—
—
Many others listed at Republican Sex Scandals and Armchair Subversive I’ll incorporate them as time permits. Major H/Ts to Pam and Armchair Subsersive.
Please share widely!
Sexual Hypocrisy: A Republican Retrospective
Reality-based commentary on politics.
…it’s the hypocrisy of a serial adulterer campaigning on “family” values and courting the so-called
bigot, er, values voters. Just like I don’t think Laurel has any problem with Larry Craig having gay sex, but the fact that he has gay sex and runs and votes on a faux “family” values.<
p>
Newt cheated on and ditched his cancer patient wife – do I care? Not really, except for the fuss he made about Clinton.
These members of the so-called party of family values are themselves devoid of family values. Not because they have sex, but because they lie about the fact that they have plenty of it with people other than their spouses. They have made careers by enforcing heterosexuality and the image of the nuclear family. They are hypocrites and deceivers.
<
p>
Peter, can you provide even a shred of evidence that Hillary Clinton is a serial adulterer? No, I didn’t think so.
I find it amusing that both Newt Gingrich (serial adulterer, divorced 3 times, married 4 times) and Larry Craig (bathroom sex solicitor) found the time between their adulterous escapades to reprimand Bill Clinton for getting a blow job. I honestly think they were jealous he was gettin some for free.
he seems to be saying that its ok to be a “bad, naughty boy” but clinton is a “nasty. bad, naughty boy” – what is the “nastiness” that he was going to speak out in the senate about? Perhaps it wasn’t his lust and weakness, but his taking advantage of who he was as president. Craig didn’t pull a “do you know who I am?”, he just tapped his anonymous foot. Maybe that’s bad and naughty, but not nasty?
So please advise – does this mean the Deomcratic Party does NOT care about family values? That they SCORN marital fidelity as a chump’s game? That they NEVER drag the Little Man/Woman along for campaign stops, to demonstrate how happy their family is?
<
p>
OR IS THAT JUST SOMETHING VIRTUALLY ALL POLITICIANS DO? (Heck, even Kucinich tried getting married on the campaigh trail! Not to mention poor Dr. Dean and her attempts not to be hornswoggled).
<
p>
The ‘values’ of the values voters are about abortion, stem cell, parental notification/control, etc. I happen to despise Phyllis Schlafley, but her speech at that forum was a good one – and it didn’t mention marital/sexual fidelity once.
it is almost too painful to watch. almost.
<
p>
as a GOP pusher, you own these creeps, PP. admit it. own up to the hypocritical deceivers in your party.
…I’m sure that you know that your list of Republican defalcations is far shorter than has been reported over the http://WWW. There was a far longer one at DailyKos a couple of years ago.
if you can provide more links, i will incorporate them. thanks.
that has run on a platform of heteronormity and and “family values” a la James Dobson, and i’ll post it.
http://query.nytimes…
<
p>
I’ll check out these new members’ web site, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see – heteronormality, you say? – just awash there.
You’ve found some NRA Dems! Good for you! But you didn’t find them on the crime blotter did you? And they’re not running in lock step with the Dem platform, are they?
<
p>
I retract my offer I made to you above. I don’t believe that you will provide real data in good faith. Feel free to create your own diary. Populate it with whatever wool you think can be pulled over our eyes. There’s no room for such nonsense here.
<
p>
BTW, I’m STILL waiting for that laudatory diary you promised to do on Jerry Falwell. Here, this might help you remember
at the hypocrisy in the republican party. are you saying you see no hypocrisy in the list above? i had to stop adding to it not for lack of names, but because my hand was cramping.
<
p>
and let me ask you EaBo, when did you reduce yourself to throwing out stock troll lines?
Almost 2 days have passed and nothing new on the RMG frontpage. What are you doing slacking off over here?
on this site, hate Amurka. It’s the Amurkin way.
…verbiage such as “hate” when the relevant word (per the Amerikanische Sprache) are disdain, contempt, revilement, and similar words. Hate doesn’t even begin to come into play.
<
p>
If you want to see why the Amerikanische Sprache has gone into decline, see how the wingnuts have laid to its waste.
…stating he should not be forced to listen to Spanish announcements because this is America and compares people living in public housing as “slaves sucking on the master’s teat”. Nice.
<
p>
You’re a one man army of tolerence yourself, Eabo.
The only announcements that night in that station were in Spanish, and if you’ve been to Maverick Station there is official signage only in Spanish. That is the problem I had that evening.
<
p>
On your second point, I stated that liberal democrats treat people in public housing like slaves who are there to serve their masters with votes. I stand by that statement. That is not hate, but an analogy.
Maybe he should go to Europe. Wingnuts in the US seem to get upset that they have to select between to languages (Amerikanische Sprache und Spanisch). In our little village just outside of Munich, when we go to the ATM machines (for the purists, they’re referred to as Geldautomaten) we have to select among German, Italian, French, English, Greek, and Turkish.
