Stand By Your Man?

Would you?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

clintonad2505_468x448.jpg

mcgreevey1.jpg

36630763.jpg

Does anyone recall if Hillary wore a blue dress the first time she appeared next to Slick Willie post-Lewinski?  These shades of blue, by the way, are supposed to engender compassion (according to folks who study this sort of thing).

Perhaps a more important question is – Would you impeach an official for sexual misconduct?  If so, would you also impeach an official for fabricating a case for war and violating the Constitution of the United States?

“May you live in interesting times.”

13 comments

  1. Gee, I wonder why you don’t show any pictures of republicans who have disgraced their wives… Maybe your computer doesn’t have access to anything negative about conservatives…
    Guess that’s just Mrs. Craig, Mrs. Foley and Mrs. Vitters good luck…

  2. So, you like the Democrats. That’s cool – I guess. Everyone has their reasons. If you have a moment, take a little tour. I’m sure you’ll find that the knife cuts as deeply on Republicans as it does on Democrats. And if you’ve come with the intention of defending either group, you probably won’t like it here. It will get too hot to be worth your while.

    I have no use for either Party. Only desperation, ignorance or greed could push me toward either side. However, if you’d like to forward pictures of despicable Republicans and their loyal wives, knock yourself out. You are more than welcome to contribute to the archive of dastardly dudes and their evil deeds.

    And I agree with your summation (at your site) that Hillary needs to pack her bags.

  3. Sorry I was a bit abrasive in my earlier comment; I had just come from watching FOX NEWS, and that always upsets me.

  4. This was the kwestin du jour at the dinner table last night. Wifey flatly stated that these women enjoy the perks that come with husbands in power and tend (at least peripherally) to be aware of the double lives and indiscretions and accept these tacitly as part of the price for enjoying a life filled with the perks.

    In her opinion, there are no innocent victims in these relationships and so standing by the man in the hour of shame is part of the duties that come with the territory.

  5. You’ve got a ticket to ride if you ever go politico! In all seriousness, they must know that is part of the deal. Mrs. McGreevey, though, seemed to be the least savvy and most surprised. The question of innocence aside, does it make sense for formidable to stand by their man?

    Would Mr. Pelosi or Mr. Jackson-Lee or Todd-Whitman if the tables were turned?

  6. These are entirely separate issues – as you well know – magne.

    I can’t speak for any of those misters. Speaking for myself, however, wifey would self-enroll in the witness protection program in preference to having her creeptip come to my attention. The irony is that I’m neither a selfish or jealous man…., I tend not to begrudge humans the expression of their natural bonobo proclivities.

  7. “anti-Black white supremacist like Barry Goldwasser,”

    That’s quite a serious charge. Have any evidence for it?

    You may recall that Goldwater supported the Arizona NAACP and was involved in desegregating the Arizona National Guard. Nationally, he supported the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 and the constitutional amendment banning the poll tax.

    Doesn’t exactly sound like some grand dragon/exalted cyclops/imperial wizard of the KKK.

    Oh wait, let me guess, anyone who didn’t support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is de facto a “anti-Black white supremacist,” right?

  8. Jim –

    It is a serious charge. It is not predicated on an uninformed assessment of the limitations of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It’s much more fundamental.

    So explain yourself before seeking to controvert the historical record. Goldwasser was what he was. Is Klan membership the only operative paradigm of white supremacism and anti-Black action among whites? What did folks do before the birth of Nathan Bedford Forrest? What did “whites” do in other countries? How is Goldwasser’s legacy consistent or inconsistent with that tradition.

    You’ll need far more proof than support of a “white” founded and funded organization like the NAACP. George Washington owned enslaved Africans and decided to admit Blacks to the army after Lord Dunmore beat him to the punch. Give me something good or stay over at Stormfront. It’s easy work over there.

  9. Career political wives have their whole identities wrapped up into their husband. Their entire social circle over a period of time tends to be mainly friends and allies of their husband. Maybe to them its better to stay and at least have the sympathy from the women at the country club or their committe members for that fundraiser for the arts/homeless/environment or whatever it is they’re auctioning off some ballon ride around Manhatten for. If they leave, they’ll lose those friends – so you’re asking, “are they really friends then”..nope…but that’s all they’ve got at this point. Chances are their own families are not really backing that idea either, not with all the connections that come thru the husband. I can only imagine that it cannot be as easy as strapping on your pride and singing “I will survive”.

  10. Temple3,

    The accusation was made that Barry Goldwater was a “anti-Black white supremacist.” I’m the first to admit that I haven’t read his biography. I merely asked for evidence.

    So far none has been provided.

  11. Jim…this is actually pretty simple. White supremacists, as I’m sure you know, are not a monolith. They come in many shapes, sizes and colors. They have competing viewpoints, worldviews, and institutional practices. They even fight one another with guns, budgets and policy documents. The one thing they can agree on is a commitment to sustain the power imperatives of a “white” collective. Goldwasser fit that category – so did LBJ…so did Kennedy.

    His ideology (on a personal level) was not vituperative in the manner of many of his supporters – but his political framework was predicated on maintaining and extending the power imperatives of “white” Americans – at the expense of Blacks. The principal mechanism for this was his espousal of “states rights.” Not every states’ rights advocate is a white supremacist, but the correlations are high (at least according to informal surveys of Stormfront bulletin boards). In the context of the 1964 campaign, Goldwasser’s position held out the prospect of limited Federal intervention in the violations of federal rights guaranteed under the 14th amendment. To the extent that Blacks were “federal citizens” without rights protected by states, Goldwasser’s position represented a retreat from the traditional federal role of providing protection to citizens – a retreat from humanity and the principles of democracy. It was an appeal to the gun-based sovereignty of Southern “whites.”

    Goldwasser was critical of the the administration for failing to uphold federal rights in certain instances – but the critical question of protection (state commerce: taxation, land tenure, professional licensing, higher education access, grants, contract access, etc.) at the state level was not part of his political calculus. On the REAL BUSINESS of RACE, Barry Goldwater was an advocate for the maintenance of “white” power at the State level. That’s incontrovertible – even among his most ardent supporters. On the federal level, with respect to the SUPERFICIAL BUSINESS of RACE, Barry Goldwater was a laissez-faire conservative who advocated for the protections of “federal citizens.”

    Barry Goldwasser wanted to be the “middle man.” A conduit of sorts – moving “white” Dixiecrat voters to a more conservative block within the Republican Party who would NOT be required to pay any patronage to Blacks for votes. This is precisely the “jam” in which Hillary Clinton finds herself.

    Goldwassers libertarian tendencies, NAACP membership and his political positions on the federal rights of Blacks mesh perfectly around the principle of non-economic liberalism. Goldwasser had no intention of espousing a neutral or pro-Black position. He was not neutral on the question of Black political power. His position was to ignore Blacks…in fact, he didn’t even have a position on most of the critical issues impacting Blacks…questions of state-level commerce which he proposed to ignore. Goldwasser’s appeal was in conveying to Gentiles his abiding belief in their insatiable brutality…in effect, he said, “Do what you will with what is yours. Let’s just keep the peace…continue to conduct business unfettered by the federal government or any other external constraints.”

    This ain’t Rocket Science.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s