Family-values Pub senator caught up in DC Madam scandal

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I don’t think so. Certainly there are tons and tons of Democrats who get into trouble in much the same way. Jim McGreevey cheated on his wife. Paul Patton, governor of Kentucky, had an affair with the owner of a nursing home, and used his clout to get state officials to approve more beds for her facility, tip her off when inspectors were coming and get her loans through programs designed to help disadvantaged business owners. When the affair ended, and the protection was lifted, the facility was immediately closed down as unsafe.

Now, Democrats like families too, don’t they? And don’t they care for old folks?
[/quote]

They don’t tend to issue heavy-handed, moralistic edicts about what other people should be allowed to do with their genitals. “Liking families” is neither here nor there. The hypocrisy comes when politicians violate their own moral parameters for what constitutes legitimate sexual morality and what doesn’t.

What you and other liberals are trying to do is to avoid debating the family values message on its merits.

What IS the “family values message,” exactly? What is iut that we don’t want to debate. Bring it on. I’ll debate it all day.

You’d rather discredit it by pointing to some individuals who have preached it and have later been caught in sin.

I have no use for the word “sin.” I do not believe that shagging prostitutes is a “sin.” I believe that Vitter is guilty of public hypocrisy, not sexual immorality.

Of course, in this you cherrypick heavily, and never mention, say, Rick Santorum, who for all of his considerable faults appears to be a devoted family man with six kids.

This paragraph makes no sense. Why would liberals be expected to accuse anyone of being hypocritical about sexual morality if they haven’t been shown to be guilty of it? Are you saying that people who abide by their own sexual morality should be given credit for it? Why? I don’t think there’s anything special about it. Being faithful to your wife does not make you a good person. Who cares? I’m faithful to my wife too. Bully for me. Doesn’t mean I’m not an asshole and it doesn’t mean I have a right to try to legislate what other peope should do.

And then when one of your own politicians get caught in nasty behavior you try to pass it off as a “private matter” since it doesn’t conflict with your party’s message.

If there is no hypocrisy, there is no hypocrisy. The sex, in itself, means nothing. Rudy Giuliani is a pussy hound and an adulterer but, to my knowledge, he hasn’t been a sexual moralist, so it’s not an issue to me.

I think this is a copout, though. Marriage and childrearing and family policy is public policy

What does shagging prostitues have to do with public policy on marrage or chiuldrearing? What exactly is “family policy?”

and if hypocrisy should taint the right on this, it ought to taint the left as well.

If you can show it, then show it.

I don’t think Vitter should have done what he did, and if he broke any laws he ought to pay and probably resign. But that doesn’t for one second change the fact that Bill Clinton committed perjury and endangered his presidency by doing so.

No Republican sex scandal is ever complete without the “CLINTON GOT A BLOW JOB” rejoinder.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Really?

Patronizing a prostitute while married is an action NOT in conflict with the values the Democratic party wishes to espouse?
[/QUOTE]

None that I’m aware of. What particular policy did you have in mind?

[kaylasdad99]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally Posted by Bricker
Really?

Patronizing a prostitute while married is an action NOT in conflict with the values the Democratic party wishes to espouse?

None that I’m aware of. What particular policy did you have in mind?
[/QUOTE]
Not that I don’t support your position here, Dio, but some of the black hats might accuse you of trying to transmogrify Bricker’s word “values” into “policy.”

You might wish to clarify, and head 'em off at the pass.

[gonzomax]

I do not believe that sexual dalliances are the property of Repubs. I do see them taking family and religious values a lot more. In that regard the hypocricy level is more elevated.
The Kennedy family was loose in regards to their escapades but they did not give public lectures on morality .When the repubs wrap themselves in religious values they are held to a higher level. If they want an even playing field quit claiming higher values that you do not live.
Not only are they doing harm to their marriages ,they are liars.

[Mr.Moto]

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
The Kennedy family was loose in regards to their escapades but they did not give public lectures on morality.
[/QUOTE]

Oh yes they did, all the time. They just didn’t typically give lectures on sexual morality.

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
None that I’m aware of. What particular policy did you have in mind?
[/QUOTE]

“Policy” =/= “Values”

Here is a thought experiment: pick any nationally elected Democrat. Ask that person the following question: “Is patronizing a prostitute while married an action in conflict with the values the Democratic party wishes to espouse?”

In my view, the vast majority would answer that it is, in fact, in conflict with the values the Democratic party wishes to espouse.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
“Policy” =/= “Values”

Here is a thought experiment: pick any nationally elected Democrat. Ask that person the following question: “Is patronizing a prostitute while married an action in conflict with the values the Democratic party wishes to espouse?”

In my view, the vast majority would answer that it is, in fact, in conflict with the values the Democratic party wishes to espouse.
[/QUOTE]

Personally, I couldn’t care less what kind of amorphous “values” a politician wants to project. All I care about is legislative policy.

Having said that, it may be that Democrats would not particularly like to be seen as vocal advocates of adultery or prostitution but at least they are not vocal harrangers about it, nor do they routinely try to characterize themselves as a party which has a superior sexual morality to the other party.

[kaylasdad99]

Dio, again, don’t let him accuse you of trying to change his “values the Democratic Party wishes to espouse” to your “amorphous ‘values’ a politician wants to project.”

He’ll be much easier to pin down if you quote him verbatim. Everyone is.

[zut]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
He strongly implied it when Livingstone resigned over his own adultery scandal, suggesting that Clinton should follow suit. I’ve found some cites that say Vitter said that adultery alone was grounds for impeachment but I can’t find an exact quote. In what I can find, he does use the word “morality” a lot, a word that would have no application to a trivial civil perjury allegation. Reading betwen the lines, it’s obvious to anyone with any intellectual honesty that he was talking about the blow job, in and of itself.
[/QUOTE]

Supposedly he said:

“I think Livingston’s stepping down makes a very powerful argument that Clinton should resign as well and move beyond this mess,” he said. [Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 12/20/98]

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
Dio, again, don’t let him accuse you of trying to change his “values the Democratic Party wishes to espouse” to your “amorphous ‘values’ a politician wants to project.”

He’ll be much easier to pin down if you quote him verbatim. Everyone is.
[/QUOTE]

In that case I’ll have to ask him exactly what he means by "values,’ and in what way the Dems try to “espouse” them.

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
In that case I’ll have to ask him exactly what he means by "values,’ and in what way the Dems try to “espouse” them.
[/QUOTE]

Here’s the deal: the quote to which I was responding was:

…but being a hypocrite about family values appears to be something the Republicans have a lock on.

Now, there’s no question that of the two parties, Republicans are the ones that have tried to turn the phrase “family values” into specific legislative principles regarding same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption, and other “traditional” practices.

But I don’t believe either party would cheer on a married man cheating on his wife by visiting a prostitute. I have searched the Democratic Party Platform in depth and cannot find where the Democrats have said they favor legalization of prostitution. (In contrast, I might point out, the Libertarian Party DOES support such a change).

So to some extent, I believe it’s fair to say that the Democratic Party does not support this sort of action either. I certainly acknowledge that the Republicans are far more noisy about “family values” than the Democrats, but I do not believe you can fairly claim that Vitter’s action is something that, if done by a Democrat, would result in hearty approvals from his fellow Democrats.

[Fear_Itself]

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
They just didn’t typically give lectures on sexual morality.
[/QUOTE]
So you agree there is no hypocrisy when a Kennedy is caught in flagrante, but there is when a Republican sexual moralist is exposed as a philanderer. I’m glad we cleared that up.

[Bricker]

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
So you agree there is no hypocrisy when a Kennedy is caught in flagrante, but there is when a Republican sexual moralist is exposed as a philanderer. I’m glad we cleared that up.
[/QUOTE]

Can’t speak for my buddy Mr. M, but I agree with that.

If we assume, as you appear to be doing, that the Kennedy in question never made any public comments about the desirability of adhering to traditional sexual morality, and your hypothetical Republican HAS made such comments, then sure – there is no hypocrisy for the Kennedy and plenty o’ hypocriscy for the Republican. It’s definitional.

[whole_bean]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Here’s the deal: the quote to which I was responding was:

Now, there’s no question that of the two parties, Republicans are the ones that have tried to turn the phrase “family values” into specific legislative principles regarding same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption, and other “traditional” practices.

But I don’t believe either party would cheer on a married man cheating on his wife by visiting a prostitute. I have searched the Democratic Party Platform in depth and cannot find where the Democrats have said they favor legalization of prostitution. (In contrast, I might point out, the Libertarian Party DOES support such a change).

So to some extent, I believe it’s fair to say that the Democratic Party does not support this sort of action either. I certainly acknowledge that the Republicans are far more noisy about “family values” than the Democrats, but I do not believe you can fairly claim that Vitter’s action is something that, if done by a Democrat, would result in hearty approvals from his fellow Democrats.
[/QUOTE]

A member of a party “noisy” on “family values” being caught with his pants down wreaks more of hypocrisy than it does when the same happens to a member of a party relatively silent on the issue. To the extent that Democrats endorse a “keep the government out of my bedroom” stance, that is NOT inconsistent with NOT crucifying someone for a lapse in morality (regardless of how individual members of the party view such conduct). To the extent that Republicans attempt to legislate the use of naughty bits, that is inconsistent with NOT crucifying someone for a lapse in morality. Isn’t that worth noting?

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I don’t think so. Certainly there are tons and tons of Democrats who get into trouble in much the same way. Jim McGreevey cheated on his wife. Paul Patton, governor of Kentucky, had an affair with the owner of a nursing home, and used his clout to get state officials to approve more beds for her facility, tip her off when inspectors were coming and get her loans through programs designed to help disadvantaged business owners. When the affair ended, and the protection was lifted, the facility was immediately closed down as unsafe.

Now, Democrats like families too, don’t they? And don’t they care for old folks?

[/quote]

I thought that I was agreeing that both parties contain corrupt people, but what do I know? Both parties also contain people who cheat. That’s pretty much a given.

What you and other liberals are trying to do is to avoid debating the family values message on its merits. You’d rather discredit it by pointing to some individuals who have preached it and have later been caught in sin. Of course, in this you cherrypick heavily, and never mention, say, Rick Santorum, who for all of his considerable faults appears to be a devoted family man with six kids.

I’m happy to debate family values - which is really government enforcement of so-called family values rather than the values themselves. But no politician is being forced to make a big deal about it. But if you’ve just come ( ) from visiting a hooker, the least you can do is not to make a speech telling everyone why you self-righteously consider adultery immoral. If they gotta do it, then STFU about it. Better yet, don’t do it, but that’s for a discussion of when adultery is immoral and when it isn’t, and isn’t relevant here.

And then when one of your own politicians get caught in nasty behavior you try to pass it off as a “private matter” since it doesn’t conflict with your party’s message. I think this is a copout, though. Marriage and childrearing and family policy is public policy, and if hypocrisy should taint the right on this, it ought to taint the left as well.

Could you point me to the plank of the 2004 Democratic platform that says adultery is okay? Divorce used to be a big part of public policy also, but happily it wasn’t by the time Reagan got elected. Where it the left being hypocritical? Is my support for SSM marriage while being as straight as they come an example? Is the only reason for opposing laws against adultery wanting to be adulterous? Should I tell my daughter to get pregnant and have an abortion in order to be consistent in opposing restrictions on abortion? I’m quite confused.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Oh yes they did, all the time. They just didn’t typically give lectures on sexual morality.
[/QUOTE]

You’re right. We give lectures on how it is immoral to lie us into a war all the time. Shame on us.

[lisacurl]

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
What you and other liberals are trying to do is to avoid debating the family values message on its merits.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think the family values “message” has any merits. When you tell me that some people’s love is better than others and that a child needs a certain type of family other than that made up of adults who love and support him/her, you can pretty much kiss my ass.

[VinylTurnip]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Now, there’s no question that of the two parties, Republicans are the ones that have tried to turn the phrase “family values” into specific legislative principles regarding same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption, and other “traditional” practices.

But I don’t believe either party would cheer on a married man cheating on his wife by visiting a prostitute. I have searched the Democratic Party Platform in depth and cannot find where the Democrats have said they favor legalization of prostitution.
[/QUOTE]

True enough— but you could also ask most any group of dog groomers, proctologists, Amway salesmen, or philatelists whether they thought cheating on their wives with a hooker was something in line with the “values” of their organization and I’m pretty sure you’d get overwhemingly negative responses, even though the question is irrelevant to their group and is essentially just a low-blow “gotcha!”

Which I think is what Diogenes is trying to say: the question is essentially disconnected from the raison d’être of the major political parties, despite the fact that Republicans have, for years, made a concerted effort to politicize morality (something you appear to admit yourself).

They create a needless petard as a political expedient, and occasionally find themselves authohoisted. (Alternate cliché: live by the sword, die by the sword).

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Here’s the deal: the quote to which I was responding was:

Now, there’s no question that of the two parties, Republicans are the ones that have tried to turn the phrase “family values” into specific legislative principles regarding same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption, and other “traditional” practices.

But I don’t believe either party would cheer on a married man cheating on his wife by visiting a prostitute. I have searched the Democratic Party Platform in depth and cannot find where the Democrats have said they favor legalization of prostitution. (In contrast, I might point out, the Libertarian Party DOES support such a change).

So to some extent, I believe it’s fair to say that the Democratic Party does not support this sort of action either. I certainly acknowledge that the Republicans are far more noisy about “family values” than the Democrats, but I do not believe you can fairly claim that Vitter’s action is something that, if done by a Democrat, would result in hearty approvals from his fellow Democrats.
[/QUOTE]

Neither am I aware of any desire to make the penalties for prostitution greater. I don’t think we can say anything about this besides the fact that the Democrats feel a plank on prostitution is not exactly a high priority. In any case, I’d suspect we’d all agree this is something best left to the states. If there isn’t a plank in the Republican platform about prostitution, either way, I won’t accuse them of preaching for or against it.

What you say about Kennedy sounds perfectly reasonable. So, do you have examples of Democrats being hypocrites? Being fuzzy headed idealists I bet you have plenty of examples of.
BTW, Sanctorum was a putz, but not a hypocrite. He lived up to the family values he espoused. Giuliani isn’t either, not yacking about it.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
What you say about Kennedy sounds perfectly reasonable. So, do you have examples of Democrats being hypocrites? Being fuzzy headed idealists I bet you have plenty of examples of.
[/quote]

I’m sure that examples of Dem hypocrisy abound. Not that I know what they are, particularly, but I have no doubt you could find green espousing Dems who drive SUVs or sexist women’s rights advocates or gun control wonks with gats in their glove compartments. It’s not that Republicans are any more prone to hypocrisy in general, only that they have something of a stranglehold on it as it relates to sexual morality.