You may have meant to say “moral failings of adultery” but that isn’t what you said.

Re-read what you wrote… slowly.

12thman on March 18, 2008 at 10:23 AM

Ah, yes. I now understand your point of view. Forgive me for me not being more clear. Seeing that the topic of this thread as posted by Ed is about the infidelity of the two, I mistakenly thought that my comment would be clear – especially since it’s the only moral failure that the two in question have admitted to. My mistake. My apologies.

However, you will be pleased to note that I have learned a valuable lesson: When posting comments, always strive to be concise and clear so that the meaning can be easily comprehended. In addition, clarity in writing removes any wiggle room for those with the propensity to “read between the lines” in order to further their own agenda.

Thank you for a lesson well taught. And feel free to infer whatever you wish from the above.

But just who is getting f’ed? The taxpayer.

I cannot believe some of the smug self-righteousness here…
Then ye sinless, have at ‘em.

Veritas on March 18, 2008 at 1:05 PM

With all due respect, am truly sorry that either I and others are apparently not making ourselves clear enough about, or you can’t tell the difference between (not sure which) a) evaluating the expected honesty level of a public servant entrusted with a lot of powerand b) smugly claiming sinlessness. No one here’s done the latter. Don’t know how to make it any clearer, sorry.

I propose now that every official from President to notary public be compelled by law to submit a complete life resume, with all peccadilloes conveniently coded in chronological order and gradient color by severity. Before lunch today, preferably.

Then ye sinless, have at ‘em.

But. I don’t ask people to trust me if I’ve broken serious promises in the past, especially if I didn’t own up to it before I absolutely had to. Because I’ve proven by my behavior that when the going gets tough, or when the stress gets high, or when the chips are down, I don’t keep my word. We’re all sinners. But actions have consequences, among them how people perceive you from then on. This isn’t throwing stones. It’s the natural laws of human behavior.

inviolet on March 18, 2008 at 12:33 PM

I agree. And your comment ties in well with somethings I read written last week by Thomas Sowell about Spitzer. I think they apply here as well:

In this age, when it is considered the height of sophistication to be “non-judgmental,” one of the corollaries is that “personal” failings have no relevance to the performance of official duties.

What that amounts to, ultimately, is that character doesn’t matter. In reality, character matters enormously, more so than most things that can be seen, measured or documented.

Character is what we have to depend on when we entrust power over ourselves, our children and our society to government officials.

Any couple who can weather the worst of storms within a marriage to make a stronger bond than there was before should be praised for it, not condemned, as some people who apparently seem to be “without sin” and too eager to cast the first stone around here seem to think.

newton on March 18, 2008 at 12:25 PM

Ah, the Prince of Tides method of marriage-strengthening (see last 5 minutes of movie). That’s always admirable.

Look, no one around here’s claiming to be without sin. Am sure I sin as much as the next person and am sure everyone else here complaining about these guys knows they’re a sinner too.

But. I don’t ask people to trust me if I’ve broken serious promises in the past, especially if I didn’t own up to it before I absolutely had to. Because I’ve proven by my behavior that when the going gets tough, or when the stress gets high, or when the chips are down, I don’t keep my word. We’re all sinners. But actions have consequences, among them how people perceive you from then on. This isn’t throwing stones. It’s the natural laws of human behavior.

Ronald Reagan to a vow to stay married to his first wife for life, I guess he broke that vow and thus was unfit to be governor or president too.

rbj on March 18, 2008 at 9:43 AM

As a matter of fact, Jane Wyman kicked him out! The time after she did that to him was the loneliest Reagan ever was, according to his biography.

As for Patterson, I am glad he has been honest regarding his own marital troubles. It is good to see that he and his wife worked their problems out successfully and that their marriage is stronger as a result. That’s admirable. Good for them!

Any couple who can weather the worst of storms within a marriage to make a stronger bond than there was before should be praised for it, not condemned, as some people who apparently seem to be “without sin” and too eager to cast the first stone around here seem to think.

Is it too much to ask for our politicians to keep it zipped up, or the dress down?

hehe

“uhm… ok. You’re not talking to anyone here, as far as I can tell.”

I couldn’t agree with you more.

This is a very different comment community than the one that used to grace Captain’s Quarters.

It took me a while to figure that out.

You guys seem to have a good thing going for you here, and I wish you all the best.

Later.

But it is certainly one more reason I’d rather not vote for him. If McCain had a (D) next to his name he wouldn’t even be on my short list. Mitt really was our best hope.

12thman on March 18, 2008 at 10:26 AM

That about sums it up for me too. My mixed feelings about McCain just got a lot less mixed.

inviolet on March 18, 2008 at 10:21 AM

Ok, I want to make sure I undersand your view here. I don’t think it makes McCain unfit either. But it is certainly one more reason I’d rather not vote for him.

If McCain had a (D) next to his name he wouldn’t even be on my short list. Mitt really was our best hope.

What you wrote is still here in black and white.

Exactly. And especially when you share the same moral failings that caused the man your replacing to resign.

Rod on March 18, 2008 at 8:43 AM

You may have meant to say “moral failings of adultery” but that isn’t what you said.

Re-read what you wrote… slowly.

No problem. So, now that you know… Does this make him unfit for office?

12thman on March 18, 2008 at 9:57 AM

I wouldn’t go that far (with Paterson or Spitzer et al either, BTW), but I sure won’t put my trust in the promises he makes. Simple as that.

Glad I voted for Romney in the primary (many reasons, Romney seemed better to me, but McCain’s temper was one of them). McCain’s looking more than ever like the lesser of two evils (Obama and Hillary are untrustworthy also, but for other reasons). :(

I didn’t infer a single thing about your opinion. I read what you said and refute it.

12thman on March 18, 2008 at 9:52 AM

Read along, put all thoughts from your mind other that what you see right here before you:

Patterson and Spitzer share the same moral failings of adultery.

Now stop right there. Nothing more. I’ve only given my opinion on adultery – nothing more or less. All the rest you have inferred. If you still feel the need to refute the above statement, the re-read the definition of adultery … slowly.

inviolet on March 18, 2008 at 9:47 AM

No problem. So, now that you know… Does this make him unfit for office?