He should stay, the asshole. Look at the guy. Who'd wanna fuck him? Other than a lobbyist who's just doin' bidness. Important point now that the Clinton thing has been brought up: Clinton never paraded around as a family values prude.
@momof3wildkids: howz about we don't give a crap about any of this anymore? It should be between the cheater, the gay cheater, Jesus and the spouses for all I care. And I don't care. Self-righteous hypocrites I care about. They can zip it.
Bill Clinton should have told everyone to politely STFU. He should have never been impeached. George W. Bush sure won't be. What a fine, upstanding criminal he is.
Kenneth Starr and Linda Tripp can kiss my grits for all time. And you too, Oprah, for scolding Bill like a schoolboy on your dumb TV show. Shame on you. Enough, already.
@momof3wildkids: I agree with the underlying confusion about why it might be inappropriate for a liberal-leaning blog that has often praised Clinton in the past (while still playfully ribbing him for his sexual escapades) deciding it worthy to post a "praise" for a politician deciding to step down from office; it seems like it comes from a confused, Schadenfreude-y place that overlooks the broad sweep of such a post. Which isn't to say I understand the morals that come alongside any condemnation/praise of someone's personal failings in relation to their public work, since the two usually shouldn't have any connection (see Sarkozy, N., conservative president of France).
In Clinton's case I believe the reason he gets a pass from liberal moralists is because he never tried to pass on his morals as a compass for others, and support legislation that prohibited the personal choices of other people. In Duvall's case, as also in Sanford's and Craig's and even Foley's, the pass is revoked not necessarily because they are conservatives, but instead because as right-leaning Republican politicians who have consistently pushed for and supported social legislation to prohibit the marriages (and sometimes various other civil rights, such as legal right to adoption) of homosexuals they have put their own morals on display, and attempted to take their personal views to the national stage as a beacon of 'how it should be.'
As I indicated above, I usually don't see a correlation between what one does on personal time with what one does while at the office, and in Clinton's case, as well as the instance of Sarkozy having a mistress while running as a conservative, I see no contradictions between private lifestyle choices and public legislative decisions. But in this country conservatives make it their business to try to force others to follow their moral diatribes, that what is right for them should be the law and mandate for others, so it should not be so hard to see that when one of these moralizing oppressive shit faces makes a public ass of himself in such a hypocritical way, he should see himself to the door. If Clinton had ran on a platform of moral reform and social holier-than-thouness, perhaps I would see the connection, but he did not, and that is the difference.
For people on this thread comparing it to the Clinton Lewinsky scandal, Monica wasn't a lobbyist representing interests affected by Bill's constituency. This lobbyist was lobbying the committee this man was on, and his resignation is fully appropriate. A investigation as to how this relationship affected the decisions of the committee is also appropriate.
@BlinkyMcChuck and everyone: No Monica wasn't a lobbyist, but she was an employee. Any decent company would have fired Bill, and not because of his infidelity -- but because of his poor judgment and the distractions it would cause.
@momof3wildkids: Fascinating to see that there are still a few people out there who get all their news from the 1997 archive of Usenet.
Lewinsky was an unpaid intern, not an employee. Furthermore, her assignment not in any way supervised by Clinton since she wasn't on the White House staff.
And, most importantly here: she was in no position to influence the President on policy.
Holy Christ, woman, what kind of example are you setting for those kids of yours by holding this trivial grudge for more than a decade, and deliberately lying in the bargain?
@lacieca01: So you are trying to tell me that in corporate America a CEO getting a blow job from an unpaid intern that did not work directly for him .... who would have no influence on his corporate decisions.. would not be fired by his Board? C'mon.
I hold no grudge about Clinton and his philandering ways. I'm just pointing out that Andrew is applauding a Republican when he stepped down because of sex scandal. All I asked is whether or not he wanted Clinton to step down after his sex scandal caused a great deal of distraction. From the post above: "... the fact that the gossip and snickering has become a "distraction" from public duties."
@momof3wildkids: Wow mom, have you ever worked in the corporate world? That crap happens all the time and hell no, that shit would be swept under the rug and not a thing would be done to the CEO, as long as the numbers were still good.
@momof3wildkids: Yes, I am telling you exactly that "in corporate America a CEO getting a blow job from an unpaid intern" would probably suffer no major repercussions from his board unless the woman in question later filed a sexual harassment charge, and even when that happened, management would strongly contest the suit primarily on the grounds that it was without merit, i.e., she couldn't demonstrate that she was punished or otherwise injured by her refusal to continue the sexual relationship.
In general, consensual sexual relationships among co-workers are tolerated in corporate America if the participants are discreet and tactful. When such a relationship develops between a supervisor and a direct report, that's a more serious situation because of the conflict of interest represented by the clear and obvious power differential of the individuals.
The "CEO" analogy was thoroughly debunked back during the Clinton years, though apparently you either weren't paying attention or else you are now deliberately acting disingenous. I suspect the latter, because you keep ignoring the salient fact that the woman in the Duvall case is a lobbyist. That kind of sophistry is troll behavior, and (like your cronies who tell lies about health care) you deserve to be called out.
As for the consensual part of your comment, I suspect that sexual relationships between CEOs and interns generally don't end happily... thus the threat of lawsuit.
I tend to think that the socio-pathology starts when you first put your family on a campaign brochure. What's that supposed to say? Look, don't worry about me neglecting you; I'm already neglecting these four people right here--and they live with me.
God, watching that tape makes me want to be a corrupt politician. Except the Larry Craig thing. Airport bathrooms are disgusting. Edwards is my favorite though. Man he delivered that line convincingly.
I'm currently reading George Stephanopoulos' memoir from his years working for Clinton. The sections on Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones were really great. I can't wait to read how he reacts to the Monica scandal!
@mfnher: I thought that book was pretty good but I thought the weakest sections were on Monica. It came out in the throes of the public outrage and it seemed like he heavily embellished his own personal outrage in order to get the book to hit a chord with the public. Look out for Rahm in there though!
I was a supporter of Clinton and went to a fundraiser in Santa Monica before the second campaign. We met him briefy and I shook hands with him and looked into his eyes. I was kinda shocked at the feeling I got looking at him -- and had only had this creeping suspicion once before: that was when I met OJ Simpson on an airplane (pre-murder) and when walking away from him back to my seat I remember thinking, "This guy is a total sociopath."
Now they're saying he's in Argentina. Seriously, he's the governor of a state, this is so irresponsible. And a federal agent saw him? Are they everywhere and are they informed about every government official looks like?
@CaptainFantastic: Yes, I assume they would be familiari with the governor of the state they are working in. The question was are they familiar with the governor of every state and every major public official? The senators from Wyoming? The governor of Wisconsin? Maybe that's why they are federal agents and I'm not.
@heywhat: @Bostom: Oh yeah, I forgot this dude is gov. of SC. My bad. It is a neighboring state and Atlanta is a big hub, so Sanford my be a frequent visitor to the airport.
@What I Meant (not what I said): Hearted for your insight and beating me to the punch. (I coincidentally use an analogy between the compass rose and morality when I teach compass techniques. You know, like being careful that declination doesn't bend your line of travel? Or something like that. Back to my morning coffee.)
09/09/09
09/10/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
Ew.
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/10/09
09/09/09
I happen to agree with you that this guy should resign, if for no other reason than of the love dripping comment.
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
Bill Clinton should have told everyone to politely STFU. He should have never been impeached. George W. Bush sure won't be. What a fine, upstanding criminal he is.
Kenneth Starr and Linda Tripp can kiss my grits for all time. And you too, Oprah, for scolding Bill like a schoolboy on your dumb TV show. Shame on you. Enough, already.
09/09/09
In Clinton's case I believe the reason he gets a pass from liberal moralists is because he never tried to pass on his morals as a compass for others, and support legislation that prohibited the personal choices of other people. In Duvall's case, as also in Sanford's and Craig's and even Foley's, the pass is revoked not necessarily because they are conservatives, but instead because as right-leaning Republican politicians who have consistently pushed for and supported social legislation to prohibit the marriages (and sometimes various other civil rights, such as legal right to adoption) of homosexuals they have put their own morals on display, and attempted to take their personal views to the national stage as a beacon of 'how it should be.'
As I indicated above, I usually don't see a correlation between what one does on personal time with what one does while at the office, and in Clinton's case, as well as the instance of Sarkozy having a mistress while running as a conservative, I see no contradictions between private lifestyle choices and public legislative decisions. But in this country conservatives make it their business to try to force others to follow their moral diatribes, that what is right for them should be the law and mandate for others, so it should not be so hard to see that when one of these moralizing oppressive shit faces makes a public ass of himself in such a hypocritical way, he should see himself to the door. If Clinton had ran on a platform of moral reform and social holier-than-thouness, perhaps I would see the connection, but he did not, and that is the difference.
09/10/09
09/10/09
09/10/09
Lewinsky was an unpaid intern, not an employee. Furthermore, her assignment not in any way supervised by Clinton since she wasn't on the White House staff.
And, most importantly here: she was in no position to influence the President on policy.
Holy Christ, woman, what kind of example are you setting for those kids of yours by holding this trivial grudge for more than a decade, and deliberately lying in the bargain?
09/10/09
I hold no grudge about Clinton and his philandering ways. I'm just pointing out that Andrew is applauding a Republican when he stepped down because of sex scandal. All I asked is whether or not he wanted Clinton to step down after his sex scandal caused a great deal of distraction. From the post above: "... the fact that the gossip and snickering has become a "distraction" from public duties."
09/10/09
@momof3wildkids: Considering how boards treat CEOs, it would be all fistbumps and 40 million dollar bonuses, actually.
The chairman would be all: "Blow it up, broheim!"
09/10/09
09/10/09
09/10/09
In general, consensual sexual relationships among co-workers are tolerated in corporate America if the participants are discreet and tactful. When such a relationship develops between a supervisor and a direct report, that's a more serious situation because of the conflict of interest represented by the clear and obvious power differential of the individuals.
The "CEO" analogy was thoroughly debunked back during the Clinton years, though apparently you either weren't paying attention or else you are now deliberately acting disingenous. I suspect the latter, because you keep ignoring the salient fact that the woman in the Duvall case is a lobbyist. That kind of sophistry is troll behavior, and (like your cronies who tell lies about health care) you deserve to be called out.
09/10/09
As for the consensual part of your comment, I suspect that sexual relationships between CEOs and interns generally don't end happily... thus the threat of lawsuit.
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
06/25/09
I thought ENFJ was a filthy acronym, but then I looked it up *Disappointed*
06/25/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09
06/24/09