Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Representative Bachmann is First to Sign Marriage Vow

Representative Bachmann is First to Sign Marriage Vow

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Michele Bachmannn has outdone herself and, it appears everyone else, in her effort to avoid four years in the White House. While some politicians prepare plans for the future economy, and outline views on global issues, Rep. Bachmannn is remaining in a comfortable groove wherein she mandates righteousness and proposes a broad range of restrictions of personal liberties and rights, based on her personal views of morality and scruples.

Michele Bachmannn has revealed a plan to protect our military personnel from “intrusive commingling” and unwanted attention from “attracteds.”  She clearly envisions a present and painful element in the military in which poor soldiers are pursued and wooed by vigilant gays. This is only the beginning.

Michele Bachmann, young and attractive, was born April 6, 1956, in Waterloo, Iowa, and moved to the state of Minnesota as a child. A Tea Party advocate, and now state representative from Minnesota, Bachmann has announced a run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. She is currently campaigning in the state of her birth, Iowa, and has been enthusiastic in supporting and signing a marriage pledge promoted by The Family Leader, a conservative Iowa group that promotes Christian conservative social values, and which is asking all presidential candidates to sign the pledge in support of traditional marriage.

Bob Vander Plaats, author of the pledge, and CEO of Family Leader, wields such power in Iowa that it is understood by most that neither Michele Bachmannn nor any other politician has a hope of victory in the coming presidential election without his help. Vander Plaats has made failed runs for the Iowa governorship, and is a leader of the Iowa hard-right-wing evangelicals. He proved his power with an ouster of no fewer than three Supreme Court justices, all of whom gave the nod to same-sex marriage. Vander Plaats served as Iowa state chair of Mike Huckabee’s 2008 run for the presidency. In view of the power and authority vested in Bob Vander Plaats, who has sworn an oath not to endorse any candidate failing to sign the pledge, Rep. Bachmannn was quick to affix her signature. The full title of Vander Plaats’ pledge is “The Marriage Vow: A Declaration of Dependence upon MARRIAGE and FAMiLY” (emphasis original).  As a member of the extreme religious right, Vander Plaats, the author chooses to use the lower case “i” in the word family, to indicate that the individual in society should be subservient to the larger group.

As a willing signer to Vander Plaat’s pledge, Michele Bachmann agrees to abide by the document one of the premises of which pertains to race and slavery. Simply stated,the pledge affirms that a child born in slavery was more likely to have been raised in a two parent household than an “African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American president.” How she ties the president to the commonality of single parent homes in the black population is anyone’s guess. It continues: she must insist that homosexuality, much addressed in her current platform, is curable. She takes exception to the belief of some that “non-heterosexual inclinations” are innate and irreversible. Other targets of the Bachmann agreement include gay marriage, abortion, and quickie divorce. One might take the position that with Michele Bachmannn making our decisions for us, we have nothing to fear.

The marriage vow pledge which Rep. Bachmannn signed seems in some ways contradictory. It demands rejection of Sharia Islam, but would staunchly support new regulation for fidelity to one’s spouse, and respect for the marriage bonds of others. An interpretation then is that the pledge might enforce some strong punishment for moral turpitude, which is precisely the sort of thing students around the world are fighting and dying to oppose. We recognize that ancient societies mixed legal and moral considerations into their legislations; many in the world are trying to end the stoning and hanging of promiscuous citizens, while evangelical candidates right here in the United States are moving gradually but surely in the direction of government enforcement of religious principles.

As to the earlier mentioned protection of service personnel (the Vander Plaats pledge does use the word “attracteds” and suggests the unwanted harassment may take place in restrooms, showers, barracks, tents, and so on), we find constraints for women serving in foreign countries, because they could become subject to torture, enslavement, or sexual leveraging.

Lastly, the pledge in question specifically mentions a “Fierce defense of the First Amendment’s rights of Religious Liberty and Freedom of Speech” in anticipation of unstated agencies that might “undermine law-abiding American citizens and institutions of faith and conscience for their adherence to, and defense of, faithful heterosexual monogamy.”

In a nation that advocates a clean separation of church and state, Bachmannn again and again seems to be running for the position of the Creator’s representative on Earth. This, she doesn’t seem to recognize, goes back to ancient times in societies that became cruel, even barbaric, and failed. The young lady should probably dedicate herself more to the conventional legal attributes of the office, and leave the legislation of morality to the church goers and those entrenched in the pulpit.

Powered by

About John Lake

John Lake had a long and successful career in legitimate and musical theater. He moved up into work behind the camera at top motion pictures. He has done a smattering of radio, and television John joined the Blogcritics field of writers owing to a passion for the liberal press, himself speaking out about the political front, and liberal issues. Now the retired Mr. Lake has entered the field of motion picture, television, and video game (now a daily gamer!) critique. His writing is always innovative and immensely readable!
  • zingzing

    i read somewhere that the study cited (for the claims on black families during slavery and under obama,) was completed in 2005 (ie, under bush II,) and the information contained therein only goes back to 1880 (ie, not under slavery). (here’s a link to the study cited.)

  • skponggol

    Both Michele Bachmann and Barack Obama are a pair of political demagogue who are obsessed on exploiting inflammatory social issues to polarize and divide the nation and people for their personal gains.

    While Obama loves to play the race card to bash the “racist” white people, Bachmann loves to play the gay card to bash the “deviant” gay people. Both are despicable in using these sort of emotional social to incite their respective liberal and conservative extremists into hysteric frenzy.

    Michele Bachmann is Barack Obama, and Barack Obama is Michele Bachmann.

  • Williamsholar

    Is it just me or does this woman have eyes like Casey Anthony?

  • Baronius

    I don’t like pledges in general, partly because of things like Zing points out. I haven’t dug into the study, so I don’t know if it’s accurate or not, but I don’t like the idea of taking a pledge of someone else’s wording. I wouldn’t hold failure to sign a pledge against a candidate if he provided good reasoning. That being said, on one reading I found this pledge to be something I would probably sign if I were running for office.

    Good article, John.

  • http://tmackorg.com/ Tommy Mack

    Signing the pledge confirms three important things about this member of congress. First, Representative Bachmann is not a serious candidate for the presidency. Second, Representative Bachmann takes poorly thought out political advice. Third, Representative Bachmann suffers from the delusion that she can defeat the incumbent president in a national election.

    The only thing she has not done so far is to invent words on Twitter.

    Tommy

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Williamsholar –

    I thought the same thing a month or so ago. It is said that eyes are windows to the soul, and what I don’t see in her eyes is any trace of true humility, the kind that forces oneself to remember that the more one knows, the more one realizes how much one has yet to learn. She is living proof that one can be very intelligent, yet quite ignorant, for she is scary smart in her own way – but she is also willfully ignorant of anything that calls into question her own beliefs.

    That’s what makes her dangerous.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Tommy –

    She’s a serious candidate, all right, in the eyes of millions of low-information Republican voters.

  • Arch Conservative

    Barack Obama has not come out in support of gay marriage. Come to think of it neither has any other prominent national Democrat………bunch of homophobes if you ask me!

  • zingzing

    they haven’t signed any pledge saying they’re against it… and obama was never going to get around to that in his first term. if he gets a second, maybe.

  • Baronius

    If I’d said 10 years ago that Democrats were lying about opposing gay marriage, or 15 years ago that they weren’t going to settle for civil unions, I’d have been called a bigot. Now we’re supposed to treat it as common knowledge that one of the parties is lying about its intentions?

  • zingzing

    eh? i can’t figure out what that’s supposed to mean.

  • John Lake

    I really feel a need to take exception to Glenn #6: She is living proof that one can be very intelligent, yet quite ignorant, for she is scary smart in her own way
    “In her own way” spans a wide range; however, I find no reason to believe she has any particular intelligence, beyond having graduated Law School. Excepting that, she seems somewhat below Sarah, and a few others on any scale of innate braininess.

  • Arch Conservative

    Yeah Baronius I can’t decipher your comment either.

    Zing you claim that Obama will get around to supporting gay marriage in his second term? Why wait if he believes it is the right thing to do?

    It’s wouldn’t be because he’s a politician’s politician and only does what is good for himself politically would it?

    He said he was going to bring the troops home during his campaign yet they’re still dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan. His announcement last month that he will begin withdrawing 10,000 troops later this year is an unbelievably transparent political ploy to garner support going into an election year. If it weren’t that he would have done it already.

