Republican Infidelity
by RonChusidRepublicans love to claim to be the party of family values, but may have problems in 2008. The Washington Monthly finds that “just a few years after infidelity was considered a dealbreaker for a presidential candidate, the party that presents itself as the arbiter of virtue may field an unprecedented two-timing trifecta.”
Here’s the trifecta: “Sen. John McCain (affair, divorce), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (affair, divorce, affair, divorce), and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (divorce, affair, nasty divorce). Together, they form the most maritally challenged crop of presidential hopefuls in American political history.”
This might have an impact on whether the GOP can keep the vote of the religious right:
. . . its importance to Christian conservatives won’t be so easy to ignore. Since the press awoke to the phenomenon of evangelicals in 2000 and so-called “values voters” in 2004, reporters have become fond of gaming out every possible permutation of evangelicals’ political concerns. Evangelicals’ attitudes towards the marital problems of McCain, Giuliani and Gingrich might actually deserve such an inquiry. In 2000, for example, James Dobson issued a personal press release specifically to “clarify his lack of support for Senator McCain.” “The Senator is being touted by the media as a man of principle, yet he was involved with other women while married to his first wife,” Dobson said. He also cautioned that McCain’s character was “reminiscent” of Bill Clinton’s–possibly the ultimate insult in conservative circles.
The blogosphere may even have an impact whether or not other Democrats make an issue of this:
Finally, if the Democrats fail to plant this story in the press, one final force will be beating at their doors: liberal bloggers. Witness the indignation that swept the progressive blogosphere immediately after the Times piece ran on the Clintons. Hullabaloo’s Digby fumed at the Times’ “cheap, tabloid coverage of politics when the world is on fire.” Matt Stoller at MyDD noted published rumors of a Jeb Bush affair with then-Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, adding, “Get ready for a slimefest.” Bloggers are likely not only to relentlessly push the mainstream press to start covering Republican candidates’ adultery, but may also ferret out new information about those past indiscretions that could prove awfully tempting to establishment reporters.
Filed under: In The News, Politics, Republicans | Get Permalink or trackback |
This Republican will never vote for John McCain even if Jesus himself told me to.As for infidelities ,I don’t care if the candidates are having Roman Orgies,just win the War on Terror.
Don’t forget Laura spent the night in the Mayflower Hotel because of a spat she had with George because he is boinking Condoleeza.
sandra I am not a fan of Rice,but what’s she doing Friday night?;)
Darth,
Buying shoes?
This is a good background article, similar to one in Jamison Foser’s 4 part series at Media Matters for America on the importance and extent of the CONSERVATIVE media bias.
One of his expose’s on our favorite MSNBC misinformer:
During the Lewinsky investigation, Tweety, the media and the GOP all insisted it was about lying. When a guest commented about the recent Hillary and Bill front page treatment, Tweety insisted it was relevent for them because he was ‘the one who had been impeached’ for his personal behavior.
Perfect line:
“When it comes to personal morality, liberal commentators have long argued that the press has one standard for Democrats and another for Republicans (and another one entirely for the Clintons).”
This is an example of the blogosphere having some influence in the media. More solid fact finding by MMFA, FAIR and others will help get these discussions where more Americans may read or hear them.
First, James Dobson always disliked McCain and was never going to support him no matter his marital history. McCain’s biggest obsticle to getting the GOP nomination for pres was always his hot-so-friendly relations with the Jesus Right.
Second, Dems can bring up the issue all they want, but it kind of reminds me of the whole John Kerry “reporting for duty thing.” dems won’t get any traction on this–except for some MSM stories that will fade quickly–because conservatives aren’t going to let them decide their issues.
Third, the Clintons sex life is an important news story for a plethora of reasons that have nothing to do with “moralty.” Sentator Clinton is where she is now BECAUSE her husband cheated on her. Do folks really think she would have been elected carpetbag style without that? And, if Hillary were to become pres, we would have the first ex-pres 1st spouse in the history of the office. Unless there is a GOP candidate that is going through CURRENT marital problems, The stories of what happened in their pasts falls way short of the newworthiness of the clinton’s marriage.
Sean,
I’m no fan of Hillary, but she was far from the typical first lady for many reasons, and would most likley be right where she is regardless of Bill cheating on her.
The religious right may very well sit out if a candidate with a history of infidelity runs, or they might forgive them. Many on the religious right sat out the 2000 election due to Bush’s history of drunken driving and drug use, but also wound up voting for him in 2004.
If nothing else, this would help negate the GOP claims regarding family values and may help more moderates to see how hypocritical the party is, and see the tremendous differences between their rhetoric and actions.
Fair enough, Ron. I’m all for pointing out hypocracy.
My real beef is that I just want to see the dems do better and stuff like this IMHO, is not effective. Full Disclosure: I’m a libertarian-minded independent who voted for my first Dem pres candidate in 2004. I don’t agree with dems all that much but am tired of seeing them senselessly getting their ass kicked time after time. I believe they are in the process of not winning either house of congress, yet again, and I am frustrated with paper thin but total GOP-for-Jesus control.
The left seems to be slighty myopic when it comes to understading what “Plays in Peoria.” Progressives crying about GOP divorces would fall right into this category. The public gets that Progressives don’t really care about this but will use it politically. The very fact that is touted by the left with sap it of all meaning for the christian coalition types and the center will see it as mud-slinging politics as usual.
And while I agree about Hillary’s overt, out of the box political ambitions making her unique, I just don’t believe she would be a senator from new york without Monica.
Sean,
This is basically one blog post on one article. It is not intended to be the secret plan for victory.
You are right that if Democrats tried to run on this it would not be effective. However if it does come up from time to time in the presss it might have an impact on some voters. It certainly wouldn’t be the deciding factor, but with the last two Presidiential elections being so close even small factors could make a difference.
Obviously there’s no way to know how Hillary would have done without Monica, but my guess is that she’d still be Senator.
I am at a loss as to who to vote for this time around. I have been Democrat all my life, but the Clinton era pretty well ended that for me. I am an active member and a coordinator for North Texas Independent movement. Around 35% of Texas voted other than democratic or republican in Nov.
Reasons not to vote for Hillary are:
She is pro- international free- trade, via Nafta and Gatt which Bill Clinton signed into law. The plan for globalization is responsible for that giant sucking sound of U.S. jobs going south. Nafta and Gatt does not address fair trade nor reinforce health issues relating to our food supplies. It totally disregards consumer and worker rights.
She is therefore in favor of the mass misuse of Eminent Domain taking place throughout the country via the North American Union put on the fast-track under the quise of the Trans-Texas corridor.
She is therefore also in favor of open borders and amnesty for illegals who instead of assimilating into our culture, and abiding by our regulations are forcing their un- Americanized agenda upon the United States. (Why not, as they are not prohibited from doing so.) This is a direct threat to our safety and sovereignty.
More stringent laws prohibiting citizens to protect them selves will be enacted via the Brady bill (another Clinton brainchild.)
Our right to free speech is under assault and our constitution is unrecognizable.
Both parties seemingly uphold the same globalistic views on integration so
politicians encourage foreigners to cross our borders in order to take advantage of taxpayer funded benefits and the few minimum wage jobs left in this country. Meanwhile we are being told to appease and ignore all illegal lawbreakers in order that these perpetrators can feel at home here in America or else suffer the consequences of a lable or liberal term used in pronouncing discrimination.
Both parties need to stay off of moral issues which should have no place in politics. Stay out of our bedrooms please!
What’s wrong with situating the troops around our own borders instead of Iraqs? Why can’t we protect America first..China seems to have no problem with it.
Please bring the Democrats back into line with the Constitution and the American way regardles of race, color and creed.
Thanks,
Rene
Rene,
When you talk about illegals who instead of assimilating into our culture are forcing their un-Americanized agenda upon the US, do you include everyone here who has not assimilated? The China Towns, the Greek, Russian, and other groups who often come legally, but also do not learn the language and use our entitlement programs to care for their elderly and young?
I am not aware of both parties encouraging foreigners to cross our borders – I presume you mean illegally – to take advantage of our benefits and poverty level jobs. Certainly the big corporations are guilty of using illegal workers to do jobs at wages Americans know they can’t live on. The illegals do not have the American resistance to housing large numbers of people in a one or two bedroom residence.
I certainly have heard PSAs asking citizens to report, not ignore, illegal immigrants. I also believe that there are limited options to dealing with 11 million individuals, some of whom have been here for decades and have children and grandchildren born here.
As a nurse, I have cared for some who are here illegally. Although they may get acute care when they arrive at a hospital, once they are medically stable, essential follow up care options are almost non-existant.
I have a real problem with people who are afraid of others who speak a language they don’t understand. The fear turns to irrational hate and expectations of assimilation that many of these people could or would not meet if they went to another country. There are many countries around the world that have more than one language common to the citizens. Many speak two or more. It can actually increase intelligence to speak more than one language. Yet this seems to be the real issue for too many people who are afraid of the illegal immigrants.
As far as Un-American agendas. I don’t perceive 11 million poor, largely uneducated. overworked and law dodging people as much of a threat. The corporate controlled media, the millitary-industrial-financial-Congressional complex, and the religious right are far more of a threat to America than these unfortunate individuals who are willing to go to desparate efforts to improve their lives and their children’s.
The country is out of line with the Constitution because of the GOP administration. The American way is, inevitably, changing with the passage of time. You cannot change or stop it, nor do I think we necessarily want to. We should be trying to make it change for the better of all of us.