A test of moral consistency

OK, here’s a test: assume a male public official has sexual relations with a woman who works in his office. He then lies about it in order to keep this job, and cuts off the affair. No charges are filed. Is the Democratic Party response to this event: A) circle the wagons to protect the … Continue reading “A test of moral consistency”

OK, here’s a test: assume a male public official has sexual relations with a woman who works in his office. He then lies about it in order to keep this job, and cuts off the affair. No charges are filed.

Is the Democratic Party response to this event: A) circle the wagons to protect the man from his politicial enemies, going so far as to create entire organizations dedicated to smothering the scandal; or B) run him out of office?

It turns out the answer to this puzzle is highly situational and finely nuanced. This is what we call hypocrisy where I was raised.

6 thoughts on “A test of moral consistency”

  1. Let’s put the shoe on the other foot: Republicans howled moral indignation over Bill Clinton’s inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky, and where is their assent at the spectacle of a man who purports to be an officer of the court who files false affidavits AND has inappropriate relationships at work?

    Oh, I forgot- it’s OK for Republicans to lie, and for their officers of the court to subborn perjury, as Ken Starr appears to have done.

  2. The only issue I ever had with Clinton’s sexual adventures in the White House was the inconsistency between his lying under oath about them and the law he signed, with great fanfare, making such investigations legitimate in sexual harassment cases.

    I have a thing for consistency, you see. As far as I can tell, nobody charged French with sexual harrassment, and he didn’t lie under oath. See the difference? French’s was a lesser offense.

    The larger issue here, of course, is Democrats hounding a whistle-blower out of a job because he had the nerve to speak up against their empty suit candidate.

  3. French filed, what we know from a preponderance of the evidence, a false affidavit- which is a crime in some places.

    It’s certainly grounds for disbarrment.

    To call French a “whistle blower” is to abuse those who truly put their careers on the line for the truth.

  4. Turns out the affadavit was true: Kerry is a lying scumbag, and we all know that. But French wasn’t suspended for the affadavit, but for having sexual relations with that woman. You of all people should be protesting that.

  5. We can’t let these whistle-blowers go around exercising their First Amendment rights, can we? No telling where that would lead.

Comments are closed.