Here’s a handy-dandy flow chart to help you keep track of all those Republican sex scandals that seem to be popping up:
H/T to Deke Rivers over at Caffeinated Politics.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
"RT @unkybunky: @TVConservative @bloggingblue @govwalker Sarcasm is obviously wasted on TVC. Not so bright. #wiright #wiunion #recallwalker— BloggingBlue
sooo very very petty…………………..
Rich, it’s a joke, hence “humor” being listed as one of the categories. If we can’t poke a little fun about stuff like this, then we’re in trouble.
My bad, ya commie, I missed the “humor” note….
999 apologies *i’m running out
*
Bill Clinton’s flow chat alone would put this one to shame.
I didn’t see the part on the flowchart about letting a girl drown. Oh wait, that would be on the Democrat sex scandals under Ted Kennedy. Isn’t that humorous?!
Or running a gay prostitution ring out of his house (Barney Frank).
My point is you can hardly split sex scandals by partisan labels.
I think you can split to some degree sex scandals.
The fact is that Sanford did use his wife and family for political purposes over the years. To hold them up as a perfect ad for campaigns, and for the swearing-in of office etc., and then not have in reality what you are trying to create for political purposes, does need to be exposed. This chart is a clever way to do that, and also show the larger context of the underlying problem.
While I would have problems with cheating, I would have less or perhaps no ‘political’ problem if the family was not used to create a wholesome image that was false. Former French President Mitterrand would never get called out as he put no pretenses out there to his country about what he was doing, or not doing. At his funeral both his wife and mistress were there and even at one point together. I use that as an example to make my point. I do no like the fact of cheating, but he was not trying to live one way, and spin it another.
Those who create fictions, such as Sanford, need to be taken to the mat when they also then use their family values to smear gay people, and to limit gay couples civil and equal rights. The record of Sanford is quite clear.
No civil unions; define one-man-one-woman marriage. (Nov 2002)
Affirmative action in state contracts, but not colleges. (Nov 2002)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
He wants to deny the extension of civil rights for gay people, but at the same time wants to re-define marriage for himself. He wants to allow for marriage to be between a man and a woman and a woman in Argentina. And NO marriage for gay people.
The citizens of South Carolina need to know who they had really elected. The folks around the nation need to know who a potential Oval Office candidate might be. To not supply (be it newspapers or bloggers) as much information to the voters and citizens as possible on this matter would be wrong, and I suggest an even greater wrong than cheating on your wife.
To cover it up would be a greater tragedy.
This chart is a clever way to make many points.
dekerivers, are you saying Bill Clinton did not use his family to create an image that was false? I mean, what cheating (American) politician doesn’t do that?!
I do not mean to defend this guy because he is a Republican, but I wonder if you would be criticizing a Democrat politician who did the same but supported your agenda.
You say he needs to be called out on his affair because he did not support special interest rights for gay people. He did not try to redefine marriage by his affair! He would have only done that if he wanted to be married to both women.
This plays into the hypocrite argument. If you have standards and you break them, they you are a hypocrite. I guess it would be better to be a liberal politician with no standards or value judgements because then if you screw up, you are forgiven and never labeled a hypocrite becuase you had no standards to begin with.
forgot, I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I’ve never shied away from criticizing Democrats for their stupidity (or adultery, as the case may be).