Old--


I told you--you obviously weren't listening.   Sexual scandals are not as important for Democrats as they are for Republicans. And nobody has obligation to resign for a sex scandal.

Republicans tend to give a lot of leeway to their candidates on financial impropriety. Now I ask you--which is more important for the country at large--a politician using his position to have sex or using his position to benefit himself financially--thus discriminating against firms which are unwilling to help him do so? If nothing is done about this sort of thing, the government is then for sale to the highest bidder. Is this OK with you?