Printable View
As the campaign trail hots up the mud slinging and character assasinations have started. As a voter i pay little attention to these and instead concentrate on the policies and ability to do the job.
My question is to Americans mostly but open to all on their own political arena.... would you be detered from voting for a candidate purley on the basis that he/she had an alledged affair ?
Interesting, yes, policy is important - but I think some parties say they want
to do something but finally would not do it if the win?
Well, since marriage is about "trust" and an affair is a violation of said "trust" and a sacred vow, to boot, I think the label of being both untrustworthy and morally corrupt are equivalent to a political execution to the "moral majority".Quote:
Originally posted by vidcc@13 February 2004 - 20:11
As the campaign trail hots up the mud slinging and character assasinations have started. As a voter i pay little attention to these and instead concentrate on the policies and ability to do the job.
My question is to Americans mostly but open to all on their own political arena.... would you be detered from voting for a candidate purley on the basis that he/she had an alledged affair ?
I certainly have no respect for a man who cheats on wife. If he can't stand beside his wife, how can I expect him not to "cheat" on me?
Gary Hart learned this the hard way.
Hobbes
Interesting point of view.
I rather like the French attitude that a politician without an illicit partner or two at some point in his career is fundamentally suspect as a human being.
Presumably, this is about the possibility that Kerry may or may not have had an affair with an intern (although I do not know if this was before or after his marriage to his wife - which as far as I can see in the scheme of things is a relatively recent event). The mud slinging over Bill seemed to galvanise support behind him rather than against him. It may actually make Kerry look more colourful and interesting. Who knows, he may be dull and boring and this snippet has been released by his camp to catch the "Bill effect". :blink:
Bill Clinton cheated and although i didn't agree with all his policies he did a good overall job...which to me is what counts.
I too dissaprove of extra marrital affairs but i am looking for ability to do the job, not the ability to keep his zipper done up
I was just giving the perspective of the moral majority and how it effected Gary Hart's career.
I think that most politicians are lying, deceitful, manipulative sociopaths who promote themselves and their supporters via backdoor payoffs.
I would love to see a single male, who does well with the ladies and thinks church is for "sheep", try and get elected.
Hobbes
Didn't you just describe Bill? - albeit there is the technicality that he and Hilary are married in some sense (although I am not sure if it is the commonly accepted sense).
I can't remember Gary Hart (he must really have stalled early).
However, I seem to recall Bill had flings before he was elected the first time and his trouser snake problem was common knowledge by the second election. One also gets the feeling that if he had been allowed to stand a third time GW would still be cracking them up in Texas with his witty rejoinders.
To me the political views and actions are what is important. The person's record throughout their political life, what they have said and if they have followed up on their promises. I see what you mean about not trusting them if they are marital cheats. However I would rather have a politically honest person who cheats in his private life. Than a pilar of the community who is politically deceitful. That is what I want in my politicians. In the other aspects of life I prefer it if people do not cheat on their wife or husband. If the marriage is over it is over. No problem there, just finish it before starting another relationship.
:blink:
Surely it's easier to be dishonest in politics and successful than it is to be honest and successful to some degree (unfortunately). To be honest in politics requires a lot of morality and sence of righteousness which is uncorruptable as their career advances. I can't imagine a profile of someone like this cheating on his wife.Quote:
Originally posted by Agrajag@13 February 2004 - 19:56
However I would rather have a politically honest person who cheats in his private life.
there all bad :angry: give me clinton :lol: that's right
Despite all the clamour about the fidelity of politicians, and subsequently how Clinton was so much a dog, it's amusing to note that "America's most beloved President," JFK, was quite the womanizer. Maybe being assassinated put him on more of a rosy plane?
:ninja:
Surely it's easier to be dishonest in politics and successful than it is to be honest and successful to some degree (unfortunately). To be honest in politics requires a lot of morality and sence of righteousness which is uncorruptable as their career advances. I can't imagine a profile of someone like this cheating on his wife. [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by samsamsamsam+13 February 2004 - 21:05--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (samsamsamsam @ 13 February 2004 - 21:05)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agrajag@13 February 2004 - 19:56
However I would rather have a politically honest person who cheats in his private life.
I am not really sure what you are saying here. I think it is perfectly possible for someone to be politically honest and succesful. However I suppose that depends on your definition of succesful. There is also the point regarding morality. I may totally disagree with a policy and find it to be immoral, in my opinion. However someone else may believe it is right, state that openly and follow the policy through. They are being honest and in their view morally correct. However in my view what they are doing is immoral. It is not a black and white issue, it depends on the views of the people concerned.
I am not really sure what you are saying here. I think it is perfectly possible for someone to be politically honest and succesful. However I suppose that depends on your definition of succesful. There is also the point regarding morality. I may totally disagree with a policy and find it to be immoral, in my opinion. However someone else may believe it is right, state that openly and follow the policy through. They are being honest and in their view morally correct. However in my view what they are doing is immoral. It is not a black and white issue, it depends on the views of the people concerned. [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Agrajag+13 February 2004 - 20:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agrajag @ 13 February 2004 - 20:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by samsamsamsam@13 February 2004 - 21:05
<!--QuoteBegin-Agrajag
Quote:
@13 February 2004 - 19:56
However I would rather have a politically honest person who cheats in his private life.
Surely it's easier to be dishonest in politics and successful than it is to be honest and successful to some degree (unfortunately). To be honest in politics requires a lot of morality and sence of righteousness which is uncorruptable as their career advances. I can't imagine a profile of someone like this cheating on his wife.
I didn't say it wasn't possible but to get to the top (or a high position) without wheeling and dealing a bit takes a lot of strength and morality (the sleezy shortcuts will be dismissed). I'm certain that there have been many leaders who have risen to the top the long way and become successful (I mean career wise) - I was just saying that it takes a lot of personal integrity to do it that way.
I personally would see someone who would cheat on their wife as lacking this in a generalised way to some degree.
I do follow the argument that it is unattractive if any public figure behaves like a cad (with the possible exception of Jack Nicholson). However, I am not convinced there is a direct correlation between infidelity and political dishonesty. Some of history's most barbaric and corrupt rulers have been quite prudish on matters pertaining to sex whereas some of the more rakish rulers have actually governed quite well.
I believe the French view that I mentioned earlier (in its more sophisticated version) states that love of political power is an unhealthy substitute for sex and that a politician who displays normal sexual urges cannot be all bad.
I am not arguing that we all go out and vote for sexual athletes (sorry Fugley), just that it does not automatically follow that if someone has had a love affair that they are incompetent to govern.
I thought the whole Christian thing was about forgiveness anyway - or did I dream that bit?
Hear Hear, though fugley's sexual athletisism must count for something.Quote:
Originally posted by Biggles@13 February 2004 - 21:23
I do follow the argument that it is unattractive if any public figure behaves like a cad (with the possible exception of Jack Nicholson). However, I am not convinced there is a direct correlation between infidelity and political dishonesty. Some of history's most barbaric and corrupt rulers have been quite prudish on matters pertaining to sex whereas some of the more rakish rulers have actually governed quite well.
I believe the French view that I mentioned earlier (in its more sophisticated version) states that love of political power is an unhealthy substitute for sex and that a politician who displays normal sexual urges cannot be all bad.
I am not arguing that we all go out and vote for sexual athletes (sorry Fugley), just that it does not automatically follow that if someone has had a love affair that they are incompetent to govern.
I thought the whole Christian thing was about forgiveness anyway - or did I dream that bit?
Quote:
Originally posted by Biggles+13 February 2004 - 20:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles @ 13 February 2004 - 20:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>However, I am not convinced there is a direct correlation between infidelity and political dishonesty.[/b]
You're probably right - that's just how the impression of it affects me (right or wrong) and someone morrally corrupt in their personal life may not be in their career - maybe
<!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@13 February 2004 - 20:23
(with the possible exception of Jack Nicholson)[/quote]
Agreed :lol: :lol: :lol:
well a few well put points have arisen. Apart from my previous comments i would like to add that it would be refreshing if for once we could have an election campaign where the candidates fight purely on policy. This goes for both sides, I find the mudslinging about Bush's military past just as annoying as i do about all the other things dragged up about the pasts of the other candidates.
I find it more a reason to not vote for a candidate that runs a "dirty character assasination" campaign as i think it's more childish than anything else...name calling.
Unless something actually comes up such as the candidate being a serial killer or paedophile or similar then i find the whole process to be an embarassment to my country.
we need political talent that will help ALL the American people in real terms and for that i don't care what they get upto in their own bedrooms
and you'd trust that?Quote:
Originally posted by vidcc@13 February 2004 - 22:51
i would like to add that it would be refreshing if for once we could have an election campaign where the candidates fight purely on policy.
Edit - POlicies in UK/USA materialised - 57%
I am not so gullible as to think that every policy will come into reality...but for an election that is the best we can base our descision on. If a candidate goes back on his word then i will remember that the next time i vote.
Quote:
Originally posted by Biggles@13 February 2004 - 21:44
Hobbes
I can't remember Gary Hart (he must really have stalled early).
Quote:
In early 1987, Hart was the clear frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in the 1988 presidential election. It seemed that only Democratic party efforts to recruit New York Governor Mario Cuomo would thwart his nomination. Hart had put in a strong showing in the 1984 presidential election, and had refined his campaign in the intervening years.
However, questions about extramarital affairs dogged the charismatic candidate. An exasperated Hart challenged the press to tail him. The Miami Herald did exactly that, to uncover damaging evidence of an affair with 29-year-old model Donna Rice, getting a photograph of Rice sitting on Hart's lap. On May 8, 1987, a week after the Donna Rice story broke, Hart dropped out of the race.
I think Bill and JFK both kept their trouser snake antics in the realm of speculation, while denying it publically. Gary was caught with a photo. You just can't rub it in the face of the moral majority. You just need to lie to them and look offended when the accusations surface. Look longingly at your wife, tell America how much you love that woman.
Even Bill pretended to be Religious, it is a requisite for the job.
Story brings a tear to my eye.Quote:
Bill Clinton also exhibited unusually solemn attitudes toward his religion during his early years. In his household of his mother, stepfather, and stepbrother, Bill was the only one who attended church. Bill Clinton often walked to church alone, often during his spare time. The church minister remembers that Bill Clinton was often waiting at the church before the minister arrived to open up the church, and Bill Clinton was only thirteen years old
Anyway, the tactic of exposing marital infidelity to the moral majority is a tried and true one. The key is not to get photographed and caught with the broad in your lap, leave the accusations stranded in the nebulous world of speculation.
I disagree with the JFK statement, MN.Quote:
Originally posted by MagicNakor@13 February 2004 - 17:12
Despite all the clamour about the fidelity of politicians, and subsequently how Clinton was so much a dog, it's amusing to note that "America's most beloved President," JFK, was quite the womanizer. Maybe being assassinated put him on more of a rosy plane?
:ninja:
Nix on "most beloved".
"Womanizer"? Definitely.
Ditto as to the "rosy plane".
This opens up a whole can of worms and Pandora's box, to boot.
Why does the last sentence sound risque in context of this thread?
How many sexual innuendos can dance on the head of a pin? B)
I'll try to remember to check this tomorrow; it is late, and I have to get up (there I go again!) early.
The Kennedy family, with the King being JFK, is sort of akin to an American royal family, likely due to it's history of tradgedy and, of course, scandal.
The most beloved? Abraham Lincoln.
Not my quote, it was from a President's Day poll (last year? I think it was). Lincoln was second.
:ninja:
J2K4
Who would you suggest as the most belovéd President ? As an outsider I see Jack Kennedy as not only the most likely candidate, but as the only one.
"Most beloved" presidents are generally media creations, which JFK was, to a large extent.Quote:
Originally posted by Agrajag@14 February 2004 - 07:38
J2K4
Who would you suggest as the most belovéd President ? As an outsider I see Jack Kennedy as not only the most likely candidate, but as the only one.
BTW-you may come in now; wipe your feet and have a seat-the waitress will be with you shortly.
As to the subject at hand, I would be sorely tempted to write you a book, but time precludes me. ;)
Which would be an explanation of why he was belovéd, as opposed to reasons why he was not. Or indeed answering the question about who you thought was the most belovéd.Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@14 February 2004 - 21:48
"Most beloved" presidents are generally media creations, which JFK was, to a large extent.
For me it is fairly simple. He was wealthy, intelligent, well educated, well travelled, witty, urbane, a genuine war hero and seen to be approachable by most people. He was pecieved as the epitome of the "American Dream".