[QUOTE=lisacurl]
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.
[/QUOTE]
While I agree with you, that’s another pitting. If a politician runs around saying that morality dictates we shtup sheep, we had better not find him with any women, dogs or horses.
And no, Bricker, that’s not in the Democratic platform either.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
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.
[/QUOTE]
That’s an interesting point. We see the right try to pin this charge on greens. I saw a cartoon yesterday attacking the stars of the recent concert for having the nerve to fly jets to the gigs (as opposed to using sailing ships, I suppose.) We also see attacks on Al Gore for living in a big house.
Much of the message seems to be do the best you can to reduce your footprint, not that anyone driving an SUV is immoral. If a politician said that, and was caught owning one, pit away. I’d happily join the pile-on of a PETA member with a fur coat. It’s the “I want to be a vegetarian” vs. the “you better be a vegetarian or you’re immoral” distinction.
[QUOTE=whole bean]
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?
[/QUOTE]
Absoutely true. And certainly worth noting.
[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
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).
[/QUOTE]
True dat.
My only objection is to the “lock” idea. I certainly agree that on the scale of hypocrisy, our hypothetical cheating Democrat is barely making the needle twitch, and Vitter put it in the red.
But that’s not the same as the “all Republicans” and “no Democrats” message I replied to. There’s no “lock” by one party on anything here.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
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]
Your view is filtered by a partisanship so ingrained you don’t even recognize the possibility anymore. But you’re still just projecting again.
The vast majority would, in fact, answer that it’s no one else’s business. Which of course it isn’t, unless there’s a President and a consensual, unpaid blowjob involved, naturally.
Now what *are * these values you think “the Democratic party” wishes to espouse? :dubious: Something more than Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion this time, I suppose.
Vitter is just the latest example of how, if you do want to find out who’s doing something, just look at who’s preaching against it the hardest. Misdirection is an old tactic, but only because it works.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
For a very long time Larry Flynt has made his living by essentially pissing on certain groups of people to the delight of other groups of people (and of course, with pictures of naked women, which is always popular.) Sometimes when you make your living in such a way, people are going to do bad things to you.
Did Larry Flynt deserve what he got? No, he didn’t. In general I don’t think anything a person publishes should get them shot and paralyzed, but in the real world your actions and your words often have consequences, as the paraplegic Larry Flynt has learned.
[/QUOTE]
Hugh Hefner escaped your devine retribution. Maybe Bush will too.
The repubs have been nailed a lot lately. It is not the same as the dems because the repubs have constantly emphasized their religious connections. The hypocricy is far elevated. Vetter does not get a pass. He does get nice clean diapers though.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
The repubs have been nailed a lot lately. It is not the same as the dems because the repubs have constantly emphasized their religious connections.
[/QUOTE]
Uh huh.
That wouldn’t be that same Democratic Party that had clergymen seeking the nomination in 1984, 1988, and 2004, right?
That wouldn’t be that same Democratic Party that had clergymen seeking the nomination in 1984, 1988, and 2004, right?
[/QUOTE]
Jackson and Sharpton aren’t primarily known as religious figures, though. Nor is either one of them a sexual moralist. I think their clergyships are little more than anachronistic artifacts of an era in which Black churches were at the forefront of the civil rights movement and one of the only avenues by which Black men could acquire anything like political power and influence.
Jackson’s and Sharpton’s collars are almost incidental. They are not religious moralists.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
As much as I love the idea of Dick being shamed and ridiculed, I doubt that he would risk such a thing, given his obsession with secrecy. If he did it, he’d use an assumed name and do the deed in a very dark room so his face would not be seen.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, no. He would simply have her eyes and ears removed so she could not recognize him.
Eh, I don’t think so. First, she’s gonna need that tongue for what Cheney wants. Second, oral sex with someone who’s tongue has just been chopped off… well, without getting into particulars, let’s just say even Cheney has an Eeewwwww factor.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Jackson and Sharpton aren’t primarily known as religious figures, though. Nor is either one of them a sexual moralist. I think their clergyships are little more than anachronistic artifacts of an era in which Black churches were at the forefront of the civil rights movement and one of the only avenues by which Black men could acquire anything like political power and influence.
Jackson’s and Sharpton’s collars are almost incidental. They are not religious moralists.
[/QUOTE]
How offensive. Much as I dislike Sharpton and Jackson both, they are clergymen, and those “collars” certainly are important to them and those that they lead. They certainly aren’t incidental.
And the fact that these men ran recently in Democratic elections, plus the presence of clergymen on the Republican side, says a lot about both parties and American politics in general.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Now what *are * these values you think “the Democratic party” wishes to espouse? :dubious: Something more than Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion this time, I suppose.
[/QUOTE]
I think the Democratic Party might agree that strong families, blessed with opportunity, guided by faith, and filled with dreams are the heart of a strong America.
And while they may not seek to make it a matter of legislative policy, I think that any given person would agree that when a married man visits a prostitute, he does not contribute to a strong family guided by faith.
And by the way, I think they’d agree with me that marriage should be defined at the state level, not the federal level.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
How offensive. Much as I dislike Sharpton and Jackson both, they are clergymen, and those “collars” certainly are important to them and those that they lead. They certainly aren’t incidental.
[/quote]
Well, I didn’t say they’re collars weren’t important to them on a personal level (though I have my doubts about Jackson), I’m saying that they’re incidental on a political level. Neither of them ran on any kind of religious platform. Neither is theocratic. Neither is a religious or sexual moralist in the vein of a Dobson or a Robertson. Neither tried to use God to get votes.
I wouldn’t call Jackson’s runs “recent” (it’s been 20 years since the last one), Sharpton was never anything more than a fringe candidate and neither of them particularly used religion in their campaigns. I also don’t think clergymen (e.g. Robertson) do very well as candidates on the Republican side. I don’t think even religious conservatives are particularly enchanted with the idea of preachers as politicians.
…when a married man visits a prostitute, he does not contribute to a strong family guided by faith.
[/QUOTE]
And if he’s a Republican, he’s also not upholding a plank in his own party’s platform:
“We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is best accomplished in the environment of the home, nutured by their mother and father anchored by the bonds of marriage.” http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf
While the context of the quote deals with SSM, unless the prostitute you’re having sex with is also your wife (Vitters does, after all, strongly support women-owned businesses), I’d say that having that sexual relationship is running directly contrary to the Party’s public pronouncement about the importance of the institution of marriage.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Well, I didn’t say they’re collars weren’t important to them on a personal level (though I have my doubts about Jackson), I’m saying that they’re incidental on a political level. Neither of them ran on any kind of religious platform. Neither is theocratic. Neither is a religious or sexual moralist in the vein of a Dobson or a Robertson. Neither tried to use God to get votes.
I wouldn’t call Jackson’s runs “recent” (it’s been 20 years since the last one), Sharpton was never anything more than a fringe candidate and neither of them particularly used religion in their campaigns. I also don’t think clergymen (e.g. Robertson) do very well as candidates on the Republican side. I don’t think even religious conservatives are particularly enchanted with the idea of preachers as politicians.
[/QUOTE]
As a continuation of a theme, the new governor of Ohio, Democrat Ted Strickland, is an ordained Methodist minister.
You know, Methodists, that dangerous right-wing denomination that President Bush belongs to.
