Mirror, mirror, on the wall.....<P>The following is quoted from the Washington Post front page story today, August 25, 2001, about the reaction to Congressman Condit's TV interview in which is tried to "set the record straight" regarding his involvement in the disappearance of Chandra Levy. He wanted us to be "fair and impartial."<P>"Joanne Tittle, a close friend of the Levys' who lives two doors down from the family, watched the televised interview with much dismay. ‘I was yelling "liar" at the television. He's saying Chandra's a liar, Linda's a liar, Sue's a liar - and he's not?' Tittle said, naming the intern's aunt and mother, respectively. ‘Unbelievable. How can he go on national television and lie like that? It's scary. It's appalling.'"<P>We understand exactly how he can do it, don't we?<P>You see, he and other WSs deep in denial have painted over all the mirrors in their lives. He will not examine himself or think about his words or actions critically before he takes them. He has formed a habit of not being self critical like normal people do all the time (those not involved in habitual denials), keeping one eye on our handy mirrors. Well, most normal people. That's why he leaves himself so open for criticism; for others to hold up a mirror - it's sooooo easy for others because he's not doing it himself before he speaks or acts.<P>Understand?<P>That's why he can go on national television and lie like that, seemingly oblivious to his absurdity. His critics have a stack of mirrors they can hold up at any moment, and he leaves himself soooooo vulnerable anytime he opens his mouth. The media and his critics don't care if they "love bust" and hold up the mirrors.<P>How often do our WSs act like this? Everyday, right?<P>They fail to see their hypocrisy and ridiculous lies because they won't look in their mirrors first. It's sooooo easy and tempting for us to hold up one of ours - to ask the obvious questions when our WSs say "scary and appalling" things.<P>But doing this is a big no-no in Plan A and B because it makes WSs sooooo uncomfortable to have a mirror held up in front of them. It ends up being a HUGE lovebuster if we cannot resist the temptation. It's so easy to do and I had to bite my tongue soooooo many times over the past year to avoid doing it. WSs leave themselves so open and vulnerable to the obvious questions. Scary, huh, the power of a mirror? <P>It's soooooo easy to turn around their words, but we have to try with all our might not to do it. I failed at this miserably recently.<P>My wife criticized me up one side and down the other for having a "phone" counselor - how "it's a standard of care to see counselors eye to eye." She strongly recommended I get a "real" counselor, "for <son's> sake." <P>Well, her adamant refusal over the past year to participate in ANY counseling with me got the better of me. I simply reminded her of the eye to eye counseling she rejected with me and asked her if she's getting ANY counseling, "for <son's> sake." A pretty "fair" question, don't you think? <P>See yourself in this mirror, hon? Will you please be fair?<P>But people in her and Condit's frame of mind can't handle that. She reacted with anger and threats. A HUGE lovebuster. That's why it's a no no in the MB principles. We can mock Condit, but we can't use our mirrors on our spouses because it'll drive them away. They don't want to look into the mirror.<P>Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the "fairest" of us all?<P>WAT

I found it really interesting that before his talk they were speculating on what he would say and what he needed to say to have people forgive him and move on. They said he should admit he was wrong, appologize to his wife and family, show remorse..... all the things we would like to see in our WS.<P>Yet I was thinking at the time.. no way will he do that. And I see I was right, he could not admit to any wrongdoing, even tho I am sure he had advisors who surely pointed out to him what was needed. <BR>Lora

Yeah, there is some truth there, but maybe is more a subset of the truth about denial, not looking into mirrors seems to define denial, no matter who is doing the denying. All ws, whether knowingly or not (and I knew, the curse of being an analytical ws I guess, we keep at least peeking at the mirror), "feel" we are traveling a path in opposition to the unwritten code of our "tribe" (or is that troop?), and that there will be a reckoning. But the forces driving that "quest" are powerful, and beyond concious control. (and no, I am not saying one cannot stop an A). Further (waxing philosophic), the forces that drive some to go against the mores and standards, and expectations (in general) of their tribe are why we still exist as a species. Sometimes those actions are absolutely essential, and other times destructive, just 2 sides of the same coin. The trick is in understanding enough to choose wisely, not out of blind obedience to a code, but out of enlightened understanding of the principles.