    If you want to criticize Bachmann that’s fine but at least find something to criticize that represents a difference between her and your messiah and his cohorts on the left. As of now Michelle Bachmann has done just as much as Barack Obama has to advance the cause of legalizing gay marriage.

  • Arch Conservative

    “and what I don’t see in her eyes is any trace of true humility, the kind that forces oneself to remember that the more one knows, the more one realizes how much one has yet to learn”

    But you see that in Obama’s eyes?

    HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

    HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

    HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

    HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

    HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

    [Edited]

  • zingzing

    “Zing you claim that Obama will get around to supporting gay marriage in his second term?”

    i said “maybe.” i’m not predicting anything, but it’s a distinct possibility. he’s toyed around with it for a while. and for the first time in history, a majority of the electorate would back him if he did. but then there’s those swing states, where they would not back him if he did it now. yes, it is somewhat cowardly. but it’s also smart. if he loses the election because he tries to push that one issue, he won’t be able to push that one issue and whatever else he wants to push in a second term.

    “Why wait if he believes it is the right thing to do?”

    he’s a politician. he can’t go for reelection once he’s in his second term.

    “It’s wouldn’t be because he’s a politician’s politician and only does what is good for himself politically would it?”

    yes.

    “He said he was going to bring the troops home during his campaign yet they’re still dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan. His announcement last month that he will begin withdrawing 10,000 troops later this year is an unbelievably transparent political ploy to garner support going into an election year. If it weren’t that he would have done it already.”

    it may be a transparent ploy, but it’s a step in the right direction. that’s how things happen a lot of the time. you know this.

    “If you want to criticize Bachmann that’s fine but at least find something to criticize that represents a difference between her and your messiah and his cohorts on the left.”

    come on, archie. don’t ask don’t tell. telling the doj not to enforce doma. obama appointed more openly gay people to his admin than any other president in history. he opposed that thing in california. he issued an exec order to hospitals saying they must treat homosexual couples the same way they treat heterosexual couples. he extended the rights of gay federal workers. these are all steps in the right direction that are also somewhat politically safe. i know you know how politics work. but gimme a break… i can’t believe you were expecting something different.

    “As of now Michelle Bachmann has done just as much as Barack Obama has to advance the cause of legalizing gay marriage.”

    damn right. bigotry is a great advertisement against itself.

  • Baronius

    OK, let me try again.

    The Democratic Party used to say that they opposed anti-sodomy laws. Conservatives said that the Democrats were taking the first steps toward radically transforming society. The conservatives were denounced as reactionaries. The Dems said that they just wanted to keep the government out of the bedroom.

    Later, the Democratic Party used to say that they supported the rights of gay teachers to not be fired. Conservatives said that the Democrats were moving toward a denial of the difference between gay and straight. Nonsense, the Dems said, the conservatives are just being reactionary. We wouldn’t try to change the culture; we’re just trying to be fair to gay teachers.

    Next (actually, I don’t remember the chronology) was DADT. Conservatives called it a first step toward giving gays equal standing in the military. No, of course not, the Dems said.

    Civil unions. A precursor to gay marriage, said the cons. Naw, it’ll remove the need for gay marriage, said the Dems.

    About a year ago, there was a gay rights conference in DC. The President was being criticized for not moving ahead with the gay agenda. Obama, who is on the record as opposing gay marriage, showed up and said – what? Did he say that he was sticking to his stated policies? No. Did he say that he’d changed his mind? No. What he said was, wait, and you’ll like where I’m going.

    If the President and fellow Democrats are espousing a position that they don’t believe, and that they intend to break the moment they think they can get away with it without political cost, what kind of standard is that? It’s a lie taking refuge in the fact that no one believes it. At some point, after the public has been lied to repeatedly, it’s reasonable for them to doubt the Democrats’ explanations.

  • Baronius

    Hey, it looks like Zing said the same thing I did: they’re lying because they think they have to, but they’ll do what they’ve been denouncing the moment they think they can.

