A presidential candidate dumps his wife of 15 years to marry a younger woman. His new wife -- whose multimillion dollar fortune comes from booze -- steals painkillers from a charity, forges prescriptions and causes a doctor to lose his license because of her lies and manipulation to feed her opiate habit.
The man's running mate put her unborn child's life at risk to make a speech important to her career while leaking amniotic fluid. She has a pregnant teenage daughter.
If any of these people were Democrats, I'm sure the media would be telling the story this starkly. It would be called the "character" issue.
We would hear about how such a man is not moral enough to lead our nation -- and that if he lied to his wife to carry on an affair, surely he will lie to the country.
We would read about how having an ex-junkie, prescription-forger thief as First Lady sends the wrong message to kids about drug use.
There would be talk of how those selfish, career-driven women are destroying the American family and contributing to the breakdown of society that puts our very way of life itself at risk.
How can it be, then, that McCain and Palin represent wholesome Christian "family values" and the other guys are the party of liberal decadence, sex education for kindergartners, divorce, infidelity and cultural relativism?
Clearly the Democrats truly believe "judge not, lest ye be judged." Either that, or they are afraid to appear as hypocrites if they raise these points -- because they don't believe that people should be publicly shamed about these issues.
The pundit class won't express this perspective for fear of cries of "liberal bias." And of course the right wing -- who froth at the mouth when Bill Clinton gets a blow job but don't praise him or his wife for staying together for their child -- won't speak up.
This is not a double standard -- it's no standard whatsoever. Either the Republicans believe that infidelity disqualifies you from public office -- or they don't. Or maybe they think it's OK so long as you marry the other woman?
Either they believe that addiction is a moral issue -- or they don't. Or maybe it's OK so long as you aren't black or poor?
Either they think that teen pregnancy is a mark of shame on a family, suggesting a failure of the parents to teach good values-- or they don't. Or maybe it's OK so long as you don't have an abortion?
All of those positions represent exactly the kind of moral relativism they have decried amongst Democrats for years. It's not biased to point out when people are saying one thing and doing another. It's called journalism.
http://www.eaglesnest-2.net/eagles/?q=node/10
I have tried to post on this and am always attacked that it can't be true because how would such a secret be kept. Well, it hasn't been kept. It's right out there if you're willing to do the digging. I believe it is, in fact, how the White House coerced McCain to drop his long-held opposition to torture, that they told him they would ruin his political reputation if he did not acquiesce.
You hear nothing from the surviving POWs, but, on the other hand, you do not see them supporting McCain. In fact, a POW named Butler is breaking the pact to the extent of making videos to explain why he would not support McCain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KjsEs46C70
Fair much?
History has shown that the repubs and radical-religious extremists (I mean of the Christian faith) have a genetic inability to look in the mirror and recognize their hypocrisy.
The genesis of their relationship is that of a cheating husband and his mistress. To my knowledge, there have been presidents who've engaged in infedelity throughout their term(s) in office, but none who was sworn into office with a former mistress by his side. The symbolism of the McCains in the white house would sanitize a union that was built upon the ashes of pain, lies, and betrayal that resulted in the decline of a first marriage.
McCain and his wife are comparable to Guiliani and his wife. It's tacky and tawdry, but unlike McCain, Guiliani's children weren't so forgiving of their father's errant ways. If the tables were turned, Republicans would never let up in moral outrage over a morally bankrupt Democratic ticket. They are reaping the benefits of PC behavior or their candidates, when in fact both McCain and Palin would have been ripped to shreds if the roles had been reversed.
I'd welcome an ad for the Dem ticket on family values showcasing both Biden and Obama in their element -- men of character, as fathers and as husbands. I love the way they adore their wives and cherish their families. The ad can read something to the effect of Honoring Family and Country, Change You Can Believe 'and ' Trust In.
Imagine a male, say, Charles Schumer. Imagine him saying yes to being VP without consulting his wife, and flying his kids to the announcement rally in complete ignorance. Would that be remarked upon? I think it would.
It's daffy. That's no other way to put it. Dishonest, secretive, but also daffy. Unfair, uncaring, but also daffy. Those kids have to follow their parents' (since Todd is so involved with government work he gets his own subpoena) ambition around. They looked dazed.
This is McCain's best decision making? Yikes.
Also, addiction knows no boundries. ASk The Betty Ford Center. And, personally, I think a person who has an addiction and controls it and admitts to it is a stronger individual for it, a real fighter.
Besides, let he who is without sins cast the first stone. That would leave out the last Dem. President and the present person in the same party running for President.
I don't get it, do you think spending 20,000,000 on a hockey rink, and 500,000 per year to keep it running is preferable to spending money on Rape Kits? That is your choice...
But they turn a blind eye towards Palin's kid. I think there's an underlying racism amongst their constituents. These people have already made up their minds and they just look for anything to buy into. Ignorance is bliss and the right is like a flock of ignorant, uneducated, faith-based, low-information people. If they win this election I'll be so freakin mad ...
Tell the whole story and then tell us why one is worse than the other. I eagerly await.
Perhaps also you are ignoring the fact the BO didn't just experiment, but was a regular user of pot, cocaine, and alcohol (all illegal for him to use or possess) for at least three years. Try reading BO's "Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance".
Also, the difference between pain pills and illicit drugs is that people who get addicted to pain pills are usually prescribed them initially for a legitimate reason. The narcotic nature of the drugs makes them highly addictive and addiction drives people to do irrational things to continue their habit. I saw this firsthand in my own family.
Lastly, BO's past drug use is not an issue for me. Those seeking to tear down his opponent for this reason are not helping one bit. It surprises me that so many do not see it.
Adultery: OKIR Drugs: OKIR