Why Does Adultury Only Matter For Democrats?
Mike Tomasky says he’s finally figured out what it takes to be banished from public life in the United States:
I’ve spent the last 14 years thinking well, we’ve finally learned in America what you have to do to be utterly banished — you have to literally get away with murder, or two of them (oops, I forgot this is Britain; I mean allegedly! Allegedly! And did I mention that he was acquitted by a jury of his peers?).
And now we add to the category a second condition: if you cheat on your cancer-stricken wife with another woman and still decide you can run for president, and you get busted, you’re pretty much finished. Yes or no?
He’s talking about John Edwards. But I have a question about this theory: what about Newt Gingrich? It’s true that Gingrich hasn’t launched a presidential campaign, but cheating on his cancer-stricken wife he’s done. Then he divorced her and married a second woman on whom he also cheated. And now he’s on his third marriage. And he converted to Catholicism! And he’s a defender of traditional marriage! And he’s still a high-profile public figure.
Consider also the starkly contrasting treatment of Elliot Spitzer, forced into resignation and disgrace for seeing a prostitute, and David Vitter, sitting pretty in the United States Senate.
Logically speaking, since there’s only one of the two parties that puts a very high premium on the idea that state regulation of individual sexual behavior should be the main role of government, these allegations should be more damaging to Republicans. Hypocrisy on the part of the media is part of the story. But part of the issue, I think, is just partisan and ideological solidarity. A politician can survive a great deal if his co-partisans are willing to stand by him, and conservatives are much more inclined to stand by their man than are progressives.
62 Responses to “Why Does Adultury Only Matter For Democrats?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 12th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Matt, I’ll forgive the typo if you tell me you made the graphic yourself.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Hypocrisy is a traditional value!
May 12th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Actually social conservatives are not being hypocrites here. They claim that, absent strong societal disapproval and even legislation against immoral behavior, people will behave immorally. Nu? Our society (thankfully says this social liberal!) has become less morally judgmental and morals legislation is being repealed rather than being made. So, when Republicans go wild, they can’t help it. It’s society’s fault — and that’s their ideology anyway (”it’s society’s fault” argument not valid if you are poor, out of work and in need of a little medical care).
May 12th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
I smell a board game: “Newt or Not-Newt.”
May 12th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Adultury? Seriously? How is this possible from a professional writer and a Harvard grad? The Corner is full of dumb-as-a-sack-of-hammers pundits who can spell.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
As long as you say you are for family values, you can cheat, you can tap your foot at MSP airport, you can be an ex-crack-smoking cheater, even.
See, it works for Democrats, too, if you stand around with ministers and say “I’m a moral person!” loud and often.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Matt, I’ll forgive the typo if you tell me you made the graphic yourself.
I’m assuming that is his wallpaper.
Anyhoo, yes in part it is partisanship, but there is also this redemption stuff that certain groups tend to go for, which actually requires people to sin a lot first. And frankly, Bill Clinton benefited from this as much as anyone.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Spitzer has been gone for how long? A year? He’ll be back.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
What about John McCain? True his wife didn’t have cancer – she was only crippled from a car accident when John began cheating on her with Cindy – but is there a big moral difference? Is the lesson here it’s OK to trade up to a richer, more attractive woman but don’t get caught cheating with a woman who’s of lower social status than your wife?
May 12th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
You’re leaving out the essential reason why Spitzer and Edwards are pointed out… their hypocrisy and willingness to blatantly lie in untenable positions was damning. They were both larger than life jerks.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
This seems clear to me. The only real conservative value for the last 10 years or so has been power. If you can scream loudly enough to get a Democrat tossed for fooling around, great! If you can evade responsibility for your own foibles, also great!
The problem is the press, which enables and supports a double standard here, and the Democrats, who have not had the balls to stand up to it.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Great points in this entry. Too bad some people are more incredulous about finding an extra “U” in the headline than they are about the fact Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Vitter continue to do what they do, while people like Eliot Spitzer are ‘blackballed.’
You’ve one of my new favorites, Mr. Yglesias. Thanks!
May 12th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
It makes perfect sense to me, but that’s because I’m looking at who brings down the perps. Republicans are willing (eager, even, to the point of impeachment) to pull down Democrats who cheat on their wives. Democrats have little stomach for that kind of thing. So only the Democrats get pulled down. It has nothing to do with who actually did the cheating.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Spitzer has been gone for how long? A year? He’ll be back.
