Great catch - It's so simple and effective.

I'd love to see a graph comparing the frequencies of Democrat and Republican sex scandals. How long has the frequency been skewed toward Republicans? How strong exactly is the skew? 200%?

I don't think the perception of a skew is just confirmation bias, etc., but it'd be nice to see the data.

^ I'd like to see the same thing, though not limited just to sex scandals, and keeping score on which party is more likely to call for their scandal-laden representative to resign.

On the above chart, only Craig and Foley were asked to resign by their party. In the Democratic scandals I can recall from the last few years, all of the representatives got calls from the party leaders to resign (Blago, Edwards, Kilpatrick, Spitzer, even Ohio AG Marc Dann). The ones who didn't go quietly got pushed out by bipartisan coalitions (in the Blago case, nearly unanimously).

^ And while we are at it, I feel we need to add religious leaders to the republican chart as well. After all, they are the ones which God appointed as our rulers/protectors.

>>How long has the frequency been skewed toward Republicans? How strong exactly is the skew? 200%?

Well, when you have videosift entries titled, "Having trouble following the recent Republican scandals?" it certainly seems that way, doesn't it? And yeah, it is bias.

USA Today did a study, it was something like 14 to 17 Dems to Reps, in scandals in the last 20 years. And, lo and behold, they only put the Party-State tag after the names of Republicans (R-Idaho, for example). Bias? Ok, maybe they just forgot with the other half of the people.

To be fair though, I think the Kennedies in all their flavors should count, and Clinton should count multiple times. =)

I just want to make sure you have the facts straight.

Bill Clinton
John Edwards
Eliot Spitzer
Gary Condit
Gavin Newsom
David Paterson
Barney Frank

These are the most famous politicians that I am actually familiar with. I didn't do any research on obscure politicians from the sticks. I'm sure we can all agree that I could go on, but what's the point. Same as the republican party - there are more than have been previously mentioned.


Paterson is still Gov of NY so he obviously didn't resign
Newsom didn't resign
Clinton didn't resign
Edwards didn't resign or get pushed out of anything. He had already removed himself from the Presidential race before anyone knew about his infidelity.
Condit didn't resign even though there was more than just cheating involved in his scandal.
Barney Frank is still "spraying it, not saying it" to this day.
Only Spitzer resigned.

Edwards and Clinton have continued to be active in politics since their affairs were made public. Clinton remains popular among some democrats (he was very active during the last Presidential election) and Edwards gave an interview last week in which he stated, "What happens now? If you were to ask people during the campaign who's talking most about [poverty], it was me. There's a desperate need in the world for a voice of leadership on this issue. . . . The president's got a lot to do, he's got a lot of people to be responsible for, so I'm not critical of him, but there does need to be an aggressive voice beside the president."

I guess he thinks the world needs him. Doesn't sound like a resignation to me.

And don't get me started on all the TAX evasion scandals this year: Charlie Rangel and Tim Geithner to name the two biggest.


You guys are all so cute with your delusions and wild imaginations, though. It was a nice attempt at winning the game of "partison politics."

It's pretty clear to me who has a "holier than thou" attitude here on the sift and on the news.

^ I'd said "that I can recall in the last few years". Clinton is over 10 years ago. Condit I had to look up who he even was (and his scandal was 8 years ago). Other than Frank being gay, I had to look up what scandal you're talking about, and that one was 20 years ago.

Paterson didn't really have a scandal, so much as the day he was sworn in he said "here are all the skeletons in my closet", including admitting to an affair years before he'd become Lt. Governor.

I'll admit Ohio AG is sticks, but Kilpatrick was mayor of Detroit, and Blagojevich was Governor of Illinois. I'd forgotten about Newsom, but if Kilpatrick is sticks, so is the mayor of SF.

I've not heard much about the Charlie Rangel thing lately, but the whole thing seemed a bit tame, and more of a "he screwed up" than "he intentionally broke the law". You're also way overstating the Tim Geithner thing -- he owed back taxes, and paid them. The commentary surrounding the discrepancy was that it's a common mistake for people to make on their taxes, even if they use a professional.

Edwards, you make an interesting case. Perhaps as an outsider you might not know about how the party insiders reacted to his affair, but most people in the grassroots were furious with him -- not because we think his personal indiscretions disqualify him -- but because he was an early favorite in the grassroots, and had he won the primary he might've handed the White House to the gang of thugs known as the Republican party.

Lately there's been a quiet murmur about missing his voice on the issue of poverty, but I've not heard of any serious attempts for him to recover his image. To be honest, I'd like to see him try, because I think his voice would add to the party, assuming he can get public absolution for being a jerk to his wife (who the grassroots almost like more than him).

Personally, I don't care about sex scandals. They are really none of our business at all. I think people in office should be judged more on their execution of their state-granted responsibilities than what they do in their personal life.

I actually feel a slim bit of sympathy for Mark Sanford since he seems to have a rather serious personal issue to work through, and having public scrutiny doesn't help with that. But I think he needs to resign for the "I'm leaving the country for 10 days and telling no one" part of the story. I don't care that he was going away to have sex for those 10 days. In fact that was almost a relief to me, I was worried it'd turn out to be some ugly weapons deal or drug dealing kind of thing (like Reagan and Iran-Contra...).

^You obviously don't understand moral authority. I can't believe it, but this is starting to sound like, "our party's scandals are not as bad as your party's scandals." I don't care what party they belong to: a dirtball is a dirtball.

...and I'm sorry I stooped to the level of partisan politics. This post just sucked me in. You've got neverending rationalizations and excuses for everyone in your party, don't you? You're right, some of the examples I gave were a few years back, but my point is that they're still active/in office.

I think Sanford should be run out of town, just like all of the dirtbags we're talking about. Sure, we've all got our own issues, but if you don't have your personal affairs in order then you shouldn't be in office. One doesn't accedentally cheat on his/her spouse. That's a pre-meditated offense. It should NOT be acceptable for somebody in office to lack integrity, regardless of who is directly effected by their sins/crimes/mistakes.

If they can't be trusted with something as simple as 'don't cheat on your wife,' and it's pretty easy NOT to cheat on your wife, then I don't want 'em! Saying "At least it was better than Iran-Contra" does not make it okay.

What about this flow chart.

@NetRunner --------------------
^
@blankfist --------------------

Sift Ridicule