Our weird attitudes about sexuality get in the way of sensible debate

[Baruch Menachem]

In the great debate over Newt and his love life, people keep bringing up the case of Clinton.

I believe this to be a case of apples and oranges. Clinton was in trouble for suborning perjury in a civil rights case where he was the defendant. That was also about a blow job, of course. He insisted one of the workers at the DMV give him one and she turned him down and got fired because of that.

However during the clinton debate the Democrats kept going on and on about the blow job. Fundamentally, I think it squicked everyone out to the point they wanted the story over. Plus there was the whole april -december aspect of Monica's mental maturity and age. Normal people found the whole thing beyond disgusting.

Presidential philandering is not new. And where he sticks his wand can be a matter of national importance. John and Robert Kennedy both shared the same girlfriend with Sam Giacanna. This, had we be wiling to talk about it seriously at the time, would have been legitimate cause for concern. The face that James Buchanan was effectively the wife of Alabama Senator King also should have got a bit more scrutiny in the run up to the Civll war.

But over the years we have sort of thrown a blanket over Presidential private lives. For good or ill. President Cleveland's daughter Ruth was an issue in the campaign, but it did his opponents no good because he was busy discussing tariffs and the depredations of the railroads. He never did marry Ruth's mother.

The relationships between Roosevelt and Eleanor and whomever are a matter of titillation but no historical relevance. Eisenhower and Summersby is ignored again because it is pointless and squicky.

The fact that Nixon and Carter were uxorious did not make them good presidents. Pat Nixon's love for Dick didn't solve the Watergate issue, nor did Roselyn's affection for Jimmy reduce the inflation rate. Clinton's tomcatting didn't make him a failure.

So what does this have to do with Newt? The basic issues here are trust, intelligence, national security and economic recovery.

Newt's relations with women are at best reprehensible. If it were a matter of him vs someone equally intelligent and less of a cad I would gleefully go for the other option.

however, there is no drama that he was involved with Anna Chapman or any other honey pot involved with Russian or US mafias. He does have lots of really interesting ideas about the economy and the US's relations with the rest of the world that are worth listening to. (But his actual record vis a vis Israel and the Global Warming hoax show he also has pretty bad ideas as well)

So on balance, I have to say that given a choice between Romney and Romney care and Newt and his affection for all his weird baggage with PBS, Global Warming, playing footsie with various flaky arab regimes... I prefer Santorum. But Newt's conjugal craziness is not part of my decision tree.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

< crickets >

I am feeling very jealous of TM and Rdean because they can post a stupid and get 57 instant responses.

Come on folks, doesn't anyone have anything to say to this?

 

[percysunshine]

< crickets >

I am feeling very jealous of TM and Rdean because they can post a stupid and get 57 instant responses.

Come on folks, doesn't anyone have anything to say to this?

You are required to post something stupid first. If you want to compete with rdean anyway.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Ok, so the fact we got snow yesterday is proof of global warming. Or Cooling. Or something.

There is the stupid remark

Now lets have a response to the op, Pretty please?

 

[g5000]

It isn't so much Newt's sex life, it is the hypocrisy. He impeached a President for cheating on his wife. Denying that is like a redneck denying the Civil War was about slavery.

Newt was making a big deal of Clinton's blowjob at the same time he was cheating on his own wife.

So it is the sheer hypocrisy that says everything about Newt. Not the sex.

Even if you want to be a dick and say it was about Clinton lying, Newt is STILL a hypocrite. He also lied to Congress and was caught at it and is the only Speaker in history who was busted for it.


Newt's hypocrisy continues to the present day. That's why I don't buy the "he went to God" crock of shit his bleevers swallow.

A couple months ago, Newt went on a rant about the GSEs that led to the sub-prime crisis. He said Chris Dodd and Barney Frank should go to prison for their connections to the GSEs.

He said this as a person who worked for Freddie Mac's top lobbyist for 7 years! All through the buildup of the GSEs which contributed to the crisis!

Judging Newt by his own standard, he should be in prison.

When caught by the media as having worked for Freddie Mac, Newt said he worked for them as a historian. Just how fucking stupid do you have to be to believe that? He also said he warned them that what they were doing was insane.

Really? Gee, that must be why in 2007 he gave a speech to GSE employees praising Fannie and Freddie to the skies, and said there should be more government-sponsored entities out there.

Then when it comes out he worked for Freddie Mac's top lobbyist for seven years, starting right after he resigned as Speaker of the House, he goes dead silent on that. Gosh, I wonder if he was hired by the lobbyist because of his powerful access to Congress and not as a historian. You think?

The sex thing just illustrates how rotten he is. But there is much, much more rot to Gingrich than the affairs. Much more. He was rotten then, and he is rotten to the core now.

When a man keeps changing his story as more facts of his past come to light, that should tell you everything you need to know about him.

 

[Sunni Man]

Denying that is like a redneck denying the Civil War was about slavery.

Not to change the subject; but the Civil War was about "States Rights" and not slavery.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Actually, I think your instance on it being the blow job is the it was all about states rights rather than slavery deal. And hypocrisy in politics is not that big a deal either.

All the efforts and bribes etc etc were to avoid the loss of the civil rights case.

It wasn't just the issue of he got a blow job from a dim intern. It was that you got your job by going down. do we really want government officials appointed on the casting couch? And if you said no, then you were out of a job. Blow job or no job. And the man was a feminist icon. What kind of feminism is that that promotes that kind of employment 'opportunity.'

If you can swallow that it was 'just a blow job' than you swallow everything.

Now, fellatio aside, did Clinton's tomcatting gett in the way of his job? By all accounts, he was good at multitasking. Is this really all that relavent to his job performance?

Now if you could find proof that he was sleeping with someone from the Mafia or the KGB, that would be interesting sexual exchanges. Or that he was sleeping with lobbyist as payment for legislation, that would be interesting and worthwhile to discuss.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ok, so the fact we got snow yesterday is proof of global warming. Or Cooling. Or something.

There is the stupid remark

Now lets have a response to the op, Pretty please?

Sex sells darling. Always has and always will. It's human nature.

With regard to your point on dean and tm, they get posts because they are the Jerry Springers of this site. Youre above that and the effort you put into your op deserves better. I'm just sorry that I've had too many to drink to respond to the op in an intelligent manner.

+1 for all the effort you put into it.

 

[whitehall]

There is nothing weird about it. It's the good old double standard. Clinton wasn't just a philanderer, he was a world class sexual pervert enabled by his wife who is now the secretary of state.

 

[Gagafritz]

We have some sort of notion that only perfect people are qualified to be leaders or to do anything. And, that once we find out that someone is less than perfect, then we are supposed to just toss them to the curb. So apparently we only want 10 yr olds or eunechs to be our leaders. I don't know. We obviously want people with good reputation and character traits but there are very few people that haven't transgressed along the way. And, not really sure we want someone who hasn't. But, it is something to look at as a pattern or traits. I think there is a difference between having an affair 20 yrs ago versus having one in the White house while on duty and so forth.

 

[Gagafritz]

Newt has a high unlikablitity quotient in my opinion. I just don't think we are going to elect someone we dont' fundamentally like. The President has to connect a "warm fuzzy" to people on some level. Clinton and W had a certain rascal type quality. And, something about Obama seems likeable even if you hate his policies. And, that is something needed to become President. Romney has a "Father Knows Best" aura around him so i don't think people dislike him . But, Newt comes across as arrogant, mean, and just nasty at times and i don't think he can over come that with Happy talk.

 

[American Horse]

< crickets >

I am feeling very jealous of TM and Rdean because they can post a stupid and get 57 instant responses.

Come on folks, doesn't anyone have anything to say to this?

Your post is intelligently and reasonably stated. The facts about Clinton's foibles are accepted by most reasonable people. Maybe a little long for the likes of TM and Rdean, because I would think they would take issue with the thrust of some of the content. Seems you have to flame people to get their attention.
Good post Baruch.

 

[whitehall]

The double standard allows democrats to ignore what they call "family values" because the democrat party does not promote or endorse morality. It's a great advantage for a democrat candidate to be immune to allegations of improper conduct while accusing republicans.

 

[tinydancer]

In the great debate over Newt and his love life, people keep bringing up the case of Clinton.

I believe this to be a case of apples and oranges. Clinton was in trouble for suborning perjury in a civil rights case where he was the defendant. That was also about a blow job, of course. He insisted one of the workers at the DMV give him one and she turned him down and got fired because of that.

However during the clinton debate the Democrats kept going on and on about the blow job. Fundamentally, I think it squicked everyone out to the point they wanted the story over. Plus there was the whole april -december aspect of Monica's mental maturity and age. Normal people found the whole thing beyond disgusting.

Presidential philandering is not new. And where he sticks his wand can be a matter of national importance. John and Robert Kennedy both shared the same girlfriend with Sam Giacanna. This, had we be wiling to talk about it seriously at the time, would have been legitimate cause for concern. The face that James Buchanan was effectively the wife of Alabama Senator King also should have got a bit more scrutiny in the run up to the Civll war.

But over the years we have sort of thrown a blanket over Presidential private lives. For good or ill. President Cleveland's daughter Ruth was an issue in the campaign, but it did his opponents no good because he was busy discussing tariffs and the depredations of the railroads. He never did marry Ruth's mother.

The relationships between Roosevelt and Eleanor and whomever are a matter of titillation but no historical relevance. Eisenhower and Summersby is ignored again because it is pointless and squicky.

The fact that Nixon and Carter were uxorious did not make them good presidents. Pat Nixon's love for Dick didn't solve the Watergate issue, nor did Roselyn's affection for Jimmy reduce the inflation rate. Clinton's tomcatting didn't make him a failure.

So what does this have to do with Newt? The basic issues here are trust, intelligence, national security and economic recovery.

Newt's relations with women are at best reprehensible. If it were a matter of him vs someone equally intelligent and less of a cad I would gleefully go for the other option.

however, there is no drama that he was involved with Anna Chapman or any other honey pot involved with Russian or US mafias. He does have lots of really interesting ideas about the economy and the US's relations with the rest of the world that are worth listening to. (But his actual record vis a vis Israel and the Global Warming hoax show he also has pretty bad ideas as well)

So on balance, I have to say that given a choice between Romney and Romney care and Newt and his affection for all his weird baggage with PBS, Global Warming, playing footsie with various flaky arab regimes... I prefer Santorum. But Newt's conjugal craziness is not part of my decision tree.

Well said.

I for one am getting weary of so called "dirt" being dug up on candidates private sexual lives from one decade ago let alone many decades ago.

And it's actually becoming pitiful to watch the political press become TMZ with old bitter women who have an axe to grind.

 

[AquaAthena]

There is nothing weird about it. It's the good old double standard. Clinton wasn't just a philanderer, he was a world class sexual pervert enabled by his wife who is now the secretary of state.

And Clinton had a string of women going all the way back to Paula Jones, when he was governor and then a long relationship with Gennifer Flowers and others and all before he was president, I think. The public knew of these women and so did Hillary, and Bill Clinton still became president, and continued with his follies until he was impeached.

I don't feel that any of his infideliities made him a lesser president. In fact, I think they helped. He was a good looking man with power and lust for young beautiful women, and it all worked well for him, until it didn't.

Newt is a changed man and I don't believe he would ever be a serial womanizer. He has been married since 2000 to Calista, and had a relationship with her for 6 years prior. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. But Newt knew this would come up, before he tossed his hat in the ring, and I am sure he will be a better man regardless of how it ends.

 

[Gagafritz]

Kind of like Tiger's wife buying the house to tear it down. It really makes her look more like an idiot than him.

 

[Gagafritz]

Actually, do we really need to know every nth detail about everyone's private life? It is really getting tiring to know every lurid detail of every encounter and everytime they blew a silent but smelly fart and how the size of the chimichanga they downloaded in the commode. I think it is fine to mention some of this stuff but then move on.

 

[DaGoose]

Actually, I think your instance on it being the blow job is the it was all about states rights rather than slavery deal. And hypocrisy in politics is not that big a deal either.

All the efforts and bribes etc etc were to avoid the loss of the civil rights case.

It wasn't just the issue of he got a blow job from a dim intern. It was that you got your job by going down. do we really want government officials appointed on the casting couch? And if you said no, then you were out of a job. Blow job or no job. And the man was a feminist icon. What kind of feminism is that that promotes that kind of employment 'opportunity.'

If you can swallow that it was 'just a blow job' than you swallow everything.

Now, fellatio aside, did Clinton's tomcatting gett in the way of his job? By all accounts, he was good at multitasking. Is this really all that relavent to his job performance?

Now if you could find proof that he was sleeping with someone from the Mafia or the KGB, that would be interesting sexual exchanges. Or that he was sleeping with lobbyist as payment for legislation, that would be interesting and worthwhile to discuss.

There is nothing weird about it. It's the good old double standard. Clinton wasn't just a philanderer, he was a world class sexual pervert enabled by his wife who is now the secretary of state.

The Cons can say what they want but yes, it was about the blowjob. And now they want to turn a blind eye to Newt's philandering and desire for an open marriage?

Pure hypocrisy.

 

[DaGoose]

Denying that is like a redneck denying the Civil War was about slavery.

Not to change the subject; but the Civil War was about "States Rights" and not slavery.

Why did they want to leave the United States?

 

[California Girl]

I'm in a bit of a quandary on this one. Fundamentally, everyone is entitled to a private life and - no matter who they are - they have a right not to have their personal life dragged through the mud for political point scoring or for the general consumption of the public.

Having said that, I do feel that... if one is capable of treating one's own family so badly, or one breaks the vows of marriage... then why should I trust that person to take their oath of office seriously? If people cheat on their life partner, they are unlikely to treat anyone else any better.