४ एप्रिल, २०१७
"Are we supposed to treat infidelity the way free solo climbers treat falls — a risk to be sure, but one worth taking because safety precautions would be too cumbersome and dull?"
An analogy in the form of a question, asked by Megan McArdle in "The Pences' Prophylactic Approach to Infidelity."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८० टिप्पण्या:
infidelity, like drinking problems, make a dull DVD plot device.
I think McMegan has a firm grasp of the wrong end of the stick here. She suggests that Pence wants not to be led into temptation, where it is more likely that he wishes to avoid the very appearance of impropriety. The first commenter, as the first commenter to the original Atlantic piece, gets it right.
Nothing is more suspect in today's culture than morality.
Here are the take aways.
President Trump is a scumbag because he has been sexually promiscuous his whole life.
Vice President Pence is a scumbag because he has avoided even the appearance of sexual promiscuousness his whole life.
The media looks for moments that appear to be "Gotcha!!" moments, in particular if the subject is a Republican/conservative. Doesn't matter if it is a valid "gotcha" or not. Which would end up being a potentially significant distraction for a politician trying to do their job. And the family would be brought into it, as well. That is probably the primary factor in his policy.
Secondarily, avoiding situations where you might be tempted is always a smart move, for everyone.
To each his own, but I hardly see my hanging out with female friends and coworkers without my wife around to be akin to rock climbing without a safety rope. I'm not Bill Clinton.
It's both tcrosse. My spouse never takes the baby sitter home to avoid any hint of propriety or misunderstanding. Pence is also in a position of power and he doesn't want to appear to be taking advantage. That is completely focused on appearances and not temptation. But we aren't alone with the opposite sex in social situations to avoid forming emotional attachments that are not necessary for a married person. I would think Pence knows plenty of people who eased into an affair they didn't mean to start.
"Temptation" my ass! Mike Pence makes it impossible for some hard core leftist chippie to make a false accusation of sexual improprieties. That's it in a nutshell. As a not-quite hard core leftist chippie herself, McArdle feels aggrieved.
My dad is a pastor. He follows this rule, not because he distrusts himself, or because my mother is a jealous woman, but because you just never know what's going on in other people's heads. He keeps doors open and never positions himself where he can't be seen. He has more than one person around most of the time, meets ladies out-doors if no one is around inside the church. It's not because anybody is necessarily untrustworthy, least of all him, but because people will talk, friendships (he has many warm friendships with the ladies in his church!) will be misconstrued, and gossips will try to take you down for the sake of taking down Christ.
And there IS the occasional woman who will find bringing down a pastor to be quite a feather in her cap. My dad is no prize, honestly. Tiny church, no money, no power. But he's a target because that's just human nature, both male and female.
Christians are a target for gossip. People love to find them in hypocrisy. People love to tempt my father to sin in all kinds of ways. I've watched it my whole life. It's diabolical. Why in the world would he make it easy for them to do so?
Eric nailed it.
Jesus had a saying for the similar critics of his day:
You are like children sitting in the market place and calling to one another: "We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not mourn.'
As always the liberal media is the mob calling for the hanging of the Republicans.
When I was in college, I attempted to date two women at the same time.....cuz, more pussy is better. Little did I know, women like to mark their territory. Co-ed A went commando, and tossed her panties under the bed. Somehow, Co-ed B knew where to find them.
My part of the debacle was to answer the question "Who's panties are these?".
I'll bet Pence has a similar story.
Somewhere, Laslo is wondering, "Does he still have the panties?".
I don't think the analogy works. A more analogous situation would be a climber refusing to stand near the base of a cliff unless he was fully roped in. In case he gave in to temptation and started climbing when he shouldn't.
Having said that, it seems Pence's policy is entirely reasonable.
There are certain professions where you run into "crazies" or people who have their own twisted agendas at one time or another. Doctors, lawyers, and clergy deal with these types of people more frequently than most. This can turn out very badly for them if they are not careful. I would think politicians run into it too.
"My part of the debacle was to answer the question "Who's panties are these?". "
This reminds me of a funny scene in a favorite movie, "Overboard."
Too long to explain but she finds the panties in the glove box of his truck.
"Doctors, lawyers, and clergy deal with these types of people more frequently than most. "
A pediatrician I knew had done a neurological exam on a teenager in the hospital. One part of such an exam was running a pinwheel-like instrument up her leg to test for decreased sensation.
She told her parents he had molested her by doing this.
The police arrested him in his office in front of patients.
A few months later, as the investigation went along, he committed suicide.
I read this in Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, No Ordinary Time. Hoover, with the support and encouragement of FDR, bugged the hotel room where Joseph Lasch and Eleanor Roosevelt spent the night. FDR reviewed the transcripts and sent Lasch away to the South Pacific for non combat duty.......None of this has blackened the reputation of either FDR or Eleanor, but, on just about every level known to man, this seems to be scurrilous behavior on their part. Hoover, however, has suffered a sharp decline in his reputation.
The kind of people who mock the Pences for their marriage rules which help prevent even the appearance of impropriety are a lot like the people who accuse black children who stay in school and out of trouble of “acting white.” There are people in this world who want to build you up and there are people who want to tear you down. A wise person heeds the advice of the former and disregards the opinions of the latter.
""Are we supposed to treat infidelity the way free solo climbers treat falls — a risk to be sure, but one worth taking because safety precautions would be too cumbersome and dull?" An analogy in the form of a question" Both irrelevant. How we treat infidelity or precautions against infidelity or complaints about precautions against infidelity just depends. GOP/con is unfaithful, or takes precautions, or triggers complaints? Nail him. Otherwise, don't.
"Michael K said...
"Doctors, lawyers, and clergy deal with these types of people more frequently than most. "
A pediatrician I knew had done a neurological exam on a teenager in the hospital. One part of such an exam was running a pinwheel-like instrument up her leg to test for decreased sensation.
She told her parents he had molested her by doing this.
The police arrested him in his office in front of patients.
A few months later, as the investigation went along, he committed suicide."
Maybe he did molest her.
Media and SJW types bring the "Pence rules" issue up because:
(1) They are trying for the death of the Trump administration through a thousand real and imagined cuts;
(2) It goes against their hipster ethos.
(3) They never know when to shut up and leave people alone.
I don't believe in a lot of slippery slopes, but I do believe that spending too much time having fun outside of your marriage is not good for your marriage.
You may say business dinners and/or work parties aren't *fun*, but they can be.
Your entertainment energy should be directed toward your marriage being the best place to be entertained, the best dinners, the best times.
Once you start seeking the best company from someone else of the opposite sex, it's very hard not to form some sort of relationship that is unhealthy for your marriage.
Christians who actually believe in Christianity tend to take the Bible's warnings seriously. And Jesus specified in his model prayer to petition God for 4 things: 1)Daily bread,2) forgiveness, 3)assistance in not being lead through temptations, and 4)deliverance from the power of the evil one.
1 and 2 are great to have, but it is 3 that we need God's help with. So wise Pence uses his God given help mate for that. When all fails, repeat 2 and 4.
Men who fall for one good woman, and not all the other fascinating ones, are the luckiest men in the world.
Good article by McArdle. She reasonably appraises both the up and down sides of Pence's approach. Alcohol is particularly problematic in professional relationships, although I would include male-male relationships in this. Alcoholic bosses can create havoc in the lives of their underlings.
I, like McArdle, had a workplace where the boss and some of my male coworkers enjoyed strip club outings. But many of these guys were the same guys who had affairs with co-workers. I mean, shocking, right? And I was neither willing to go to the strip club nor sleep with a boss. Would either or both have been good for my career?
Loose workplace morality hurts everyone.