  • zingzing

    i don’t think the dems are “denouncing” gay marriage. that’s a strong term, at any rate. times change, people change, hairstyles change. in #16, you describe it perfectly. little baby steps, chiseling away, leading the conservatives into accepting one “abomination” after another. it’s taken some time, but you can see what direction this particular elephant is being led.

    obama has said he was for it (in 1996, which is pretty remarkable, when campaigning in hyde park), and he was (rather mildly) against it (when he was in front of some evangelicals, and even then he pointed out how equal rights for gays didn’t threaten him in any way). yes, he was trying to get elected both times, and said what needed to be said. since he has gained the presidency, has he not made large strides towards equal rights for homosexuals, as the tide has turned in that direction? yes, he has. like civil rights in the 60s, it’s a slow crawl, but it’s coming. unfortunately, throwing reluctant americans headlong into the future doesn’t sit well with them.

    “If the President and fellow Democrats are espousing a position that they don’t believe, and that they intend to break the moment they think they can get away with it without political cost, what kind of standard is that?”

    it’s standard politics. you’re aware of this, i assume.

    i see what you’re trying to do, but it comes off as either naive (or impatient, in the case of gay rights activists), or disingenuous. look at obama’s actions concerning gay rights. what does that say to you? it’s hard to trust a politician based on his words. politics is a game. they say one thing and do another. obama is saying what is politically acceptable when it comes to gay rights in an election year, but while you watch his lips flap, he’s sneaking it in under your nose. the end is inevitable.

    if you’re trying to say politicians should always speak the exact truth, that’s wonderful. but it’s not that way and it never has been. i’m truly shocked at your shock. it’s truly unbelievable. really. as in, i don’t believe you.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    “espousing a position that they don’t believe, and that they intend to break the moment they think they can get away with it without political cost, what kind of standard is that?”

    A standard long held by politicians. It’s rather surprising how much time some of you spend talking about politics yet no so little about how it actually works

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Arch #14 –

    If you really understood what I meant, you would not have replied as you did.

    Tell me, Arch – when was the last time that Michelle Bachmann or John Boehner or Sarah Palin publicly apologized for a mistake they made?

    Or how about you? When was the last time you publicly and sincerely apologized for anything?

    The point is, unless they – and you – are all perfect, they’re too proud/insecure to apologize for doing anything wrong. I remember clearly when during a debate John Kerry asked George W. Bush what he thought he did wrong during his first term. Bush would not admit to doing anything wrong. I do not trust anyone who is unwilling to admit error in anything of significance. Obama’s made a few errors along the way – he’s human, remember – and for the most part he’s been willing to own up to them. The same cannot be said for his predecessor or ANY of the Republican leadership presently in Congress.

    Among today’s conservatives, it’s apparently seen as a weakness to apologize for anything significant. They do not understand the value (or even the meaning) of true humility. Neither, it seems, do you.

    Pride goeth before a fall, Arch.

  • Baronius

    I’m not shocked. You can’t be shocked by something that you’ve come to expect. But it does make it harder to believe anything that progressives say.

    By the way, is that why progressives don’t believe conservatives when we say that tax breaks help the economy, or that we care about children before and after they’re born, or when we talk about peace through strength? Most of us really believe what we’re saying. Also, is that why Democrats don’t hold their leaders to any standards of truth? And, while we’re at it, is that why you guys are way more comfortable latching onto conspiracy theories?

  • zingzing

    well, when you can spit up that amount of bs, maybe you can swallow it as well? besides, i believe it’s pretty clear that, if they could, the dems would pass a gay marriage act. but they know they don’t have the votes. because lots of republicans, no matter what they believe (and they really can’t be such dumb redneck bigots they’d believe everything in that pledge), they can’t say they’d pass it and expect to keep their seat this point.

  • zingzing

    hrm. 22 was for 19.

  • zingzing

    “But it does make it harder to believe anything that progressives say.”

    stop it, baronius. don’t pretend you can’t see the camel for the rich man in your eye, or whatever.

    as per #22, the republicans are just as guilty of these kinds of tactics. but they have to prove their christian cred while going out and getting sucked off by rent boys. why do you trust them when they’ve been pulled ever closer towards gay rights over and over again? do they not say one thing then do another as well?

    “And, while we’re at it, is that why you guys are way more comfortable latching onto conspiracy theories?”

    omfg, baronius. are you on drugs? you HAVE to be kidding. that is crazy.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    John Lake #12 –

    I listen quite a bit to progressive talk radio, and without exception they disagree with you. Every single one I’ve heard holds Bachmann as being a smarter, more capable candidate than Sarah Palin.

