I think that is very true of many values voters. Many of us are very conscious of forgiveness in our own lives and are willing to extend it to others. We'll have to see how the Vitter thing plays out, but his wife said he had come to her years before and confessed what he had done and sought forgiveness. While he apparently didn't confess publicly until confronted, he did take responsibility immediately when confronted. What he did was gross--really gross, but he may receive mercy from his constituents, not because he deserves it, not because what he did is insignificant, but because he seems to have recognized his failings, owned them, truly repented, and sought help. President Clinton on the other hand lied publicly "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" and under oath and only confessed when there was no denying it at all. That's why his confession seemed hollow, lacking in contrition, and why people who might otherwise be predisposed to forgive and extend mercy didn't. It's the difference between being sorry for what one did versus being sorry for being caught.
Hypocrisy isn't believing one thing while doing another. God help us if we don't aspire to be better than we are. It's pretending to be better than we are for some kind of gain and with no real interest or attempt to live right.
I think you're absolutely right, Anna.
A lot of "values politicians" espouse their faith seriously, I believe, making their less-than-holy actions mistakes, and not hypocritical actions.
The problem with this statement is that many of these numerous unfolding scandals involving republicans usually reveal a long history of repeat and deliberate behavior, not a brief lapse in judgement. I'm not even talking about Vitter or John McCain's campaign co-chairman Bob Allen, but in the last month we had GOP State Senator Ted Klaudt, Glenn Murphy, and Michael Flory. The last two were both separate incidents, happening in just the last two weeks, involving leaders of the Young Republicans, and involved rape.
If you think the left is only pointing at Vitter's transgression with a prostitute or the number of failed republican marriages, you are sorely mistaken.
The republican party rallies lockstep behind laws that dictate how American citizens can live their life, not Democrats, so why is it that the republican party has such a big problem with their own party leaders exhibiting some of the most vile, evil aspects of human nature?
I know that a majority of republicans are decent, well-meaning people with strong convictions in their faith, but I believe those qualities that republicans like to see in their political leaders favor people who use religion as a shield to hide their true nature. Democrats offer no such shield. In fact, I think those "leadership" qualities tend to be seen as mental illness by most Democrats. The best evidence is the fact that new criminal scandals are almost a weekly event for the republican leadership, yet I can't think of a single one on the Democratic side that even matches the severity of a real crime. Perhaps you know, I don't.
Just look at the quality of the candidates on the Democratic side vs. the republican side. The republican party has a real problem.
The republican party rallies lockstep behind laws that dictate how American citizens can live their life, not Democrats, so why is it that the republican party has such a big problem with their own party leaders exhibiting some of the most vile, evil aspects of human nature?
Seems to be both parties want to "dictate how American citizens can live their life" at unacceptable levels.
Second, I would hardly call any of those people party "leaders."
Just look at the quality of the candidates on the Democratic side vs. the republican side.
Sadly, I think just about all of the candidates are lacking in some degree.
Seems to be both parties want to "dictate how American citizens can live their life" at unacceptable levels.
In what way do you believe that Democrats want to control your life? Banning same-sex marriage seems to be a key issue among republicans but there is not one sensible justification that can be made for a government defining who someone can or cannot marry. It is impossible to come up with one sensible reason for it. Of course, republicans have little credibility when talking about "sanctity of marriage." It's like segregation, people will look back on it 20 years from now and wonder what the hell these politicians were thinking.
Second, I would hardly call any of those people party "leaders."
Michael Flory was the chairman of the Michigan Federation of Young Republicans. Glenn Murphy was the chairman of the Indiana-based Young Republican National Federation. I only point them out because they both happened recently and are surprisingly similar cases, but are by no means the only ones. For a political party that bills itself as the party of values, they have a shameful record.
Sadly, I think just about all of the candidates are lacking in some degree.
My problem with the Democratic contenders is that I think all of them are pretty good. Hillary Clinton I probably like the least on some of the stances she has taken but I think Bill Clinton had ultimately a very successful 8 years as president and I think it'll take that it will really take their collective abilities and experience to undo the damage of the previous 8 years.
Commenting by HaloScan
