Party of Family Values: Foley Resigns

Parent Cafe
81

<p>Ummm, so, baseballmom, I’m guessing you’re a Republican? Because giving Clinton credit for lowering the morality of an entire generation - most of whom I’m pretty sure were and are oblivious to whatever happens in Washington, whether political or sexual - strikes me as preposterous. And if you’ll skip over to the “Olbermann” thread you can see a partial list of embassy bombings, barracks bombings, plane bombings, kidnappings and hijackings which took place during the Reagan and Bush I administrations as well.</p>

<p>If you take the partisan blinders off it’s an interesting, if complex, world. You can make whatever list you want to add to, but if you have tunnel vision the view will always be what you start with.</p>

82

<p>“Mini, I’m sure you can add to this list.”</p>

<p>Well, my list would start with Jimmy Carter’s support of torture in Iran, the training of torturers in Fort Benning, the sending of torture equipment, and his toasting of the Shah on national tv in November 1977 for support of “human rights”. It would go on to Reagan’s support of Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons (I think there’s a much bigger story yet to be told about indirect U.S. training of Saddam Hussein’s armed forces in their use), and the training of torturers for El Salvador. </p>

<p>You probably don’t want to hear my list… By any measure I can figure out, the very definition of a terror state, only terror used against populations of other nations.</p>

83

<p>kluge-I’m not blaming the Democrats for anything, so my comments are not partisan. Bill Clinton, the man, had difficulty separating his personal sexual desires and activitiies from his professional responsibilities and so did Republican congressman Foley. Equally despicable.</p>

<p>If you think today’s teens aren’t exposed to what’s going on in Washington, you must not think they watch tv, read newspapers, or listen to music or the radio.</p>

84

<p>There’s not a parallel between Bill Clinton/Monica and Foley/page. I remember details about Monica, because she is my daughter’s age. I was shocked at her report that she flirted with Bill at their first meeting, and flipped up her skirt to show that she was wearing a thong! She was hardly the innocent, though that doesn’t excuse Clinton. He should have known how to resist groupies, even when they’re slutty. </p>

<p>Foley took advantages of high schoolers.</p>

85

<p>The global humiliation…because of Clinton’s indiscretions? Don’t make me laugh. The worldwide view of American has plummeted in these past five years, to a much deeper abyss than any of Bill’s blowjobs was able to accomplish.</p>

86

<p>It is political because the house leaders said they didn’t know, but turns out they were told, and knew for months and months and months, so what about oversite and monitoring its members…they told him to stop it…that was it…and he was left in charge of a group that was set up to create laws to protect children</p>

<p>It is political because this man is running in a campaign, using his work in protecting children as a big part of it, and voila, he is doing pretty much what he says he is fighting against- so is it all show?</p>

87

<p>Well, Barney Frank’s lover was running a call-boy ring out of Barney’s apartment. Barney is still a fine, upstanding member of Congress. I guess since Barney himself wasn’t doing it, it was okay. At least Foley has the decency (?) to resign, or his party has the decency (?) to force him out. As for Bill, talk about “having no shame” and “no sense of decency”…if he had any, he would have resigned himself. People who think he’s given one second’s thought to his influence on the middle and high schoolers at that time are seriously deluding themselves. And people who think he hasn’t influenced them are kidding themselves, also.</p>

<p>But the only sin among Democrats is being hypocritical; as long as you’re not hypocritical (hey, it’s Clinton’s <em>personal</em> sex life–who cares if it took place in the Oval Office?) anything goes.</p>

88

<p>Well, HH, I’d say Bush has “no shame” or “sense of decency” since he too should have resigned for his many lies and indiscretions.</p>

<p>I know…a blowjob is much worse than lying the country into war, bleeding the military and budget dry, ignoring constitutional law (which he swore on the bible to uphold), etcetcetc. </p>

<p>Sex is just…so naughty! ;)</p>

89

<p>adult vs non adult</p>

<p>Clinton- adults, though very tacky</p>

<p>if you can’t see the difference, feel bad for your kids- two adults is one thing, a 50 year old man and a 16 year old is very different</p>

90

<p>“But the only sin among Democrats is being hypocritical; as long as you’re not hypocritical (hey, it’s Clinton’s <em>personal</em> sex life–who cares if it took place in the Oval Office?) anything goes.”</p>

<p>Not at all. In addition to hypocracy there are a few other sins - like lying about going to war that results in the deaths and mutilations of thousands and thousands of innocent people, including almost 30,000 dead and injured Americans. </p>

<p>But compared to fooling around with a woman of 24, I guess war really pales, right?</p>

91

<p>I bet Hillary thinks Bill’s sexcapades were more than just “naughty” and “tacky.” She also voted to go into Iraq. Hmmmm…</p>

92

<p>Between H and W, not my business, she forgave him, as many “family values” people should admire</p>

<p>If my H were to cheat, after 20 years together, I would want to keep us together, he would owe me, but yeah, we would work on our marriage instead of just trashing it as some people think everyone should</p>

93

<p>

So if your kids do things you think are wrong, they are “bad kids?” I don’t have any trouble with distinguishing between behavior or actions, and a person’s general character. What I object to in threads like this is the drive to make the disagreements personal. I can disagree with people without demonizing them.</p>

94

<p>Monica was 22.</p>

95

<p>It really interests me how the “party of family values” constantly comes down on Hillary for staying with Bill. She chose to stay with him (whether it was politically motivated or not, I don’t know) and work on her marriage, after a very embarrassing and public indiscretion on the part of her husband. How much easier would it have been for her to walk away and divorce him?</p>

<p>And yet the conservatives are crowing about this, when I thought all of you were for INTACT families. When a woman chooses to stay with her husband, you criticize her? Not very moral value-ish of you!</p>

96

<p>Bill has been scr**ing around on Hillary since they started dating (read First in His Class by David Maranis). Remember that sham Gennifer Flowers 60 Minutes interview? Conservatives were on to her then. The only difference for Hillary was that with Monica she was humiliated in such a huge and public way. It’s not so much that conservatives thought she should have divorced him, as it was that her staying with him was the final nail in the coffin in their negative view of her integrity and honesty.</p>

97

<p>If Hillary had divorced Bill, they’d find a different reason to loathe both of them. We non-conservatives are on to that game.</p>

98

<p>I heard Gen. Wesley Clarke speak last night.
He gave a good succinct description of how Karl Rove has successfully convinced Dems to stay home on election day and has energized the super conservative base.
Those of us who call ourselves liberals have let the right demoralize us and shut us up.
Democrats need to take advantage of situations like the Foley resignation. We need to market ourselves as the party of morals and national defense. We do have good ideas about those issues but have been silenced by the powerful right.
There was an article in the NYT about corporal punishment today. One child was paddled for playing a hitting game, I think it was called “flinching”. To me this is a classic example of a bad outcome caused by a socially conservative view. Why would you ever hit a child to punish him for hitting? This is crazy! The social conservatives have an authoritarian outlook that frowns on understanding and focuses on compliance.
But I think there is a sea change. And we shall see in November.</p>

99

<p>I think that those of you are are perpetuating a discussion of “who’s worse” or more “immoral” are completely missing the mark. The <em>real</em> problem is that the vast majority of high-level politicians, as I’ve mentioned in another thread, could be diagnosed as suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Thus, liberal politicians <em>and</em> conservative ones have an tremendous amount in common in terms of their behavior. </p>

<p>Consider, for a moment, the nine criteria listed in the DSM IV that are used to diagnose pathological narcissism (one must only demonstate FIVE of these to be diagnosable):</p>

<p><a href=“1”>quote=DSM IV</a> has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements) </p>

<p>(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love </p>

<p>(3) believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions) </p>

<p>(4) requires excessive admiration </p>

<p>(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations </p>

<p>(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends </p>

<p>(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others </p>

<p>(8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her </p>

<p>(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Now, is there <em>really</em> a partisan difference here? So, the problem does not lie with either political party per se, but rather with the “nature of the beast,” or those who choose to make a career out of politics. Power corrupts…and POLITICS ATTRACTS NARCISSISTS. Period. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you will cease to be even REMOTELY surprised at the antics of this “very special” group, either party.</p>

<p>~berurah</p>

100

<p>berurah
LOL!
So true. That’s why strong political parties are successful. They do a better job of keeping the politicians behavior in check.
Multiple parties may seem like a good idea for Democracy but it can give the politicians too long a leash.</p>