<p>After Selene Walters, how could Nancy marry him? 
(Check that: maybe she likes it “rough”.)</p>
<p>“But the only sin among Democrats is being hypocritical.”</p>
<p>No, their biggest sins are being duplicitious, short-sighted, venal, confused, inconsistent, murdering, and…well, being Democrats.</p>
<p>Kluge, to your point in your earlier post, I agree Foley is likely “guilty”, but, my opinion is based soley on his own actions - as some have said, he has not stepped forward to protest his innocence or act in any other way that any innocent person might be expected to act, and, he has resigned without hesitation. </p>
<p>My issue is with email and IM; especially probably with IM. I have simply seen FAR too many circumstances and situations where an email or IM appears to be from one person, but really isn’t. Anyone can temporarily hijack someone else’s identity in electronic media. In my business, we communicate with IM a lot, because everyone travels so much, often to foreign countries, and when we receive an initial IM we do not continue any electronic discussion until we authenticate that the person we think we’re talking to is, indeed, really, that person. Same with email; we password protect everything; we lock all documents, and we’re pretty obsessive about reading email headers and even checking IP addresses.</p>
<p>So when I see that someone is accused of having sent inappropriate email, IM, etc., they can be from any background, political party, etc., I’m going to view it all through the same lens…</p>
<p>mini,
Ouch!
As the bumper sticker says:
“At least we Dems are sexy-
Have you ever heard of a good piece of elephant?”</p>
<p>Allmusic, I obviously cannot say for sure not having spent any time along with Hillary or anyone of her ilk for that matter, but, from this distance, she appears clingy, desperate and very needy. It’s clear that Bill prefers ANYONE else but her. Yet she clings to him desperately. If she had any self respect at all, she would get out of his way and let him have whoever it is he prefers, and find someone else who would honor, respect and value her. I think one of the foundations of “family values” is that there must be self respect first, and, she clearly doesn’t respect or like herself very much. </p>
<p>OR perhaps she has come to the conclusion that it’s more economically and/or politically advantageous to stay together, and perhaps he has concluded that he would look even sleazier, plus lose out on another few years in the WH if he tried to force a divorce decision at this point in their careers.</p>
<p>I’m always surprised in these discussions that I never anything about Newt (running around with another woman while his wife his dying of cancer, and then divorcing her); or Giuliani - carrying on a long-term affair in the Mayor’s Mansion even while his wife and young daughter still live there?</p>
<p>Compared with either of them, Hilary is a member of the angelic host. Now I won’t vote for her because I don’t make it a habit of voting for the wives of mass murderers, but would you call Newt and Rudi’s records of sleaze a tribute to self-respect?</p>
<p>'Course not, Mini, but, Allmusic didn’t write a post about Newt or Giuliani. She wrote a post about Hillary. I’m equally critical of all, regardless of political party. Poor behavior is poor behavior - regardless of the politics, religion, race, etc. of the persons involved.</p>
<p>Hilary is a bit more appalling in my opinion because she shamelessly chases and clings to a man who does not want her, and who does not respect, value or honor her, although he may well be very willing to use her, so long as it serves his interests.</p>
<p>LTS:</p>
<p>Read the recent issue of NYer, which has a lo-o-ng and critical article about Bill Clinton. It’s very well done. Clinton in all his failures and his greatness. One thing that David Remnick concludes, after exhaustive research, is that e Bill and Hillary have a real regard for each other. It’s not a phony marriage. He DOES want her.</p>
<p>“Course not, Mini, but, Allmusic didn’t write a post about Newt or Giuliani. She wrote a post about Hillary. I’m equally critical of all, regardless of political party. Poor behavior is poor behavior - regardless of the politics, religion, race, etc. of the persons involved.”</p>
<p>So, if that’s so, how come I’ve never seen you write about Newt and Rudi? Aren’t they both testing the waters to run for Prez? (Excuse me if I’m wrong, but never, as far as I can remember, and that it is pretty much true of everyone in this forum.)</p>
<p>Relax everybody.
Eat more prunes. But do so in moderation. Everyone will feel much better.</p>
<p>
And you know this how? I’ve known couples who survived one or the other (or both) spouses fooling around on the side, and I can honestly say that at least some of them, from my personal knowledge, respect, value, and, yes, love each other. I recognize that you’ve completely bought into the “Clinton as epitome of all things bad” mantra of the right, but don’t you think this last comment was just a little over the top?</p>
<p>Itstoomuch, I feel fantastic, although, I am eating bananas and peaches tonight instead of the steak I’d really prefer, on account of someone HOT is coming back in town next week, and I’m the priority on his calendar, and I intend to look stunning.
</p>
<p>Mini, at the end of the day, I don’t care what anyone does or does not do in their marriages, or in their choice of partners. Hillary hits me in a bit of a different way, though - she’s a member of my gender, AND has a least a slight chance of being elected the first woman president. Now, I don’t care if we ever get a female president or not, and, I don’t really care how many of them we have over time. But just because it matters, I’d really like it if the first female president had just a little more class, quite a bit more elegance, and at least SOME self respect. To me, she’s an embarrassment as a female and humilating to have her in my gender group. He treats her like a sperm recepticle - because she ALLOWs it. </p>
<p>Faraway, I think there are times he might actually want her - sort of like how one might “want” their drycleaning - necessary to have clean clothes hanging in the closet, satisfying to wear, but otherwise burdensome.</p>
<p>Did Newt’s and Rudy’s wives have political aspirations of their own? In the opinion of some, Bill and Hillary each saw in each other a helpmate in their individual political ambitions right from the beginning. It appears that not much has changed in their relationship to this day.</p>
<p>No, Kluge, I do not think it was over the top at all, if anything, I was reserved and understated my thinking. In my opinion - which I realize may be worthless to anyone or everyone else - a wife does not allow herself to be treated that way. This was not just some “affair” - she was publicly, globally humilated. And she knew it had to happen eventually - after all, Bill has been seeing other women for a long time, if any of the news is correct. And she deliberately remains with a man who treats her this way. Fair enough, if that’s what she wants to do, she has every right to do exactly that. And who knows, maybe they’re both enormously satisfied and deliriously happy this way. </p>
<p>But in my world, women do not permit others to treat them in that manner - and if someone does, the proper recourse is to retire the relationship, and gracefully walk away. And hopefully find someone who doesn’t seek to sleep with other people. But Hillary doesn’t do this - she stays with Bill. Fair enough - it’s her life, her call. But she cannot expect someone like me to even consider voting for her. Even if she were republican I still wouldn’t vote for her.</p>
<p>I haven’t been following all of this thread, but I think that Berurah’s last post (#99) is right on the money. </p>
<p>Narcissism no doubt fuels a lot of the ultimately self-destructive behavior that one sees time and time again in politicians from both parties. What else could account for recklessness on such a stupefyingly monumental scale? Only someone whose sense of himself and what he could get away - whose sense of entitlement - was so inflated as to blind him to the risks involved would think that he could engage in the sort of behavior that Foley did without putting himself in jeopardy. Only someone, that is, who, like Narcissus himself, was so “entranced by his reflection in the pool” that he was unable to see beyond himself.</p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissus_(mythology)[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissus_(mythology)</a>)</p>
<p>It’s almost a thread-jack to bring this up now, but:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>is absolutely not true. Not only did top Republicans tolerate this behavior for months, the Republican party was working actively to get him re-elected, knowing that he would have continued access to pages.</p>
<p>In fact, the only entity on the Hill that this was reported to, when the boy and his parents initially complained, was the Republican Campaign Committee: not the Ethics committee, not the Capitol Police, not the FBI, not even the House members themselves–the campaign committee. What does that tell you about where their interests were?</p>
<p>I don’t know anyone who’s been a page, but I’d assume that many of the kids who put forth that kind of interest and effort in government hope to have careers in politics, and at the very least are hoping to get a decent letter of recommendation out of it. It’s chilling. Whatever political aspirations these young men had are gone. And who knows how many others kept quiet because they were afraid of what a powerful Senator would do to them if they came forward?</p>
<p>I don’t see how anyone in good conscience could have been working and directing money to continue a situation where this man had power over young men.</p>
<p>And if she walked away, people would have said, oh divorced</p>
<p>you wouldn’t vote for a woman who stood by her man…who privately worked out her marriage></p>
<p>No one has ANY right to decide what a couple should do if one strays…it is not my call, or LTS call</p>
<p>Would it be better if she dumped him? Has he lately had ANY rumors of seeing other woman?</p>
<p>THe arrogance of saying I wouldn’t vote for someone who kept her marriage together DESPITE it all is astounding to me</p>
<p>Yes he was a jerk…should Laura have dumped Bush for being an alcoholic?</p>
<p>And if a man beat his wife or kids, leave, but there is something to be said for trying to work it out…and forgiveness</p>
<p>But maybe I value marriage and think people deserve second chances if they see the errors of their ways, and we have NO IDEA what happened behind closed doors</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>EXACTLY!!!</p>
<p>When you try to view the egregiously reckless behavior of some of these politicians through the lens of “normalcy,” it cannot be done. As epistrophy points out, some of the behaviors bespeak an incomprehensible sense of entitlement and a bewildering (by normal standards) notion that the perpetrator is somehow not bound by the rules and mores to which the rest of us adhere. Moreover, when you attempt to call attention to the impropriety of their “sins,” they either simply deny them ("I did <strong>NOT</strong> have sexual relations with “that woman”) or they react with such a vicious narcissistic rage that few dare to challenge them. IMHO, pathological narcissism is <em>the</em> biggest issue in politics, both in our country and on the world stage. ~berurah</p>
<p>In the Duke lacrosse case thread, I suggested (a few thousand posts ago) a rather simple solution if one’s overriding goal was to reduce the crime rate as much as possible: eliminate males.</p>
<p>In a similar vein, I think that the most straightforward way of reducing narcissistic acting out among politicians would be to enact a new amendment to the Constitution - one that would bar men from holding elective office. While I don’t think that females are entirely immune from such behavior (or, I hasten to add, a whole array of other problematic behaviors), I think that the sort of narcissistic grandiosity - and resulting recklessness - that has been displayed with dismaying frequency by politicians is, for the most part (and I say this as a male), a guy thing.</p>
<p>I disagree, Epistrophy. I can think of plenty of corrupt female politicians. </p>
<p>On the other hand, narissistic females are more likely to get into trouble for financial misfeasance, such as misappropriation of their campaign funds. They don’t seem to have a problem reining in their libidos. </p>
<p>I did just read recently that too much testosterone destroys brain cells – which goes a long way to explaining why the males seem so prone to wreck their lives and their careers chasing after a little nookie.</p>
<p>Well, I think a big part of the problem is the way males are being raised in our society.</p>
<p>It’s pretty significant that Jerry Fallwell said that Hillary Clinton would raise more opposition from his constituents (we can’t really call them congregants anymore) than Satan himself. It says a ton more about Fallwell and his followers than it does about Hillary, that they are more threatened by an intelligent, articulate woman than by Satan.</p>
<p>To me the big problem isn’t so much the narcissists themselves, as it is the narcissists by proxy–the people who buy into the narcissist’s belief that he’s entitled to whatever it is, even abusing children. There have been no shortage of them in this situation, from the politicos who knew what was going on and acted to perpetuate Foley’s access to children, to the people who write posts saying, “He shouldn’t have to resign over this”, “it’s insignifant”, etc.</p>
<p>Once you decide that the rules shouldn’t apply to someone you like or support–and mirror that back to the person–whether it’s a family member, a politician, a rock star, a college athelete, or whomever, you’re helping to create a much bigger monster.</p>