Hell Hath No Fury...and other unbelievable stories from GOP officialdom

[seahawk]

When Congress. Duncan Hunter was indicted, he wasted no time throwing his wife under the bus and blaming everything on her. And then the rest of the story came out:


The congressman spent thousands of dollars on the women, all of whom were lobbyists or congressional staffers. However, as the new court filing showed, those purchases and the interactions that came with them were far from professional.

Hunter’s donors unknowingly paid for drinks, food, a ski vacation, a road trip to the beach and hotel stays with the five women he was seeing on the side. They also paid for the Uber rides he’d take from the women’s homes after hooking up with them.

In one notable instance, Hunter even used a hotel room reservation his wife had booked to engage in one of the affairs.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/dunc ... et-affairs

Documenting one's affairs and expenditures through Uber certainly seems odd.

[seahawk]

Trump's protocol chief isn't going to the Group of 20 meeting in Japan and is resigning, amid stories of his intimidation of employees and carrying a horsewhip in his office.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... nd=premium

[Shirley]

I remember when Duncan Hunter was indicted and thought it was pretty amazing the way he blamed his wife. But then, he's a member of the "Family Values Party", so as long as he repents, all is forgiven.

#moralmajority

[zsn]

Remember when they were not only the Family Values Party, they were also the Fiscally Responsible Party, the Personal Responsibility Party and the Free Trade Party? Principles to the GOP are like 'bahdges' to Gold Hat......."we don't need to show no stinkin' Principles".

Speaking of #moralmajority - I saw a great bumper sticker a few decades ago: "Moral Majority is neither"

[seahawk]

I remember when Duncan Hunter was indicted and thought it was pretty amazing the way he blamed his wife. But then, he's a member of the "Family Values Party", so as long as he repents, all is forgiven.

#moralmajority

It’s like they’re acting out scripts from some movie. Was Sean Lawler channeling Patton?

[PhDhawk]

I get it. There are a shitload of repuclican leaders who have awful horrible morals who are complete hypocrites who campaign on family values and then live their lives in the opposite manner. Let's take that as a given.

But, I'll play devil's advocate and hopefully you guys respond to this sincerely. Let's say you're a voter who has a choice between a candidate who supports all the "family values" legislation (pro-life, pro-marriage, etc.), but he cheats on his wife, has paid for abortions, etc. Or a Democratic candidate who is faithful to his wife and leads the type of moral life that said voter approves of, but politically supports all the things said voter opposes (pro-choice, wants to increase taxes for a trans-rights program, etc.). At the end of the day, since you're voting for someone to vote on legislation that matters to you, don't you care more how they'll vote than you do how they live their life?

I guess what I'm saying is, what's more important in an elected public official when it's time to vote? That they govern how you want them to govern or that they lead a life in the manner you support?

[zsn]

But, I'll play devil's advocate and hopefully you guys respond to this sincerely. Let's say you're a voter who has a choice between a candidate who supports all the "family values" legislation (pro-life, pro-marriage, etc.), but he cheats on his wife, has paid for abortions, etc. Or a Democratic candidate who is faithful to his wife and leads the type of moral life that said voter approves of, but politically supports all the things said voter opposes (pro-choice, wants to increase taxes for a trans-rights program, etc.). At the end of the day, since you're voting for someone to vote on legislation that matters to you, don't you care more how they'll vote than you do how they live their life?

I guess what I'm saying is, what's more important in an elected public official when it's time to vote? That they govern how you want them to govern or that they lead a life in the manner you support?

So, playing Devil's Advocate to your Devil's Advocate.......where do the limits of your "morals" reside? Would you vote for Bernie Madoff if he would confirm forced-birthing Supreme Court justices? How about OJ Simpson? What about Jeffrey Dahmer? I suppose the modern Republican Party has already sort of answered that question - confessed sexual assault is acceptable, as is overt bigotry and financial shenanigans (evidence: Trump). I guess the Trump era has given license to say out loud what people were just admitting in private (misogyny, white nationalism etc). Jury still seems to be out on murder* and cannibalism.

