It appears to me that you are missing the point. I was discussing this earlier today with a friend. Clinton, or the dems in general, have not set themselves up to be morally superior to others. As a matter of fact, if Clinton was to say anything I would expect it to be how in favor of certain....ummmm....personal practices he is.

The repubs on the other hand have a playbook that they've followed in recent history. In particular, they know that they can't talk to the public about values in terms that you and I can relate to. Repubs typically vote against increases in school funds, making insurance more available,...etc. Things that actually affect the pocketbook of the majority of Americans.

But they figured out what they can talk about. Thru the efforts of people like karl rove and the guy who worked for Reagan, I believe, political research showed that a couple hot buttons with a large segment of the public involve homosexuality and abortion. So they have convinced, if this is still the case I don't know, this segment that values can be defined in terms of homosexuality and abortion. That's it. Helping the poor, or others in general for that matter, doesn't matter (Unless of course it's some poor company that made some very bad business decisions. They can be bailed out).

So weather they believe in homosexuality or not doesn't matter one iota. The important part is the mantra that homosexuality is evil. And homosexuals have helped to put us all on the path to destuction.


>But Clinton didn't win election and vote regularly against extra-marital or oral sex. Craig has been a vociferous opponent of gay rights.
>
>No, Clinton coerced others to lie. We can debate on which is worse, but in the realm of consistency, the president of the United States instructing/pushing people to lie is pretty low. (What disappointed me about Clinton was that I liked him).
>
>I'm not downplaying the issue with Craig - I am fed up with a Republican party that I've backed since I could vote, and this is one more example of a leader who apparently can't behave like a decent citizen, yet speaks with a certain amount of piety about morals.
>
>I'm sure I'm not along in wanting to take these political perverts, white collar crooks, and people like Michael Vick....put them in a room....grab them by their necks....and say, 'you're supposed to be semi-intelligent...is it THAT HARD TO BEHAVE???'
>
>What I'm saying is that I wonder how many people who are up in arms about Craig are aso the same people who felt that Clinton was the victim of a witch hunt. To me, you (the 'royal you') can't have it both ways.