Decency...in a marriage.

[Raven]

I'm beginning to think that a new litmus test for a Presidential candidate should be how he/she has handled their marriage vows...really. Divorce happens and should not be held against anyone but, extra-marital affairs presume lying and cheating and this is not a behavior I want in my next President. Breaking your marriage vows is tantamount to lying under oath after the fact. Democrat or Republican, I think we should hold these folks to at least a minimun standard of truth and fidelity to the people who they have pledged to and lived off (in some cases). If someone can't be straight with the person they are sharing a life with and children with, why would they be straight with us?

[sir_captain]

1. A) Personal lives are just that

and not really any of our business

B) It is tortured logic to equate less than stellar relationship history with an inability to govern well.

This is the same sort of "logic" that the republicans used during the Monica Lewinsky nonsense.

There is almost no one in the entire world who has not done and said things at certain points in their lives which are regrettable.

[Deja Q]

4. Like the guy who was arrested for his 28th DUI? He sounds like a fun leader...

:beer: :D

True, nobody is perfect. But if, for example, Newt Gingrich is on the side of marriage and fidelity and all that, he'd better be honest and ditch the group and find something else to adhere to.

[gollygee]

6. That would be someone who has repeatedly broken the law

not someone who has issues in his marriage. Not parallel at all.

[sir_captain]

23. Newt is a hypocrite

we don't need to be like him too. Your analogy is a poor one.

[Lorien]

7. Amen. Many of my best bosses and managers couldn't maintain

a healthy marriage or relationship. It's all about balance; when one excels tremendously in one area of life, it isn't unusual for the other areas to suffer. Personally, I'd rather not know about the private lives of public figures.

[Deja Q]

2. Seems fair to me:

Corporations won't hire people based on credit score and other immaterial issues, so why not for Presidents either?

[gollygee]

3. I think people need to stop worrying about other people's sex lives

There is only one person I'd give hell for having an affair, and that's my husband. Other people need to deal with these issues within their families as well. How good a husband (or wife) someone is has no relationship to how well they govern.

[madeline_con]

26. Thank you. n/t

[HRC_in_08]

5. I don't trust people that drink coffee. Can we add them to the list? eom.

[gollygee]

8. I don't trust the "last name as first name" phenonemon

Can we add anyone with a first name of "Spencer" or "MacKenzie" to the list?

[HRC_in_08]

11. anyone with such a name obviously cannot be trusted to govern. done! eom

[Phentex]

18. Especially decaf....

I'm suspicious of those people.

[ComerPerro]

9. Well, I honestly think the only reasons the Bushes are still together

is becasue of money, pressure, and LOTS and LOTS of Xanax

[madeline_con]

27. And coke and booze. n/t

[RB TexLa]

10. There's no way I could ever consider that to be any of my business

[NMMNG]

12. What next--video cameras in candidates bedrooms?

You can't legislate morality, nor can you base a campaign on it. People's personal lives are just that--personal. The whole idea of basing your votes on what a candidate does with his/her marriage or sex life sounds so Right Wing.

[Raven]

13. Well, the Right Wing tries to legislate morality and they

base their campaigns on it. I don't see anything RW about expecting someone not to trash their spouse...I guess maybe this is all about Bill Clinton...so I guess we ought to stop posting all these articles about the Republican candidates who were huge shitheads to their spouses...or I guess we can post them but we shouldn't be so gleeful because, after all, their personal lives are private. Do I have this right?

[gollygee]

14. If they base their campaigns on morality

they'd better make sure they aren't in glass houses, so to speak. Pointing out hypocrisy isn't the same as choosing to vote for someone based on how happy their marriage is. If Clinton has run on a campaign that he was the voice of sexual morality, then it would be parallel. But he didn't. He said, "It's the economy, stupid" as I recall.

[NMMNG]

21. Yes, the RW tries to legislate morality--and that is wrong

You simply can't do it, nor should you try.


so I guess we ought to stop posting all these articles about the Republican candidates who were huge shitheads to their spouses...or I guess we can post them but we shouldn't be so gleeful because, after all, their personal lives are private.

The reason people here post those articles and get such satisfaction out of them is because the RW spends so much time claiming that they are righteous and moral, then it turns out that they are not. They are big, fat, hypocrites. If they didn't push the "family values/morality/purity" garbage so much it would be a non-issue.


I don't see anything RW about expecting someone not to trash their spouse

It's not RW to expect people not to trash their spouse. It's RW to base your decision to vote or not vote for someone mostly or entirely on that. A person's fitness for office is based on many factors, and to base a decision solely on what they do in their marriage is incredibly short sighted.

[BlooInBloo]

15. If you'll admit you wouldn't vote for Bill Clinton again. Otherwise you're just being...

... and opportunistic partisan hypocrite.

And in the off-chance that you *are* consistent with the maxim you suggest, there's still the it's-a-stupid-maxim problem.

[Raven]

17. Nice way to have a discussion...

I did not vote for Clinton in his last election because I was so pissed off at him that he could not keep him mind above his goddamned beltbuckel...now, you can't call me an opportunistic partisan hypocrite (I'll put my creds up against yours any day, pal)...thank God he won without my vote or you'd be calling me a traitor.

[BlooInBloo]

19. Excellent. Then we're back to the it's-a-stupid-maxim, as explained by others...

... The potential hypocrisy was glided over too quickly by others, who went straight for the it's-a-stupid-maxim point. I just wanted to make sure all bases were covered, and in their proper order.

[sir_captain]

22. All the Lewinsky stuff came out

after he was reelected, so what were you so mad about? Gennifer Flowers?

[sarge43]

16. Further, how deeply would we be willing to dig into an

individual's life history?

Putting it another way, if you or your spouse decided to run for public office (and why should we limit this to presidential candidates), would you want the details of your sexual relationship to become public knowledge? You or spouse may have been very discrete and careful while committing adultery, so an intensive investigation would have to be conducted. I wouldn't want this done to me or the spouse, so I can't demand it of others.

Also, is there always a correlation between an individual's private life and his or her public conduct?

Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson,
William Clinton are all confirmed adulterers; however, their effectiveness as a president ranges from awful to amazing.

[Syncronaut Seven]

20. How does polyfidelity fit in to the equation?

And how do we know the Clintons didn't have a consensual arrangement? Why is it so hard to believe that adults in America will pretty much chose the types of relationships that their heart tells them is right. Monogamy, has a poor track record. Ask Newt.

You won't be able to construct a litmus test for something as slippery as human sexuality. Pun intended :)

[madeline_con]

24. I gotta differ here.

I'd rather DUH-bya had fuc*ed around with other women than with the lives of 10's of thousands here and abroad. He'd be hurting way less people.

[madeline_con]

25. Dupe. Button problems. n/t

[Madspirit]

28. I didn't like it

I didn't like what Clinton did. I'm not sexually uptight. I wouldn't care if there was an Official White House Brothel. It was the lying and cheating and sneaking part I didn't like. I also didn't like the fact that it was with a girl seven years older than his daughter. I don't get people who can fuck someone they are old enough to have diapered.

All that said, I still voted for him twice and with no regrets. It is still only indicative of a personal marital problem. If we didn't let anyone with personal marital problems run for office, Pat Boone would be our permanent leader. ...and I really don't want that.

I think Clinton has some sexual addiction problems and I think people in politics tend to. They certainly don't seem to be able to keep it in their pants. So I just vote for who I think is best politically...and I never let them be alone with my imaginary teenage daughter.

I think, realistically, this is the best you can ask for. People who strive for powerful political positions, by definition, are made of different stuff than most of us. Get over it, with all due respect because you really need to vote for who will do the most good for ALL. If Hillary can live with it, I can.
Lee

[progressivebydesign]

29. I totally disagree...

If people who decree this type of litmus test really looked around, and knew the truth, they'd find that 76% of americans would be unfit to be in office. I can't begin to catalog the supposedly morally upright folks that I've known who were cheating and lying in a marriage. Your personal life is your personal life. However..IF someone, like say Guiliani, was found be to blatantly cruel to his wife and kids in the course of this indiscretion, THAT would really be unacceptable. No one knows.. NO ONE.. what goes on inside a family.

[LWolf]

30. I agree, to a point.

I think that a person's character is just that. Who we are doesn't change when we shift from private life to public life and back. Unless we are suffering from a multiple personality disorder, lol.

I think that people who are prone to lying, cheating, and dishonoring commitments or the people they made commitments to in private life are likely to do the same in public life. If I want a person of integrity in any public office, I'm going to choose someone who embodies that quality in private life, too.

I know you're getting a lot of adamant disagreement. I understand. Many of those disagreeing are in full defensive battle armor, and the "privacy/private life" issue is the only defensive weapon they've got. They have to use it, or they can't defend Bill Clinton. :shrug:

I support a person's right to privacy, whether the government does or not. In all honesty, I don't really want to know all the sordid private details about every public figure. I would not support an effort to investigate, examine, and disclose the private lives of candidates in order to verify their character. First, I don't have to. The media does that without any prompting from me. Second, that kind of a process seems ripe for corruption and cheating itself.

Still, if infidelity or abuse is already part of the public record, I sure as hell won't be voting for that particular candidate.

[Pyrzqxgl]

31. Look, Anything that makes fun of a Republican is fair game.

Whether it's Rudy in a dress, or McCain divorcing his wife for a young hottie, or Newt doing the same. I'm sure we can find things to make fun of Mitt, Hukabee, or Brownback about (even if it's their funny names). I've been making fun of
Republicans most of my life. I've said things about Republicans that DU wouldn't print (even if they are true). Making
fun of Republicans keeps you sane, and boy in times like these we need all the sane people we can get.

[stirlingsliver]

32. How A Candidate Treats His/Her Spouse Is Important

To me, what is important is how a candidate treats or has treated his/her spouse.

If the candidate abuses or has abused -- in any way -- his or her spouse, then s/he is not suitable.

Candidates who, for instance, abuse their wives by serving them divorce papers while the wife is in the hospital, are guilty of emotional abuse.