Commentary: Disappointed By Liberal Libidos

In the 90s, I remember listening to the Monica Lewinsky tapes on television. This was before having been exposed to any reality TV and this was the ultimate in voyeuristic entertainment. 

Back then, I defended Clinton to the death. Well, not literally as we are both still breathing (knock on wood). But I could see the good he had accomplished and the potential for further success had it not been interrupted with what I considered nonsense. That was between Bill, Hilary, Monica and the cigar. Period.

On my honeymoon in 2003, I watched most of the democratic primary debates. I was intrigued and impressed with John Edwards and subsequently supported him wholeheartedly for President in later elections. When I learned of his affair and love child AND his denial of said child, I was speechless. I was quite disappointed that he could let his “desires” come between the American people and a great candidate.

I have said before, and many do not believe me, but I am not a democrat. I am an independent with socially liberal beliefs. I have some conservative leaning inclinations, but those rank further down on the list and the liberal ones are typically more important to me. Because of that, I usually vote democrat. But I have not – even with many requests – become a member of the Democratic party. What I really want is a remarkable independent candidate to rise from the rubble and with an actual chance at winning, but again, unlikely.

With that said, these Dems really let me down. Because of their libido, my causes were not only pushed to the wayside but it also allowed for those AGAINST my causes to be elected. Not cool, guys. Not cool.

Of course, this is not a partisan predicament (Senators Hopper, Ensign, Craig and Ashburn, Governor Sanford, etc.).

With this political promiscuity chip on my shoulder, I was recently met with Weinergate. Oh, brother. Did I really just use that term?? Anthony Weiner was yet another Democrat I admired and for whom I held high hopes. But alas, another politician whose being a member of Congress did not take precedence over their . . . well, member.

I get it. Guys like sex. Perhaps their sexual appetites render them a little less in control than their female counter parts who seem to avoid these scandals. We hear these terms like “sex addict” thrown around, but I don't buy the theory that anyone with considerable fame who gets caught in the act has been struck with the illness of addiction. I understand that men who are constantly pursued by women – more so than the average guy – could have a more difficult time abstaining. But it certainly isn't impossible, especially with the incentive of not risking everything in their lives.

My issue is this pathology seems to go far beyond arrogance. That kind of mindset can be very dangerous. We all see politicians and celebrities getting caught with their pants down and losing their jobs and families because of it. Yet they are so bloated with insolence that they act as if they are above consequence.

It is the pathology leading to these behaviors that worries me when powerful people are involved. Then again, to run for political office probably requires some degree of arrogance in the first place. But when arrogance gets to a level of compulsion trumping basic sense, then there is a problem.