Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: The Chevy Nova Act Of 2009 Previous entry: For every “Buffy” fan who can’t believe the kids are eating up “Twilight”

Salon’s wingnut explains why straight guys get to have Teh Sexx, but not anyone else

For this week’s Ask A Wingnut, the wingnut was asked why Republicans are such hypocrites about sex.  And it’s true—-one wonders why, when straight Republican politicians are caught with their pants down, anyone thinks they owe the world an apology.  Apologies are hypocritical.  Their stance is clear—-straight men get to have all the sex they want with all the women they want.  It’s not straight male sexuality, in any of its manifestations, that’s bringing down society.  It’s women having sex without being punished repeatedly for it, and of course, gay men need to be run out of town for it.  But this belief has become embarrassing for some reason to conservatives, and now they feel like they have to put on this whole front about male fidelity and responsibility.  I think they think it’s a tradeoff—-straight women, you get to be forced to have babies against your will and die from cervical cancer.  Gay men and lesbians, you get to be discriminated against and, if the system works right, you also get to fuck off and die without health insurance because you can’t get married or have a job under the conservative regime.  In exchange, to show their interest in fairness, conservatives will require straight men to pretend to be sorry when they commit adultery.  See?  Everyone loses and so it’s fair.  You lose your freedom, dignity, or health, and they lose entire minutes of pretending to be sorry.  But only if they’re politicians.  Having a fraction of a percentage of straight men required to sacrifice is enough to justify taking away the human rights of everyone else.

People are pointing to the latest faux repentant Senator Ensign to prove that conservatives are hypocrites.  He signed a pledge stating he wouldn’t cheat, don’t you know?  Which, of course, he also did when he got married, but let’s face it, cheating for men has always been built into the system and so no matter how many times you pretend to promise otherwise, everyone knows for men who believe in tradition, the traditional right to adultery comes with the territory.  You just have to pretend to feel bad about it, as the Salon wingnut explains.

The United States remains a center-right country composed of people who believe in center-right values, like family, hard work and honesty. But also in forgiveness—which is why the public apology from those in positions of authority who have crossed lines that seemingly could not be crossed often survive—but only when those failings are a matter of personal behavior rather than public trust.

He failed to add that this is only true for straight guys, but I suppose that it’s implied in terms like “positions of authority”, or even in the concept of people who can transgress.  Gay men lose their claim to personhood when they touch dudes, you see, and women never had it. 

(And how do you like the idea that family, hard work and honesty are “center right” values?  How is the relentless lying about sex, politics, and foreign policy—-everything, really—-from conservatives “honesty”?  How is the routine valuing of straight white men over women and minorities who work their asses off valuing hard work?  And let’s not even get into the idea that “family” is a value—-that really shows how much conservatives really don’t value families, that families, which are something most people have and are composed of living human beings, are more of a political “value” than a real thing.) 

You see, under the desired conservative regime, straight women and gay people don’t get forgiveness when they have sex.  With abortion banned, and access to birth control or even protection against STDs severely restricted, straight women can’t whimper and pretend to apologize and get out of their punishment.  They will be forced to have babies as punishment for their sins, and no one gives a shit what they think about it.  Conservatives don’t care what women think the rest of the time, of course, so why should they care on this subject?  As for gays and lesbians, well, even though the fight right now is over gay marriage, don’t forget that conservatives didn’t like the decision in Lawrence v. Texas, either, and would have sodomy laws reinstated.  So it’s not a matter of having to pretend to grovel a little before going back to your career in politics if you have gay sex—-it’s a matter of being thrown in jail.  Forgiveness is a privilege for straight men, and even then, it only matters in politics, and let’s face it, they think you should only get it if you’re a Republican, to boot. 

The only hypocrisy here is in conservatives pretending that they ever really cared to restrict straight male behavior.  They only have eyes for punishing the gays and the ladies, and the sideshow about straight male politicians who stray is just a distraction circus.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 09:29 AM • (42) Comments

“Forgiveness is a privilege for straight men”

Scratch “privilege”.  Replace with “automatic right”.

Comment #1: seeker6079  on  06/22  at  10:10 AM

I’ll just add that I found it sort of weird the way the wingnut in question ran with the idea that someone else’s adultery betrays the public.  I don’t feel betrayed by Senator Ensign’s cheating, nor do I feel surprised or perturbed.  I don’t really give a shit, and I think the only difference between him and every other politician, at least conservative politician, is he got caught.  The only reason this shit grabs so much attention is because it reveals, over and over again, that sexual “morality” is a control mechanism to squash the human rights of gays and straight women.

