Surly you jest - but I suspect that you're being serious. Bill Clinton was the President of the United States,the highest political office in America and the person holding that office is arguably the most powerful person on the planet. The Oval Office represents the center of power in America and deserves some respect. Ronald Reagan wouldn't even remove his suit jacket when in the Oval Office out of respect. It is hardly respectful when the sitting president, a horny, middle-aged man, is using it to receive fellatio from a 21-year-old female intern.
Granted, a congressional representative allowing his lover to run a homosexual brothel out of his apartment was outrageously illegal but Barney Frank is one of hundreds of Representatives and has nowhere near the power of the president. Nor is his apartment comparable to the Oval Office on the White House. The comparison is flawed.
Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury, not a sex scandal.
I'm well aware of that fact, as are most Freepers over 30. It was constantly argued by Clinton's defenders that the President engaging in sexual relations with a consenting adult was immoral but not illegal. The perjury charge was based on the fact that Clinton lied about the sex with Lewinsky to a grand jury. It was in all the papers. Are you implying that distinction somehow minimizes the outrageous aspect of his sexual liaison with Monica Lewinsky? I hope not.
Barney Frank was engaged in highly illegal acts but because he was (and is) well-connected in D.C., his lame excuse that he knew nothing about the prostitution ring operating out of his apartment was accepted by both the police and his constituents. Barney Frank was re-elected, again and again. However, he is still just one of 435 Representatives. Hardly comparable to the President of the United States. However, comparing the outrageousness of Democrat's sex scandals is hardly a worthwhile use of our time. This is an opinion forum. I have mine and you have yours, both equally expressed. Apparently, we disagree. So be it.
In this case, it was not what Clinton did to Monica Lewinsky (taking advantage of the huge imbalance in power to seduce Lewinsky), it was the harm it did to the rest of the West Wing office staff. Take Betty Currie as the perfect example. As the Secretary to the President, I don't think she ever thought her job description would include retrieving gifts given to mistresses and hiding them from Clinton's wife. Also, what did the other office workers think it took to advance in the Clinton West Wing after seeing the preferential treatment that Lewinsky got after getting chummy with the President?
These are the crimes of creating a hostile work environment, and how it affects the people around the ones being directly harrassed.
-PJ
“This is an opinion forum. I have mine and you have yours, both equally expressed. Apparently, we disagree. So be it.”
Cool, but I don’t think we disagree very much except in the ranking of “Which is worse?”. Clinton’s and Frank’s behaviors were and still are both despicable. And, I’ve been corrected by another commenter that Gary Studds set the Democrat bar for shamelessness even before Frank.