Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

No news I'd heard about this made any sense to me either until I read this NYT editorial

http://nytimes.com/2004/08/13/opinion/13fri1.html?hp

This person deserves the disgust and oprobrium he is sure to receive especially after pulling the stunt he did today whereby he meant to portray himself as the victim. He is a scoundrel

If he recognizes himself as an adulterer, he has the moral obligation to resign, because he has proven to be a liar who doesn't do what he promises.

Marriage is a contract. If you think that public political figures who brake contracts should remain on their positions, I would doubt on your moral values.

It's all about definition, aint it? Like when the calendar was redifined by Julian, causing massive riots. Reality did not change, only the definition did. C'mon, marriage isn't even popular anymore to the non-conformists. Ever since the 60's, we've come to believe in "doing our own thing" anyway. If all the rights and privileges, duties and obligations, are the same for a civil union and a marriage, what difference does it really make that they be named the same? Napolean complex here, have we? Grass is greener? Pulling a political weener? The seeds won't grow if you plant 'em on the carpet.

If people really wish to care about something, rather than obsessing over their after hours sex titles, how about the fact that it is becoming a fluidly acceptable scenerio to even consider the case that the coming presidential election might be held without a possibility of a paper trail recount! How in a democracy--THE democracy!

Adultery doesn't come with a moral obligation to resign one's position as an elected official. There's a difference between personal indiscretion and how one actually performs one's duties. It exasperates me that My Fellow Americans seem, by and large, more outraged over adulterous blow jobs than they do about starting wars under false pretenses.

Besides, if everyone guilty of adultery was run out of the capitol the place would be a freakin' ghost town overnight. Get real. You think powerful (and usually rich) men (and women?) like representatives and Senators don't have ample opportunity to fool around? Grow up! I'm here to tell you that the incidence of them doing it is almost certainly greater than your average regular joe.

Popular or not, marriage is an actual legal figure. Why should people sign a contract they know they will break?

The article we are commenting and most of the posts behind it are examples or moral relativism: if all people do disobey law, why should I? Believe me if I tell you that doing just what others do is not always the best choice.

I can foresee how one day I'll read something like "Murder doesn't come with a moral obligation to resign one's position as an elected official", this is the moral relativism I'm speaking about. Yesterday it was "lies", today it is "adultery", tomorrow it will be murder or violation.

Ancient civilizations (the ones who gave us all what we have today) were governed by the eldest members, the ones who had more experience and wisdom. You tell (like it was normal) that the people governing the country not only lie, they also do it with the approval of their nation. Having the right to choose, I would never elect a person who is a proven liar.

I know how reality is. I know how our political class is. The difference is that I do not justify their behavior (as good or acceptable) just because the majority of them make the same errors. We are in the right position to expect our leaders to be exceptional. Having mediocre leaders doesn't promise our children a brilliant future.

I think that we, the electorate (average regular joes) are guilty for allowing our capitol to be full of people who are not able to keep their promises, not even at home with their "loved" ones.

Gik, find me a great US leader who did not break a contract. You are setting the bar too high, IMO. Humans are fallible. That's why we have this thing called forgiveness. And, it's also why we have elections: If you think that adultery makes a person unfit to hold office, then by all means don't vote for that person.

What I find most difficult to understand is McGreevey's cavalier, oblivious attitude, his seemingly impetuous nature, his utter lack of discretion in the moronic, brazen way he
lavished such politically sensitive, high-profile perks and favors on this guy without being the least bit concerned about how it appeared or the ugly perceptions it might create.

I agree with Mr. Wienberger, why should someone resign just because he's gay or they commit adultry, Clinton didn't and he defamated the white house in the process(which in itself is in very poor taste). McGreevey is covering up something much larger. If he resigned just because he's gay, then he perpectuates a stereotype that gay's are not fit for office or any other political standing(s). I say shame on him for resigning, and for commiting adultry. Whether you're gay or straight, adultry is just wrong. You married someone for life. Keep it sacred, whoever you marry, but to look upon your electees and assume that we won't understand that you are human and make mistakes, we all do, every single one of us has made mistakes in the past and learn from them, let's hope that we as a society learn from Mr. McGreevey's errors and stop letting politics control our personal/sexual lives.