August 15, 2008

He cheated on his wife, so we can't trust him. Is that the rule you want?



Colmes wrestles Hannity to the floor.

75 comments:

chickenlittle said...

No, it's the evasion, lying, hypocrisy. Non of which transfers to McCain. That's what irks some.

MadisonMan said...

I don't watch the show -- which one is Colmes and which one is Hannity?

Ann Althouse said...

It's irksome how it irks some.

rhhardin said...

Infidelity affects the women's view, which is all that's being played to.

They're the ones with the ``Maybe he has good intentions'' bogus intuition.

TMink said...

The dimunitive domesticated bird got this one right, it is the lying and hypocrisy. Someone who is so bent on getting power that they will make up extraordinary and pitiful lies when caught with their pants down is not presidential material.

It is also about being a man and taking the hit when you get caught. Only a weasel acts like Edwards did when caught, who wants to vote for a weasel?

Trey

MadisonMan said...

Maybe I should watch that show, it seemed pretty funny. The upper right commenter brought up Robert Byrd as a KKK member, Monica Lewinsky and Clinton, everything instead of answering the direct question.

And the poor guy in the bottom left, just sitting there, unable to get a word in edgewise. Why was he there?

I did figure out who is who -- Sean Hannity is the doofus-y looking guy, and Colmes plays the part of the ignorant slut.

Middle Class Guy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MadisonMan said...

And I'll add: none of the guests on the show brought up the lying, evasion and hypocrisy. So that might irk some but not all.

Middle Class Guy said...

If more of these politicians were like Ernie Borgnine we would not be having this discussion.

As to the rest, it is the constant public lying and dishonesty that is troubling. If you cannot tell the truth to your family, how can we trust you to tell the truth on anything.

Of course there are those who celebrate the voices of dishonesty in our new, sophisticated, altruistic, and liberated world.

AllenS said...

I guess the question is this: are you cheating on your spouse if it's clear that the relationship is over and that there is eventually going to be a divorce? At what point can you have a relationship outside of marriage, when it's clear that the marriage isn't going to work, or do you have to wait until the divorce is finalized?

Original Mike said...

There's more doofus to Hannity than just his looks.

gophermomeh said...

We're are all hypocrites about this stuff to some degree. We all but make them lie, we demand the mythic storyline, then off with their heads if they don't live up to it. (MH) Irksome, yes.

ron st.amant said...

Well it is interesting to learn that according to Hannity being held as a POW is some form of morality white out.

Isn't what Hannity is engaging in moral relativism? Isn't that something he supposedly abhors?

I care not whether John McCain had an affair on his first wife. Since I wasn't married to him it isn't my business.

Someone please tap Hannity on the shoulder and let him know that Edwards isn't running for President anymore, so it's fine if he wants to spend his time tarring and feathering Edwards, but should he be about smearing Barack Obama?

Yachira said...

"He cheated on his wife, so we can't trust him. Is that the rule you want?"

Um, yes, that sounds about right.

You see, it's much less complicated than it's made out to be. If you need to dock your ship in every port you come across, just tell the wife that this is what you need to do, and work it out from there. If she can't live with you like that, then you go your own ways and all is as well as possible. No lying, cheating, betrayel, etc...

Is that so hard to figure out? Is that so hard to do?

EnigmatiCore said...

That's not the rule I want.

He cheated on his wife and had his campaign raise money supposedly for 'poverty' in order to funnel money to his gal-pal and left himself wide open to blackmail at the hands of his 'donors' while running for President, so we can't trust him.

That's the rule I want.

Colmes was being dishonest here, because it isn't just about sex. It is about ethics, it is about abuse of power, it is about corruption, it is about judgment, it is about sleaze, it is about hypocrisy, and it is about honesty.

He may have wrestled Hannity to the ground, but if so it was only through being dishonest and through Hannity being unable or unwilling to fight soundbytes with longer explanations.

Outis said...

Frankly I don't care about Edwards' marital infidelity as such. That makes him a prick. On the matter of cheating on one's wife McCain has also been a prick.

But Edwards also has used campaign contributions to pay off his mistress and fund his (alleged) love child. Edwards also made his marriage a centerpiece of his campaign knowing he was a cheat. He also used his wife's bouts with cancer to garner votes. These are the issues that make this matter something of public and political interest. (Incidentally Mrs. Edwards shoulders blame for at least the second and third sentences.)

Ultimately it comes down to a question of whether or not the actions reflect on one's public character - that character that we present to the world at large and not that which we present in private to our confidants. Edwards's infidelity does speak to his public character, McCain's doesn't seem to.

Here's a quick list explaining what I mean by public character issues for politicians:

(1) Using prostitutes counts as a public character issue - politicians should not violate standing laws. (This can be amended somewhat for pro-prostitution politicians using legal prostitution services.)

(2) Attempting to have sex in public places - I don't care how wide your stance is, Senator, that airport restroom is accessible to the public, including those of us who don't want to catch our officials having a splooge-fest in public rest rooms.

(3) Using one's official status to get sex - Mr. President and Congressmen, you don't have the right to fuck the interns. That would get you fired and possibly sued for violating harassment laws in the private sector. It should do the same in the public sector.

(4) If you start misusing your office or funds that don't belong to you to cover up your misdeeds.

(5) If you make your marriage or personal morality central issues in your campaigns or political career - you don't get to frone on and on about how wonderful your marriage is, or about how you're above reproach, unless you are willing to toe the line publically and privately.

I'm sure there are other ways that sexual indiscretions and infidelity reflect on public character, and that list will vary from person to person. But this is my personal list and the legal issues of the first four points indisputedly reflect on one's public character.

Other than that, just don't get caught with a dead girl or a live boy and you'll be okay, Mr. Politician.

Outis said...

I did figure out who is who -- Sean Hannity is the doofus-y looking guy, and Colmes plays the part of the ignorant slut.

Beautiful!

EnigmatiCore said...

Oooooh. And now I want to be up on my soapbox.

I am sick of this story and sick of Edwards, who I have always thought was a complete and utter phony.

But I think it is important to keep this story under discussion as long as people are still trying to dismiss it as "just an affair" that is none of our business, or trying to say that this is similar to McCain's infidelity. It isn't.

John Edwards paid his girlfriend six figures with money that was supposed to help fight poverty.

John Edwards' handlers have been paying his girlfriend and his fall-guy Young thousands upon thousands each month. What exactly were the handlers like Fred Baron expecting in return? What have they already gotten in return from when Edwards was in the Senate and when he was the VP candidate?

The media was complicit in covering all of this up. That became clear once the photos of Hunter and Edwards flying together with members of the press present were revealed.

The fact that some want to rescue Edwards' viability means that they don't get it.

The fact that some want to draw an equivalence to the run-of-the-mill infidelity means they don't get it.

The fact that some seem to think the media did right by ignoring the story don't get it.

It is important that people get it. This isn't a partisan issue. People on both sides of the aisle should be wanting answers and wanting the truth, and should be hopeful that Edwards and his sleazy friends like Baron end up in jail, because that is where they belong.

Outis said...

Colmes was being dishonest here, because it isn't just about sex.

The problem is that Hannity (and perhaps the guests) made it just about the sex. Colmes is free to beat the Hell out of them on that point. In fact he should do so if only to improve the quality of the public debate.

Someone please tap Hannity on the shoulder and let him know that Edwards isn't running for President anymore, so it's fine if he wants to spend his time tarring and feathering Edwards, but should he be about smearing Barack Obama?

Perhaps he should spend more time on Obama, but Edwards hasn't (or hadn't) completely exited the political stage yet. Plus it's August - there will be plenty of time to bash Obama later.

Outis said...

The fact that some want to draw an equivalence to the run-of-the-mill infidelity means they don't get it.

Unfortunately that includes some of the critics, such as that doofus Hannity.

Skyler said...

Hannity is the prime example of why so-called conservatives are often just idiots.

If you want to complain about men having affairs then there is no party at any level that is immune. Give it up.

The issue with Edwards is not the cancer. It's the hiding in the bathroom and then lying after he was caught. The issue with Clinton was lying to a court after he was caught.

Lots of people for lots of reasons have affairs. If you get caught you're expected to be man enough to not continue lying. Be a man. Don't act like we're stupid. This is what character is.

Hannity thinks being a POW excuses cheating on one's wife? Hannity thinks that any indiscretion is disqualifying for elected office?

Hannity is nothing more than an unprincipled hack for the republican party.

the wolf said...

Hey, if he can so casually lie to and cheat on his wife, imagine what he'd be willing to do to the American people.

And the poor guy in the bottom left, just sitting there, unable to get a word in edgewise. Why was he there?

Well, they had four squares...someone had to fill in that last one.

EnigmatiCore said...

"Unfortunately that includes some of the critics, such as that doofus Hannity."

Outis- can't argue with you there.

"but Edwards hasn't (or hadn't) completely exited the political stage yet."

And he hasn't been indicted yet either.

ricpic said...

Get rid of these cheaters. Bring on the cheatee. Bring on Hillary!

Spread Eagle said...

Give Hannity at least a little bit of credit. He's saying what McCain himself says on this subject, that when he was released and came home he wasn't in his right mind and took him several years to get his head straight. He acknowledges that during that period he hurt his first wife and he says it's something he feels badly about.

Original Mike said...

Don't act like we're stupid.

Most politicians entire careers are predicated on this assumption. And, in general, it works pretty well for them.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Someone please tap Hannity on the shoulder and let him know that Edwards isn't running for President anymore, so it's fine if he wants to spend his time tarring and feathering Edwards, but should he be about smearing Barack Obama?

He may not be running for President now but his name has been tossed around for other high level positions. Attorney General, Supreme Court Justice etc.

Better to out him now for the lying cheating stealing unethical weasel that his is, and just get it over with so he can slink off into the sunset with his love interest.

And as others have said, it isn't just about the sex and infidelity. It is about the misuse of campaign funds. It is also about possible tax fraud.

William said...

Not all affairs are created equal. I wouldn't cast a pebble at Eisenhower or Roosevelt (both Franklin & Eleanor) for their fugitive pleasures. JFK? Give him a pass on Marilyn Monroe but the Judith Exner thing and all that womanizing smack of entitlement and privilege. Clinton? There was something joyless and compulsive about his love life. Sex is nowhere near as sordid as Clinton made it seem. Edwards? I extend my sympathy to everyone involved. The clumsy lies and the huge sums that are changing hands prove that Edwards is not an experienced philanderer. The perfection of Edwards life is based on the premise that people like him do not die. Both his son and his wife have betrayed him. There must have been something comforting about the vacuity of Rielle. She's a bubble bath of a woman, the very antithesis to dark thoughts about mortality....The affair is more than venality and sordidness, but distant from love. Emptiness meets need.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Clinton I:
Bill
Monica [his subordinate employee]
blue dress
Hillary masterminding the defense

Clinton II:
John
Rielle [his subordinate employee]
Frances Quinn
Elizabeth masterminding the media

Hoosier Daddy said...

"He cheated on his wife, so we can't trust him. Is that the rule you want?"

Oh what a crock of shit. That standard pretty much disqualifies some of the best and brightest this country has produced.

From Inwood said...

Prof A

I'm sure you've seen enough appellate court arguments, moot & real, to know that only in moot court does it matter who was the better advocate.

Hannity & the guests, who I assume were McCain for Pres supporters, seemed lost & surprised. Colmes was prepared for the attack & marshaled his facts well, though he was, well, marshalling his facts rather than trying to present a, shall we say, fair & balanced, summary of the issue.

To the issue, then, rather than who won the debate. Outis (@9:50) & Enigmaticore (@9:47 & 9:57) have it right.

And why was this story spiked by the MSM? Well, it was, um, unsubstantiated. OK, why then did the Grey Lady print a front-page, fact-free story in January '08 on McCain's alleged relationship with a lobbyist a decade before?

Well, then, ya see, it’s because Edwards is no longer a "public figure". OK, was Bill Bennett a "public figure" when the media dragged him through the mud about his gambling problem?

If I may quote (from the WSJ) Michael Kinsley on why this really was a story which should not have been spiked [by a media in the tank for Obamessiah]:

"The MSM told a story about Edwards--they told it often and loud--it was probably one of the best-known and totally accepted stories of the 2008 campaign: John loyally standing by his loyal wife as she deals with cancer. If the story isn't true, they should run a correction. My god, look at the things they run corrections over--the spelling of people's names, and so on. Yet they're leaving this huge story uncorrected, and leaving their readers misinformed. No?"

Quayle said...

The "rule" is good leaders are selfless and put the needs of the group before their own wants.

Edwards put himself and his wants before he considered others.

That personal weakness wasn't developed overnight.

And likely he'd do the same as President. If and when the right move for the country is the unpopular move, he's likely put his own ambitions before the rest of us.

But what is wrong with also saying that if he'd lie to his closest other human, he'd lie to anyone and everyone.

That also sounds rational.

gophermomeh said...

As to the rest, it is the constant public lying and dishonesty that is troubling. If you cannot tell the truth to your family, how can we trust you to tell the truth on anything.

My understanding is that he did tell his wife. McCain told his wife (or she found out - I don't know those details), as well. I don't see the difference. There both pricks, at that level.

TitusSheBreaksForRainbows said...

What an awful show.

Who could spend time watching this crap.

People screaming back and forth at each other. Fun.

Hannity's a hack and Colmes is an ugly pussy.

EnigmatiCore said...

"My understanding is that he did tell his wife."

If we can believe him and Elizabeth, then he told her what he told us just a few days ago.

But there is a lot of reason to doubt that what he told us just a few days ago was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

But beyond what he told his wife, there remains the fact that he diverted anti-poverty money to her, he diverted campaign money to his PAC to cover that, and claimed that the money was for 'office furniture' in federal filing documents. This is graft, and it almost certainly was illegal.

Do you still want to argue that you don't see the difference?

If so, it does not speak well of you.

TitusSheBreaksForRainbows said...

And for the most part politicians are slimeballs.

The last place I would live is DC and the last person I would fuck is a politican. Such an unattractive field.

TMink said...

gopher wrote: "We all but make them lie"

Ding ding ding!!!!!

We have a winner for the most enabling, spineless thought concerning personal morality!

Gopher would have us believe that it is US not EDWARDS who have the problem! We put such amazingly high standards on those who would lead us that we FORCE them to stray!

Amazing rescue attempt there, but Edwards will drown anyway.

Trey

Outis said...

TitusSheBreaksForRainbows wrote: And for the most part politicians are slimeballs.

For the most part? Titus, I think you're going soft. Must be the rainbows....

rdkraus said...

I love when doofuses call guys like Hannity and Limbaugh doofuses. These two know they are "entertainers with a political point of view," they each make tens of millions of dollars doing what they love, they each wield a remarkable amount of power, or at least opportunity to influence, and some "commenter" on AA is calling them doofuses.

Whoo boy, they're crying all the way to the bank.

I often disagree with Rush, but as an entertainer, he really is good, and he does come prepared.

Hannity is also usually well prepared, and does a good interview, and a better debate. In fact, he invites all comers to his radio show, and is not afraid to take them on, one on one. I've seen (heard) him destroy opponents, and also get his clock cleaned (I thought, for example, that Newdow stood up to him well and bested him in a long debate). Also, his "man on the street" interviews are classic.

vbspurs said...

Colmes and which one is Hannity?

Sean Hannity is the burly, "Black Irish" handsome guy with a blue-collar chip on his Long Island shoulder.

Alan Combes is the one who looks like a cross between Yasser Arafat and a weasel.

HTH.

MadisonMan said...

Do you still want to argue that you don't see the difference?

That's not what the people on the show are talking about, however. With them, it's just infidelity in marriage that was wrong. Any sensible person would agree that Edwards' behavior after the affair is very very wrong as well -- so why aren't they talking about that on the show? Why just sex sex sex? (Wait, I know the answer!)

DBQueen: I question the wisdom of dragging all potential candidates for offices in a hypothetical Presidential administration in front of the morality police. (Legality police? Whole 'nother thing). If you want only highly moral people in office -- the kind that don't cheat on spouses -- then best to throw the dirt on them in a confirmation hearing so you can make the President squirm uncomfortably behind him/her before spiking the nomination late on a Friday. If Edwards' only fault is cheating on his wife (which I do doubt), well the outrage will pass and it won't be as hard in the future for, say, President McCain to nominate him for an Ambassadorship.

Original Mike said...

I love when doofuses call guys like Hannity and Limbaugh doofuses.

Sean Hannity is no Rush Limbaugh.

Hannity's interviews are shallow, shallow, shallow.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Sean Hannity is the burly, "Black Irish" handsome guy

Mrs. Hoosier told me once that she thought Hannity looked like Lou Costello.

Now I can't look at the guy and without picturing him yelling.

Oh Chick! Chiiiiiiiiiiiick!!!!

EnigmatiCore said...

"That's not what the people on the show are talking about, however. "

But I wasn't responding to 'people on the show.'

I was responding to gophermomeh, who had commented on this thread.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Mrs. Hoosier told me once that she thought Hannity looked like Lou Costello.

Nathan Lane's straight younger brother. Or Timon. Which brings you back to Lane.

rdkraus said...

Original Mike

Sean Hannity is no Rush Limbaugh.

Hannity's interviews are shallow, shallow, shallow.


His radio interviews are sometimes pretty good, he's better with an adversarial interview.

His debating skills are far better than Rush's. Rush is great as a one man show; weak as a debater.

vbspurs said...

Speaking of Long Island, which only I was, what is it with that place that makes its former residents from almost identical backgrounds so politically polarised?

Example: two sets of famous Irish-Americans.

Both Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are very Right-Wing (Sean admits it, Bill doesn't).

Whereas Rosie O'Donnell and Alec Baldwin are extremely Left-Wing.

You know they must've grown up with similar values, all of them being from blue-collar, Catholic families.

And yet their politics are so fiercely different.

I use them as examples, but I've also met maybe a half-dozen other Long Islanders exactly like Hannity and O'Donnell.

Massive social inferiority complexes. Extremely outspoken in their views.

What gives with Longuyland?

vbspurs said...

Drat. I seem to remember that Sean Hannity was from LI, but Wiki says he's from Franklin Sq. NY.

Still, the question stands. Just not as stiffly.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Vics: Just substitute Brian Kilmeade [FoxNews Sports guy/ radio host with Judge Napolitano] and your example still stands.

Answer: O'Donnell and Baldwin are self-loathing and O'Reilly, Kilmeade [and Hannity] are not.

SGT Ted said...

Oh, so when the cheater is a Democrat, doing it during his Presidential campaign it's all about being a "private family matter" But when it's Newt Gingritch or McCain doing it many years ago, it's suddenly an Important Issue of Character, requiring resignation and public floggings.

Please lefties, quit pretending you care about anyones' marital fidelity.

Mark said...

It would seem that neither side would want to travel down the "he cheated-he's disqualified" route. BTW, the better analogy for the Edwards situation is Rudy Giuliani; I don’t recall his serial infidelities being much of a problem for Hannity. Doesn’t make Edwards anything but a scoundrel but does reveal Hannity as a blowhard hypocrite.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I question the wisdom of dragging all potential candidates for offices in a hypothetical Presidential administration in front of the morality police. (Legality police? Whole 'nother thing).

MM: My point was that we might as well let all the dirt out NOW instead of waiting until Edwards is nominated for something else important or crucial to the US Government. Get it over with and save us all the pain later. Then Edwards can quietly slink off to Barbados with his mistress. I don't care. Just go away.

Are politicians perfect people who never cheat on their wives and never tell lies? Hardly.

HOWEVER, the bigger issue is not the cheating or sex but illegal use of campaign funds to do this and breaking of laws and IRS statutes. Moreover, Edwards little mistake, could have been at the expense of his Party the Democrats and was a betrayal of everyone who voted for him or gave him money for his campaign. Knowing that what he was doing was wrong, think of the disaster that would have been if he was nominated as a candidate for President or VP, and he ran for the offices anyway!! Narcissism thy name is Edwards.

Much more was at stake than being an unfaithful spouse. I agree. People's personal lives and minor peccadillos should be none of the public's business.

But how about this? What if their personal lives were such that this would put the politician in the position where they might be blackmailed and compromise national security? What if the moral issues are so heinous that the public would be repelled by the person? (pedophilia, necrophilia, sadism). What if their personal lives and peccadillos lead them to breaking the law or embezzling funds? Shouldn't we, the public, be aware of these things?

The fact that Edwards cheated on his wife is small potatoes compared to what seems to coming next in this contuing soap opera.

garage mahal said...

Can't help but think of Vanity Fair Photoshop of Horrors whenever I hear Fox News. The Sean Hannity is outstanding.

vbspurs said...

There you go, Ruth Anne, thanks. Brian Kilmeade, who on top of everything, loves soccer.

(Bonus points in my book)

BTW, in the Vanity Fair link to the right, there's a portrait of some Soviet lady general or something.

I swear she looks like Jimmy Carter if he were fat, ugly and female.

holdfast said...

I am a conservative. Sean Hannity is a doofus. I hate hearing my side's argument being presented badly by a doofus.

Alan Combes is a weasel. He is smarter than Sean Hannity, but instead of engaging in a potentially winning argument, he tries to evade - typical Democrat.


John Edwards got very comfortable lying to the American people over the last 2 years. I think that a candidate should have to wait until he is elected to do that.

vbspurs said...

Please lefties, quit pretending you care about anyones' marital fidelity.

Tricky.

My take is that most Americans don't care what happens in a politicians' marriage.

BUT if he presents himself as a family man, and especially if his denials that he's having an affair are overly sanctimonious, and then he's found out to have lied, then they care.

Bill and Rudy are horndogs. We know that. We expect very little from them about their marriages. Whereas Al Gore and John Edwards paraded their marriages like a talisman.

John Edwards was found to have been a hypocrite about it, and he's reaping the result.

Curiously, I find George and Laura Bush to have practically the same kind of marriage that Barack and Michelle Obama have. Their political styles differ, but they are natural in their affection for each other.

Trooper York said...

Vicky, Franklin Square is a town on Long Island like Rockville Centre, Merrick or Baldwin. Long Island is basicly everything outside the environs of New York City all the way to the ocean. Of couse it's cooler to say you are from East Hampton than to say you are from Long Island. Both are true.

vbspurs said...

Yay, thanks! Then the question stands, proud and stiff, like a certain part of Titus when he sees American-Indian gymnasts in Beijing.

Middle Class Guy said...

TMink said...
gopher wrote: "We all but make them lie"

Ding ding ding!!!!!

We have a winner for the most enabling, spineless thought concerning personal morality!



Not so fast. Downtownlad and Trumpit have not posted yet!

Original Mike said...

rdkraus: You're right, Rush is a one man show.

I'm just not a Hannity fan. He drives me nuts. He'll get on a point and drive it into the ground during an interview, and it's usually not the interesting point.

Original Mike said...

