The problem is there have been little to no political repurcussions for politicians committing marital infidelity since Clinton got away with this behavior in the late 1990's. Similar to how past drug abuse used to disqualify candidates but is no longer seen as a handicap, it's now just accepted by society. 

Sadly, most people only highlight the behavior when the sin is committed by a member of the opposite political party (like this blog, for example) and ignore it when it is committed by a member of the same party. 

This behavior is only going to stop when people are outaged by these actions no matter who is committing the sin and stop politicizing sexual misconduct. 

Sadly, most people only highlight the behavior when the sin is committed by a member of the opposite political party (like this blog, for example) and ignore it when it is committed by a member of the same party. 

I guess posts on this site are like ink blots, everyone sees what they want.

Sadly, most people only comment on articles written by someone of the opposite political party (like this blog, for example)

some people can't tell their handle from a hole in the ground...or a veriword.

"I guess posts on this site are like ink blots, everyone sees what they want."

Could you provide me with an example when you highlighted sexual misconduct by a Democrat?  I might be incorrect, but it seems you only highlight this behavior when it is committed by a Republican.  but if you could provide me of such an example on this site (e.g. John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, David Patterson, etc.) then I will gladly retract my statement.

"Sadly, most people only comment on articles written by someone of the opposite political party (like this blog, for example)"

And sharing different viewpoints on websites is bad because...why?

I'm not saying it hasn't happened, because it probably has, but I can't think off the top of my head when we've done that for Republicans either.  It's not like this is an expose site on sexual misconduct.  Thank you though for adding us to a few more Internet filters.

For the record, John Edwards is a piece of crap, if that makes you feel any better.

It's not as much fun to highlight misbehaving Democrats, because they tend not to be so "holier-than-thou".

Matthew, Pickle makes a good point.  She justifies this blog's double standard by reminding us that Republicans' poor conduct is more "fun" to highlight because republicans have higher standards than the democrats.  It makes sense.  Because democrats have no moral standards, they can get away with behaving however they want - at least their conduct is consistent with what they believe. 

Thank you, Stephen.  Ironically, you just illustrated my point better than I ever could have.

Stephen, you stepped in a pile of doo-doo this time.

If that pisture is supposed to be what I stepped in I'll be happy to stick my foot in my mouth now.

: - )

those look like salted, roasted doo doo's

I think they're pink coated raisins and the possibilities for kids are endless.

Pickle, I think you find it more fun because you're a Democrat.  If you don't think leftwing groups (e.g. environmentalists, etc.) can be holier than thou also, I don't know what to tell you.  Basically, I think there are plenty of political factions from both sides of the aisle that are self-righteous, not just Republicans.  And, quite frankly, both you and Stephen are coming off a little "holier-than-thou."

TLM, as for other examples of posts highlighting sexual misconduct of Republicans, this one immediately came to mind.  Look, you're right, this site definitely does not have a theme of highlighting sexual misconduct but, when the subject does come up, it seems to me that it is always a Republican being highlighted on this site. 

Look, it's your site and you can highlight whoever you want, I just find the outrage more believable when it goes after people on both sides.  Otherwise, like I said before, it just seems more political than real moral outrage. 

That one really came to mind?  Thanks for being such a hard core fan you can recall a 2007 blurb.  I had forgotten that one, but I'm not surprised it was there.

I don't see any moral outrage in the post though, so I'm not sure I see your point.  Even if it was, the one post from 2007 constitutes moral outrage always targeted towards Republicans?

Yes, that one came immediately to mind.

And, like I said, "when the subject does come up, it seems to me that it is always a Republican being highlighted on this site."  You're right though, this post doesn't show moral outrage but, like I also said previously, "Sadly, most people only highlight the behavior when the sin is committed by a member of the opposite political party (like this blog, for example) and ignore it when it is committed by a member of the same party."  That really seems to be the case here.

So, "like this blog for example", one post from 2007 that we both agree doesn't show moral outrage proves your point that this site is one sided on the moral outrage.

That really seems to be the case here.

Excellent job proving your point by just making a statement to back up previous statements! 

I was trying to think of a case of liberal holier than thou...

"I was trying to think of a case of liberal holier than thou..."

Are you serious? Environmentalists come to mind. Barbara Boxer comes to mind.  Unfortunately, self-righteousness is not one-sided.

TLM, I'm not sure what you're saying.  I already stated that you were right that this post does not show moral outrage and never said this site was one-sided when it came to moral outrage.  I merely pointed out, and am still correct, in saying that this site is one-sided when it points out sexual misconduct in political figures.  You have yet to provide an example when you highlighted it in a Democrat. 

Because of one post?  Again you are saying you are correct by saying you are correct and I have to prove otherwise.  Sorry, I do not accept your challenge. 

The post you even brought this up about was a quote featuring hypocrisy, not sexual misconduct.  Your comment infers that this site constantly points out sexual misconduct of Republicans but not Democrats and that's simply not true.

"And, quite frankly, both you and Stephen are coming off a little "holier-than-thou.""  - Matthew

There should be nothing fun about highlighting anyone's foul behavior, but especially that of those we elect to public office who we expect to be model citizens for the communities they serve.  I found it disgusting that someone would say it's fun to do to someone simply because they are from an opposing political party.  When the time for chastisement comes, it shouldn't be fun (that'd be like finding enjoyment in spanking your kids).  The only reason Pickle gave for it being fun is the one she gave when she said democrats tend not to be so holier than thou.  So now us republicans are holier than thou.  Insult to injury, anyone?

So I commented.  I tried to explain that what Pickle (and by virtue of that, others as well) sees as a "holier than thou" attitude is really republicans setting a high standard.  Call it whatever you want, that's what it is.  Setting a high moral standard for those in office can only be considered a bad thing by those who want a lower standard or no standard at all.  And pointing this out makes me come off holier than thou because of . . . . why? 

Yeah, I basically agree with you, Stephen.  You're right, it should not be fun to point out this kind of behavior no matter what political party one is from.

"Again you are saying you are correct by saying you are correct and I have to prove otherwise.  Sorry, I do not accept your challenge."

Regardless, of whether you accept this or not, it's true.

"Your comment infers that this site constantly points out sexual misconduct of Republicans but not Democrats and that's simply not true."

I guess my comments are like ink blots and everybody can see in them what they want to see.

"Because of one post? "

Two posts.  You forgot to include this one.

Regardless, of whether you accept this or not, it's true.

Seriously, how many times are you going to do this?  It's not true and you've offered no proof otherwise.

Two posts.  You forgot to include this one.

Um, no, I explained that in my last comment.  Thus the ink blot comment even earlier.  The sexual misconduct is very much secondary to this post.

I guess my comments are like ink blots and everybody can see in them what they want to see.

Apology accepted!

I agree with Fat on this. Look, it's pretty simple... far left wing websites will only comment on the sexual misconducts of Republicans, and far right wing websites will only comment on the sexual misconducts of Democrats.

Make no mistake about it, this IS a far left wing website. Well, it's sole purpose isn't to be far left wing... but when it's about politics, it's almost always far left-wing. I think we assume that TLM is non-partisan. I mean this as no dissrespect, but he never has once said that he was. He has always voted for a Democrat his entire life, and always will. He is by NO MEANS non-partisan. He makes no qualms about it.

The fact that we're annoyned by the one-sidedness is clearly our own problem. This IS a liberal website.

But one thing... who said all environmentalists are Democrat? Who started the land conservationist movement? Republicans. We are the original conservationists. As I tend to see, (as is obviously evident with the Cash for Clunkers bill), Democrats like to take 1% of the problem, and dump 99% of their resources into solving it.

I agree with you Todd, I'm not denying bias here.  Matthew Cochrane's statement is way off base though.  I don't even think there was a post about Larry Craig on this site.  That was chuck full of good stuff. 

There's one post that he's referring to from 2007, the only comment of which was oppps, and then saying I need to find where this site highlights sexual misconduct from a Democrat.  That event took place in Florida and for 20 bucks.  If it wasn't for those two items, the story would have probably been ignored as well.  He was insinuating that it's an issue here with this site that we only highlight sexual misconduct from Republicans. 

There's no trend here for that.  In fact, if we did that, you would just be constantly posting your list of Democratic sexual misconducts that you posted once.  As I said, John Edwards is a piece of crap, a man I once respected, put that down in your bias bucket.  After wasting my time trying to figure out what he was talking about, I also did find a blurb about Mark Foley in a day in review post, but I will also defend that as the focus being on hypocrisy.

I'm sure you've run into the issue you are talking about on other sites, but this is an example of Matthew Cochrane's bias being applied to this site.  Plain and simple. 

He apologized in his own way though, so it's okay.  I accepted his apology.

Dirka dirka dirkda mohammed!!!

TLM, since you can decipher "his" "apology," you apparently are able to understand "him."  Could you interpret "his' reply to my post?  For the record, I am seriously looking for a serious answer.  I think there probably is a case of it in existence somewhere.  The Boxer link doesn't look like holier than thou (htt) to me just impolite, arrogance perhaps disdain for the miltary, but not htt.  And "environmentalists come to mind" doesn't give me much to go on.  I'd ask "him" to explain but past efforts haven't been worth the effort.  Since "he" references "his" "mind" you might also explain why "he" is so weird while you're at it. The scarey thing is that "he" is in law enforcement.  Thanks.

 "I was trying to think of a case of liberal holier than thou..." 

Are you serious? Environmentalists come to mind. Barbara Boxer comes to mind.  Unfortunately, self-righteousness is not one-sided

Damn, let me just say, when your wife says "That drink is only meant to be taken as a shot! Not a tall glass!!!" you need to listen to her.

I'm supposed to be studying, and this isn't working out too well for me...

Never trust a drink that tastes like chocolate milk, and comes in a fancy bottle.

C is hard core... because I'm a computer programmer for 13 years, and he knows hot to post pictures, and I don't.

Re: Barbara Boxer - Yeah, I don't think that video showed her being "holier-than-thou" either, I just wanted an excuse to show the video because it makes me laugh.

Greenies are "holier than thou" because they'll use special reusable grocery bags or recycle every single little thing or buy hybrid cars and when others do not do the same thing they look down on them and act like they're better.  I thought that one was pretty self-explanatory actually. 

As to why I'm weird? I don't know. That would probably take years of psychological analysis and more money than I care to spend to find out the answer. 

As to why any of that would make it "scary" that I'm in law enforcement though, I'm not too sure. Rest assured, I strive to be professional at work and not let my opinions on environmentalists get in the way of doing my job.  You know, because those things are so obviously connected!

Alex, lighten up.  You have a great site and you are biased.  My whole original point was that often people politicize this behavior which is unfortunate.  America has enough competent leadership to not have to elect scumbags in office.  It seems to me that this site follows this pattern but I guess we disagree.  No big deal.  I think you do a grat job with the site, seriously.  You help keep me honest and you're usually entertaining except when you really drop the ball by posting disappointing drolls. 

Apology accepted.

That's mostly a good answer NCT, but I guess I'd have to get Pickle to clarify what she meant by htt.  Pickle is the explanation of green htt and your observation similar?  But it's not your environmental stance that would be an issue on the streets but professionalism is good.  Law enforcement is a very tough field and thankless so good on ya.

How are environmentalists "holier than you?" (English translation provided by balbelfish)  The last time I checked, environmentalism wasn't on the holy list.  In fact, the holy people hate environmentalists.

Also c, I can't claim any insight into Cochrane, I just know when he's doing a backdoor apology.  That I can spot from a mile away.

Heh...Well, at least my wife still loves me. So whatever. I'm weird.  So what? 

at least that's -- something, I mean -- a lot

it's also scarey what a grat speller you are nct

Pickle! 

"That's mostly a good answer NCT, but I guess I'd have to get Pickle to clarify what she meant by htt.  Pickle is the explanation of green htt and your observation similar?"

Yep, I'm the weird one here.

