Nevada Senator John Ensign today disclosed that he'd had an extramarital affair with a campaign staffer. This will make for plenty of interesting water-cooler gossip, particularly since Ensign has a penchant for calling on people to resign for various and sundry moral and ethical lapses -- notably Larry Craig, Bill Clinton and Ted Stevens (but not David Vitter).
It seems unlikely, however, that Ensign will resign himself. Although Nevada's governor is a Republican and could appoint another Republican to replace him, that would nevertheless trigger a special election in 2010, when Democratic incumbent Harry Reid is also on the ballot. Nevada Republicans have a very poor bench right now and are already having trouble recruiting a credible candidate to run against the unpopular Reid. They might have a lot of difficulty retaining Ensign's seat in the event of a special election, or alternatively, might compete for it at the price of giving Reid a free pass.
Remember, senators don't have to govern, or to preside over any legislature. They don't have any particular use for political capital, and other than their ability to be re-elected, they don't have any particular reason to popular. That's why Eliot Spitzer resigned and David Vitter (whom many Louisanans seem to have forgiven) didn't. It's why Roland Burris is still in the Senate.
Still, whether Ensign runs for re-election or not, this certainly would seem to give the Democrats a leg up on the seat in 2012, a cycle in which they'll have few other opportunities to play offense as they try to defend the gains they made in 2006. And Ensign's is a valuable seat at that: only one state more Democratic than Nevada currently has a Republican senator. That's Maine, which has two of them. But whereas Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe are moderates, Ensign is a staunch conservative who chairs the Senate Republican Policy Committee.
6.16.2009
Don't Expect Ensign to Resign
@ 7:52 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
73 comments
Ensign is just another Republican hypocrite who was frolicking between the sheets with the wife of a staffer while we was acting as morality policeman in the Senate. However, like Vitter, the Republicans need the numbers and Ensgin looks like a Senator (great hair) and has a sharp name. And he votes "no" along with the rest of them. So. he'll stay.
Snowe and Collins are going to be around for forever it seems, but Ensign, like Grassley in Iowa is a hard line conservative in a swing-to-liberal state kept around by the power of incumbency. Hopefully this will cancel out that advantage and the people of Nevada can make an unbiased choice about what kind of senator they'd like representing their interests in Washington (which I'm guessing would either be a much more moderate republican or a democrat.)
Why is this such a big deal? Larry Craig and Ted Stevens broke the law. As for Clinton, he has had countless affairs so it is a bit different. When he's up for re-election in 2012 or whether he runs for the presidency in that year, this will be old news. It is Nevada, after all.
But "what happens in DC stays in DC" -- he will have a rep as a hypocrit forever there.
wv:dompast (pretty good description of Ensign)
It's not a big deal. It's just Democrats salivating at the thought of capturing a seat.
Look, I don't care what politicians do in their personal lives. Barney Frank shouldn't have run a brothel out of his apartment and Ted Kennedy, well, shouldn't have acted like Ted Kennedy.
Dems probably are going to need to find a break in 2012 though. Tester might be in trouble. McCaskill might be in trouble too (remember that MO fought back against the blue tide last year). Even Webb is not a sure bet, although VA has shifted considerably lately. But expect challenges to Sherrod Brown in Ohio too. And Byrd is no spring chick in a state that has gotten rapidly redder in the 2000's.
I highly doubt Tester is in trouble because MT is also rapidly bluing and Obama is going to make that his number one flip porspect accoding to PloBuffe, MO was much bluer than people expected it to be in 2008 at the begining and the ne Dem Gov won EASILY to say the least. Also, Robin Canahan is the number one pick up oportunity for either side in 2010 so I don't see MO as a problem... Webb also won by a landslide and I highly highly doubt he will even face a serious challenger...
Brown probably will face a strong challenge but I think Ohio is pretty blue state... As far as WV is concerned it will most likely just end up with a conservadem like Lincoln... so a loss for dems for sure but not so bad...
2012 the Dems are going to pay hella defense, they will be riding Obama's coattails the entire damn time. He will have to carry their backs all over the country
The big question in my mind is whether or not Mrs. Ensign will be joining him at his presser to share in the humiliation we hope he feels. Will she be the long-suffering spouse of the north-bound end of a south-bound horse.
I dunno, Derek. We'll see. That seems awfully rosy.
For one thing, I wouldn't extrapolate party preference from a governor's race. After all, you don't hear too many Republicans excited about their prospects in Connecticut and Vermont.
Robin Carnahan isn't running in 2012 and it's hard to see how Ohio can be considered anything other than a swing state when Obama did worse there than he did in Virginia, a state that hasn't gone blue in 44 years.
You might have a point about MT, but had Conrad Burns not been indicted (and later cleared), Webb would have never won. The national mood is going to dictate whether or not he hangs on. I frankly don't see how a Democrat wins the state's electoral votes in a presidential contest when the Republican base is energized as much as it was in 2004, and likely will be after 4 years of total Democrat control. George Bush won 20,000 more votes in the state than McCain did. Those conservatives are bound to come out of the woodwork sometime.
It's really all guesswork at this point, but it will be an interesting couple of years.
Er...had Burns not been indicted, TESTER wouldn't have one.
Oops.
Nearly everyone leaves off the list of cheaters Newt Gingrich who carried an affair while his wife got Chemo in the hospital and served her with divorce papers to her hospital bed. At least John Edwards wasn't that crass.
I continue to be amused by this site and its constant chatter about this or that state getting "bluer". (Montana?) Virtually ALL of this is the product of national swings. When the GOP begins to recover, states like MT, Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina, Nevada, suddenly won't seem so purple, or whatever. Believe me, it wasn't long ago that blue states like Penn, Wisconsin, and Michigan were supposedly about to go red.
By the way, if Dems can hand on in red states like SD and AK, why can't a republican hang on in Nevada?
Jeff,
Exactly right. Once the pendulum shifts back to the right (and it will, sooner or later) the Dems are going to find that they are overextended in a hell of a lot of places. Especially in the House. There is a big chunk of real estate in Upstate NY that will trend back. Even as Obama won the state by a landslide, Mike Arcuri barely hung on in NY-24.
It was only five years ago that Wisconsin and Minnesota almost voted for Bush. You can say anything you want about the Hispanic vote or changing demographics - but the demographics alone haven't changed THAT much in four years. The primary change in voting patterns that made WI and MI basically dead even in '04 and strong Obama states in '08 was the defection of WHITE voters from the GOP. It will be a hell of a lot easier to win those votes back before the Republicans make big gains among minorities.
And one surefire way to win back those voters that went for Bush and then "tried something new" with an untested black guy is if that untested black guy isn't up to snuff.
I have no idea whether or not Obama will be perceived as successful or not, but he sure is taking on an awful lot and he's not God. We'll see how the public feels when we see what unemployment is, what gasoline prices are, etc. It's a "known unknown"
Except Adam, this is more than what happens in one Senator's personal life. John Ensign is a staunch family values conservative who demanded both Bill Clinton and Larry Craig resign for their marital infidelities. Unless he does the same thing then he will be called a hypocrite and deservedly so. If this was almost any other politician indulging in an affair I would agree with you. But Ensign believes he's a true conservative and was probably even going to run for president in 2012.
As for the rest of your post about 2012, we'll see. I think Jim Webb will be in trouble. He's a great Senator but not a true politician and not a good campaigner. I don't know about John Tester. Montana is a red state (though it is becoming more blue) but the Republican base is pretty weak and Tester has a conservative-Democratic voting record. Even though Missouri up voting for McCain, it was a close race and Jay Nixon overwhelmingly won the governorship. It's too early to tell how Sherrod Brown will be doing in 2012.
As an Ohioan, I absolutely love Brown, but he is a little too liberal for this state unfortunately. He, Webb, Tester and McCaskill will all have enormous targets on their backs going into 2012. Of the four, I would say McCaskill's going to have the most trouble holding onto her seat, as from what I understand she has not been all that popular in Missouri of late.
Naturally, it is tough to separate out trends from one-off occurrences if you only compare two years (say, 2004 and 2008). However, if you compare a number of years to each other, and control for "wave" effects, then you can see trends. NV, for example, wasn't just luckily bluer...it's been getting bluer as the state has been getting much more urban. MO has been split D/R for years and hasn't moved much. WV has been slowly but surely getting redder. There's little reason to expect that if the GOP does improve in its general standing that it would totally undo a localized trend. If/when the GOP does better, NV gets more competitive, but I wonder if they can undo the long-term trend there. They have seats to pick up in OH, PA, NC, TX...but I think the trend in NV will make it safe for Dems in the middle future (the near future: still close; the distant future: no point in projecting)
I find it amazing that people will cite anything as the reason a state is "turning bluer" or "staying red". The one that takes the cake in this thread (and I'll paraphrase with actual facts) is that
"Ohio voted for Obama (by 4.6%) less than Virginia did (6.3%), and Virginia has a long history of voting for a Republican presidential candidate (um, 0 years now, but previously 44)...therefore Ohio is trending red and a Democratic senator should be exceedingly worried about an election 3.5 years away."
I'm all for laying out predictions for 2012, but this just doesn't make sense.
A state goes 6.7% "bluer" in a presidential contest, and somehow that isn't good enough because a state with 20% black population went 14.5% "bluer". How does this relate to a senator's reelection?
Don't get me wrong- there's lots of pitfalls for Brown. If the economy doesn't improve OH will know it. Brown was elected w/ 12.3% (nearly 3x BO's 2008 win margin) in 2006, and if he can't do enough good work to at least let people know he tried to help them, then he honestly deserves to lose. We'll see what happens.
No one will care about Ensign. The evangelical Christians who run the Republican Party know that the rules are for everyone but themselves.
Larry Craig did politicians everywhere a big favor by walking back his pending resignation as soon as the faux outrage subsided.
It might be a good thing for Republicans if Ohio ceased to be competitive for awhile. Losing Texas for a generation or two certainly seems to have had a good effect on Democrats.
adam—
Conrad Burns was never indicted.
Derek-
Webb's "landslide" was 7,000 votes out of 2.4M. Doubt very seriously he thinks he's not going to have a credible challenger in 2012.
McCasskill won by 49K out of 2.1M. I sincerely hope that she doesn't think she might be in trouble, too. Tester won by 2.5K in an election that was really about his opponent and GWB. He's in trouble regardless of who his opponent is just given MT's demographics and voting patterns.
My larger point is how did a discussion about Ensign and whether or not he'll weather this storm (he will) turn into a discussion about the 2012 election cycle? All conjecture and without knowing 2010 or in the case of Va and Webb- 2009 and our governor's race this year. While I think Deeds was the best demo candidate he is by NO means assured victory. As a NOVA resident this very train of thought that Va is blue leads to complacency and possibly defeat. Let's let the next couple cycles play out before we start not worrying about 2012.
I don't get it: the person he says he cheated with is female, of age, and he didn't have to pay her. Are we sure Ensign is a family-values Republican?
"Losing Texas for a generation or two certainly seems to have had a good effect on Democrats."
Intriguing thought, loner. Please clarify what the good effect has been.
There are some interesting comments in this thread, that are roughly in two camps. One- long term trends (such and such a state is turning bluer) the other is the short term political landscape (when the pendulum swings back to the GOP).
Truth is both have truth in them. Its true that 2006 and 2008 were partly very good Dem years because of the underlying political conditions of a nation tired of a weak/poor GOP President and Congress. But it is also true that population moves and trends have made some states 'bluer'. (The growth in NOVA has helped the Dems in that state for instance.)
I don't quite know that some of the Democratic bombast on the site at the moment is justified. My sense is that We are possibly entering a more Democratic Period in US politics, but I think talking of Dems picking up lots of states in 2010 or 2012 is a bit silly. The Dems could make some pickups in 2010, but they could also struggle to hold some states as well. That being said the GOP doesn't want to get ahead of itself. Just a pendulum swing isn't going to happen by itself. They do have to find ways of appealing to more moderate voters, who deserted them in 2008 and new ways to reach out to hispanics and AA voters.
Whoever mentioned Byrd running in 2012 it`s highly unlikely he is still with us then and if so he can`t possibly run he will be 95.
Tester will probably win easily, Montana likes their incumbents, Bacus has been there for 30 years and he`s a democrat. Virginia is trending blue based on democrathics not politics.
West Va. votes democratic except on the presidential level and possibly Clinton may have taken the state if she was the nominee.
The GOP is going to be a regional southern party with a few plain states thrown in.
Demographics are against them and unless they moderate they won`t win on a national level.
@Adam:
Barney Frank shouldn't have run a brothel out of his apartment...
That's a Republican talking point, which simply isn't true. Barney Frank didn't "run a brothel out of his apartment."
Markymark,
Fair analysis. The GOP does need to retool, but the pendulum swing has a certain momentum of its own. Why? For two reasons: voters don't love one party rule, and particularly dominant one party rule. No fillibuster, no opposition amendments in the House, overly speedy confirmations, etc. A certain aura of corruption hangs over a dominant party. A party with that kind of power naturally looses the "moderation" and "check-balance" arguments to their opponents. Secondly, one party domination tend to hang the party's more extreme profile around the necks of all of its members. It's fine for Landrieu and Nelson to say "I vote conservative" when the GOP is in power and their fundamental democratic credentials don't matter much. But when their votes are supporting a broad liberal majority, and are neither effectively aiding the conservative cause nor deflecting the liberal agenda, that argument wears thin. Conservatives in both parties will want the real McCoy. It's not that these more rightwing democrats can't continue to vote conservatively, but that their vote no longer seems to matter. One would naturally expect the MANY Dem senators in blue states to eventually fall as the Dems are forced to make policy choices. Witness their total paralysis on health care and cap and trade.
As for Ensign, shame on him. But the Dems love this hypocrisy argument a bit too much. Did I miss it when Clinton and other Dems came out in favour of adultery? Wasn't Clinton a total hypocrite on the issue of workplace sexual harassment. And as for Frank, he didn't run a brothel out of his own apartment, but his pimp boyfriend did. All while his friend Gary Studds was committing statutory rape and going completely unpunished (Studds is now described as a "pioneer" by media like NPR). He went far beyond Foley, but is still some sort of saint among liberals. Now that's hypocrisy.
Jeff, I don't wholly disagree except that the pendulum's swings are not an easy thing to discern. You say people don't like one party rule, well they didn't mind 14 years of it at least during the FDR, Truman era. Democrats wailed in the late 80s that there was a Republican lock on the White House. I guess my point is that the pendulum doesn't just swing of its own accord. If Obama continues to be popular, if the Congressional Democrats get off there backsides and help out a bit, then the Democratic Party [i]could[/i] maintain a long term majority. I think that actually a case could be made that the pendulum is more of a long term thing, and we are just coming off the end of a long period of Republican advantage. If Obama is sensible but radical over healthcare reform, and if the economy recovers then you may well see a real long term Democratic majority emerging after 2010-2012.
To be sure. But the GOP "dominance" and FDR's were two very different things. That the Dems may enjoy something like the former I think plausible. The latter? Not a chance. And the point is that the "GOP" dominance included a majority of years in which the Democrats controlled the legislature, or at least the House, and also included a two term Democratic president. The only countercase people come up with on this site is FDR, but that is wildly optimistic. (By the way, even then, the GOP had one 1930s election in which it won more that 80 house seats, and they came very close to knocking off Truman. This from a nadir of something like 25 Senate and 80 House seats.)
