did, but in the fact that all had pretended to a being "moral" and "upstanding", while Clinton, from at least the 1992 election agreed he had "caused pain in his marriage." However, "choir boy" goes too far, though I assume that may be Frank's hook to get attention to all the details wonderfully laid out.

What it likely does show is that among men with the ambition to run for office and the customs that in many cases make it a norm that the family lives in the home state, might lead to many elected officials being unfaithful.

Hastert goes beyond all of these if, as appears to be the case, he took advantage of a student who was under his guidance as either a teacher or coach - or both. I wonder if the slowness of his reaction to the Foley accusations, where pages were abused by Congressmen was partly that he did not really see this as being as despicable as it was because he had done essentially the same thing to high schoolers. Even if the student was an 18 year old senior, this is unethical. If, as might also be the case, the action was not consensual, it is despicable regardless of age.

VT? Blacksburg?

Clinton and Hastert's cases. For the victim, there is no prioritizing. Clinton was a total idiot and he abused his position and power to get what he wanted from someone in a lesser position who thought he was going to marry her. For me, they are both assholes. Period.

Its rather like the duggars. They chose to save their son over FOUR daughters and someone elses girl. There is no upside to any of that and there never will be for Clinton. He was a grown man making an ass of himself. He owns it. Forever.

I voted for his sorry carcass twice and lost my brother over defending him. F bill clinton for what he did. Seriously, I think they forget what century we live in and the tech that is here.

Because power only attracts a victim.

was a male and that it happened when he was a teacher which meant of course that it was either a fellow teacher, an intern who was there studying for their teaching certificate or a student.

Child sexual abuse isn't the same thing as gay sex or extra-marital heterosexual sex.

As with rape, it's about dominance and control. So I understand.

The Google machine tells me he had a relationship with a male student at the high school where he was a teacher.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/a-second-person-accused-former-house-speaker-hastert-of-sexual-abuse-official-says/ar-BBkp6II?ocid=iehp

a person 14 years and under. A "child" should be distinguished from a "minor" who is anyone under 18 in almost all

I don't know what ages Hastert coached or taught. All I've read is "high school" which prior to the establishment of middle schools covered from about 13 to graduation, so Hastert could have coached or taught kids 14 years and under.

I have not read anywhere the age of "Individual A" either now or at the time of his contact with Hastert.

I don't think anyone is claiming that Hastert wanted to marry someone of the same sex, so he is not actually doing the "same thing", but whatev...I get his point.

we're standing on family values, which, they themselves, did not follow. Statutory rape is not a family value.

A child molester impeaching Clinton for a sexual dalliance.

I also noted that while Clinton got an illicit blow job (from a consenting adult who was in her early 20s, above age 21, who evidently went after him, with visions of "presidential knee pads" dancing in her head), his most vocal critics like henry hyde, newt gingrich, dan burton, bob livingstone, and plenty more, had done far worse than just enjoy oral sex, and what they did actually adversely affected others. Like soon-to-be-ex-wives, baby mamas, and families. All of their dalliances actually broke up marriages - their own, AND those of their lovers', and led to fatherless kids, knocked-up mistresses, out-of-wedlock births, and a whole lotta child support and alimony payments. As I recall, Bill Clinton's various offenses never resulted in breaking up anybody else's marriage, OR resulted in any out-of-wedlock pregnancies or births. If there were any, do you think for an instant we would NOT have heard about it by now - "hey Bill, I'm the son/daughter you never knew you had..."?

And Clinton never passed himself off as some sort of Grand Moral Poobah or National Arbiter of Morality and Godliness. For Pete's sake, that's ALL the aforementioned Pharisees on Capitol Hil who so loudly condemned him have ever been known to do. They're card-carrying members of the Holier-Than-Thou Club. ALL of them speaking with forked tongues, groping fingers, and open zippers.

All the other women who say he either raped or assaulted them have always been tossed aside simply because Clinton was "one of us". Yet the same people who call these women liars will tell you how awful Bill Cosby is based on stories that are a lot flimsier than what was brought against Clinton. I believe they're both abusers.
Certainly the GOPers are hypocrites. But so are the democrats. It seems as though protection of women only matters up to the point that the offender is popular.

Do you have a link?

I remember one woman who said she had consensual sex with Bill Clinton.

I remember another woman who claimed she had sex with Bill Clinton while he was governor.

I remember another woman who said Bill Clinton put his hands on her in a suggestive way.

But I don't remember any woman who claimed Bill Clinton raped her.

My impression was that women generally went after Clinton and he did not say no.

I don't think Clinton noticed Monica until she flashed her thong at him.

But if you have a link to something else, I'd like to see it.

You really never heard of her? Juanita Broderick said in '98 she was raped. Others claimed what most of us would say is sexual assault; groping, grabbing kissing etc.
Paula Jones, of course everyones heard of her, & Kathleen Willey
The Jones case was tossed for a really stupid reason, saying Jones wasnt actually harmed so had no standing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm

She displays many of what we would call normal signs of a victim; denial, fright, feeling it was her fault

Who labeled Bill Clinton as "just sleazy." Really? From a party full of degenerates.

Which will be hasert's downfall too.

Yet there one of them even getting paid by CNN to proudly display his hypocrisy, as if it means nothing for Republicans, but everything for Democrats..isn't that the mass media propaganda message?

There are advantages to being crazy, folks are forgiving if you are crazy.

Preaching against, while practicing IN..... Matters not, the specifics. In a party that's STILL officially pushing for a world that operates like a 50s family sitcom (Father Knows Best comes to mind) they seem deaf to their own tunes!

That describes rethuglicans hypocrites to a T!

Father Knows Best, young lady.

I remember reading that life on the prairie with 20-30 miles separating the nearest neighbors was no picnic for families.

I am having a hard time laughing at this it is too Duggarish. Behind the hypocrisy is a victim of rape at the very least even if he was 18 he was preyed on by a teacher/coach it is not a consensual arrangement. If it had turned out that this was some guy Hastert was having an affair with that was neither a student or member of the wrestling team and he was over 18 and it was just an affair well then I would be laughing my butt off. I don't think being gay is wrong but hiding out in a closet while making laws that hurt other gay people that is very wrong. And that hypocrisy does make Clinton look like a choir boy.

Thanks Bernie was speaking out.

Saturday Night's Sinners become Sunday Morning's Repenters. See how that works? Just don't die between Saturday night and church service in the morning. Hell awaits, I tell you, Unforgiven Sin.

Sunday morning repenters"- I am going to steal that

I will fix it now

that's surely one trotted out frequently. Another, "If you just knew Jesus, you wouldn't be asking."

Messed up parents raise messed up children. And then there's Ron Reagan. But in general it has been my experience that these people lack empathy, one of the most crucially important aspects of the human being.

A lifelong friend described conservatives as people who lacked evolution. They still think everyone is either an enemy or food.

I agree, they lack empathy. That is what makes them so infuriating and confusing: they're completely empty where their humanity is supposed to be. That is hard to fathom.

That is a common trait I notice among Conservatives I know. That, and they view all issues as black-and-white, no middle gound. which is why simple messages work best with them (Lutz is a master of that, Dems can sometimes take five minutes to say what could be said with, "The grass is green."

But to the empathy issue, I have thought for a long time that really is the big difference between Liberals and Conservatives. Until it happens to them or someone close, they simply cannot grasp it.

I'm pretty certain I read that...if I'm wrong, or if it was a bad study, please correct me.

I agree on the simplistic thinking too. Seen that a lot. And a lack of foresight into likely long term effects of present actions.
Also, I've noticed a real lack of personal insight as well. No self reflection..

negative impacts on others are also in the group of characteristics that distinguish sociopaths. It's no wonder that these personality types often excel in business where self purpose, risk taking, profit seeking and indifference to policies damaging others are common, even rewarded.

Yep.

Yecch.

aspects are stunted. Brain growth functions in the search for new information and the intelligence follows. In fact, one of the best "brain stretchers" is to learn a foreign language.

Negativity, regurgitating or speaking from history is from the "Lizard Brain". The short, instructional animated piece illustrates that those who consciously entertains new ideas have higher intelligence. Oversimplified, yet instructive.

I'm glad to see you around. Every once in a while our paths cross. And then I get happy.

Hadn't seen you in so long, I thought you left!

...if he saw what happened to the GOP.

for a non-impeachable offense and the "liberal" media were cheer leading for them. What part of Bill Clinton's anatomy would the "liberal" media have blamed if we got hit with another 9-11 during the Bush cartel's reign of error?

Hastert was the Spanker of the House.

The bottom line is that it's all bad behavior, just a matter of who's the bigger hypocrite.

It's pretty bad when what you care MOST about in office is power, be it through one or another orgasm while exerting your power over another human being… None of this is the reason you're supposed to be in office.

I understand what good behavior costs. So, I should not really worry about ANY politician who cares more about power than leading while serving others, because he's mild compared to the others?

The $$$ necessary to hide his hypocrisy came from selling the influence (lobbying) that WE paid him to acquire.

As a sitting President, he lied in the Paula Jones court case and when questioned by Starr. His license to practice law in Arkansas was suspended for the same reason.

I don't know why Dems can't tell the truth about that.

It was Dennis Hastert who introduced the concept of the "Hastert Rule" while he was Speaker of the House. Under the Hastert Rule, no legislation would be brought up for a vote unless it could be passed solely with Republican votes. Hastert was a hyper-partisan hack who was one of the leaders in the modern obstructionist party known as the GOP. That he has been exposed as a hypocrite, possible sexual predator and possible financial fraudster is no surprise.

but OH,,,he didn't know that his roommate was doing this.

Paul Bonacci also implicates him in the Franklin Cover Up. Paul Bonacci testified he was flown to DC and to MA to sleep with him. He was underage.