« Women: Not Counted Out - Leading the Revolution | Desidero's Blog | Pay Back: Support Jack Murtha »
McCain & the C*** Word: Too Ugly to Print?
Was McCain & the C*** word too ugly for the media to print?
Or as Ben Smith at Politico informs, was never confirmed as actually happening? But of course it's a nice rallying point for the left to smear the other guy as using ugly demeaning language towards his wife. Oh, and those planes McCain crashed? Turns out it was 1.
While I'd say the right has been quite over the top on its lies, that doesn't mean the left doesn't resort to quite a few itself. Smear sells, and sometimes the truth just isn't good enough.
So think about how much your impression of McCain not respecting women is based around this one unsourced (oh, "3 anonymous sources who won't speak because they're scared" - ha ha ha, that's worthy of Drudge) rumor? Or continually beating him up because he got divorced 7 years after coming home from 'Nam?
It's not just winning the election, it's how you got there too.
Or as Ben Smith at Politico informs, was never confirmed as actually happening? But of course it's a nice rallying point for the left to smear the other guy as using ugly demeaning language towards his wife. Oh, and those planes McCain crashed? Turns out it was 1.
While I'd say the right has been quite over the top on its lies, that doesn't mean the left doesn't resort to quite a few itself. Smear sells, and sometimes the truth just isn't good enough.
So think about how much your impression of McCain not respecting women is based around this one unsourced (oh, "3 anonymous sources who won't speak because they're scared" - ha ha ha, that's worthy of Drudge) rumor? Or continually beating him up because he got divorced 7 years after coming home from 'Nam?
It's not just winning the election, it's how you got there too.
Advertisement
Well, he didn't "just" divorce his disabled wife after 7 years, he had several affairs, then married an heiress.
His lack of character has been confirmed in the last few weeks of this campaign.
Nitpick all you like, but it is totally ludicrous to compare Dem mudslinging with that of the GOP.
Dems aren't even remotely in the same league.
October 31, 2008 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Would it make it better if he married a trash collector with an ugly face? Don't a lot of divorces happen because people move on to other partners? The particular smear against McCain was that he came back and divorced his crippled wife, as if this happened in one day rather than 11 years after her accident.
Really, I find the whole thing quite ugly. 5 years in a POW camp can ruin your relationship and change your personality. Beyond the normal changes people go through over time. That he still gets along with his ex- might give you the idea that he has more character than rumored.
In short it feels like the Dems are just as able as Reps to play mother hen, digging into candidates' lives and judging in ways they shouldn't. Divorce is legal, ethical and normal. Is Joe Biden stingy and immoral because he doesn't give much to charity, or is his charity work earning $150K in the Senate when he could earn much more elsewhere. Is this even the kind of stuff we should get into? I hear Hillary is immoral and opportunist because she stayed with that man.
October 31, 2008 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. It would. McCain offended most peoples sense of decency with his philandering. That you use his service as an excuse dirties the service.
Get off your high horse, it stunts you.
FWIW, I thought Hillary showed her character, too. Good character. Stellar, even. Lumping her in with McCain is disgusting.
October 31, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
"McCain offended most people's sense of decency with his philandering"? Who are these "most people" and what exactly was his "philandering"? Did he get drunk in the tidal basin with a hooker, break into the underage student page dorm, pay $5000 for a fly-in prostitute, solicit anonymous sex in a bathroom stall, sire a black child out of wedlock and hush it up for 40 years? That's the outrageous sexual behavior in politicians I think you're referring to. AFAIK McCain was only guilty of relatively discreet sex with a willing adult partner, something millions of people do daily. And he wasn't in politics at the time, was probably in a different state from the rest of his family, and they still kept the marriage together for a few more year. Better than say Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, etc., etc. Note: John McCain has now been married for 28 years in his 2nd marriage, which includes all his time as a politician, not a flyboy. Any philandering in this period to speak of?
October 31, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
It only counts when he's in office? Oh rally?
Weak stuff.
This is one of the most ridiculous things you've said yet, and that's saying something. Yeah, a guy that cheats on a disabled wife OFFENDS most people. There's this vow thing, about in SICKNESS and health. People that dump sick spouses are looked down upon. by MOST.
Try again.
The truth is you're making a peevish argument that has been debunked time and again, oh, "everyone" does it. No, no they don't.
Shame on you.
October 31, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shame on no one. He simply slept with someone. Consenting sex between adults. It's one of our rights. It's not an impediment to holding public office. Some people like to read a lot, some people like to fuck a lot, some are into baseball, some like music. This is not Saudi Arabia, extramarital sex is not punishable by public flogging.
October 31, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
And what's this "cheats on a disabled wife" bullshit? Her big treatment lasted 2 1/2 years, i.e. over by 1972. The McCains were hosting cocktail parties together by 1974 - it's not like Carol was tucked away in a bedroom or hospice somewhere in traction. And they divorced in 1980, 6 years after that. Sorry if this ruins your Simon Legree story.
Here's a picture of Carol when John came home - yes, she was on crutches then, but not exactly debilitated (and this was before he went through rehab as well):
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/06/07/article-1024927-0118FB4D00000578-969_233x329.jpg
And here's one later on (recent?):
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/06/07/article-1024927-01185B0700000578-452_468x635.jpg
Is this who you think you're talking about? Did you know she was a swimsuit model and that John was her 2nd marriage?
October 31, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
"From 1965 to 1975, the rate of divorce doubled in the United States. It peaked in 1979 at 22 per thousand married women and then stabilized at the 1994 rate of 20 per thousand."
From 2007: "There is less than a 50% chance that couples currently married will reach their 25th anniversary. While the average divorce rate is 50%, it is 40% for first marriage, 60% for second marriages and 73% for third marriages. Couples separate on the average seven years after marriage, and divorce after eight." " The National Center for Health Statistics estimated that in 1993, about 1,187,000 U.S. divorces were granted. Roughly 70% of divorced American women and men remarry within 10 years. About 70% of them are parents, creating or expanding a stepfamily. Recently, about nine of ten re/marriages follow the prior divorce of one or both partners, vs. the death of a mate."
---------------------------------------------
""A rising number of women are having extramarital affairs. In 1991, research showed married men cheated a lot more often, with about one in five admitting to having affairs, compared with one in 10 women. But a 3,000-person study from the National Opinion Research Center in 2002 suggests that the overall rate of extramarital cheating for women is rising rapidly and is approaching that of men, with nearly one in six married women saying they have had affairs.
The middle-aged group appears to be leading that trend. In a look at 1994 data from the National Opinion Research Center, Michael Wiederman found a spike in the rate of cheating reported by women ages 30 to 50, and lower rates among women born before the baby boom. Mr. Wiederman, an associate professor of psychology at Columbia College in South Carolina, believes that extramarital sex is simply easier and more acceptable to today’s middle-aged women than it was in the past. “There’s been a change in attitudes and mores. There are more women out there in the working world, and they have greater independence, which you need to have an affair.”
""
October 31, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since you quote the UK's Daily Mail as a credible source, how about this one.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html
and thisSo even though you feel Des, that you need to defend this ignorant prick, even his closest friends including the Regans and Ross Perot were disgusted with McCain and did everything they could to help Carol.
Forget the sourcing of the c*nt line. The reason why it spread so quickly is because, based on hisotry, it would be something John McCain would say.
October 31, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus, like most people he has that thing between his legs called his genitals and that has its own set of needs. Was Ronnie so critical of himself divorcing his first wife leaving 3 children?
Forget all of your nannie principles. Grownups have the right to divorce and conduct their love lives as they want. Presuming it doesn't break laws, MYOB. You don't know the details, so petty little gossiping tawdry minds don't help anything. It's hard to live with another person - some do it better than others. Gandhi was horrid to his kids, MLK fooled around all the time (of course everyone hid this until years after his death), etc., etc. Forget it, all your heroes are flawed.
October 31, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
And no, I didn't quote the UK paper as a "credible source", I pointed to 2 pictures so people would have some image in their heads who Carol McCain is. Or do you not think these are picutres of her?
October 31, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are absolutely right Des. Grownups do have a right to do whatever they want in their relationships. Hey as long as it doesn't effect me, anybody can do it swinging from a flagpole on Michigan Avenue.
When a person wants to represent me as my president - I think I have a duty and a right to size up just what kind of person he is. Is he a selfless kind of person who really has the people at heart? Or is he completely narcissistic - caring only about himself and his own needs? Basically, is he a con artist?
The point is we have had enough lying bastards who con us into believing they care and are going to really represent us in Washington. Of course, like all good crooked salesman, they turn out to be selfish assh**es with their own agenda.
I hate to point this out to you Mr. Obvious, but we have an absolute duty as Americans to size up how truthful and honorable our next president is. It seems we have been lacking in our duty in the recent past.
You may think it is just a man following his pecker to greener pastures - I disagree. Him coming home and leading Carol on, making her believe that everything is alright, while he is carousing on his newly found fame as a war hero is disgusting. Period. He has proven not to not be the decent, honorable person we should want as president.
October 31, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Mage if Obama's youthful indiscretions had involved an early marriage that ended in an affair, would his political career be ruined for you? Would it remove all the other factors that go into why you are voting for him? Should we vote for adulterers for any political office or should they be shunned by society forever? How many gifted, talented people would we turn away because they do not meet our own personal morals test (McCain is not included here because I don't think he's gifted or talented).
I don't understand how being a faithful husband makes you more likely to put the country back on the right economic path or achieve healthcare or any number of things that are way way more important than your choices in your private life. There's many many reasons to vote for Obama, but his fidelity matters not one bit to me.
And keep in mind that there are those on the right that apply moral tests as well on issues other than adultery like draft dodgers, drugs, sexual orientation etc. How do we criticize those moral reasons to vote against some one and impose our own?
October 31, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the problem with the argument Dij. Divorce happens all the time. If you are a stand up person in a relationship that is not working, you don't just stay until something better comes along. If you are a real maverick, or just a decent person who does not want to hurt the other anymore, you ask for a divorce. Shit happens, people grow apart etc.
It is slimy and cowardly to stay with someone, tell them that they were all that they thought about while being a POW. Then, being caught up in the limelight and wanting a better looking partner with money, you crassly dump the woman who adores you.
I think it is slimy and cowardly of anyone to dump their spouse for someone else. People grow apart and divorce. That situation is completely understandable and normal. I would support a pol regardless of their marital status in that respect.
Now I am not so out of touch to know that cheating and affairs happen all the time. But that is regular everyday folks not applying to represent me as my president.
Some may say many unfaithful presidents were good, many faithful presidents were crappy and that is enough to render the argument a moot point. I don't think so.
My 21 year old responsible nephew has horrible car insurance rates. Because, even though he is a responsible driver, many 21 year olds are not, hence the higher premium. Many actuaries use risk assessments in the same way.
So will a cheating, lying, deceitful person in marriage be a cheating, lying, deceitful president? Let me put it this way, I don't want to pay that high a premium on the risk. :)
When vetting a possible POTUS? I like mine to at least not be a narcissistic assh*le.
October 31, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh BTW, do you really think that Obama has a secret marriage in his early years that has not come out? After the GOP and Hillary digging through every record back to kindergarten? If Obama callously left a previous wife and kids for Michelle and started a new family, he would have never even made it out of the primary.
If Obama ever cheated on Michelle? Yes I would lose all respect. Their marriage is the strongest thing they have, and it shows. He respects her opinion above all. I've got a good bullshit detector, you can't fake that.
October 31, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mage, I picked the secret marriage story because it is clearly not true. But would one moral failing by your account totally negate everything else that Obama brings to the table? Would Obama be less fit to be president if he cheated on his wife? Are the Democrats going to be the new moral majority? First we shun the adulterers, and then what? I want a president who's a capable leader. He doesn't need to be my moral hero. Personal lives are personal. Political is political. I'd like the government out of my private life, and I'll be happy to stay out of theirs.
Prior to this primary these were accepted principles within the democratic party. It seems like we are willing to use moral judgment for political gain (whether it be Palin's personal family choices or McCain's fidelity) just like the right wing Republicans. I think we are a worse party for it.
October 31, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
But then by that same metric, we cannot get a whole picture of anyone. I mean, just think what we would have to go on regarding Sarah Palin. By your account we should take nothing into account but the horrible Gibson and Couric interviews. (Which can easily be explained away by the gotcha media doncha know.)
My opinion of her was seriously damaged by many of the topics that you consider off limits. For example, her hubby Todd (can't use spouses) involvement with the AIP or her being blessed by a witch doctor to ward off evil in her own church (because obviously we cannot use religion).
I am a dem and a secular humanist. In my everyday life I completely agree with you and judge people by their merits.
There is a great line from the movie Sicko. A French person said something along the lines of "The difference between France and the US is the people in the US are afraid of their government. Here, the government is afraid of US!"
For too long we did not hold our officeholders to a high standard. It is about time we did. Yes we need to hold them to a higher standard than the rest of the population. They are getting paid to speak for us and provide what WE need.
Getting a feel for the moral fiber of candidates before we elect them is a good first step.
October 31, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have this notion and I'm sticking to it: it makes life more civilized, when married, to be faithful. Not interested in fidelity? Don't get married. Or, if married mistakenly, get divorced, first, to keep the inevitable wound as clean as possible. Simple strategy for minimizing hurt.
At risk of a generalization, it's still more often women with children (because they get custody) than it is men who are gutted by infidelity. You're all about womens' issues, yes? Support fidelity in marriage, and fast, equitable divorce.
October 31, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Support fidelity in marriage? I support people figuring out their own lives. I support people with kids staying married (or at least the kids being in a household with 2 parents - I simply don't think the logistics work very well with 1 parent). I don't tell people what position to use, how to balance their check book, which beer they should drink, etc.
Contracts have exit clauses for a reason. Sex is one part of dozens of reasons people stick together. Sexual compatibility varies over time. Sure, I can say "sharing, love and tolerance make life more civilized" as well. Women are unfaithful as well. Everyone has "good reasons" for it. Fast equitable divorce? Sure.
I came home a few months back, the old guy down the hill was at the door, telling us he came home and found his wife of thirty something years - perhaps 65 years old - banging some guy, and then she threw him out of the house, so he was staying with his daughter (who had 3 kids by 3 fathers) and getting by without a car out in the country. Now what cure-all policy and attitude is poor l'il Des supposed to draw out of all of this? Where is the pro-woman policy? "Fast equitable divorce" - that's the one area where women typically catch a good break. (Carol McCain ended up with 2 houses and a pretty decent alimony/child support which he apparently still pays.) I just say people have complicated lives, and messing with their love lives is one of the worst wastes of time you can get involved with. Take care of the kids, I guess that's the basic issue.
October 31, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have been married for 33 years. Before I was married, I saw a lot of experiments, among my peers, in 'open marriage' and multiple partners. I lived on a few communes. It was an experiment that failed. It doesn't work. I've seen it too often. Marriage works really well when governed by certain prinicples that are traditional and well known. These are 'best practices'. Fidelity to your partner is one of them. It's no different in other partnerships.
Among business partners, if you go off to moonlight for a competitor, offering the proprietary knowledge aquired with your business partner, and your partner finds out, how will they feel? Betrayed. Why? They trusted you. They believed you put their interests and the interests of the partnership ahead of the competition. Now they find out trusting you was a mistake. How can you put things back again? Humpty Dumpty is broke.
McCain's true character is ALL contained in how he treated his wife when he came back from Nam. And she had been faithful to him all those years, and raised his children--and this is how he treats her. Well, it just ain't right--and it casts doubt on his claim to leadership qualities. Of which he has proven to have none.
October 31, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, she was rather battered up or she might not have been faithful to him all those years.
I really can't believe you folks. The guy was locked up as a POW for 5 years. He comes back to a wife who's pretty bashed up. After 5 years of staring at bugs in a tiny cell, maybe his need to feel alive again was bigger than his sound judgment.
