The Strange Persistence of Moral Sanity

Dr. Albert Mohler addressed the latest political sex scandal and it's roots in modern relativism that defines the left.

The fall of yet another politician in a sex scandal has added a note of Schadenfreude to the political season. Coming so quickly after the fall of former New York Governor Elliot Spitzer, the admission by former Senator John Edwards of an affair during his presidential campaign seemed to catch many observers off-guard.

Sexual immorality crosses all partisan lines. Spitzer and Edwards are prominent Democrats, but equally prominent Republicans have been caught in the same web. There is no room for partisan calculation here.

One interesting aspect of the Edwards saga is the near-universal assumption that, had Edwards won the primary race for the Democratic presidential nomination, he (and his party) would have been fatally wounded in terms of the November election. This assumption, revealed in media coverage of the scandal, seems to be common to both liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats. The assumption is probably valid.

The American people are incredibly forgiving, but John Edwards violated a basic sense of public dignity and personal morality. The fact that his wife, Elizabeth, is in the fight of her life with cancer only adds to the public's sense of outrage at his violation of his marital vows. His repeated lies added fuel to the fire. On top of all this, the narcissism and recklessness of his affair revealed a poisonous disregard for his responsibilities, his supporters, his family, his friends, and the public.

The American people were confronted once again with broken promises, broken commitments, and broken hearts laid bare in public. Even now, the public seems braced for further revelations in this scandal.

But what of that near-universal assumption that this scandal should end the political career of John Edwards? Some observers reject that assumption.

Writing for Psychology Today [warning: objectionable language], Roy F. Baumeister categorically rejects the idea that a sex scandal should be considered politically significant at all. He writes: "My thesis is that the American people and their chances for good government are the ones most harmed by these scandals. In fact, I recommend that we should stop considering sexual behavior as a qualification for political office."

That is an audacious recommendation, but it is not unprecedented. Similar arguments followed the fall of Elliot Spitzer. The public is not buying the argument.

Baumeister continues:

I can imagine people objecting that sexual decision making reveals a man's character. (I refer specifically to men here, because so far only men have had their political careers ruined by sex scandals.) This argument seems lame to me. A much better and more relevant test of character would involve how the person has managed his money. Has he always paid his bills on time? If the answer is no, that is much more reason to question his suitability for public office than an occasional bit of unsanctioned sex.

That is an amazing and revealing argument. Christians must reject that argument on its face. The Bible clearly affirms that what is done with the body is directly related to the soul. Christianity is incompatible with a Gnosticism that divides the body and soul so that sexual behavior and character can be separated.

Baumeister even goes so far as to argue that the public is drawn to support high-testosterone men who, by virtue of that testosterone, are also likely to seek multiple sex partners. "High testosterone does not promote sexual fidelity," he asserts. "It makes men want to have more different partners. On top of the self-selection of adultery-prone men into politics, the opportunities probably increase for a successful politician."

In the end, he warns that the nation is "not so oversupplied with brilliant, wonderful, effective politicians that we can afford to disqualify a substantial number of them based on something as irrelevant as a bit of wild oats." An extended adulterous affair encased in lies and betrayal is merely "a bit of wild oats?"

Well, there you have it -- it's not the man . . . it's the testosterone. It's not a moral scandal, just a bit of wild oats. Most Americans recognize those arguments to be patent nonsense. Even in these confused and confusing times, some moral sanity remains.

A Convenient Lack of Truth

When the top 3 democrats in the race for the White House debated this past week in the South Carolina (their most recent nationally broadcast pandering opportunity), Hill the Shrill confronted the rookie Barak Hussein Obama with the following: "I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."

This in your face attack by Hillary not only showed Obama who the man was in this race (Obviously, John Edwards finishes a distant 3rd there also)...but also left the young Senator from Illinois speechless for a moment. You can almost hear Oprah waving her finger in the air with her hand on her hip, "Oh no you didn't!". Oh yeah, she did Oprah, she did.

Well, as fate and the general hypocrisy of the democrat party, especially the Clintons, would tell...Barak Obama was not the only one who had some contacts with the now infamous Tony Rezko. In fact, this picture has now surfaced:


And as would be expected from Hillary, she responded like my 6 year old caught with his hand in the cookie jar by saying "What...not me?" On the NBC Democrat Campaign Committee propaganda machine known as the "Today Show", The Hill said "I probably have taken hundreds of thousands of pictures. I don't know the man. I wouldn't know him if he walked in the door."

Uh...yeah. OK.

This is the same Hillary Clinton who once said "I don't recall" or something similiar 50 times in a 42 paragraph statement presented to a House committee concerning the Whitewater investigation and didn't know how those hundreds of sensitive FBI files got into a secluded area of the White House that she was pretty much the only person using at the time.

Don't forget, this picture was taken at a FUND RAISER for the Clinton Campaign Machine, and those who were in attendance and got that close to the then President had to have some sort of clearance.

Amazingly, people still believe this woman; which really makes me worry for the future of this great nation.

You bunch of cowards!

No, i'm not talking about the French, Germans or even Canadians. I am on the other hand talking about our friendly neighborhood candidates vying to become your next presidential nominee for the democrats.

It all started with John "The Breck Girl" Edwards opting out of a Fox News sponsored debate in Nevada which led to a mass exodus and the event being cancelled because FNC doesn't worship at the alter of the DNC. Now he has been joined by Osama Barak Obama and Hill the Schrill in boycotting a September debate that was cosponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus. The Edwards camp said, "But we believe there's just no reason for Democrats to give Fox a platform to advance the right-wing agenda while pretending they're objective." Just so you know, "right-wing agenda" to the likes of Edwards and that bunch means traditional American values and fair and honest reporting that doesn't have a liberal spin.

Expect more of the cowards to do the same to avoid anything other than softball questions and the liberal love fest you can expect from the likes of ABCNNBCBS...or as i call them, the DNC Media Machine.

But the good news, according to The Politico website is that they plan on particpating in a January debate that is once again cosponsered by the CBC, but this time it is with the Clinton News Network; you know, CNN. In fact an aide for Obama said, "CNN seemed like a more appropriate venue". Yeah, more appropriate means that they will not be challenged or questioned about anything that they need to discuss in order to occupy the White House...and if at all possible, give them the easiest possible path that goes directly to the Oval Office.

Of course, i can't let Hill the Schrill off this easy. Clinton spokesman Blake Zeff emails, "We're going to participate in the DNC-sanctioned debates only. We've previously committed to participating in the SC and Tavis Smiley debates." Yeah, like Tavis Smiley, one of the DNC's most loyal hitmen will ask them about the truly important issues.

So, to Edwards, Obama, Clinton et al...you are nothing more than a bunch of cowards!