October 5, 2006
SETTING A LOW BAR....I've now seen two cryptic references to this, and sure enough it's worth clicking through to see. But I'll save you the trouble:
Rep. Don Sherwood, a Republican fighting for re-election in northeastern Pennsylvania, says in a TV ad that he is “truly sorry” for cheating on his wife but denies ever abusing the woman he had the affair with.
See? No abuse. That's family values, baby, family values.
—Kevin Drum 12:57 PM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (52)
Does Fox News identify Rep. Sherwood with a "D" next to his name these days, too?
Posted by: Pale Rider on October 5, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK
Monica was a willing participant as well.
Good point Thomas1. Liberal hypocrites.
Posted by: Al on October 5, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK
Watching the GOP's corruption and hypocrisy explode in their faces like a trick cigar brings a smile of pure joy to my face.
Posted by: Steve on October 5, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK
Al and Thomas/Don P./Charlie/Cheney/Chuckles apparently are unclear on the definition of hypocrisy. Of course homas/Don P./Charlie/Cheney/Chuckles is just upset because the relationship didn't produce a child. Fewer children means fewer dead kids for him to joke about.
Sick bastard.
Posted by: Vladi G on October 5, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK
Who cares if he cheated on his wife? Its not illegal is it?
And she probably deserved it...
Posted by: dee on October 5, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK
FoxNews headline from 2007:
Democratic President George W Bush, today was dragged from the oval office by police after Congress voted overwhelmingly to impeach and remove from office, the architect of torture, illegal war, illegal domestic spying, market manipulation, and war-profiteering. . .
Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on October 5, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK
Think it's feasible for Sherwood to do a quick stint in rehab before the election?
Posted by: Wonderin on October 5, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK
Kevin's description leads to the possible interpretation that Rep. Sherwood's denial of abusing his mistress is intended as a red herring, a distraction. But, in fact, his mistress accused him of choking her, so Sherwood's denial of abuse isn't a distraction. He's acknowledging and apologizing for the affair but saying that not all of the accusations against him are true. Under the circumstances, Sherwood's apology and denial of the worst part of the allegation seems about right.
Posted by: Joel Rubinstein on October 5, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK
--- DEMOCRATIC PARTY PLATFORM ---
CONGMAN MACACA!
IN UNDERAGE
IM SEX ROMP "I WAS CHENEY'S GAY LOVER"
BUSH: GAY TOO? MACACA! MACACA! MACACA!
(c) 2006 The National Enquirer and the Democratic National Committee
Posted by: TLB on October 5, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK
I agree, TLB. It's really said when all the Democrats can do is point out the rampant racism and pedophilia which permeates the Republican party. Don't they have any ideas? I mean, who cares that their opponents are all racists and/or pedophiles?
Posted by: Vladi G on October 5, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK
It makes sense to bring up Monica and Clinton here, because, unlike Sherwood, Bill was never accused of "repeatedly choking" and "attempting to strangle" his mistress. So even though this is something different, Clinton must be mentioned.
Posted by: asdf on October 5, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK
Lonewacko, no one reads your suck ass blog, so please dont come here in a pathetic attempt to draw readers.
Here's a simple hint; write better. See? That's not too hard.
Posted by: The Mgmt on October 5, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK
If there was no abuse, then why the confidential settlement with the mistress. Simply being a mistress isn't a legal claim, so what did Sherwood pay her for? The legal claim must have been based on the claimed abuse.
And now that Sherwood's opened the door on this issue, shouldn't he have to tell the public how much he paid the mistress.
Posted by: Macswain on October 5, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK
Kevin's description leads to the possible interpretation that Rep. Sherwood's denial of abusing his mistress is intended as a red herring, a distraction.
That's not how I read it. I read it as Mr. Drum's pointing out that the party of "traditional values" thinks its okay to have a mistress as long as no "abuse" can be proved. This party, of course, being the party that wasted literally millions of dollars and way too much time lambasting Clinton over his affair.
as someone much smarter than me put it: Its the hypocrisy, stupid.
Posted by: Edo on October 5, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK
Kevin quotes MSNBC: "Rep. Don Sherwood, a Republican fighting for re-election in northeastern Pennsylvania ..."
Isn't that where Republican Fascist Party triumphalist rdw (the self-proclaimed "smartest of the smart") lives?
Posted by: SecularAnimist on October 5, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK
"For the sake of the children, we must say good-bye."
Posted by: Hostile on October 5, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK
Does he represent Drexel Hill? Sounds like the sort of boob DHD would cherish.
Posted by: stupid git on October 5, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK
That's right, Clinton was only accused of raping Juanita Brodrick and biting Kathleen Wiley.
It's Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey, in case you want to spell your obfuscation and falsehoods properly.
Willey's claims were never substantiated, never resulted in an indictment or charges against Clinton, and she later admitted that she given false testimony and lied to the FBI. She acknowledged perjuring herself, which, by the standards of Clinton's critics, means she is a horrid criminal and a sexual monster.
Broaddrick's allegations are full of inconsistencies, and directly contradict her sworn testimony during the Jones trial, when she denied that she was raped. The allegations never resulted in charges or an indictment against Clinton.
Now that we have that cleared up, weren't we talking about Sherwood's non-consensual physical assault of his mistress?
Posted by: Andrew Wyatt on October 5, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK
Thomas1, the other voice in your head, Al, wants to talk to you right now so you can get your sock puppitry down cold.
Posted by: Col Bat Guano on October 5, 2006 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK
Clinton was accused of many other things too.
I think there was a new accusation every 3-4 months. It allowed Starr's unlimited, unbudgeted, nonspecific "special investigation" to set new goals everytime the sails lost wind. Final tally was around $60 mil (?).
Posted by: wishIwuz2 on October 5, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK
Kevin,
I am not really sure what your point is. Sherwood has been accused of abusing his mistress. Are you suggesting that he is behaving even more poorly by denying it? Or are you suggesting that he is trying to obscure the fact that he is an adulterer?
Posted by: Yancey Ward on October 5, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK
Yance,
Seems like Kevin is simply pointing out the double irony in Sherwood, who represents the family-values party, trying to salvage his rep. by admitting to an afair in order to deny abusing his mistress.
(I had to write that 3 times to get all the parts in order - sheesh!)
Posted by: wishIwuz2 on October 5, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK
Shorter Wingnuts:
For God's sake - look out for the CLEEENIIIISSS!
Aaaaaaauugghhhh!
Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on October 5, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK
Surely Rep. Sherwood is the victim of that most notoriously unfair of questions: "When did you stop beating your mistress?"
Posted by: DonBoy on October 5, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK
Sherwood of the Scranton, Wilkes-Barre area tried for a "I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy" moment.
However, his new ad of "I may be an adulterer and a philanderer, but never an abuser" might not quite fly well in the next 4 and a half weeks.
Hmm, "I may be an embezzler, but I sure am not a cat burglar" Vote Republican.
Posted by: stupid git on October 5, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK
GOP 06: we don't beat our mistresses!
Posted by: cleek on October 5, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK
Yes, I had cybersex, but I'm not a pedophile.
Yes, we strip prisoners naked, chain them, freeze them, strap them on waterboards... but we don't torture.
Yes, several hundred Iraqis are dying a day, but it's not civil war.
Yes, we outed a CIA agent, but we didn't know compromising an intelligence asset was illegal.
Yes, there were no terrorists, no WMD... but that doesn't mean the war wasn't worthwhile.
Yes, we hook alligator clips to people's testicles, but we don't flip the switch.
We do have our standards.
Posted by: Memekiller on October 5, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK
That's right, Clinton was only accused of raping Juanita Brodrick and biting Kathleen Wiley.
And murdering vince foster and murdering his commerce secretary ron brown and smuggling cocaine and trashing the white house...ZZZZZZ
When you think these sick fucks have reached bottom they just start digging deeper
Posted by: klyde on October 5, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK
wishIwas2: Final tally was around $60 mil (?).
Cost of Ken Starr's Monicagate investigation: $71.5 million
for comparison....
Cost of Patrick Fitzgerald's CIA leak probe investigation: $1.4 million
Posted by: mr. irony on October 5, 2006 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK
Rush=Drugs Frist=video diagnostics,pet killer Dukestir=crook,Cheney=badshot,liar with gay child,Rove=gay gannon,leaker,Scooter=liar snitch,Foley=child raper,Haserert=cover your ass liar.You get the Idea there is a pattern here of Couruption.And I covered only 7 R I believe it could be 90% percent of all R's fit this pattern.
Posted by: Thomas2 on October 5, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK
And then there were all those strange fires back in Hope fifty some years ago. And the Johnstown Flood, the Sinking of the Maine and what about the Lusitania, Arch Duke Ferdinand, and how did Lucy Borden really get that axe?
Why Vince Foster is just the tip of the iceberg, hmmm, oh yeah, what about the Titantic? The Californian just happened? to be too far away.
Posted by: stupid git on October 5, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK
No blood! No foul!
Posted by: R.L. on October 5, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK
Kevin's bringing up Sherwood, the Republican adulterer but (so he claims) not strangler = sweet revenge on the Gerry Studds thread stalkers.
Bob
Posted by: rmck1 on October 5, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK
Detroit is leading the Yankees 4-3 - Damn Clinton - Probably had to show up and whip it out.
And what about the Heartbreak of Psoriasis?
Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 5, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK
obscure and I are going out dancing if the Yankees go down. I haven't checked this with obscure yet, but I'm pretty sure he's in.
Posted by: shortstop on October 5, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK
'stop - do not type the words "going down" on any of these threads for the forseeable future...
Posted by: Global Citizen on October 5, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK
What is this with the Wizard of the Defense? Go down, going down, my representative's pager has gone down. Hmmmmm?
Posted by: Deranged Sex Nut on October 5, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK
I barely caught something about De Fazio being in the news today, but I don't know about what. Any idea?
Posted by: Global Citizen on October 5, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK
Start spreading the news - er oops.
Global, check out the thread about the DeFazio amendment being defeated. Have not heard anything as of yet in Oregon - But Kudos for him trying.
Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 5, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK
I completely agree with you, Kevin: If Rep. Sherwood was having an affair with one of his interns, he should be voted out of office.
Posted by: DBL on October 5, 2006 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK
Found the thread - thanks - that's the one I commented on bewtween classes earlier.
Posted by: Global Citizen on October 5, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK
"The fires of Hell are fed by the souls of ambitious men."
--William Shakespeare
Posted by: Quotation Man on October 5, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK
"Democratic President George W Bush, today was dragged from the oval office by police after Congress voted overwhelmingly to impeach and remove from office, the architect of torture, illegal war, illegal domestic spying, market manipulation, and war-profiteering. . ."
No, OBF, that sort of ending is too good for Dubyah, and besides, it would be a disservice to Nixon.
No, what is better is making the petulant little bastard sit before a Fact Finding Committee and explain his decisions, holding him accountable for the actions of his subordinates and himself.
Impeachment is too good for him, but forcing his unhappy butt to give account for the past 6 years...oh, that...that would be priceless!
And the best revenge possible against Cheney is being forced to watch the public castration of all executive privilidges of the Office of the President by a Congress who will uphold the Constitution.
Posted by: sheerahkahn on October 5, 2006 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK
So Democrats are now advocates of family values?
You really think the voters are stupid, don't you?
Posted by: Inigo Montoya on October 5, 2006 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK
You really think the voters are stupid, don't you? Inigo Montoya at 6:47 PM
'publicans have been playing the public for that since the days of Bj Newt.
Posted by: Mike on October 5, 2006 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK
Clinton said he smoked but didn't inhale.
Sherwood said he slept with her, but let her inhale.
Posted by: 2.7182818 on October 5, 2006 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINK
Al and Thomas ought to start a new religion, since it's clear by now that Bill Clinton's penis died for their sins. Guess they worship at that phallic alter because to them it means every other politician gets a free pass—or, at worst, they just have to say a few "Hail Monicas".
They should know, however, that the rest of America defines hypocrisy quite a bit differently.
Posted by: Kenji on October 5, 2006 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK
The dems have always been about REAL family values: reasonable working hours so parents actually get to spend TIME with their children, fair wages so they don't need to get second and third jobs, a safe work environment, so they don't have to worry about on the job disabling injuries, limits on temporary contract labor so parents don't have to worry about whether or not their contract will be renewed every few months to a year, affordable and secure health coverage so they don't have to worry about either losing their coverage or going bankrupt due to a single illness or injury, full protection of pensions, so they don't have to worry about a wastful (or downright greedy) management embezzeling their retirement and leaving them impoverished in their old age…
It's all about building an economic system that supports families rather than destroying them.
Posted by: joe on October 6, 2006 at 3:00 AM | PERMALINK
Sure, joe.
That's why Democrats have so many more children per family than do Republicans. That's why Democrats have better self-reported sex lives than do Republicans. That's why Democrats are married at a higher percentage than are Republicans.
But other than all three of the above being false, Democrats are all about families.
(Must be for families for other people, I guess.)
Posted by: Inigo Montoya on October 6, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK