As far as ethics and hypocrisy: Have you forgotten the Keating Five scandal???

I may listen to the radio when I go out on the road at lunchtime today. It's either going to be a bunch of criticism of the lib-media, or it's going to be silence. Why silence?

McCain is a weak candidate who has little support from non-liberals, that's why.

As far as ethics and hypocrisy: Have you forgotten the Keating Five scandal???

I may listen to the radio when I go out on the road at lunchtime today. It's either going to be a bunch of criticism of the lib-media, or it's going to be silence. Why silence?

McCain is a weak candidate who has little support from non-liberals, that's why.

On the McClown front, ask his first wife about a trade in for a younger richer model. His second wifes money and family gave him hi start in politics.

On the McClown front, ask his first wife about a trade in for a younger richer model. His second wifes money and family gave him hi start in politics.

As for a cheating spouse as a political leader, I really still have a hard time worrying about it too much. I would be less inclined to be friends with someone I knew was deceiving their spouse, but I wouldn't decline to see a great cardiologist on their 6th wife, read the papers of a lying SOB physicist, or remove Patton from his command because he had a thing going with two girls at once. At the same time, if a politician is great at fighting for causes that I think improve America, and at the same time lies to his wife and visits the strip club, I'd let him or her keep running things.

The main caveat to all this is that I do think it's the rare politician who isn't easily replaceable with a similar politician, and as such I think it should be easier to get rid of one. It's not like Gore would have been much worse than Clinton or Cheney much worse than Bush for their supporters — the latter thought is quite scary though.

As for a cheating spouse as a political leader, I really still have a hard time worrying about it too much. I would be less inclined to be friends with someone I knew was deceiving their spouse, but I wouldn't decline to see a great cardiologist on their 6th wife, read the papers of a lying SOB physicist, or remove Patton from his command because he had a thing going with two girls at once. At the same time, if a politician is great at fighting for causes that I think improve America, and at the same time lies to his wife and visits the strip club, I'd let him or her keep running things.

The main caveat to all this is that I do think it's the rare politician who isn't easily replaceable with a similar politician, and as such I think it should be easier to get rid of one. It's not like Gore would have been much worse than Clinton or Cheney much worse than Bush for their supporters — the latter thought is quite scary though.

I don't know if there is a sex angle between McCain and Vicki, but you don't have to be romantically involved with someone to grant favors. After all, I don't think most of the corruption that goes on in Washington these days involve sex. Most of the players were (are men) and I don't think they had sex with each other. Oh, I take that back… those meetings were really veritable political orgies conducted for mutual satisfaction.

But being serious again, the difference between Clinton and McCain (if there is a story with McCain) is the possible McCain/Vicki corruption aspect (and appearance of impropriety at the least).

I'm not excusing Clinton, either. But the Republicans did spend huge sums of money going after him and they diverted the nation's attention away from more important matters, such as the running of the government and protecting us.

I don't know if there is a sex angle between McCain and Vicki, but you don't have to be romantically involved with someone to grant favors. After all, I don't think most of the corruption that goes on in Washington these days involve sex. Most of the players were (are men) and I don't think they had sex with each other. Oh, I take that back… those meetings were really veritable political orgies conducted for mutual satisfaction.

But being serious again, the difference between Clinton and McCain (if there is a story with McCain) is the possible McCain/Vicki corruption aspect (and appearance of impropriety at the least).

I'm not excusing Clinton, either. But the Republicans did spend huge sums of money going after him and they diverted the nation's attention away from more important matters, such as the running of the government and protecting us.

The media leans towards an angle in a given story based on how much they think it will “sell” that story to their intended audience. Today's audiences pay more attention to scandals of romance than they do of political corruption. Add the two together, though, and it makes it easier for them to remember both.

Perhaps it's not quite yellow journalism; it's not pure white journalism either. Maybe, it's more of an antique white. It's been around for a while .

The media leans towards an angle in a given story based on how much they think it will “sell” that story to their intended audience. Today's audiences pay more attention to scandals of romance than they do of political corruption. Add the two together, though, and it makes it easier for them to remember both.

Perhaps it's not quite yellow journalism; it's not pure white journalism either. Maybe, it's more of an antique white. It's been around for a while .

The argument put forth during the Clinton sex scandal(s) was that sexual scandals are soooo passe and American, and say nothing about whether a person is fit to govern. We were told to be so much more like the French about such things, oui?

So, please tell me how this is not a double standard? Actually, I think if he DID do something, it DOES say something about his character and fitness, just as I thought it did for Clinton. Maybe that is just me

Blow-jobs and cigars shoved up the twat of a young intern by the sitting President in the Oval Office are a-ok (when it is a Democrat), but we are now supposed to get our knickers twisted in a tizzy over an 'appearance of impropriety' by a Republican candidate?

Move along you looky-loos. No double standards to see here.

Should the story be discussed at this point in the campaign? Of course. Deciding on a candidate, one should know how they've conducted their previous years in public office. I'd be just as interested in articles regarding Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton were they offered.

Unfortunately, media that cover negative (or “unwise”) points in a politician's career become labelled as biased, while the politician starts defending against the audaciousness of the source's hidden intent rather than the facts discussed.