Republican Hypocrisy re Clinton's Morals

Great Debates
1

This is a constant issue, and has come up in several recent threads. Essentially, the accusation is that the Republicans made a big deal about Clinton’s sexual escapades while many of them are guilty of similar misdeeds. Ergo they are hypocrites.

I am not convinced that there is anything in this. As I recall the Clinton scandal, the Republicans spent an enormous amount of energy denying that they were after Clinton for his sexual morals - the claim was rather that he had transgressed by lying under oath or of suborning perjury. It was the claim of the Democrats that the Republicans really meant sex - “it’s all about sex”. If this is true, the charge of hypocrisy amounts to “you say A but I know you really mean B - oh, don’t deny it - so you are a hypocrite if you contradict B”. This is a ridiculous charge, IMHO.

The significance of the hypocrisy charge is more that just the charge itself. Many Democrats - on this board and elsewhere - gleefully engage in just the same kind of moralizing about Republicans that they denounced when directed at Clinton. And to defend themselves against charges that they themselves are hypocrites, they say that it’s not about sex, it’s about hypocrisy. “The Republicans” made a big deal about Clinton’s morality, so they are hypocrites by being immoral themselves. This conveniently opens the door for no end of moralizing.

I am not absolutely convinced that the Democratic charges are baseless, but that’s not how I remember it. So my position is that any individual who made a big deal about Clinton’s morality with regards to sexual fidelity and the like, and has transgressed similarly is a hypocrite. If it could be shown that major Republican figures (e.g. Gingrich) have done so, they are hypocrites. Otherwise it’s a bogus charge. (This does not mean that there were not individual party officials who did so - I’m interested in the major thrust of the argument by major party leaders).

2

Well, let’s see. If Clinton getting a BJ in the White House was no big thing, but lying about it under oath was an impeachable offense against public standards…

Well, does the phrase Iran/Contra ring a bell to you?

3

Well, here’s something along those lines.

4

The hypocricy was less in the perjury/obstruction issues than in the “family values” posturing and the purportedly outraged condemnation that a politician would have a sexual relationship with a young woman. An intern, even. More than a few of those hypocrites quickly had their own stained dresses aired in public.

5

Like who?

6

Well in October, 1996, Bob Wilson was painting Clinton as the “least moral” president in memory (while actually claiming that Nixon was not all that bad) without making any reference to lies or perjury.
Cal Thomas was decrying Clinton’s sexual escapades without regard to his lying as early as 1997.

In 1998, Jeff Stueber was going on about Clinton’s morals before without regard to the Starr probe or any of the shenanigans that came out of it.

Given that the background for all the later complaints were prefaced by years of hand-wringing over his sexual morality, I suspect that a lot of people are going to see the complaints about the lying as simply the result of various moralizers “setting up” Clinton based on their desire to excoriate his sexual behavior. (And, given that the lies in which Clinton were caught were the direct result of attempts to get him to admit sexual activities, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the perception that the Republicans were trying to hang him for sex is plausible.)

When the Republicans then put the seriously compromised Henry Hyde up to be the leader of the House Managers, his own affair seemed particularly relevant in terms of his comments that Clinton had to be impeached for the “sake of the children.”

I do know a number of people who believed that Clinton should not have been badgered over his sexual escapades, but who, when he was caught lying, felt that he had crossed over a boundary that required his removal from office. That is fine for those people, but they are in a minority from my experience.

7

bolding added.

What do you mean, “IF it could be shown”? Where the hell have you been? Where do we even start, and can we even finish? Here’s a quick one, then - do the words “youthful indiscretion” ring a bell? You mentioned Gingrich but without mentioning his multiple affair-based divorces. You could even go back to Reagan, the only President ever to have given up on a marriage and the only recent one known not to have been on speaking terms with some of his own children, being held up as a shining example of “family values”. I think Stoid et al. can take it further.

Or, try this: If, as the Republicans you refer to insist, it really wasn’t about sex, then why IYHO did Speaker-designate Livingston think he had to resign?

But no, it really wasn’t about sex, or about lying, but simply about vengeance and simple spite. It is, however, amusing to watch those who cheered it on, or at least found it convenient, try to excuse themselves later.

8

Henry Hyde, Dan Burton, and Newt Gingrich all had affairs–Hyde’s and Burton’s caused serious harm to the families of the married women they were seeing. (At least Clinton tended to go after unmarried women).

I suspect that it would not be difficult to find Larry Flynt’s list out there on the net, somewhere.

9

But unless you can show that the same people who went after Clinton on “Family values” issues are the same ones who had affairs, I don’t see the case.

Unless you can show that the impeachment was primarily driven by such matters, but I don’t think it has been done.

Only thing of significance so far is the “misogynist” comment attributed to Gingrich in sqweels’ link. But Gingrich was referring to Clinton’s claim to have used Lewinsky and done nothing himself, not to the immorality of the sex itself.

10

Tomndeb:

Ok. For example though, I don’t think Newt Gingrich lied under oath about his affairs, and Reagan wasn’t caught cheating on Nancy while in the White House.

Clinton made a pretty big deal about his marriage, both during the elections, and during his Presidency. She was the First partner, the Co-President and all that.

In the same vein, Gary Hart made a pretty big deal about his family life was so great and his marriage so strong, and, IIRC actually invited reporters to try and get some dirt on him.

Ted Kennedy has certainly been a philanderer, but, oddly this hasn’t cost him much. It’s been funny and embarassing but also endearing (like that picture in the boat.)

This was probably because he didn’t make a big issue about not being an adulterer, and didn’t try to lie about it when he was caught.

Similarly, when Bush’s drunk driving arrest came out, he admitted to it immediately, and it kind of went away.

Had he repeatedly denied it, he probably would have gotten destroyed.
With Clinton, it wasn’t simply a BJ. That was one of many arrows. A woman’s career was on the line. Clinton had made an issue of his commitment to his marriage and child. There were accusations of rape and harassment, as well as the questionable ethics of taking advantage of an intern. There were three mysterious deaths in association with past business deals that were being called into question. There was a lot of dirt out there on Bill, true or not.

Finally, Bill lied about it repeatedly and perjured himself. He also suborned perjory, and committed conspiracy. Now, some may say he just did this to cover up his own private business, but I think that makes no difference whatsoever. Those are serious crimes.

So, it’s a little bit different than the simple fact that Reagan was divorced.

11

It is not a serious crime to lie about a blowjob.

12

Under oath it is.

13

A lesson he learned by artfully refusing to deny his history of cocaine use, instead saying at what times he’d be able to pass an FBI check. But you say that as if there’s a difference worth moral condemnation over denying something and simply hiding it.

It’s debatable who made it an issue first. I seem to recall a response to the curiously-timed Gennifer Flowers story.

And of serial murders, drug-running, all kinds of stuff (ref. the Falwell video). All failed to check out, even when investigated by people highly motivated to find otherwise. But in Scylla World, apparently accusations are the fault of the accused

OK, here we go. Somebody bought into it.

How is it dirt “on” someone if it isn’t true? Please explain your philosophy on that. When the falseness of an accusation is established, it reflects on the accuser, not the accused. We take facts seriously around here, partner - if you want to rant about fantasies, go to the Pit.

Cite, please? One that checks out as factual, that is?

14

Burton went so far as to set up his mistress as his official campaign manager, using campaign funds to acquire a house for her. That’s a twofer on sexual hypocrisy and campaign funding hypocrisy, if you’re keeping score. This is the guy who performed his own ballistics tests on a canteloupe to investigate the “murder” of Vince Foster - whose last words included “Here, ruining people is considered sport.”

Add Helen Chenoweth to the list of Goppers piously condemning Clinton’s affairs while having their own, btw.

15

elvis:

That’s not what I said, nor is it my philosophy.

No. Not for you.

16

—Similarly, when Bush’s drunk driving arrest came out, he admitted to it immediately, and it kind of went away.—

This was AFTER he’d spent years lying about it. He was asked about since he began his political career, and he always said that he had never been arrested.

Of course, he wasn’t ever asked under oath, which makes the lie very different: it was an act of deception, but it wasn’t a crime. Of course, I think all politicians should have to answer questions under oath during campaigns, on pain of perjury.

17

Elvis,

Did Burton criticize Clinton over infidelity?

I don’t know if Chenoweth criticized Clinton - she was famous for having run a family values campaign against her congressional opponent. Of course, she was a hypocrite. But a minor one - I’ve never heard of her other than for this hypocracy, and doubt if too many others have either.

18

I’m confused. You asked who was caught in sexual pecadilloes and now you are changing the question to who got caught lying under oath. I provided an answer to the question you asked. I am not defending Clinton’s actions.

As I noted, I do know people who were willing to give Clinton a pass for his sexual activities who became adamant that he needed to leave the presidency because of his lying under oath.

In my experience, those people make up a small fraction of the people who wanted to throw him out long before the lying under oath came to light.

Izzy might be right that the particular people in the GOP that went after the impeachment were prompted by the lying and not the sex. I think it is irrelevant. I doubt that the politicians in the GOP cared about either the sex or the lying except as they could be used as tools to get rid of Clinton who had the audacity to out-Reagan Reagan in maintaining his popularity in that face of the outrage of the opposition party.

19

There is undoubtedly much to what you say. Though I doubt if many Republicans thought they were going after Clinton for political reasons, this desire must have influenced the thinking of many. Similarly, Democrats were just as surely influenced by the desire to protect their ally. It cannot be purely coincidence that the idea of whether Clinton deserved to be condemned/impeached broke down so strongly along party lines.

But you err in saying that this renders my argument irrelevant. It may be irrelevant to whether Clinton should have been impeached (a point it was not designed to address). It is not irrelevant to whether these people are hypocrites.

20

Put me in the “not the sex, but the lying under oath” camp.

I have only one problem with the sex aspect of the Clinton affair, and that is the quality of Clinton’s partners. The White House used to be for actual intercourse with Marilyn Monroe. Clinton made it for interrupted oral gratification from Monica Lewinsky.

I mean, really: you’re the President of the United States, f’rcryinoutloud. Anything less than shagging Sharon Stone is a disgrace to the office.