Republican establishment. While I would look with extreme disfavor on a candidate who cheated on their wife/husband while espousing family values, I'm looking for a social moderate (actually social libertarian would be preferable) and an economic conservative if such a person exists. We have so many more pressing economic issues facing our country than one's position on abortion.

 

[Texashiker]

. But your saying no-one should decide what is moral.

The world should not revolve around your idea of morality, or my idea, or my neighbors idea,,,,.

It should be left up to the individual person to live their life they way they want. And without others sitting in judgment.

 

[thraashman]

The world should not revolve around your idea of morality, or my idea, or my neighbors idea,,,,.

It should be left up to the individual person to live their life they way they want. And without others sitting in judgment.

Well, you're being too broad here. Thievery, murder, lying under oath are all legal issues that are also moral issues. Most states allow affairs to be considered when dealing with divorce proceedings. Behavior issues that hurt others are societally moral. A society that expects to maintain function develops a societal moral system that is beneficial to the society. It's actually an evolutionary concept. Humans evolved morality as a way to maintain a cohesive pack animal society. Now, something that hurts only the individual or no one at all, those I agree should be up to only the individual to decide.

Drug use so long as that drug use doesn't drive one to commit crime. Alcohol consumption so long as that person doesn't drink and drive. Promiscuous sex, so long as that person is safe and doesn't spread diseases. Extramarital sex so long as both spouses are aware of and ok with it. Same sex relationships, no big deal it hurts no one. These are all things that some groups would have a problem with morally that really they have no right to.

But not all morals are something that should be up to only the individual to determine what is and is not morally right.

 

[Texashiker]

Well, you're being too broad here. Thievery, murder, lying under oath are all legal issues that are also moral issues.

Your examples affect society as a whole.


If someone wants to screw around on their partner, its not my place to tell them they are wrong.

 

[jonks]

Knowing that Kucinich has no more chance in a national election than does Charlie Sheen, the progressives in media give him debate questions designed to marginalize him, to make him look foolish, and thereby to eliminate any chance of Kucinich gaining traction in the very progressive Democrat primaries.

Yes but if Kucinich cheats on his wife I'll kill myself.

Very good point.

I disagree, presidents have committed far larger illegalities without impeachment even being whispered. This was about sex and morality preachers peddling their wares. When they all talked in 2000 about bringing integrity back to the white house they weren't talking about lying under oath.

As an aside, not immunizing sitting presidents from suit while in office is idiotic.

 

[Elfear]

Your examples affect society as a whole.


If someone wants to screw around on their partner, its not my place to tell them they are wrong.

Huh? In general thievery affects a very small number of people, the thief and the person who's stuff is stolen. Murder generally involves two people. Same thing with lying. So should we not care about those actions because they don't involve society as a whole?

 

[Mursilis]

And Newt with his rather sordid history is not immediately discounted as a contender and frequents all levels of political circles.

To me he's discounted as a contender. He's like the Right's Rev. Al - a good bit of the hard right base loves him, but he's got no prayer in a general election, and no real shot at the overall nomination.

 

[Mursilis]

I don't buy that. Why would I trust someone to to be a good leader for me and 300+ million other people that leader doesn't know, when they would betray the person they supposedly love more than any other in the world?

My thoughts are the same - if your spouse can't trust you, neither can I.

 

[Mursilis]

How do you know what kind of relationship the couple have? There are couples out there that have open relationships, swingers,,,,,.

Please do not use your own standards, and apply them to other people.

If a couple has an open relationship or are swingers or whatever, then that's not really cheating, is it?