I’m tired of being “tolerant” of screw ups. This guy is going to be Sect of the Navy, not chairman of the Garden Committee. I have a hard time believing that they can’t find someone else who is qualified.

NoDonkey on March 31, 2009 at 4:42 PM

I’ll laugh and laugh when life doesn’t work out the way you planned it, and you find yourself hiring a divorce lawyer. Or presented with papers. With your obvious tolerance of others’ shortcomings, I’m surprised you haven’t already had it happen to you.

You know, I’m as opposed to Ogabe as anyone else, but you know how many Americans you’re going to win over with your above line of reasoning? Maybe in the double digits. Get over yourself and your moral high-handedness. Divorces happen.

Oh, I agree. Most Americans agree with you. And look where that’s gotten us.

We used to have standards and we used to believe in things, but that all went out the window during the fabulous 60′s.

Since then, we’re all Oprah-ized and we all understand when we all screw up our jobs, our lives and our country.

You’re exactly right, what we need is more and more tolerance.

Tolerance equals voting by the millions for an affirmative action, unqualified neo-Marxist dope of a “president” who had more red flags in front of his candidacy than you could shake a stick at. But hey, he’s black and makes pretty speeches so what could possibly go wrong?

I’m tired of being “tolerant” of screw ups. This guy is going to be Sect of the Navy, not chairman of the Garden Committee. I have a hard time believing that they can’t find someone else who is qualified.

But that’s what we get when we say character doesn’t matter. If a person can be trusted with little things, s/he can be trusted with bigger things. If the man is willing to sacrifice the presumed confidentialty of a counselling session, one wonders what else the man is capable of sacrificing.

The guy brought his wife to their pastor under the guise of working things out and then taped her without her knowledge and used it against her.

O RLY?!

My ex wife forced me to go to counselling because she loved being free to berate me in front of someone who was forced to listen to her tirades for an hour–and me as a captive audience as well. Then we’d go home and she’d throw crap at the kids and hit me. I’d really like to get hold of whatever it is you’re smoking. It obviously makes you feel so very morally superior to everyone else who’s had family difficulties.

And if she’s such a horrid person, what’s it say about his judgment that he married her and chose her to bear his children?

NoDonkey on March 31, 2009 at 2:25 PM

You have GOT to be joking. My Dad married my Mom and they remained married for 30 years. They divorced after he found out she was doing some serious off the wall behavior. People change, or you find things out about your spouse that maybe even SHE didn’t know about herself at the time of marriage. You know, I’m as opposed to Ogabe as anyone else, but you know how many Americans you’re going to win over with your above line of reasoning? Maybe in the double digits. Get over yourself and your moral high-handedness. Divorces happen.

How about we just elect and appoint people who are above reproach, or at least shoot for that as a standard?

Exactly. This sort of “that’s why pencils have erasers” mentality is exactly why we’re in this mess.

Standards have continually slipped and we’ve cut so many corners we’ve got nothing left but circles.

ManUFan on March 31, 2009 at 2:41 PM

This isn’t about your divorce. We’re talking about the responsibilities of the clergy. This one isn’t even a grey area.

No wonder your ex left you.

Not only do people make erroneous judgments in their youth

How “youthful” was this guy if he was married and fathering children?

The Navy has 18 year old “youths” that sign enlistment contracts for five years, to work in the engineering plants on aircraft carriers. They sleep in bunks on ships, go on international deployments, etc.

When they screw up, the Navy can give them a dishonorable discharge and effectively ruin the remainder of their life.

Seems to me, we owe them a Secretary of the Navy who is a little more above reproach.

And if she’s such a horrid person, what’s it say about his judgment that he married her and chose her to bear his children?

NoDonkey on March 31, 2009 at 2:25 PM

Good point and, I would say, checkmate.

MB4 on March 31, 2009 at 2:28 PM

And I would say, look at your own post, the one just before the one I quoted. Not only do people make erroneous judgments in their youth, but people change, too.

Mabus was, obviously, in a tough position – and apparently not one of his own making (of course, you women won’t believe that, but there’s no report of it). So, the big question is what he did to protect himself and his family (see my previous posts).

Look, I’m no fan of Obama, and I really know nothing about Mabus except what’s been reported on this issue (doubt you do, either). If taping was legal, and he was protecting himself and his family (apparently McBride – a clergyman – agreed with him; oh wait, I forgot: he’s a male, so that doesn’t count), it’s moral in my book.

ManUFan on March 31, 2009 at 12:01 PM

I’m not a big fan of infidelity (or infidels). I personally don’t think cheaters deserve families, but that was for the court and the couple to work out. My issue is that the wife was told it was a counseling session to work out their issues and try to save the marriage. It would seem an appropriate and safe place to discuss feelings, even very hostile ones. The priest knew and advance and help set her up. Regardless of her sins, the priest should not have betrayed her that way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/30/us/woman-sues-priest-over-secret-tape-recording-used-in-custody-battle.html?n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FS%2FSuits%20and%20Litigation

As for his tactics being useful, I expect the libs to make full use of his slimy tricks. Now that the war on terror is over, the Dems can focus their anger on their real problem; religion and family.

And if she’s such a horrid person, what’s it say about his judgment that he married her and chose her to bear his children?

NoDonkey on March 31, 2009 at 2:25 PM

Good point and, I would say, checkmate.

There has been no report – anywhere – that Mabus did anything but tape a conversation; perfectly legal.

So it was legal. Was it moral?

Why is everything suddenly about what’s “legal”? There is a lot of things that are legal that are not moral or ethical and I would say taping a private marriage counseling session is one of them.

And if she’s such a horrid person, what’s it say about his judgement that he married her and chose her to bear his children?

Not a lot. This isn’t a position as a mid-level bureaucrat, this is the Secretary of the Navy. The bar should be higher and this guy should be disqualified.

Apparently the disclosure forms only include direct questions to which a yes or no answer is appropriate.

Clearly Obama’s vetting team have either demonstrated a total failure of imagination to consider the full breadth and depth of potential misdeeds this pool of candidates is capable or never thought to simply include an empty box with the following:

Is there anything else, anything at all that you might want to tell us that could possibly be a problem going forward?

This could be a good match.

Don’t we need somebody in this positions that is NOT honorable? Somebody who we KNOW is a sneaky jerk?

Someone who goes into a house of God and backstabs the mother of his children.

WE NEED JERKS like this in power.

originalpechanga on March 31, 2009 at 1:44 PM

There has been no report – anywhere – that Mabus did anything but tape a conversation; perfectly legal. I think you need to take another look at who backstabbed whom.

Not only did the “mother of his children” have an affair, but she was willing to go into a “House of God” and tell the father how much she hated someone she had earlier chosen to marry. And if Mabus was taping it (and McBride was agreeing to it), chances are it wasn’t the first – or only – thing she had said outside the confines of the couple. Who knows what else she was saying behind Mabus’s back.

But I think we know where you’re coming from, don’t we? The man (the father, incidentally, of her children) is always at fault – no matter the plain evidence smack dab in front of your nose.

Being moral and ethical is a “non-issue?” What have you been smoking this morning, Ed?

JoeySlippers on March 31, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Virgina Obama Slims.

Don’t we need somebody in this positions that is NOT honorable? Somebody who we KNOW is a sneaky jerk?

Someone who goes into a house of God and backstabs the mother of his children.

WE NEED JERKS like this in power.

Unless something else arises that shows Mabus engaged in illegal or corrupt conduct, that’s the right decision.

How far the bar has been lowered.

It didn’t break the law, and it didn’t have anything to do with Mabus’ conduct on the job. That makes it, in my mind, a non-issue.

Rather a small corner to paint oneself into as you just never know when you might not want to give a pass to a weasel’s weaselly activities.