The question was nobody's business and beneath notice. Its sole motivation was to ridicule and weaken the president, and it was all the more revolting considering the glimpses we've had into the private behavior of the scumbags (oh wait, "patriots") who were behind it. Clinton should have given the same answer GWB gave concerning his cocaine usage.
I don't know what you expect...as usual. :lol: You're all over the place with these comments. I said Vitter was wrong and I didn't dismiss it or give him a pass. I think affairs are wrong. I believe it's worse when you're an elected public official. It's elevated when you have spoken many times about morals and values. I CONDEMN DAVID VITTER!!! (Are you hapy? Dumb question...of course, you're not.) I feel a "so-called" leader / "rev" of the church having an affair, bringing a child into this world, trying to cover it up, and lying about it to be an even worse offense. That has absolutely noting to do with party affiliation. I feel a President LYING UNDER OATH makes Vitter and Jackson seem insignificant to the argument. I guess I would have to burn Vitter at the stake and blame the Republicans for Jackson and Clinton's affairs to make you happy. :nope:
No need for me to even respond to that ignorance. You think affairs are wrong, well guess what prostitution is illegal, affairs arent. But im sure you missed that point.
You're a smart guy MM. There is no way you are missing his point...that Clinton's act was more despicable because he blatantly lied under oath, while serving as POTUS. I would like to point out that any CEO of a company, caught having an affair with interns, and that caused the company's name to be drug through the mud as clinton did with the US, would be fired immediately. Clinton, basically the CEO of our country, caused much embarrassment and it was obviously a distraction to his administration. Vitter is a POS and will be defeated in his next election. Clinton should have been ran out of Washington and convicted...not for the affair, but for lying about it under oath. All the affair meant was that he was a POS also. The lying and deception is what made it a more grievous act than vitter.
Of course I see his point and you are right, he did lie under oath, but I just feel like he was being a bit hypocritical and disingenious about the affair vs prostitution. I agree with his and your view on Clinton.
I think Red's right on this one, SF. As close as 2000 was, you have to wonder how many Moderates or even Dems that vote on character issues were swayed to W by a well-placed cigar. :shock:
I think if it had been early in his first term, that might have happened and it would not have been good for the US with Al Gore as President. He wasn't even Clinton-Light. But being late in his second term, they let it go because Monica had nothing to do with presidential politics (unlike Nixon's lies during Watergate) and because Clinton was on his way out anyway. It was like Ford's pardon of Nixon--he was gone and needed to be forgotten, prosecuting him served no useful purpose to the country.
Okay...maybe that's what you were getting at...affairs vs. prostitution. One is a crime (in most places) and the other isn't but considered just as bad (if not worse) to some people. For clarification purposes...some wouldn't consider prostitution by a single man to be as bad as by a married man. Regardless, you are correct...it's a crime. Regarding Clinton...if you recall he had sex in the Oval Office. Granted some considered the "entire" White House a residence while others considered the Oval Office to be a working area. As the Commander in Chief of the military, an affair would've cost him him position but he skated because they said the rule didn't apply to the President. As a federal employee, he would've been fired for having sex in a government office (even with his own wife) but he was exempted because he was the President. The lack of charges or a conviction doesn't excuse the behavior of a President. If he or his followers thought this was no big deal, then why did he lie under oath and jeopardize his presidency? There were things that Clinton did well but he'll never be mentioned in the same light as Ronald Reagan because he lacked morals, ethics, and honesty. That's his legacy. Sad, but true.
