This is what I'm saying!!

I don't think whether he cruises for sex with men has anything to do with his fitness for office. I think that cruising for sex with men while voting for legislation that adversely affects other men who like to sleep with men does.

The thing is, having a personal life at odds with your political position is not a firable/resignable offense-- it's a reason for voting against someone, or even shaming them and their party, but it shouldn't trigger an ethics or criminal investigation, hearings, or any of those other distractions.

This is a much bigger issue and I probably don't have the time to tackle all of it, but we don't move on from things like the Clinton ridiculousness by having witchhunts that are targeted at Republicans. We gotta stop doing that.

Had Clinton been legislating against blowjobs or making adultery criminal, then we'd be comparing apples to apples.

(Well, he did sign DOMA.) And Clinton did lie, and he did cheat, and he did make happy families while doing gross things. He's a hypocrite too, but a pretty good president. I don't think Bush did any of the former, but obviously can be a consistent, principled person with absolutely retarded principles.

I guess that's one reason to vote for Fred Thompson; he'll know when to call a lawyer, because you know he's seen it on TV!

I don't care whether the Republicans are consistent.

I have a bug in my ear about consistency. By failing at that, you fail at life. Or should get pwned by the l33t l0g!( fairy.

having a personal life at odds with your political position is not a firable/resignable offense

I don't think it's fireable at all--which is why I said "shamed out." Even if you were the narrowminded Republican sort (and homophobic with said narrow mind)--he's a liability because he's one of them. If you're less narrowminded...well, the other guy would have to be pretty bad for me to vote for the hypocrite. It's not like he had an implied disconnect. There was a direct failure to reconcile issues.

he said was that he didn't do anything wrong, but he couldn't fight the charges because it would cause publicity. Which is more or less correct, really.

But incomplete--because pleading guilty doesn't prevent publicity, and puts it smack dab on his permanent record, as well as all over the interpipes. Just a bad move.

But incomplete--because pleading guilty doesn't prevent publicity, and puts it smack dab on his permanent record, as well as all over the interpipes. Just a bad move.

I thought that he thought it would prevent publicity. (As opposed to a trial, which would have guaranteed publicity) And it almost worked - no one found out about it for a month or so....

eta: Sorta like being in the hole, gambling-wise, but instead of paying the debt he doubled-down, thinking he could beat the house.

I thought that he thought it would prevent publicity.

I think that's an incredibly naïve motivation for a high risk decision. Don't they have people who're supposed to think for you on these matters? I mean, maybe he's never heard of thesmokinggun.com, but someone on his staff should be taking care of that.

Not that I actually know how it broke. Just that breaking stuff like that is what many people seek to do as a hobby or a day job.

I also don't think that hiding it for a month is almost working. Delaying the inevitable, maybe.

I have a bug in my ear about consistency. By failing at that, you fail at life. Or should get pwned by the l33t l0g!( fairy.

And the Democrats? That was the second part of my point. Where should the Dems stand? Either sexual indiscretions (involving adults) are proper grist for official action, or they're not.

But incomplete--because pleading guilty doesn't prevent publicity, and puts it smack dab on his permanent record, as well as all over the interpipes. Just a bad move.

It did for a little while. This was not public until weeks later, and arguably might not have reached critical mass given how minor the charges were. Some of these stories never get traction.

Anyway, I'm not saying he should have pled out-- he should have taken the risk and gotten a lawyer to negotiate for him.

I still can't believe Rudy Giuliani is the Republican frontrunner. (Yes, that is related to the current conversation.)

I think that's an incredibly naïve motivation for a high risk decision.

I agree. I do think it's psychologically similar to a gambler who over the course of hours blows a fortune, all the while thinking he can win back what he lost.

Where should the Dems stand? Either sexual indiscretions (involving adults) are proper grist for official action, or they're not.

If it had been a drug bust and he'd legislated against something drug-related, then I'd say go at him. The fact that it's sex doesn't affect my opinion one bit. Go after anyone on similar hypocrisy charges--and note, I'm not even saying lying. I'm saying hypocrisy.

I guess the people after Clinton could spin it as hypocrisy on his part--I just think it's a much muddier argument than this one.