The List of obvious Right-wing double standards comments

[General Zod]

If you really want to dig through the video, John Stewart did a really nice compilation clip of Fox Noise flip-flops that neatly demonstrates shifting Republican biases. Someone else posted it here awhile ago but I feel it's relevant to the topic. http://brownsugarcinnamon.blogspot.com/ ... erals.html

[Count Chocula]

Would it be out of order to point out that John Ensign's case is more (and morally) equivalent to John Kerry's extramarital affair or SC Governor Mark Sanford's affair? The office of the President is one where a higher level of integrity (perceived or otherwise) is expected, and Clinton's affair was more of an embarrassment to the office than the earthshaking scandal Congress made it out to be. Never mind the fact that the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal is outside the time frame of the OT. As is the Barney Frank pageboy/Larry Craig airport footsie juxtaposition.

Also to the point, the assertion that the Republicans would filibuster an ouster of Ensign is false on its face as the Senate Democrats have a filibuster-proof majority.

If we're going to post talking points, how about apples-to-apples comparisons. There's plenty of bad behavior to go around on both sides, given equivalent ranks in the government.

EDIT: corrected to spell "embarrassment" the right way.

[Darksider]

you might want to correct that post again, given that John Edwards was the one who had the affair, not John Kerry.

Seriously. How in the fucking hell do you mix up the presidential candidate with the vice-presidential candidate? Were you even paying attention during the 2004 election?

EDIT: Seriously. It says Edwards right in the title of the article. In really big letters.

How in the hell did you fuck that up?

[Duckie]

Also to the point, the assertion that the Republicans would filibuster an ouster of Ensign is false on its face as the Senate Democrats have a filibuster-proof majority.

You seem to forget that Senate Democrats aren't a unified entity, and have never voted in a single bloc to defeat a fillibuster with all Republicans opposed. There's little difference between Voinovich, Snowe, Collins, Murkowski, and a half dozen democrats from the Midwest.

So yes, they would Fillibuster it. And they'd win. Reid couldn't manage a bakesale, let alone a Senate.

[Mr Bean]

Ensign is a special case because he said in 1998 and in 2004 that Clinton should have resigned after his affair became know, I will update the post as I meant to included that.

[Count Chocula]

EDIT: Seriously. It says Edwards right in the title of the article. In really big letters.

How in the hell did you fuck that up?

I'm a dumbass. It's been a long day. Hey, at least I didn't say John Stewart...

[SirNitram]

The office of the President is one where a higher level of integrity (perceived or otherwise) is expected, and Clinton's affair was more of an embarrassment to the office than the earthshaking scandal Congress made it out to be.

How in this glorious universe, operating elegently from sheer chance, did someone so profoundly unaware as you evolve?

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson alone should be enough. If you're not aware of your countries early days, we could try JFK. It's more surprising when a President DOESN'T have an affair.

[KrauserKrauser]

I'm just intrigued by the use of "concluded that no serious laws were broken." So suddenly perjury is no longer a serious crime?

Good news for all those people convicted and jailed for it, let's get them their get out of jail free because you're famous and powerful cards that are being handed out all over the place.

He was rightfully impeached because he did commit a crime. Lying while under oath is illegal for good reason.

I object to the statement that no serious crimes were commited when last I checked perjury was a felony and Clinton got away with it due to him being the President.

[Samuel]

Wait- the Senate has the right to grill the president on his sexual practices? I object to it because it was an abuse of power, but I don't think it was serious enough to be a matter for investigation.

[General Zod]

I'm just intrigued by the use of "concluded that no serious laws were broken." So suddenly perjury is no longer a serious crime?

Good news for all those people convicted and jailed for it, let's get them their get out of jail free because you're famous and powerful cards that are being handed out all over the place.

He was rightfully impeached because he did commit a crime. Lying while under oath is illegal for good reason.

I object to the statement that no serious crimes were commited when last I checked perjury was a felony and Clinton got away with it due to him being the President.

I object to the notion that lying about a blowjob is somehow worse than lying about going to war under a false pretense just because it was done under oath.

[Patrick Degan]

Since Krauser evidently did not pay attention to the last three threads on this particular subject here at SDNet, it shall be necessary to conduct a brief review: Clinton did not perjury. In both the Paula Jones deposition hearing and the later testimony before the grand jury in the Monica Lewinsky matter, Clinton told the strict, legal truth in specific response to each question put before him. Where the Jones deposition was concerned, the lawyers for Ms. Jones crafted a definition of "sexual relations" which was so ludicrously convoluted that it not only thoroughly confused the trial judge, but it offered a loophole big enough to drive a whole fleet of trucks through and Clinton took advantage of it. In neither instance was he obliged ever to volunteer information outside the scope of the questions asked, since you are actually protected from self-incrimination even if you don't plead the Fifth. This is aside from the fact that nothing involving Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky was relevant to the issues of Jones v. Clinton —which means the charge against the former president already fails on one of the legal standards necessary to establish perjury: materiality.

The perjury charge allegedly stems from the conflict between the grand jury testimony and the deposition testimony. But in both instances, Clinton was careful to give specific answers to specific questions. That is not "lying under oath", no matter how much the right wing's mythology says otherwise. Ken Starr deliberately ignored the proper standards of determining perjury and in fact attempted to construct what is known in law as a "perjury trap", which is actually unethical and unconstitutional.

The plain fact of the matter is that Clinton could not have been convicted of perjury, since it would be impossible to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the statements of the deposition were a) intentionally false and b) material to the matter then before the bar, nor that the statements to the grand jury were intentionally false especially as Clinton is answering questions and making admissions to the affair with Monica Lewinsky. The fact of the very confusing definitions of "sexual relations" used in the deposition hearing alone would have been enough to create doubt in the minds of any jury. Clinton was not "rightfully impeached" but the victim of a very partisan attempt to, in effect, nullify the results of a national election which did not go the way the right wing wanted and spearheaded by people who were determined to find an excuse, anydamnthing, to cobble together an impeachment finding and willing to subvert justice to succeed.

To get back to the OT of this thread, the list of obvious right-wing double standards, it's telling that the very same people who wanted Clinton's head on a pike for lying about getting blowjobs from the office-girl were the same people who ten years later stepped up so eagerly to defend Bush's commutation of the sentence of a newly-convicted actual perjurer who was the aide to his own vice-president.

[The Yosemite Bear]

The office of the President is one where a higher level of integrity (perceived or otherwise) is expected, and Clinton's affair was more of an embarrassment to the office than the earthshaking scandal Congress made it out to be.

How in this glorious universe, operating elegently from sheer chance, did someone so profoundly unaware as you evolve?

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson alone should be enough. If you're not aware of your countries early days, we could try JFK. It's more surprising when a President DOESN'T have an affair.

that would be GW Bush, who had far more destructive pursuits. Possibly Grant, who was too drunk most of the time, too. Jackson had a reverse sex scandle, as his wife was unable to get her first husband to grant her a devoirce.

[Big Orange]

The Politics Forum from ThatGuyWithTheGlasses.com keeps on giving and giving, they're throwing a fit about the John Adams Project (then split hairs about Robat Novak dying recently).

[momochan]

As far as right-wing double standards, what about the 'tax rebate' that W's administration gave out in 2008 when it was becoming obvious that the economy was spiraling downwards? I wonder if the SC governor kept his (only to self-righteously refuse the economic stimulus the next year). Did everyone who is currently protesting the health care bill on the basis of public debt refuse their 2008 stimulus payment?

[momochan]

Oh, yeah, and about that Obama speech to schoolchildren...wasn't W in a school reading a book to the little kids when the news of the 9/11 attacks broke? Why is it OK for W to address the kids but not for Obama?

[Samuel]

Oh, yeah, and about that Obama speech to schoolchildren...wasn't W in a school reading a book to the little kids when the news of the 9/11 attacks broke? Why is it OK for W to address the kids but not for Obama?

He was actually listening to a teacher read a story. Of course I believe it was part of trying to drum up support for No Child Left Behind, which was a federal program involved with education.

As far as right-wing double standards, what about the 'tax rebate' that W's administration gave out in 2008 when it was becoming obvious that the economy was spiraling downwards? I wonder if the SC governor kept his (only to self-righteously refuse the economic stimulus the next year). Did everyone who is currently protesting the health care bill on the basis of public debt refuse their 2008 stimulus payment?

It isn't so much a double standard as complete BS- Reagan ran up a huge defecit and alot of these people idolize him.

[Anguirus]

Possibly Grant, who was too drunk most of the time, too.

I'm not aware of Grant's drinking habits while in office, but as I understand it he was not incapacitated. He also had an incredibly devoted and loving relationship with his wife, which is probably more relevant to his NOT having an affair.

[Count Chocula]

How in this glorious universe, operating elegently[sic] from sheer chance, did someone so profoundly unaware as you evolve?

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson alone should be enough. If you're not aware of your countries[sic] early days, we could try JFK. It's more surprising when a President DOESN'T have an affair.

I was going to let this go, really I was, but goddamn. You're full of shit. Allegations of both Washington's and Jefferson's infidelity are suspect and, in the case of Jefferson, have been since it was first floated in 1802. According to a quick search at WikiAnswers, three out of 44 Presidents had extramarital affairs: Warren Harding, John Kennedy, and Bill Clinton. To your reference, Kennedy's affair was pretty damn notorious, as was Marilyn Monroe's rumored dalliance with Jack's brother Bobby, as was her 1962 "Happy Birthday Mr. President" song, as was her suspicious death several months later. Note that I said in an earlier post that Clinton's affair was overblown; however, it was certainly NOT expected behavior for a President. Also note that I mentioned his affair was outside the OT.

If you're gonna flame, make sure you have fuel and a Zippo, douche.

[The Spartan]

So raping your slaves doesn't count as sexual misconduct? Since that's really what we're talking about here as opposed to infidelity per se.

[The Yosemite Bear]

wait chocula can't even get FDR dying in his mistress' place in Florida?

[Count Chocula]

So raping your slaves doesn't count as sexual misconduct? Since that's really what we're talking about here as opposed to infidelity per se.

Show proof that Thomas Jefferson raped his slaves. Did you read the linked article?

...the ongoing saga of Thomas Jefferson and his slave Sally Hemings. The claim that he fathered her children is an old one, first published in 1802, but historians tended to discount it, not least because of the bad faith of most of those who made it. Then in 1998 Nature published the results of DNA tests which showed that the descendants of Eston Hemings, Sally's last child, carried a Jefferson chromosome. (Such chromosomes are transmitted only along an unbroken line of males. The descendants of Sally's eldest son, Thomas-who represent the only other unbroken line available-did not show the Jefferson chromosome.) Jefferson's defenders pointed out that Eston's father did not have to be the president; any one of numerous Jefferson cousins or nephews could have done the deed. But the Jefferson family had been claiming, for over a century, that Sally's paramour was one of two nephews surnamed Carr. The researchers published by Nature had looked for Carr chromosomes, in vain. Now Jefferson supporters were in the somewhat Clintonian position of pointing to a new set of relatives. Perhaps they will turn out to be right, but the burden of proof shifted noticeably.

It is possible, but not proven, that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Heming's children. It is also possible that someone related to Jefferson did the deeds. Here's another article from Monticello.org that puts the Nature study into perspective. At this point, Jefferson's affair with Sally Hemings is still unproven rumor, as is your characterization of it as rape (although, to be fair, she was a slave and any sex with a chattel could be construed as such). It is also, as noted, off topic. And moving the goalposts from infidelity to sexual misconduct, WRT the presidency, ain't what's being discussed. Unless you want to split hairs and characterize blow jobs as =/ infidelity.

[Count Chocula]

wait chocula can't even get FDR dying in his mistress' place in Florida?

Yup I missed that one. Make it 4 out of 44 Presidents, a tidal wave of expectation for behavior! Besides, by 1921 he had contracted polio (or maybe Guillain-Barre Syndrome) and was paralyzed from the waist down, a condition that probably made the not-so-fond-of-sex Eleanor happy but also made FDR incapable of -ahem- Cleveland's, Kennedy's, or Clinton's indiscretion.

[The Yosemite Bear]

How about mitocondrial DNA Mr. Choc flamebrain?

yes, the decendants of Mr, Jefferson's slaves, some of whom were barely in their teens have far too many of the same atcg's as the legitamate decendants of Jefferson.

also how conviently you forget the campaign of "Ma, Ma where's my Pa" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Cleveland
Alexander Hamilton having an affair with his treasury secretary's wife (sounds like something from recent times)
Andrew Jackson challenging people to duels over the fact that his wife was still married to her first husband, and thus Jackson was committing adultry.
and many more.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It is possible, but not proven, that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Heming's children. It is also possible that someone related to Jefferson did the deeds. Here's another article from Monticello.org that puts the Nature study into perspective. At this point, Jefferson's affair with Sally Hemings is still unproven rumor, as is your characterization of it as rape (although, to be fair, she was a slave and any sex with a chattel could be construed as such). It is also, as noted, off topic. And moving the goalposts from infidelity to sexual misconduct, WRT the presidency, ain't what's being discussed. Unless you want to split hairs and characterize blow jobs as =/ infidelity.

Cuntsickle, you should not talk about something you dont know about.

They also stated that Jefferson's nephews Peter and Samuel Carr were the fathers of the light-skinned Monticello slaves some thought to be Jefferson's children because of their resemblance to him.

So he permitted a nephew to rape one of his slaves. Oh wait, genetically impossible.

Could it have been another relative? Sure. However moron, that is not likely. He was present during the times of conception of those children, they bear his DNA, he freed them either before or upon his death (contrasted to all the other slaves), and said children believed they were his children. This is important. The kids would know better than anyone other than Jefferson or Mom whether or not Jefferson was fucking their mother, and if she was being fucked by anyone else. Their testimony, out of all of that examined, is the most reliable. Particularly because they never had a good reason to lie, unlike Jefferson's family who had every motivation to shove a shameful little secret like interracial child bearing rape under the rug.

[Samuel]

Hey, Grover Cleveland did the honorable thing- he had sex with a women and she had kids. He didn't know if they were his or another mans but he helped support them anyway. The irony being he was the only bachelor having sex with her.

Andrew Jackson challenging people to duels over the fact that his wife was still married to her first husband, and thus Jackson was committing adultry.

In all due fairness that was just a technically due to a legal screw up.