    Palin’s mistakes are legion – witness how many times she’s quit something halfway through. Bachmann, OTOH, has quit nothing halfway through and is trying her utmost to not make the same kind of silly claims that Palin did after she became a candidate for VP. She’s learned (and continues to learn) from Sarah’s mistakes.

    No, Bachmann is quite intelligent – but in the same way that Iran’s Ahmedinejad is quite intelligent. Both hold their religious beliefs far above any scientific or historical fact, but they’re smart enough – at least in the manipulation of the media and their respective bases – that they’re still on solid ground, politically speaking.

    No, don’t underestimate Bachmann. That would be a mistake. It would be a great tragedy not only for the nation but for the entire world if she were elected to President or VP. But she might well get there nevertheless, because she’s every bit as smart and ruthless – and as willfully ignorant – as many of the religious tyrants we’ve seen over the centuries.

  • zingzing

    “By the way, is that why progressives don’t believe conservatives when we say that tax breaks help the economy,”

    what with our record low taxes, we should be doing great then, yeah?

    “or that we care about children before and after they’re born”

    malarkey. you’d cut welfare for single mothers, school lunches, anything that helps kids once their out of the womb if it would save a buck for you. (see how hyperbole works? try dropping it for a moment.)

    “or when we talk about peace through strength?”

    go fight your own damn war then. and get your own country blown up. peace through strength. please. it’s just politics with bullets.

    “Also, is that why Democrats don’t hold their leaders to any standards of truth?”

    america does not torture-a republican.

    heh, just kidding, we tortured the fuck out of them arabs-same republican.

    ah, well-the republican base.

    give me a break baronius. your side is equally as bad (and at worse things). fucking look at it.

  • zingzing

    and why do you trust bachmann? does she really believe life was better for blacks under slavery? of course not. how could she? that’s a slap in the face to at least a quarter of the country (not that she cares, they won’t vote for her).

    she signed that and said she pledged that she believed it so she could when in iowa, where it is impossible to win without the guy who wrote that piece of shit’s backing. that’s why she signed it. to get votes. you know it.

    so why does that not bother you? do you not hold your politicians to the same standards of decency and truth-telling you would “progressives?” no? why not?

  • zingzing

    “And, while we’re at it, is that why you guys are way more comfortable latching onto conspiracy theories?”

    just had to look at that one more time. oh god, i’m pissing myself. that is something special right there. frame it, put it on the wall.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    “Conspiracy theories”? Really?

    How about “global warming”, which most Republicans STILL think is some kind of liberal conspiracy? Or the birther BS that for a time was believed by most Republicans? Or how about the black helicopters coming over the horizon to get your guns?

    And THEN there’s ACORN – not even ONE single fraudulent vote was proven to have come from the problems with a few of ACORN foot soldiers – but there’s tens of thousands of eligible voters who have been wrongfully disenfranchised by Republicans’ voter caging.

    And what about the other character assassinations against Van Jones and Shirley Sherrod – both proven to be completely false…but did anyone on the Right stand up and denounce the false accusers? No. The Right did not care that the accusations were false, but only that the accusations accomplished what they wanted.

    And then there’s the other conspiracies about Obama – that he “pals around with terrorists”, he has a “deep-seated hatred of white people”, that he’s secretly a Muslim, that he wants to destroy America’s economy in order to stay in power, et cetera, ad nauseum.

    Baronius, remember the article I did on conservatives and the amygdala? Google it again. Conservatives are MORE receptive to fear, of discontent with that which is different – which I believe is why fear-based political ads are so much more prevalent in Republican campaigns.

    Of course you’ll say that’s not the case – but I know what I see.

  • zingzing

    don’t forget the leftist indoctrination camps (erm, education) and the lamestream (hahaha, please don’t make up any more puns…) media!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    By the way, is that why progressives don’t believe conservatives when we say that tax breaks help the economy

    If you REALLY believe that, then explain why our economy’s not doing so hot even though our total tax burden is LOWER now than at any time in the past fifty years.

    Hm? You DID get that, didn’t you? That our total tax burden is lower NOW under Obama than under Bush 43 OR Bush 41 OR Reagan OR Eisenhower?

    But you won’t. Because you can’t. Because the hard facts would require you to question Republican dogma, and such is unthinkable to you.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And Baronius –

    Also, is that why Democrats don’t hold their leaders to any standards of truth?

    No? Remember Anthony Weiner, who broke NO law? As compared to Republican senator David Vitter, the family-values guy who liked to wear diapers around prostitutes? He DID break the law…but how many Republican leaders called for his resignation? Zero. Or how many called for John Ensign’s resignation when he broke the law? Zero. Or how many called for Dick Cheney’s head on a plate when he committed TREASON by exposing Valerie Plame (and everyone involved in her CIA operation, many of whom disappeared)? Zero. And let’s not forget the time he shot his ‘friend’ in the face – for which action he has NEVER apologized. Again, NO Republican leader even whispered the words “independent investigation”…but if it had been a Democrat….

    What would have happened if a Democrat has done any of these? We’d never have heard the end of it! But since it was a REPUBLICAN that was involved, well – “move along, nothing to see here”.

    If you want to throw mud, Baronius, we’ve got a LOT more ammo than you do.

  • Arch Conservative

    “And let’s not forget the time he shot his ‘friend’ in the face – for which action he has NEVER apologized.”

    You’re losing what little sanity you have left.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Arch –

    I notice that you questioned my sanity…but you did not at all refute what I said – ANY of what I said.

    Tell me, Arch – is it no big deal to you if someone does something that’s really wrong, but is unwilling to publicly apologize for it?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And Arch –

    How about you? Care to answer the challenge I posed to Baronius in #31? If you don’t, then don’t feel too bad – none of your fellow tax-cuts-are-the-cure-for-all-that-ails-us conservatives have enough gumption to do so either, apparently.

  • zingzing

    glenn, to be fair, he may have apologized in private for shooting his friend in the face. shooting his friend. in the face.

    in looking it up, the shootee says that he and cheney are not close friends, just acquaintances, and he didn’t say if cheney had apologized or not.

    whittington, that’s the guy who got shot in the face by the vice president, did apologize to cheney: “My family and I are deeply sorry for all that Vice President Cheney and his family have had to go through this week.”

    the washington post, in a 2010 article about it, and the first time whittington had agreed to any sort of story about it since 2006, said cheney had neither publicly or privately apologized.

    from the article, about cheney and an apology:

    “I’m not going to go into that,” he says sharply after a short pause.

    Harry Whittington is too gracious to say it out loud, but he doesn’t dispute the notion, either.

    Nearly five years on, he’s still waiting for Dick Cheney to say he’s sorry.

    so, it sounds like he never did apologize. or maybe the washington post (not generally thought of as particularly liberal,) just wants to make cheney, a mean old man who shot a guy in the face and was a heartless warmongering torture fiend to boot, look bad.

  • Clavos

    Has John Edwards ever apologized?

    Oh wait, he hasn’t done anything to apologize for…

  • zingzing

    hrm. strike that whittington said cheney had neither publicly or privately apologized. the article insinuated that. and i doubt the fucker did.

  • zingzing

    “Oh wait, he hasn’t done anything to apologize for…”

    bam!

    WE’RE HITTING ROCK BOTTOM, BOYS!

    (but you should have said “he doesn’t have anyone to apologize to,” if you really wanted to get nasty.)

    but yes, he did apologize for the paternity thing and fucking around on his wife and lying about it and trying to hush it up. he’s still in court over the other stuff, so i doubt he’d apologize for that before the verdict’s in…

    a little too late, a little too soon, clavos.

  • John Lake

    For those who follow Dick Cheney’s quail hunting skills, here’s an article I wrote many moons ago, that might be of interest.
    Cheney Had a Quail Related Shooting, Before the One We Know About!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Um, Clavos –

    There’s a bit of a difference between what John Edwards did and what Dick Cheney did. One let his little head control his big head (which is NOT unusual among men in general, I think you’d have to agree), and the other – well, he’s BEEN the “little head” all his life.

    Besides, if you’ll check, John Edwards is pretty much persona non grata among Democrats nationwide, whereas Newt Gingrich – who did the same thing (well, he didn’t have a kid, but his wife WAS dying of cancer at the time) is STILL popular among Republicans – just not as a presidential candidate. And remember that while the Newtster was doing this while he was trying SO hard to ruin Bill Clinton’s life for taking liberties with a cigar.

    Okay? Like I told Baronius – you can throw mud all you want, but we’ve got a LOT more ammo. Come to think of it, the only time a Republican personality becomes persona non grata among Republicans is when he has a sex scandal with someone of the same sex. I mean, Rush Limbaugh was untouchable even when he was caught in the Dominican Republic with a butt-load of Viagra pills.

    Face it, Clavos – as long as it’s not homosexuality (or sex with kids, of course), you guys really don’t care what your politicians do as long as they follow the party line. But this is NOT true of Democrats, as the recent Anthony Wiener scandal proves.

  • Clavos

    …you can throw mud all you want, but we’ve got a LOT more ammo.

    You have me all wrong, Glenn (and zing) John Edwards’ sex life is nobody’s business but his as far as I’m concerned — just as mine is nobody’s business but mine.

    I meant it when I said Edwards has done nothing he needs to apologize to anyone but his wife for.

    And it’s ONLY his business if did or didn’t apologize to her.

    Hell, I don’t care what any politician does sexually with another adult, nor to whom.

    They only bother me when they’re stealing my taxes.

    And if you want to throw mud at Republicans (or ANY politicans), Glenn, I’ll hold your ammo for you; just let me know.

  • Clavos

    Come to think of it, the only time a Republican personality becomes persona non grata among Republicans is when he has a sex scandal with someone of the same sex.

    That’s true, and it’s damned narrow-minded and bigoted of the Republicans, they shouldn’t object to anything consenting adults do.

    But hey, that’s what you get with right wing christers.

  • zingzing

    “I meant it when I said Edwards has done nothing he needs to apologize to anyone but his wife for.”

    well, the illegal use of campaign funds (even if they didn’t come from your pocket…) is a crime. but we’ll have to wait and see if he’s guilty of that.

    i always thought the guy was a sleaze, not just for these latest accusations (although those didn’t certainly didn’t decrease the sleaze factor), but for the $400 haircut, the carefully dealt drawl, the fact that he spent more time campaigning for higher office than he ever did in office (and he was from my home state, so i saw lots of coverage from that, like “oh, the nc boy makes good” and “where’s our representative?”). he bothered me.

    as for glenn’s “more ammo” thing, i dunno about that. the things republicans do look more heinous in my eyes because they’re coupled with what i perceive as great amounts of hypocrisy, but you gather hundreds of men (this is discounting the sprinkling of women, but they don’t seem to get caught or called out so much,) in our legislative body and you separate them from their wives to form some kind of boys’ club and you’re going to get some scandals. they’re all just humans. left or right, men are going to do foolish things, and we are all too happy to tear their lives and careers apart over something that’s none of our business.

    political scandals are juicy, but they swallow up the good and the bad with equal measure.

  • zingzing

    “I meant it when I said Edwards has done nothing he needs to apologize to anyone but his wife for.”

    you did leave out the “but his wife” bit in that, which does change the meaning if you are apt to assume snark. which, you must admit, is easily suspected of you.

  • Clavos

    Snark??? Moi???

    Surely you jest…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    His name’s zingzing, not Shirley!

    Zing –

    Yes, there is more ammo. Any group of people that doesn’t raise Cain about rank hypocrisy in their ranks is bound to be more corrupt. Think about it.

  • zingzing

    but only if they’re caught, glenn. men are men. we all do stupid shit.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    zing –

    Very true – all men do stupid crap (and I’m just glad that women haven’t figured out yet that they don’t need us around).

    BUT that begs the question – since Dems are apparently caught fewer times and with obviously less serious crap, does that mean that we do just as much bad stuff, but we’re just smarter about how we do it since there’s fewer of us caught?

    Of course not! I will never agree that any one side is more innately intelligent than any other side!

    But I will say that there are basic differences between the conservative and the liberal mindsets – and unless you can come up with a different explanation of why we’re caught less often, with less serious crap (and held to a higher standard, btw), I’d say it’s apparent that the reason for the difference lay in the basic psychology of those who are conservative as opposed to those who are liberal.

    And there ARE observed biological differences, as is indicated by the research on the amygdala that I’ve pointed out before.

  • zingzing

    “Of course not! I will never agree that any one side is more innately intelligent than any other side!”

    you may say that, but i do think that one side is definitely more stupid than the other.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    zing –

    That’s a pretty surreal cartoon – and it took me a while, but I finally understood it and smiled.

    “He who laughs last, didn’t get the joke.”