Does this guy give you a warm and fuzzy feeling about the superior Republican morals you proclaim?
Of course not. I have never indicated that there aren't Republican sickos; certainly, there are. But it would be a silly argument to suggest that this mayor's transgressions are of the significance of Clinton's or Condits. Also, there is the clear pattern of abuse of power that the big-name Democrats have exhibited, where no such pattern exists with Republicans.
The best you can do in your argument is to point out Nixon (who committed no acts of the seriousness of Clinton's, i.e., physical assaults on other people or practicing the Politics of Personal Destruction as the democrats did with the Clinton scandals and now the Condit fiasco). Or, perhaps, Newt Gingrich, who was guilty of having an affair (which, unlike Clinton's, was a private sexual matter that should not have anything to do with his politics). Similarly, for Livingston and Hyde (Hyde's transgressions were what, 20 years ago?).
I find it fascinating that you liberals are always defending Clinton's acts against women as "private sexual conduct", when they clearly involved unwanted sexual advances, abuses of power against a 21 year old, rape of Ms. Broderick, and sexual harrassment against Ms. Jones. In all instances, the Democrats (NOT JUST CLINTON, ALL OF THEM) verbally assaulted these women in an attempt to cover up the physical assault.
Then, in desperation, the typical set of Republican infringements you refer to involve what clearly WERE private sexual acts. This sorry Republican mayor not withstanding, you guys simply cannot come up with the kind of big-name Republicans who have committed violent acts such as Clinton and perhaps Condit. Why? It just doesn't happen as often with Republicans.
It can happen, however -- no party is immune -- but one party tacitly approves while the other condemns the behavior. |
