Standing by your man: Maria (good); Hillary (bad)?

I don't think Maria looks silly at all..the actions were Arnolds..she should not be judged for his behaviors...

The foolish part comes in when you know that instead of holding her mans' hand and standing by him, what she really wants to do is pick up a chair and crack him in the head with it, as any woman would. Being forced into a corner like that, in public, even if she's doing the forcing herself, has got to leave one feeling foolish.
I'd like to see this in reverse just once before I die. A man standing by his politician wife after she's been accused of sexual misconduct. Just once.

Craven
Craven, you are still playing the switch the topic target again by focusing on the Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct, which I deplored and for whom I made no excuses.

Can you respond to my subject, which is the difference in the way Maria and Hillary are being treated? One is noble, the other is stupid.

BumbleBeeBoogie

BBB,

I guess I will have to be off topic with you as it seem only agreeing with you is "on topic".

The article indicts the alleged duplicity of Republicans. The article does so while presenting a duplicitous case making it doubly duplicitous.

Partisan Democrats who portrayed the attacks on Clinton for his womanizing as politically motivated can't turn around and attack Arnold for his womanizing and deny that it is politically motivated.

The article is trying to paint the Republicans as hypocritical when the article reeks of hypocracy.

So yes. I will "play switch the topic" because to you staying "on topic" means to agree with your "we are good and they are bad" fantasy and any disagreement is portrayed as "off topic".

I find it too convenient so I will do the same. This post is about the duplicity of liberals who do what they decry. Any disagreement with it is "off topic".

Edit: I just realized the article was not duplictous, my qualm is with your comments. Apologies to the article's authors.

Craven
Craven, the only reason I posted the article in addition to my topic comments was because it contained the news about Maria's support of her husband. Next time, I won't include an article. Ok?

I was watching CNN earlier this afternoon and watched Maria respond to the charges. She's so much better than Arnold and I admired her defense of her husband even if he doesn't deserve it and will have hell to pay when they get home alone. Just as Hillary did when she learned the truth about Bill's lies to her. She verbally if not physically beat the **** out of him. But she stood by her man just as Maria is doing in public.
That's what political women have to do, especially Kennedy women, it seems. Most of the male Kennedys are womanizers and are tolerated by their wives.

BumbleBeeBoogie

I have no qualm with your article. I have a qualm with the hypocracy of your comment and your insistence that any disagreement with your opinion is off topic. But I've said my piece and will not pursue it. Feel free to return to the regularly scheduled "Republicans are hypocrites for doing what we do" show.

the point is that neither republicans or democrats should have their sex lives dragged through the mud. It's private. However, the repubs chose to do so to Bill Clinton. When they did, they opened the door to having it done to one of their own. No duplicity, no double standard. Quite the opposite actually. Now things are "Fair and Balanced".

Repubs want the game played that way? Well now it is. be careful what you wish for, and once again, don't dish it out if you can't take it.

Playground Rules.


Ps B.B.B., I get your point and it is crystal clear IMO.

BPB,

So the Republicans "started it"? Two wrongs now make a right? 'Playground' was an appropriate reference, I spupose they invented lying and all things evil as well?

Craven
Craven, why has your tone turned so hostile? You are among friends.

Do you have another issue with me that has been triggered by my post?

BumbleBeeBoogie

Journalists whether we like it or not are going to report stuff like this -- it's unavoidable because it sells the media. One should go back and read what the early newspapers had to say about Jefferson's second term, for instance. They were unflinchingly nasty. In fact, I think they were nastier then. Muckracking journalism didn't start in our era. The politicians find they have no other choice but to deal with it. It's nastiness on both sides and it isn't going to change anytime soon.

Will we have another Paula Jones on our hands is the question now -- Ahnold may get elected and then Pandora's Box is opened.

Eye for and eye, tooth for a tooth is integrated into our system.

Re: Craven


It's not hostle, just frustrated. If it weren't for partisan group think on the other side I'd be driven to the Republican fold by this type of argument.

It's very frustrating to see people whose ideology I share undermine it with arguments such as these. IMO it represents the partisan nature of politics overshadowing ideals and ideology.

read the post Craven it's wrong when anyone does it but it is ridiculous to expect to spend 40 million dollars on taxpayer money over a blow job and a stained dress and then cry foul when your guys turn out to be tarnished and get called for it. It is also unrealistic to not expect the dems and the left to be at least AS gleeful as the repubs and the right are about any dirt they can dig up on their political enemies.....is it right? No....is it the way it is....Yes.

Is it playground rules? Goddamn right. Everything is playground rules at the end of the day. Nothing has changed in the way we do business since the playground. We are just more sophisticated, more hateful and less forgiving now than we were then. The ground rules are unchanged, except when we were small it was do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Now it is do unto others before they do it to you.

Well, it is a damn sick system where the pasts of candidates are raked over for peccadilloes, failings and dirt, leading to terrifying hypocrisy and a miasma of deception and hollowness.

(I am sure you can't have a miasma of hollowness - but still...)

what would politics be without stuff like this? it really is 'same old same old'.

I think a major point, from Maria's angle, is he didn't cheat on her.
Bill was/is a serial cheater.

Well, Bethie - at least here, for all our faults, it is very seldom considered relevant to the political process for people's personal lives to be hauled out for the delectation of the mob. At least, not by the media. Those "in the know" have the usual gossip fests - but it almost always - unless there seem to be real political implications, stays out of the limelight.

Same old is not always same old...

Sofia, I wish we could believe that, wish Maria and her children could believe it but if he fondled and pushed up on unwilling women, what can we expect he did with the willing ones?

eoe
eoe, you are right to wonder. Arnold has had a notorious womanizer reputation in California for a very, very long time. And its not all old stuff, some of it is since 2000, showing disrespect for Maria and his children.

BumbleBeeBoogie

Dlowan.

I agree, the worst common denominator need not be the standard.

In Brazil the sex obsession or America/Canada/England is considered odd. Brazilian presidents have had their sexual escapades cause more of a stir in other countries.

Damn, bbb. Is he notorious out there?