8/16/2004

Poll: N.J. Governor's Approval Nudges Up - Right out of the Bill Clinton Playbook

"Garden State residents tend to be tolerant of alternate lifestyles and most do not want to kick McGreevey when he is down," said acting poll director Patrick Murphy.

Once again, liberals miss the point. Actually 2 points... First, that he used his office to appoint his unqualified lover to a $110k position as the governor's advisor in the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security (later as a "special advisor"....gee, now we know what that means). This is nepotism at it's worst. Second, that the Governor cheated on his wife....I guess infidelity doesn't matter anymore. Kicking the Guv while he's down? What about his wife??? I'm sure she's feeling fantastic about this announcement.

It doesn't matter if he's gay or not...and I could care less....however, the fact that he cheated on his wife and had the nepotistic urge to appoint his lover to such an important position is utterly wrong.

Much like Slick Willie, libs like to give their officials a pass on their sex life as it's "personal". They focus only on the sex life as being a personal issue and gloss over the more important issues. They missed that point as Slick was impeached not for having an affair, but for lying under oath (a felony in most states) and obstruction of justice. In McGreevey's case, he appointed his lover to a high paying position that he was wholly unsuited for (Cipel, his lover, was not a U.S. citizen and could not get a security clearance). I'm sure we'll find out more details.

The big question is not whether the general public should tolerate infidelity (from a non-religious moral perspective, it's plain wrong, so we shouldn't tolerate it), it's why the general public tolerates officials using their extramarital affairs to overshadow their more heinous actions.

6 Comments:

Blogger eskadoni said...

i agree that what he did was wrong, but more so hooking his lover up with a job than actually having an affair, as we don't know if his wife knew or not. i've known many a person to have had a beard relationship to avoid personal persecution. if the wife comes out and says she had no idea then i'll hold that against him, too. hell, if the wife says its ok (like hillary seems to have said) then why should i care? perhaps that just a non-religious but less moral view of things. can you tell i'm a relativist?

glad to see you're blogging again

August 22, 2004 at 6:04 PM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

Charles, I'm not going to let you off that easy. :-) Even if you dismiss the religious view of morality, cheating on a spouse is plain wrong. If you've known anyone that's been married and has been cheated on, you'll know exactly what I mean. First off, it's dishonest. Secondly, it causes pain and embarrassment to the party cheated on. Not to mention that the party that was cheated on usually feels guilt...which is kinda whacked that they're the innocent party but they feel guilty. Certainly, you don't condone cheating, do you?

August 23, 2004 at 4:54 AM  
Blogger eskadoni said...

not if they don't have an agreement. i'm saying that there is a chance he told her, seeing as it was bound to out. if a couple says cheating is ok, then i think who am i to say they're wrong. if they had no arrangement, then that is the worst thing he did. if the had an arrangement, then i don't care about that part. does that make my position clearer?

August 23, 2004 at 1:27 PM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

According a number of news reports, Matos had no knowledge of his behavior. In addition, he has a 3 year-old daughter with her and and 11 year old with his ex-wife. The damage to the children in this case would be severe as I'm certain they'd have NO knowledge of his behavior...even if he had an agreement with his wife.

The open-marriage concept is something I personally don't agree with. If you're going to have an "open-marriage" why get married to begin with? Because it's politically expedient? Tax purposes? Why not just live together?

August 24, 2004 at 11:14 AM  
Blogger eskadoni said...

hey, i'm a guy that thinks marriage is a poor relationship choice, but thats me. if there were no economic benefits i could see marriage rates plummetting. in his case, i see why he might be in a marriage: most people don't like homosexuals. if he hid his sexual preference from his wife (and ex-wife) then i think that is wrong. as for the kid, her dad being gay is less damaging than her dad not being there in the first place.

August 25, 2004 at 1:17 PM  
Blogger Liberal_Slayer said...

I have to disagree with you on the marriage issue. Though we agree that civil unions should be universally used and accepted, I disagree that marriage rates would drop. Until recently, there was the marriage penalty tax that cost a 2-earner married couple more in taxes than if they were single.

Also, he's a Democrat...and using marriage as a cover would be unnecessary. Does Barney Frank ring a bell?

Finally, and I really hate this type of argument, "as for the kid, her dad being gay is less damaging than her dad not being there in the first place." It's like saying a knife is less damaging than a gun...though both will kill you. Not a good argument. The child will suffer because of her father's actions.

August 26, 2004 at 11:04 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home