Friday, June 26, 2009

On the difference between Mark Sanford and Bill Clinton

"Were you calling for Bill Clinton to step down?! Huh?!"

Why yes, yes I was. Bill Clinton lied to the nation about his affair and that was a terrible thing to do, he lied under oath and he should've stepped down. I agree.

John Edwards is even worse, what he did was vile. But John Edwards was a private citizen when he did it, while that doesn't excuse it, it does disqualify him from discussion.

Yes, you lose certain rights when you become the Governor of a State. You don't become a public official to play golf with powerful people, you do it to shape policy, you become a public servant. A CEO isn't paying you, the people are paying you, you work for them and you answer to them whenever they call your name. This is why "liberals" (The Democratic Party is a moderate party, just FYI. Here's a left-wing party.) are harder on Mr. Sanford than they are on Mr. Edwards.

To find out why they're harder on Mr. Sanford than they are on Mr. Clinton you have to look no further than the platforms of the two candidates. Mr. Sanford is a Christian conservative, who ran on a platform of family values, a platform of Christian morals, and more than once defended "the traditional family unit". Mr. Clinton did not. This is why Mr. Sanford is a hypocritical scoundrel while Mr. Clinton is simply a scoundrel. It's not that hard to understand.

Mr. Sanford along with his fellow Republicans Mark Foley, John Ensign, and Larry Craig ran on a platform of bravado. A platform that proclaimed them as men and their male opponents from other parties as, well, not men. They spoke of defending the "family unit", bringing morality back into the Government and what it meant to be of good moral character. But mostly, being a man! They spoke to Preachers and got the Church goers to vote for them, they spun a record that played well in houses of worship every Sunday and they reaped the rewards of doing that, and then they lied to those people. No "liberal" does this. These four men proved to be of disgraceful moral fiber despite spending entire campaigns questioning that of their opponents, often sacrificing time to speak on real issues in the process. For this, they're being put to the sword, and rightly so. They shouldn't be defended, these men aren't martyrs, they're scoundrels.

There is nothing wrong with running on a platform of morality, that's perfectly fine. We have freedom of speech in this country. If you want to tout your dedication to your faith, do it, please. But you'd better live up to it. And when the crap hits the fan, don't look at the people who didn't profess it in the first place.

Until the Republicans can find a candidate that fits these requirements within their own party I've taken the time to find one who fits them in another party. A self-made man, a dedicated husband, a proud father, a man of strong faith and a man of values. Why don't you stop yelling for a second, and give him a look sometime.

No comments: