Originally Posted by QBNCGAR
The reason it's fair to crucify the President for being an adulterer, and in such an obscenely careless manner, is because it speaks to his character. There's an old saying that goes like this - "If they'll do it with you, they'll do it to you." I think adultery - regardless of the act, the location, or who's involved, because I really don't want to know - is grounds for oversight activities by Congress. Sue me. You're not an everday citizen when you're a movie star, a sports star, or an elected official. You're not entitled to both. There's a standard these people should meet - the sole price to pay for their fame and fortune.
I guess it comes down to this part. The adultery issue is an issue between the adulterer and his/her spouse. Unless I am the adulterer or my wife is, I find this none of my business. The only
time I find it interesting is when someone is discovered to be a massive fraud by espousing family values and so forth, while they are committing adultery (well, before and after, as I doubt they would be espousing much to the general public while in the act of committing adultery). I find that to specifically be an indication of a meaningful character flaw, lying in the capacity of carrying out your duties as an elected official, because if you are an adulterer then you can't be believed when you tell people you are for family values, unless you clarify that to mean family values that encompass sex partners other than your legal spouse. And to stop short of that little tidbit when explaining your outlook to voters is deceptive. Just like the whole issue with gays.
So, Clinton cheating on Hillary was between Hillary and Bill. I wasn't in the circle, he made no commitment he broke to me when he shot a wad on Monica's dress, and I would have preferred the issue never got brought up. It did, he lied and he got caught. He broke the law. He was impeached.
I am disappointed he lied. I could not care less about the blow job. Not my business. Hillary seems to have gotten past it, so should you. It is not like he splooged on your blue dress.
The whole event was politically motivated. Someone spent tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to investigate a politically energized rumor, found nothing of substance, and then meandered off on a tangent that was never in the original scope of the Whitewater land deal investigation. It was politically motivated. I think there are relatively few people of accomplishment in the world, and especially in the US who have not done something they were ashamed to admit in public. Excising this set of otherwise talented people from the pool of those willing, able and capable of providing leadership in the public arena is, in my opinion, unwise.
I don't think your outlook is naive, I think it is unrealistic and that you unevenly apply your criteria. I have yet to hear you rail relentlessly against the other adulterers in our government. Were you equally and grossly offended by Newt? If so, how is it you only rail against Clinton on the matter of being a poon hound? Newt has been married 3 times. That doesn't happen if you keep your pants zipped up when you are away from home, and he now owns up to it. The same with the rest of the politicians. If the offense itself was the problem, I would expect you to have a list. Instead it serves as a "Scarlet Letter" you attach to Clinton to bash him.
In the end humans will be human. I want the government populated with men and women with superior capabilities and judgement as it applies to governing the country. If that means they have a "hole" in their capabilities elsewhere, I can't think of a better place for that than their personal life, which I don't care about. Jim