Saturday, February 23, 2008


Republican Sex Scandals With No Sex

It's not so much a double standard (although that certainly exists) as a run of bad luck. Where the Democrat scandals have plenty of sex (Clinton and Monica; Barney Frank's lover running a brothel from his Boston apartment, Gerry Studds' gay sex with a page; and, Mel Reynolds' conviction of 12 counts of statutory rape), the Republicans have had the sex scandal which threatened or ruined careers, but no sex.

Senator Bob Packwood (R-OR) resigned after being accused by female members of his staff that he came on to them ham-handedly, but didn't get any.

The reason Hillary Clinton seem to be going down and the empty suit Barack emerging as the nominee is because the Borg babe, actress Jeri Ryan, said no to a threesome with her husband. No sex there but the stink of asking his wife for a three way caused Jack Ryan to withdraw from the Illinois senatorial race late and Barack won almost by default.

The notorious Mark Foley, wooer of male pages, who did more to secure widespread Republican defeat in 2006 than any other single person, had to resign for inappropriate letters or email. No sex there.

Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) apparently knew the code for soliciting gay sex in a Minnesota airport bathroom but didn't get any sex.

And now John McCain is accused, kinda, of an affair, or at least an inappropriate closeness 8 years ago by the New York Times (All the really old innuendo that's fit to print). But there's no pictures, no stained dress, no eyewitness account, only straightforward denials of any affair. Again a sex scandal with no sex.

This is getting depressing. I thought there were studies that Republicans had more or better sex than the Democrats, or was it that we're more happy? Same thing.


No, No, Rog.

The studies show that Republicans are like those movies w/ Rock Hudson and Debbie Reynolds that were made in the '50s where the characters sleep in separate twin beds and botton the top button of their PJs.

Whereas I do not deny that Mark Foley did not help the GOP cause in 2006--remember that when a party constantly claims the moral high ground for itself and then flunks the course on morals, it has that much farther to fall. You know, it's a Nemesis follows Hubris paradigm--the GOP was voted out of office b/c the electorate was reacting against the war in Iraq.

Mark Foley was the sex scandal, there were others having nothing to do w/ sex like Randy Cunningham, Bob Ney and the rest of the Ambramoff gang, Tom DeLay, etc.

Who says seperate twin beds are bad? As I recall, we Republicans did not claim the moral high ground although we are more religious than the left. For every indicted and convicted Republican you can name, I can name a Democrat, so don't go all high and mighty on me about that. The corruption seems to have spread pretty evenly away from the center aisle.
I think several percentage points in all the polling you are relying on to peg, wrongly, the Republicans' fall in 2006 on the war were supporters of the goals of the war who were angry at the poor way it was being handled. I wonder what the polls say now, or more importantly, what they will say in early November. Any buyer's remorse re Obama, yet? Any bets whether DeLay actually ever goes to trial? Is convicted? Any bets on whether the LA representative with $90K in his fridge (Jefferson? his name escapes me) is convicted? I'm willing to talk odds on all those.

If you do not think that ever since Little Willie emerged from Big Willie's zipper that Republicans have claimed the moral high ground, then yiu have been asleep for the past 8 or 9 years.

If you do not think that the cumulative effect of multiple scandals, to my recollection only one of which was sexual, in light of the preceived claim or being the party of high morality, did not have more of a negative effvect than it otherwise might have, you are just ignoring the facts.

As for the war, the Bush adminitration promised many things and other than the intial military success, delivered on none. w/ respect to the war, there are three types of people in this country: People like me who knew enough about Iraqi history and culture who understood that the consequences of deposing Saddam Hussein, which was a certainty if we invaded, would never result in the rosy situation promised by the Bush administration and the Neocons; people like you who at best are suffering from terminal optimism about the outcome and consequences of the invasion; and a large percentage of people who trusted the Bush adminitration regarding the reasons behind the invasion and the administration's ability to prosecute the war and promulgate the peace.

In 2006, those people realized they had been sold a bill of goods ans punished the GOP for the mistakes of the president.

You're not writing good history here. As you see me as a terminal optimist, I see you as a terminal pessimist. Time will tell, old friend.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?