"I don't believe in a lot of slippery slopes, but I do believe that spending too much time having fun outside of your marriage is not good for your marriage."
It's all relative, and depends on the couple. Some couples can thrive on a lot less time together (e.g., if one of them travels a lot or works long hours) and others really need much more together time. My reaction to all of this is that what works in one marriage may not work in others, but in our usual culture war footing everyone felt a need to take a side on this. But I doubt most liberals would have made such a fuss over Pence's "rules" if he was a liberal Democrat. It's because they already hated him that this appeared "weird".
Nothing has changed since NOW backed Bill Clinton's sexual escapades.
Republican morality is evil; Democrat philandering is exciting.
He's avoiding the death of a thousand cunts.
There's no record of Adolf Hitler cheating on Eva Braun, nor or Eva being unfaithful to Adolf. They had in many ways a nurturing, supportive relationship. Their relationship was far superior to that of Eleanor and Franklin. From this evidence I think we can deduce that traditional morality is not the best nor the only yardstick with which to measure the value of relationship.
It's all relative, and depends on the couple. Some couples can thrive on a lot less time together (e.g., if one of them travels a lot or works long hours) and others really need much more together time.
I'm not talking so much about time together, but about with whom you spend your *best* times. Sure, you can do a girls night or a guys trip every so often. You can do work dinners every so often. But the most frequent source of pleasurable experiences with the opposite sex has to be with your spouse. At least that should be the goal.
Yeah, leave it to the lefties to ignore the most obvious reason: he is purchasing an insurance policy against potential future claims by woman whose advancement or other career opportunities have not been realized. In sharp contrast, imagine how differently things would have developed for Roger Ailes or Bill O'Reilly had they taken the same precautions.
Of course, if the accusations are true, as they may well be with respect to Ailes and O'Reilly, then the policy would have met the McArdle test. But I vote for insurance as the number 1 explanation in Pence's case.
- Krumhorn
He's avoiding the death of a thousand cunts.
Although, I'm not a fan of the word, this is a good 'un.
- Krumhorn
The rule is fine but if you are going to apply it to fellow employees, especially subordinates, you should apply it to both sexes, so that there is no discrimination. No candle light dinners with POTUS if none with FLOTUS.
If one litigates around the county one inevitably finds oneself at dinner with other lawyers, clients, consultants and witnesses, and it would not be very practical to only dine with colleagues of the same sex or in groups. Of course in this day and age, there are plenty of colleagues of the same sex who might have nonprofessional interests in one another.
"I'm not talking so much about time together, but about with whom you spend your *best* times. Sure, you can do a girls night or a guys trip every so often. You can do work dinners every so often. But the most frequent source of pleasurable experiences with the opposite sex has to be with your spouse. At least that should be the goal."
That's true.
As I wrote at McArdle's blog, Pence's choice is his answer to the adage, "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." Pence chose "don't."
Remember all those women accusing Trump of inappropriate behavior before the election? The ones we haven't heard from since?
Pence didn't have that problem. Smart man.
For good long-term marital health, it's best if couples have mutual friends.
That said, the occasional working lunch or coffee shouldn't be a problem. The difference would be if someone has ulterior motives beyond professional networking and casual socialization. One should want to bring the friend into the network of mutual marital friends.
Rather then excluding all socialization, one easy way to tell if one is getting into trouble would be to ask oneself:
"Am I comfortable introducing my spouse to my work friend?" or "Would I feel comfortable inviting a work friend to a family BBQ or party?"
Am I comfortable sharing with my spouse what we discussed at lunch? Unless it's confidential company information, the answer should be "yes."
Too often singles, especially widows and widowers, are excluded from social life. It's kind for couples to include all sorts of people in their wider circles, and invite them to picnics and dinners. Many singles enjoy being around family life and young children.
MayBee said...
I don't believe in a lot of slippery slopes, but I do believe that spending too much time having fun outside of your marriage is not good for your marriage.
