OT, but worth a laugh - Jacoby comparing Guliani and Gingritch's adulteries in his latest column in

[Mass]

the Globe.


Republicans are slightly bothered by the private lives of some of their main candidates, which make Bill Clinton look like a saint.

However, it gets absolutely hillarious when, like Jacoby, you favour one of the two candidates who have had two divorces and three wives. How can you blast one guy while making the other one look good.

It seems Jacoby has a solution: what is done privately does not matter, so Gingritch is good, Guliani evil.

I guess by Jacoby's standards, he can beat his wife. As long as he does not do it publicly, it is just fine. I am not sure Gingritch's first wife, who was served her divorce papers on her hospital bed when fighting cancer (yeah, this is the guy that Jacoby favors) will agree with that.


http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/03/21/gop_family_values/

GOP 'family values'

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | March 21, 2007

THE RADIO talk show had turned to the presidential possibilities of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. On the line was a woman who described herself as a religious conservative and a Republican. "I could never vote for Gingrich," she was saying. "If he couldn't uphold his marital vows, how can we trust him to uphold his oath of office?"


...





First, marital fidelity has nothing to do with political leadership. Convenient as it would be if adulterous behavior were a reliable indicator of presidential unsuitability, history doesn't bear that out. Franklin Roosevelt had mistresses and John F. Kennedy was a philanderer, but both made better political leaders than such faithful husbands as Jimmy Carter or Richard Nixon. From King David to Martin Luther King, examples abound of illustrious public leaders who were grievous private sinners. The untidy fact is, a man who would be scandalous as a pastor may prove an exemplary president.

Second, public behavior counts for more than private behavior. Voters should give greater weight to what a politician says and does in public than to his private words and deeds. What matters most is whether he upholds appropriate values -- not whether he falls short of those values in private. Civilized society does not require human perfection and consistency. It does require that imperfect human beings, whatever their private failings, affirm the distinction between right and wrong, and maintain a social architecture of shared moral standards.

A man who publicly castigates an adulterous president while secretly carrying on an affair of his own -- as Gingrich did in 1998 -- may be a hypocrite, but he has not undermined the public code that condemns adultery and celebrates marital faithfulness. By contrast, a man who flaunts his infidelity and goes out of his way to publicly humiliate his wife -- as Giuliani did in 2000 -- has behaved far more destructively. He has not just violated society's moral guidelines: He has subverted them.

...

Well, I guess they do not know exactly what to invent to make their guys look good. Notice to future presidential candidates. Cheat on your wives (hustbands?), just be discreet.
:eyes:

[karynnj]

1. He ignores the fact that Clinton tried his darnest to keep it private

That's why he didn't admit it immediately. What a hypocrite.

[wisteria]

3. That is a good point.

Didn't Clinton admit to "problems" from his childhood that were related to his need to exhibit risky behaviors? Or was that a bunch of crap to get him off the hook?

[wisteria]

2. What a ridiculous premise. Funny, in a sick sort of way.

Cheating on your partner doesn't matter as much as the degree to which you humiliate that partner in public?

Other "good" presidents were not faithful, so that makes it OK to cheat because they did?

Oh, wait, the true test of Republican morals is if you are against abortion and don't believe a woman has a right to govern her own body.:sarcasm:

It is amazing how low the bar drops when it come to electing Republicans. The last time I checked, for those who follow any Christian faith, one of the Ten Commandments mentioned something about not committing adultery.

Not respecting your partner enough to stay faithful shows a lack of caring and understanding for others and a self- involvement which puts the cheaters' needs before others' needs. Do we really want to elect people as President who consider themselves before the needs of this country?

When I see political pundits make excuses for this type of disrespectful behavior I get mad. Back in 2004 when Senator Kerry was running, I lost count of the times I heard people say they were voting their morals and that wouldn't allow them to vote for Senator Kerry,because he was divorced and believed in abortion. And, we all know the circumstances surrounding his first marriage and the obvious respect they still held for one another.

[Firespirit]

4. It is indeed sick

In the Victorian era and pretty much any period prior, infidelity was JUST AS RAMPANT as it is today... but it was kept under wraps. And in most cases, a wife who was cheated on had no recourse, because if the marriage was ended, she'd be the one to pay the social price. There was religious and moral pressure on women to stay in bad marriages, and women who didn't tolerate it were shunned even though they were blameless. The end result was the spread of venereal disease to innocent spouses, widespread mental illness, misery, and the utter domination of women by men. That is the result of keeping affairs secret.

I am of the opinion that there is a constant, unchangeable "incompatibility rate" for marriages, but today's divorce rates just reflect the fact that in modern times there is something that can be done about it. I don't believe for one second that marriages in the "old days" were happier. People were just trapped in them. The national divorce rate is not a negative thing, in my opinion.

I have no respect for either Gingrich or Giuliani, but in general, if I had the choice between a lying, sneaky philanderer who retained the pretense of marriage while taking a big dump all over it, and a philanderer who openly told his wife it was over and he was running off with the secretary (or whoever), I'd pick the one who had the balls to come forward. That man's wife would be released from the failed marriage, and she could (if she wished) begin a search for a new husband without any guilt.

[rox63]

5. It's all about appearances, not about substance

I think both Gingrich & Giuliani are assholes. But what really matters to some wingnuts is whether or not you get caught.