Calif. GOP lawmaker caught bragging about affairs

[cannonia]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9AK03601&show_article=1

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Rule #1 for California Republicans:  The microphone is always live!

[Marokai Backbeat]

At least they were women.

[dead0man]

Rule #2 for all Republicans: IF YOU ARE MARRIED STOP FUCKING PEOPLE OTHER THAN YOUR SPOUSE!  God danged hypocritical scumbags.

[Scam of God]

Hum.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some "family values", scumbucket.

I don't care that he cheated on his wife. That's none of the public's business, unless public policy was influenced by his affair. What I do care about is his overwhelming hypocrisy, the stink of which is here even in Illinois. But such is to be expected, of course, from the Religious Right.

[cannonia]

What I do care about is his overwhelming hypocrisy, the stink of which is here even in Illinois. But such is to be expected, of course, from the Religious Right.

Like global-warming doomsayers flying around the world on private jets, gun-control advocates keeping illegal handguns, proponents of tax increases who can't seem to pay on time, or public education advocates sending their children to private schools?  Not to mention the Jesse Jacksons and John Edwards out there on the Left.  Spare me the whole "hypocritical conservatives" schtick.

[Mechaman]

I find it funny that the article mentions that the guy had an affair with a woman "18 years younger than him". The man is 54 years old, that would mean the woman in question is 36! Are we really that adverse to age disparity in relationships now days?

Oh yeah let us get back to the subject at hand: Right Wing hypocripsy. Yeah this guy probably is, but this is turning into very old news by now. Somebody give me something original, like a drug warrior being caught for dealing meth or a supporter of taxing the hell out of the rich being caught for evading taxes. Or shall we up the ante and do something as extreme as a gun control advocate shooting somebody?

The "(insert politician name here) cheats on wife" card is getting so overused by now.

[Brittain33]

Spare me the whole "hypocritical conservatives" schtick.

Either blatant hypocrisy is a problem, or it isn't. What do you think?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

At least they were women.

[Torie]

I am not sure what the hypocrisy is here, nor do I see the connection between opposing gay marriage and cheating on your wife.

[Verily]

I am not sure what the hypocrisy is here, nor do I see the connection between opposing gay marriage and cheating on your wife.

The "preserving the sanctity of marriage" and all that rot. If you're going to talk about how marriage is sacred to try to justify a political position, you had better not be doing anything that violates that sanctity, like committing adultery. (Of course, religious justifications for political positions are by definition unsound anyway, but this is assuming that they are not.)

[Bacon King]

What I do care about is his overwhelming hypocrisy, the stink of which is here even in Illinois. But such is to be expected, of course, from the Religious Right.

Like global-warming doomsayers flying around the world on private jets, gun-control advocates keeping illegal handguns, proponents of tax increases who can't seem to pay on time, or public education advocates sending their children to private schools?  Not to mention the Jesse Jacksons and John Edwards out there on the Left.  Spare me the whole "hypocritical conservatives" schtick.

First off, two wrongs don't make a right, ya know. And let me say that you're entirely accurate on the global warming thing, it's just like Al Gore's excessive electricity bills and such. And of course, everyone should pay their taxes.

Also, what gun-control advocates keep illegal weapons? Legitimate curiosity.

I'm gonna be a little nitpicky here now though.

I don't see how it's necessarily hypocritical to support more funds for public schools while simultaneously supporting the right to put one's kids in a private school if they prefer. Generally the intended recipients of better public schools are those who can't afford to go to a nicer private school.

Also, while Jesse Jackson and especially John Edwards have been lying bastards about extramarital affairs, it's not exactly hypocrisy like in the case Assemblyman Duvall here because to my knowledge those two have never grandstanded on political positions based on how important they claim the institution of marriage is to their lives.

[Lief 🗽]

At least they were women.

[Torie]

I am not sure what the hypocrisy is here, nor do I see the connection between opposing gay marriage and cheating on your wife.

The "preserving the sanctity of marriage" and all that rot. If you're going to talk about how marriage is sacred to try to justify a political position, you had better not be doing anything that violates that sanctity, like committing adultery. (Of course, religious justifications for political positions are by definition unsound anyway, but this is assuming that they are not.)

First we are not sure he used those words (there are other reasons to oppose gay marriage, including fiscal ones), and second even if he did, he was talking about the legal sanctity presumably, as opposed to the actions of the individual partners.

Is someone who cheats on his gay married partner a hypocrite for favoring legalized gay marriage? 

[Brittain33]

he was talking about the legal sanctity presumably, as opposed to the actions of the individual partners.

No one uses "sanctity" that way when talking about marriage. It's often used when people are describing the "sacrament" of marriage. It's a deliberately religious usage that draws on people's belief in marriage as a holy institution.

[Brittain33]

Is someone who cheats on his gay married partner a hypocrite for favoring legalized gay marriage? 

I suppose it depends on what basis he argued for marriage equality.

[Torie]

Is someone who cheats on his gay married partner a hypocrite for favoring legalized gay marriage? 

I suppose it depends on what basis he argued for marriage equality.

Is a fiscal liberal who thinks more should be spent helping folks a hypocrite when he gives next to nothing to charity even with a handsome income? 

Is someone who opposes school vouchers for kids in DC schools a hypocrite when he sends his own kids to private schools in DC? 

This hypocrite thing is way overdone in my opinion. It is more of a debating tactic I think than anything else, and leaves me kind of cold, but then I guess that was obvious wasn't it? 

[Brittain33]

Well, it's not an academic issue for me. It's hard for me when politicians sit in moral judgment on my lifestyle (by which I mean, not just voting against gay marriage, but establishing themselves as guardians of moral order and tradition and family values in doing so) while having their fun on the side. It's not just the policy implications--it's the way they draw on other people's moral outrage to sustain and support their own careers at a cost to me. I suppose I should be a good person and forgive these people their failings while overlooking the policy impact, which falls on me and not on him. I can't help being parochial in a case like this.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Who in politics these days ISN'T a hypocrite?

I mean, really, saying one thing and then doing another is an American tradition.

[Sewer]

Who in politics these days ISN'T a hypocrite?

Bernie Sanders?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Who in politics these days ISN'T a hypocrite?

Bernie Sanders?

lol

[Ronnie]

When did any Republican say "Don't cheat on your wives"?

[Verily]

I am not sure what the hypocrisy is here, nor do I see the connection between opposing gay marriage and cheating on your wife.

The "preserving the sanctity of marriage" and all that rot. If you're going to talk about how marriage is sacred to try to justify a political position, you had better not be doing anything that violates that sanctity, like committing adultery. (Of course, religious justifications for political positions are by definition unsound anyway, but this is assuming that they are not.)

First we are not sure he used those words (there are other reasons to oppose gay marriage, including fiscal ones), and second even if he did, he was talking about the legal sanctity presumably, as opposed to the actions of the individual partners.

You're being far too generous here. Politicians who talk about the sanctity of marriage are almost exclusively talking about religious sanctity, not legal sanctity, which is a concept I think anyone would find absurd. What exactly is "sacred" about some law passed within the past decade?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like brittain said, he could be, but only if he argued for gay marriage in the belief that marriage was a permanent or otherwise sanctified union denied to him (which is a weird argument), or perhaps that the government is denying his right to freedom of religion and equal protection of religions by refusing to acknowledge his religious marriage but acknowledging others while still holding to a religious belief that calls adultery a violation of marriage (which is a less weird but more obscure argument).

If he argued for it on grounds of being economically or socially discriminatory, then of course not. Marriage is only "sacred" in a religious context. Breaking marital vows through adultery is morally repugnant but has no legal implications in and of itself. As long as the argument for gay marriage is legal and not religious, there's no hypocrisy.

[Brittain33]

When did any Republican say "Don't cheat on your wives"?

Remember 1998, for starters?

[Alexander Hamilton]

When did any Republican say "Don't cheat on your wives"?

Remember 1998, for starters?

I haven't seen them lie to a grand jury about it.

[Sam Spade]

If he argued for it on grounds of being economically or socially discriminatory, then of course not. Marriage is only "sacred" in a religious context. Breaking marital vows through adultery is morally repugnant but has no legal implications in and of itself. As long as the argument for gay marriage is legal and not religious, there's no hypocrisy.

Are you sure you want to open up that argument because remember that legal arguments go both ways?

Anyway, this is merely a theoretical question I'm posing because I'm quite sure that you'll close the door or tell me that it doesn't exist when I try to enter it.