You may say business dinners and/or work parties aren't *fun*, but they can be.
Your entertainment energy should be directed toward your marriage being the best place to be entertained, the best dinners, the best times."
That is probably truer now than it was back in the '50's. Recreation then was sexually segregated to a certain extent. Men had their corner bars and fraternal organizations and clubs; women had coffee clatches and sewing circles and went shopping together, etc. The world of men and world of women did not intersect that much.
Now it does, and I think that as a society, we still haven't figured out how to best deal with that. I tend to think that given the hazards of being accused of sexual harassment or of just plain temptation, that the caution the Pences display is very prudent.
I had a friend who was proud of letting her husband, a teacher, socialize with the other (mostly female) teachers. She thought that showed trust and maturity - until she discovered he was having an affair with one of them.
How interesting that when Ta-Nehisi Coates explained his concept of "guard-rails," nobody considered him a prude, but Pence gets a very different treatment from the sophisticates in the chattering class. Here's Coates:
I’ve been with my spouse for almost 15 years. In those years, I’ve never been with anyone but the mother of my son. But that’s not because I am an especially good and true person. In fact, I am wholly in possession of an unimaginably filthy and mongrel mind. But I am also a dude who believes in guard-rails, as a buddy of mine once put it. I don’t believe in getting “in the moment” and then exercising will-power. I believe in avoiding ‘the moment.’ I believe in being absolutely clear with myself about why I am having a second drink, and why I am not; why I am going to a party, and why I am not. I believe that the battle is lost at Happy Hour, not at the hotel. I am not a ‘good man.’ But I am prepared to be an honorable one.
If Pence wants truly to get the admiration of the coastal elites, he needs to get a bj from one of the interns.
Actually, Readering, no. You may as well state the best policy is to not be discriminating at all, on any basis- no having dinner with friendly subordinates, if you avoid having them with unfriendly ones, etc.
Live and let live- have dinner one on one with anyone you damned well please, or not.
McArdle is always a good read, even when Ido not agree with her. She reasons things out.
The analogy is not perfect, but it suffices. All analogies are wrong. Some are useful. This is useful.
A lot if not most of the criticism is purely political. If he was on their team, they wouldn't care. The rest of them are screaming heresy for violating their secular religious beliefs, which are subject to revision at a moment's notice without warning or announcement, are based on assumptions about human nature that are absurd, and require no facts to get a conviction. You cannot please people who hate you out of principle, not can you please people who are genuinely crazy.
Billy Graham had a similar policy.
As others have said, it's less about him not trusting himself and more about a wise preemptive policy to not give anyone else rope to hang him with, even if it's rope made of out bullshit.
Having a somewhat prudish reputation saves a lot of trouble.
First of all, the cowboys and limit-pushers will be less likely to involve you in their little schemes.
Second, having a reputation as "not one of the boys" means that "the boy"s, when their little schemes inevitably go pear-shaped, will be less likely to come cry on your shoulder, or worse, expect you to help clean up and cover up the mess.
I posted something like this on Megan's blog, but haven't seen any one else make these points, which I think bear repeating.
As I recall, political power and money power are the two strongest aphrodisiacs, and as I further recall, that is the real reason most people go into church and government positions.
I have also been told that the first lesson an Episcopal priest has to learn is that he cannot have all of the women he sees. He has to become selective.
Alcohol is particularly problematic in professional relationships, although I would include male-male relationships in this.
This depends -- if you are with people who see alcohol as food, it's fine. If you're out with people who see alcohol as entertainment, then it's a problem.
WASPs tend to ban things like alcohol because they don't understand moderation. In France and Italy, drinking wine at lunch isn't uncommon, or a problem.
It's like those people who don't know how to cook with oregano. If you don't know how much flavour to put in, the whole meal goes to shit.
Maybe this is a theory for why Protestants haven't enjoyed flavour in their foods? They can't figure it out, so they ban all of it?