I am a conservative. Sean Hannity is a doofus. I hate hearing my side's argument being presented badly by a doofus.

Holdfast said it better than I did.

Richard said...

Althouse: He cheated on his wife, so we can't trust him. Is that the rule you want?

A witness lies under oath, so we can't trust him? Is that the rule you want? I wonder what Lawyer Althouse thinks about that.

Windbag said...

I'll go ahead and take the extreme position. I have no use for adulterers. If you are done with your spouse, have the decency and the courage to say so. McCain and Edwards both reveal their selfish cowardice by their behavior. Anyone who is willing to betray the most intimate relationship and commitment made in life is nobody I want in office.

Colmes was spot on holding up McCain's behavior alongside Edwards. Hannity's performance was repulsive. I can't believe I typed those last two sentences.

vbspurs said...

I have no use for adulterers.

Me neither. I would be crushed if my future husband had an affair.

But the fact is most men will sleep around some time in their lives. Some will become politicians. How to reconcile these two facts?

Look at these almost-certain adulterers:

Julius Caesar
Thomas Jefferson
Dwight Eisenhower

Are you telling me they should've been prevented from being in charge because of a fidelity lapse?

I also happen to think that William Ewart Gladstone, Ronald Reagan, Winston Churchill, and Abraham Lincoln probably never cheated on their wives, based on every piece of historical evidence, but who really knows?

It only matters based on the scummimess factor, weighted by recentness and likeability.

And Edwards fails badly on all counts.

vbspurs said...

Actually, change likeability to something else. Perhaps respectibility in the sense of "I may not agree with him, but he evokes respect."

chickenlittle said...

Edwards gave new meaning to the phrase "poverty sucks"

Windbag said...

But the fact is most men will sleep around some time in their lives.

That's why most men shouldn't be leaders. Those who are exceptional should lead. Yes, I'm quite aware of the scores of "great" men who have slept around. Maybe they accomplished great feats, but at the end of the day, they were small, shallow men. It's what you do when you think no one is watching that sets the standard for who you are.

blake said...

Colmes has nothing but "tu quoque".

Hannity is a hack.

But (as Ruth Anne pointed out)
Hannity does look like Nathan Lane.

Hakuna Matata!

chuck b. said...

"most men will sleep around some time in their lives"

I disagree!

I don't think that's true at all. Most? During their married lives?

You must be talking about married life, otherwise there is no point to be made. Men can't sleep around without women sleeping with them [we're talking about strictly heterosexual men, aren't we?]. You could just say "most people sleep around".

It probably could never be proved, but I do not think anywhere near a majority of married men will sleep around.

chuck b. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
vbspurs said...

It probably could never be proved, but I do not think anywhere near a majority of married men will sleep around.

I'm the product of one of these uxorious men. My dad adores my mother and once scared me a lot by telling me if anything should ever happen to my mother before he goes, he'd immediately jump out of the balcony. If I had to guess at such a disagreeable thought, I'd say of the two he's the one who has never ever cheated.

Further, of all my breakups, only once was there a suggestion of infidelity on my boyfriend's part.

Nevertheless, I do believe that it is much more likely that men cheat on their wives, or their partners, at some point.

But it's an accepted and near-expected state of affairs amongst the very rich and/or very powerful around the world, and has been since forever.

In fact, being bourgeois about it (expecting fidelity, marrying for love) is seen as a negative.

Cheers,
Victoria

chuck b. said...

I was just wondering who you thought the women were who enabled "most men" to sleep around.

blake said...

You know, if the Internet were perfect, I could link to Linda Ronstadt and Phoebe Snow singing "The Married Man" here.

Revenant said...

I think that cheating on your wife without her consent establishes that you are the sort of man who, when confronted with a conflict between morality and personal gain, opts for the personal gain. That doesn't mean you can't be trusted. It just means you can't be trusted to do the right thing if doing the right thing isn't in your interests.

vbspurs said...

Not sure I follow, Chuck B. :)