I think GOP leaders should call on John Ensign to resign. Not for the reason that he is a hypocrite who campaigns on other peoples' immorality all the while stepping on Darlene. (That's her name. She does exist as other than just "Ensign's wife".)
No, he should resign for the good of the party. He's up for re-election in 2012. Now, the comments here have been prognosticating about states being redder, bluer or purpler. We've analyzed governor's races, presidential returns, even Harry Byrd's health, but we really only know one thing about 2012. It is a presidential election year. And that means a high turnout election.
If the GOP is going to win Senate races in NV, they need those transient former New Yorkers and Californians and Michiganers in Vegas to stay home on election day. They also need big turnouts in NV-02, especially among religious conservatives and Mormons. That situation may very well happen in 2010, which is why Reid is facing a difficult fight. But it's unlikely to happen in 2012, when Obama will be on the ballot.
If Ensign resigns, the GOP governor can appoint a handpicked successor, designed to win in 2010, such as Dean Heller (US Rep from NV-02), Sharron Angle (who is considering a run against Reid), or Bob L. Beers (popular with casino workers, organized labor and a white guy endorsed by the NAACP). Any of these would be stronger candidates than Ensign. Beers would have a really tough time getting through a GOP primary, so I would suggest appointing him to Ensign's seat, and running Angle against Reid.
This is, I think, the most likely path to the GOP holding both senate seats in NV. How likely is it to happen? Well, it would require GOP voters to support a moderate and a woman. Yeah, and shortly after that hell freezes over. Sigh.
He should not resign. He had an affair. He ended it and apologized. He's human. We need more humans as politicians.
John Ensign is a veterinarian. Is "Neuter and Spay the Only Way"?
See:
http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/john-ensign-promise-keeper/
.
So, wait... You're saying Republicans are hypocrites? Wow! That just upset my whole world-view! Gimmee a second, here... I mean, I've always taken them as high moral examples: Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, G. Gordon Liddy, Ollie North, Dubya... To whom will I turn for moral guidance, henceforth? Is Jimmy Swaggart still on the tee-vee machine? I need me some spiritual JUJU!!!
Or, I could just follow this blog, as I advised my blog-worshipers to do: This blog has won a Cosie Award this month. Thanks for your hospitality, also.
.
Ensign should (but almost surely won't) resign just for the fact that he has called others to resign for infidelity. That's what makes him the hypocrite.
Michael—
The Democrats made one last attempt to win the Presidency with Texas (no Democrat had ever been elected since Texas was admitted without the Texas electoral votes) in 1988 and then gave it up. Since that time each Democratic nominee has pursued a different electoral strategy and even the ones that didn't quite result in victory also didn't prove to be an embarrassment, though Gore's strategy was novel to say the least.
In the current political environment, I think Republicans are going to have to experience their own version of 1988 (2016 most likely) before the pragmatists are able to regain control of the nominating process. Right now the party is fragmented with regard to foreign policy and exclusionary with regard to fiscal and social policy. My guess is that "the base" will determine the nominees in 2012 and 2016 and, if that does turn out to be the case, they’ll most likely lose Ohio by increasing margins and, as no Republican has been elected without carrying Ohio since the party was founded, those elections.
I’m not prepared to hazard a guess as to when Republicans will next take control of either the House or the Senate, but I long ago concluded that both parties would be contesting and winning elections long after I’m gone provided the Constitution of the United States of America was still the law of the land. Unlike some, I think the odds that it will be have increased, under the stewardship of both parties, since I started voting for President back in 1976.
Why is this such a big deal?
The reason it is a big deal is that he is a prick who condemns the very thing that he does. Hypocrites rile people up.
It just shows how extremists are just self-loathers. Look at what these extreme right wingers rails about and that is what they are doing. See also: Newt Gingrich, Vitter and Limbaugh.
It is like O'Reilly writing about being moral and railing against racists.
I fully expect James Dobson to be caught in a orgy with about 10 male prostitutes.
So what I've learned from this comment stream is that the GOP never nominates moderates for the Senate, or for President (McCain?), can forget picking off any incumbent Dem senators because they are all popular and safe in perpetuity, has no shot of winning Ohio in the near future, has no "top tier" candidates in places like Virginia to take on morons like Jim Webb (who is apparently "top tier".) Only in this echo chamber are the Testers, Reids, McCaskills, and Bidens of this world considered unassailable 'statesmen', destined for perpetual office. These fools will drop like ninepins if the economy doesn't pick up. Read the horserace tea leaves all you want, if the economy doesn't pick up and fast, the Dems are holding the bag.
Pure idiocy. Smart money is betting on big time inflation next year, which will blow all of this analysis out of the water. So will 9-10 percent unemployment. So will tax increases. Ain't governing hell.
Jeff,
Of course its also true that the Democrats created a very wide coalition in the 30s and 40s, that included Northern Liberals, and Southern populists, (many of whom would nowadays probably be social conservatives).
I think we are roughly in agreement, and I think shifts in the sand happen all the time, I wonder if we will see an FDR style dominant coalition for many many years. I wonder if the nation isn't too moderate, but yet too partisan for that kind of coalition building.
Beavis,
While were onto political hypocrisy, how about liberals who don't pay their taxes, make a killing on Wall Street, and champion public education for everyone except their own kids? And as for sexual impropriety, I guess I missed it when the Dems came out in favor of it.
Well, he resigned from the Senate Republican Policy Committee. So that's a start.
Beavis,
Come on. Your defense for serial sexual miscreants like Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton is that they aren't "extreme family values" types? Seriously, what he hell does that phrase mean? What are "extreme family values" and whose opposed to them? Obama? Hardly. Ensign has an affair while separated from his wife and you jerks are all over it. Your party elders rape and pillage their way through staffers like Roman Emperors and its all good. The real hypocrisy are those liberal champions of women's rights who trashed and destroyed the victims of Bill Clinton.
Charges of hypocrisy, by the way, are a classic ad hominem argument - i.e., to suggest that Ensign's "family values" are wrong because he failed to live up to them is a logical fallacy of an elemental kind.
Loner, you wit slays me.
It's STILL the economy stupid.
Talk of 2012 is nothing but blather. The entire country shifted left, hard, because of the failure of the Bush administration and his unthinking flock of republican sheep (congressmen/senators). Now the dems are in charge, and I for one am quite happy about that fact... but if THEY are percieved as failures than the country will shift back. If the democrats are percieved as successful, then they will continue to gain.
Any election in an even remotely "swing" region in 2012will be decided on the success or failure of the government over the next 4 years. If the economy is booming then Nevada will elect democratic senators... if the economy drags for the next 3.5 years than Nevada will elect republican senators. If the issue is debatable then the election will be a toss up.
duh.
The real hypocrisy of the right is that they attack Dems for being hypocritical ALL the time. They attack Gore for having a large house that must use a lot of electricity, they attack Edwards, indeed any wealthy Democrat, for being rich and yet talking about 'two Americas' ow whatever, and yet as soon as the hypocrisy light is turned on them, its like hypocrisy doesn't matter. Its one thing conservatives do that really grates with me.
By the way, if Dems can hand on in red states like SD and AK, why can't a republican hang on in Nevada?
One could. After all, there are two Republicans doing quite well in Maine.
However, the Democrats in Arkansas, Alaska and Montana are moderates. So are the Republicans in Maine.
So they're purple politicians in red and blue states. Ensign isn't a moderate so he's a red politician in a state that's turning blue.
The sanctimonious behavior you liberals display on here is really nauseating. Especially you, beavis. You really need to get a job or a hobby or do something that allows you to vent and release all of that pent up anger and willful ignorance you display.
Ensign may or may not resign, but at least he won't be pushed like the way Obama shoved out the Inspector General who oversees how community organizing money is spent.
http://tinyurl.com/ljep8j
Hmmmmm . . . .
Bit of a hot button there.
Recall the Liberal outrage over the firing of some Bush Admin US Attorneys for supposed political reasons.
Now where is the chorus of protest?
There is none.
Just like no one cares about the tragedy of millions being unemployed, with the media putting a lid on stories relating to the misery of the poor and the millions of children who go hungry daily (such things are unthinkable in Obama's Amerika), so it is with Obama and his politically-motivated firing of this IG.
Just thought you might want to be reminded of the hypocrisy of the present administration.
petekent01 (on twitter)
Yes, let the Democrats lecture on values and virtues, even though every liberal and Democrat defended Clinton's cheating.
No hypocrisy there.
Let's also forget the likes of William Jefferson, who refused to resign when caught with bribe money in his freezer.
Let's forget Alcee Hastings as well. He's a regular gilded lily.
Shall we talk about Conyers and his wife? Please say yes...
Sorry Pan, but I haven't seen ANY Demnocrat lecture on values and virtue. Unlike people who lectured about the morality of Clinton, Ensign among them. And thats kind of the point. Its not the cheating, its the hypocrisy. I doubt that too many Democrats care too much if Ensign resigns/resigned from anything, they are just enjoying the irony of seeing the sanctimonious Ensign squirming.
Look I honestly don't see these sorts of procliveties as party political issues. Liberals and conservatives both cheat. History tells us that. But the Democratic Party hasn't built its support on 'family values' social conservatism. As a liberal, I could care less what a person does in there private life, who they sleep with, heck what they sleep with [kidding, kidding!] But the GOP has based its message on marriage, and gay bashing, and morality. They made the rules that Ensign seems to be breaking on this one.
Ain't nothin' in the world worse than a bunch of faggot nigger atheists who espouse philandering among the voters!
Glad I'm with the GOP! The party of straight white God-fearing folk who promote family values.
Exactly, markymark. Most Democrats found Clinton's affairs disgusting and a lot of us didn't understand why Hillary didn't divorce him. Do you remember that when MoveOn.com started, it was "Censure and Move On"? We felt Clinton deserved to get a reprimand or censure. We believe that impeachment and removal from office should be reserved for crimes against the Constitution, not lying to cover up a mere adulterous affair between consenting partners. A personal crime would have to be very severe - such as an indictment for rape or aggravated assault - to be impeachment-worthy. And in case you Republicans forgot, your party paid politically for that stupid witch-hunt.
Jeff, I reject the accusation that the charge of hypocrisy is ad hominem. I object to claiming to base one's politics on judging the personal sexual morality of consenting adults because it's meddlesome, self-righteous, and also tends to be a cover for other policies (favoring the rich over the poor, the big corporations over small businesses and individuals, support for imperialist killing, and lately, support for torture and impunity for war crimes) that I find immoral in terms of public morality. But do not judge lest you be judged. If you base your career on judging the personal sexual behavior of others, it is entirely right and just for you to be judged when you run afoul of your own standards.
I cannot believe how quick people are to criticize Republicans and say they are hypocrites. The Republicans believe in family values and marriage between a man and women, the family values do not apply to sex. Sex is an entirely separate subject with a different value system and the Republican Party has just been unclear and misunderstood.
There is apparently is nothing wrong with sex under any circumstances, married or not, gay or straight. While some people may think that this violates the marriage vows or the 10 commandments, those boundaries are subject to interpretation and non-specific.
So please give these Republicans some credit for pragmatism and being flexible, they are clearly showing that they support the middle.
The most surprising thing about the Ensign affair is that anyone is actually surprised by it. There's good evidence that he had an earlier affair in 2002. Plus, he's a friggin' ex fighter jock who at age 51 still uses gel in his hair! People should have been on this hypocrite long ago.
Good Lord. A refresher for you cool aid drinkers. Bill Clinton broke the law. He perjured himself, by his own admission, and was disbarred. He also, quite credibly, was charged with rape by at least one woman and vile sexual harassment by others.
Jeffy said...
He also, quite credibly, was charged with rape by at least one woman and vile sexual harassment by others.
Well, gee, Jeffy.
Richard Jewell was 'quite credibly' accused as being the bomber in the Atlanta Centennial Olympic Park bombing. His home, where he lived with his mother, was searched and his background exhaustively investigated, all amid a media storm that had cameras following him to the grocery store.
Guess what?
Richard Jewell was INNOCENT.
Turns out that one of the people who are 'pro-life' created the bomb, set it off, and so was DIRECTLY responsible for the deaths of two people and the injury of 111. Quite an upholding of the concept of 'pro-life', wasn't it? Killing two people?
For your information, the perpetrator of the Atlanta Centennial Olympic Park bombing was one Eric Robert Rudolph, who then went on to set off three more bombs (killing people in doing so) in support of 'pro-life' issues.
He was 'pro-life', yet set off bombs with the intention of killing people? What is wrong with that?
That is ONE example of hypocrisy.
John Ensign is another example of hypocrisy.
Their words preach and proclaim one thing, but their actions are exactly the OPPOSITE.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
.
The Party of "character" and "personal responsibility." HAH!
The Repukelickin's response is always, "Well HE done it toooo!!!" whenever they get caught. Grow up.
.
I wonder about the slice of religious conservative America that has up till now bonded with the republican party, but has had to live through a series of, to say the least, demeaning exposes.
Do they think "I am outraged by these republicans who have manipulated my vote", or do they say "yep, he is a hypocritical POS, but at least he is MY pos" and keep voting hte same way ?
Jeff, lying under oath about a mere adulterous affair is simply not a type of crime that either debilitates someone from functioning successfully as President or rises to a level of moral turpitude that anything close to a majority of the American people felt deserving of impeachment and removal from office. I'm sure the next time a Republican president does that, you'll call for his/her head, right? Actually, for the good of the country, I hope you wouldn't, but it would be inconsistent if you didn't. As for mere unproven allegations, those aren't sufficient, either. Impeaching a sitting president and removing him/her from office amounts to annulling the results of a nationwide election (or, technically, 51 simultaneous elections). If you truly want to remove presidents from office for anything less than crimes against the Constitution (e.g. Watergate, Iran-Contra) or truly severe felonies (murder, rape, aggravated assault - and not mere unindicted allegations - or the cocaine-dealing equivalent of Harding dealing millions of dollars of alcohol out of the White House during Prohibition), I can only say that your point of view, if adopted, would be dangerous to the Republic. (Sorry I'm having trouble thinking of impeachable offenses committed by Democratic presidents; I really don't mean to be partisan here.)
I will gladly go on record, too, as being strongly opposed to David Vitter being removed from office by the Senate Ethics Committee because he patronized prostitutes. I believe prostitution should be legal. However, I hope he has his ass handed to him in the 2010 elections because he's an extremist from my point of view, and a hypocrite. And you'll support him on the basis of "do what I say, not what I do." Fine, he's free to advocate the morality he violates, but the hypocrisy is that creeps like him want to IMPOSE it on everyone else!
Jeff, there really aren't that many people calling for Ensign to resign. Personally I could care less if he does or doesn't. But remember the first instinct of sanctimonious religious conservatives like Ensign, in cases like this, has been to call for resignation. The RR seems very quiet about Ensign.
And personally I am glad that politicians don't resign just for an extra marital affair. If we did, I think Congress might empty rather quickly!
@Jeff:
And as for Frank, he didn't run a brothel out of his own apartment, but his pimp boyfriend did.
Even that isn't really true--or, at least, though it's commonly believed, it's far from proven.
Frank's boyfriend, Gobie, bragged that he'd run a prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment. But the investigation uncovered no evidence of that. Not only could the ethics committee not find anyone to corroborate Gobie's story, but witnesses directly contradicted his testimony--and the phone company's records also proved that at least some of Gobie's assertions were incorrect.
Why would he lie? Why would he cop to illegal activities which were untrue? Simple: he was hoping to get rich with a Mayflower Madam-like book.
Check out Media Matters for the debunking of this slur on Frank's character.
wv: bacati: People who believe a lying pimp have been drinking too many bacatis.
@Jeff:
Your party elders rape and pillage their way through staffers like Roman Emperors and its all good.
Yep, we all know of the wild debauchery of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama.
Your claims about Clinton are exaggerated to the point of being ludicrous. Though many people spent millions trying to prove that he committed sexual harassment (and even outright rape!), no such charges were ever proven.
The point about the hypocrisy of the Republicans is that they play this "family values" card all the time. They cluck-cluck about any instance of alleged adultery on the part of a Democrat, pulling out the morality card at every turn. The Democrats don't run on such issues, they don't claim to be holier-than-thou...so there ain't no adultery there.
OK. I want to make my position more clear. It is perfectly reasonable to say that Clinton should not have been impeached for his perjury. What is not reasonable is to repeat, ad nauseaum, that he was impeached for "a consenting affair with an adult". A consenting affair is not a crime. Perjury is. And while I reserve judgment on whether Clinton was , as alleged, guilty of rape, I think anyone denying that he was a serial sexual harasser is lying to themselves.
As for Frank, count me unimpressed by this defense. But whatever. He was dating a prostitute, that much seems clear.
On Ensign, fine. You want to flay him for hypocrisy and demand his resignation. Go for it. But don't pretend that this invalidates "family values". I suspect the wreck that is the Ensign family is very much an advertisement for the importance of such values. And if "family values" types bear a special responsibility not to indulge themselves, advocates of the "permissive society" bear a heavy responsibility for the disasters that have befallen the family structure in this country.
Finally, all of you who claim that libs only attack "family values" types for moral failings: spare me. Clarence Thomas was flayed alive for a dirty joke; Bob Packwood for pinching a butt; neither of these, not many others attacked by the left, were "extreme family values" advocates. The Dems are perfectly capable of instrumentally using this kind of thing, while excusing it in their own ranks (note how they went after Foley but excused Studds for worse).
A P.S. on Clinton. Again, I was on the fence about his actual removal from office. But be honest with yourself, if a prominent Republican had against him as many credible allegations of workplace sex, sex with subordinates, etc., as Clinton did, all of you libs would have very little doubt that he was a serial sexual harasser.
But that was before the whole feminist, sexual harrassment movement discredited itself by excusing Clinton so shortly after trying to lynch Thomas, Packwood and others. THAT's hypocrisy.
Jeff, note that I am NOT demanding Ensign's resignation. Also, I think infidelity stinks and very much favor people behaving well toward their families in their personal lives. The difference between me and the "family values" demagogues is that I don't believe in LEGISLATING such good behavior or having government officials JUDGE people for falling short of my (or some senator's) personal values.
Bob Packwood did a lot more than pinch one woman's butt. As I recall, he was charged by numerous women in sworn statements of assaultive behavior - grabbing, forced kissing, etc. Note that he was a liberal Republican and major supporter of abortion rights and other women's rights causes, so it was actually against the political interest of liberals and feminists for him to be forced to resign. Compare Brock Adams, though the accusations against him (including actual rape) were far more serious.
As for Clarence Thomas: First, you intentionally distort the record with your at once sensationalized and belittling claim that he was "lynched" (is he dead?) for just "a dirty joke," but that really isn't the important point to me. The point is that he was up for a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT. I think that different standards of behavior should be used in considering whether to confirm an unelected individual for a lifetime appointment than whether to remove a duly elected president from office. I would even say that because a president is much more important for the functioning of government than an individual senator, one could make a strong argument that there should be a much higher bar on removing a president, rather than a senator, from office. I'm not convinced one way or the other on this, but it's worth thinking about. In the end, though, the Senate gets to police its own members, and finally, it's up to the voters to decide what is and is not acceptable. I believe Packwood was merely censured, and could have remained in the Senate and run for reelection, if he thought he could win again.
Settle down there, Jeffy-boy.
And before posting again, you might try doing some research.
Allegations that do not lead to indictments are, by the legal profession and the courts, considered to be fiction.
Your assignment, Jeffy-boy, is to research the meaning of 'allegation' and 'fiction'.
And you might also research the meaning of 'hypocrisy,' as it is becoming very clear that you don't understand the meaning of that word either. While researching the word 'hypocrisy', you might start to understand why the phrase "Do as I say, not as I do" is so ridiculed by many, especially those who have an understanding of the definition of the word 'hypocrisy'.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Michael,
Your indignation not withstanding, you missed the reference. Thomas himself famously claimed that the Senate Judicial Committee was attempting to "lynch" him. On substance, you post leaves a bit to be desired. Thomas wasn't accused of anything even close to as serious as what Clinton was charged with. Period. And for all of this "innocent until proven guilty" defense for Clinton, that doesn't seem to apply for most of you as regards Thomas.
