It is a misreading of values, "conservative values," to think the word means anything like what we liberals might think it means. We approach the word intellectually, thinking it has to do with a consistent set of moral principles. No. An error of liberal journalism. Conservatives use the word "values" to mean "sensibility." That is, the conservative church-goer and the conservative honky-tonker have the same "values," though one is adamantly sober and the other is adamantly drunk; though one is adamantly in favor of marriage as the only place for sex, if there, and the other does a pick-up in the pick-up and may subsequently go the abortion route. Both voted for Bush; both share his conservative cultural/political sensibility.

Because they're Christians awash in hate, contradicting the love of Jesus, we see that their values are fucked. But their sensibility is entirely of a piece.

Best -

(More, for free: search "Rabid Fanatic" +"Monty Johnston")

That's where you can sue your ex spouse's new BF/GF for money damages on the basis that they're a homewrecker. I like that and see it as a way for these family values types to salvage a little dignity through the law. Let Craig's wife sue the rental boys.

Briefly, Griggs alleges that many high ranking elected officials are controlled from behind the scenes, by an invisble hand with evidence of morally (sexually) deviant behaviour. This evidence would frequently involve acts caught on video, and be used to blackmail those individuals to get them to act in ways that those invisible hands desire.

J. Edgar, that dress-wearer who blackmailed the hell out of other dress-wearers, risen from the grave!

I'm reminded of rumors that Skull & Bones initiates are supposed to recount all their sexual history, supposedly for blackmail later.

On one hand, Grigg's story seems over-the-top, but on the other, is there any reason to think that Washington isn't rife with sexual blackmail? It's certainly rife with corruption of all other kinds.

Dating tips for politicians:

If you see a personal ad for "a very sexual black male", don't call him!

Also: "CIA" doesn't stand for "Christian Introvert Asian".

Consider the GOP's response to Vitter's heterosexual affair, and its response to Clinton's heterosexual affair. Please, GOP, do not deny that the only thing you really care about is power.

Make love, not war: it's not just a slogan, it's a political litmus test.

To be fair, there are regional politicians in the South that talk about the divorce rate as a family values issue. You might have gone futher in pointing out that former Gov. Mike Huckabee is an example of that (an ideologically consistent traditional family values politician) who, for example, publically undertook a covenant marriage with his wife. I like his take on Sen. Craig, quoted by War Room: Americans will ultimately forgive us for being sinners, but not for being hypocrites.

A couple of us commentators recently called attention to the fact that conservatives "reason" within comparmentalized spaces, dealing with larger issues or contradictions via ad hominem attacks and other forms of attack and/or fallacious reasoning.

Here Elephantman provides a textbook example, via the red herring fallacy:

I'll make you a deal, Glenn Greenwald!

We'll call for the swift resignation of the morally-disabled David Vitter, and set up the appointment of his replacement by a Democrat governor...

...if you will call for the resignation of the physically-disabled Tim Johnson, with the Republican Governor of South Dakota naming his replacement...

The issue with regard to Vitter, of course, is the double-barrelled hypocrisy in contrast with Craig. This hypocrisy is blatant, undeniable, and indicative of much, much broader patterns. Indeed, it's one of the core principles (yes, Virginia, hypocrisy is a principle with these people) of movement conservatism. So, for sure, it's not something that Elephantman wants to hear about. So, what to do? Present a distraction!

Hence, the red herring. Switch the subject to senators resigning. Never mind that Johnson doesn't appear ready to resign. Never mind that there's a long history of senators serving while incapacitated. Never mind, in short, that there's no there there. Anything at all will do to distract. The mere fact of raising the issue distracts attention from the original subject matter, which is the whole point of the distraction--to change the subject, so that conservatives have a chance to get back in charge of the narrative.

And, if folks are stupid enough not to realize how bogud the whole rhetoricl move is, then Elephantman can move onto stage two--and acccuse the Democrats of being hypocrites for wanting to treat Johnson and Vitters differently--merely because they are different!

This is how conservative discourse gets structured. It's all about using fallacies and personal attacks to avoid the contradictions inherent in their arbitrary, insufficient worldview, and advancing ill-founded suppositions in order to claim that it's the Democrats and/or the liberals who are the real hypocrites.

Glenn,

I am SURE that when Livingston got busted, adultery was a CRIME in Louisiana. I'm sure if that is still the case, but it was back then.

“And, I might add, the idea that "we win, you lose" as a mantra is childish at best. So, I ask -- how is it that it continues to work?”

Because too many misunderstand the true value of competition (competing with yourself and testing your capabilities) and how to diffuse not inflame a conflict. You are aware that the optimum outcome in a conflict is when both sides win. Those who are victims of Repug manipulation think one side must lose for the other to win.

When you select a religion that says, in order to be saved, you have to believe as I do or participate in a sport or business where winning means deflating or dehumanizing the opposition, you are blind to hypocrisy. At the most basic level when you are insecure about yourself and to feel good about yourself, you have to put others down because at least that means I am better than them, you dismiss your inner feelings and the hurt you are causing to others.

It also comes down to individuals, religions and cultures that see the world in black and white terms. Since I am not gay, than no one else can be gay, so it has to be wrong, especially if the messengers of my beliefs tell me so. Black and white viewers don’t understand the concept that it is OK to disagree.

It might seem that a black and white world is a much less complex way to live and thus feels safer. Actually a gray world feels safer to people like you and me, because we are not trapped into one outcome and can adjust to any situation while still feeling good about ourselves. Imagine the conflict in someone like Craig who by nature is a homosexual and by socialization believes he has no right to trust his natural feelings and must reside in the closet when the multitude is gathered around the closet and he has to tell his wife and everyone that he is not in the closet. That is the kind of emotional turmoil that goes on in a black and white view of the world. Now compound that with a gender socialization that says a man can’t trust his true feelings and is only allowed to use one of his emotions, anger.

Unfortunately, throughout history this kind of thinking has created death and mayhem, especially when two black and white groups clash.