And who are you to judge? Carol McCain seems fine with his decision. Did she ask you for a second opinion?
Look, sex toys are still banned for sale in Alabama. A naked breast on TV is still enough to scandalize a nation. The US is a conflicted country that includes a lot of old (and young) prudes who can't seem to mind their own business and who wear their Christianity on their sleeves and have to pre-judge everyone before judgment day just in case God's too busy.
Meanwhile, Las Vegas is now tricked out as a "family town". Not my cup of tea, but quite a lot of people seem to like the combination of strip shows, gambling and rides for kids. As long as they don't come knocking on my door threatening my guns and my religion, makes me no nevermind. In short, there's room enough for all of us if you keep your nose out of my underwear.
October 31, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS - McCain's been married 28 years, almost as much as you, so I guess his judgment counts as much as yours.
October 31, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I reiterate. You are a deeply confused individual.
October 31, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't recall you iterating before, but thanks for your judgment, I'll take it under consideration.
October 31, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not condemning you, I am describing your thought process, or lack thereof as evidenced in your written artifacts. Your cognitive framework constitutes a loosely affiliated set of logical fallacies.
October 31, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
My, you do use a lotta high-falutin' dollar words. Well, here's 2 bits for my thoughts, you can keep the change.
October 31, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not judging him. I am saying that his behavior says everything about his character. I know some people don't take their sense of accountability to others very seriously, and go with whatever urge strikes them at the moment. If that's your idea of a good time, welcome to it. If I tell a woman I promise to forsake all others, then later on I don't tell her I had my fingers crossed and anyway I found somebody else I like better. It's got nothing to do with prudishness or puritanism or anything else. It has to do with honoring your commitments. Otherwise they are not commitments. See, there is the for better or worse clause in most marriage vows. Not, for better, only. Some people think oaths don't mean shit. I happen to disagree. I think Henry the VIII was a shithead scoundrel. That goes for John McCain.
October 31, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I am not judging him. I am saying that his behavior says everything about his character."
ROR, George. His behavior was speaking Cantonese, but you were listening in Swahili?
October 31, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You were using the word judge as a synonym for 'condemn'. I don't condemn him for his behavior. But his behavior reveals the content of his character. Just as eating pudding reveals the content of its character.
You're not very bright, are you? Or is that a condemnation, to you?
October 31, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are judging him, as if eating pudding was the content of his character. Now how that judgment comes out of your synapses in the end - whether condemnation, pity, praise, fear and loathing - well, that's part of your judgment process - I'm not privy. But you're judging. And whether you recognize condemnation as condemnation is another issue - many people will pretend to feel sorry for someone when what they really mean that the person's lower than whale shit. You know, the "don't take this as criticism, but..." type of line.
But carry on, you have +5 years of marriage with which to feel superior to him.
October 31, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have this notion and I'm sticking to it: it makes life more civilized, when married, to be faithful. Not interested in fidelity? Don't get married. Or, if married mistakenly, get divorced, first, to keep the inevitable wound as clean as possible. Simple strategy for minimizing hurt.
At risk of a generalization, it's still more often women with children (because they get custody) than it is men who are gutted by infidelity. You're all about womens' issues, yes? Support fidelity in marriage, and fast, equitable divorce.
October 31, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I wanted to repeat that belief to emphasize it.
October 31, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Or, if married mistakenly, get divorced, first, to keep the inevitable wound as clean as possible." I believe that's what McCain did, though perhaps not as quickly and cleanly as you recommend. He now has been married happily for 28 years to someone else, with 4 kids or so and no rumors of fooling around that I've heard. Perhaps he's gotten over those days of acting 25.
October 31, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, does the name John Edwards sound familiar?
October 31, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or John Kennedy?
October 31, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or Bill Clinton?
October 31, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or Martin Luther King?
October 31, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or Jesse Jackson Sr. Or Reverend Wright. Or a million other names you can pull up.
October 31, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bulldog:
Does your list of the unfaithful in the limelight -- or anywhere -- justify the action?
Listing people who have been unfaithful is irrelevant, your Honor. I object.
You can decide to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge because everyone else is doing it, and you can take your family with you. Or, you can see everyone else safely across the bridge before you take the plunge. Male or female. Doesn't matter. Minimizing pain does matter. Especially the pain for children.
October 31, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, maybe Carol couldn't have sex, but John stayed with her for 7 years anyway and it was a tough time for both, but at least the kids got to have the old man around for a few years and they got most of the benefits of a Leave It To Beaver marriage.
We do not know these people, we do not walk in their shoes, we have our own imperfect lives to live without stocking up on rocks to heave at others. Hey, look at that Job, he's got sores and scabs all over, he must be one awful guy to offend God like that, let's shun him.
October 31, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just as we can't know what went on in their marriage, we can't presume to know that it was beneficial for the children either. I was relieved when my parents got divorced.
October 31, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's humorous, I was too - just a big can of relief (would have been bigger if I could have left home right then). My brother thought it was a bad thing and ended up with problems as a result - just couldn't cope with the lack of screaming I guess.
October 31, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok Let's let a guy who disregards his oaths and commitments decide who gets to live and who gets to die. You aren't taking about disinviting him to a poker game. You're talking about giving him control over the nuclear arsenal. I think you are deeply, profoundly, confused, and making equvalencies that do not have a basis in reality.
October 31, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're confusing marital fidelity with control over a nuclear arsenal.
Give it up already. You're confusing apples and A-bombs, horseshoes and hand grenades.
October 31, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are incoherent. You think marital infidelity signifies nothing about how an individual regards their 'commitments'. A President takes an oath of office not much different than a marriage vow. He promises to administer his office faithfully.
You are saying that just because McCain broke his marriage vow, doesn't mean he would necessarily break any other vow. I am claiming that it DOES constitute an indicator of the small regard he has for the vows he takes. The situation is self evident. you claim that a vow may be broken if it is no longer convenient to keep it. You may find it inconvenient to accomodate within your own hierarchy of values, but, there it is. And your arguing the point says everything to me about YOUR character.
October 31, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have no idea how large or small his vow was, and no idea how you would hold up with 5 years in a prison cell to come back to this vow with a limping 5-inch shorter wife.
But go ahead, pretend you're not judging.
October 31, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah!!!! That is what I am talking about.
November 1, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I assume you held JFK and Clinton to these same high moral standards? Or are you just a typical hypocrite?
October 31, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
My list was to demonstrate his hypocrisy. Condemning McCain for ALLEGED infidelity while absolving others. If it were revealed that Obama had multiple affairs, I doubt seriously if the writer would withdraw his support for him. Suddenly it would not matter.
October 31, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just think. All of this ugliness could have been avoided if Obama had only agreed to ten townhall debates.
October 31, 2008 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
George W. Bush by all public accounts seems to be a faithful husband to his wife. There was a president who had an affair with a teenage employee (at least among others) and he was a phenomenal President. One of them screwed around, the other screwed the country. Which do you think did more harm? By the way I'm not Bill Clinton. I'm talking John F. Kennedy whose philandering was well known, but not used for political gain by the media or for that matter the opposition party.
But that was back in the days where people's private lives were their own, not fodder for political attack. A president's personal life has ZERO bearing on their ability to do the job. It's a shame that we knew that back then and have lost sight of it in the politics of personal judgment and destruction.
October 31, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
To counter Grover Cleveland's image of purity, his opponents reported that Cleveland had fathered an illegitimate child while he was a lawyer in Buffalo.[73] The derisive phrase "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa?" rose as an unofficial campaign slogan for those who opposed him.[73] When confronted with the emerging scandal, Cleveland's instructions to his campaign staff were: "Tell the truth."[74] Cleveland admitted to paying child support in 1874 to Maria Crofts Halpin, the woman who claimed he fathered her child named Oscar Folsom Cleveland.[73] Halpin was involved with several men at the time, including Cleveland's friend and law partner, Oscar Folsom, for whom the child was named.[73] Cleveland did not know which man was the father, and is believed to have assumed responsibility because he was the only bachelor among them.[73] ...Following the electoral victory, the "Ma, Ma..." attack phrase gained a classic rejoinder: "Gone to the White House. Ha! Ha! Ha!"
October 31, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think they want Bill Clinton and McCain to walk around with the Scarlet A. This creeping moralism of the right wing conservatives into people in the progressive community does not just pose a danger to Democratic lothario politicans. (The GOP ones are always forgiven by the party unless they involve a pedophilia, homosexuality or drunk driving during in the middle of election season without time to clean up the mess.) We tell government to stay out of our bedrooms. Reproductive freedom, choice and all couples should be allowed to marry regardless of sexual orientation.
But then we at the same time demand to judge wheteher our leaders are fit for public office by their personal lives. Please. This is not what the Democratic party used to be.
October 31, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
And your point is? Are you attempting to postulate the logical fallacy known as the argument from tradition?
October 31, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was simply bolstering DJ's contention that we used to be better at staying out of candidates' private lives, say 120 years ago.
October 31, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ach, don't even try, Desidero, it's hopeless.
Look reality in the face: with the unfortunate help of AIDS, the Christian Coalition of the 80's won (Robertson, Falwell, Ralph Reed, et.al.), they frigging won!
Social liberalism has died a slow death for 25 years, scared to counter "The Moral Majority." Everyone must abide by "family values," or pretend to in public. Social liberalism lost, most have been won over or cowed. Culturally we've had a revival of the 1950's since the mid-1980's.
Like I implied here, I'm really getting sick of it, but there's nothing to do but wait and see what the next generation does culturally.
Heck, there's long been pressure in the gay community for gays who prefer alternative lifestyles to closet themselves so the cause of getting a cottage with a white picket fence and 1.7 kids living a "moral" life in the suburbs can proceed apace.
True social liberals don't feel welcome to express themselves on websites like this where people calling themselves liberals/progressives like to post scary stuff like this thread and some of the comments on it about how other people should be raising their children.
Social liberals must still stay in the closet, it appears, while other liberals/progressives do their utmost to try to prove they can push "family values" with the best of them. At the risk of evoking Godwin's Law, I would say that "kinder, kuche, kirche" rules in this society as highly as any other in the past. There is little tolerance available for any other lifestyle. You're getting the usual flak now for exposing yourself as not fully supportive of "family values," we "bad people" best go back in the closet. :-)
P.S. Another reality:
Until the culture changes, we will continue to have a very small group to pick from for elective office. Except for those that have the hubris of an Elliot Spitzer, many qualified people will continued to consider it, and then decide they do not want to expose their private lives to the "family values" requirement.
October 31, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.P.S. Divorce will be practiced but must still have shame for all. And sdultery will be practiced in mass quantities and we will not stone for it, but it must still wear the scarlet letter where political positions are concerned.
(It occurs to me that no one does the gleeful schaudenfraud better on the latter than TPM's Josh Marshall, thereby unwittingly reinforcing the general zeitgeist better than any Talib could do with his preaching.)
October 31, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
correction: should read adultery, not sdultery.
No, I wasn't thinking of sodomy/adultery, just having some neural net to fingers problems with the keyboard. :-)
October 31, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the point is tolerance, we should respect others' rights to also have their own views of things like divorce and infidelity. Where it's troublesome is trying to put your views on someone else.
But Des is advocating on this very thread that the best way for kids to be raised is in a two-parent house. (Sorry Des. All due respect, but we disagree majorly here.) I respect his right to believe that. But I don't have to agree.
October 31, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
In general, as policy, encouraging the conditions for happy 2-parent homes is sensible. Where the 2 parents do not have the conditions to be happy, well, keeping up appearances for the neighbors is not likely the best thing for the kids. So, good jobs with good working conditions, good affordable health care and child care, good schools and education, job training programs for adults, a reasonable safety net, home ownership (without imminent repossession), etc.
October 31, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
October 31, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would contend that by providing the above, you make the below much more likely.
When people can't get work near home, they're faced with tough choices. If they can't afford responsibility and can't arrange it, they're likely to duck out on it.
People in general like their kids. I don't recall meeting too many people who were thrilled to have lost contact, however their kids were born. But excusing everything as deadbeat fathers and female empowerment without addressing these difficulties just lets endemic problems stay uncured. Yeah, women will raise kids alone if there are no better ways. Men will give up if it's too hard and complicated to pitch in. Maybe that's oversimplifying, but I don't think by much.
October 31, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, but let me play devil's advocate here a little more to thresh this out a bit.
First of all, some deadbeat dads really just are. And there are deadbeat moms too. Still, the problem should be addressed, to minimize the problem, but it will never be eradicated.
Second. Parents die. One or both. Grandparents or other relatives/friends may care for the children. Or maybe a child is adopted into a single-parent family. (There are single father families out there too!) Or maybe a woman who's never married decides to get artificially inseminated. Or maybe the parents do get divorced, and remarried, and then you've got stepfamilies. We haven't mentioned this, but I'm wondering when you say 2-parent families if you mean one-mother/one-father? Or does that also include gay couples?
I guess my point is that it doesn't matter what the family looks like when designing policy - the policy should be inclusive of all types of families, which the ones you noted are.
October 31, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it includes gay couples. And it has to include types of jobs that work for women raising kids who need to work as well. But I simply think that we have a structural problem that "encourages" single parenthood especially in poor neighborhoods, and I think it's damaging on a societal and economic and familial level. I know of course that's a controversial view, and am quite ready to be pilloried as an unprincipled boor or something. I guess I'm thinking of Hillary's line about abortion, "a tragic choice", and trying to take the tragedy out of it and make the choice really a choice, not an external imperative.
October 31, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well they haven't quite won, but they've sure toughened the playing field. Even Al Franken has to apologize for trying to be funny in the past. Imagine Lenny Bruce running for office. "I apologize to Eleanor Roosevelt's nay-nays if I offered any offense..."
But I originally wrote this post because I was amazed that McCain's supposed c*** comment was never actually confirmed as true. To discover this 5 days before the election with as much as I read is rather disturbing, and it's a pretty staple line to show what a despicable cad and cur McCain is.
So - "swallowing mean-spirited lies as the truth and passing them on = wholesome family values and good liberal ethics (as long as you exclaim 'but Republicans are worse' if questioned)". When do the lies get too big to justify? Seems the lies about Al Gore and the internet or Love Canal were jut about this size as well.
October 31, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a side-note, my spouse and I have some rather crude inside jokes that outsiders might think crass and degrading while we chuckle - such as saying those magic words to calm things down and keep a relationship off the rocks: "you are *so* fucking right", or obscene hand gestures that refer to Kyoko the signing ape we saw long ago. Or then there's the Monty Python skit - "My, what a vulgarian." "You're the vulgarian, you fuck".
In short, never assume you know what's going on in other people's relationship.
October 31, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
never assume you know what's going on in other people's relationship
Speaking of family values, I was blessed with a mom who pounded that into me from a young age. :-)
October 31, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
artappraiser, my mother did the same.
Growing up, my younger brother and I would throw a baseball around in the backyard and get to talking and sometimes he'd offer a pretty harsh opinion of "what was going on between mom and dad" if they'd had an argument visible to us. I'd often end up appearing to him to "take the side" of the one he was being critical of. (doesn't it just irritate you when people you're close to won't agree with you when you're emotionally pretty much begging them to?)
Actually I wasn't. I just didn't think I knew what was going on in either of their heads. I didn't know how I really could know. Was what I saw attributable to something, or perhaps many things, that had happened earlier between them, unknownst to me? How would I know that, even? That is, how would I know that which I did not know?
Maybe I had accepted and internalized what my mother told me. I just about always found myself able to imagine other accounts which seemed equally valid or possible of what might "really" have been going on. How my brother thought he knew what the truth of the situation was was a mystery to me.
Over the years I have felt I did myself a favor when I managed to suspend judgments about people or relationships out of respect for what I didn't think I was really in any position to know. I'm not always successful in doing that.