<
p>
The poor wingnuts would have heart infarkts.
a private entity such as a bank giving a selection for languages. I would much prefer the programming to be such that if you enter you pin on a first screen you go to english instructions, but if you want another language you press a language button. But it doesn’t truly upset me. In parts of Lowell you can choose between 5 languages, English, French, Spanish, Khmer, and Portugese.
<
p>
I do have a problem with government agencies only making announcements in Spanish over a half hour time frame. Which is what happened that evening.
To say one thing, and do another, is hypocracy.
<
p>
To also attack everyone who you claim is different and less than you, while “under cover” doing the very behaviors you are denouncing, is wickedness. It is not hate filled to point this out at all.
<
p>
It is a kind of moral surgery, to cut lies out of the body politic.
<
p>
To say as you did, deport them one by one, as if lives, lifestories, are all the same, now in my eyes THAT is hate filled.
which can be found here
<
p>
<
p>
Under a rule of law not men, individuals would be punished for their crimes. Including the crime of coming to this country illegally. The remedy for coming to this country illegally is to be repatriated to one’s own country or deported. That is not hate. That is respect for the “rule of law, not men”.
that you are pleased that the people i’ve listed above who broke laws or social convenants were revealed? because i’m still not hearing anything pro-law and order from you when it comes to republican sexual hypocrites being found out. only when it pertains to illegal aliens.
You know what’s interesting is that a lot of those people were asked to leave the Republican Party and their positions of leadership. Because that is what republican’s do. As opposed to Democrats which did nothing to either Studds or Frank for their law breaking except give them plum committee assignments as their seniority increased.
<
p>
I support removing those people from power and punishing them to the full extent of the law. As do most of the Republican’s i know. Your argument does not hold up I’m afraid.
however, it doesn’t hold up. the gop is famous for looking past the sexual hypocrisy of it’s members until they get caught and become a public embarrassment. the gop wiggie wigs new all about Foley and Craig for years if not decades. they did nothing. and how about that “diaper” david vitter? he hasn’t even been asked to leave! the guy cheated on his wife for years with hookers and is still being patted on the back by his republican bretheren! no. sorry. i’m sure some of these people get drummed out of the ranks. but only after being found out by the public, and only when they’re no longer useful to the powers that be in the republican party. even when the corruption is revealed, it is too frequently overlooked.
… adultery isn’t a threat to marriage. Gays are a threat to marriage.
<
p>
/snark
…there’s nothing illegal about soliciting sex from a hooker…oh, wait.
<
p>
And don’t forget how the rule of law was upheld with Scooter Libby…oh wait.
<
p>
But at least the Repubs can point to the law abiding former AG Alberto Gonzales…oh wait.
<
p>
And then there is President Bush, Chenney and Addington protecting the integrity of things like Habeas Corpus and the FISA courts…damn.
<
p>
That’s what Republicans actually do. Republicans respect the rule of law as much as Barry Bonds respected MLB’s performance enhancing substance policy. The only folks who buy Eabo’s “rule of law” argument are fellow anti-immigration types who conveniently pick and choose which broken lawss to get riled up about and who to “punish to the fullest extent of the law”.
<
p>
Also, if the laws were changed tomorrow, meaning that most illegal immigrants were no longer illegal, I wonder how many of the anti-immigration crowd would still crow about upholding the laws? My guess is they would be singing the same xenophobic tune.
As I’ve said elswhere I would be for the legalization of prostitution. I also lean towards the legalization of pot, and lowering the drinking age to 18.
Does your support for legalizing prostitution or a future change in the prostitution laws change the illegality of Vitter’s past actions? It seems your statement only strengthens my hypothesis that you only give a damn about the “rule of law” when it is convenient.
EaBo, if you’re going to give us misinformation, please do a better job: I prefer my sophistry sophisticated.
<
p>
You’re saying that Vitter is facing an ethics probe. He isn’t.
<
p>
You’re saying that Giulliani’s mistreatment of his wives marginalizes him like Paul. It doesn’t.
<
p>
You’re saying that Hyde’s extramarital affair and Gingrich’s heartless treatment of his wife mattered to Republicans. They didn’t.
It is not “one size fits all” you came and out you go, actually.
<
p>
Here is a good URL to get you started:
<
p>
http://immigration-l…
<
p>
Immigration law is NOT “one size fits all” – just as there is a difference between stealing a loaf of bread [remember Jean ValJean?] and homicide.
…the Democratic Party per se is a “fambly values nonsense party along the lines of the Republican Party, you might have a point.
<
p>
Otherwise, you don’t.
<
p>
Don’t divert from the issue. The Republicans’ mantra is “fambly valuse” and the Republicans’s 2d mantra is that the Democrats aren’t. I frankly don’t give a tinkers’ damn one way or another, but I am interested in hypocrisy.
<
p>
What’s to own? Gerry Studs was gay. Everybody knew that. Barney Frank, likewise. Both have been involved in scandals. Gay scandals. I kinda figured going into the voting booth (for Studds) that any scandal would involve gays. Doesn’t excuse their behaviour, but you likewise can’t say I bought a product where the labelling turned out to be false.
<
p>
Same with Clinton: he came into the office with a rep as a ladies man. OK. It wasn’t a stretch to picture him in an adulterous affair. People elected him regardless. When he was caught, people didn’t feel betrayed. They may not have liked it, but they also didn’t feel like fools for voting for him in the first place.
<
p>
People who vote Republican can’t say that. They have been betrayed. You have been betrayed. You bought a product that turned out to be, in nearly every way, the opposite of the sales pitch you fell for. How’s that working out for you?
Democrats care about such stuff in our personal lives and as a party we look at stuff like divorce rates and out of wedlock births. We work on policies that reduce those rates because we care about real people in the real world.
<
p>
For Republicans, family values consists of hollering a lot about what other people are doing and doing nothing substantiative about actual families. On the personal side, as Laurel’s list shows, the hollering is not backed up by an exemplary personal commitment to family values.
<
p>
I think that’s the narrative we are going to run with.
But the phrase family values is basically a code word for right wing, christian, anti-gay values. It implies that there is a one-size-fits-all set of values to fit each family.
<
p>
Listen, the values of my family need not be the values of your family, and vice versa. Marital fidelity, the sanctity of marriage, what the family itself values is the exclusive purview of the individual family. If I wanted to forgive or even allow my hypothetical spouse to have sex outside of marriage, that is for me and my hypothetical spouse to decide.
<
p>
Hey, if you want to have a “traditional” marriage, Peter (traditional marriage does not exist, but that’s been discussed elsewhere) that’s between you and your spouse. If I want to live with my partner and never enter into a marriage contract and adopt multiracial, gay children and participate in some Ancient Egyptian religious practices because it fits with the values we define for our family, than we will.
<
p>
I don’t object to family values, I object to the people defining so-called family values and the fact they think they alone have a monopoly on family values and want to make laws and amend the Constitution so that there is less freedom for individual families to define their own values.
<
p>
It’s interesting that the party that wants to get government out our checkbooks has no problem injecting government into our family lives.
<
p>
I’m for family values, just not the family values of the radical Christian right.
…a “serial adulterer” (a man who divorces his wife for any reason other than adultery, and them remaries) is himself an adulterer. See the gospel according to Matthew. There is no question about it.
<
p>
The fact that conservative Xians in the US are willing to put up with “serial adulterers” while bashing gay people is a travesty. But they don’t care. They want to have the option of being…serial adulterers. Heck, they even have serial adulterers as their pastors.
on the sexy stuff
…700 wives and 300 concubines.
<
p>
I’m sure you understand the reference.
Your quote from the beatitudes is from Matthew’s Gospel. Those who aggressively proclaim their Christianity tend to eschew the Gospels and other New Testament scripture in favore of the fire-and-brimstone Old Testament, in which resides, among other things, BMG’s favorite passage from Leviticus.
Mark 4:22
I’ll be hanging on tenterhooks, waiting for the next titillating (and oh, so important!) “retrospective” that exposes the sordid secret lives of dog catchers, crossing guards and the inspectors of weights and measures!
<
p>
Mark Foley was not a Senator, he was a congressman in the HofR for (I think) the 16th district.
<
p>
And I’m shocked that such a list doesn’t include Jeff Gannon/James Guckert.
Now that we know much, much more about the inclinations of many Republicans, his involvement in the WH and news cycles ought to be examined more closely.
<
p>
You should also include Bernie Kerik, Guilianis paisan and politico who was likewise a serial adulterer and who used housing provided for cops and fireman near ground zero for extra-marital trysts…
<
p>
Oh, and Duke Cunningham, purveyor of earmarks on behalf of purveyors of flesh…
<
p>
I’m a gonna stop now. The more I think about it the more examples I come up with… Eeww.
thanks for catching it.
<
p>
i’ll consider adding those others as time and research permits. thx!
I think the Democratic party should stand for the classically liberal position of staying out of peoples bedrooms and letting individuals make their own choices and decisions and respecting peoples privacy. We want to live in a land where someone like Larry Craig can get married to a partner he loves of either gender and actually raise a family. There is no progress made outing Republicans its just playing their vindictive hate spewing game. Including “serial adulterers” and child porn watchers in the list makes the outed gays seem like sex perverts which I know is not your intention but will allow the far right to lump all these guys together as immoral sex offenders. So please don’t play this vindicative, hate filled, hate spewing game and instead offer these ‘hypocrites’ blessings to finally have the courage to live their lives freely.
