Isn't it somewhat embarrising to see two admitted republican adulterers running for whitehouse in 2008?

Question

At the same time editors are still discussing Bill Clinton's adultery.

Both Rudy and McCain are admitted adulterers.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.benen.html
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=25101

Answer 1

Did they lie about it to a grand jury?

Then it's nobody's business but theirs.

Answer 2

It is not embarassing unless a Democrat commits adultery. Otherwise, it is a personal issue and because Repugs are only human. The cabal who investigated Clinton's infidelity were all cheaters too but that didn't stop them from parading it before the American people. It's funny because polls show that Americans commit adultery quite frequently which is one of the reasons the US has a 50% divorce rate.

The only reason repugs don't lie under oath is because they avoid testifying under oath like they were vampires avoiding the sunlight.

Answer 3

After all the Republican yammering about morals? Yes, it should be embarrassing to every one of them. Then there's Romney, a flip-flopper like none other. Less than three years ago he was pro-choice, gay friendly and for gun control. Now he's done a 180 to try and grab the Republican vote, and to what should be their eternal embarrassment some are actually buying into it - then they have the nerve to call Hillary an opportunist. The Republicans are desperate, they don't have anyone that fits their favorite mold.

Answer 4

My slump is that have been an truly affair (particularly of a useful twist of fate) electorate could hear approximately it throughout the time of the presidental elections, not primaries and it may do poorly for them. in the primaries applicants are likely to be a sprint nicer to a minimum of one yet another because of the fact they are vaguely on a similar team. I also have a slump that Hillary could be taken in direction of the wringer for "letting it ensue" on the different hand admitting that one grew to become into incorrect has a effective resonance for electorate because it reminds certainly one of King David who admitted to Nathan that he grew to become into incorrect.

Answer 5

We get into very dangerous waters when making decisions as important as voting for the president based upon their fidelity within a marriage. If that was the standard, I'm afraid we wouldn't have too many candidates.

How bout we concern ourselves with their fitness as a leader of a country, and not a faithful husband. The two are mutually exclusive.

Answer 6

Why should I be embarrassed? First, I have yet to vote for either of these men for office and if I choose to do so it will be because I think their platform supports my views on enough issues to do so. Second, I have never cheated on my wife and even if I choose to vote for one of them that fact will not change. They should be embarrassed for their own indiscretions, but those choices did not effect my life. Third, why does Bill Clinton even matter. I never cared that he cheated on his wife, but I took exception to the fact that he committed a crime by lying under oath about it. Show me proof that either of these men have violated the law and I won't vote for them, but I still wouldn't be embarrassed by their conduct. Outraged maybe, but not embarrassed.

Answer 7

They may have both had a divorce, but if you take both of them, add up all their affairs, multiply by 10, you still won't get to the number of affairs that Hillary sat by and watched just to gain her power.

Answer 8

Only 2! You totally forgot Gingrich - who led the clinton charge!

Answer 9

And Thomas Jefferson had some love children with his slaves while he was married. But he was just a founding father.

Answer 10

It is embarrassing to see adulterers run at all. We had eight years of that nonsense. Do we need another eight that badly??

Answer 11

No, if it is okay for the Dems, time for all of us to join the 21st century and stop being hypocrites about sexual mores.