In Spitzer’s defense, he did keep his socks on. Which has to count for something.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
You forgot to add that the reptilian Newt presented dovorce terms to said cancer stricken wife while she lay in a hospital bed resuperating from cancer surgery. And while it may be neither here nor there, in light of Lizard Boy’s championship of moral values, and his frequent penchant to blame every immoral act on liberal Democrats, I can’t help noting that he married this particular Mrs. Gingrich (the first of three) at age 19; she was considerably older than Newtie and was his former high school geometry teacher. Talk about life imitating
artporn films.May 12th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
I think the dynamic shakes out this way: those on the left (in my view correctly) don’t think private sexual conduct should be a public matter, and they have a very difficult time criticizing conservatives for these moral lapses without sounding insincere and opportunistic. Those on the right, by contrast, are officially committed to the idea that your private sexual behavior is a matter of public concern, so they can criticize Clinton, Edwards, et al. with great conviction and energy. The media reflexively cover this faux outrage because it sounds sincere, so sexual peccadillos turn out in practice to be much worse for those on the left, because they are exposed to a more virulent strain of criticism from the other side. Of course, the only reason this works is that the right is capable of stunning levels of hypocrisy in forgetting to criticize misconduct on their own side, and the media types don’t call them on it (the same way Olympia Snowe and Judd Gregg can whine about budget reconciliation without anyone ever pointing out the times they have supported the same tactic in the past). Only two exceptions that I know if to this dynamic: stuff involving minors (e.g. Mark Foley) in which the left has no reticence about full-throated attacks, and stuff involving gay sex (e.g. Larry Craig) in which those on the right will turn on their fellow partisans faster than you can say Ted Haggard.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
I’d say it’s more that Democrats, having been on the run for 40 years, are cowed by “the party of responsible, family men.” Of course, it’s a bullshit media meme, but hey, they spent decades drilling it into the beltway’s brain. And we all know the beltway’s number 1 priority: sternographers for power.
I mean, how else is it that the party of chickenhawk draft dodgers (Chambliss, Bush, Giuliani, Ashcroft, Cheney, Lott, Quayle, Gingrich, DeLay, Romney, ) are “the party that knows how to protect us” and the liberal veterans (Kerry, Cleland, Reed, Akaka, Webb, Inouye, McGovern, Carter, Jim Martin) are the incompetent wimps who could never run a military?
It really is pretty amazing. More boomer-logic that a 27 year-old like myself will never understand.
Maybe some of you don’t want to face it, but these past 40 years, and the past 8 in particular, have been life under a “regime.”
May 12th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Did you forget about John McCain? His first wife didn’t have cancer, but she went through some pretty severe medical issues.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
It’s telling isn’t it that Matt has to reach back to Newt–for the 2nd time today. Gingrich has been out of office for more than 10 years. He didn’t run for president and isn’t running for president. Meanwhile, Edwards ran for president, got lots of votes, and is evidently plannning to run again. Hell, I’d be happy if Matt could bring himself to criticize Edwards with, say, the same vehemence that so many on the left have brought to criticizing Bristol Palin. (For godssakes, how come Edwards doesn’t know about condoms? I blame the Bush administration!)
May 12th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
DTM said:
And frankly, Bill Clinton benefited from this as much as anyone.
Clinton for some reason had a huge rep as a horn dog who cheated on his wife constantly. However, there is only one verifiable case of Clinton actually cheating, and for that he became the second president in American history to be impeached. Yeah, he really benefited there.
shooter said:
You’re leaving out the essential reason why Spitzer and Edwards are pointed out… their hypocrisy and willingness to blatantly lie in untenable positions was damning. They were both larger than life jerks.
Granted. But what, aside form the passage of time distinguishes Edwards from Gingrich and McCain? And what, aside from party affiliation, distinguishes Spitzer from Vitter?
May 12th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
1) You people still don’t get it. The Republicans frame issues in order to attack and split Democrats along any one of several fracture lines. IN fairness, the Republicans do serve an ecological purpose by exposing how the Democratic leadership routinely betrays the Democratic rank and file via pandering to various interest groups.
2) The Republicans hype adultry by male Democratic politicans because they know large numbers of Democratic voters are women and they hope to alienate those women away from voting for the Democrat.
3) Similarly, the Republicans know that the Democratic leadership gets much of its money from billionaire supporters of Israel — and so they constantly try to put Democrats in the position of either betraying the Israel Lobby or betraying the anti-war movement. If you really cared for the common citizen, you wouldn’t send him off to die for the sake of a foreign country. Not even if Haim Saban writes you a $15 Million check.
4) And, of course, the people most buttfucked by the Democratic Party’s whoring for the Hispanic Lobby (and for the Roman Catholic Church) –by Democrats advocacy of massive immigration — are poor Afro-Americans and blue collar union workers.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Hey Thomas,
I’m prettier than you.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
I keep telling you: we’re all dead and in Hell.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
He’s talking about John Edwards…Consider also the starkly contrasting treatment of Elliot Spitzer
I don’t think it’s the party membership that is the connecting tissue here. You need to look at each politician on a case-by-case basis.
Edwards basically made his relationship with Elizabeth the centerpiece of his entire campaign, with good reason: people love Elizabeth. She seems like an awesome person. He, on the other hand, comes across as a sleazebag so needed the relationship to essentially provide a character reference.
Spitzer, on the other hand, made his whole career on being more sanctimonious than anyone else. Everyone was thirsting to see him get his comeuppance, especially in tabloid-friendly New York. That said, it was probably a mistake to resign, and he probably could have fought through it with support from Silda and a good tearful apology on 60 minutes. I bet he’ll be back.
Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, hasn’t exactly ever made his own marriage the centerpiece of his political career. Compare to, say, George W Bush. If Bush had cheated on Laura, or been caught with a prostitute (even when he was just a candidate/governor), do you doubt that everyone would have gone apeshit? It’s because he made his relationship with Laura and the twins central to his entire political persona. Same with Obama. Party has little to do with it.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
So, right, you’re saying that there’s someone more sanctimonious than Newt Gingrich?
Ha!
May 12th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Now you know what Gingrich means by “traditional marriage!”
May 12th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
American history to be impeached. Yeah, he really benefited there.
But was acquitted at the trial. Overall, neutral to I gree, perhaps a slight benefit (as it became a sign of Republican overreach and gave Clinton a slight reputation boost over the long term)
Otoh, Monica Lewinsky cost Al Gore his election (insomuch as everything else that happened on the margin did in that contest)
May 12th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
I also agree that I don’t understand with why Spitzer resigned as quickly he did, or even at all. But I respect him for having some sense of honor, when most these days don’t.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
I think the gender difference is key. All of the examples are men who have cheated on their spouses. Democrats tend to identify more with the female perspective, which is as the victim. Republicans think boys will be boys.
Is it hypocrisy? Of course. There is plenty to go around.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
1) Those who criticize Republicans for attacking Bill Clinton over Monica Lewinski fail to look at the preceding events that set that little jihad up: Commander-in-Chief Bill Clinton throwing MILITARY VETERANS to the wolves in order to pander to some stupid bitches in the Senate and NOW.
2) The kickoff started when female Senators decided to play hardball because their little mascot –the first female B-52 pilot Kelly Flinn — was disciplined after refusing an order to stop fucking the husband of a subordinate, enlisted Air Force woman living on the same base.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Flinn
3) The context, of course, was that NOW wanted to kick some vigor into passage of the Equal Rights Amendment by pushing for some token women to be put into combat units. Kelly Flinn was the pioneer –until she ..er.. screwed the pooch.
4) So the feminists kicked off a jihad. Scores of military veterans of Vietnam had their careers destroyed simply for being at the Tailhook Convention where a female Admirals aide was allegedly groped by some drunker aviators. The men being destroyed were not accused of any wrongdoing themselves — they were being destroyed simply for being in the same fucking convention center where the alleged wrongdoing occurred. Of course, the feminists had to steer a confusing line between (a) claiming women were capable of serving in combat and (b) that scores of men should be punished because
the virtue of a delicate flower in a minishirt had been sullied.
5) Commander-in-Chief Bill Clinton left his subordinates to the wolves — including an Air Force General who was passed over for having had an affair with a female CIA officer at the War College about a decade earlier. So much for respecting the sacrifice of those who serve in battle.
6) Bill Clinton was a truly shitty President who deserved everything he got. And the Democratic Party deserved the fucking it got in 2000, giving its craven whoring for the feminists.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Thomas, if you’d like a more recent example of a Republican adulterer seeking high office, there’s always Giuliani.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
But whose sexual escapades would sell more videotapes?
May 12th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
“…conservatives are much more inclined to stand by their man than are progressives.”
To the detriment of the GOP. A corupt politician who keeps his job hurts his party. The democrats used to behave this way in the seventies and eighties. We have learned our lesson. The GOP will figure it out or be replaced.
May 12th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
like Federalist Society jusges, right plays fast and loose with the facts to, coincideantally oof course, come up with a conslusion that favors his side.
Edwards basically made his relationship with Elizabeth the centerpiece of his entire campaign
Really? While Elizabeth was certainly prominent in his campaiign, I thought the centerpiece of his campaign was social justice and the “two Americas.” And I was an Edwards supporter. Silly me.
Spitzer, on the other hand, made his whole career on being more sanctimonious than anyone else.
Really? While I agree that Spitzer is a bit more open to charges of hypocrisy than many Democrats, who generally do not crusade against prostituion, was he really more sanctimonious than wingnut David Vitter, whose entire career was based on traditional family values, where diapers were generally confined to infant use?
Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, hasn’t exactly ever made his own marriage the centerpiece of his political career. Compare to, say, George W Bush.
Really? While Newtie may not have made his marriage the focal point of his career, he was a loud voice in favor of family values, frequently blamed horrible, but apolitical, acts squarely on liberal Democrats, and sought impeachment of Clinton for a personal indiscretion. A sacntimonious hypocrite? I’d say so. And was Bush’s “persona” really tied to his wife and daughters? (Actually, one of the few good things I can say about him was his attempt to keep his daughters out of the public eye.) Or was it (fake) commpassionate conservatism during the 2000 campaign, the bulwark against terrorism in the 2004 campaign and solid base wingnuttia in between?
May 12th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Clinton for some reason had a huge rep as a horn dog who cheated on his wife constantly. However, there is only one verifiable case of Clinton actually cheating, and for that he became the second president in American history to be impeached. Yeah, he really benefited there.
I guess it depends on what you consider “verifiable”, but in any case it is sufficient for my point that people believed this, and still didn’t care.
And yes, the Republicans tried to make this into a serious issue for Clinton, up to and including impeaching him, but in the end they failed. So I would again suggest that actually confirms my point.
May 12th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
sorry matt, but i think you’re wrong on this, while kevin has it about right.
the problem is not that democrats won’t stand by their man, the problem is that democrats will not attack republicans when instances of personal morality are at issue.
it is almost as though they are constitutionally incapable of making an easy argument that could yield huge political benefits.
the best example is what happened with rush limbaugh when he was going through his trials with his drug prosecution. i could not believe my ears as i heard democrat after democrat, from the lowliest tv pundit to the highest level members of congress express sympathy for limbaugh. my jaw almost dropped when i heard both begala and carville essentially wish him well as they hoped for his quick return to the political wars.
if limbaugh had been a democratic operative, republicans would have rendered him null and void, incapable of showing his face in a public forum.
(while there are certainly arguments in favor of maintaining limbaugh as the face of the party, imho, we would be better off if limbaugh was not part of our political environment.)
the latest example is torture.
dems are slowly but surely losing an argument on an issue that should be a slam dunk. because of their hesitancy to frame the issue in moral – and legal – terms, republicans are quickly establishing the moral high ground on this issue, as incredible as that should be. you have to be willing to make an argument before a citizenry will accept that viewpoint, and sadly, dems are unwilling to make the plain and simple argument that torture is illegal and immoral.
May 12th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
I think the gender gap between the two parties might have more to do with it. I really don’t have the polling to back this up, but it would not be surprising if women had a stronger sense of loathing toward men who cheat on their wives than men do.
May 12th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Seriously, David Vitter has been busted twice for cavorting with hookers.
There’s no way you can pretend it’s OK for him to still be a Senator while arguing Spitzer had to resign as governor.
May 12th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Uh, has everyone forgotten the guy after Newt who was denied the House Speakership because of adultery?
Mike
May 12th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
I think the suggestion that part of the discrepancy has to do with the more female Dem base is at least partly true, but the real reason behind it is being missed entirely: the Republicans caught cheating are powerful, and therefore should not be punished too much for exercising their natural privileges. It’s all who’s sinning, not the nature of the sin– Democrats prefer to extend the same freedom to pretty much everyone, while Republicans think people should enjoy just as much personal freedom as their individual social status will permit. For conservatives, the social rules need to be strict in order to keep the unwashed masses in line, but we need to mostly look the other way when the masters of the universe break the rules, because… well, they’re the masters of the universe. You’ve gotta admit that it’s a traditional perspective, since the powerful have always had a lot more leeway than the powerless in human history.
May 12th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
The Republican calculus goes like this: the most important qualification for office is morality and character. But the true test of character isn’t how a politician conducts his personal life but whether he supports Republican policy positions. So a Democrat who cheats on his wife is doubly screwed.
May 12th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Gingrich is a creep who hasn’t held office in a decade. Robert Livingston was set to succeed him until his extramarital affairs were revealed. Edwards did make his relationship with his wife a centerpiece in his political career. McCain, whom I really have no warm feelings for, has been pretty open about his adulterous life. Spitzer put people who ran prostitution rings in prison. Clinton was just fine with making a person’s sexual history fair game in civil depositions, until it was his turn on the rack, and then he decided to act in a way that got him disbarred and held in contempt. Vitter comes from a state in which honest to goodness theft of public money is not considered disqualifying to a political career There isn’t much which proves that being a Republican or Democrat makes much difference in these matters, but when pundits are desperate to look at eveything thorugh that priget punditry like this.
Not for the first time, let it be noted that sports punditry is quite often more based in sound observation.
May 12th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Look, you can make arguments about the gender gap in the bases of the parties, or Democrats’ distaste for personal all day. And there may be a certain amount of truth in it. But in the end, the determination of public “outcasts” rests on the Village. And in the last couple of decades, there is litte that is more emblematic of the Village than their penchant to view everything through Republican memes and to refusal to call Republicans on the constant hypocrisy on any issue. IOIYAR uber alles!
May 12th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
You’re leaving out the essential reason why Spitzer and Edwards are pointed out
Well, in Spitzer’s case, he had pissed off a lot of rich and powerful people, who set Roger Stone to take him out. (Note that Roger Stone’s career seems not to have been harmed by his own sex scandal.) For Edwards, it was mainly that he’d annoyed a certain group of people who take themselves very seriously before doing something really fucking stupid. That’s to say, a bunch of jerks decided that Edwards was a different kind of jerk.
May 12th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
I would also point out that Newt’s recently released a book in part on child-rearing and family values: http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Successful-Life-Family-Yours/dp/0307462323/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242165320&sr=8-1
May 12th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
[...] Yglesias offers an interesting post today (with a link to Michael Tomaskey) about the nature of partisan politics and sexual [...]
May 12th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
You forget another lovely element of the sordid Newt saga. Second wife had just been diagnosed with MS or MD when he served the notice to her. Hope Wifey #3 doesn’t come down with a serious illness or he’ll be looking for number 4.
This hypocrisy also goes back to Ronald Reagan v. Jimmy Carter. The Christian Coalition and the 700 Club were backing the divorced man (wasn’t Ronald Reagan the first Presidential divorce’?) against the evangelical.
There are more divorces in the South than any other region the country and more children born out of wedlock yet that’s where all the blather about family values is generated, so the Republican imperviousness to this makes sense.
Also, I’m willing to bet more Dems in Congress are on marriage 1 than Republicans. It’s a gut feeling. Don’t know if it’s true.
May 12th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
because Dems are fucking prudes who care about appearance and don’t want to be the person supporting a philanderer. Republicans could give a fuck as long as they get their wars and tax cuts. At least Dems will have their honor despite the last national figure to focus on poverty being a pariah and the one guy who took on Wall Street reduced to writing columns as his replacement flounders. Hope it helps them sleep at night.
May 12th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
What on earth are you talking about? Newt Gingrich is one of the most prominent voices of the Republican Party in 2009. He frequently appears on the Sunday shows, and is being held out as a top-tier candidate for the presidency in 2012.
Matt “reaching back?” The hell? Newt Gingrich isn’t some retired has-been who left public life and is enjoying a quiet retirement.
May 12th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Who fills your war chest? When you’re a trial lawyer like Edwards, it certainly won’t be Pfizer. When you’re Gingrich, pennies rain down from heaven.
After that, whether the voters understand what you did or not is a minor detail. Wave a cross and a flag and they’ll follow you off a cliff.
May 12th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Who said it was ok? If it mattered for Democrats we would have learned about Edwards’ problems long before they became public.
May 12th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
That’s not the way I see it. I suggest that part of the downfall of the Republicans in 2006 was because the GOP leaders failed in their moral rectitude. It was texting boys in Florida and Abramoff that tainted the party of high morals, and the conservative base left them and haven’t come back. Hence the party purges, the “no true conservative” meme, and race to the right. This is what happens when the part of social conservatives is full of people with poor social values.
May 12th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
It is not that conservatives “get away” with things like adultery.
It is that the Dems & libs are too soft and do not hit them as hard on these trangressions like the GOP does.
The press & MSM keep stories going with sexy, harsh headlines. The Dems try to be too nice and PC and don’t come out with zingers to print on Politico or ABC News blogs like Newt and the GOP do.
May 12th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
One thought,
I think there may be a meme in the media that portrays the Republicans as the bad guys and the Democrats as the good guys. The little devil on your shoulder versus the little angel.(from looney toons) The thing is that we like the devil and the angel. We know that Republicans are self-interested hypocrites who lie and cheat, they appeal to our fears and our selfishness, but sometimes we like it when our darker side is appealed to. So its not like this meme is really biased, sometimes it works well for the Republicans and sometimes not, but we’re definitely more surprised when we see the angel screwing around than the devil.
May 12th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Will, don’t you have some dead Iraqis to cheer? How pathetic is your input here – you merely repeat Republican lies (ooh, like your votes for George W. Bush, these are what mark you as oh, so independent) and then sit on your fat ass hoping to undermine the people who aren’t going out of their way to kill more brown people for you.
You know, if I were as stupid as you I would stop posting because it revealed what I moron I was. But I guess being that stupid keeps you from noticing.
May 12th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Joe, Newt Gingrich is about as much a top tier candidate for the Republican nomination in 2012 as you are, if that term is meant to mean having a chance of getting it.
May 13th, 2009 at 12:10 am
bring himself to criticize Edwards with, say, the same vehemence that so many on the left have brought to criticizing Bristol Palin.
Cites, please.
May 13th, 2009 at 7:53 am
It’s what happen when you’ve been on the defensive for more than 30 years. (Also, Mrs. Edwards has a serious cancer diagnosis.)
May 13th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Will Allen,
I think you’re right, because the actual Republican primary voters are a lot more pragmatic than their party leaders and pundits – McCain’s nomination proved that – but what I wrote was and is being held out as a top-tier candidate for the presidency in 2012.
The DC press, especially the conservative press, and Republican pundits are treating Gingrich as a serious party leader. This isn’t a case of Matt plucking some former politician from obscurity, but making reference to someone who is very prominent in the party right now.
May 13th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
The difference is simple–Democrats don’t divorce their wives after the affair becomes known. The Republican mentality is that’s it’s OK to cheat as long as you’re gonna leave her anyway. They can’t understand the concept of cheating, then reconciling. It strikes them as not masculine.
May 13th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Don Williams: your statement re: the Democratic party promoting mass illegal immigration is more than a bit deranged. Business interests, which are largely Republican, but obviously swing both ways, control this issue. Put teeth into the enforcement at the employer and our undocumented worker population essentially vanishes because they will not be able to get work. Undocumented workers undercut unions and that is very much part of the Republican agenda.
As for the differences in how infidelity is handled, Republican vs. Democrat, it is clearly an issue of conservative media bias. If sick puppy Vitter gets to stay on the job, the bar is set pretty low.
May 15th, 2009 at 6:36 am
Scott Lemieux is a serial lying ball licker who loves raves, Ingénue and Boone’s Farm Tickle Pink.
* from Lemieux’s Collected Journals 1986-2006