Sounds so familiar that I thought it would be helpful to post this:<P><BR>The Family Man: Clinton's lies, and now Condit's, have nothing to do with their families. <P>National Review Online<P>Published: July 10, 2001 Author: Rich Lowry<P>After having an intern sneak in out of his apartment to do housecleaning and other duties, after carrying on with a flight attendant, after what no doubt were many other similar "romantic" (perhaps the most misused word in Condit coverage) relationships, Rep. Gary Condit has made a decision: He's a family man. <P>Condit's minions justify his silence as a way to protect his family. This, as the Clinton scandal demonstrated, is the most convenient lie for adulterous public officials — they only want to protect their families. But Clinton's lies, and now Condit's, have nothing to do with their families, and everything to do with what motivated them to have their affairs in the first place — their all-consuming selfishness. <P>Gary Condit is now a family man in the same way he has probably always been a family man, when it suited his libido, his convenience, and his career ambitions. One of the most disturbing aspects of this story is not necessarily Condit's reptilian sexual lifestyle — slimy and cold-blooded — but the willingness of the women involved to delude themselves about him. <P>Anne Marie Smith worried that he was to "two-timing" her. Two-timing! Smith needs to brush up on her math, because the married Condit was at least three-timing. And why would Smith be surprised? While sneaking around with her, was Condit supposed to magically acquire loyalty and decency? As for poor Chandra Levy, she wanted her relationship to be "monogamous" — a monogamous affair with a married man! <P>Condit at least seems to have been up-front about his intentions. According to published reports, he told women that as soon as they made demands on him he would dump them. Should we be surprised, given such an ethic of self-indulgence, that when the police made demands on Condit he could think of nothing but his own self-interest? <P>

Hey, Beautiful, let me ask you a question: If the party affiliation following Condit's name was (R) instead of (D), would you still be as outraged?<P>How do you feel about the extramarital antics of Newt Gingrich, who last August married his OW after ending marriage #2 to an OW who broke up his first marriage?<P>Or Rep. Henry Hyde, who led the House impeachment review involving Clinton, who was forced to admit to an extramarital affair with a woman in the 1960's at a time when BOTH OF THEM WERE MARRIED.<P>Or former House speaker-elect Bob Livingston, who, in his statement about his own extramarital affairs, said: "Because these were personal relationships, I have no intention or desire to reveal any specifics in order to avoid harm to others."<P>How do you feel about those guys? Do THEIR extramarital affairs have nothing to do with their families because they are Republicans?<P>Just checking.<P>That said, as the token liberal on these boards, let me say that I think Rep. Condit has handled this entire situation abominably. I think that in all likelihood, unless his wife was somehow OK with the situation, he has handled his personal life abominably. Much of Washington handles its personal lives abominably. Washington has long been home to men who crave and obtain power, and young women who are attracted to powerful men. This is nothing new. Read your American history; it's rife with these guys. The Founding Fathers were libertines, as we all well know.<P>Rich Lowry is absolutely right about Rep. Condit's behavior. He's a cad, and what the British would call a bounder and a rotter, no doubt about it. But last time I looked, being a cad was not illegal, nor was it something Condit, or any Democrat, had a patent on. (See also: Newt Gingrich presenting his first wife with divorce papers while she was recovering from breast cancer surgery).<P>Applying the Condit situation to this board and this site, let's talk about Chaundra Levy, this flight attendant, Monica Lewinsky, and all these otherwise smart girls who get involved with guys they not only know are married, but also are unlikely to want to destroy their careers by leaving their wives for some cupcake. What is wrong with these women, anyway? Now we're hearing that this otherwise smart girl was deciding that she would wait five years for Condit to leave his wife. How idiotic can you get?<P>These girls are no different from the Other Women that regularly get blasted in this forum. Most of them must have pretty low self-esteem, that they think they are only worthy if they sleep with someone famous or powerful; or they can't handle the intimacy that you get with someone who's AVAILABLE.<P>Lowry is dead on right, that Levy must be an idiot to think she can have a "monogamous relationship" with a married man, as if the wife doesn't exist.<P>I'm sorry this girl is missing. I hope she is found OK, though obviously the more time that passes, the less likely it is that she is just laying low someplace watching the guy who may have jilted her twist in the wind (though that is still possible). If something has happened to her, I pray that Condit is not involved, just because I'm getting sick and tired of self-righteous people thinking that infidelity and sleazy behavior is the sole province of one particular party or another -- it's actually the province of everyone who thinks that fame, money, or power somehow makes you invincible.<P>I know that some people have to have a sex scandal around so that they can have a convenient "liberal" to hate, though actually, Condit votes with the Republicans more than he does with the Democrats. However, all you betrayed spouses out there, try not to salivate too much, for Condit has a wife that is probably just as miserable right now as you are -- and your lives aren't being played as entertainment in the press.

OK take a deep breath!! I didn't post this due to any party affiliation. Frankly I am sick of party affiliation and that thing called "bipartisonship."<P>But anyway, as a WS who engaged in my behavior during the height of the Clinton scandal I find it interesting that another high profile pol didn't get it. <P>Yikes, I associated with Clinton. Now that I am out of the fog I am sickened. <P>I hear that McCain also is a cad so my party affilitation really has nothing to do with why I posted this.<P>But anyway, <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. Thier own wifes cant trust them why should we, D OR R?<P>This is for any party. I think your laundryy list of cheating pols all are cads.<P>Let me ask you: D or R ? <P>How many more elected officials are having affairs right now that are placing this country in serious jeopardy of security and blackmail risks?<P>I say they all have to go. If one can easily compromise their morals for sexual gratification makes ya wonder when their is a pesky constitutional issue.....<P>AS for one Bill Clinton, he of all of them should have either known better or stayed with Genifer Flowers as his life-long woman on the side. D or R, flaunting it is not what should be expected of any President of the FREE WORLD, especially one who stages photo-ops when he is bagged. Remember the little dance with Hillary on the beach?? Please...what a joke.<P>Take Clinton, wailing, "I've never worked so hard my whole life.” This just goes to show what a pampered self-indulgent existence he really led.<P><BR>

Sorry I am back so soon but your post had me thinking some more and I have concluded that if it were an R involved there would be 24/7 coverage and NO ONE would question it, in fact the R would have resigned by now and all the media would be screaming for a grand jury to commence immediatly.<P>Condit seems to be getting preferential treatment due to his D!!! I also love how they try and call him a conservative democrat, trying again to blame the republicans. <P>ALso your laundry list of pols,,,,,,none of them have a missing woman except Condit.<P><BR>

Beautiful:<P>I don't know what kind of TV you get where you live, but every time I turn on Faux News = ahem = Fox News, it's All Gary Condit, All the Time. <P>All of the morning shows led in with this story.<P>Maybe you don't live in the U.S.? <P>(I do agree with you about the security risk posed by philandering politicians...)

<BR>I don't know what kind of TV you get where you live, but every time I turn on Faux News = ahem = Fox News, it's All Gary Condit, All the Time. <P><BR>Funny you should ask, since my kids are home from school I have been reduced to watching Nick and Cartoon Network....with an occasional crime show thrown in, like America's most wanted....<P>ANYWAY FROM AN AP STORY TODAY:<P>If Fox is covering this too much why has <BR>Dan Rather's broadcast not mentioned a word about the story. Dan Murphy executive producer for CBS nightly news said he was reserving that for a major development in the case -- if Levy or her body were found, for instance, or if Condit was named a suspect in her disappearance by police.<P>ABC's ''World News Tonight'' has mentioned the story only twice -- once at length last Friday when it had exclusive information about the congressman's cell phone records. NBC's ''Nightly News'' has done 10 stories on the case.<P>ABC's ''Good Morning America'' has devoted 56 minutes to the story since it first broke. NBC's ''Today'' has done 45 minutes and CBS' ''The Early Show'' 39 minutes, according to Andrew Tyndall, a consultant who measures network news coverage.<P>The cable news networks continued heavy coverage on Tuesday, although perhaps with a little less single-mindedness. One new navel-gazing element: CNN and MSNBC both did segments on media coverage of the story.<P><BR>The morning news shows are more "soap" opera like but the coverage their too has been minimul. The cable news networks need time to fill 24/7. <P><BR>

Dazed and Confused - you still have an appropriate name.<P>For the record, I'm a registered independent.<P>You certainly seem to be hell bent on defending the bleeding hearts. Maybe you should find a political forum to rant on. <BR>This has nothing to do with political party affiliation. As an independent, I am probably more unbiased than you.<P>So, why do you have a political chip on your shoulder? Psychological projection?<P>Please keep the political crap off OUR forum.<P>WAT

One more thing: Take a break from the Condit story and go enjoy the ALL STAR GAME!! : ))<P>GO NATIONAL!!! : ))

Worthatry: You said to Dazed: <BR>So, why do you have a political chip on your shoulder? Psychological projection?<P>I think the Condit story is rich for discussion on this forum. Most of our stories are similar less the missing woman. If no missing woman this would be a story like any of ours.<P>The key would be taking personal responsibility. Took Condit a few months. He may even be a MB poster. Chandra may too, or Mrs. Condit.<P>Provided Condit is not involved with the girls disappearance we can all welcome him here to fix his marriage. Just as I was welcomed.<P>As for Mrs. Condit, she needs our help. She is a betrayed spouse. I am sure she would receive tons of support here.<P>As for Chandra: I hope the poor girl is alive so we can explain to her how she can not have a monagomous relationship with a married man and find her a suitable mate or at least explain to her that she is worth more than second best.<P><BR>

WAT, you miss my point entirely.<P>It's clear that Beautiful's original post was trying to make some blanket point about Democrats having some sort of patent on sleazy infidelity.<P>My point is that this is not the case.<P>This very board is living proof. I'm the only open liberal on this board, and yet this board is full of good, conservative Christian people who are either wayward spouses themselves or else betrayed spouses. If only Godless un-Christian liberals cheat, then how come I never have, and how come some people on this board who are good conservative Christians have?<P>BECAUSE INFIDELITY IS NOT ABOUT WHAT POLITICAL PARTY YOU'RE AFFILIATED WITH, OR WHERE OR IF YOU WORSHIP, IT'S ABOUT HUMAN FRAILTY.<P>It seems to me that you miss my point entirely, and perhaps it's YOU who has the "political chip on your shoulder."<P>The Condit case, as well as the Clinton case, are very relevant to this board, in that they involve infidelity. How many spouses here who are Plan-A'ing like mad to save their marriages blasted Hillary Clinton for doing the same thing? How many of you WS's who are trying to justify your affairs (like SnL) are calling for Condit to be executed without trial? (No, SnL hasn't done this, but he's the one most clearly trying to get us to approve what he wants to do).<P>When I see inconsistencies like this, I think it's important to point out, and to realize, that political views and affiliation, like religious views and affiliation, do not insulate one from having to deal with the very real issues posed by infidelity.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dazed and Confused:<BR><B>It's clear that Beautiful's original post was trying to make some blanket point about Democrats having some sort of patent on sleazy infidelity.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Dazed and Confused - it's not clear to me that this was Beautiful's intent. <P>Can you point out what I'm missing? <P>I don't see the word "democrat" or "(D)" anywhere in the post. <P>Is your conclusion based on the fact that the two sleazy people named are democrats? How does that translate into "Democrats having some sort of patent on sleazy infidelity."?<P>I have no intention getting into a political debate with you. My reaction to your reply was that you seemed to be over reacting to an "assult" on your political affiliation - where no such assult existed except in your mind.<P>So yes, I missed your point entirely. You turned thus into a partisan issue where none was stated or seemed to be intended. What WAS your point?<P>WAT

I am pressed for time but:<P>Dazed:<P>The original article has no mention of political affiliation. In fact you would have to be in a closet to not know a young woman is missing related to some congressman and an affiar with a married man, party affiliation unknown to most since most dont even follow politics.<P>In fact most of the media reports him as a conservative democrat.<BR>The adultry story is common for rich and poor.<P>And you still have no idea what my party affiliation is so I dont get your point either.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dazed and Confused:<BR>[<P>How many spouses here who are Plan-A'ing like mad to save their marriages blasted Hillary Clinton for doing the same thing? <P>I am sorry but I find this comment of yours hysterical!!!<P>Hillary Clinton in any type of plan a? Please<P>Hillary Clinton went in front of the American People for Bill Clinton for one reason and one reason only.... HERSELF and her own POLITICAL AMBITION!!<P>To equate what she did to "save" her marriage is bizarre for even the most diehard liberal and should appear so to any one here who is truly in plan a.

Yes, they can condemn others but what they do is probably worse. How about Major Guilani blocking funding for museums that may offend the Catholic church, but still having a very public affair (and saying he hasn't broken a commandment because his chemo. has left him impotent?)<P>What disgusts me is my H's attitude toward Clinton. During the whole Monica thing, he'd say things like "God, he doesn't even know he had sex with her." And so on. Well turns out, my H had an affair with my best friend almost 6 years ago but lied, lied about lying, etc. until 2 weeks ago when forced to confess in counseling.<P>He started the other night about these politicians, and I finally said "Well, I think what you did was worse. At least Monica wasn't Hillary's best friend." That shut him up.<P>It appears to be our lifestyle today. Do what you want if it feels right, just don't get caught. And condemn everybody else, it will make you look better.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by maggierose:<BR>[B]Yes, they can condemn others but what they do is probably worse. <P>Just so you know Guiliani defended Clinton's private life as private and <P>Condit voted to impeach Clinton<P>Who is the hypocrite?

Dazed and Confused - waiting for your answer.

WAT, picking a fight, said:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>You turned thus into a partisan issue where none was stated or seemed to be intended. What WAS your point?<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I'm not convinced nothing was intended. With all the philandering that goes on with politicans, Beautiful's singling out of only DEMOCRATIC philanderers was fraught with subtext.<P>I'm not being partisan at all. In fact, the point of my post is that infidelity is NOT a partisan issue. Neither the left nor the right owns the patent on sleazy sexual behavior. Infidelity is not caused by liberals, or by Godless heathen nonbelievers. It's caused by HUMAN FRAILTY. <P>THAT was my point. Why are you all so upset about that notion?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dazed and Confused:<P> I'm not convinced nothing was intended. With all the philandering that goes on with politicans, Beautiful's singling out of only DEMOCRATIC philanderers was fraught with subtext.<P>Well, it is the number one story in all media every day all the time and it just happens to involve something we are all a part of on this forum ADULTRY!!!!<P>If this was the Newt story I would have posted it if I was here at the time but frankly back then I was just as bad as Newt and in my own fog and hadn't found this saving place but it is unfortunately for you now that CONDIT story coincides with TODAY. The Newt story is old news. <P>I bet you if you go back to these boards back in 98 there are plenty of Newt posts<P>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dazed and Confused:<BR><B>Why are you all so upset about that notion?</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Who's upset about that notion? I happen to agree with you - along with everybody else on this forum, I'll bet.<P>My issue with you was how you jumped all over Beautiful's post reading your own agenda into it - taking pot shots at any thing you think is taking political sides. Methinks you to be a bit sensitive. Now, who was picking a fight?<P>Lighten up.<P>WAT

Hey, Beaut --<P>Just went back and did a search on the entire forum archive, and came up with TWO threads containing the name "Gingrich". The one we're currently in, and this one:<P> <A HREF="http://www.marriagebuilders.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/010029.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.marriagebuilders.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/010029.html</A> <P>Out of those, there are three postings with the name "Gingrich" in them: Two by Yours Truly and one by "Lu".<P>By contrast, 97 threads contained the name "Clinton."<P> <p>[This message has been edited by Dazed and Confused (edited July 13, 2001).]