I profoundly object to this. I support family values far more than Gingrich does, inasmuch as unlike Gingrich I support gay marriage and adoption, and also unlike Gingrich I support marrying someone for life and not cheating. And it’s very hard for me to think that a man like Gingrich, who cheats on his wife while moralizing about another man cheating on his wife, would do anything useful to promote the family values that are so important to me.
I understand that. My point is that they’re encouraging hypocrisy from politicians: they’ve said over and over that they’ll vote for someone who talks the talk. To that end they’re also behaving like dupes (and they wonder why they keep getting disappointed). OK, so Newt gets elected and supports programs that are “moral” and “pro-family.” How much does that accomplish? Anyone who looks at him knows he only believes in those things as long as it’s convenient. Doesn’t that actually teach people a lesson about how to get away with saying one thing and doing another? I don’t think that’s going to lead to a big uptick in moral behavior.
A closer analogy might be that Arnold Schwarzenneger in this scenario is actually a fat blob with twinkie goo running down his chin at all times, yet also promotes himself to a blind audience as a paragon of health. And then he saw someone else caught smoking a cigar and then went apeshit talking about how smoking a cigar is the worst thing you can do and makes you unfit to be a leader, and there should be dire consequences.
Then, years later, when pictures of him smoking a cigar comes out, he gets the righteous indignation to declare that anyone who thinks smoking a cigar is a noteworthy issue should be ashamed.
Actually it was brocks that mentioned it.
You’re the one who began by making the rather foolish comment
Which clearly implies that Republicans hold themselves up a moral paragons more than Democrats do.
I pointed out this was complete bullshit by making the argument that no reasonable person could argue with other than for the gender-specific terms.
You then tried to shift the goal posts declaring:
You furthermore tried to double-down on the goalposts shifting by asserting that since I said:
Which you insisted was tantamount to claiming that I “saw no difference between having one’s family stand next to one and building one’s campaign around the sanctity of marriage”.
Sorry, but you made a very poorly thought out argument and when I pointed out the error you’ve decided to lash out at me, engage in personal attacks, misrepresent what I said, and act as if you said something different than what you initially did.
Both of you please tone it down.
They do. Regularly.
Er, that’s what I said.
They both do.
Cite for the two bolded items? With specifics please.
Republicans do it far more often. Clear on that now?
No they don’t.
Republicans are more likely to be strongly opposed to gay rights but that’s hardly the same thing.
Yes they do. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Repeating something doesn’t make it true.
Perhaps you can provide some evidence for your assertion.
Why should I be held to a standard you haven’t met?
Did NOW have a public stance against adultery? As far as I know, their platform is equal rights for women - so if Clinton was advancing that cause, NOW had no reason to denounce him on other issues.
Gingrich is different. He has advanced the principle that personal failings - like adultery - indicate a person is unfit for political office. So by his own standards, he is unfit for political office. So how do we know this is the only personal standard he is willing to break? How can we trust he won’t lie if he was President? How can we trust that he won’t take bribes if he was President? How can we trust that he won’t break the law if he was President? How can we trust he won’t commit treason if he was President? Gingrich, by his own words and actions, has shown he does not consider himself bound by any moral code, even his own.
The opening debate question was puerile and out of place. I watched the CNN panel afterwards and even most of them thought so too.
If you substitute the names of the primary candidates with democrats, the type of bug-eyed exclamations posted here remind me of the substance and tone of the stuff Ive seen on FreeRepublic.
It’s strange to see people who claim logic and fairness as their primary moving force in life, dive off a cliff when talking about politics. (This is also evident by looking at the section of this site following up on Cecil’s column about the IQ of red vs blue states.)
Right. And of course he smoked the cigar out of love for America!
That really was one of the most grandiose excuses in the history of politics. Nevermind the dismissal of multiple affairs as only “inappropriate,” even your typical ethically deprived politician doesn’t have the stones to say he cheated on two wives because he loves his country so much.
Who’s doing this specifically? Quote your posts and finds flaws in them.
The idea that holding a guy accountable for being a blatant hypocrite makes us the same as free republic is obnoxious.
Let’s see these “bug-eyed exclamations” that are the equivelant of freepers. Let’s see this supposed lack of logic and fairness. Examples and arguments please.
Even less believable than the captain of the Concordia claiming he tripped and fell into a life boat and left the ship by accident.
[del]And you prolly thought you weren’t being sexist.[/del]
There’s a word for what you now say you meant: spouses.