Spitzer was caught in the hypocrisy. He was prosecuting prostitutes and pimps while he was having sex with them at the same time. Some of us see the hypocrisy.
I liked Spitzer and feel badly that he did that. Craig and Vitter are still in office though. They should wear a scarlet letter across their foreheads when they address congress or the senate. It should say “don’t believe me I have shown I will lie to the public and my family and pretend it does not matter”. It is way past time for people to expect good moral actions from their politicians. The list of liars and pervs is so long.
Very bad joke. Sorry. My punning skills ain’t what they used to be.
Can you give some instances of specific contradictions? I’m against ‘greed’, but I’d like to see a world where everyone was able to maintain a pretty comfortable lifestyle. Where’s the problem?
Since what most people concerned about climate change are advocating that the carbon generation of such things be priced appropriately, not that people simply shouldn’t have these things, again, I don’t see the problem. Unless you’ve got a specific instance of a specific pol advocating specific individual limits that he’s not willing to live within.
Gotta admit, that would be hypocritical. So who are we talking about here?
I guess I don’t see the contradiction there. Given the easy availability of guns and plentitude of crazies in the U.S., I’d want bodyguards if I became famous, but kept living here. I wouldn’t feel the same way if I lived north of the border, or in England or Australia or the Netherlands or somewhere like that. IOW, my fame + others’ guns ==> my need for bodyguards. Take away ‘others’ guns’ and I can get rid of my bodyguards.
I don’t get the hypocrisy. Is Obama doing something he’s trying to penalize the tobacco companies for doing? Be specific.
If it’s so easy to find, please find some.
Oh, you thought you had. Never mind.
Who’s legitimizing vice?
But if the GOP moralistas can’t live by the moral rules they’d like to enforce, then maybe they’re unrealistic and shouldn’t be enshrined in law. If they’re disturbed that allowing in Teh Gay would undermine the sanctity of marriage, but can’t maintain the sanctity of their very own marriages, then maybe they should STFU.
From CNN.com:
*The problem with Sanford, [Democratic commentator Paul] Begala said, is that he’s been “incredibly judgmental about other people’s sex lives.” As examples, Begala cites Sanford’s opposition to same-sex marriages and civil unions, and his vote in the House of Representatives to impeach Clinton.
At the time, Sanford said, “The issue of lying is probably the biggest harm, if you will, to the system of democratic government … because it undermines trust. And if you undermine trust in our system, you undermine everything.” *
Of course he does. (Or she does.) That’s what “hypocrite” means. I’m all in favor of equal marital rights and I think abstinence-only education is demonstrably worthless, but they are still different issues from marital fidelity. Hypocrisy regarding anyone of them doesn’t automatically translate to hypocrisy for all of them.
If Hillary had said it, it would have been.
You’re right that it doesn’t automatically translate.
It needs something extra to enable the translation, like the use of the “we need to defend the sanctity of marriage” trope to justify opposition to gay marriage, or support for abstinence-only education.
Nothing. You’re making my point. These (hypothetical) philandering democrats, unlike their republican counterparts, have never condemned the behavior so they can’t be accused of hypocrisy regarding it. Like I said: Gold star. The focus seems to be on self-congratulation on the lack of hypocrisy as opposed to recognizing that this also points up that they never condemned the behavior in the first place. They republicans can only (rightly) be accused of hypocrisy because they have taken a public position that infidelity is immoral and bad. If the democrats can evade similar accusations of hypocrisy, it’s only because they haven’t taken a public position that infidelity is immoral and bad. Why is that an admirable thing? It obviously isn’t, necessarily. This isn’t a “republicans good! / democrats bad!” argument; I’m not defending lying sack-of-shit cheaters of any political stripe. My point is only that I find it odd that people pointing up the acknowledged hypocrisy of the republicans, do not seem to be considering, why, exactly, similarly situated democrats can escape the same charge.
gtgain probably made the point more clearly, and certainly more succinctly, with his hyperbolic example: “When I run for office I will be ambiguous about my feelings on murder for hire, that was if I ever get caught paying someone to kill my wife, then I can take the moral high road.”
That’s fair. I read your earlier comment to suggest there were NO negative consequences from Edwards’ own party. But what you’re saying – correctly – is that it’s a matter of degree. And I absolutely agree it’s much more hypocritical for a Republican politician (especially one who has personally engaged in the preachiness) to do such things than it would be for a Democrat.
I’m not sure what issue who be a comparable one for Democrats? Enviromental concerns? Public schools? Same-sex marriage? What issue could we point to on the Democratic side that, if publicly supported but privately violated, be equivalent to this one for the Republicans?
Yes, I get that. Again, you are making my point. As you yourself say, to at least some democrats, cheating on their wives is in no way contrary to their principles as democrats, because “neither as anything to do with the other.” It is apparently possible, at least according to you, to be “scummy people” yet still “good democrats.” But IMO that’s hardly something to be proud of. My point – and truly my only point – is that taking the at least we’re not hypocrites! democrat argument to its logical conclusion, as you yourself do, does not make the democrats look all that great, either.
I’m sure most Democrats would say that adultery is immoral and bad. They just tend not to make it a political position. They don’t typically say that the immorality of adultery should influence public policy. They don’t say that my neighbor’s sex lives have anything to do with me. That’s admirable.
(I’m sure someone will be along shortly with an example of a Democrat doing exactly what I say they don’t typically do…)
A big, energy-guzzling house if you’re Mr. Global Warming. Or perhaps a pledge to run “the most ethical administration in history” followed by sleaze.
Regards,
Shodan
Right. IOW, the politician, of either party, needs to be against cheating in order to be accused of hypocrisy when caught cheating. That’s what I said in response to the (IMO incorrect) assertion that " A politician doesn’t even have to condemn cheating to be a hypocrite upon being caught cheating."
The first deserves some discussion, perhaps. The second does not (in my view) first because it’s not a party position, but the promise of one person, and secondly because it’s not a supportable charge. ALL administrations promise (and wish) ethical behavior from their appointees; all are disappointed to some degree. Try this charge here simply muddies the issue.
I see you didn’t read the thread.
What sleaze would this be? The Cabinet appointees who fixed their tax issues before they were voted upon, during the vetting process?
There’s no “self-congratulations,” only a lack of hypocrisy, and yes, they can’t be accused of it because they never condemned it. I don’t see your point. In what other way COULD they be accused of it?
Correct, but it’s a little more than that. They also push legislation trying to codify some of their moral opinions as law.
Who says it’s an admirable thing? It’s just not a hypocritical thing. “Admirable” is not the opposite of “hypocritical.”
They escape it because they’re not GUILTY of it. I’m really not getting what kind of hypocrisy you think they SHOULD be charged with.
You’re comparing nookie to murder?
I think the crux here is that you seem to believe the sex itself is publicly relevant, or necessarily immoral. I don’t. As long as everyone is a consenting adult, there’s no reason the public should give a shit. In my opinion, the only thing Sanford should be publicly criticized for is hypocrisy. I don’t think the sex itself matters a damn, nor do I think he should have to resign for it. I’ve been consistent on this. I said the same thing about Larry Craig, and just recently, John Ensign. No one should have to resign for getting some strange. The press shouldn’t even cover it unless it involves some sort of illegality. If they’re hypocrites about it, though, why shouldn’t that be pointed out?
If they’re NOT hypocrites, then what’s the problem?
That’s a shame. It would have been infinitely funnier if it had been inadvertent. 
It’s admirable to you, and to me too, actually, being pretty liberatarian in my beliefs about the interface of morality and government. But there are a lot of people who legitimately disagree at a very fundamental level with the assertion that morality should not influence public policy. And there remains something inherently weak, IMO, in an argument that boils down to yeah, our guys are lying scumbags too, but at least they’re not hypocrites! Even granting the last half of that sentence – which I do – it’s odd to me to see people seemingly ignoring the first half of it. Which was my only point, really . . . .
And I’m strangely okay with that.
NONE. There’s NO HYPOCRISY. There’s only the “still lying scumbags though!” part of it.
Yes, Dio, that’s exactly what I’m doing. :rolleyes:
Super! Now all we need is an acknowledgement that your position isn’t universally held, and we should be all set.
I’ve never taken issue with what you personally believe. I don’t actually care what you personally believe.
That they’re still lying scumbag cheaters. That doesn’t matter to you, apparently, but it is at a minimum unrealistic to act like it doesn’t matter to anyone.
Who cares if they’re lying scumbags in their private lives, as long as they;'re not breaking any laws or being publicly corrupt? How are their sex lives any of our business?