Any Shirtless Republicans About Tonight?

Representative Christopher Lee of New York, caught in a scandal involving a shirtless photo of himself that he reportedly e-mailed to a woman, abruptly resigned on Wednesday night.

The odd thing is, this is not such a horrid transgression as human behavior goes.
Just odd in the face of moralous (like my new word?) righteousness, and political needs. I've no idea if Representative Lee came across as righteous in real life, thus a hypocrite, not sure I care.

Re his family, there is a rub, but it's their business.
I think quitting over this stuff is dumb to the nth unless his whole mode was for putting morality into government.

THe attention hungry media would have likely had a field day. I think I would have quit also.

I think there is more dirt there that could be dug...

not that I'm wishing for it.

You possibly are right. What business has a married man doing that anyway?

what are the odds that this was his first adventure...?

I know. Where there's smoke -

another thread, by maxdancona, this one re the woman -
http://able2know.org/reply/topic-167695

The woman is no rosebud, I will wager.

So, now we'll be electing from the priesthood..

oh, wait.

I still remember and might like to reread a book my father passed to me - I might have been 18 or 19 - Advise and Consent by Allen Drury. I think that's the first time I had even an inkling homosexuality existed. (I was a slow one.) Stunning book to me at the time, not only for that, which was only a subplot. Interesting in the main as a reflection of much going on in the fifties, that I somewhat know about personally.

I think our puritanism is getting in the way of good government. I think it is farcical, but standing tall.

you are forgetting that god is a member of the GOP...

Hard for me to forget (that could be a song).

From the NYT link on the other thread:
In Congress, Mr. Lee had a reputation as a social conservative, opposing, for example, a recent measure signed into law that allowed gays to serve openly in the military.

Aha, a moral perplexity, aka hypocrisy, or maybe not; maybe gays are evil and fine chested men finding women are fine.

Still, the way we have shifted to all this on everybody is bizarre to me. A gotcha game, while statecraft withers. I didn't like maneuvers on Clinton either.

Given his take, as you clue me in, it's hard for me to argue for him. I'll work on it, not for him, but the idea that this isn't what our government is about. What a putz!

I have no problem with him being disloyal to his marriage. That's between he and his family.

My problems with the incident are:

1. His judgment in using Craigslist classified ads as a dating service.

2. His judgment in not using a suitable pseudonym to better disguise his identity.

3. His judgment (if he did use a pseudonym) in sending an easily identifiable photo of himself, a public figure, to an anonymous person on Craigslist.

4. His judgment in using his real name, identifying himself as a divorced lobbyist and then sending a photo of himself to the woman after having his two-term election material and photos plastered all over the internet.

5. His judgment in doing all this after having written an op-ed in 2009 warning teens of the dangers of the internet in which the first two paragraphs of it read:



It is a case of career suicide by internet email.

Then again, maybe this is just a moment of valor and he used himself to demonstrate the dangers of the internet for teens.

I read some stuff on bush I, probably in wapo, as I remember, as I subscribed for a while.. re other than babs.

This is irrelevant.

The country has seemed to go crazy for iced values, pure candicies are us, thus the potential for exposure.