Lora, why does this man need "people" to forgive him? <BR>If he wasn't a political figure would his dirty laundry still be aired in the press? Do we hold our politcal figures to a higher moral standard then the general puplic?<BR>The disappearance of this lady is tragic, no doubt but his relationship with her, as Bill's with Monica, is between husband,wife and OW and shouldn't be public entertainment so we can all sit around and judge the man personally and make that our basis for his job skills. I don't feel this man owes me any apologies, nor my forgiveness, nor do I expect him to apologize publicly to his wife so I can sleep better at night.<P>I think alot of people in the middle of an affair don't really believe that it is so totally wrong. It must feel right in some way or theyw ouldn't be in that situation to begin with. After the affair is found out I think the only reason they feel guilty is the fact that they got caught, not always because they feel what they did was wrong. So, how does one admit to being wrong when they don't necessarily feel wrong?

hi Shedowg,<P>im really not that political, but I guess he doesnt need people to forgive him as much as he needs poeple to vote for him! And in order to do that most poeple need to have a little respect for him and feel like he has some integrety. Yes, they proabaly do hold politcians to a higher standard, or at least expect them to be savy enough to not get caught when they have to know being in the public eye means they are having their every move scrutinized. <BR>Lora

Many of you miss the bigger picture here. <P>The Condit situation like the other high profile indescretions in our political body shows us how easy it is for these people to put aside all their morals in order to pursue sexual gratification. <P>Makes one wonder how easy is it for them to put aside annoying constitutional issues so that they have more of our wealth to play with.<P>If their own spouses can’t trust them why should we? How many more elected officials are having affairs right now that are placing this country in serious jeopardy of security and blackmail risks?<P>If you want a private life do not go into public service. Leave the job of holding the public trust to those who can really keep it.<P>Just my 2 cents...<BR>

Interesting.<P>I think we should be allowed to hold them (politicians) to at least the SAME level of integrity we have for our friends, coworkers and spouses. <P>I don't buy the reasoning that says "I can have integrity in my PUBLIC office but I don't need to have integrity in my PRIVATE life". <P>We have many examples on this board showing how infidelity in marriage seems to lead to a suspension of rational behavior in many other areas of life as well.<P>I also don't think that we have to assume they (politicians) have integrity without proof. They have to EARN my trust and respect. This requires a high level of openess which, is enhanced by the presence of the press (whether we like it or not). <P>--Jeffers

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by worthatry:<BR><B>Mirror, mirror, on the wall.....<P>You see, he and other WSs deep in denial have painted over all the mirrors in their lives. He will not examine himself or think about his words or actions critically before he takes them. He has formed a habit of not being self critical like normal people do all the time (those not involved in habitual denials), keeping one eye on our handy mirrors. </B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P><BR>Very astute observation, WAT! I think you hit the nail on the head. Of course everyone sat there with thier mouths dropped in disbelief as he made his statements and I think you are right, that he is so far away from honest and accurate self scrutinization that it never occurred to him that most normal, thinking people wouldn't buy his "story."<P>You also stated that most WS's are the same way. Do you think that is a temporary thing, only brought on by a lifestyle that they know is wrong? Or do you think it is a character [I use the term loosely] trait? <P>My husband was not like this. At first he did make preposterous excuses but that game plan quickly caved when he saw me packing and he became his normal "honest" self. [and showed great remorse for what he had done] For me, I couldn't love a person who had this kind of dishonest personality because I couldn't respect or trust them. If I discovered that they were like that, I would not continue the marriage. If I thought it was a personality trait, I couldn't stay becsuse I know I would never be safe with such a person. Do you think it is usually a temporary thing or a personality trait?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jeffers:<BR><B>Interesting.<P>I think we should be allowed to hold them (politicians) to at least the SAME level of integrity we have for our friends, coworkers and spouses. <P>I don't buy the reasoning that says "I can have integrity in my PUBLIC office but I don't need to have integrity in my PRIVATE life". <P>We have many examples on this board showing how infidelity in marriage seems to lead to a suspension of rational behavior in many other areas of life as well.<P>I also don't think that we have to assume they (politicians) have integrity without proof. They have to EARN my trust and respect. This requires a high level of openess which, is enhanced by the presence of the press (whether we like it or not). <P>--Jeffers</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think that politicians should be held to a HIGHER level of accountability than civilians because they are entrusted with a much greater level of responsibilty and power. They hold the power to cause great harm to our country and our citizens. <P>Congresspersons, for example, have access to top secret information and have the capacity to cause much greater harm to our country than the average Joe Blow who fools around on his wife. The Russians and Chinese aren't trying to blackmail Joe Blow but they sure do try to blackmail our elected officials. A person who doesn't have the self control to control his sexual urges probably doesn't have the self control or character to resist trading US secrets for cash.<P>And I agree with you that it's impossible to be dishonest in your private life and "honest" in your professional life. One does not develop character on the way to work in the morning! And if someone will betray someone they LOVE [thier own family!] then common sense tells me they will CERTAINLY betray someone they don't love, ie the electorate. So I think that people really need to use some intelligence and scrutinize these people who we hand an enormous amount of power. As we have seen with the Clinton debacle, character DOES count!<BR>

I think this whole Condit/Levy circus and the side show of our marriages comes down to two basic issues- trust and character. <P>We elect these people and choose our spouses, partly, because we trust their character. We trust that when the situation/temptation arises they will choose to do the right thing, whether anyone is looking or not- to vote or listen to their conscience. After all isn’t that the true measure of one’s character- what would you be willing to do if you knew, with absolute certainty, that no one else would ever know what it was you did? No praise and admiration for making the right decision - no consequences or retribution for choosing the wrong path.<P>What I find laughable and absurd about most career politicians ,in general, is that they have clawed and scratched to be in the spotlight for so long – always seeking it out in the media, at campaign rallies, and when they return to their district and then cry foul when the light is too bright and revealing. They choose to thrust themselves onto the stage because they crave the attention, adoration, and power bestowed upon them by their constituents. They become so intoxicated by the power, the privilege and the false sense of superiority that they begin to feel entitled to “extra” rights, bestowed upon them by virtue of their position, above and beyond that of the ordinary citizen. <P>Invariably, they fail or break a promise at some point – each and every one of us does at some time in our life. The truth comes out about a public or private indiscretion. Where they ultimately fail is that they don’t step forward and take their lumps and accept responsibility for their actions. They hide behind their handlers and PR experts. They don’t disclose the whole truth or twist it around so it becomes the fault of the media or some “vast right wing conspiracy” (ring a bell?) Then on top of it all they stand behind those they have betrayed and allow them to make excuses for and defend them. They lie, they cover-up and they justify all in the name of privacy and the greater good (usually a selfish reason)– but in reality they just want to cling to the power and climb further in their quest for more!<P>Are the people of this country owed an apology? You’re damned right they are!<P>Would coming forth, publicly, with the truth and taking responsibility for his actions go a long way toward helping heal the wounds inflicted – ask the Levy’s or Mrs. Condit? Would some demonstration of genuine repentance help to decrease the level of national cynicism and distrust of public officials?<P>Sadly, gone are the days of statesmen, honor, duty, and the desire to do the right thing- no matter the consequences. <BR> <BR>Regrettably we have all lost sight of this, to some degree, in our elected officials, our heroes, our spouses, and ourselves. <P>We all should clean off our own mirrors and change what we do not like in the reflection.<BR>

Why do we sound like we're quicker to forgive our spouse then we are a man who's a politician? Isn't that a tad hypocritical?<BR>All cheating spouses lie until they're caught redhanded or until they're ready to tell the truth. I just don't see him being any different.

First things first: I didn't see the interview.<P>However, isn't it possible that his wife and children asked him not to publicly reveal the true "ins and outs" of his relationship with this young woman? Couldn't it be possible that he was respecting his family's wishes?<P>Sounds plausible to me.<P>If my H had been a public figure and was "up against" such scrutiny, I wouldn't want him airing his "dirty laundry" on public television.<P>However, I WOULD want him to respect my wishes, and the children's, and defer all personal questions regarding the extent of their relationship.<P>------------------<BR>I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. <P>The Bible<BR>Matthew 17:20

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by shedawg:<BR><B>Why do we sound like we're quicker to forgive our spouse then we are a man who's a politician? Isn't that a tad hypocritical?<BR>All cheating spouses lie until they're caught redhanded or until they're ready to tell the truth. I just don't see him being any different.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>If Condit ever asked for my forgiveness [which he hasn't] and changed his lyin' ways [which he hasn't], I surely would forgive him. However, that does not mean he is fit for office - he's not. If a bankrobber robs a bank and says he's sorry and asks for forgiveness, you forgive him but you don't give him the keys to the bank or let him out of jail!<P>With a politician, it's a completely different issue than with a spouse. With a public official it's about his fitness for office, and someone who has no integrity is simply not fit for a position of great trust and power. It becomes a BUSINESS ISSUE, rather than a personal issue as it is with a spouse. As the electorate, it's our civic duty to make sure we hand over this vast power to people who are worthy of that responsibility. <P>Especially after the last century, we need to use some intelligence and due diligence in choosing to whom we assign great power - recall that HITLER, the cause of WWII, was elected by popular vote.....

Nicely done, WAT!<P>Godspeed,<BR>STL

I think if you were too look back on the history of politics you are sure to find some great leaders who were less than honorable when it came to fidelity. Wasn't it George Washington that fathered many children out of wedlock or was that Lincoln? JFK, talk about a womanizer. But look at the pedastals these men havae been put on.<BR>Hitler on the other hand was a very faithful to his mistress, they were together for years. I think they got married. Go figure!<p>[This message has been edited by shedawg (edited August 26, 2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by shedawg:<BR><B>I think if you were too look back on the history of politics you are sure to find some great leaders who were less than honorable when it came to fidelity. Wasn't it George Washington that fathered many children out of wedlock or was that Lincoln? JFK, talk about a womanizer. But look at the pedastals these men havae been put on.<BR>Hitler on the other hand was a very faithful husband to his wife. Go figure!</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I think if you look back in history, if it were KNOWN that JFK were a womanizer, he would have been ridden out of town on a rail - and rightfully so. Americans didn't know. Had they known he was like that, they could have been forewarned because he was a terrible president who almost dragged us into a world war and had an affair with a German spy! And George Washington didn't father out of wedlock children. <P>Even so, the premise that 'since everybody does it, it must be ok' simply doesn't work - it is no defense and doesn't make your case. It stands or falls on it's own merits, not whether or not 'everybody else did it.' Wrong is wrong. <P><BR>

OK, color me stupid. It wasn't Washington. Martha's children were from a previous marriage. <BR>Ben Franklin!! That's the name I was looking for. He had numerous illigitamite children.<BR>In 1992, Clintons affair with Jennifer Flowers was a big deal but he still managed to get elected, so his affair wasn't a major priority or problem to the public.<P>I'm not saying it's right to have an affair regardless of what your occupation is. I jsut don't really believe that an affair stands in the way of you doing your job.<BR>

shedawg - my wife's affair certainly has stood in the way of me doing MY job - my son's Father and my wife's husband.

Shedawg,<P>It's not a matter of it "standing in the way" of doing your job, it's a matter of how ethically you execute your job.<P>If you tell yourself there's nothing wrong with breaking your sacred vows to your life's partner, and lie and sneak to accomplish that, what will stop you from making unethical decisions or using unethical behavior in your work place or your work environment?<P>I would offer this learned unethical behavior inevitably seeps into every facet of your life.<P>Jo<p>[This message has been edited by Resilient (edited August 26, 2001).]

If your marriage can stand in the way of you doing a good jjob then your job can stand in the way of you having a good marriage.<BR>I believe that you can seperate the two. You don't bring your work problems home with you and pick a fight with your spouse and you don't take your family problems to work with you and become unproductive.<BR>I was always able to keep the two worlds seperated, as should be, atleast in my mind.<BR>Maybe I'm just able to detach easier than most when need be.