Let’s try this one more time:
I never said anything about “the Republican party.” I was talking about some Republicans, not the party.
And your current message still seems to contradict your earlier message(s) on the subject.
So let’s just ask it straight out: Do you agree that Republicans who moralistically attacked Clinton for his adultery, but who did not similarly go after Gingrich and other Republicans who had affairs were being hypocritical?
Yes, Republicans that attacked Clinton for his adultery and did not attack Gingrich for his adultery were being hypocritical.
But what I was getting at was the adultery attack on Clinton was secondary. It was convenient to tack one more indiscretion onto his “list of atrocities”. Among these are the supposed treason he committed by selling secrets to the Chinese, getting illegal fund-raising, things like that. By reading your original post, it seemed as if you believed that a lot of people were going after Clinton ONLY because of his affairs, which was not the case.
We’ve been through this before. I never said I was a liberal. Didn’t you my earlier post?
(I regret the crack about religion on that post)
It is typical of conservatives that anyone who disagrees with them is a “liberal” and can be held responsible for the views of anyone else similarly pigeonholed. But conservatives do indeed give the impression that in general, each of them embraces the full range of familiar positions, defining a group identity under that name. Althought a distiction can be made between economic and social conservativism, so many appear to be both, despite the contradictions. Which kind of conservative is Rush Limabaugh? Ronald Reagan?
DavidB:
That’s just not true. However, Gingrich’s infidelity and hypocrisy was revealed after he had already resigned his seat in Congress, so outrage against it wasn’t nearly as public as an impeachment hearing. But trust me, most conservatives were aghast that they had been supporting this guy after they found out what he was really like.
pldennison:
NOT TRUE, NOT TRUE, NOT TRUE!
Geez, Clinton’s lawyers repeat something often enough and people repeat it as fact…
This is a quote from the documents of the case in the Arkansas Eastern Circuit Court, case # 4:94-cv-290, document # 479, page 7, footnote # 7:
“In so ruling [that Lewinsky evidence would be inadmissable in the Jones case], and contrary to numerous assertions, this Court did not rule that evidence of the Lewinsky matter was irrelevant or immaterial to the issues in plaintiff’s case. Indeed the court specifically acknowledged that such evidence might have been relevant to plaintiff’s case…”
The footnote goes on to explain the reasoning behind the referenced ruling. It does later say (emphasis in original):
“The court noted that evidence of the Lewinsky matter, even assuming it to be very favorable to plaintiffs, was not essential to the core issues in this case of whether plaintiff herself was the victim of quid pro quo sexual harassment, hostile work environment harassment or intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
However, this (as explicitly stated in the first quote) does not mean it was immaterial and therefore non-perjurous.
The url of this document is: http://209.184.52.2/ECM/dc_images/__03S0Q8RSH2509249.PDF.
Chaim Mattis Keller
I sit corrected, Chaim. Thank you for the site. Anyway . . .
I agree with you completely. Let’s start enforcing the existing laws, and let’s legalize drugs so we have someplace to put the gun offenders. 
It’s a little disingenuous to on the one hand claim Paula Jones, who never suffered any ill effects as a result of Clinton’s actions, had a real case; and on the other claim that having your boss repeatedly ask you out on dates after being repeatedly rebuffed is not at least unprofessional and unethical and at worst sexual harrassment.
That being the case, maybe she should’ve just slept with him. Geez, you get regular raises and promotions, then sue a guy.
Name me a consistent politician. Don’t say “Jesse Helms.”
I’ve never disputed that Clinton committed perjury, but this thread is not about strict legalities, but about conservative attitudes. It is in this context we must look at the whole Paula Jones/Kenneth Starr/Monica Lewinski situation. The first aspect of the context was that conservatives had been touting tort reform–cracking down on frivolous lawsuits–but quietly dropped the whole idea when a frivolous lawsuit came along that they could benefit politically.
No, the “woman named Paula” was mentioned in the conservative American Spectator magazine, which had been running the “Arkansas Project”, a well-organized effort to dig up dirt on Clinton in his home state. It was funded by arch-conservative benefactor Richard Mellon Scarfe (sp?). When Jones went public, she was flanked by well-known conservatives (whose names I forget) and clearly filed suit at their urging. Prominent anti-abortion activist Susan Carpenter McMillan became her personal advisor. Later, the conservative Rutherford Institute gave her free legal representation. Clinton enemies all. If you believe the sole reason the suit was brought is so she could “restore her good name”, or that Clinton being president had nothing to do with it, you’ll believe that OJ Simpson was fleeing in the bronco because he “knew he couldn’t get a fair trial”. Besides, your acquaintances getting the wrong impression hardly amounts to injurines resulting from illegal job discrimination. That proves the suit was frivolous.
Spoofe said:
Thank you. (Phew. I’m glad we finally made it through that one…)
Of course, this ignores the fact that Republicans were going after Clinton about his affairs before he was even elected. Yes, they were doing it because they wanted to win. But that still makes it hypocritical, which was my one and only point here.
Chaim – I’m sure they were “aghast” (well, some of them – others seemed to already know that many in Congress were not the paragons of virtue they pretended to be), but they didn’t speak out the same way against Gingrich or any of the other members of their own party who were caught in affairs (including at least one who is still in Congress, so the bit about Gingrich being gone doesn’t cut it as an excuse). If having an affair is immoral, it’s immoral in all cases, not just when a member of the opposing party does it.
Okay, it’s time to move the thread in a new direction. I’ve been saving the greatest conservative contradiction for last and here it is:
Conservatives are against out-of-wedlock births and welfare payments to single mothers, but much more strongly they are against giving women to tools to avoid such situations, meaning family planning services.
And here’s another one. Conservatives are against middle-class women working and sending their children to day care. But welfare mothers should all be forced to get jobs even if there’s no place to put the kids.
David B said:
Well, David, I wasn’t ever disagreeing with you… I was trying to get at the idea that nobody would have brought up the whole affair thing on its own, you know? They wouldn’t have just said “You had an affair!” and expected that to carry any weight (well, some would, but they’re not entirely sane, in my opinion).
Now, with the other contradictions… my response is usually this: “Yeah… it’s kinda screwed up, isn’t it?” In a system as big and convoluted as ours is, with so many sides to so many issues floating around, you’re bound to run into a lot of snags.
This is one of the reasons why I don’t like politics. I try to keep up with a lot of it, but, man oh man oh man, it either gives me a headache or it makes me nauseous, both conservative and liberal politicians alike. At least the Reform party is entertaining… it’s kind of a nice thought to imagine Jesse Ventura body-slamming Gore and Bush at the same time… ooh… smash, smash! Hehe… sorry, got a little carried away there…
Spoofe, having decided that I like you, I show my alliance by blithely following you into this thread, where I happily find this little nugget:
Conservatives and Liberals rarely think about outcomes, except where outcomes are useful in supporting their views; for them everything is about ideology. The simple truth is that from the conservative standpoint, handouts are wrong, premarital sex is wrong, and abortion is wrong. The society which they (and, truthfully, I) envision is one in which people are expected to behave responsibly and suffer the consequences for irresponsibility. There are certainly contradictions within the conversative and liberal ideologies, but this is not one of them.
Anyway, Spoofe, I did read your post and, luckily, wasn’t disappointed by it. I fear that eventually you will make a foolish statement and I will be forced to recant my somewhat arbitrary decision to like you. But for now, I’ll say this: Yes, our Democracy is a silly thing with all of its contradictions… the left hand always undoing the work of the right hand… This is why I am a monarchist, and while it is (so far as I know) illegal to advocate the violent overthrow of the government (so much for free speech) I do advocate the swift downfall of our government and its silly ideas about rule by the masses. The masses are idiots and I’m frankly offended that they should rule over anything, let alone me.
Political parties in The United States are all inherently hypocritical. The purpose of political parties is to win elections, and if hypocrisy is what is needed to win, than hypocrisy is what is used.
What disturbs me about the very right wing of the conservatives is the personal hypocrisy. The fundamentalists who frequent prostitues, the free market capitalist who engage in price fixing, the women who have had abortions and decided no one else should have one (I actually had an “exchange of ideas” with this group during a rally I attended).
It just seems to me that these conservatives have an idea of what kind of rules this country should operate under and everyone should be subject to these rules. Except for themselves, of course.
I agree with Biggirl, both that inconsistency in politics is not at all surprising, and that personal hypocrisy should be a big wake-up call. Although this is about the right, on the left I am disturbed by snobs and the stingy.
The largely unspoken charge against the right is that they favour freer markets because they believe that they can make out like bandits after gaining from previous intervention.
picmr
pldennison:
I claimed no such thing. I merely pointed out that it’s contradictory to claim that requests for dates and lewd talk is sexual harassment while an actual request for sex and exposure of sexual organs is not.
You get the raises and promotions for doing your job diligently and someone else gets that and more for getting on her knees and opening her mouth…
A toughie, indeed. I certainly don’t have at my fingertips a database of politicians and their statements on issues.
On top of that, it’s hard to think about most of the '94 Congressional class, since part of their platform was term limits, and I don’t know of any who stepped down after X terms.
What about Ronald Reagan?
sqweels:
I was correcting a mistaken statement by pldennison. Sorry if that seemed like a hijack to you, but it’s generally considered an appropriate thing to do unless it’s likely to spawn a whole new thread.
I stand corrected…the name, BTW, is Scaife. I definitely remember hearing about a woman who was upset about something of the sort in Primary Colors, but that might not have involved a lawsuit.
True…but she filed the suit before they became involved in her defense. They hooked up with her after the fact, they did not impel her to sue in the first place.
DavidB:
Well, Livingstone, Gingrich’s would-be successor, quit after his affair was made public. I have to assume you’re referring to Henry Hyde as the one who’s still there. However, the revealed adulterers were condemned by their fellow Republicans. However, Congressmen can’t be impeached…and on top of that, as you’ve been reminded, the impeachment was for the perjury and obstruction of justice, not the affair itself.
Agreed 100%.
sqweels:
What a crock!
Everyone can plan their family by keeping their zippers zipped. Anyone who makes the choice not to do that has no right to blame conservatives for lack of information on how to avoid getting pregnant while still having sex.
ruadh:
Didn’t Gingrich suggest that the kids be put in orphanages?
Chaim Mattis Keller
ruadh:
cmkeller:
Oh, he didn’t really, did he? Please tell me that you’re kidding, or that he was mis-quoted, or that he had an infection. If he said that, then I have even less respect for him than I did before. Answering once and for all the age old question, “Can one have a negative amount of respect?”
Waste
Flick Lives!
umm Wasteful…
I think CMKeller was showing that as well as being careful and informative, he knows what’s funny and embarrassing.
picmr
No, that’s acrock. Sex is agiven in society. Your choices are a lot of sex and high rates of out-of-wedlock births, or lots of sex and fewer out-of-wedlock births. Conservatives have chosen the former. IMHO, the one thing worse than being hypocritical is being unrealistic. The C’s are guilty on both counts. It’s not like there’s a giant zipper somewhere that can be used to switch off all recreational sex in society–hundreds of millions of people. Or perhaps we should send the jackbooted thugs into people’s home to stop them from having sex unless their procreating.
There’s no getting around the fact that supressing family planning services increases the rate of out-of-wedlock births and abortions, on the one hand, and banning abortions would cause the rate of out-of-wedlock to soar.
I didn’t think it was illegal. Is it?
Of course to actually begin doing it, that’s a different story.
PeeQueue
picmr: Yeah, probably, but this is Newt Gingrich we’re talking about. I could very easily believe that he would say such as that.
Waste
Flick Lives!
Clinton’s impeachment was not about the fact that he had an affair. It was about him lying under oath, which is a different matter.
Sexual harassment of ones employees is also different than merely sleeping around on one’s wife.
How about this for contradictions: Liberals are against women being used and abused by society and want equality , but have no problem with a pres. uses his power and privelege to make women into sex objects.