Comment #2: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/22  at  10:11 AM

No, it’s a control mechanism for anyone not currently part of their idea of “us”.

Comment #3: helen w. h.  on  06/22  at  10:24 AM

Funny how the vast majority of sex offenders - and that’s the ones who deserve the label - are straight white males.  Ditto for rapists.  And yet we get this “oh, sorry, my bad” attitude that entirely misses the point.  Maybe we should just lock them all up?

Comment #4: Ms Kate  on  06/22  at  10:29 AM

...which is why the public apology from those in positions of authority who have crossed lines that seemingly could not be crossed often survive—but only when those failings are a matter of personal behavior rather than public trust.

This doesn’t apply to Democrats though. Was it because Clinton didn’t grovel and weep crocodile tears on camera or…? Perhaps he was too supportive of a live & let live philosophy. I loved how last week when the Repugs were getting asked about this filing into the lunchroom how lots of the ones that were so incredibly offended by Clinton suddenly had “no comment” or said that “everyone makes mistakes”.

$&^$% goddamn hypocrites.

Comment #5: Danica Lefse Queen  on  06/22  at  10:34 AM

The lengths at which they go to defend their privilege would be hilarious if it did not mean diminishing so many lives.  We cannot change they say becasue things have always been one way, as though human civilization does not evolve.  This weeks marriage is gay by infomania debunks most of these ludicrous propositions and asks why the cons have no problem with the gay penguins but seem to lose their mind when it comes to human beings.

Comment #6: womanistmusings  on  06/22  at  10:54 AM

I love the new “That’s Gay” feature on Infomania. I hope it takes off like Target Women did.

Comment #7: Mighty Ponygirl  on  06/22  at  10:56 AM

“I’ll just add that I found it sort of weird the way the wingnut in question ran with the idea that someone else’s adultery betrays the public.”

I can buy it if the adulterer in question built a very public persona based on the idea that they’re a good and moral person whose ethical conduct should be an inspiration to the public at large.  You asked the public to put faith in the idea that you’re not the sort of person to break promises or hire prostitutes or do whatever, and then you went and did it anyway. 

Public figures who haven’t indulged in any such grandstanding and private figures across the board?  Not so much.

Comment #8: preying mantis  on  06/22  at  11:13 AM

First, “Ask a Wingnut” is the second and strongest reason I dropped Salon Premium (first was Camille Paglia).  It is absolutely nothing but temperate-sounding and deliberately obtuse talking points culled from Sunday-morning political chat shows.  Sometimes I’ll skip to read the many outraged letters that debunk him point-by-point, though.

Second, it’s been clear for many years that the hypocrisy charge means nothing to the right, because the underlying justification is that wealthy and/or powerful white men have always gotten a pass on the rules as long as they a) wrote them to constrain the lower class, minorities, and women, and b) let the lower-class and religious whites act freely as enforcers.  That’s their understanding of the world… the only reason Bill Clinton didn’t qualify was because he was viewed as unworthy of power in the first place, and he provided a rare opportunity for the GOP to pretend to live up (or down) to their rhetoric.

Comment #9: latts  on  06/22  at  11:43 AM

“This doesn’t apply to Democrats though. Was it because Clinton didn’t grovel and weep crocodile tears on camera or…? Perhaps he was too supportive of a live & let live philosophy. I loved how last week when the Repugs were getting asked about this filing into the lunchroom how lots of the ones that were so incredibly offended by Clinton suddenly had “no comment” or said that “everyone makes mistakes”.”

...wait a minute!  Indiscretions by Republicans can never be directly compared to sordid violations of the public trust by Democrats.  They are nothing alike at all — just ask any Republican.

And the Republicans did moderate their response toward Clinton in response to his apology.  Ideally, they wanted to have burned him at the stake on the White House lawn, but they settled for getting his political scalp.

In contrast, if he was a Republican POTUS, Clinton would have trotted out Hillary and Chelsea to look embarrassed at a press conference and then spit out some half-assed apology, and quietly served out the rest of his term — and then become a standard guest on Sunday Morning news shows commenting on the sorry morality of Democrats for the next two decades (and maybe even become a Catholic)...

Comment #10: MikeEss  on  06/22  at  11:49 AM

Wingnut sed:

<blockquote>but only when those failings are a matter of personal behavior rather than public trust.

Oh yeah emphasis added.