<
p>
They will certainly be in my prayers that they can lead normal lives.
<
p>
Hhmm… that would be nice. But I think Laurels point is less shame for the perps than a form of ‘consumer reporting’ for all of us, don’t you agree?
<
p>
Consider carefully: suppose you bought a computer. Suppose you based the decision to purchase on the notion that, when plugged into the internet, the computer would completely block any and all pornography. So far, so very good, no? What would you do if you got the computer home and found that the computer would display nothing but pornography?
<
p>
I think you would be very upset, and rightly so. Nor, I daresay, would you be at all inclined to criticize the website http://www.don‘t buy that computer, it shows nothing but porn.com.
<
p>
The question here isn’t, ‘why are republicans perverts’, but rather ‘why do people vote for perverts who say they’ll stop perverts’?? I think the sample space is large enough now (and getting larger all the time) for us to conclude a definitive and disturbing pattern.
<
p>
Nor, unfortunately, is this pattern limited to sexuality. There’s a decidedly prominent bit of reaction formation going on at all levels. Tom Delay goes around trumpeting his christian morals and high ethical standards… Supposed patriots ruining the career of a CIA agent… George Bush promises to bring ‘honor and decency to the white house’… Dick Cheney, coward, snarls and swings his dick at the world from his nicely hidden bunker, never in danger the once. The pattern is clear and present and a real danger to the open and forbearing world you try to picture above…
how to make it any more clear, but i’ll try again: this is about the hypocrisy built into the republican party’s scheme. this is about the party that panders to fundamentalist christian morality, but whose members are incapable of living that morality. “do as i say, not as i do.”
<
p>
you apparently think that it is vindictive to point out hypocrisy. i simply don’t agree. what is vindictive is republicans making people suffer for wanting to be full and equal citizens, then turning around and secretly committing sexual hypocrisy by doing anything from cheating on their spouses to raping kids.
<
p>
jconway, how is shining a light on hypocrisy “hate filled”? and do you really want the child rapists to “have the courage to live their lives freely”? and with all due respect, how many republican rapists have changed their ways due to your prayers? pray all you want to, but i’d rather inform the public about the deceivers amongst us so that the unsuspecting can have a fair chance not to get fleeced. or fucked.
<
p>
.. that you’ve (mostly) posted the legislative wing of the vast right-wing gay agenda. The Gannon/Guckert connection looks like another ball of wax altogether. There’s a whole other diary on the media wing: Limbaugh and Roger Ailes both on third wives (or beyond…) and don’t even get started about papa bear!
…couldn’t find the reference I said I would look for, but there are several other Republicans that aren’t on your list
<
p>
Dan Burton (R-Il) who fathered a child out of wedlock
<
p>
One of the Keatings (not Charles, who has his own problems) from the Cincinnati area, who was having sex with an underage female.
Do the listed politicians qualify because they were culture warrior types who got caught out, or does just being a Republican who got caught suffice?
<
p>
I ask because at least some of these date from a few years ago when there was a greater libertarian presence in the GOP.
with evidence that any of these people actually advocated for socially liberal policies concerning LGBT equality, comprehensive sex ed and choice, and also followed through with actions or other meaningful support, i will consider removing them from the list.
I’m content to let your list be, and I’ve already told you that it is impressive.
<
p>
All I am saying is that, until very recently, culture war issues were bread and butter for some Republicans, and widely ignored by others, who land more into the tax cut faction of the party.
<
p>
It is fair enough to equate one with the other in 2007, I just wondered if any distinction was made.
<
p>
I would note that your challenge above requires, in order for a listed pol to be removed, that he/she be more liberal than most elected Democrats, in Massachusetts or elsewhere.
I’m not sure, though, whether the Republican Party has lost libertarians and fiscal conservatives so much as the power of partisanship has convinced lots of them to become authoritarians. Polling definitely shows changes among independents and with party identification. Elected officials have changed their tune and the House has become much more polarized.
<
p>
Asked differently: has libertarianism left the Republican Party or have libertarians left the Republican Party?
that advocate for that stuff, and yet lead respectable monogamous married lives, if we tried.
You have here a list of some thirty names from several different walks of life.
Take into account all their peers, look at the list as a percentage of the whole, and we’ll see how impressive it is then.
There was also Henry Hyde, former Representative from Illinois, who was one of the Republicans’ impeachment leaders in 1998. It was revealed that Hyde had had a “youthful indiscretion” with another man’s wife at the age of 39.
<
p>
And also Helen Chenowith, former Reputlican Representative from Idaho, who had an affair another woman’s husband. While she was a Representative, she called on Clinton to resign over the Lewinsky affair.