How many marriages does a Republican have to have to get some attention?
June 25, 2009 9:55 am ET by Jamison Foser
In the wake of Mark Sanford's admission of an affair yesterday, The Washington Post and MSNBC both have features listing "sex scandals" of various politicians.
Somehow, both managed to omit thrice-married former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who led the charge to impeach Bill Clinton even as he was having an affair (with a staffer!) of his own. The Post also left out Bob Livingston, who also admitted to an affair while trying to impeach Clinton, costing him the chance to be Speaker of the House. And the paper omitted Rudy Giuliani, whose wife had to get a restraining order to keep him from bringing his mistress to the mayor's mansion, and who dumped his wife via press conference.
IE.. the GOP = Grand Old Perverts, Gay Old Pedophiles.. etc..
The one that seems most applicable for this particular group that has fidelity issues is "the party of No".
They will say No to obstruct important legislation but can't say No when it comes to a little somethin' somethin' on the side.. Ironic, huh?
Never again should they be allowed to get away with preaching this "families valies" crap.
See, the thing is, we don't think Democrats are pure as the driven snow. We recognize that it takes a certain type of person to be a politician, and that personality type tends to have affairs. We also realize that they are in a position, more than many people, to have an affair because of their work, and lastly, they are more attractive to people who are attracted to celebrities. But the difference between Dems and Reps is that the Republicans claim they are holier than thou. And then they get caught, and for some reason, what was good for the goose isn't good for the gander when that happens.
Has anyone dusted off the old line, "Democrats have no morals, so when they cheat it's not a big deal"? I really hope someone does by today.
So while I'm generally on board with MMA, I think this item might be approaching crying wolf territory.
So while I definitely see MMA's point on this one, I would have to say it's one of their less convincingly argued items.
To not be included in "some of the more notable public embarrassments over the last four decades and how individual politicians weathered the storm" as the WaPo timeline states?
The only politician with a more embarrassing incident that should have been included along with Gingrich, Giuliani, and Livingston would be Ted Kennedy (as you correctly pointed out).
On the other hand, Vice-President Rockefeller (R) who reportedly actually expired while aboard his secretary is absent.
On the other hand, Charlie Wilson (D), who was in constant trouble over sex and drugs and they even made a movie about him, is absent.
Etc., etc.
I'm just saying both sides can play the "but what about...?" game with this one. I don't disagree that Gingrich is as big a piece of scum as this country has ever scraped off the bottom of a rock and should be on at least one of these lists. But in this case, I just don't think his absence proves conservative bias any more than Ted Kennedy's proves liberal bias.
But I'll shut up about it now. The only reason I objected to it in the first place is because with this post it seemed like MMA veered close to the "What Party" posts on conservative sites where they carp about Dems not being identified by news outlets without pointing out that those same outlets also don't identify Republicans most of the time, either. And I hold MMA to a higher standard than that.
MMfA doesn't ever try to prove 'conservative bias'. It's your side's MRC and Brent Bozell that tries to prove liberal bias.
MMfA succeeds in documenting media misinformation that promotes the conservative agenda. Part of that agenda is to pretend that they are the party that owns the right kind of morality. And when they don't name prominent Republicans like Newt Gingrich, Guiliani and Livingston, it doesn't sully those men's reputation like it should.
But it's never been about proving conservative bias. MMfA doesn't try to determine the motive of the newspapers. We posters often do that, but the bosses here don't.
Just because you have a personal affinity for Newt Gingrich does not excuse his extramartial affairs, multiple marriages and hyprocisy.
Again, I am ON MMA's SIDE. But whatever. I guess pointing out an item that seems like they maybe could have thought through a little better before posting makes me Bob Dornan or something.
See, it doesn't matter if you are normally on MMfA's side. What matters is your message.
And what you've shown here is that you were lying all along. And you were only trying to get credibility you didn't deserve by saying you are normally on MMfA's side.
The Washington Post and MSNBC left off some very relevant, current leaders or people of importance in the Republican Party. That makes those people left off the list escape the scrutiny that they deserve.
But at any rate, what have I learned today? Let's see....
Deviate from the groupthink by one inch on any topic and you will be personally attacked as a secret supporter of the opposition.
Dare to ponder the validity of a single item reported by a favored information outlet and your opinion will be attacked and your credibility be denounced.
Thanks. I'm glad all of us here are superior to the Fox News minions and would NEVER, EVER resort to the same sort of tactics that we renounce in them.
Your disagreement with MMFA's post was debated on its merits until you made what I, too, thought was a cheesy claim for credibility. Who cares what side you're on?
I really don't think your comparison of MMFA posters with "Fox News minions" is going to hurt anybody's feelings around here, by the way. LuvLuLu taking issue with concern trolling is not the equivalent of the lot of us demanding that you "march in lock-step."
The only way Chappaquiddick would have made either list of "sex scandals" would have been if someone redefined the phrase "sex scandal."
And here are some more: http://www.armchairsubversive.org/
The Newt, on the other hand, resigned because he literally couldn't face being in the House without being the Speaker any longer. He'd already survived one major GOP coup over his leadership and, after the GOP lost 5 seats, he feared that he would be blamed for the loss.
A lot of people had criticized Gingrich over his hypocrisy (leading the impeachment charges against Clinton on personal matters while having a less-than-solid personal life himself) but that criticism played NO part in Newt's decision to resign.
Dude...Thanks for exposing the depth of your prejudice...Nice use of wing nut stereo types for libs...
Keep it up....until you clowns learn stop demonizing people that see the world differently than you...and stop with the unjustified victim hood...You will remain "in the wilderness"...Where you belong...