So that means that b/c Ensign used RNC monies to pay his mistress, to pay her husband, and to establish and pay their 19 year old son in a consulting job, each instance presumably a failure of public trust, he should resign?

Right?

Comment #11: teac  on  06/22  at  11:54 AM

*dang preview*

Comment #12: teac  on  06/22  at  11:55 AM

If Republicans valued work, they would support taxing investment over taxing wages—the exact opposite of their position.

Comment #13: Raenelle  on  06/22  at  11:57 AM

but only when those failings are a matter of personal behavior rather than public trust.

He threw this in there to distinguish Ensign and Vitter from Clinton, because what the wingers pretended to be up in arms over with Clinton wasn’t the sex, it was the lying.

See? No hypocrisy, no double standard, nothing to see here.

Also, re. Gingrich, divorce and presidential elections: Ronald Reagan was the only divorced president we’ve had.  For the benefit of younger readers, the column might have explored whether that was an issue in his election campaign (Answer: not really).  Probably we can all remember last year, though, when Giuliani’s shameful treatment of his ex-wife harmed his chances, while McCain’s shameful treatment of his ex-wife was glossed over completely.

Nothing to see here, either.  As Richard Land, head of public policy for the Southern Baptist Convention explained: “[McCain’s divorce is] like a molehill compared to Giuliani’s mountain.  When you’re a war hero, you have less to prove on the character front.”  Unless you’re John Kerry, of course.

Comment #14: BABH  on  06/22  at  12:08 PM

Yes, but you see, some Republicans are homosexual or cheat or steal or suchlike but they don’t ENJOY it.  They carry around a bucket of guilt which they spew out when called upon to admit their wrongdoing.

On the other hand, the Republicans suspect that Democrats who are homosexual or cheat or commit adultery and suchlike actually DO ENJOY it, which is just absolutely unforgivable - and it’s even worse when they don’t carry their proper bucket full of guilt.

It’s simple.  A Republican can do anything they want to as long as they feel really, really bad about it (in public in front of cameras) but Democrats are under the perpetual suspicion of actually being somewhat OK with “nonstandard” behaviors and that’s just WRONG!

Comment #15: tannenburg  on  06/22  at  12:22 PM

I’ve never understood the idea of public betrayal either. I think cheating on your spouse is a shitty thing to do, but I certainly have no feelings of betrayal- they didn’t marry me and cheating on your spouse has zero to do with your job, Well, unless you’re a pastor or marriage counselor, then maybe. But it certainly has nothing to do with your ability to be a member of congress or even President. I think it’s ridiculous to even go through a public apology, because it does nothing to help the actual betrayed person and probably harms them by putting the whole thing on public display. I do love to see the hypocrisy of the Republicans just hanging out there though- of course it’s ok when they do it, as long as they apologize. See, they’re punished for having the evil dirty sex too- it’s just like being forced to carry a baby you don’t want for 9 months or having to spend your whole life trying deny your sexuality- they had to spend 5 minutes apologizing. It’s sickening. My dad is the classic wingnut- he had an affair, but you know it was okay because my mom is a lousy housekeeper and so he was totally justified. His 18 year old daughter having fun and consensual sex with her boyfriend because she wanted to? Well, that clearly makes her a whore and a disgusting human being who is unworthy to even come in the house. (My dad didn’t allow me in the house from the time I moved in with my boyfriend until the time we got married- it wouldn’t have been a problem if that didn’t in turn preclude from seeing my sisters, who I actually like).

Comment #16: Julie  on  06/22  at  12:49 PM

<i>Gingrich, divorce and presidential elections: Ronald Reagan was the only divorced president we’ve had.  For the benefit of younger readers, the column might have explored whether that was an issue in his election campaign (Answer: not really).<i>

That’s because Reagan and his first wife, Jane Wyman, mutually dissolved their failed marriage in a discreet and mature fashion because they were quite done with each other.  Gringrich has now screwed over multiple wives in multiple deceitful ways, all the while braying like the hypocritical ass that he is about the Democrat Socialist Party’s lack of purchase on moral issues.

Comment #17: Ms Kate  on  06/22  at  01:05 PM

“Maybe we should just lock them all up?”

Whoa, whoa, whoa. While I am a white male, I am neither a sexual deviant nor Republican (redundant?) and I refuse to be locked up with them.

Comment #18: Mark  on  06/22  at  02:05 PM

Remember, no criticism of a liberal’s actions made by a conservative is ever made in good faith.  They just hate us.  They don’t need reasons.

Comment #19: Punditus Maximus  on  06/22  at  02:19 PM

Whoa, whoa, whoa. While I am a white male, I am neither a sexual deviant nor Republican (redundant?) and I refuse to be locked up with them.

I’m a white male, and all my sexual deviancies are legal and consensual, and I refuse to be locked up with Mark either.

Comment #20: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  06/22  at  02:57 PM

Great post! I think it leaves out the role that whiteness plays in it, though. The GOP polices black sexuality as heavily as it does female and non-straight sexuality. I tried to respond using a race lens here.

Comment #21: RMJ  on  06/22  at  03:16 PM

center-right values, like family, hard work and honesty.

Who exactly are the leftists who prefer values like loneliness, laziness and lying?

Comment #22: Phoebe Fay  on  06/22  at  03:50 PM

people who believe in center-right values, like family, hard work and honesty.

This one set my teeth on edge.  I spent my morning holding and watching our five month old while my partner worked herself to exhaustion on our garden, and now this fuckwit wants to claim that his adultery-excusing, Iraq-invading, estate-tax-defending tribe is the one who values family, hard work, and honesty?

I hoping fucking lightning strikes him.

Comment #23: NBarnes  on  06/22  at  04:15 PM

PIATOR -

Perfect!

Comment #24: Mark  on  06/22  at  04:29 PM

“Who exactly are the leftists who prefer values like loneliness, laziness and lying?”

Well, it’s actually only one person, but since they’re a quantum strawliberal, there are limitless manifestations.

Comment #25: preying mantis  on  06/22  at  04:31 PM

“Who exactly are the leftists who prefer values like loneliness, laziness and lying? “

All of us, apparently.  Didn’t you get the memo?  It has been in circulation since the 60s.

Comment #26: seeker6079  on  06/22  at  04:45 PM

Shall we leave PiaToR and Mark to be locked up together?  It seems like they need some Alone Time.

Comment #27: seeker6079  on  06/22  at  04:46 PM

Shall we leave PiaToR and Mark to be locked up together?  It seems like they need some Alone Time.

Only if you give me a gas bbq and some barbecue sauce…

Comment #28: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  06/22  at  06:40 PM

You’re going to cook and eat Mark?

Wow.  I had no idea that Kiwi males were so kink.

Comment #29: seeker6079  on  06/22  at  09:29 PM

I’m not sure “public trust” is quite the right term for it, but this makes me think more than a little of the discussion about Kincade and other christianist tycoons. When part of your sales pitch and corporate charter, as it were, is the whole sanctimonious morality thing—“Vote for me because I’m not immoral scum like my opponent”—then cheating on your spouse (let alone with campaign funds and the perquisites of office) is more of a betrayal of the voter than if you haven’t run on such a platform. No more and no less than someone who promises to repeal DOMA or rename Karo to Freedom Syrup and then does the opposite.

What I find sorta interesting about this whole forgiveness thing is that it seems much easier to get forgiven for acting against your professed nature than with it—the stereotypes for nonwhite(non-Asian)s, women in general, queers and so forth is that they’re promiscuous and dishonest, so you’d think that when one of them was found to be so it would be no big deal. But instead, the outrage! Meanwhile, the stereotype for rich white straight christians is that they’re faithful and honest, so disconfirming evidence should be worth noting at length. But instead, it conflicts with theory and so disappears.

Comment #30: paul  on  06/22  at  09:31 PM

Pls not lock me up, k thnx! (Another Mark here…)

And—what’s all this about Ensign? I live in Nevada and I haven’t heard a word about it!

Of course, here (and sometimes Slacktivist) is where I get all my news.

I can has linky?

But no, I can’t say I really care. This is just something to read while eating popcorn.

I just wish I didn’t live in a state where my two Senators were Ensign and Reid.

I really miss California sometimes. Women Senators. Oh, and toasted bagel sandwiches!

Comment #31: Mark Foxwell  on  06/22  at  09:41 PM

i was in highschool for the “Clinton Scandel” and my opinion, essentially unchanged (if much refined) then was “Name a single president that hasn’t cheated on his wife. *MAYBE* FDR, maybe - and i doubt that he was totally faithful, too.

it’s not that i think adultry isn’t a Bad Thing To Do - it *IS* a bad thing, but it is Not My Business. my attitude is generally, “as long as all parties consent (and are able to consent) and it doesn’t involve me, i don’t care”

of course, adultry is generally *non*consensual, in that most of the time the person who cheats doesn’t get permission from his/her spouse - and if they did, i don’t consider it cheating.

i think it would be kinda awesome to have a politician in office who is in an open relationship, and watch all the blowing-up of “family-values” politicians…

because for them it isn’t about doing the right thing, but about appearing to do the right thing - not being good, but appearing so - its about DECORUM and is, frankly, a bunch of bullshit.

added to that - using non-personal money (government, party, NGO, whatever) to PAY for the adultry? jesus fucking christ.


side note: family is not a value - there are values that include various family-friendly ideas, but family itself is not a “VALUE”. it hasvalue, sure. but just the mere idea of family? gods, that annoys the hell out of me - all this “family values” shit being screamed into the ether by a bunch of fuckers who would sell their own children for a larger share of the power… politicians who marry only for appearence’s sake, who set everything up in their family to follow a specific script so that people can look and say “what a great husband and dad” of the man who probably doesn’t have 5 words to say to his wife about her life and probably can’t remember the birthdays of his children without a secretary reminding him? and he’s probably screwing the secretary in a not-quite-cohersive-way, too?
and the fact that politician’s families are almost invariably used as slave labor in any/all political campaigns and such, to the point where (to a large extend) politicians are voted on not just for their abilities and stances, but also on their WIFE’S ability and stances on subjects. Obama won the election in large part because lots of people identified with Michelle while being weirded out by the idea of a First Husband (let alone WHO was going to be the first husband…). if you marry a person who goes into politics, you have lost any right to your life (i have a friend who is a professional Domme. her husband wanted to try and become a state rep to Ohio congress. she was forced (by the Party) to stop her career and spend all of her time in Suzy-Q-homemaker outfits at events, lie about her past, and spend most of her energy and time putting “spin” on the fact that she used to be a Domme and wasn’t anymore - shit like “love had saved her from her evil slutty ways”, and having to pretend that she converted to Catholicism to explain the “transformation” and worse… she hated every single minute of it - and it was STILL used against her husband, an “expose” about her career as a Domme was put out, and she was dragged through the mud BACKWARDS horribly and they almost divorced over it. he swore that if he ever ran for anything ever again it would be without her participating one way or the other, and if the party tried to insist on her participation he would just quit.)

i have often considered trying to run for the local school board or something. but i know better - there is not a single fucking chance anywhere in the multiverse that i could ever win an election against any other person, not even Hitler - i am female, pagan, i game (dungeons and dragons, etc) i myself used to be a professional Domme (but all i did was light people on fire, so i think it is much more accurate to say i was a professional Pyro…), used to work as a HouseMom in a strip club, used to work phone sex, am dating (but not yet married to) a black guy, i am divorced, i am a victim of child abuse and rape that were made public…
no, i am serious - in an election between me and Hitler, or Mao, or Stalin, i would lose, because all anyone would hear about is how i am different (and immoral/amoral, etc), and how the Other guy at least isn’t “X” that i am.

otherwise, i would run for POTUS in 2012 - i would be *just* old enough to do so…

Comment #32: denelian  on  06/22  at  11:51 PM

“center-right values, like family, hard work and honesty”  yup, that explains it all, cause women, lgbt and minorities get by on special rights and affirmative action and white guys have to fight to earn everything they get.

Oh - and denelian, FDR had a long term relationship on the side, so make sure you add him to your list.

Comment #33: vec  on  06/23  at  12:29 AM

thanx, Vec - i was pretty sure there was *something*, but i never went and researched :D

Comment #34: denelian  on  06/23  at  02:05 AM

The Roosevelts seemed to have basically had an open marriage after deciding against divorcing over one of his early affairs for various reasons.  He had numerous affairs, and historians are reasonably certain that she had romantic relationships with at least a few women and one man.

“side note: family is not a value”

It depends on what you mean by “family,” doesn’t it?  If your idea of what a family is involves a discrete unit of people coming together to care for one another and look after one another’s physical, emotional, etc. needs, then calling it a value doesn’t make much sense.  If your idea of what a family is narrows to “household predicated on male headship and female submission for the purpose of providing the patriarch with unrestricted access to sex, domestic labor, children-chattel, and heirs,” it gets a bit closer.

It’s kind of like “hard-working.” If your idea of “hard-working” is “willing to exchange a significant quantity of labor for at least perceived gain,” well, that’s kind of a self-evident thing.  If your idea of “hard-working” is “willing to engage in a significant quantity of labor for no particular personal or social benefit,” you narrow the hell out of that pool and turn “hard-working” into more of a social statement than an adjective. 

I think that might have been part of the “relationships take work” wire-crossing in the marriage threads, too.  If you say “relationships take work,” and one person is thinking “Yeah, and?  I do x effort-requiring thing, I see y benefit.  What’s the problem?” while another person is picturing some sort of relationship labor-camp where you have date-night just to have date-night and try Cosmo-suggested bedroom tricks that neither of you really find sexy to try to “spice things up,” the discussion goes weird places.

Comment #35: preying mantis  on  06/23  at  08:45 AM

Name a single president that hasn’t cheated on his wife

Truman,
Lincoln,
Cleveland,
Washington,

Actually, Clinton and Kennedy are the only one’s we ‘know’ cheated while they were President.

Comment #36: Magis  on  06/23  at  12:35 PM

There are rumors about Lincoln and his preference for young men.

On the other hand, I don’t think Carter cheated. (I’m not counting the “lusting in his heart” or whatever he called it.)

And James Buchanan was a bachelor, so it’s safe to say he wasn’t cheating on his wife.

Comment #37: Phoebe Fay  on  06/23  at  01:17 PM

Magis, aren’t we pretty damned sure about FDR? 

Eisenhower cheated, but not during his presidency.  I note that you carefully deal with that via “while they were president”.

Comment #38: seeker6079  on  06/23  at  04:49 PM

@denelian—fire is so much fun to play with, isn’t it?

Comment #39: kaninchen  on  06/23  at  05:53 PM

denelian, perhaps the real reason you can’t run is that you’re not dysfunctional enough for this country:

[::Open in the presidential bedroom which is filled with food and garbage. The special agent is sitting in the same room. David wakes up::]

DAVID: Oh. Oh my head. (Sees agent) Who the hell are you?

AGENT: Special Agent Mitchem. Good morning, sir

DAVID: Oh, this is bad. I’m sorry. I’ll get out of here. I gotta get home

AGENT: You are home, Mr President

DAVID: who are you talking to?

AGENT: You, sir

DAVID: Where am I?

AGENT: You’re in your bedroom, sir

DAVID: Ok, if I’m in my bedroom, than how did you get in here?

AGENT: I have a key. We all do

DAVID: We?

AGENT: The secret service, Mr President

DAVID: (repeating to himself) The secret service, Mr President (chuckles). Ok, If I’m the president, what’s the president doing in this dump, huh?

AGENT: Oh, you’ve done some redecorating, sir

[::david runs to the window and opens up the curtains. There is a view of the Capitol building::]

DAVID: Nice helicopter

AGENT: It’s yours, sir

DAVID: Ok, look. The last thing i remember was being at the piper’s pub with my girlfriend. She asked me what I thought about seeing other people and I told her I would get back to her after I had 30 beers.

AGENT: There’s really not much more to the story, sir. You got piss drunk, ran for president, and won.

DAVID: How long have I been drunk?

AGENT: You have just started your second term

DAVID: Ok, look. You’re saying that the people of America elected a drunk man president?

AGENT: And then re-elected him

DAVID: That’s impossible. My name is David Herman. I failed high school twice. I butter bagels for a living. How in the hell would anyone elect me to be president?

AGENT: Well, I think people found you kind of refreshing, sir. I mean, you are pretty up front with your views

DAVID: I don’t have any views!

AGENT: Maybe not now sir but when you get in front of a TV Camera with a bottle of Jack Daniels, you can be extremely opinionated. You changed America!

Comment #40: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  06/23  at  06:42 PM

oh, wow.

wow! that is… i love that story, Dark. and it’s so… i can see it, is what i’m sayin :D

kaninchen - fire is the *best*! i adore fire… and it’s legal to set people on fire (if they consent). it’s not legal to set anything else on fire. so… it’s like peanut butter and chocolate, for me hehe


as for the Presidents and having affairs thing - my point wasn’t ever which presidents had affairs when - it was that pretty much any person with that sort of office is going to do *something* that abuses the office, and generally people in positions of power (like that) are going to commit adultry. its just how it is. not that i think “status quo” is a defense - obvious people (mostly men, given the way the world is) should not abuse their status and position to have extra-marital affairs. my point was always that Clinton having an affair? the only *weird* or *different* thing there was that people were paying any attention to it at all.

Comment #41: denelian  on  06/24  at  02:05 AM

Hee, I loved that skit.

Comment #42: preying mantis  on  06/24  at  11:42 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.