Having a somewhat prudish reputation saves a lot of trouble.
First of all, the cowboys and limit-pushers will be less likely to involve you in their little schemes.
Second, having a reputation as "not one of the boys" means that "the boy"s, when their little schemes inevitably go pear-shaped, will be less likely to come cry on your shoulder, or worse, expect you to help clean up and cover up the mess.
I posted something like this on Megan's blog, but haven't seen any one else make these points, which I think bear repeating.
Very well put.
My husband works in an industry with a fair amount of debauchery in the sales/client interactions. There are (and I have no idea how the lawyers allow this) a LOT of company-sponsored ritzy parties with open bars and "entertainers" which of course means dancers and prostitutes. There is also a fair amount of interoffice drama with people who are too dumb to know better than to drink with their coworkers and wind up in each other's hotel rooms at conferences.
He has avoided the headaches of a lot of this by allowing himself to get a reputation for being super-religious, a boy scout, a recovering alcoholic, etc. Whatever people want to say is fine by him; they make up their own explanations for the fact that he doesn't drink at their parties, talks fondly of his wife and five kids, and goes back to his hotel room to do his tuck-in calls while they are getting lap dances.
@Annie C, good point.
Sensible policy on his part.
"In France and Italy, drinking wine at lunch isn't uncommon, or a problem."
Having a mistress on the side also is not uncommon in France and Italy. Americans are generally much less "sophisticated" about these things. I recall being told that by Democrats when Billy Jeff was in office. The same people who told me that would scream bloody murder and call a divorce attorney in 5 seconds if they found their own spouse was getting it on with an intern.
If you want to spend your life building something worthwhile, you take care. You go further than not tearing it down with your own hands; you don't invite someone close enough to tear it down with theirs.
Having a mistress on the side also is not uncommon in France and Italy.
This isn't true. Not of the average family or more then northern Europeans.
It would be absurd in southern Europe to say something like, "I won't attend a function where wine is served without my spouse."
Italians drink wine at family campsites with other families during the summer. These families are not more "sexually loose" then other Europeans or Americans. They just know how to drink wine without becoming foolish.
As part of their jobs, movie stars routinely spend all day in bed with their naked costars in order to get the scene just right. Movie stars are known for their happy marriages. Many of them have been happily married for months. This just goes to show how stupid and prudish the Pences are.
That said, if one doesn't know how to drink wine without becoming foolish -- don't do it.
Likewise, don't use oregano as a flavour if you can't figure out how to do it without turning the dish bitter.
William said...
As part of their jobs, movie stars routinely spend all day in bed with their naked costars in order to get the scene just right. Movie stars are known for their happy marriages. Many of them have been happily married for months. This just goes to show how stupid and prudish the Pences are.
4/4/17, 12:53 PM
OK, that was pure gold! Well played!
wwww,
My experience in Europe is that they tend to drink with meals and as a compliment to their meals. They rarely go out just to drink.
I was eating at a fairly nice (by my standards) restaurant in Paris and ordered a carafe of red wine before the meal. After ordering salmon, the hostess came up to me and said, "I'm sorry sir. You have ordered the wrong wine."
Now here in the Great American Midwest, salmon often has a heavy flavor and sauce that goes with red wine. However, I deferred to her judgment and asked her to order for me. Its was a delightful house white wine that went perfectly with the very light fresh salmon.
"This isn't true. Not of the average family or more then northern Europeans. "
It seems to be fairly common among politicians, however. An irregular sex life didn't ruin Mitterrand or Hollande - nor does it ruin Dem politicians here, unless they're as stupid as Anthony Weiner. It would ruin Pence.
A man who cheats on his wife is not as attractive as a man who does not.
I wonder if people feel the same way about pedophilia. Back when I was involved with scouting the had a principle of +1 leadership. A leader shouldn't ever be alone with a scout he wasn't the parent of EVER. It was always presented as being (most importantly) protection for the children, as well as protecting leaders from false accusations.
Would anyone dare ask "Are we supposed to treat pedophilia the way free solo climbers treat falls — a risk to be sure, but one worth taking because safety precautions would be too cumbersome and dull?"
In the case of Pence it's not just his marriage in jeopardy, it's also his political career. Pence doesn't get the Clinton dispensensation. As per the climber analogy I guess you could say a Pence fall would be one he would not recover from.
Many years ago I ran into my Congressman, JPK II, at Nick's Beef and Beer on Massachusetts Avenue between Harvard and Porter Squares. He was out to dinner with two young staffers, a man and a woman. A couple of years later JPK divorced his then-wife and married the staffer. But the Pence Rule was not violated, at least on that occasion.
Left Bank of the Charles said... [hush][hide comment]
Many years ago I ran into my Congressman, JPK II, at Nick's Beef and Beer on Massachusetts Avenue between Harvard and Porter Squares. He was out to dinner with two young staffers, a man and a woman. A couple of years later JPK divorced his then-wife and married the staffer. But the Pence Rule was not violated, at least on that occasion.
4/4/17, 2:40 PM
Which did he marry, the man or the woman staffer?
Someone was going to ask, it might as well be me...
My experience in Europe is that they tend to drink with meals and as a compliment to their meals. They rarely go out just to drink.
That salmon sounds delicious.
yes -- Wine as food is much different from wine as a North American "going out for drinks" activity. I much prefer the European model.
Going out for a North American "drink" has a far different connotation. Wouldn't suggest it's a wise activity for non-spouses.
Although I've been at campsites where families sat drinking wine in the evening on the patio while the children played. These were mostly northern Italians vacationing in the south.
I think it's interesting that people are only worried about men having these barriers with women. What about women putting up such "guardrails" with men? My husband and I have agreed that NEITHER of us (1) dine alone with someone of the opposite sex, and (2) drink alone with someone of the opposite sex. (Very similar to the Pences' rules.) The same rules apply to us both and I think they're helpful for me as well as him.
The other issue for Pence is that he wants to avoid the appearance (as well as the reality) of impropriety. I'm in a social circle with a prominent middle-aged man in my community. He won't dine with women without his wife because he's constantly being watched and gossiped about and he doesn't want to give any grist to the mill.... It also protects him from blackmail based on appearances.
Mistresses were very common all over Europe pre-1930s more or less, and persisted for a very long time after. Or at least it was de riguer for powerful men. For an extreme case consider Mr. Berlusconi. A hundred years ago he would have been gossiped about in private, as for instance D'Annunzio.
Any deep dive into European politics and society of the day will dredge up so many cases that it seems ubiquitous. An interesting and amusing illustration, in a modern film, is in the new BBC "Victoria", where the young queen, receiving advice on whether to permit a royal relative to marry his mistress, finds out that every single distinguished gentleman advising her has his own mistress.
This behavior seems like a normal and natural thing for high status males in any human society, and it may take stern measures to avoid falling into it.
Also, in many ways, modern society seems more "Victorian" than that of the Victorians.
In the upper classes of most countries, both husbands and wives dallied. Marriage vows were considered bourgeois.
Out here is flyover country, where the meandering Wabash begets the state song, the general rule regarding business interactions has been to leave the office door open if you have a one-on-one meeting with a subordinate of the opposite sex and for Gods sake, always arrange for mixed travel of more than two people traveling together. If our liberal friends have a less-strict policy - then it is they who need to examine their values.
From isolation to abortion, that's the popular (i.e. promoted) extremes of sex and anything unworthy conceived.
Planned Fidelity. Arm each man and woman with a scalpel and set them at 20 paces.
Lots of great comments here. I agree that Pence is being at least prudential, making it harder for the crazies and career-busters to succeed. The hysteria about sexual assault is perhaps fueled by the campus follies under Title IX, but by no means limited to them; and none who wishes to protect his reputation* can ignore the danger.
Beyond being prudential I think Pence is honoring his wife and family, and the institution of marriage, by behaving in a way that shows where he puts his emotional and spiritual priorities.
I very much doubt he makes an issue out of this. He just lives his values.
Freeman Hunt, I liked the way you put your point: "If you want to spend your life building something worthwhile, you take care. You go further than not tearing it down with your own hands; you don't invite someone close enough to tear it down with theirs."
*Pronoun is used in the generic sense: her, xir, etc, all included.
Mistresses would have made more sense in the upper classes of Europe where marriages were often politically arranged. The marriage was for practical reasons, the mistress for the actual passion. If the wife and mistress could be played by the same woman, all the better.
Then again, a lot of powerful men just like banging whatever they want to bang for whatever reasons they can devise.
Blogger mockturtle said...
A man who cheats on his wife is not as attractive as a man who does not.
Men know this. This is why women sleep with married men. Because, baby, you're so awesome I'm willing to cheat on my wife for you.
And, he loves me! No one understands. His wife is a bad person. I'll make him truly happy.
Ugh.
Anonymous said...
I think it's interesting that people are only worried about men having these barriers with women. What about women putting up such "guardrails" with men? My husband and I have agreed that NEITHER of us (1) dine alone with someone of the opposite sex, and (2) drink alone with someone of the opposite sex. (Very similar to the Pences' rules.) The same rules apply to us both and I think they're helpful for me as well as him.
--------------
This sounds like a young marriage/relationship.
If you have the Trust Factor established, then you can both overcome your mutual... lusts. Then, you get to see people as people, and not as amorous targets of your lust.
Maybe it just takes time.
Maybe some people have more of a history of trust and fidelity? I can't imagine looking at half the population as tempters/temptresses, or as targets of lust. Do people/grown men really look at others like that, all the time? Maybe it's a family/traditions thing... if you are raised with monogamy/trust, then you practice that with or without guardrails.
Many years ago I ran into my Congressman, JPK II, at Nick's Beef and Beer
Small world. Joe III is my congressman now. I've never seen him, though.
Many years ago I ran into my Congressman, JPK II, at Nick's Beef and Beer
-----------------
I can top that.
We were represented by ... Jesse Jackson Jr.
Before he and the wife went to prison...
No stories about meeting him out, and he and the missus like shiny new expensive things but there were no tales of either of them "cheating".
Good grief, maybe he just prefers his wife's company, shocking I know, but some men actually do. Why is this such a big deal? Is it because so few people do this kind of thing now? I would rather eat with my husband than any other man (barring relatives of course.).
I agree with those who believe Pence's hedges have at least as much (if not more) to do with avoiding giving ammo to his enemies than with actually being worried he's going to cheat on his wife if he has a work dinner.
Have we so quickly forgotten the hay-making in certain circles over circumstantial evidence re: Ted Cruz just last year? "He was seen meeting a co-worker in a hotel lobby!" "Look, here is Ted Cruz and his co-worker sporting the same temporary tattoo--and they come in a two-pack!" "Ted Cruz appears to have loaned this woman his jacket. Obviously he was totally doing her!"
Exactly, Mom2Es.
But remember how POTUS is treating the media - as they are if not the Enemy like IS, at least the actual opposition party.
They are malicious, dishonest and extremely creative in hunting their enemies. And the anti-Christian propaganda now seems de rigeur in the creative class. How the analysis of the situation can fail to note the utter depravity of those people in the media and public commentary industry when they have an enemy in their sights is beyond me.
Steve Largent, a Christian pro football player elected to Congress in 1994, recounted the devious ways traps were set for him during his eight years on the Hill. Republicans and, especially, Christian Republicans, are popular targets for the leftist media as well as for their political opponents.
And the Bible tells us to 'abstain from all appearance of evil'.
Static Ping,
Ummmm, powerful men need reasons?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा