Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee put an interesting challenge to his fellow Republican candidates: Be accountable for your personal lives, or prepare to apologize to Bill Clinton.
Huckabee, who like Clinton is a native of Hope, Ark., and a former Arkansas governor, said that some in his party “talk as if, in this election cycle, Republican candidates aren’t going to be held to a standard of personal accountability and responsibility for their personal lives.”
He added, “If that’s true, there are going to be a lot of Republicans who will owe Bill Clinton a great big public apology. We can’t have a set of rules that we apply to Democrats that we don’t apply to ourselves.”
And “if we apply a different set of rules, then we have exposed one of the greatest levels of hypocrisy in the last generation of politics.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
62 Comments
Hypocritical Republicans???
No way!
Impossible!
In-con-ceivable!
Not gonna happen – the potty mouth Liberals would have a profane song within two days if Huckabee even got a sniff of the primaries. I would say Huckabee’s chance of becoming a viable Primary Candidate is the same as a Southern Baptist Minister has in becoming Pope.
Seems to me the republicans have had a lock on hypocritical actions since the shrub got back-doored into office. That and lying, smoke and mirrors, picking the right person for the right job . . . not, and censorship to name a few. Great job, hypos.
I don’t know Republican, Pope paul-Billy-bob does have a ring to it.
With serial-divorcer Gingrich as a candidate and serial-divorcer Ruas as spokesman the GOP should pay attention. They have been throwing stones for years; now their glass houses might get shattered.
The main target here would appear to be twice-divorced and affair-tainted Rudi Giuliani.
Suppose that Mormon Mitt Romney wins the presidential nomination, and former Southern Baptist pastor Mike Huckabee becomes his running mate. That could make for some interesting dinner-table conversations and sermons across America.
Actuall Mark – I think Giuliana iwll be targeted mainly inside the Party. The Gingrich types would be targeted by Doms; not so much for the divorces but rather for his sanctimoneous attitude when he led the drive against Clinton (while having an affair himself)
“the potty mouth Liberals”–
that’s exactly what JM-Eier used to say.
What are the odds of someone who claims he never even READ JM-Eier using the same phrase?
And remember too how proud JM was of himself for never using profanity, and how Republican never uses profanity?
Just more and more amazing coincidences from this never-ending source of amazing coincidences.
The Meshuge Mamzer, proving that conservatives really are just that dumb . . .
Ben, I agree. Huckabee is of course a Republican.
“…Republicans who will owe Bill Clinton a great big public apology.”
An apology for what? Lying to a Grand Jury? Telling the American people, “I did not have sex with that woman,…”?
I couldn’t be more surprised that a Republican made this comment than if he had grown a second head. That takes some cajones, ’cause his “fellow Republicans” are not going to be happy.
Hey fleetwood,
How is Bill Clinton having sex with his intern any business of ours?
Tony, I think they were both adults.
Unlike Mark Foley and HIS interns.
I don’t think that Foley had sex with “his” intern, and I believe “his” intern was ad adult, though I may be mistake. In anycase, Foley and CLinton were both slimeballs. One resigned from office.
Apparently, my typing is worth a crap. I need to use the preview button more. My apologies
Dang! I did it again. I even used the button this time. How sad
“How is Bill Clinton having sex with his intern any business of ours?”
It’s not and never has been.
Thats Right!
Therefor he should have never been impeached, therefor his name never dragged through the mud and therefor he would have been known as a great president rather than “Slick Willy”.
lmfao @ wd’s first comment.
LJ, you’re seriously going to compare pedophile behavior with an extramarital affair?
Have you lost your mind? Oh, forgive me, hypocrite republican. carry on.
Political Mom
No, I don’t think I am, but then, I don;t throw words around so easily as you. If Foley commited an act of pedophilia, he should be given to the inmates at any maximum security jail. I have no use for pedophiles, rapists, etc.
So LJ, you think all those guys caught in the stings in “to catch a predator” should be just let go. Afterall, they didn’t actually get that far to actually do the deed now did they?
