I can’t say what I’d like to do to that disgusting lout Mike Duvall because it would be (a) unladylike and (b) illegal. Duvall, Larry Craig, Mark Sanford and a host of other selfish narcissists who do their thinking with the little head act as though they’re trying to destroy the Repubilcan Party just when Obama and the Democrats are setting us up for a big win in 2010.
There are enough of these pathetic aging frat boys in the GOP that Talking Points Memo was able to put together a slide show entitled “The Scandalous Fall of the Modern Conservative Movement.” Thanks, guys. Thanks so much for your patriotic and disinterested public service. Number 4 out of 10 in the slide show, Florida State Rep. Bob Allen, couldn’t even manage to trade political power for sex, but was reduced to paying a prostitute (who, unfortunately for Mr. Allen, turned out to be an undercover cop) for fellatio.
At least Duvall, as loathsome as he is, had the sense to resign rather than hanging on and becoming an albatross around the party’s neck, as the ever so romantic Mr. Sanford has done.
Watching Sanford blather on about about his love affair at his press conference was embarassing, but reading what Duvall said about his extramarital affairs was far worse. I was embarrassed for Mark Sanford. I was embarrassed to have Mike Duvall as a member of the same species.
No doubt Duvall and his mistress, Heidi Barsuglia, are now very embarrassed — but they probably aren’t ashamed. Shame means you know what you did was wrong, and your shame is for having done it. Duvall and Barsuglia must be very embarrassed, but they’re embarrassed because the world knows about their sordid, tacky little affair, not because they had it. They’re embarrassed because Duvall shot his big fat mouth off when he shouldn’t have, not because they committed adultery when they shouldn’t have.
Really, I can’t decide which of them is more contemptible. He is a politician who paints himself as a champion of conservative family values while committing adultery with at least two different women and then discusses the sordid details of his infidelity while in legislative session, boasting about how much younger than he Barsuglia is, and apparently not caring in the least that a woman that young wouldn’t let him near her if he didn’t have the power and prestige of political office. She plays the whore to the sort of man who brags about his debaucheries.
The truly sickening thing to contemplate is just how often such scenes must be played out in state houses around the nation, only without open mikes to tell the tale. Today, I really hate politics.
Comments 22
terrible fool! he is killing the party
Posted 11 Sep 2009 at 10:10 am ¶Among Duvall’s various other failures I think the most glaring one is that he was banging a lobbyist for an industry regulated by the committee he chaired.
Posted 11 Sep 2009 at 2:58 pm ¶Duvall did the right thing, he resigned. Sanford is being called upon to resign by almost the entire elected South Carolina Republican Party.
Note, if a Democrat is caught doing the same thing two things don’t happen:
A. They resign.
B. Their party calls upon them to resign.
Hell, if they get caught with their pants down their poll ratings go up (cf. Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky).
Good post, Brigette. Give these “Conservatives” hell when they get caught. Let’s shame them out of the Republican Party and into the Democratic Party where they are at home.
Posted 11 Sep 2009 at 5:31 pm ¶The difference between a Republican getting caught having an affair and a Democrat getting caught having an affair is that the Democrat didn’t campaign on religion and “family values”. Dem cheaters are douchebags. GOP cheaters are douchebags and hypocrites.
Also how does Eliot Spitzer’s resignation fit into your little “Republicans good, Democrats bad” scenario when compared with Sanford and Craig? Then again Spitzer actually managed to live up to the GOP hypocrisy gold standard by waging a moral war against prostitution while at the same time engaging in it.
Posted 11 Sep 2009 at 8:59 pm ¶The difference between a Republican getting caught having an affair and a Democrat getting caught having an affair is that the Democrat didn’t campaign on religion and “family values”. Dem cheaters are douchebags. GOP cheaters are douchebags and hypocrites.
Dan, if they resign they’ve at least redeemed **some** of their hypocrisy. At least you admit the Dem party is tolerant of “douchebags”. We, the average Republican voter on the other hand don’t want them (you can have them).
Also how does Eliot Spitzer’s resignation fit into your little “Republicans good, Democrats bad” scenario when compared with Sanford and Craig? Then again Spitzer actually managed to live up to the GOP hypocrisy gold standard by waging a moral war against prostitution while at the same time engaging in it.
Good point, but there are always exceptions to every rule. And notice, as guilty as he was, he wasn’t charged with any crime. Secondly, he is talking about running for office again. Can’t do that in the Republican Party my friend.
Tell me, why doesn’t your party renounce the likes of Spitzer?
Posted 11 Sep 2009 at 11:26 pm ¶Dem cheaters are douchebags. GOP cheaters are douchebags and hypocrites.
Many are hypocrites. Some are merely sinners, wanting to live up to their ideals but failing through weakness of character. (Duvall falls into the big fat hypocrite category.)
So, is it better to be a douchebag who thinks people shouldn’t be douchebags and espouses that value publicly (even if he can’t discipline his own inner douchebag sufficiently to live up to that standard) or a douchebag who thinks there’s nothing at all wrong with douchebaggery?
Posted 12 Sep 2009 at 12:45 am ¶Here’s a more relevant question: who’s worse, someone who tries to make moral failings illegal while all along unrepentantly committing moral failings or someone who doesn’t deign to try to make moral failings illegal because they know that moral failings are something for an individual to deal with themselves?
Posted 12 Sep 2009 at 3:31 am ¶Good point, but there are always exceptions to every rule. And notice, as guilty as he was, he wasn’t charged with any crime. Secondly, he is talking about running for office again. Can’t do that in the Republican Party my friend.
You’re right that Spitzer is an exception to the rule in that he’s actually a hypocrite unlike most Dems who get caught womanizing. Most of those Dems never ran on a religious based moralizing platform to begin with, unlike the vast majority of Republicans who run on a religion-based platform.
FYI the NY Dem Caucus denounced Spitzer immediately, and then immediately after that he resigned. Does that fit into your GOP = saints Dems = demons narrative? Maybe its time to recognize that morality has no place in government and never has?
For the Republicans in the audience the difference between ethics and morality is that ethics are about not screwing other people over and morals are about not offending the imaginary magic fairy man in the sky.
Posted 12 Sep 2009 at 3:43 am ¶Here’s a more relevant question: who’s worse, someone who tries to make moral failings illegal while all along unrepentantly committing moral failings or someone who doesn’t deign to try to make moral failings illegal because they know that moral failings are something for an individual to deal with themselves?
I have yet to hear ANY Republican advocate making adultery illegal. You’re talking about abortion, which many conservatives want to outlaw NOT because it is a moral failing, but because it is taking an innocent life.
Posted 12 Sep 2009 at 3:27 pm ¶For the Republicans in the audience the difference between ethics and morality is that ethics are about not screwing other people over and morals are about not offending the imaginary magic fairy man in the sky.
You’re being rude and offensive. Again.
Posted 12 Sep 2009 at 3:31 pm ¶Maybe its time to recognize that morality has no place in government and never has?
Wow, that took guts to admit that one Dan. Thank you for proving my point that Democrats are, admittedly, amoral.
Posted 12 Sep 2009 at 5:14 pm ¶FYI the NY Dem Caucus denounced Spitzer immediately, and then immediately after that he resigned. Does that fit into your GOP = saints Dems = demons narrative? Maybe its time to recognize that morality has no place in government and never has?
I’m sorry, but the dems weren’t denouncing him because he was a “douchebag”, it was because he was a prosecutor engaging in criminal conduct; patronizing prostitutes.
So my “narrative” is intact. If the Dems really were against the hypocrites in their own party-the “staunch defenders of women’s rights”-they would have demanded Clinton’s resignation. But, alas, they had to sell their souls in the name of maintaining power. They had to support a serial sexual harasser, President Clinton.
The only elected President in the history of the Union ever to be impeached.
Ha! You guys own that one!
Posted 13 Sep 2009 at 2:47 am ¶Andrew Johnson was also impeached but not convicted by the senate.
Posted 13 Sep 2009 at 4:07 pm ¶Andrew Johnson was also impeached but not convicted by the senate.
Wrong. He was never elected to the office of the Presidency.
Thus, my original claim remains. Clinton is the only elected President to be impeached.
Posted 13 Sep 2009 at 6:02 pm ¶I didn’t notice the word “elected” in there, but glad it was, since I knew you had to know about Johnson. Sorry about that.
Posted 13 Sep 2009 at 6:15 pm ¶And, after frivolously impeaching Clinton, the GOP ended up having to back down in embarrassment because it was so completely obvious that lying about a personal matter in a deposition (not in a trial, the case was dismissed with prejudice) did not even approach the bar of high crimes and misdemeanors.
And, oh yeah, it turned out that half the GOP congressmen pushing the impeachment were cheating on their wives too, including Newt Gingrich. Hypocrites? In the GOP? How surprising!
Posted 14 Sep 2009 at 8:15 pm ¶And, after frivolously impeaching Clinton, the GOP ended up having to back down in embarrassment because it was so completely obvious that lying about a personal matter in a deposition (not in a trial, the case was dismissed with prejudice) did not even approach the bar of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Wow, so you want us to give Clinton a pass for, as you admit, lying during Grand Jury testimony?
You realize that is a felony, right? You realize that the AK SC punished him for his lie by taking away his law license?
You realize he lied to the American public, right?
Let me ask you, is lying to the American Public an impeachable offense?
Is committing a felony, lying under oath in a Grand Jury, an impeachable offense?
Posted 14 Sep 2009 at 10:38 pm ¶Does lying about a personal and immaterial matter in a deposition rise to to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors? Yes or no?
Is lying about the existence of (and even resorting to the fabrication of evidence for) weapons of mass destruction that did not exist in order to invade a foreign country resulting in the death and/or maiming of over thirty thousand Americans an impeachable offense?
Is illegally selling arms to a rogue nation and using the money to fund a far-right terrorist group responsible for the torture and murder of thousands of innocent civilians an impeachable offense?
Posted 14 Sep 2009 at 11:27 pm ¶Does lying about a personal and immaterial matter in a deposition rise to to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors? Yes or no?
Yes it does. The law states that when you are in the “box” you have to answer all questions truthfully. You, the person in the box, don’t get to determine what the grand jury is privy to and what they aren’t privy to.
Is lying about the existence of (and even resorting to the fabrication of evidence for) weapons of mass destruction that did not exist in order to invade a foreign country resulting in the death and/or maiming of over thirty thousand Americans an impeachable offense?
changing the subject, but apparently there was no crime as the Democrats didn’t bother to bring charges up on Bush. They said they would, but failed.
Is illegally selling arms to a rogue nation and using the money to fund a far-right terrorist group responsible for the torture and murder of thousands of innocent civilians an impeachable offense?
No it isn’t an impeachable offense, as congress didn’t think so.
Okay, now answer my question that I asked you.
Posted 15 Sep 2009 at 1:45 am ¶Okay, now answer my question that I asked you.
You sure made that one easy to answer:
No it isn’t an impeachable offense, as congress didn’t think so.
No, it didn’t reach the bar of high crimes and misdemeanors because the GOP dominated congress didn’t think so.
I’m glad to see you have such implicit trust in Congress. Maybe now you’ll just be quiet and let them exercise their superior judgment on healthcare reform et all.
ps: Your little explanation about what has to go on in the “box” (witness stand) doesn’t in any way make an argument for how perjury in response to a non-material question in a civil matter (or even to a material question in a criminal trial for that matter) rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Just FYI.
I also love how you pretended that the Dems are evil because Clinton was impeached (and of course was acquitted) when Richard Nixon resigned office purely because his impeachment and conviction was a complete and utter certainty. Yes indeed those Dems are devils and Republicans are saints once again.
Posted 15 Sep 2009 at 3:02 pm ¶No it isn’t an impeachable offense, as congress didn’t think so.
No, it didn’t reach the bar of high crimes and misdemeanors because the GOP dominated congress didn’t think so.
Dan,
You’re ignorance of history is appalling. The first article of impeachment the Dems were drawing up against Nixon was “lying to the American public.”
Thus, the Republicans could have and should have tossed Clinton’s behind for lying to the American public.
Posted 18 Sep 2009 at 5:11 am ¶Yet the Senate found him not guilty on both counts. Why do you hate America and its Constitution Bowden?
By the way, as long as you’re giving history lessons, what were the other articles of Nixon’s impeachment?
Remember when Reagan lied, repeatedly, under oath, about his knowledge of Iran-Contra? Was that a removable offense? Remember when both Bush and Cheney lied, repeatedly, on national television about Iraq’s WMDs and used those lies to justify the deaths of thousands of US soldiers? Was that a removable offense? Remember when Sarah Palin lied repeatedly about “Death Panels”? Is that a preemptively disqualifying offense?
Posted 01 Oct 2009 at 2:41 pm ¶Post a Comment