Democrat = tax; Republican = sex

Seems like everyone Obama tapped for an appointive office had tax problems of some sort or another; no wonder he makes use of the czars who don’t have to be approved or vetted by the Senate.  On the other hand, it seems like every current Republican has a sex problem of some sort.  Vice and dishonesty seem to be the only bipartisan things in Washington.  Disgusting.

From a governance aspect, I really don’t know which is worse, intentionally lying to your government or lying to your wife.  From a moral aspect, there is no question; lying to your wife and family is far worse than lying to your government.  From the other side though, lying to your wife is not (yet) illegal, but lying to the government used to be against the law (Pelosi and Geithner proved it no longer is). 

Time to kick them all out.  We should forget about any sort of health care, tax, immigration or any other form of reform until we reform the bums in Washington; the only way we can reform them is to get a new crop.

Comments

[brynb2]

One more time: The reason that the current administration is having trouble getting it's appointees through vetting on tax issues is because no other administration vetted taxes SO THOROUGHLY before!

"Some officials who vetted nominees for previous administrations said Obama's standards are so onerous he risks turning away the best candidates."

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/election08/articles/2008/11/18/20081118obama1118vetting.html

(by the way, Timo, it's spelled currEnt, unless, in your blog you're saying that Republicans are fruits, which isn't that far off base, but I don't believe that's what you meant in this context)

[EmersonsZen]

bb2...he did refer to them as needing a "new crop." But nice nitpicking skills either way.

As far as Obama's standards being so onerous...BS. If the standards were so onerous, he'd have about 12 different people serving him in various capacities than he has now. C'mon, the Treasury Secretary owing $17,000 in back taxes?

Obama might be onerous now, since he has taken so much flack for hiring tax cheats--I'll give you that point.

But sheesh, what's up with the Republican guv from South Carolina? What a total loser. If he'd just come out and admitted the affair before his 5-day hike (in Argentina, with his mistress), it would pretty much be a non-issue. But no, he has to disappear, lie, and now it looks like he most likely used public funds for the trip(s).

Groan.

And now the gleeful MSM has something to really pounce on. Between White House infomercials, ABC has numerous specials. CNN has pulled all scheduled programming for the next two days to make way for every story possible. The NYT has given it the front page for 4 days.

Groan.

I hope this idiot for a governor resigns before brynb2 proofreeds my post. Otherwize, I'm afraid Wolf Blitzer's hed may explode.

[EmersonsZen]

**bonus round**

Now there's some incredibly salacious emails that have been found. News anchors are reading them aloud, each word dripping from their tongues like honey from the hive.

I'm really hoping that Sanford doesn't pull a Spitzer and hang on for an extra week. He needs to resign now. Now.

[Timo Kokko]

brynb2,
I cannot improve on EZ's analysis of the "onerous" Obama standards. Factually, there are a number of Democrat tax cheats in high positions in the government.

I truly appreciate the spelling lesson; indeed I meant "current" not "currant".

[Ceart]

Two rules:

1. Never go into politics or accept a public position if you did or may do anything that you would be ashamed of if it were on the front page of the NY Times or being used in a sentence by Keith Olberman. One reason I never liked the limelight or accepted my 15 minutes. My first two wives and party buddies have too much on me.

2. If you disregard the first rule you must be a Democrat (free pass) or a D**A** Republican.

[John Sanford's Ghost]

"I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT ARGENTINE, MS. LEWINSKY-RAMIREZ DE SOTO."

[Populista]

I'll give Sanford credit, at least he's not denying it. He does need to resign, NOW, because you can't go AWOL when you are the governor. I feel so bad for his wife - her husband not only cheated, and cheated in a way that will be covered by the media, but he is obviously in love with the other woman. Oy vey.

[Brent Stockwell]

Sen. Daniel Inouye Hawaii Democrat
Rep. Gus Savage. The Illinois Democrat
Rep. Barney Frank. The outspoken Massachusetts Democrat
Sen. Brock Adams. The late Washington Democrat
Rep. Fred Richmond. This New York Democrat
Rep. John Young. The late Texas Democrat
Rep. Wayne Hays. The late Ohio Democrat
Rep. Gerry Studds
Rep. Mel Reynolds. The Illinois Democrat
Sen. Teddy Kennedy. The liberal Massachusetts senator
And of course John Edwards.

I find your generalization appalling on both Dem. and Rep. You are the problem with perspective of politics today taking narrow views like that.

THEY ALL ARE EVIL.

[Timo Kokko]

Brent,
While you are of course correct that the Democrats have at least as many questionable sexual situations as the Republicans, the major difference is that the Democrats typically don't consider them a problem. Remember the "its a private matter" mantra when Clinton was caught up in his lies. The reaction for a Republican is worse as they seem to have some morals left; very few, but more than the Democrats.

[Ricky]

Timo,

Isn't there something of a distinction between "it's a private matter" meaning you shouldn't impeach and then attempt to remove someone from office over lying about a sexual affair, and "it's a private matter" meaning Democrats don't care at all about them?

Absolutely Democrats had to make some rationalizations to keep Bill Clinton in office. Remember when Nixon's press secretary Ron Ziegler described Watergate as a "third rate burglary"? Did that mean he didn't care about being tough on crime? Did that mean that Republicans thought burglary was just fine?

[EmersonsZen]

Timo nailed it--the Dems don't consider it a problem if a Democrat get caught in a sexual pecccadillo.

The media sat on the John Edwards story for months, and then only began to talk about it because Elizabeth Edwards went on a book selling tour regarding the matter. Otherwise, John Edwards' affairs would have remained back burner.

The other distinction worth noting is party affiliation when it comes to reporting this kind of thing. With Sanford, it's referred to as, "Republican Governor Sanford." When it is a Democrat, you get to play, "Guess the Party."

When Kwame was in the midst of his "stuff," he wasn't Democrat Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. Just Mayor. It's the same on down the line, regardless of who or what.

But it's a coup for the White House. The Sanford affair is a great diversion for the failing Obamacare nightmare. Also the tax-heavy climate bill. Open your wallets folks, it's gonna be an expensive month.

[Andrew Smith]

I am actually wounded by this Sanford thing; here's a governor who, by all the information I've seen and read on him, truly believes in limited government, fiscal responsibility, stood up to the tax/borrow/spend hounds in the federal government by refusing stimulus money, fought it tooth and nail because he believed it was the right thing to do, railed against expansions of federal power... and then he goes and gets busted like this. It's truly disappointing, only eclipsed by how disappointing it is that so-called conservatives quickly throw him under the bus.

For what? This guy cheated; so what? That's none of our business and has nothing to do with the performance of his duties. Now, if he used public funds for his little jaunt, I'd ask how many other lawmakers and public officials use public money to pay for their vacations? TONS. They probably should not but it's not uncommon. I also question the veracity of his political opponents who claim he was erratic and was out of contact. Before this story was sensationalized, there was every indication that Sanford frequently takes trips, informs his staff of his general plans but sometimes is difficult to reach. Difficult is not impossible, as evidenced by the fact that his staff was able to reach him and he returned earlier than he planned. It has not been proven that he was ever unreachable and this trip was nothing out of the ordinary. Aside from the morally repugnant act of cheating on his wife with some chick, I really don't see how this is a political issue at all. Republicans are going to dump him because of this taint on his record and his political career could be ruined because of personal indiscretions. Absolute complete nonsense.

I hope he stays in office and refuses to resign. We need Governors who recognize that states rights and limited government are important. If he does resign, I would welcome him to move to Michigan and run in the primary for governor here. Cheating on your wife is nothing compared to the destruction our Governor, Congress, and President are raining down on us daily. More of them should go on 5-day vacations to Argentina and give us a vacation from their stupidity.

[Timo Kokko]

Ricky,
There is obviously a theoretical difference between a "private matter" and caring about an affair, or in Clinton's case apparently serial affairs. I sincerely do not think the left, or the majority of Democrats, care very much about sexual infidelity. Only if you lie excessively or are horrifically insensitive (i.e. Edwards), then some Democrats could actually care and it could impact the miscreants' career. I'm astonished that the Democratic voters don't much seem to care either.

I do think Sanford should resign though; the combination of public infidelity and leaving the State without telling his Lt Gov where he was going is inexcusable.

[EmersonsZen]

Andrew,

I gotta disagree with you, and here's why:

1) It's not the sex, it's the circumstances surrounding it. Sanford disappeared, lied to a host of individuals, shirked governmental responsibilities, and possibly used public money to finance this fiasco.

2) Politics is perception. The "Sanford Affair" is the complete package for the MSM to meld this into all things Republican. For every hour that Sanford stays in office, CNN broadcasts 35 minutes maligning the Republican Party.

Now they are broadening the broadcasts to cover the details into the mistress, her history, family, schoool teachers, emails, etc. This goose is laying golden eggs for the MSM every other minute.

Here's a fun fact:

When Democrat Governor Spitzer was busted, it took the NBC evening news 3 days to identify him as Democrat. Over the first 7 days, Spitzer was called Democrat 20% of the time on the three major networks.

On the three major networks' evening news last night, 100% identified him as Republican.

The longer this continues to play out, the deeper our MSM slides the knife into the Republican jugular.

I want to see coverage of Sanford's resignation, not interviews with the bartender in Buenos Aires that has seen Sanford and his mistress in his establishment on numerous occasions drinking rum and cokes.

The Golden Goose, baby. The Golden Goose...

[Ricky]

EZ,

Kwame Kilpatrick was a Democrat when he was in the state house. As mayor the position was nonpartisan. I'm not sure this was an example of favoritism, but I do see where you are coming from.

Andrew,

Mark Sanford spoke out against Bill Clinton. He should have. "That woman" was an intern, and that was that. But he should remember what he said before he has an affair himself. You know the media never misses a chance to label someone a hypocrite. Also, it is hard to run and try to get the support of people who are all about "family values" when you do stuff like this.

Timo,

Democrats generally take Andrew's view, that it isn't grounds for someone to be thrown out of office. If the person has done a decent job in office, they are willing to allow them to continue in office.

When given a shot to judge it, voters have shown they will. Gary Condit lost in a primary. Gary Hart didn't make it to any primaries. Jim McGreevey knew he didn't have public support and resigned, as did Eliot Spitzer. John Edwards couldn't be elected commissioner of trash in Orange County, North Carolina, where he lives, even though that is the general consensus of what his actions make him.

Bill Clinton survived, but I would suggest the Presidency is a special circumstance to many voters. I don't think the majority of voters want a repeat of the Nixon resignation.

I would also suggest that those circumstances you listed also exist for Republican voters. David Vitter told the truth, and he's going to win handily in Louisiana. Mark Foley reeked of dishonesty, and then he lost his job, which looked reasonably safe until the story came out. Of course his opponent experienced the same situation in this past year's election.

It took Strom Thurmond years to admit his affair with an African-American (I'll grant you, he was a Dixiecrat when it first happened). Bob Packwood denied his affairs for decades until he was forced to resign.

This is a place where I don't think the distinction is partisan. It is circumstantial. If Mark Sanford hasn't broken the law, I'm pretty sure his actions yesterday will allow him to hold on to his job.

[Andrew Smith]

EZ, I prefer to stick to facts when judging public officials. I realize that the public often does not do this and certainly the media does not.

Fact: it's not clear that he lied. From all accounts, he said he had planned on going to the Appalachian trail. Plans apparently changed and he took off to Argentina instead. Secondly, this was not out of the ordinary according to his spokesmen and his staff. His political rivals seized upon this as an extraordinary disappearance when there is every indication that this was common. Why the sudden interest and why have we not heard this complaint before? I can only believe that this was either orchestrated by someone to time it as to create a scandal, or someone was tipped off and being the opportunistic slugs they are, political enemies pounced on it. Either way, it's nothing new. If Sanford says he lied about the trip, then he lied about the trip but I am not one that equates an omission with an outright lie. I also don't consider taking a vacation shirking one's governmental responsibilities. He was obviously not out of contact since he was reached immediately by his staff. As for the money, I don't believe there has been any evidence that he used public money to finance this little adventure. When he originally met this woman, he was already on official state business in Argentina, so even that trip wasn't financed by the public specifically for this purpose. If he charged his plane ticket on the company credit card, then yes, he's misused public funds and should be punished. So far, that hasn't been determined.

2) Why should I give a crap about the Republican party? Republicans have demolished their own reputation long before Sanford was even a name. Oh, I know the media is having a field day crucifying this guy, and would they if he were a Democrat? Perhaps not so much, but the way I see it, Sanford doesn't owe Republicans squat. He's been ostracized by those Republicans in his own state, criticized by his own party, and generally marginalized already because of his views. I actually think Sanford should come out swinging and stand up for himself rather than apologize over and over again. If he needs to apologize to anyone, it should be his wife and family, which it appears he has already done. Otherwise, the only comment I would make is that it's nobody's business. This media-created fiasco will go on for a week perhaps and then it will be over. I doubt he'll resign and he'll go back to work. Most of America will forget about it, as well they should. He will have lost some clout, if he really had any to begin with, and that's a shame because his perspective on the proper way to deal with the important problems in this country is sorely needed. It's too bad that fewer are going to listen because he banged some chick in Argentina.

[EmersonsZen]

Andrew,

Unlike you, I do "give a crap" about the Republican Party. Sanford did not run as an Independant, nor did he run as a Democrat. He ran as a Republican, so his actions reflect negatively upon the Republican Party.

He deserves ostrasizing because he was stupid. S-t-u-p-i-d. He is (was) a representative of a very high elected office, and with that he is expected to make decisions that are commensurate with that level of responsibility.

As this situation plays out, it is obvious his ability to make competant decisions has been compromised. "Banging chicks," as you say, is one thing, but doing it so that it causes an international sensation and a monumental embarrassment is quite another.

When it comes to the media, facts do not matter. After merely suggesting something reapeatedly, it becomes a fact in much of the public's consciousness.

And lastly, I don't think it will be forgotten about. Nope, it will go on "The List." The list that gets pulled out by the media before each election to remind us that Republicans are just a bunch of scalliwags unworthy of our votes.

[brynb2]

Yes, Andrew, it was shown that he was out of contact. He lied about where he was going. He didn't just say he was going on the Appalachian Trail, then decide to go to Dallas, he left the freakin COUNTRY for crissakes. His own staff was trying to track him by his cell phone pings. The last they knew, he hit a tower in Atlanta, that's why they found his vehicle at the Atlanta airport. He left the country with no security detail, no instructions, and no succession of power in case his plane went down, in case he was captured by Argentinian drug dealers, or who knows what all. Had Granholm done this, you KNOW you would be up in arms. There is also question about whether he has used state funds to fund this trip. He HAS used state funds to fund prior portions of a trip where he used a state trip and part of his trip was used to divert to see this woman.

The man was irresponsible, and for at least one week, his state was not his priority, the state of his nether regions was.

As for the question of why Democrats make issue of Republican sex scandal. You all know why, I don't know why you ever even ask, but you always do, trying to make an issue where, clearly there isn't one. But, again. It's the Hypocrisy, stupid.

Republicans always try to use their legislation to insert themselves into our bedrooms and into our marriage contracts and anywhere else they see fit.

They claim that gay marriage will ruin family values, and gay marriage will ruin the sanctity of "normal" marriage. They stand firm in this. When clearly, it is THEY that ruin their own family values, and their OWN heterosexual marriages. I have been divorced, and I can assure, no gay person has ever had an influence on the breakdown of my marriage.

They speak of family values, and claim that only god fearing, church going monogamous republicans could ever understand this. Then, they shut down the government and spend millions because a sitting president received adult consentual oral sex. Again, I have been divorced, and I can assure you, the president receiving a BJ in the Oval had nothing to do with it.

When a Democrat is caught "with their pants down", so to speak, we on the left realize that stuff happens, no matter your political leanings or religious affiliation (or none at all) that humans stray and that it's really between those in the relationship what the outcome will be. As long as nothing in their job duties were compromised, then I see no reason it really should be an issue.

We excoriated Spitzer, because he spoke out and made it his life's work to go after prostitution, and then, was caught with a prostitute. Not cool. So, no, we don't just look at it and shrug our shoulders. Again, it's the Hypocrisy. The left was calling for his resignation way before the right did.

Democrats generally don't try to legislate (negatively) people's sex lives. They don't try to make sex positions illegal. They don't try to legislate who one may partner with, or who one may marry. This is where they CAN claim the moral high ground. Democrats know that, when a marriage dissolves, they can blame themselves. They don't have to blame someone else's gay relationship. They don't have to blame someone else's wanton sexual perversions. They can blame themselves. They can blame the fact that maybe they spent too much time at work and not enough time with family. Or maybe they married too young and should have waited until they were more mature. Or, maybe they DID need to go to church more, if that is what they believe. But they don't have to try to put on airs that if only the rest of the country would just believe in god more, then THEIR marriage would have survived.

Again, it's the hypocrisy.

Senator Larry Craig. Made it his life's work to legislate against homsexuals as much as possible. He gets caught soliciting gay sex in a public restroom.

Senator John Ensign. Speaks out about family values and joins Promise Keepers, a group that is dedicated to helping men keep their "promise". It gives them an air of superiority over others. Because, you know, "regular" guys haven't made a real promise. He still bangs his staff member.

Governor Mark Sanford, opposes gay marriage, and civil unions in order to preserve the sanctity of marriage. Good thing, too. Because if we have any of those gay marriages, it might ruin his.

See the point? (I know you won't, because with the hypocrisy comes the lemmings of hypocrisy) You can't expect people to be perfect and pure, to the point of wanting to legislate their purity, and then not have them point and laugh when you fall from the clouds of heaven when you can't even meet those standards yourself.

[Timo Kokko]

brynb2,
I must say I have disagreed with almost everything you have ever posted, but this post rehabilitated you in my mind. It is passionate, yet logical. Good post.

[Andrew Smith]

As a supposed lemming of hypocrisy, I completely disagree with everything except this:

"You can't expect people to be perfect and pure, to the point of wanting to legislate their purity, and then not have them point and laugh when you fall from the clouds of heaven when you can't even meet those standards yourself."

This would be true and in keeping with your argument, if legislating purity was the exclusive property of the Republicans. Hypocrisy comes in all shapes, sized, and political persuasions. The belief that somehow these cheating Republicans are scum while the noble Democrats would never intrude in our lives in this way is a complete fantasy. Gross generalizations do not make a convincing argument, but I'll be sure to remember these amusing pontifications about the sanctity and purity of of the noble Democratic party, how they would NEVER try to legislate marriage or sex. Except that Clinton guy... but perhaps he was the exception to the rule.

Yes, I get the point quite clearly.