Are the candidates's wives abreast of the job?

The bitchy claws are already out on the various GOP contenders' wives!
Here's an indirect link to all the fun... seems the subject didnt come up until some started looking at Fred's 'Trophy Wife'.

 

RE: Are the candidates

A unique lot of candidates they are. Had no idea that there was a craddle robber and so many divcorcees in the bunch.

Good laugh and nice post.

 

Good work if you can get it. Well done Fred and his trophy missus. She looks happy enough with the choice she made.

The only time it becomes an issue is if you preach one thing and practice another.

 

RE: Re: Are the candidates

How about John Kerry...he didn't marry a trophy wife, but he most assuredly financed his campaign with his marriage to Heinze. Not a bad financial or political move.

 

RE: Re: Are the candidates

I'm sure she is... think of it this way. His first could prolly handle Fred being a famous govmint Watergate counsel and LIyer... but evidently it was too much when he essentially started playing himself in those mo'om pitchers. Hanging around with Sissy Spacek and all.

After all these guys are just human... like anyone else. Sorta makes you cast jaundiced eyes on some that ARE still married.

Like Bill-ary, for example. But I think we all know the reasoning for THAT one. And that's okay with me.

I think the couple that are best conditioned to stay married are actually Al and Tipper Gore.

 

Re: RE: Re: Are the candidates

heh, I always wondered if she has a little something on the side...

 

RE: Re: RE: Re: Are the candidates

You just might be onto something there...

 

Re: RE: Re: Are the candidates

Do you think she was a bit of an easy squeeze?

 

RE: Re: RE: Re: Are the candidates

Haha, touche'.

Maybe she wasn't willing to pour herself out when they first met.

 

Money and power are very strong aphrodisiacs. I have spent my whole life waiting for the right supermodle (shhhh - don't tell the wife).

I know that there are many out there that take the moral high ground - but if a man (or lass) does not present themselves as anything other than who they are and then they are elected to office then I think you can judge them fairly and cannot berate them for stated actions. If you don't like their morals then don't elect them.

With regards to the soon to be speaker of the house, he looks and sounds like a callous s**t who is avoiding his responsibilies, this is not the same a staying with his wife.

 

My dear grandmother an enormo Republican took me to a big Republican fund raising dinner, hoping to properly influence me I suppose. I came away very impressed! Not by the speakers or the food of course but the wives of the many republican donors present. They weren't fake blond fake boobs types either but god fearing mid 20's Midwestern heart stop when they walk past knockouts :wow:

So yes, Republican have something about them in this area.

 

So...did the republican party gain your vote off the basis of their trophy wives?

 

ahhhh no, gonna take quite a bit more than that

 

Good to hear.

I'm leaning towards Obama right now, but that could change.

 

Europeans criticizing US for our vestiges of Victorian social morality?

That always made me laugh. They are the product of their own reaction to hypocrisy in response to which they decided to take 'the wider road, more traveled'.

It is no accident that the richest vein of English erotica occurred exactly as the 'free and easy' went underground in favor of proper public demeanor.

It's also no accident that some now equate criticism, public or private, from the church pulpit or through the media, with interference in their lives or undue 'hypocrisies'.

These now have become defensive to criticism from any group not their own, while paying tribute to 'humanism' which recognizes the same faults as the Christian Right does as just 'foibles'.

The difference is that 'morality' is a personal responsibility and reflects aims one should aspire to, not as an absolute judgement metric.

Pointing out those failures, as in Newt's case or Dole's for that matter, is well and good. A rounding of Clinton for oval office hijinks is fair game, as well, and will normally pass as part of political lore.

It's when the 'sinner' becomes defensive and goes to extraordinary lengths to justify and protect himself that he gets into trouble. How serious can you take it when the sinner claims "I did not have sex with that woman", then says fellatio "is not sex"!

We cant know what was happening in either Dole's private life or Newt's for that matter. But it seems to me disingenuous to point to those as gross character deficiencies when the respective spouse-victims have themselves remained quiet about it.

As a side note, it's interesting also that 'Christian morality' has become a 'demon' to be cast out, while the so-called 'minority religion', Islam is cast in a falsely positive light... even to the extent of Tony Blair calling it a Religion of Modernity'!

What crap. It is the religion of the inquisition, redux. And the liberal thinker somehow feels that if they just understand Islam, then Islam will understand them. Islamists DO understand them, and wont be content just to condemn them from the pulpit, they do and will have judgement and execution rights on the sinner.

I think it might have been better if the social progress of the US, with some exceptions such as Civil Rights, had stayed in the fifties paradigm.

We could all cluck at immorality and privately wink at ourselves. Which is really the way it's always been.

And, Don.... let him whose party is without sin cast the first stone... that leaves you out.

Point in fact: What congressman was censured for packing a page's fudge, turned his back while the public censure was read and THEN received a standing ovation from the his party.

 

Two politcians who obviously did not get the memo, George Bush sans the W. and John Edwards.

Not being mean, I just have fairly good vision.

 

You know THAT is a fair observation and if you published it in the NY Times would STILL be a fair observation and not 'mean' at all.

The point is that marriage, even among the successful, is at the least a matter of comfort and usually a partnership of understanding.

 

What CRAP, Don... You will go to ANY lengths in self justification!!!!!

I suppose Those bigots werent Dems, they were closet Repugnicans!

Civil rights act 1964.... Republican passed. Even the Dems in the border states demurred!

Rewrite history all you want it only makes me, who worked with midwest 'heart of the party Dems' see your position as untenable in the least.

It was not Ohio 'grass roots Republicans' I worked with in those factories either!!!!

soo NOW you nail it to 'States Righters' It WASNT the bigot States Righters that the GOP took to their platform... they always always believed in it, and it was the GOP president that saw that some things are NOT subject to states rights but to the Constitution when he mobilized the Guard in Little Rock.

heh....