Yep-that kinda covers the situation, perfectly.
...we lowered the bar and in short gave him carte blanche to do whatever he wanted. He was 'one of us' or so we were told. [fwiw - he ain't like me and he's like no one I care to associate myself with.]
No kidding, I don't know anyone like him, either. And would run like heck from anyone who even approached his level of depravity.
As an aside, I will never forget, EVER, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, and Dan Rather looking directly into the lens of the camera and asking this question, in all seriousness, " Does CHARACTER really matter? ". (This phrase was repeated over and over by democratic pundits and newsreaders attempting to reduce the horror of clinton's actions on the American psyche.)
They (the pundits and so called major news media outlets) spent a LOT of the clinton reign of terror doing this in different ways-all the while tearing down our dream or hope of having respectable statesmen in our public arena. As if such a qualification, a qualification for public office that requires honor, dignity, respect, humbleness, and a general statesmanlike demeanor, was simply a unattainable dream. They were asking us to accept the sludge, instead. And accept it as a normal, as if we all live in such a clintonian realm of sociopathic relativism. They wanted us ALL to think, as you said, that we are all 'just like bill'. Horsehockey.
It was the asking of that very question, the actual suggestion it gave that one's character was not relevant to one's work, that absolutely opened my eyes to the clintonian trashing of our culture, as well as the liberal agenda of our newsmedia. I still cannot understand how ANYONE could even wonder if character matters. To this day I cannot stand to listen to those three so called newsmen because of their defense of the 'indefensible' actions that so characterized and still characterize the monstrous clinton machine.
You nailed it.
Does character matter? IMHO: To the liberal media the answer is simple. No. Only ideology matters
As to the 'lowering of the bar', you know I think it's really quite simple. They are using 'let he who is without sin, cast the first stone against us.'
Meaning, if we were properly grounded we would know when one should back off. For example, when someone has done wrong and repents then they confess the sin and agrees that was was done is wrong. Only God is the judge of a man's soul. Always. But we can look at behaviours and make judgements about what is right and wrong. Otherwise we could never condemn a murderer, eh?
We never had repentance with Clinton (& Condit for thatmatter) [at least that's how it looks from the cheap seats]. And admission of 'I have made mistakes' is enough pablum for the feel-gooders who don't want absolutes in their lives. Because of course we all have made mistakes... duh! But it is absolutely INSINCERE when the person making the so-called "confession" has no shame and to the point where they are still trying to do everything they can to stay in office. If they meant it then they would step down... pure and simple.
With regret comes shame (at least some measure of it). These men have no shame and thus do they have any sincere desire to repent???? You shall know them by their fruits.