If I can translate this for you c, Cochrane is trying to explain that he is indeed the weird one in these parts.

thanks; I did indeed need help with that one; keep up the good work TLM

Pickle ought to get a laugh outta Gov Sanford R-South Carolina.  I just watched he's just not that into you so now I understand these infidelities.  It's the wife's fault.

Okay, no "green htt" is not the same as what I was talking about.  The Repubs are all FAMILY VALUES FAMILY VALUES (which is not to say that Dems do not have any, but that they tend not to be so preachy about it, or agree what actually constitutes such values) but here they are again and again being outed having affairs and such.  It's especially ironic when they are homosexual affairs, because we KNOW the gays have no family values whatsoever. 

Here's where Stephen proves my point: "democrats have no moral standards, they can get away with behaving however they want - at least their conduct is consistent with what they believe."  See, OUR party has STANDARDS, YOUR party is full of morally corrupt heathens.  Well, I think that certain Republican wives might disagree with you there.  And if it were the case they can [behave] however they want, no one would have been concerned with Monica Lewinsky's blue dress.

Now, I could be missing something here, but I have never seen someone from an environmentalist group outed for say, dumping motor oil on their lawn or building their house out of styrofoam and aerosol hairspray.  So perhaps there is some "hypocrisy" in with the "htt", at least by the cheaty Petes like Sanford. (BTW, what I did really enjoy about the Sanford thing is that the day before he was 'found', some 'journalists' were saying he needed to get away because he was "so upset" about the Obama stimulus package.  HAHAHAHA!

In closing, when Republicans go against the tenets of their party's core beliefs, it's pretty damn ironic and worth pointing out.

Thank you, Pickle.  You clarified and went on to point out that (I think) that the sort of htt you oppose is the hypocritical kind.  The definition is important.  Merriam-webster online's def'n of htt is as follows:

"marked by an air of superior piety or morality "

More info below, but first, I think it causes others a problem for one group (Christian right and their politicians) to claim their definition of piety or morality is superior to that of others (such as less conservative Christians or agnosics &c.).  It is unconstitutional for one to legislate on this basis.  Strictly speaking hypocrisy is not the issue, but the thesaurus below defines htt as "hypocritically pious" and Jesus had a field day with the Pharisees over that.  It just might be the worst sin of all because a hypocrite commits the sin he condemns so he's doubly damned.  We have to be careful here because the chances are we are being hypocritical when we condemn hypocrits because we probably do it too (sorry to be repetitve to make the point).  That, to give him credit, might be NCT's point.

Now, are there green hypo's?  Actually, there are stories about guys like Gore owning/driving the SUVs they condemn.  So, yeah.  Do greenies have an "air of superior piety"?  I'm assuming their way of thinking is as follows, "You Christians say you live by The Book and you use it against us because you disapprove of the morality of others, but The Book says in Genesis to subue the earth and have dominion over the living things. But, you (Christians) don't seem to care about caring for the earth."  They are partially correct on that one but do take it a bit too far.  And, that is htt.  BUT,  they have a point that Christians are claiming to live by the Bible but being selective to some degree.  It was after all the greenies that can take credit for the good things the EPA and conservationists have accomplished not so much the Christian right.  Conversely, Christians should be credited for some of the good things they have been proponents of.  Many, many good things that no one normally gives them credit for in fact. But, I'm still looking for examples of liberal htt because I have a feeling Pickle is right that they don't tend to be so htt.

Thanks again Pickle.

freedictionary.com uses three references:

ho·li·er-than-thou (hl-r-n-ou) adj. Exhibiting an attitude of superior virtue; self-righteously pious.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

holier-than-thou

Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

btw, Ezekiel 33:12b is spot on "The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him when he transgresses."  And to the wicked, he says, "if he turns from his sin and does what is just and right, restores the pledge, gives back what he has taken and walks in the statutes of life not doing injustice, he shall surely live; he shall not die.  None of the sins that he has committed shall be remembered against him.  He has done what is just and right; he shall surely live" 

This passage is the one Francis Schaeffer dismembered which contributed to the beginning of the Christian right's 30 or 40 years of getting off the track or path of grace.

So I apologize for all the ungracious acts of myself and the deluded right that can be holier than thou.  Paul says God will judge.  I don't have to and that I shouldn't.  So it's up to each of us and your conscience to find God's love and live in it.  Bonne Chance!

Pickle, you are missing something. There are many environmentalists who fail to do what they preach. There are several actually, but you won't hear about it unless you yourself ARE an environmentalist, or are:

1 - Listening to a station who will fail to mention it because it would be bad publicity towards someone who is of a particular party affiliation.

2 - NOT listening to a station who will constantly mention it because it IS bad publicity towards someone of an opposite political affiliation.

Unless you actively seek to listen to unbiased news media, you're never going to really hear both sides of the story, or the story at all for that matter. Alex is trying, I think... although why he listens to Rush is completely beyond me. I have a bias towards conservatism, but I totally do not agree with something simply because it's Republican. I think that might be the difference between me, and you guys.

As far as evidence however, Al Gore (a self proclaimed "leader" of the environmentalist movement) has a mansion in TN. Despite his claims that Americans need to lead a smaller footprint, reduce energy consumption, reduce waste, recycle, etc (all of which I HAVE done), he himself had not. After significant criticism back in late 2007, he's made changs. The claim of course (which was verified and proved) was that his home was using on average about 2/3rds MORE energy than any of the other homes in his neighborhood. In addition to this, his home used something like (based on percentage wise) 40% more power per square foot than the average american household.

Outside of his home, he had 1000 watt halogen spotlights, which stayed on almost 24/7. His A/C was also set at something ridiculous like 70 degrees 24/7 as well. All while preaching to everyone else that we need to reduce, re-use, and recycle. He'd also fly everywhere in his private jet.

So, he was busted, and badly. I'll let you do your own searches, it's not a needle in a haystack, you should get a bunch of links.

A GOOD environmentalist role model (a Democrat) is Ed Bagley Jr. He practices exactly what he preaches... in every situation. Not only does he have a Hybrid car... but it's an OLD ass car. He's not 'fake" in terms of getting the latest and greatest hybrid vehicle to show a fake sense of environmentalism. The guy is a multi-milionare and lives in a very modest home in Hollywood (smaller than my house). He drives a 2001 Toyota Rav-4 Hybrid, that he shares with his wife. He lives next door to Bill Nye the Science guy, and they are in constant competition to have the best vegetable garden and the most energy efficient home. Shoot, the guy cooks eggs for breakfast by putting them in a solar oven outside on his patio, and he cooks his toast with an inverter hooked up to a riding bicycle that powers a toaster outside on his patio. Gotta give that guy credit.

There are plenty others, but those are some high-profile people.

One thing I've learned, is that more than half the environmental rallies (for one thing or another) are actually sponsored and organized by apposing corporations. For example, almost all of the protests organized against drilling in Alaska are by the United Arab Emerites and OPEC investors.

Ezekiel 25:17. "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the
inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in
the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of
darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost
children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious
anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know
my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

Well, Stonewall, it is the LORD that does the vengeance taking.  It isn't our job.   The verse you quote starts at "And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance..." but I don't know where you got the stuff before that.  It's not one of those invented King James things along the lines of the Book of Mormon is it?

Cool, Stoney.  that quote is by Sameul L. Jackson or Jules in Pulp Fiction

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110912/quotes

Here's one more example of liberal htt, I think.  Democrats who want to raise taxes but don't want to pay their taxes and then their party looks the other way. (???!!!)

So here's another question for you Pickle.  Should the Republicans have not impeached Clinton or should the Democrats not voted against convicting Clinton?

ummhmmmm....so the Clinto impeachment question goes unanswered as do most of the questions that I ask that require real thought.

There is nothing more ignorant than a democrat!  Or maybe they know exactly what they are doing and their goal is to destroy America!

Ghengas Khan

"At the same time, it's important that all of us are keenly and acutely sensitive to all the police do for the good of the community," Gates.