I happen to believe that there are certain non-negotiable character traits required of elected officials

In a way this the modern Republican Party living up to the adage "We are already know what kind of woman you are. We are just haggling over the price"

*FTR Trump does believe, and stated without being challenged, that the GOP electorate would be OK with cold-blooded murder ("I could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue.......")

[Mjl]

I get it. There are a shitload of repuclican leaders who have awful horrible morals who are complete hypocrites who campaign on family values and then live their lives in the opposite manner. Let's take that as a given.

But, I'll play devil's advocate and hopefully you guys respond to this sincerely. Let's say you're a voter who has a choice between a candidate who supports all the "family values" legislation (pro-life, pro-marriage, etc.), but he cheats on his wife, has paid for abortions, etc. Or a Democratic candidate who is faithful to his wife and leads the type of moral life that said voter approves of, but politically supports all the things said voter opposes (pro-choice, wants to increase taxes for a trans-rights program, etc.). At the end of the day, since you're voting for someone to vote on legislation that matters to you, don't you care more how they'll vote than you do how they live their life?

I guess what I'm saying is, what's more important in an elected public official when it's time to vote? That they govern how you want them to govern or that they lead a life in the manner you support?

This is a great point.

[Geezer]

Sooner or later Character matters.

[ousdahl]

I get it. There are a shitload of repuclican leaders who have awful horrible morals who are complete hypocrites who campaign on family values and then live their lives in the opposite manner. Let's take that as a given.

But, I'll play devil's advocate and hopefully you guys respond to this sincerely. Let's say you're a voter who has a choice between a candidate who supports all the "family values" legislation (pro-life, pro-marriage, etc.), but he cheats on his wife, has paid for abortions, etc. Or a Democratic candidate who is faithful to his wife and leads the type of moral life that said voter approves of, but politically supports all the things said voter opposes (pro-choice, wants to increase taxes for a trans-rights program, etc.). At the end of the day, since you're voting for someone to vote on legislation that matters to you, don't you care more how they'll vote than you do how they live their life?

I guess what I'm saying is, what's more important in an elected public official when it's time to vote? That they govern how you want them to govern or that they lead a life in the manner you support?

This is a great point.

Is it?

I mean the point itself may have merit, but the examples may not.

It’s not mutually exclusive to be faithful to your wife and also support abortion and trans rights.

It IS mutually exclusive to be pro-marriage and cheat on your wife, or be ”pro-life” and pay for an abortion.

And I can’t help but put pro-life in quotes cuz let’s be real.

[Shirley]

How they vote.

That being said... If, for decades, you've been on the receiving end of endless, repetitive, unrelenting attacks on your morals, humanity, patriotism, work ethic, fiscal integrity, etc., etc., etc. Always, always, always, with the implication that your accusers inhabit the high ground and are more virtuous than you in all these and every other way imaginable, it gets pretty fucking old.

To wit:

If you opposed the war in Vietnam, republicans would call you "unpatriotic" and "unAmerican", and bumper stickers declaring "My Country Right or Wrong!", and "America, Love It or Leave It!" were everywhere. Leave the country because you don't agree with that stupid war? Seriously?

If you supported civil rights and the voting rights acts, you were a "Nigger Lover".

If you supported gay rights, and/or thought it was wrong for Reagan to ignore the AIDs epidemic (so that he wouldn't offend his "Moral Majority" supporters), you were either a "queer" or you were a "queer lover", and you were against "Family Values".

if you weren't for Reagan (and the "Fiscal Responsibility Party") increasing the military budget by billions and billions of dollars while nearly tripling the national debt, you were "soft on communism”.

If you supported Medicare &/or Medicaid, you were/are a "socialist", you hate capitalism, and don't believe in free markets. (And back in the 60s, it's likely you were a "communist" too.)

"Pro-Life Party". Yet, once a fetus is born, don't expect "pro-life" republicans to want to extend the hand of government to help that "life", whether it's SNAP, (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), expanding Medicaid coverage for the poor, etc. And don't get me started on brown people trying to immigrate to America.

If you believe in a woman's right to choose, you are a "baby killer”, and you're guilty of “infanticide”.

In the 90s republicans used Clinton's attempt at health care reform to once again, characterize democrats as "socialists" in favor of "socialized medicine", against the "free market", which are all, once again, “unAmerican".

Republicans spent > 4 years and tens of millions of dollars (while wrapping themselves in robes of virtue) while pursuing Bill & Hillary Clinton over a land deal, (Whitewater, from the 1970s), which ended in Clinton lying about a blow job and republicans in the House voting to impeach him. Of course, lying under oath is wrong and Clinton never should have committed the act or lied about it, BUT. For the entire 4 years democrats/liberals were portrayed (again) as morally deficient, and OK with what Clinton did. This, despite the fact that all three republican Speakers of the House during those > 4 years, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, and Dennis Hastert, were found to be adulterers or pedophiles themselves.

GW Bush comes along and if you weren't for his war of choice to invade Iraq based on his "Weapons of Mass Destruction" lie, you were soft on terrorism, and you "are either with us, or against us", meaning for or against America.  Once again, republicans portrayed themselves as the patriotic "real" Americans, and democrats as hating America, and being "unAmerican".

And lest we forget, democrats are the "tax and spend" party while republicans are the "fiscal responsibility party", despite the fact that Reagan nearly tripled the national debt despite raising taxes 11 times, and W doubled the national debt while the economy went over a cliff.

Forgive me, but this is what I came up with off the top of my head. It's not comprehensive, but in my opinion and experience, it's accurate. I could go on about how our first Black president and his family were treated---simply because they're Black, Trump's 5-year-long racist "Birther" crusade, and how the "Fiscal Responsibility Party" is once again exploding the national debt.

That being said..."both sides do it", democrats are not perfect, they're not saints, and, it's politics.

One of the frustrations of being a democrat is how republicans are so much incredibly better at branding. At taking an issue and coming up with a pithy slogan that fits on a bumper sticker. They are 1,000% better than democrats at it. But, like everything in life, there's a Yin and Yang to it. By being so good at their branding, by effectively taking ownership of a meme, they also put themselves in the position of having to live up to that brand. They put the clown suit on themselves. And, when they don't, when they aren't "Moral", aren't "Fiscally Responsible", aren't "pro-life", etc., etc., those of us who are tired of being called and characterized as the opposite, as "unpatriotic" as not "real" Americans for literally decades, take satisfaction at pointing it out.

[ousdahl]

How they vote.

That being said... If, for decades, you've been on the receiving end of endless, repetitive, unrelenting attacks on your morals, humanity, patriotism, work ethic, fiscal integrity, etc., etc., etc. Always, always, always, with the implication that your accusers inhabit the high ground and are more virtuous than you in all these and every other way imaginable, it gets pretty fucking old.

To wit:

If you opposed the war in Vietnam, republicans would call you "unpatriotic" and "unAmerican", and bumper stickers declaring "My Country Right or Wrong!", and "America, Love It or Leave It!" were everywhere. Leave the country because you don't agree with that stupid war? Seriously?

If you supported civil rights and the voting rights acts, you were a "Nigger Lover".

If you supported gay rights, and/or thought it was wrong for Reagan to ignore the AIDs epidemic (so that he wouldn't offend his "Moral Majority" supporters), you were either a "queer" or you were a "queer lover", and you were against "Family Values".

if you weren't for Reagan (and the "Fiscal Responsibility Party") increasing the military budget by billions and billions of dollars while nearly tripling the national debt, you were "soft on communism”.

If you supported Medicare &/or Medicaid, you were/are a "socialist", you hate capitalism, and don't believe in free markets. (And back in the 60s, it's likely you were a "communist" too.)

"Pro-Life Party". Yet, once a fetus is born, don't expect "pro-life" republicans to want to extend the hand of government to help that "life", whether it's SNAP, (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), expanding Medicaid coverage for the poor, etc. And don't get me started on brown people trying to immigrate to America.

If you believe in a woman's right to choose, you are a "baby killer”, and you're guilty of “infanticide”.

In the 90s republicans used Clinton's attempt at health care reform to once again, characterize democrats as "socialists" in favor of "socialized medicine", against the "free market", which are all, once again, “unAmerican".

Republicans spent > 4 years and tens of millions of dollars (while wrapping themselves in robes of virtue) while pursuing Bill & Hillary Clinton over a land deal, (Whitewater, from the 1970s), which ended in Clinton lying about a blow job and republicans in the House voting to impeach him. Of course, lying under oath is wrong and Clinton never should have committed the act or lied about it, BUT. For the entire 4 years democrats/liberals were portrayed (again) as morally deficient, and OK with what Clinton did. This, despite the fact that all three republican Speakers of the House during those > 4 years, Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, and Dennis Hastert, were found to be adulterers or pedophiles themselves.

GW Bush comes along and if you weren't for his war of choice to invade Iraq based on his "Weapons of Mass Destruction" lie, you were soft on terrorism, and you "are either with us, or against us", meaning for or against America.  Once again, republicans portrayed themselves as the patriotic "real" Americans, and democrats as hating America, and being "unAmerican".

And lest we forget, democrats are the "tax and spend" party while republicans are the "fiscal responsibility party", despite the fact that Reagan nearly tripled the national debt despite raising taxes 11 times, and W doubled the national debt while the economy went over a cliff.

Forgive me, but this is what I came up with off the top of my head. It's not comprehensive, but in my opinion and experience, it's accurate. I could go on about how our first Black president and his family were treated---simply because they're Black, Trump's 5-year-long racist "Birther" crusade, and how the "Fiscal Responsibility Party" is once again exploding the national debt.

That being said..."both sides do it", democrats are not perfect, they're not saints, and, it's politics.

One of the frustrations of being a democrat is how republicans are so much incredibly better at branding. At taking an issue and coming up with a pithy slogan that fits on a bumper sticker. They are 1,000% better than democrats at it. But, like everything in life, there's a Yin and Yang to it. By being so good at their branding, by effectively taking ownership of a meme, they also put themselves in the position of having to live up to that brand. They put the clown suit on themselves. And, when they don't, when they aren't "Moral", aren't "Fiscally Responsible", aren't "pro-life", etc., etc., those of us who are tired of being called and characterized as the opposite, as "unpatriotic" as not "real" Americans for literally decades, take satisfaction at pointing it out.

This is a great point.










At least it would be, if it wasn’t so damn unpatriotic, and soft on communism too.

[ousdahl]

Perhaps the best point is that republicans do seem to be so much better at branding. Despite all the hypocrisy and petty labeling among conservatives, how do dems remain such a bunch of loosers?

[TDub]

But, I'll play devil's advocate and hopefully you guys respond to this sincerely. Let's say you're a voter who has a choice between a candidate who supports all the "family values" legislation (pro-life, pro-marriage, etc.), but he cheats on his wife, has paid for abortions, etc. Or a Democratic candidate who is faithful to his wife and leads the type of moral life that said voter approves of, but politically supports all the things said voter opposes (pro-choice, wants to increase taxes for a trans-rights program, etc.). At the end of the day, since you're voting for someone to vote on legislation that matters to you, don't you care more how they'll vote than you do how they live their life?

I guess what I'm saying is, what's more important in an elected public official when it's time to vote? That they govern how you want them to govern or that they lead a life in the manner you support?

So, playing Devil's Advocate to your Devil's Advocate.......where do the limits of your "morals" reside? Would you vote for Bernie Madoff if he would confirm forced-birthing Supreme Court justices? How about OJ Simpson? What about Jeffrey Dahmer? I suppose the modern Republican Party has already sort of answered that question - confessed sexual assault is acceptable, as is overt bigotry and financial shenanigans (evidence: Trump). I guess the Trump era has given license to say out loud what people were just admitting in private (misogyny, white nationalism etc). Jury still seems to be out on murder* and cannibalism.

So did you just compare Republican officials to Jeffrey Dahmer and OJ Simpson? Lol. Wow. You should stump for AOC.

[Geezer]

OJ was a lot better athlete than any of the repubs.

[zsn]

So did you just compare Republican officials to Jeffrey Dahmer and OJ Simpson? Lol. Wow. You should stump for AOC.

No, clearly you missed my point. My point was asking where do YOU (ostensible Republican supporter) draw the line? If the aforementioned voted your positions would you elect them? Apparently pu$$y-grabbing is acceptable. How vile is vile-enough?

[TDub]

.. Would you vote for.....OJ, Dahmer.....I guess the republicans already sort of answered that question....

Your examples were terrible. Your point is not misunderstood, it is just so far above and beyond reality and so extreme that it doesnt warrant a response or lend itself to any sort of productive conversation. It's the type of inciting, gaslighting remark that you so hate from Republicans.

[PhDhawk]

I get it. There are a shitload of repuclican leaders who have awful horrible morals who are complete hypocrites who campaign on family values and then live their lives in the opposite manner. Let's take that as a given.

But, I'll play devil's advocate and hopefully you guys respond to this sincerely. Let's say you're a voter who has a choice between a candidate who supports all the "family values" legislation (pro-life, pro-marriage, etc.), but he cheats on his wife, has paid for abortions, etc. Or a Democratic candidate who is faithful to his wife and leads the type of moral life that said voter approves of, but politically supports all the things said voter opposes (pro-choice, wants to increase taxes for a trans-rights program, etc.). At the end of the day, since you're voting for someone to vote on legislation that matters to you, don't you care more how they'll vote than you do how they live their life?

I guess what I'm saying is, what's more important in an elected public official when it's time to vote? That they govern how you want them to govern or that they lead a life in the manner you support?

This is a great point.

Is it?

I mean the point itself may have merit, but the examples may not.

It’s not mutually exclusive to be faithful to your wife and also support abortion and trans rights.

It IS mutually exclusive to be pro-marriage and cheat on your wife, or be ”pro-life” and pay for an abortion.

And I can’t help but put pro-life in quotes cuz let’s be real.

You can, as you usually do, ignore the bigger point to try to weasel out of it and try and continue to do the liberal version of what shirley was complaining about and take some fake moral high ground so that you can continue to condescend.

Let's make it a non-partisan issue, so you don't have to post like a horse's ass.

There's a candidate who proposes the greatest tax reform ever, everyone gets to keep more money, and there are no spending cuts....it's magical. But every time that candidate sees a 12 year old child he violently punches it in the face. If the opposing candidate has a tax proposal that will be terrible but he doesn't punch children who do you vote for?

Whenever I read a post complaining about a politician doing something shitty, there seems to be an accompanying statement of, "how could you vote for this asshole?"whether explicitly stated or implied.

Now, if the question is, "how is this the candidate your party chose?" It's a good question. If the question is "how could you vote for this asshole in the election," when the choice is between two candidates; the person who represents your political ideals but is morally reprehensible, or someone you politically disagree with...the answer is pretty obvious.

[ousdahl]

Whoa, sorry bro.

I don’t mean to ignore the bigger point, nor do I try to usually. Not trying to weasel out of a thing. If we can avoid being horse’s asses and just have a civil dialogue, then yes please.

Since you brought it up I’d like to clarify something, and I can’t stress this enough: I claim no moral high ground.

To be honest, I frequent the pols bored more than anything for the lulz.

Now, if the question is, “how is this the candidate your party chose?” That IS a good question. If the question is "how could you vote for this asshole in the election," when the choice is between two candidates; the person who represents your political ideals but is morally reprehensible*, or someone you politically disagree with...the answer is pretty obvious**.




**Actually, it’s not obvious at all.


*cuz "how could you vote for this asshole in the election," when the choice is between two candidates; someone you politically disagree with, or the person who represents your political ideals but is morally reprehensible IN STARK CONTRAST WITH YOUR AND/OR YOUR PARTY’S POLITICAL IDEALS, like for real it’s confuzzling.

and for real, like I said!

lulz

[zsn]

I guess the price of my morality is higher than a tax cut.

Here you go TDub- PhD’s tolerance is somewhere between child abuse and cannibalism (I’m making the safe, I think, assumption that the latter is off-limits, the size of the tax cut notwithstanding)