There are, oh, probably a few thousand (at least) terrific novels which should help those of us to whom this isn't obvious understand that what goes on in longstanding relationships is often highly nuanced and subtle to say the least to an outside observer. It is sometimes not at all what it might appear to be on the surface to the observer.
My experiences so far suggest to me that c4logic's (whose comments at the site I respect BTW) take on it, while it might sound logical, isn't the way life necessarily works. People in fact are far from entirely consistent, and do morally compartmentalize their lives sometimes. There certainly are public officials who I would tend to trust to uphold an oath of office who are adulterers. Or who broke a promise or two or three they made as a kid or a young adult.
Logically it is true that if a person violates one oath then it will never be possible for them to have a 100% record when it comes to upholding their oaths overall. But you know what? A person could uphold every oath they've ever taken and that does not mean they will uphold the next oath they take.
The evidence I've seen suggests that the degree of compartmentalization that takes place between the "private" and the "public" lives of major public figures is often large.
As one example among many others here are familiar with, I consider MLK to be one of the greatest public leaders in US history. I remember when I first was told he was an adulterer. This was in law school, for heaven's sake. A friend who happened to be a partisan Republican told me. At first I didn't believe it. Impossible, I thought. It must be partisan political slander. (I obviously was still suffering from susceptibility to the halo effect.)
Later on, I have come to accept this. Does it mean MLK was a flawed person? Well, yes, which is to say he was, like the rest of us, human. Does this blemish make him no longer worthy of being held in our highest esteem for his contributions to making ours a better country? I don't think so. Not to my way of thinking, at any rate.
People are complicated, and so are relationships.
October 31, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is about the stupidest discussion thread I have ever seen, and the biggest waste of time. To come here is about as pleasant as going to Little Green Footballs.
October 31, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never had your views and thought processes contested before?
It doesn't have to be that bad. As Ross Perot says, just sit back and enjoy it. Who knows, might even be eddycational.
October 31, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
All the time, but never with so little wit or insight.
October 31, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, maybe I'm just off stride, or you've become a tougher nut to crack. Or perhaps a bit of ennui has crept into this little moral countdown. See it's funny how folks can just glibly excuse a lie or pass it by, and then they'll bolster up the next one to reach the right level of consternation and moral outrage. It must be hard on the heart, all that bloviating and dissecting and parsing of truth. And in the end, it's really not that funny after all.
October 31, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your solipsistic fantasies may mean something to you, but to me they have no relevance to reality. You might as well be croaking on a lily pad for all the sense you convey.
"The best index to a person's character is (a) how he treats people who can't do him any good, and (b) how he treats people who can't fight back."--Abigail Van Buren
October 31, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, you just proved it didn't matter how McCain treated his wife.
October 31, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing was proved.
Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.”--Marcus Aurelius
October 31, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's spent 28 year being a good husband and you keep wanting to go back to the trying times of his life. "Let ye without sin cast the first stone. Not all at once, line up over here." Obama was off doing coke 28 years ago. Do you have a statute of limitations on character flaws?
October 31, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
C4. Gotta say, you got a good brain, but I think on this one, it's got some additional processing happening which goes somewhat beyond what you'd term "logic."
- You saw what multiple partners and infidelity did in X cases, therefore, "it doesn't work." I'd be pleased to see how that general conclusion flows from your experience.
- A marriage partnership is "no different" than a "business partnership." Hmmmm. I could have sworn they were at least somewhat different things. Agreed, commonalities, but you're making the equation a bit tight.
- A guy who disregards oaths and commitments (such as to his wife) can't be trusted with bombs and political decisions around life and death. Would you care to list your favorite 50 politicians, historical figures, generals and such, and then let's go over their lives. You can't seriously want to present this as some logical, case-closed, anyone who disagrees with me isn't being rational case can you. That's nonsense. And you're climbing higher and higher up the stilt.
October 31, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are drawing non sequitor conclusions that go far beyond my comments. The candle isn't worth the game.
October 31, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
C4Logic, I don't think I'm drawing conclusions that go beyond your comments. I tried to briefly quote you (and undoubtedly didn't do you full justice, fair enough), and then:
a) Asked how your conclusions followed;
b) Quoted you on marriage & business and asked if they weren't somewhat different things; and,
c) Asked you to - since you're setting out a purity test here - list some politicians (or others) who YOU think would pass them.
If you're short of candles, fair enough. Seasonal pressures & all.
October 31, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're misunderstood my remarks and it's not worth the trouble it takes to decompose them. This is pretty simple shit. So simple bacteria can digest it. You want to make it all sophisticated and complicated, knock yourself out. I never made any conclusions. I made observations. You don't perceive my meaning, no big deal. It's a big world. Trillions upon Trillions of sentient beings come and go. Some of them end up in the grill of my car. Understanding is a virtue hard to come by.
October 31, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Understanding is a virtue hard to come by." Indeed.
And (of the fairly steady stream of insults you dropped down the page) I gotta say I like the comparison to bacteria best. 'Cause I really DO dig it when somebody gets their haughty on.
Maybe we'll chat once you find your way down off those stilts.
'Til then... eat grill.
October 31, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really, Obi Wan? Perhaps you simply need a copy editor rather than a newer longer speech. Perhaps Bowie can explain better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3GDs6Lqxko
October 31, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's Ok. I need to be reminded occasionally of why exactly I am a Misanthrope.
October 31, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the typical response of someone who knows he's said something untenable but is unwilling to admit it.
I think adultery is horrible, and it does make me think less of a politician. It also makes me ever so less likely to vote for them. However, it's only part of my equation, and a fairly small part.
November 1, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
What did I say that was untenable? That the way John McCain treated his wife Carol reveals his character. You don't think so, fine. Quit trying to extract an absolute postulate out of my remarks. You've completely misunderstood them. I know what I wrote. You do not seem to. You seem to have assimilated the misunderstanding of others about what I wrote. Seems an awful lot of people on this thread are bothered by the notion that a sacred oath means something. I am actually quite shocked. You tell me: if you don't do what you say and say what you do, what does that tell us about you?
November 1, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
As for that fine point, you said...
"Let's let a guy who disregards his oaths and commitments decide who gets to live and who gets to die. You aren't taking about disinviting him to a poker game. You're talking about giving him control over the nuclear arsenal."
Seems to me that YOU'RE making the linkage between marriage vows and leadership, C4.
Then you say,
"The assertion is that if you pledge fidelity in a marriage vow and break the vow, that is says something about your character."
But before that,
"McCain's true character is ALL contained in how he treated his wife when he came back from Nam. "
Both your quotes. Seems you slipped from ALL... to something. Funny, that. You want down off those stilts or not?
November 1, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
This to your comment below at 3:38, C4.
November 1, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
So just remember, gang, if you fool around on your spouse, you simply don't have the character to be a good leader.
Kennedies? Clinton? John Edwards? Martin Luther King? Newt Gingrich? LBJ? Franklin Delano Roosevelt? Dwight Eisenhower? All of you, out out out!!!
Oh, please let me know in advance your reaction if it's discovered that Obama had an affair. I know mine, and it will be consistent - that's between him and Michelle to figure out, with some consideration to his kids. None of my damn business. So I've got it cool - nothing in my world will fall apart. How is it with you? Will you need an exception, a free hall pass, another impeachment hearing?
October 31, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point also. I don't care what they do in private. with Clinton, I cared what he did in a courtroom, where you don't get to lie for any reason. It is ironic that the Democrat that succeeded Foley is in a big scandal involving numerous affairs. His campaign message is, "Sure I disappointed you personally, but ...". Funny that was not the message regarding Foley.
October 31, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would Clinton have even committed perjury if people didn't care about his personal lives?
October 31, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't Foley a pedophile preying on underage male congressional pages? (At work folks - yes you were paying him while he was doing that crap).
(Imagine how their parents felt, sending their kids off for a great Washington experience - they sure did.)
Most reasonable people believe the Foley situation is just a tad worse than having affairs. Just a little.
October 31, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I referred to the Foley incident in my list of typically deplored sexual behavior by politicians back at the beginning of this thread.
October 31, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, there is your non-sequitor. The assertion is that if you pledge fidelity in a marriage vow and break the vow, that is says something about your character. To go from there to say you can't possess leadership abilities is a fine point that you want to put on it. It may have something, or nothing to do with leadership--but in the case of McCain where is the leadership? And if you choose to lead a double life while trying to show the way to others, what does that say about you as a person? It depends on where and how you are trying to lead. If you are trying to lead people out of hypocrisy, I think you have a conflict of interest.
November 1, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is it with TPM readers blazing away about their version of family values & how if people don't measure up, they're not suited for higher office or making life/death decisions or their "logic" is somehow faulty?
I get the fact that we're allowed to dump on our political foes for their hypocrisy. Fair game, absolutely. But some here don't let it stop there. They yank out their views on sex in marriage & start slapping them around as general statements - not thinking of who they're smacking.
In short, some people are upset about oaths & commitments & divorces & what that says about a person. Fine. Except... my folks got divorced, and thanks to that, I'm alive. Really. And by the way, if you don't get that divorce sometimes has positive effects on kids, then you really do need to get out more. Because in some cases, that's the reality.
And - surprise - sometimes people marry for dumb reasons. Sometimes they're young. But if they then grow up, wise up, do what's best for their kids, they're somehow ruled out of polite company? Certainly not to be trusted with a grown-up decision. What, are you allowed to cut your own food up yet?
You're being offensive as hell, and the air around you is stifling. I'm not talking about voting for McCain, I'm talking about making generalizations in reference to him that then cover off a lot of people, and seemingly not even being aware of it.
READING this stuff really upsets me, because 1) It's staggeringly hypocritical. The line of OUR favorite politicians & people, writers & poets, film-makers & social activists, lawyers & judges who have broken these rules is a mile long. Read David's Psalms or Shakespeare? Like the Beatles or Dylan? Proud of Martin Luther King or JFK? Please DO come down here & give me your approved list of the ever-pure and which ones are worth following, respecting, reading or viewing.
But worse is 2). Not ONE of you knows what everyone's lives are like. None of us do. I'm happy to hear anyone's views on how marriage and relationships work. But when they're stated as the way things HAVE to be, for everyone, or else we're not suited for elected office, or not suited to handle life and death decisions, then you've just walked across the street and joined the worst people I know of. In the other party.
October 31, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's so unfair to make me use this twice in one day. But equally well deserved.
Thanks for that Quinn.
October 31, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto Dij. And especially for this Q:
October 31, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto Hilary. Hallmark needs to create Happy Divorcery cards. There's a whole untapped market out there. I'd celebrate with my parents.
October 31, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks you two. (Though I'll send my slow clap out to Orlando and all those working like hell on this election, who - when I think about it - I actually get teary. Go get 'em tigers!)
I guess I just find a lot of these big general statements don't match up against my life, and the lives of those I love, and it makes me angry when the generalizations come out. I GET why people make statements too broad - they're often hurt, angry even infuriated about what THEY'VE gone through. I get it because I DO it. But I say stuff like this, it splatters. I know that.
About the only thing I really know is that life - and marriage and families - can be HARD. No, I've never broken a marriage vow. But I watched my Mum, an absolute powerhouse of a woman, have to break hers. And every one of us kids felt she did the right thing. Not because her husband wasn't a good man - he was - but for a whole lot of wider reasons, failings, that just went too far. But the astounding hurt that SHE went through about it, made worse by others, what possible good did they think they were doing? And I've had sibs and friends who were abused, and their religious views and communities laid on the pressure not to change. Once they finally did, their lives and their kids lives got better. I've had to walk into friends homes, found them with bread-knives pressed against their hearts, just pushed beyond their breaking points. And always always always this external pressure, now internalized, to NOT "fail." To not "break" that vow/rule/commitment/commandment.
This stuff is HARD. It's hard to keep a marriage or family together. It's hard to keep your heart open to the world, to yourself and the world around you, and make it work. It's even hard to keep your mind together when you're in, or even after you've survived, these situations. You can hear old men, or even younger ones now, talk about what they really saw in extreme situations of war & violence. Anyone who's been faced with real violence in the external world can tell you how surprising the reactions of those involved were. Buddies - good people - break. Work and poverty can do the same. Sickness and chronic ill health as well. This shit is NOT easy.
So do we actually want to hold someone - anyone - to a standard that says, "You can never have broken. Never failed. If you have, you're unfit to lead." I prefer people who HAVE broken, but who have then gone on to do better, and not stuffed the whole situation back in the closet. Someone who still has the wound years later, not picking obsessively at it, but who just recognize that sometimes life gives you wounds that maybe never heal completely. And that that's NOT necessarily a bad thing, as long as you learned something, grew somehow, became better than you were.
Does this mean I think John McCain is one of those better kind of people? No, actually. But I'd say the evidence is mixed. And I'd say what we really know about how marriages is at the least incomplete. So I cut some slack. Same as I did for Bill, and JFK and ML King... same as I did for W even. Their public life offered powerful enough evidence of how they were as human beings, as decision-makers and leaders.
I think I need a walk. Because when we start talking about this stuff, all our own lives come back up, in a wave. But before I go, I guess I'll restate the advice of my Old Man - who knew something about loss, and failing, and death and suffering. For all the rules slapped on us, in that incredibly oppressive world we grew up in, when it got too much, he'd just say, "Don't worry about all that. There's Love, Laughter and Learning. That's all that matters." That is, that all the rules and regulations and vows and social pressures are gonna fail you in life. They're too thin, somehow. Too brittle. But love, laughter, learning, those were deeper flows, larger forces, truths that we couldn't easily capture in our rules & regulations. So a pinch of salt, a bit of slack, maybe even a touch of compassion is called for in these things. Life is hard enough, without us laying extra burdens on.
He knew. And I'm learning.
October 31, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is where it gets absurd. Of course it's hard.
You think you're the only one who's had a tough life? That the folks above you that aren't interested in letting Mccain slide have had an easy 1950s lifestyle? That they haven't been faced with broken vows, betrayal, hurt children, bad times?
Who is generalizing now? And harshly.
Seems to me those of you who are puffing yourselves up with your own experiences are.
Those of us that have lived through these things, maybe even been involved in the "wrong" side of things don't need your sympathy. We're adults, if we can't be responsible for our own actions--however justifiable they may be--then we're not really adults at all.
We're pathetic little whiners.
Maybe some of us hold ourselves to higher standards and don't go looking for excuses.
November 1, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bwak. Please (I'm being polite here) don't be saying stuff like this, as though I said it. 'Cause you're putting really obnoxious stuff in my mouth, that you KNOW I didn't say. Please re-read, and get back to me later. Like, are you kidding with the "You think you're the only one who's had a hard life?" You know damn well I never said that. I said EVERYONE runs through this shit in life. You also know I didn't say anything about anyone having some easy 1950's lifestyle. Where is this coming from? I said we ALL face this shit, MYSELF INCLUDED. And you know this is no big defence of McCain, OR of how he acted in his family. I've said here that I didn't like it, and it made me angry. All I added was that I think if we make our statements and judgments too strong, we end up covering off most of our politicians, most of our leaders, and most of the people writing here. And besides, we don't NEED to use this kind of test as a way to disqualify McCain or Palin. I already can't stand them, but I can give them (small) benefits of the doubt where I don't KNOW, for sure. The final score doesn't need to be 100% to 0%. I'm happy with being against them 96%-4%. I don't NEED for McCain to have called his wife a "cunt" to feel that way. So if it ain't confirmed, no biggie - he sucks anyway. By the time you get to telling me I'm PUFFING MYSELF UP because of my experiences, I'm wondering what the hell is going on? Because I just laid out a list of my relationship and family FAILURES - those weren't successes, I did too little, too late. And by the end? I'm just left scratching my head. I'm calling you PATHETIC LITTLE WHINERS? Wha????
Look. You've said stuff to me before that left me absolutely baffled, ok? That I'm some point-headed elitist, etc. And it baffled me. I donno where it comes from, or why. But how about we give this kinda stuff a miss from here on out, ok? Yeah, I'm pissed at what you said, but I'm more baffled than pissed. So other than that, I'm just gonna say I hope you're having a great weekend. Bwak on.
November 1, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't imagine what you found so upsetting, dude, I mean if you can wring your hands over half the folks on this thread for not being as enlightened awesome as yourself, and hand-picked others surely you are awesome enough to stand by your vulgar put downs. Or is that behavior OK only when done by certain people. Sure, sure. Lots do feel that way. It tends to be run of the mill farmyard one-upsmanship.
Look, everything you said is a given. The fact that you're hurt and seem to think that the folks that don't agree that some vows are worth breaking don't know these things is offensive in and of itself. It ain't just the folks that agree with you that have been through these things. The folks that don't agree have, too. That's a fact that you're overlooking, and it's damn offensive. Uber-elitist BS that loses Dems elections.
When I read your long screeds about those "baffling" folks that maybe have differing priorites than you and Des and your crush of the week, it ruffles my feathers a bit, because you're being just as bad as you accuse everyone else of being, worse, actually, because you claim to know better. You don't. Maybe I have higher standards and held you to that. My bad.
Knock yourself out from waaaay up there. Just don't mind the fall, it can be brutal.
November 1, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry, the view's great from up here.
Hell.... I can almost see.... izzat Russia?! Wow.
November 1, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
First Esquimeau in space - he's a bit giddy at the moment but he'll come around. Ground control to Major Quinn. Put your helmet on, we have some turbulence over Vladivostok.
November 2, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
READING this stuff really upsets me,
No, it upsets me more, wanna fight about who it upsets worse? Then you can call me a c word and I'll call you a b word, it would be just like being home for the holidays. ;-)
Do you ever think it might be that we're dealing here with some people who have never read a newspaper advice column in their lives much less the stuff of the best literature or art? Political, non-fiction and net junkies who always hated English class in high school, preferring, I dunno, sci-fi to fill their fictional needs? "Family values" is an ideology after all, a system to fit the round pegged individuals into square holes.
October 31, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh-oh, now we're going to get in a fight over who's better, Dear Abby or Ann Landers (or Miss Manners or Amy Vanderbilt).
I thinks I needs a walkabout. Hey Quinn, how 'bout some of that fire water we've been talking 'boot?
October 31, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are conflating a number of separate issues. Was Picasso a philanderer? Yes. Was he a great artist? Yes. Did his philandering say something about his character? Yes. Was he qualified to be chief executive. No. But that had nothing to do with his infidelity. It has to do with his other lack of qualifications. You have taken all the different seeds and piled them up in a big pile. Let the ants sort them out into separate piles for you.
November 1, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be such a chickenshit, C4. You wanna be Mr Logic and Mr History, fine. You wanna roll out purity tests on politicians' family lives & make that into a leadership test, cool. But don't get all sooky when I ask you for some evidence beyond your free love days, and then get all snotty about not worth the candle, but - whoops - then show up the next day on another comment to jabber on about Picasso.
Here, I'll sort it for you, like I did earlier. Your big schtick is political leadership, maybe more widely anyone involved in bombs/death decision-making, so go ahead, it'd be a treat to hear you expound on how your chosen pols and such made it though your grid. Let's see how they do on the fine upstanding family life, on integrity and vows and such.
You wanna play intellectual, then put on your dancing shoes prof, and let's see how you do. Take YOUR favorites, and run them through YOUR grid.
November 1, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha Ha Ha. Suffer, little man, like you were born to do...you have to actualize significance before your darts have points. Go back to the cardboard world from whence you came.
November 1, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's that on my grill?
November 1, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's crack cocaine or maybe good ol' scag or even an 8-ball if we're lucky. Okay, I'm worried about character now, and want to know what drugs influenced which candidate's character. I'm sure McCain had whatever the VA could throw at him, but we only have a partial list of Obama's dosing. Stack it up - methadone, crystal meth, MDA, windowpane - let's see it. Any needles? Rebuilt septa? Imagine a president sneezing and starting to bleed right when renegotiating SALT II - this could blow the deal sky high.
C'mon, people, this is important - we must pry or we'll never know who has the character to face down Ivan and Ahmed. And what's up with Obama - where are his former girlfriends - is he closet gay? Is that leading a double life bit causing problems at home and interference in foreign policy? Let's see some phone records, this is important. And did Obama diss any girlfriends? Break a date, not call her the next day when he said he would? Because a vow's a vow - you don't take one seriously, and the next thing yo know you've unilaterally dismantled NAFTA and our commitment to NATO.
Quick, on it. unday will be for examining reading lists - books checked out, purchased, as well as any potentially character debilitating music.
November 1, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just sitting here taking lectures on actualizing my significance, as instructed by Professor "Non Sequitor." (Don't look at me, he's the one that keeps repeating it.)
Face it. Dude set his ass on fire, ran screaming down the page, now doesn't wanna admit he was blowing smoke out his butt.
November 1, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
He confused you with someone else, Q - he called you a pointy-head intellectual and everyone knows you're a roundy-head intellectual. It's all been a tragic misunderstanding, thank goodness. I thought someone was going to get hurt for a moment.
November 1, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And didn't this thread deserve more than 6 Recs?
Our yer childe lurning yet?
October 31, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
:o)
November 1, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You laugh now - just wait till you see what I wrote about you over on MJ's blog. In fact I think I'm going to take a sabbatical. Until say Obama's kids grow up. On another planet - I hear Krypton is nice and not too crowded. I am so fucked.
November 1, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't go too far Des or a least leave a trial of breadcrumbs.
Thanks for your comments on the MJ thread... at least until I figure out WTF "Mad Joi" means :)
November 1, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's for them to scratch their heads over, not you. They'll be Googling for days before they figure out I made it up.
November 2, 2008 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course them thinking of you as some kind of Sherman Klump in drag is probably not the leg-ass-y you wanted ahem... left behind.
November 2, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course them thinking of you as some kind of Sherman Klump in drag is probably not the leg-ass-y you wanted ahem... left behind.
November 2, 2008 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I rec'd Des, but really.
Reductio ad absurdum
Your premise, which has been twisted and parsed and made into some sort of morallty test, was that Dems are as bad as the GOP at flinging mud.
Absurd.
That because you "found out" that the cunt comment (why be coy?) wasn't "confirmed"(whatever that means), that John McCain is somehow a paragon of moral turpitude because he married the rich hussy he fooled around with on a disabled wife, and that that wife should be "grateful" because he gave her 2 houses.
Absurd.
There are standards of behavior, and some of these standards are more exacting then others. McCain did these things in public view, not privately, which also says something about his character. Our common standards that have withstood the ravages of time and countless humans that have lived the consequences before us.
Part of that standard is this idea of fairness. Is it "fair" to judge McCain on how he treated his first wife? Yes. Is it fair to judge Bill Clinton on how HE treated his first wife? Yes. Does that have a bearing on how they will run the country? Yes.
Both men have proven that they will act in selfish ways, and do things to betray others who have done them no harm.
Now let's talk about degree.
Oh, right, as far as you are concerned, degree has nothing to do with anything. THAT, is very Republican of you, I must say. VERY Republican.
And absurd.
November 1, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's try "distortio ad bullshit". I didn't say the Dems threw as many lies, but I did imply they handed out some whoppers here and there.
2, you throw around the word "disabled" but have no idea what it means in terms of Carol McCain.
3, you call Cindy McCain a hussy - what a crap, sexist, snippy little comment.
4, the cunt comment wasn't confirmed. So simply stop using it. It's a lie. It's gossip. It's nasty propaganda.
5, don't put "grateful" in quotes when I didn't say something.
6, I'm not the world's most patriotic person, but yes, it bums me out that someone can be locked up for 5 years fighting for our country and we'll smear him like this. It's as bad as Swift Boating, though at least there hasn't been millions of dollars promoting the smear.
7, What did McCain do in "public view"? Do you have any description of any incidents?
8, McCain took care of his 1st wife, and she seems content, so why exactly do you need to be a judge and a jury over lives you know very little about?
9, Women fool around too (go pick up a book on Lady Di, one of our peculiarly admired female figures). People like getting laid, and it really has little to with their character for running a country. Or at least you didn't tell me the state catastrophe that arose from FDR being with his mistress when he died.
November 1, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"distortio ad bullshit"" is what I object to, Desidero.
You certainly implied Dems were just as bad, and your defense of McCains poor behavior rests on the same idea as that a pinch is as good as a pound.
At this point you've worked yourself into a peevish intensity that, to me at least, is disturbing.
If you don't like people reducing your arguments to black and white, may I suggest you stop doing it to others?
Feel better, soon.
November 1, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain's "bad behavior" is his private life and none of my business. I don't know all the facts, I never will, and I don't want to. I didn't claim "pinch is as good a a pound". If Carol and Cindy McCain are fine with John as a husband, why in the world do I need to judge him? He could screw the neighbor's daughter and it wouldn't get us out of Iraq any quicker or slower. The Kennedy wives made a career of ignoring their husbands' infidelities - does it affect Ted's work on health care and immigration? If Obama has a lover, does it change the policies he's promoting or what he'll do in office? If not, then I simply don't care. 300 million people in this country and I'm worried about perhaps 5-10 of them's private lives.
I said "While I'd say the right has been quite over the top on its lies, that doesn't mean the left doesn't resort to quite a few itself. Smear sells, and sometimes the truth just isn't good enough." If you can read that as saying the Democrats are "just as bad", well, I can't improve your reading and I'll try to be more explicit in my writing if I can't live with that misunderstanding.
November 1, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, what a crap, sexist, snippy little comment.
Heh.
That sure is easy, just thought I'd try it out. Well, Des, if you weren't trying to mitigate GOP mudslinging by pointing out the sliver in the eyes of the Democrats, you could have said so in your first comment. Instead you decided to teach me a lesson in uber-elite moral equivalence, but sad to say, it hasn't done you much good. I get the notion you have a need to justify adultery on a personal level, not as one that's engaged in it, (we don't hold ourselves in such high esteem) but perhaps on behalf of someone you desperately need to believe in.
That's not an argument I want to have with you. To err may be human, and to make excuses surely is.
I just think that making assumptions is pretty human, don't you? Maybe not on the same level as having an affair, but hey, if it helps you get through things, that can't be bad.
Good luck. Maybe don't try so hard and things will come a bit easier.
November 1, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I take it psychoanalysis wasn't your major.
I point out I'm uncomfortable over-parsing a POW's early post-war years that happened over 30 years ago, and well, it's just because I'm trying to excuse someone close to me's adultery somewhere. (Let me guess - my mother?)
November 1, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, well, if your replies weren't dripping with such scorn and derision, I wouldn't have figured it was personal, and no, I didn't think it was your mother. Guess no one's infallible, eh?
If you can take that more balanced tone, you might get a conversation, but that ain't what you're doing here. You're getting out a whip and using the blunt end.
It does make me wonder why, but really, I don't much care. Look, it's your blog. You have the last word. Feel good about yourself, you've just put this chicken in their place.
I'll go scratch elsewhere.
November 1, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear the hills of Africa are really nice.
"The rooster stared back at me, his power and confidence almost overwhelming.
Down below a female paused warily at the coop entrance. I kept the camera
rolling. They were beautiful, those 'Chickens in the Mist'."
November 1, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't we having an apples and oranges food fight here? Two distinct issues have been discussed simultaneously in this thread and it seems, at least to me, unproductive to combine them.
One/Personal Opinions about Personal Ethics:
You, Desidero, and many others see nothing wrong with infidelity in a marital relationship. I, and many others do see something wrong with it -- because the avalanche of hurt that buries everyone involved can be avoided, or at least mitigated by getting divorced before embarking on another relationship. Sure, that's a risky move for the party enthralled with someone new; he, or she, could end up alone, without a family and without the new relationship, should it fail. But shouldn't that risk be shouldered by the person who wants out, rather than being foisted, by default, on the spouse and children who were not consulted?
Whatever. Our difference of opinion is not really the point. So long as you are not trying to legislatively impose your views on me and I am not trying to impose my views on you, we can amicably agree to discuss and disagree on this, or any other issue.
Two/ Whether or not a politician's ethics, or lack thereof, should affect his or her viability as a candidate.
Our evaluation of a candidate is based not only on his, or her stated positions on issues of the day, but also on his, or her performance in the past. So, isn't it rather arbitrary to say that it is fair to judge McCain (or Clinton, MLK, whomever) on absolutely anything and everything... but his, or her marital behavior? Why make that issue the sole exception in your view?
Should a person base his vote for Obama versus McCain on that issue? Of course not. But, in principle, any decision a candidate makes -- whether in public or personal life -- that demonstrates a willingness to deceive for entirely selfish reasons is a decision that is open to scrutiny and potentially negative judgment.
Fair enough?
November 1, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, and thanks.
There is such a thing as going overboard on the starboard side, as well as on the port. I disagree with both. Better to stay topside and deal with the seasickness when the seas get rough. Acknowledge it, deal with it, and move on.
November 1, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Desi didn't say he "sees nothing wrong with infidelity". He said it's a fact of life and up to the partners to figure out how to deal with it, not me. States' rights, personal privacy.
You then get into the blame game - "should it be shouldered by the person who started it...." Come on, some people sleep around because they feel betrayed in other ways, some are jut horny, some have sexual incompatibilities, etc.
Why don't you all just go buy a copy of the Kinsey Reports and start figuring out what's really going through peoples' minds and genitals? 50 years later we shouldn't have to be reaching blindly into well researched and collated behavioral studies.
You say, "But, in principle, any decision a candidate makes -- whether in public or personal life -- that demonstrates a willingness to deceive for entirely selfish reasons is a decision that is open to scrutiny and potentially negative judgment." No, I absolutely refuse to require candidates to open every corner of their lives and psyche to the weird whims of the voting population. Whether I kick the cat one time or overdraw my bank account or how much I give to charity? These things are nobody's business, they're off the job behavior, and have nothing to do with my job performance. Backdooring our way around the Constitutional right to privacy doesn't strike me as an appropriate tool to choose our government, and oddly enough seems like a rather Moral Majority litmus test way of doing things. In case you didn't notice, until recently this type of behavior was scorned as being intrusively right wing.
I didn't care about Obama's childhood, I cared about his work experience, McCain's work experience (and very marginally his time as a POW), Hillary's work experience/time in politics/work on issues. Other people have been trying to vote in a saint - I don't care, keep it at home and do your job when at work, I'll be happy. I don't care if you're a closet racist if you come to work and do your job well and don't pass racist laws. I don't care about your religion or lack of it as long as it doesn't impinge on my freedom and choices. Worship Caligula, Jesus, Mohammed or Wall Street, it's all the same to me. I want clean water, fair courts, no ridiculous wars, oil alternatives, a close-to-balanced budget, good health care, a modest safety net, a growing economy. Make all these happen and I might even consider offering up my first male born. If it didn't affect your work performance, I wouldn't care about anything illegal you did at home. That's between you and the police. Hell, if you can run things well, I'd even turn a blind eye to you stealing a bit - consider it a bonus, I don't care, cheaper than the guys who run things poorly and steal much more. But let's see if someone can actually run things well and leave candidate babysitting to their spouses.
November 1, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero,
Some subtext discussions may be best conducted, sotto vocce.
This thread makes me think that you and I might both benefit from addressing each other more directly, rather than obliquely,
Therefore, how may I contact you so that we may take a conversation that might be extremely uncomfortable for others into a zone where it is just you and me, Babe?
November 1, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is the Lingr lounge too public? It has a more subdued tone from the full brawl traffic of TPM.
November 2, 2008 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink