Theologically speaking, the two parties have divided the Seven Deadly Sins as follows: Republicans oppose lust, sloth and envy; Democrats scorn gluttony, greed, wrath and pride. Little progress is reported.

Seriously- that is the quote of the day, if not the year. Nice work, Gene!

Also- blond can be spelled with or without the E. Blond sans E is often used for males while blonde is used for females; however, there is no absolute rule for it and they are often used interchangeably.

I'd hate for anyone to get the idea that John McCain was having a steamy, torrid affair with a male lobbyist. It would be a terrible shame if the rumor started here on Salon that John McCain was having secret trysts in an airport restroom with some blond lobbyist himbo. No one should spread the rumor all over the interwebs that John McCain was sharing the love that dare not speak its name with any male staffers or lobbyists. John McCain is surely not in love with his blond lobbyist playmate, and has not been "hiking the Appalachian trail." That would just be wrong.

True, but many of those on the Right who rail about government spending certainly grab what they can for them and theirs all the while decrying the "welfare state."

Look at Tom DeLay, whose financial improprieties drove him out of office. His brother was a lobbyist. His wife and daughter ran a business which didn't have a single client that lacked an interest in legislation the Congressman could shepherd through Congress. Yet they preach reliance on the free market for everyone else while they suck on the public teat.

Democrats use taxes as a weapon, rewarding behavior they approve of while punishing the job creators in this country.

Where have you been? Using wealth to create jobs is so 1900's. There's more profit to be had by using wealth to export jobs.

Another quote of the day!

have a poon-struck idiot as governor, or a lying, hairsprayed, unprincipled creep as President?

The moral depths Edwards reached in his betrayal of his wife are profound. He chose (or was it only an unforeseen consequence) to father a child with his strange. He then chose to ask his subordinate to cover it up, going so far as to ask said subordinate to claim the child as his. He lied about it repeatedly and unabashedly. Only when he was found cowering in his mistress's hotel room in the wee hours of the morning did he realize he might have a problem.

His wife, apparently, went along with all this crap, abetting the lies in hopes of getting her chosen one elected one more time.

Stacked up against the witless, hopeless and sodden Sanford affair, I'd think the Dems might want to STFU.

Edwards apparently was thoughtful enough to videotape his frolics...

Yeah, the Dems certainly have the moral high ground here...

you are missing the point. no one is denying that dems have sex scandals. the point is that repubs constantly tell us they are the family vaules party, they are christians and they want to tell us who we can or cannot sleep with.

so, when they are found to be involved in a sex scandal it is a bigger deal because they themselves are not living what they preach.

so you STFU and look up the definition of hypocrisy (or however you spell it)

to then seek elective office as a second career by campaigning on the platform "government is the problem." It's quite another for someone to make a career in government lecturing working stiffs at risk of losing their health insurance when their jobs are out-sourced on the benefits of reducing the size of the public sector.

As a young man Newt Gingrich picked a teaching job based on Congressional district. He saw his opportunity to latch on to the public teat and he grabbed it. How much time has he ever spent in the private sector? Far less than he's spent preaching its virtues.

I am not clear what Mr. Lyons is trying to say - and I am not altogether certain that he himself is either.

Unless Mr. Lyons is prepared to proclaim that marital infidelity and other commonly deplored sexual shenanigans are quite all right with him, he appears to have committed the ubiquitous error of confusing is with ought. This simple and seemingly obvious distinction is evidently beyond the reach of many of our progressive(!) friends.

Is = the way people behave. Ought = the way people ought to behave. Is is not ought. The definition of is is not ought.

The whole tiresome "Gotcha, you hypocrite!" game that seems to be so satisfying to certain persons rests upon the confusion of is with ought. The way people actually behave is not always the way they should behave. To call someone a hypocrite is to impugn their personal virtue and adherence to standards. Such a charge says nothing about the standards themselves. Hypocrisy, after all, has been said to be the tribute vice pays to virtue. It is an important tribute because the distinction between vice and virtue is an important distinction.

The notion that sexual behavior, including marital infidelity, is a purely private and personal matter that has no consequences for others, hence is nobody else's business, is of course self-evidently false and absurd. Does Mr. Lyons actually mean to leave us with the impression that he thinks it is OK to cheat on one's spouse?

Whether those who promote and uphold standards of conduct and moral ideals themselves always live up to such standards and ideals has nothing whatever to do with the validity and importance of such standards. It is confused and illogical thinking to mistake the messenger for the message.

Is is not ought.

Yours is officially one of the best letters I have read on Salon.com . . . . honorable mention goes to "Lost in Berlin" I have nothing else to add. Well said.

I am totally astonished to find myself agreeing with you (a first). The Sanford mess is WAY too fun, but we Democrats will rue our schadenfreude.