Honey, I Swallowed My Lips
By Dan on Mar 12, 2008 in Politics
Apparently part of the price an elected official pays for betraying the public trust is that news photographers will click away until they capture these fallen fellows (they’re almost men) at their goofiest. And thus, Eliot Spitzer looking every bit like the unholy offspring of Gabby Johnson and a sock puppet.
.jpg)
One thing that caught my interest in this whole affair is how it is playing in the blogosphere. Bloggers who were anxious to have a laugh at Larry Craig (R), are silent on Eliot Spitzer (D). Granted, arranging for sex in a hotel room with a prostitute isn’t as disgusting as cruising for strangers in an airport restroom, but still, the similarities are enough that if you can find humor in one, you ought to be able to chuckle at the other.
UPDATE
It just occurred to me, I bet Spitzer took a big swig of Bud and clamato right before that picture was taken. That would account for the pucker.
Loading ...
“Bloggers who were anxious to have a laugh at Larry Craig (R), are silent on Eliot Spitzer (D).”
Well, hiring a hooker just isn’t as funny as Craig’s bathroom antics and wide stances.
Dave | Mar 12, 2008 | Reply
Stephen Colbert did a little segment on all the lip-biting, busted politicians last night. I wonder if it’s what their handlers recommend?
BTW, I’m not having a laugh at any of them. I feel sorry for their wives.
nancy | Mar 12, 2008 | Reply
As a person who leans to the right on most issues I must say that I take no great joy in seeing a left-leaner go down in flames. A bad guy is a bad guy, no matter if his first name is George or Rod.
But as you pointed out Dan, you can hear the crickets chirping at the Democratic National Headquarters. How sad.
On a somewhat related issue, do you find Chris Britt’s recent bashing of Hilary while he gushes over Obama quite humorous? It has to be painful for those who regularly tune in to the SJ-R hoping to see him bash a republican or local authority figure, only to find him putting down one of their own. I love it. It shows what Britt is made of. He is not a journalist, and he certainly is not fair or impartial. If the SJ-R bosses had a shred of fairness in their bones they would see to it that a right-leaning cartoonist was printed at least 3-4 times a week to balance out the Opinion page. Britt is obviously madly in love with Obama.
M.B. | Mar 12, 2008 | Reply
I dont blame Spitzer at all. He thought Bill Clinton legalized prostitution years ago!
Ok, I got that one from Jay Leno.
RickMonday | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
On a more serious note, this is quite sad. Spitzer was a good attorney general who really was cleaning up NewYork. The people of NewYork are the real losers in this case. I think the good of this man, outweighs this minor mistake, of course I am speaking from a government perspective only. From a family perspective, he is a scumbag and his wife ought to dump him in a heartbeat. This has to be very traumatic for her. I wonder if she will stay with this guy. More and more you see wives stay with their man, if he is a man in the spotlight or has some power (Kobe, Bill and Hillary, the guy Vitter from Louisiana, etc..) For the life of me I dont know why they stay unless they just like the glamorous life more than they cherish their marriage.
RickMonday | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
Yeah, and that liberal Britt is always giving Rod a pass, right?
I don’t know that Britt ever claimed to be a journalist, or fair, or impartial.
nancy | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
Dave,
I agree that the Craig saga was more comical, but you have to admit that some partisan feelings come into play on these things. We all know that there is a scorecard being kept by both sides that tallies embarrassing public scandals. I bet you could tell me who’s in the lead, too.
Nancy, Rick,
I also feel sorry for his wife. I read an interesting counterpoint to those people criticizing Silda Spitzer for standing by him during his public floggings. The author suggested that her support isn’t for Eliot, but for their children.
First off, the daughters are faced with the anguish of seeing their family suddenly torn apart. Secondly, no matter how angry they may be at their father, it still hurts them to see him being crucified in public. So by standing by him, Silda is comforting her children by keeping the family intact, at least for the time being. Once the public clamoring has subsided, she may very well tell Eliot to take a walk, but not until her girls have had time to come to grips with the situation.
If that is indeed the case, then I think it’s admirable of her to put her daughters’ feelings ahead of her own.
MB,
The SJ-R used to run Michael Ramirez’s cartoons occasionally, but I don’t know that I’ve seen any recently. I agree with Nancy, it’s not an editorial cartoonist’s job to be impartial and the form requires that an extreme position be taken. Unlike an editorial, a cartoon doesn’t allow for both sides of an issue to be thoughtfully considered before taking a stance.
That said, it is amazing to me how many Democrats have turned on the Clintons. The same criticisms that conservatives have leveled against them for years are now being made by the people who once fiercely contested those criticisms. Maybe I overestimated their popularity, but I thought the Clintons were royalty in Democratic circles.
Thanks for commenting,
Dan
Dan | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
M.B. and Dan
Aren’t you both slightly contradicting yourselves? M.B., you criticize Chris Britt for not being fair and impartial immediately after expressing humor that he’s skewering Hillary.
Is a critical cartoon of Clinton only legit if it is penned by a “right-leaning cartoonist”? Or is it that because Britt’s a fan of Obama, and not McCain, that you effectively cancel out the unfavorable depiction of Clinton?
And Dan, sure there is Obama momentum at play, but again, I think the criticism on “The ClintonS” could be Democrats taking a practical look at The Clinton (singular) who is running for office right now. The fact that she is not the de facto choice of democrats despite the popularity of her husband, I think, shows a willingess to look beyond the perceived royalty.
I don’t find it ironic or particularly hypocritical that many in the Republican party aren’t jazzed about McCain, but conservatives seem to get a real laugh about criticisms of Hillary Clintons by Democrats. Why?
nancy | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
Nancy,
You couldn’t have mischaracterized the point of my comment anymore if you tried. Or did you? Read it again.
Dan,
I am not saying Britt has to be fair and impartial. I understand who he is and what he is. However, the editors should be fair and impartial. By running 5-6 days of Britt’s sophomoric, humorless, one-sided garbage the editors are not being fair. Yet they bristle at the mention of the term “liberal media.”
All I ask from anybody is fairness. Show both sides. That is why I continue to read this blog. You use logic and fairness when giving opinions. Keep it up.
M.B. | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
Nancy,
Hypocrisy? Never!
The Clinton criticisms from the left aren’t being leveled exclusively at Hillary. From what I’m reading it’s the Clinton way of doing business, which some perceive as being ruthless, self-serving and manipulative, that’s come under attack. Bill maybe got away with it because he’s more charming than Hillary, but I’ve also read many from-the-left columnists who now wish he would just go away (his comments on Obama’s South Carolina victory turned many people off.)
It’s also interesting to me that many who defended Bill’s philandering as being his own private business, are now expressing embarrassment that it might once again be drug out into the light. I guess it’s possible to defend and be embarrassed by his skirt chasing, it’s just that the embarrassment was never as apparent as it is now.
I agree that the Obama factor plays very big into this. If this had been a Hillary/Edwards race from the start, I think that the overwhelming Clinton love that was strong well into Bush’s second term would be carrying Hillary to an easy victory. I just find it amusing that in finding a candidate they like better in Obama, many democrats have also discovered much not to like about the Clintons.
Here’s something to ponder. If Bill was allowed to run again after sitting out two terms and Obama was as strong a candidate as he is today, who do you think would win and by how much?
Thanks for commenting,
Dan
Dan | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
Nancy,
You ask why the Republicans loathe Hillary? I cant answer for all but for me it is because of her smug, elitist-”I am better and smarter than you” mentality. If one pulls away her veil you can tell that she is simply a ruthless, power hungry, win at all costs, virago (thank you Word of Day). (It means a shrill woman.)
Look, Obama is much more liberal than Hillary and probably smarter too. But, he doesnt play the elitist card, nor the race card. He plays on what he is and wants to involve others. With Hillary, it is all about her and Bill’s legacy. To me, she is playing the American public for fools.
She claims 35 years of experience. Really? Being what? The wife of a governor and only 8 years in the Senate? That doesnt add up to 35 using my math. But when she was the First Lady, she headed several panels and committees. Was SHE elected? NO! Her husband was and yet she ruled like she was the one who was in charge.
Just one example to prove my point about her ruthlessness: She and her campaign are playing the race card big time. This coming from a lady who put on a fake southern accent in speaking in front of black audiences. Do you think she really cares about minorities? NO WAY. It is a front for her to try to sucker these people into voting for her.
Plus, referring to my earlier post, why is she still with Bill? He embarrassed the hell out of here numerous times with his infidelity. Any yet, she didnt leave him. Why not? Because she basked in the power that Bill brought to the table.
Just my opinion.
RickMonday | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
OK, wait a minute gentleman.
M.B.
If I mischaracterized your comment, I apologize. I will admit to being completely confused by it. Thanks for not clarifying, though!
In the middle of your comment about Chris Britt you throw in the sentence: “I love it. It shows what Britt is made of.” Now if you read your remarks before that sentence, it would seem like you’re complimentary of Britt for showing he can parody a democrat. But your comments after that sentence would seem to indicate that you don’t like him because he’s one-sided to the benefit of democrats.
So, again, I’m sorry if I didn’t interpret it correctly. But as a side note, aren’t you the guy that gets your panties in a bunch when commenters stray off topic? I guess if you preface with “on a somewhat related issue”, you’re good to go on with a rant of your choosing i.e. political cartoonists.
Dan
You say: “It’s also interesting to me that many who defended Bill’s philandering as being his own private business, are now expressing embarrassment that it might once again be drug out into the light”. How is that interesting? It wasn’t anyone’s business then, and it shouldn’t be now. That’s not hypocritical. It’s pretty darned consistent. It is in fact, embarrassing and always has been.
I was a big supporter of Bill Clinton and his Presidency. However, I’m disappointed in the way he’s conducted himself throughout a lot of this primary season. Does that make me hypocritical or does it make me willing to consider that he’s not the end all, be all and is capable of disappointing me?
You then go on to say: “I guess it’s possible to defend and be embarrassed by his skirt chasing,”. That’s not fair. I didn’t hear ANYONE defend his affair. What was defended was his right to privacy. If you suggest that the President shouldn’t possess such privacy, then I’d like to see George and Laura’s sex log. Like you suggested in your remarks about Spitzer’s wife, a degree of privacy for the innocent family members dragged through the media frenzy is the decent thing to support.
RickMonday
You respond to me by name: “You ask why the Republicans loathe Hillary”. No, I didn’t. But thank you for your take on the matter.
nancy | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
Nancy,
I never said that elected officials don’t have a right to privacy. But they don’t have a right to privacy when they’re breaking the law (Spitzer, Craig) or when they’re doing something extremely unethical (Clinton). Are you really comparing George and Laura having sex to Clinton having sex with an intern while conducting the affairs of state? I don’t think he should have been impeached for his transgressions, but in the private sector, if the boss gets caught with an intern, he usually pays for it with his job, especially if the affair is made public.
What I am saying is there were an awful lot of people whose most vocal response to the Lewinsky scandal is that it is a private matter and we should all butt out. Now, what I read from columnists is that it was an embarrassing saga that the country shouldn’t have to relive. Well, if it’s none of our business, then what’s to relive? (note: I read more left-leaning publications than right-leaning so these are the perspectives of liberals that are forming my opinions.)
I would bet that if Obama hadn’t stolen the hearts of so many Democrats then Bill’s philandering wouldn’t have become an issue until the Republicans brought it up in the general election, at which time we would have been told by Hillary supporters that it is none of our business. So isn’t at least slightly hypocritically that this issue is being raised during the primary?
Dan
Dan | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
M.B.
I don’t believe that Nancy “mischaracterized the point” of your comment – I think she hit it dead on. If the point in your head differs from the point you expressed, then I encourage you to clarify it for us all . . .
You accuse the SJR editorial pages of not being “fair and impartial” because they run Chris Britt’s Cartoons (and he has made a cottage industry lately of skewer our Democratic Governor) – but I would contend that the ongoing presence of the hateful, bigoted witch of a writer Ann Coulter on the SJR opinion page completely defeats your argument. There’s your balance (and I’ll take my guy over yours any day of the week) or are you only interested in seeing your views represented via funny pictures . . . ?
Rock Robster | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
Sorry Nance, not enough caffeine in my cup of java this morning.
RickMonday | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
Dan
Maybe there are too many excreted drugs in my drinking water because I am thoroughly confused by your response.
I am not equating Clinton’s romp with Monica with the Bush’s gotta be creepy love life. I am suggesting that neither are any of the public’s business. You tack on “while conducting the affairs of the state” onto Clinton as if this all occurred during a State of the Union address.
At some point “extremely unethical” becomes illegal, but this isn’t an example. “Unethical” is very, very subjective. Some might call a lot of Bush’s actions while in office “unethical”, but not everyone. Who gets to decide? In the private sector, if a boss sends his loyal employess out to complete a job where they continue to be killed while trying to complete it, he’d probably be fired.
I’m most perplexed by “Now, what I read from columnists is that it was an embarrassing saga that the country shouldn’t have to relive. Well, if it’s none of our business, then what’s to relive?” I’m not trying to be difficult here. I think I’m completely missing your point, because you seem to answer that question yourself. Right, it’s none of our business and we shouldn’t rehash it during this election.
Maybe my confusion is based on the unknown in your argument which is, who do you suggest is bringing up the Lewinski scandal? Obama? Republicans? I really don’t know, but I’m guessing that’s the root of your argument and I assume you suggest it’s Obama’s campaign? If it is, he doesn’t need it and it’s counterproductive.
nancy | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
I enjoy Britts cartoons although he takes shots at conservatives all the time. I think it provides some good fodder for discussion. I have no problem with the sj-r running his columns. Heck, I listen to AirAmerica all the time too.
Frankly I think whether you are conservative or liberal, listening to the other sides arguments help educate all of us. Each side has good and bad points. Plus it is fun debating the other side.
RickMonday | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
Dan,
Wait . . . what???
1. You conveniently slipped ethics into the same binding category as laws – and that’s inaccurate and deceiving. I think there is a large (and officially authorized) difference between the LAW (“a binding custom or practice of a community”) and ETHICAL behavior (“a set of moral principles, a guiding philosophy”). We live in the same municipality, state and country – so we are all the subject to the same set of laws. However, I can be guided by my own moral principles (assuming that they don’t conflict with the law of the land). This all stems from the US Constitution and, more specifically, the Bill of Rights (or is it just the 2nd Amendment that you all care about?).
2. “Are you really comparing George and Laura having sex to Clinton having sex with an intern while conducting the affairs of state?” YES, because both are private, non-public matters. And why do you categorize Clinton’s sex life in terms of “while conducting the affairs of state” but not George’s?? If/when he and Laura knock the presidential cowboy boots (so to speak), he is – by definition – doing so whilst conducting the affairs of state. Or was your point to work in the word “affair” while referring to Bill Clinton? (that’s a tired old Republican tactic attack, and one that I wouldn’t have thought you would make use of . . .).
3. “What I am saying is there were an awful lot of people whose most vocal response to the Lewinsky scandal is that it is a private matter and we should all butt out. Now, what I read from columnists is that it was an embarrassing saga that the country shouldn’t have to relive. Well, if it’s none of our business, then what’s to relive?”
OK – I have no idea what you’re talking about here. Here’s what I do know:
1. The Lewinsky scandal was a private matter and we should all have butted out long ago. 2. It was an embarrassing saga then, and the country shouldn’t have to relive it again;
I’m not sure how those two points are unclear/inconsistent/confusing/hypocritical/incoherent or ambiguous.
Rock Robster | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
For the record, Rock Robster and I didn’t consult each other before posting our near identical responses. Weird….
nancy | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
RM..
I couldn’t agree more. I often listen to Sean O’Reillybaugh, and I get a kick out of it. I like to know what folks on the other side of the hall are thinking, and I’m not at all afraid to hear/read it. Because, as you said RM – each side has good and bad points. Those that feel otherwise scare me . . . (no matter whose side they’re on).
Rock Robster | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
Rock,
I have to disagree with you on the fact that the Lewinsky scandle was a private matter.
Clinton had previously been dogged by allegations of sexual misconduct, most notably in regard to an alleged long-term relationship with singer and former Arkansas state employee Gennifer Flowers, and an encounter with Arkansas state employee Paula Jones in a Little Rock hotel room in which Jones claimed that Clinton exposed himself to her. These events were alleged to have occurred during Clinton’s time as Governor of Arkansas. Lewinsky’s name surfaced during legal proceedings connected to the latter matter, when Jones’s lawyers sought corroborating evidence of Clinton’s conduct to substantiate Jones’s allegations
RickMonday | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
R.M.
Dude,
I love Wikipedia too!!
Rock Robster | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
lol, nice isnt it…saves some typing
RickMonday | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
Rock and Nancy,
1. Is there no code of ethics where you work? Could you be terminated for having sex in your office with an intern, even though you would be breaking no law? I said that I don’t think Clinton should have been impeached, but I do think he crossed the line to where it was no longer just his own private business. There’s also the matter of him letting his staff unwittingly lie for him. Again, probably not illegal, but also not the best use of taxpayer money.
2. Isn’t it documented that Clinton was on the phone on several occasions while being attended to by Miss Lewinsky? I guess he was ordering a pizza, my bad.
3. If it’s none of our business, then why has it become an issue in the Democratic primary. It’s not Republicans or Obama’s people raising it, it’s some of the same people in the media who once told us it was none of our business and we should butt out. Now they are telling us that it’s best that we keep the Clintons out of the White House because they’ve already embarrassed us enough. That’s not butting out, that’s making Bill’s sex life a campaign issue.
Dan | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
Dan,
1. If a person works for a private company, then the punishment would be up to the management. They may or may not be fired, they may or may not even be disciplined. Right? Or are you advocating that government should decide matters of personal property now???
And don’t get me started on the President asking his subordinates to lie – or refuse to testify. W has turned that into a disgusting art form . . .
2. I don’t know what happened and neither do you. What I do know is that there are many good pizza places in DC.
3. OK, Dan – please show us where this is all emanating from. Seriously, I haven’t heard much about it. Do you have a link or something?
Rock Robster | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
Are you people nuts or just conveniently forgetful?
Clinton was impeached because he LIED UNDER OATH. Not merely because he had sex with an intern. Show me another President who lied under oath and I will support their impeachment too.
I didn’t want to get into this but I have been called out so here it goes;
I said: “On a somewhat related issue, do you find Chris Britt’s recent bashing of Hilary while he gushes over Obama quite humorous?”
Humorous in that those who just get a big kick out of Britt’s constant bashing of Republican/conservative individuals or establishments, now are faced with watching one of their own get blasted by Britt. Humorous in an ironic sort of way. (He is never funny in any otherwise)
I said: “He is not a journalist, and he certainly is not fair or impartial.”
That was a set-up for the next point that the editors are not fair in only featuring one political cartoonist who is 99% of the time going out of his way to present only one point of view.
Rock-Rob,
Are you purposely forgetting Ted Rall’s presence on the Opinion Page? I would say (and so did many other’s) that his presence cancels out Coulter’s. So with that in mind where is the fairness ON A DAILY BASIS that cancels out Britt’s retarded view of the world? The answer: There is none. The result: slanted Opinion Page.
Anything else I can clarify?
M.B. | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
Rick Monday
You appropriately use the words “allegations” and “alleged” in your post. Whatever did or didn’t happen with Lewinsky does not legitimize other claims outright. It’s scary how these things can snowball.
Dan
So you said that Clinton shouldn’t have been impeached and what he did with Lewinski wasn’t illegal but it is a matter of public interest. You also attempt to compare these matters to the public sector. Would you be comfortable for all such indiscretions to be publicized no matter the perpetrator? A common argument is that the POUSA is accountable to the whole country whereas the CEO of some company isn’t. However, do you really believe that it was Clinton’s actions with Lewinski which affected his leadership or was it the scandal that resulted from its publicity that did? Honestly.
I’m in no way condoning this behavior. It’s morally and ethically wrong and personally damaging. In Spitzer’s case, it did cross the line into illegality. In case you haven’t heard or read the dozens of Democrats who have publicly condemned him, I’ll be the first to say I think it’s reprehensible and disgusting.
nancy | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
M.B.
Have you conveniently forgotten why Clinton was forced to testify under oath? IT WAS FOR HAVING SEX WITH AN INTERN! He shouldn’t have lied, but he never should have been asked.
It will continue to be very difficult to find another President who lies under oath as long as they continue to refuse to take one.
nancy | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
Nancy,
True, I used “alleged”. (actually copied it from Wikipedia). But my point was that the Lewisnsky incident only came about because of investigations into the Paula Jones SEXUAL HARRASSMENT case. If Jones had not brought forth the lawsuit then, I agree, the affair with Lewisnky was none of our business. But, since Bill Clinton lied under oath during an investigation about a sexual harrassment suit, I thought justice was served with the perjury charges and associated penalties.
Whether Bill had other affairs doesnt really concern me, everybody it seems is having one, (although my wife isnt worried about me..she doesnt think I could pick up anyother woman anyway lol), but the fact that he was obstructing justice does concern me.
And between you and me, come on, you know he was messing around with others and probably still is today.
RickMonday | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
M.B .
I’m neither – are you drunk or just conveniently scatterbrained? Unfortunately, your “clarification” lacked precision . . .
You say President Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath. I say he was impeached because of a politically motivated witch hunt that cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and turned up nothing. Don’t forget that the Office of Independent Counsel final report found no evidence of any criminal activity on the part of Bill or Hillary Clinton in the various dealings that fell under the catchall heading of “Whitewater.” No, it wasn’t until that investigation improvised and went after anything that smelled like a scandal that Kenny Starr found anything worth reporting. The entire investigation was a sham – it was partisan from the start, born in dirty tricks and manipulation that began with the first Bush administration. The OIC report itself presented facts that substantiate those claims.
President Clinton should never have been asked those questions in the first place. He shouldn’t have lied, but he shouldn’t have been asked either.
R.M.
You said that “the fact that he (President Bill Clinton) was obstructing justice does concern me.” That he sought to protect himself from politically motivated attacks is one thing – not good, but hardly a matter of national security. How do you characterize W’s obstruction of justice related to the investigation of the Iraq War or the firing of federal prosecutors? I see both of these as much more damaging, yet there has been no hue and cry from the right. Do you think instigating a Constitutional Crisis is good for the country if it’s perpetrated by a Republican???
Rock Robster | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
Rock,
First, you say “that he sought to protect himself from politically motivated attacks is one thing-not good, but hardly a matter of natiaonl security”..true it was not a matter of national security. But, it was under oath. We have a legal system and he tried to obstruct it. Although some of Ken Starr’s investigation was politically motivated, I dont think the Paula Jones sexual harassment suit was for Paul Jones. The fact remains that Clinton lied in a sexual harrassment suit. He had a long history of messing around with people who worked for him and I will not give him a pass for that. It is sexual harassment pure and simple. And I do believe Jones and Juanite Broderick. It fits Clinton’s pattern.
Regarding President Bush’s obstruction of justice in regards to Iraq, I dont know what you are referring to. Please provide more details and I will respond. I dont support obstruction of justice.
Regarding the firing of the federal prosecutors. I still dont understand what the issue is. Whether it is for political purposes or not, those prosecutors serve at the Presidents will. If he wakes up one morning and doesnt like his coffee he can fire them for NO reason. It happens quite often. I dont talk too much about Hillary and Travelgate, but if she wants to fire them, then go ahead and fire them.
Also, I am a believer in the constitution and the office of the president. I dont care too much about the person occupying it. If Hillary wins, I will respect the office, although I personally dont like her.
RickMonday | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
Wow – interesting, albeit confusing comments! Sorry I’m late on this one, although not sure how much I could contribute from a political standpoint. From a family standpoint, I have to agree with R.M. the guy sounds like he is “a scumbag and his wife ought to dump him in a heartbeat”. From an employers standpoint, I’ve had experience on both sides of this coin AND with both private business and government employers. I’ve been asked to fire a subordinate for a relationship with one of their staff and I’ve experienced a spouse having a relationship with someone she worked with and no one lost their job. Its a touchy situation regardless of being elected, private nonetheless and most difficult for the families behind the scenes. Should they both have been fired? And for their unethical behavior or the inappropriate boundary pushing of sexual harrassment in a working relationship?
I can’t disagree with many of the comments regarding differences in interpretations of “ethical” behavior while holding political office. Clearly many have different views of what that means. Personally, it bothers me more to lie about the philandering than to own up to it and try to move on whether its the president, governor, etc…
Joe | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
Rock,
I’ve never advocated that government should decide matters of personal property. Are you saying that Monica was Bill’s personal property? (See how easy it is to twist someone’s meaning.)
Let me ask you a simple question:
If the president of a public university has sex with an intern in his office, is that strictly a private matter?
The women’s studies majors are awaiting your reply.
Dan | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
Nancy,
I’ve never said that every romantic affair should be scrutinized publicly. But when a person in a leadership position engages in a clandestine affair with an underling, his desire to keep the affair secret compromises both his leadership and the organization he serves At that point, it’s no longer a private matter.
That Clinton lied under oath, whether he should have ever been asked or not, is an indication of just how far he would go to keep the whole thing a secret. Clinton behaved recklessly with no regard for the consequences. He deserved to be reprimanded and he was.
Let me ask you this:
Should the policeman who had consensual sex (suspicious, I know, but let’s assume it was) with a hooker in the park have been fired? Afterall, he wasn’t charged with breaking any laws.
Thanks for commenting,
Dan
Dan | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
“his desire to keep the affair secret compromises both his leadership and the organization he serves”
How do you know? Presidents have to keep lots of secrets. I mentioned this before. If Linda Tripp had left her big pig mouth shut, my guess would be that Clinton would have continued on being a great President, with or without the continued contribution of Monica Lewinsky, and none of us would have been any the wiser.
As for the college president, are you assuming he lives in his office or in some portion of that building where presumably he’d have sex with his wife too?
If yes, then sex is acceptable within the confines of that building, the intern is of age and consenting, yeah…I’ll go out on a limb and say it’s nobody’s business. If however, he has a home to go to, he should really take her there since no acceptable form of sex would be allowed in the campus building. Residence in the White House does not prohibit sexual activity.
If Bill Clinton had romanced Monica at a Motel 8, would you still think it’s the public’s right to know, or is it only because it occurred in the West Wing, ostensibly his home? I’ll venture a guess and say that most people would have found that a more egregious offense, since he should be available at the White House.
I think I could agree that if at some point, there was a consensus that Clinton’s ability to perform (as PRESIDENT…geesh!) was actually compromised by his affair, then maybe you’d have an argument for public notification. But I don’t think anyone has accused him of that.
Same goes of the police man. He should have taken her to a hotel. I think I’ve heard that you’re a policeman 24/7, but they actually do work shifts, so he should have had an opportunity to rendezvous off the clock, unlike the President.
And didn’t the woman report that money did change hands, although it’s being disputed exactly what for? Could be solicitation, but I wasn’t there and it’s none of my business.
nancy | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
Man, those rose-colored glasses are powerful things.
M.B. | Mar 13, 2008 | Reply
Yeah, when Rob got home from teaching late last night I told him “I don’t even believe half the crap I’m spewing out anymore!” It’s always a fun battle of wits though. Or is it a battle of nitwits?
nancy | Mar 14, 2008 | Reply
I’ll chime in on the side of those who are getting a little lost in all of these comments. I am a generally intelligent person, but I am not understanding many of the arguments being made here. There’s passion on both sides of the debate, that’s for sure.
My main issue with the Spitzer thing (I think that’s what the original post was about!) and other cheating politicians that have come before him, is why do they feel the need to drag their wives in front of the press and further humiliate them? Who decides that’s a good PR move (because I assume that’s why they do it), and why? Do they believe that the general public is thinking, ‘well, she’s standing by him so I guess I should too?’ Come on, the look on that poor woman’s face says it all, depsite her bravery in standing with him. I can appreciate the argument of doing it for the children on so many levels, but I think she can be there for her children privately and intimately, without being paraded in front of the press for all to see her very raw pain.
Laura | Mar 14, 2008 | Reply
Is there a way to become a content writer for the site?
Cheating | Mar 18, 2009 | Reply