I'm also a bit underwhelmed by the argument that the more power you have the less important it is for you to follow the law. The opposite is closer to true.
Mike in Maryland,
I've avoided responding to lunatics on this blog, so this is my first and last word to you:
You are a reprehensible, mendacious ass.
Yours,
"Jeffy"
Jeff,
It's not very relevant whether or not you're convinced by the defense of Barney Frank or not. The point is that the allegation is far from proved, and thus you should drop it.
Like Mike and Michael and several others, I have not called for Ensign's resignation. You seem to be raising a straw man by raising that purported evidence of libs' hypocrisy.
Re. Clarence Thomas: just because he claimed to have been "lynched" doesn't make it so. And you actually said that he was "flayed alive," a bit of irresponsible purple prose.
All that Clinton ever did was use weasel-words in court to create a misleading impression. That isn't perjury, despite Republicans' hatred of him. Now, he did lie to the American people about it, and I lost a lot of respect for him after that. But many of us (including you, apparently) didn't feel it warranted impeachment.
If libs aren't calling for Ensign's resignation, you can't credibly call them hypocrites for not supporting Clinton's impeachment. Fair?
Jeff, if you really think it's so important for presidents to obey relatively unimportant laws in the scheme of things because they're so powerful, you definitely supported the removal of George W. Bush from office for deliberately lying to Congress in order to get them to approve his unprovoked invasion of Iraq, for violating the Geneva Convention and U.S. laws by approving torture of detainees, and for violating the 4th and 5th Amendments by approving indiscriminate spying on all or virtually all domestic phone calls and emails, right? If you say "No," I have absolutely no respect for you and consider you a transparent partisan hack and disgusting hypocrite of the worst sort.
Matt and Michael have provided us with two further examples of hypocrisy.
Matt has exonerated Barney Frank because the evidence against him was "unproven", but is apparently willing to convict Clarence Thomas in spite of the fact that the evidence against him was "unproven".
Michael wants me to agree that Bush should be impeached for "spying" on American citizens, but seems not to think Obama should likewise fall for the very same policy.
Leaving the heat aside, and on the substance: one can certainly have the view that Bush pushed executive power claims too far (as Clinton did, by the way, and as Obama seems inclined to. It's all "evil Bush" with you people, no systematic analysis). Still, Bush never violated laws for his own personal financial gain or sexual gratification. That was the truly shabby thing about Clinton. We all know, with a moral certainty, that if Lewinsky had had not physical evidence, Clinton would have destroyed her to preserve himself. He is a truly disreputable person: neither Bush nor Obama have such crassness in them. Nor, apparently, and despite his failings, does Ensign, who has at least had the honour to admit his own fault and refrain from the "that woman", finger waving crap.
Nixon wasn't almost impeached because of Watergate. Nay, it was the cover-up of the crimes.
Ensign won't be forced out of office because of his 'marital indiscretions'.
But he may have more problem keeping his seat as a result of the information that is NOW starting to come out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31435742
Not saying he WILL be forced out of office, but could we see a near repeat of history here?
At the very least, this will make it at least somewhat more difficult for him to run for Senator when he's next scheduled to face the electorate (2012), and/or his decision about running for the GOOPer Presidential nomination in 2012.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Jeff, your position is simply absurd. Violating the Constitution by usurping Congressional power in order to break laws by KILLING PEOPLE, which is what GW Bush did, in your opinion is not impeachable, but lying about a consensual love affair is. It's not just spying it's TORTURING PEOPLE TO DEATH and LYING TO CONGRESS TO INDUCE THEM TO START A WAR THAT'S KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND DISPLACED 4 MILLION. To me, your position is _EVIL_. Moral values, indeed!
"It's not just spying" eh? I supposed this new retreat is to cover for Obama, who is also "violating the constitution" on this once important but now forgotten point? That idea that Bush "lied to Congress" is an opinion I don't happen to share - got it? Nor do I think that Bush "tortured people to death". Your stating these things as facts does not make them so.
Michael, you are blatantly partisan, and no doubt think that Bush should be jailed but that Clinton, who pioneered the dark art of rendition, launched a war without UN approval, etc., was AOK. From a conservative perspective, the only benefit of having a Dem in the White House is that it knocks moral preeners like you off their high horse. Obama is facing the same difficult choices that Bush did, on security, the budget, and so forth. And if you think he's going to hold power while acting like some sort of Ghandi, think again.
@Jeff:
Matt and Michael have provided us with two further examples of hypocrisy.
Matt has exonerated Barney Frank because the evidence against him was "unproven", but is apparently willing to convict Clarence Thomas in spite of the fact that the evidence against him was "unproven".
Oh, Jeff...
Where do you see that I'm "apparently willing to convict Clarence Thomas?" I merely said that he wasn't "lynched" or "flayed alive."
I guess it's pretty easy to accuse anyone you don't agree with of hypocrisy, isn't it? You just make up sh1tt, and claim that they said it. If people are ignorant and/or careless enough, you can get away with it.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment