Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Adulterers in Chief

By Steve Benen, Washington Monthly. Posted June 28, 2006.


The GOP's top three contenders for the 2008 race are the most maritally challenged crop of presidential hopefuls in American political history.
062806_story1
John McCain, Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani, from left.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also in Top Stories

Sleeping Around Craigslist
Anna Reed, Lily Penza, East Bay Express

Bush's Secret Army of Snoops and Snitches
Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive

Michael Pollan on What's Wrong with Environmentalism
Kate Cheney Davidson, Yale Environment 360

A Peak Oil Prophet Imagines Life in America After Wal-Mart
Michelle Nijhuis, Grist.org

Sci-Fi Heroes Take on the System
Roya Rastegar, ColorLines

Billionaires Are Gouging Your Grandparents
Brave New Films, Brave New Films

Online Activists Keep the Pressure on Obama
Ari Melber, TheNation.com

More stories by Steve Benen

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Last month, The New York Times published a 2,000-word, front-page dissection of Bill and Hillary Clinton's marriage. It contained no real news, few named sources, and plenty of gossip masquerading as political coverage. Observing that the Clintons typically spend 14 days of each month together -- hardly unusual for a couple that includes a senator and a peripatetic former president -- the Times opted for the half-empty conclusion that the two lead "largely separate lives." The story also made an oblique reference to a Canadian politician named Belinda Stronach, the significance of which would likely be grasped only by insiders and people who read tabloids at supermarket check-outs. In a cover article last year, the Globe claimed that Stronach and Clinton were more than just good friends.

If the Times had evidence to support the innuendo, it decided not to print it. But despite the vaporous quality of the story's facts, David Broder's Washington Post column just 48 hours later indicated that a new conventional wisdom was forming, one which sought to undermine Hillary's presidential ambitions. After describing his boredom at a substantive speech the senator gave to reporters on energy policy, Broder concluded that the failure of reporters in the post-speech Q&A to grill Hillary about her personal relationship with her husband was the "elephant in the room."

Of course, there was once a time when reporters believed that the sexual peccadilloes of American leaders were a private matter, and the nation was probably better off for that belief. In the late 1990s, Broder himself argued several times that these kinds of stories don't do voters any favors. But the rules were shifting, thanks largely to the mainstream press and the GOP's relentless pursuit of Bill Clinton. Now the Times piece suggests that we're in for three long years in which reporters will judge Hillary Clinton's character by rumors about her husband. But it may be Republicans who have the most to lose.

Lurking just over the horizon are liabilities for three Republicans who have topped several national, independent polls for the GOP's favorite 2008 nominee: 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.

Until relatively recently, a self-confessed adulterer had never sought the presidency. Certainly, other candidates have been dogged by sex scandals. In the 1828 presidential election, John Quincy Adams questioned whether Andrew Jackson's wife was legitimately divorced from her first husband before she married Old Hickory. Grover Cleveland, who was single, fathered a child out of wedlock, a fact that sparked national headlines during the 1884 election (though he managed to win anyway). There have been presidential candidates who had affairs that the press decided not to write about, like Wendell Wilkie, FDR, and John F. Kennedy. And there have been candidates whose infidelities have been uncovered during the course of a campaign: Gary Hart's indiscretions ultimately derailed his 1988 bid, and in 1992, during the course of his campaign, Bill Clinton was forced to make the euphemistic admission that he "caused pain" in his marriage.

But it wasn't until 2000 that McCain, possibly emboldened by Clinton's survival of his scandals, became the first confessed adulterer to have the nerve to run. Now, 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.

McCain was still married and living with his wife in 1979 while, according to The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof, "aggressively courting a 25-year-old woman who was as beautiful as she was rich." McCain divorced his wife, who had raised their three children while he was imprisoned in Vietnam, then launched his political career with his new wife's family money. In 2000, McCain managed to deflect media questioning about his first marriage with a deft admission of responsibility for its failure. It's possible that the age of the offense and McCain's charmed relationship with the press will pull him through again, but Giuliani and Gingrich may face a more difficult challenge. Both conducted well-documented affairs in the last decade -- while still in public office.


Digg!

Steve Benen is a freelance writer and editor of The Carpetbagger Report.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Repulibcans
Posted by: thinkverybig on Jun 28, 2006 12:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's see how the republicans respond to this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Actually let's see how Dems respond . . . Posted by: American Reflections
When Will We All Wake Up!!!!!
Posted by: thinkverybig on Jun 28, 2006 12:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just a quick note.... has anyone paid attention to how the congress took up the issue of FLAG BURNING when we have all of these more important issues facing this country such as a high unemployment rate, high gas prices, corruption in politics, abuse of presidential powers, an illegal war in Iraq, wasted billions on a stupid war, 8 billion or more unaccounted for from the allocated war money, continued increasing of our national debt, 45 million without healthcare, illegal immigration, the list goes on.... it's time for a change in this country folks and that time is now.

Help me help others...

I need volunteers to come aboard of "WeMustChange.org"

email me at david@thinkverybig.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: When Will We All Wake Up!!!!! sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» RE: When Will We All Wake Up!!!!! sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» RE: When Will We All Wake Up!!!!! sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» RE: When Will We All Wake Up!!!!! sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
With power comes booty
Posted by: Bobsays on Jun 28, 2006 1:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have had several high profile political roles and can speak from experience. I have also had before that a high profile role in a small business. The difference in how women treat you was chalk and cheese. As soon as I started the political role (from day one), I had women flurting with me, and offering themselves up.

I worked hard at being faithful and turned down 90 per cent of the opportunities. But the offers were so plentiful, that even that led to a silly amount of adultary. At one point I had two women coming to see me every day. I would duck out of a meet and greet and dash back to the office, to find a journalist there who was more interested in going down on me than unearthing the facts for a story.

I grew up poor. I had been used to being looked down upon all my life by women. Most women can see where you come from economically and treat you accordingly. So it was a shock for me to see what life is like for all those rich guys I met at university.

So my point is this: if Americans believe they can separate sex and power, they are deluding themselves. Power is the greatest aphrodisiac, even greater than money. Women are drawn to it like bees to honey. Few men can resist.

It is better to instead leave this issue out of public debate and for the newspapers to busy themselves with discussing policy and politics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Interesting... Posted by: Allison
» RE: Interesting... Posted by: Mutternich
» RE: With power comes booty Posted by: Ratskii
» RE: With power comes booty Posted by: VisionQuest
» spellbound Posted by: jmao
» RE: With power comes booty Posted by: Urstrly
voters
Posted by: rsaxto on Jun 28, 2006 3:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't voters and reporters have something better to do than compare the sex lives of their Presidential candidates?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: voters sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» RE: voters sickofsleaze Posted by: aonghus36
Having an affair is one thing
Posted by: Alladin on Jun 28, 2006 3:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but also leading the parade as a standard bearer for "family values" is quite another. Despite the peccadilloes that virtually all candidates have, we should look for those who are logically consistent, morally tolerant of other people and not guided by the latest polls on what the mythical and moronic "man on the street" has ben taught to think. Such a candidate my not only be impossible to find but also to elect.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It Is About Trust
Posted by: ChristopherLL on Jun 28, 2006 4:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's about relationships. These men violated the trust and intimacy of the most important voluntary relationship in our lives; commitment to another human being. Their sexual acts are only a symptom, not the illness. And how can a leader be trusted to establish trust, provide leadership and provide guidance to the electorate when they have violated the same in their own personal lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It Is About Trust Posted by: montims
» RE: It Is About Trust Posted by: ChristopherLL
» RE: It Is About Trust Posted by: gar
» RE: It Is About Trust Posted by: ChristopherLL
» Sorry, but... Posted by: Aim
A Venue for the Message
Posted by: marxalot on Jun 28, 2006 4:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This information appearing in Alternet is one thing, but until I see talking heads on the TV hammering on it night after night, I won't count on it meaning much.

Remember 2004 Frat Boy Chicken Hawk vs Authentic War Veteran?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Family Values in the Campaign
Posted by: day0527 on Jun 28, 2006 4:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, at least we can be assured the GOP will not run on family values. Maybe they will also have trouble getting support from the likes of Falwell and his ilk.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

re marxalot sickofsleaze
Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com on Jun 28, 2006 5:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think of frat boy and the genuine war hero each time I see the FOOL FRAT on tv

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

VOWS?
Posted by: Roverton on Jun 28, 2006 5:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So when THESE guys say "I do",
WHAT do they do..?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: VOWS? sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
AlterPost
Posted by: TL on Jun 28, 2006 5:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're no better than the New York Post. You criticize public figures for their personal lives, then lead with the rumor about Bill Clinton and tie it to Hillary Clinton. Oh, I'm defending her, you will argue. But you're guilty of the same pseudo-journalism as the tabloids.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GINGRICH HANGS OUT AT BOHEMIAN GROVE
Posted by: resistance6 on Jun 28, 2006 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've seen pics of him there, all smiles.

As Richard Nixon himself described it: "It's the faggiest G.D. place I've ever seen."

They burn a skeleton in effigy to the Owl God (Alex Jones says the thing is swathed in cloth soaked in the blood of a true human victim of Satanic ritual sacrifice). They have orgies, many rooms where unspeakable things occur, and their bathroom is called the Golden Arches, where a naked woman (Monarch sex slave) stands in place of the urinal.

The place is in California. I guess you've all heard about it.

Here's a clip of Alex Jones confronting David Gergen on his membership and visits to Bohemian Grove:

CLICK HERE

Bohemian Grove is where the rich and powerful meet for "fun and games." Presidential candidates are picked there, government subcontractors fraternize with the ones who wash their other hand, deals are made. Bush belongs, Kissenger, Reagan was a member. It's mostly Republicans but there are some Democrats too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What universe is this author from?
Posted by: ssegallmd on Jun 28, 2006 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Despite the scandalous details, whether the press will air [Republican's infidelities] is still an open question."

It is? What a ridiculous thing to say. Only the opponents of the Republicans get savaged by the press. There might be some mention of this somewhere sometime, and more marginal Republicans may be cannibalized by the press on behalf of the Republican front-runner, but there will be nothing about the Republican front-runner that will register on the radar of the stuporous American electorate.

As far as "value voters" go, those zombies do and believe what they are told to do and believe. They and their votes are the property of every Republican candidate in the general election.

"After enduring the trauma of the Clinton years, and the indignity of John Kerry fending off baseless reports of a fling with a reporter in 2004, it's hard to imagine Democrats playing nice in 2008, especially in light of the high bar Republicans have set for themselves on "character" issues."

It's hard to imagine the Democrats doing anything except rolling over and bellying up as usual.

"Finally, if the Democrats fail to plant this story in the press, one final force will be beating at their doors: liberal bloggers"

What? Does the author think that people who would vote for a Republican read liberal blogs?

"It'd be dishonest to say that liberals won't take some satisfaction in seeing the Republicans undone by their own standards."

And who is going to do that if nobody is reading the liberal blogs except liberals and the MSM continues to hammer Democrats and give Republicans a pass? The American people are absolutely incapable of taking a real moral position. As I said, they do what their masters tell them to do without a bleat of protest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DO NOT DO AS I DO; DO AS I SAY! DO IT! DO IT!, D0 IT!!!
Posted by: krose on Jun 28, 2006 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO AS YOU ARE TOLD TO DO!

NOW JUST DO IT, AND DON'T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO ME!

I AM "SPECIAL!" I CAN GET AWAY WITH IT! I'M DIFFERENT!

MY WIFE JUST DOESM'T UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH "HARD WORK" THERE IS TO DO IN POLITICS!

ONE JUST HAS TO "UNWIND. SOMEHOW," DOESN'T ONE?

"I AM SO EXHAUSTED." "I NEED A LITTLE DIVERSION!

I NEED COMPANIONSHIP!" "THE WIFE JUST DOESN'T UNDERSTAND ME."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who cares?
Posted by: eastcoker on Jun 28, 2006 8:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Come on people. So darn what. I don't care what people do in their bedrooms. That's what my dad would say and I agree. Marriage is a piece of paper. These people were never really married. Who cares if you go through the pomp and circumstance. This country is so darn backwards, so Evangelical Protestant, it makes me ***sick***.
Look at Catherine the Great. She had lots of lovers and illegitimate children. So what. Sex and power go together like a hand in glove. It goes with the territory.
This is boring. Get over it people. Seduction is the name of the game when you sit in a seat of power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Who cares? Posted by: charemor
» RE: Who cares? Posted by: aussidawg
» For whom are family values? Posted by: eastcoker
» For whom is adultery an issue? Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Who cares? Posted by: badkitty
» Hi EC! Posted by: aussidawg
» Puritanical Horror Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Puritanical Horror Posted by: aussidawg
» Legalized prostitution Posted by: kc4choice
» The biological part of shagging Posted by: eastcoker
Sex and power
Posted by: Bobsays on Jun 28, 2006 8:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I have had high profile powerful jobs, my behaviour has changed. You are pushed to perform at a high level. You need personal magnetism to get others to work with you. You are working long days. And then you reach milestones. A big press conference, or the release of a new study, or you get a pay raise. Whatever. You work a couple all nighters with some female colleagues.

All of you are wound right up. And when the release comes from a successful event or moment, you need to celebrate it. It is human nature that people turn to sex. You bond with others, and if that person is physically attractive to you, then you are going to think about it.

I would have colleagues want to sleep with me after press conferences. It was the media buzz, it was like being a rock star for a few minutes. But that was enough to get things happening.

I don't blame these politicians for this. I do blame them if they are hypocrites about it, like the Republicans.

But what Clinton did? That was normal. The guy was on a roll and he celebrated in his own way.
If his wife wasn't there to celebrate with him, that was her mistake. And that would be my advice to women married to successful, powerful men. Be there when they need to celebrate. Because they will eventually stray, no matter moral they are. They will need to celebrate so make the time for it, and then the marriage will remain secure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Here here Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Sex and power Posted by: resistance6
» RE: Sex and power Posted by: robmikejas
» RE: Sex and power Posted by: FedererFan
» The number one reason Posted by: kc4choice
» A liar, is a liar. Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: A liar, is a liar. Posted by: kc4choice
» Well, what is a lie then? Posted by: eastcoker
Adultery
Posted by: chimpie on Jun 28, 2006 8:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why don't we include Bush and Condi?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Adultery sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» RE: My Sentiments Exactly Posted by: mrcentrist
» RE: Adultery Posted by: kooz
» RE: Adultery Posted by: mrcentrist
If the MSM even covers it
Posted by: chaoslegs on Jun 28, 2006 10:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How short are memories are. Let see, Downing Street Memo was buried. In 2004 the AWOL Bush story became Memogate, the lying Swifties got endless coverage, the media let Cheney get outraged because either Kerry or Edwards mentioned that his daughter is a lesbian, and so on.

The MSM gives them a pass all the time. The double standards is not limited to infidelity.

On a side note, Dick Cheney was in the Twin Cities yesterday to fundraise for Congressional candidate Michelle Bachman. She is the crazy lady that has been pushing for a state admendment to ban gay marriages and strip the other legal rights from gay couples. Nice irony.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: If the MSM even covers it Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: If the MSM even covers it Posted by: FedererFan
» Thank you for your answer Posted by: eastcoker
Adulters-in-Chief
Posted by: willymack on Jun 28, 2006 11:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So what? It's no business of ANYBODY's except theirs, same as with Bill Clinton.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Adulters-in-Chief Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Adulters-in-Chief Posted by: Ellie1
THESE ARE 3 TRULY HYPOCRATIC OATH-BREAKERS
Posted by: chanceny on Jun 28, 2006 12:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wouldn't ordinarily give a crap about what these digustoids do in their personal lives (just the eechy pictures they conjure up cramps up my bile ducts), BUT: Ain't it sorta, kinda breaking one of those constantly spouted, incessantly quoted, carved in stone tablets, plastered on walls of justice and jammed down our craws every time theY get near a microphone, commandment thingies? If it's a thou shalt not and they went and done did it, well then, shouldn't we get to spank em a little, make em go stand in a corner with some kinda hat bearing a red "A" atop their two-faced heads for all to see? After what was hurled at Clinton for just being an Alpha schmuck, these hypocritical priglets should have their demented base stone em real good for their heinous transgressions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pathetic...!
Posted by: albiegf13 on Jun 28, 2006 1:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The whole enchilada is pathetic... However, it should come as good news to John McCain, Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani, that they can have an affair without having to pay cash for it. They all appear to be short where it counts, as a matter of fact, it is a fact that male members of the republican party are an average 31% smaller in penis size than democrats. Perhaps this is why they are so sanctimonious and mean.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pathetic...! Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Pathetic...! sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» RE: Pathetic...! (and finally!) Posted by: FedererFan
This is more about sexism than morality
Posted by: Ellie1 on Jun 28, 2006 1:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So conservative males get a pass, why aren't their spouses (or ex-spouses) given the blame and criticism that Hillary seems to face every day from these sanctimonious assholes. I am not a strong Hillary fan (because of her stand on Iraq) but she kept her marriage together in the face of public and private humiliation. Like these so called "Christian values" hypocrits say women SHOULD behave. Yet they criticize her at every chance. What a bunch of sanctimonious pricks (literally and figuratively).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Remember the drive to impeach Clinton?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 28, 2006 3:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why doesn't the New York Times run a front-page article on the grounds for impeaching President-Select Bush under Constitutional Law? The reasons have all been spelled out and are a lot more significant then lying under oath about an affair with an intern in the Oval Office. Rather, these impeachment charges would include stealing elections, lying to the public in order to start wars, stealing from the Treasury, attempting to undermine the legislative branch of government, and so on.

Each one of those charges would warrant an independent prosecutor. Don't you remember the daily media stream of Ken Starr leaks and innuendo? The endless discussion on talk shows and in op-ed columns about the gorunds for Clinton's impeachment? Yet our media seems inable to even discuss this topic. What's their rationale? After 9/11 we all have to shut up and do as we are told? This president has committed impeachable crimes in broad daylight - so what are they waiting for?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: emember the drive to impeach Clinton? sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
Re: Adulterers In Chief
Posted by: sabr on Jun 28, 2006 4:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's really very simple; whether it is a politician or anybody else, if they are not happy, satisfied with their spouse, they should just get a divorce and then be available emotionally and otherwise for someone else. It is emotionally sick to stay with someone you are miserable with, but these people don't want to be alone, so they just use whoever they can, they stay with wives they don't love until something better comes along. It is pathetic. Make a commitment and honor it, or get out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank You! Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Thank You! Posted by: FedererFan
» RE: Thank You! Posted by: eastcoker
Okay, if adultery doesn't bother voters when Republicans indulge...
Posted by: dangerouslysane on Jun 28, 2006 10:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about pedophila? Amazing how little coverage this stuff gets when Republicans get caught with their pants down and their li'l stiffies where they do not belong! Upstanding citizens indeed!

Check out linked text

There has been a recent development in the story of the guy who produced an anti-Gore commercial in 2000. He's looking at jail time for molesting his stepdaughter, who'd been in the commercial. Maybe he'll run for elected office when he gets out!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SwiftBoating marriage are they?
Posted by: kooz on Jun 29, 2006 5:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hypocrasy is a Republican value, obviously

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who You Got That's Pure?
Posted by: I-RIGHT-I on Jun 29, 2006 11:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Personal attacks of this nature are pure gold when coming from the Party of Treason, Sodomy, Abortion and Significant Others. Keep up the good work fruitcakes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Uh, generation gap? Posted by: eastcoker
At this point
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Jun 29, 2006 1:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At this point in our nation's history I'd be shocked and even a bit worried if someone with a truly healthy marriage were to be nominated...

Remember, for all intents and purposes Bush's marriage is "normal", yet look what he brought us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: At this point sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
What the hell!!
Posted by: popsicle67 on Jun 29, 2006 5:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay, first you complain about my party and now you want to pick the candidate? Whoa there little feller I think you got some explaining to do. Why would the republican party want to be stuck with jackasses who don't want to be republicans
running for our nomination. That sounds like a democratic
conspiracy to elect a president with no party. No self respecting republican would spit on McCains shoes to put out a hot foot and I personally could care less any of the others.
They are all old and too ingrained in the status quo. I wish there was a guy like Lee Atwater around or even Dan Quayle
( although the fact he isn't trying to run is the best proof that
he might be smart enough to do the job ) because the pickings are mighty slim which means look out for Jeb IN 2008(HEE HEE)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Belinda Stronach
Posted by: Annarisse on Jul 1, 2006 6:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay, I'm no big fan of this woman, but she's dealt with enough political defamation in Canada without being tied into this kind of rumour. It's time to lay off her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

reaction?
Posted by: dikaiosyne on Jul 1, 2006 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm kinda surprised by some of the comments I'm reading here. I would have thought that being a serial adulterer would be a requirement for any liberal candidate so I'm a bit puzzled that anyone would take the time to make it an issue. Maybe because the candidates in question are Republicans? That must be it. Anyway....The candidates that are being promoted as the top flight Republican nominees in waiting really have no chance of becoming the eventual nominees. McCain is too much the maverick RINO beloved by the liberal press and distained by the conservative base of the GOP. Giuliani is too much a liberal on social issues which makes him a non-starter for real conservatives. Gingrich has the best chance of the three as long as he continues to state conservative themes but his chances are only moderately better than the previous two potential candidates due to his personal piccadillos. I wish to go on record that the eventual Republican nominee IMHO will be George Allan from Virginia. He plays the right songs and the conservative base is going to love his message once the primary season begins.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: reaction? Posted by: Aim
What happened to the good old JFK days?
[