Actally, no.
And what those guys did was in direct violation of specified statutes. I have yet to see where Foley violated any statutes either federal or state. And I thought after all the brouhaha, it was decided that the young man was by definition, an adult. I am still thankful he is not in office, but I am unsure what law he broke, other than moral and ethical proprieties. I would be glad to pass along any information that you have.
fleetwood, tony:
Remember, Clinton wasn’t impeached for having an affair. He was impeached for committing perjury at a deposition in a civil suit.
And if I remember correctly (and you all will correct me if I’m wrong, I’m sure), the deposition involved Paula Jones, not Monica.
The difference, of course, is that Gingrich et. al. (at least to my knowledge) never lied under oath about their affairs. And that was what the impeachment was about, not the affair.
Wrong legal issue, and wrong affair, guys. But there were so many . . . . .
There was more than one young man involved.
And not all of them were over 18.
blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/foley_resigns_o.html
Typical spin…
The issue was about the lie under oath, not the affair it’s self.
Tom,
Those interns were not underage when Mark Foley was emailing them.
Remember, Clinton wasn’t impeached for having an affair. He was impeached for committing perjury at a deposition in a civil suit.
And if I remember correctly (and you all will correct me if I’m wrong, I’m sure), the deposition involved Paula Jones, not Monica.
The difference, of course, is that Gingrich et. al. (at least to my knowledge) never lied under oath about their affairs. And that was what the impeachment was about, not the affair.
Wrong legal issue, and wrong affair, guys. But there were so many . . . . .
Posted by: GMC70 | April 09, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Here’s the rub, Clinton should have never been put in the position of having to testify in that situation. It was bulls**t! He lied under oath, BUT, he should not have been put under oath in the first place. It’s kind of like a bully that will get a group of his friends to pick on someone, back them into a corner, and when the person fights back, yell at the top of his lungs how he was hurt. Republicans were just pissed that he was in the White House, beating out Bush Sr., and so they spent 8 years bullying and pouting like 8 year olds!!!
TBT:
Perhaps. But assuming, arguendo, that is true, it makes no difference. It’s no excuse. Under oath is under oath.
I still am unable to find where Foley proposed sex to an underage minor, therefore violating STATUTES. He certainly is a slimeball, and I am for one glad he is out of office. THere is a difference between being a slimeball and a criminal. As i said, I have no use for those who prey on children. My “penalty” for those who abuse children would be to nail their scrotum to a stump, set the stump on fire, and give them a dull knife. That way, they have “freedom of choice”. An no, I am not kidding. That would be my remedy if it were up to me.
People who live in glass houses should never throw stones. I have always said Newt was a hypocrite, same with Rudy. The man/woman I want for prez hasn’t been nominated yet.
And by the way the following from the NYT will show that there is plenty of slime to spread around no matter what side of the aisle you set on.”• Dan Crane, Republican of Illinois, and Gerry Studds, Democrat of Massachusetts, both of whom were censured by the House for having sexual relations with teenage pages — Mr. Crane with a female in 1980, Mr. Studds with a male in 1973.”
Both by the way remained in office. Foley did have the sense to resign before his party dumped him. By the way he had only been a repub for one term – before that he was a democrat. Maybe we should quit spreading that tent so wide.
LJ – even asuming what you say is correct, there is still a difference. Foley is one of those who was “holier-then-thou” so when he got nailed it hit a lot harder. Kind of like Haggard with his drugs and lame prostitute. Something about glass houses and throwing stones …
Here’s the rub, Clinton should have never been put in the position of having to testify in that situation. It was bulls**t! He lied under oath, BUT, he should not have been put under oath in the first place.Posted by: TDT | April 09, 2007 at 11:20 AM
Substitute the name Scooter Libby here and you would be right.
Difference is ksgrm, the Libby issue was directly connected to National Security. The Clinton bj was a personal matter.
Ben I could not agree with you more. Did I just say that???
Well it is a beautiful day out and I am going to enjoy it.
Ben except that it happened in the work place in the most visible office in the nation.
And people keep saying national security was involved but even Fitz couldn’t make that connection and he sure tried.
ksgrm – wish I could go out and enjoy it – tied to my desk …
Had fun outside with the grandkids yesterday though …
So now LJ, the issue goes from whether or not they were 18 to whether or not he actually used the words?
The story changes. Don’t be a hypocrite.
This entire idea of calling out people as hypocrites is a joke. It is nothing more than political crap at some of it’s worst.
I can understand if we were actually using the word correctly.
Wanting to live a good moral life is something many people try to do.
Guess what, there was only one person who lived a perfect life and he died for us because of our imperfection.
This generic labeling of hypocrisy towards those who promote and try to live moral lives is so backwards.
The difference between most Republicans and Democrats on this issue is that:
Republicans want to promote a good moral life and try to live it but sometimes fail.
Democrats couldn’t care less if you live a moral life nor do they want to promote one, but as soon as they see that one of the Republicans above has failed they label him a hypocrite.
That is not hypocracy. Look up the definition.
Sorry, TDT; I responded to “TBT.” It was you instead; my reading glasses are apparantly not working. Or my brain.
No cheap shots on that last, now!! :-).
Have a fun afternoon, all. It’s gonna be a long one here.
PM-No need to be nasty. My point is, did he violate the law or not? If he did, then throw him to the wolves. If he didn’t don;t act like he did. He’s gone. He resigned. Wether or not he was a hypocrite doesn’t make him any more legaly culpable if he did not violate a statue, it only makes him more of a smileball, which I have already stated he is. Af far as i am concerned, he abused his position of power to influence young, impressionable men, ie slimeball. If he commmited a crime, then he should be brought to trial and dealt with. No hypocrosy there.
smileball=slimeball
Actually, I kind of like smileball. Do I have your permission to use it in future prose? :D
Sure. I just am not sure of the definition :)
This issue it’s self is a perfect comparison.
Republicans for the most part frown on getting blowjobs in the white house office from interns and don’t promote the idea.
Now you go after the Republicans because they have failed in their lives.
The democrats sit here and tell us who cares what the President is doing in the privacy of his office.
A democrat can never be a hypocrite when it comes to morality issues because they don’t promote any.
Give me a break.
Foley did have the sense to resign before his party dumped him. By the way he had only been a repub for one term – before that he was a democrat.
Posted by: ksgrm | April 09, 2007 at 11:27 AM
Ksgrm,
Foley was elected in 94 as part of the “Contract on America” class. He was a Republican then and always.
Tom,
What law did Foley break?
Nathan et al,
Foley was engaged in very inappropriate behavior/conversations with minors, not adults. 16 and 17 year olds. Under DC law, they were of the age of consent. Technically not against the law, but still very, very creepy and very, very wrong.
He did this knowing it was against House rules regarding relations with pages and interns. He continued after being quietly told by House leadership to knock it off. And House leadership did whatever they needed to do to keep the whole thing quiet.
Very sad.
Tom–
I do know for sure about your last statement, but for the rest, I completely agree.
Tom–
I do not know for sure about your last statement, but for the rest, I completely agree.
Let’s put the Foley thing in perspective. No charges have been filed, yet, so we don’t know the extent of his emails. But everyone seems to agree there was, at least, no physical contact.
When the Foley story broke, immediately GOP’ers on the Hill called for him to step down.
Now, compare that to the Democrat CONFESSED pedophile, the man who actually HAD sex with a minor page. Gerry Steeds, the late Congressman, admitted to having sex with the boy, and not only did he not lose his position, he was RE-ELECTED again by Democrats.
Talk about hypocrites.
If a Republican sends an email it’s the end of the Earth – but if a Democrat screws a child – they reward him by re-electing him.
That said, I hope they throw the book at Foley, even if what he did pales in comparison to Steeds.
Nathan:
“A democrat can never be a hypocrite when it comes to morality issues because they don’t promote any.
Give me a break.”
Nathan, we generally fall on the same side here, but you know that statement’s not true. And you owe a lot of good folks, with whom we simply have political disagreements with, more respect than that. They have been unanimous in their good wishes regarding your safe return from the sandbox. Disagree without being disagreeable. Yes, I know I occasionally step over that line too. We all do; we’re human.
And all, I’ll remind you that the infamous Monica BJ had exactly nothing to do with the impeachment. T’was a deposition in Paula Jones’ suit, regarding behavior prior to office, IIRC.
GSheridan,
I agree that Gerry Studds should have been forced from office and never elected to anything so much as dog catcher, ever again. Adults having sex with minors, especially those in their care and control, even if they’re of the age of consent, is reprehensible.
GMC – No problem. You’re the second person who has done that, so when I at my post, I saw that it could be difficult to read at first glance.
Republican, my apologies to you for getting bent out of shape for replying to TBT as well a while back.
when I looked at my post…
forgot to preview
Hmm… So far this guy sounds like a candidate that I could get behind. I’ll have to do some research for his stance on other issues. As for the side conversation going on: In general, I would have to agree with Nathan while not using the generic terms of Republican and Democrat. There are people out there who are trying but fail and then there are others who don’t even try so they can never truly fail on that front which I just find reprehensible – why not try to be the best person you can be??? As far as Clinton goes, no It doesn’t matter what he did/does in the bedroom as long as it doesn’t affect the country (national security and etc) BUT he shouldn’t have lied under oath and I don’t understand why Hillary hasn’t dumped him if she’s so darn smart…
I was speaking generally, not making an absolute statement about all democrats.
I just find it absurd that we have to listen to people call Republicans hypocrites for trying to promote morality when they don’t even care.
It is better to have tried and failed than to never have tried at all.
And it doesn’t make you a hypocrite either.
That’s kind of what I figured but I don’t really know you so I couldn’t really tell for sure AND I definitely did not want to lump anyone into a group because I know how much I hate it when someone does that to me. Unfortunately, by using the phrasing that you did, it kind of sounds the same way it does when others make those comments about Republicans…
Republicans are the very epitome of hypocrites. They built for themselves a pedestal and party platform based on a quasi-religious moral system and operating from that high perch they take on the role of national scolds, actively pushing legislation built on the supposed superior morality of their position, party and religion. In public, scumbags like Newt, Rudy, Foley, et al will advocate for government power to regulate your choice of spouse, your personal sex practices, the manner and timing of reproduction, and a whole litany of other morality based laws. In their private lives they commit adultery, are divorced multiple times and yet they can always count on the unconditional support of party acolytes like Nathan to excuse their inexcusable behavior as long as they are Scumbag-R instead of Scumbag-D. It is clear that a large number of Republicans are discovering the folly of their high minded preaching and rhetoric of the last few years. A party that advocates intrusion into the most personal aspects of citizens’ lives based on an interpretation of personal religious beliefs and morals has no choice but to choose only candidates that can themselves adhere to the moral standards that the party advocates. To fail to do so is the very essence of hypocrisy.
You will not find a more classic example of hypocrisy as the spectacle of adulterers and divorcees like Rudy and Newt fighting to become the leader of the party sworn to protect the sanctity of marriage.
Bravo Scott…..Bravo!
“Adulterers?” Scott.
What century are you living in?
Talk about being wound up in antiquated biblical terminology.
Weather the storm Scott….they will try to pick you apart to defuse your message. Its the GOP way. I applaud you my friend
Very well written Scott!!
GS – The word adultery is still used today, on a daily basis. Suddenly the term is not modern enought for you?
Well said Scott – but one possible clarification. I am not certain that Rudy has been one of those holier-then-thou guys like serial-divorced Rush and Newt. I may be wrong on this but I seem to recall him as more of a ’stay out of the bedroom’ old-style conservatives.