Infidelity in American Politics

[ICantSpellDawg]

Candidates questioned (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash7.htm)


KATIE QUERIES CANDIDATES ON INFIDELITY
Tue Dec 19 2007 14:49:22 ET

This week the CBS EVENING NEWS continues its series 'Primary Questions' where Katie Couric sits down with the presidential candidates and asks what makes them tick... everything from losing their tempers to the biggest mistake they've ever made. Wednesday night they tackle the issue of infidelity!

Senator Hillary Clinton

KATIE COURIC:

Harry Truman once said, "A man not honorable in his marital relations is not usually honorable in any other." Some voters say they don't feel comfortable supporting someone who's not remained faithful to his or her spouse. Can you understand or appreciate their point of view?

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON:

Well, I can certainly-- understand why some people would feel that way, and-- and that is their perfect right to do so. But I think-- that would be a tough standard for most of-- American-- history to be able to meet, when we look at people who have made a big difference in our country.

I think there's more to someone's honor and integrity, and to their public service. I think sometimes we confuse the private and the public in ways that are not necessarily-- useful. So, of course, it's a deeply personal matter that I take personally. But I think on the public stage-- there are a number of people who have-- represented our country, led our country-- accomplished great achievements on behalf of our country who might have some-- challenges in their personal life, but have made a great contribution.

Former Senator John Edwards

KATIE COURIC:

Harry Truman said, "A man not honorable in his marital relations is not usually honorable in any other." Some people don't feel comfortable supporting a candidate who has not remained faithful to his or her spouse. Can you understand their position?

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS:

Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans-- including the family that I grew up with, I mean, it's-- it's fundamental to-- how you judge people and human character-- whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that-- you love-- your spouse, and you'll stay with them.

KATIE COURIC:

Do you think-- what-- what about people who use that as a way to evaluate a candidate? In other words, there have been a number of fine presidents according to some analysts-

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS:

Right.

KATIE COURIC:

--who have certainly not been sort of exhibited the greatest moral character--

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS:

Right.

KATIE COURIC:

--when it comes to infidelity--

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS:

Right.

KATIE COURIC:

--I guess is what I'm getting at.

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS:

Yes.

KATIE COURIC:

So how important do you think it is in the grand scheme of things?

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS:

I think the most important qualities in a president in today's world are trustworthiness-- sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And-- and certainly that goes to a part of that. It's not the whole thing. But it goes to a part of it.

KATIE COURIC:

So you think it's-- an appropriate way to judge a candidate?

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS:

Yeah. But I don't think it's controlling. I mean, I think that, as you point out, there have been American presidents that at least according to the-- to the stories we've all heard-- that were not faithful, that were in fact good presidents. So I don't think it controls the issue. But I think it's certain-- something reasonable for people to consider.

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani

KATIE COURIC:

Harry Truman once said, "A man not honorable in his marital relations is not usually honorable in any other." Some people say they don't feel comfortable supporting someone who has not remained faithful to his or her spouse. Can you understand their reservations?

MAYOR RUDY GIULIANI: Sure, I can. Absolutely. You know, they look the every single part of us. And the only-- only thing I can say to people is I'm not perfect, you know? And I've made mistakes in my life. And-- and that-- not-- not just in that area. In other areas and I try to learn from it. I try to-- I feel sorry about them. I try to-- I try to learn from them so I don't repeat them.

Sometimes I even repeat them and you-- you try again. I mean, you-- you-- so-- I have a-- maybe a more generous view of human beings and a more generous view of life. I mean, it comes from growing up as a Catholic. I mean, we're all sinners. We're all struggling. We're all trying hard. We ask for forgiveness, and then we try to improve ourselves again. And I've-- relate to other people that way. Relate to the world that way.

KATIE COURIC:

How important is the politician's relationship with his or her children?

MAYOR RUDY GIULIANI:

I think it's important. And it-- but, no more important than anybody's relationship with their children. There's nothing special about politicians' relationship or a lawyer's relationship or a news-- news anchors relationship with their children. Or a baseball player's relationship with their children.

It's all-- all the same as far as the relationship between a-- a parent and a child. Often, they're real complicated. Often, they're least understood from the outside. They're best understood from the inside. But, I don't think there's anything special about politicians' relationship with their children. Except maybe for a high profile person, and sometimes the problems that that creates.

Former Governor Mike Huckabee KATIE COURIC:

Harry Truman said, quote, "A man not honorable in his marital relations is not usually honorable in any other." Many people don't feel comfortable supporting someone who has not remained faithful to his or her spouse.

GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: Uh-huh (AFFIRM).

KATIE COURIC:

Can you understand their position?

GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE:

I can. If-- if you violate the promise that you made to the one person on earth to whom you're supposed to be closest to, and this vow was made in front of your families, your closest friends, and God, and you don't keep that, then can we trust you to keep a promise that you made to people you don't even know?

And I think that's the parallel. And that's-- that's the concern. Is, that a promise you make to a spouse is the most sacred one you ever make to anyone on this earth. And if-- if you don't keep that, and you break that-- then I think there's a good reason to be afraid that you might break other promises, because your credibility has-- has really been damaged at that point.

KATIE COURIC:

Having said that, many people might argue, there have been a number of really fine presidents--

GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE:

Yeah.

KATIE COURIC:

FDR--

GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE:

Yeah.

KATIE COURIC:

--even Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy--

GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE:

Right. (LAUGHS)

KATIE COURIC:

--just to name a few.

GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE:

Uh-huh (AFFIRM).

KATIE COURIC: And who knows about some of the others--

GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE:

Yeah.

KATIE COURIC:

--who were not faithful to their wives.

GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: I don't think it means that a person can't be a good president. Obviously, there have been some great presidents who had personal issues. I think that's going to be true of all leaders. Nobody's perfect. Nobody. Me-- anybody else. We all have flaws.

One of the things that I think I've learned most about life-- particularly from my experience of having been a pastor, is that the people that you think are the best people on earth? Well, they've got some secrets sitting in there, about some pretty dark spots.

And the people you think are the dregs of the earth-- there's some qualities there. May not be on the surface, but they're there. The capacity to make great decisions is not always-- the same as the capacity to make really good personal decisions.

But it does come to the matter of, I think, whether-- the general population will trust you, and that if what you're saying is really true. They may believe that what you do is a good thing. It's just they don't-- they may not believe that what you say is necessarily the truth.

Senator John McCain KATIE COURIC:

Harry Truman once said, "A man not honorable in his marital relations is not usually honorable in any other." Many people feel they don't feel comfortable supporting someone who's not remained faithful to his or her spouse. Should they feel that way? Or can you understand their feeling that way?

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN:

You know, that's-- that's an area that I never get into. Because I think that people make judgments, and you can judge other people. I'm not very good at that. And so, I think it's up to each person's personal view of the individual, and-- and everybody has a different view.

I say that because you and I know that there have been some leaders in American history-- latest information about Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I happen to still think that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was an important president at a time in our history when we needed some courage. And so, it's-- that's just frankly, a judgment that I leave to others.

Senator Barack Obama

KATIE COURIC:

Harry Truman said, quote, "A man not honorable in his marital relations is not usually honorable in any other." Many people say they don't feel comfortable supporting someone who's not remained faithful to their spouse. Why should they?

SEN. BARACK OBAMA:

Why should they not--

KATIE COURIC:

Support someone who isn't faithful. In other words, people feel uncomfortable. Is that appropriate? Or, you know, how do you feel about that?

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Well, I-- you-- you know, I-- I do think that-- public morality and-- and private morality are not sum-- you know, or not equivalent. You know, we-- some of our greatest presidents haven't always been terrific husbands. And some who have been wonderful husbands have been (LAUGHS) rotten presidents.

So, you know, I think that-- other countries have typically taken a little more-- casual on approach when it comes to-- the personal lives of-- of elected officials. And I think that there has to be some space for privacy. I will say this.

I do think that-- I'm very proud of the relationship I've got with Michelle. And-- the work and the value that I've put into it. And I hope it does say something about my character, the strength of my marriage. But, you know, if-- if I was-- had a wonderful marriage but didn't have good ideas in terms of providing healthcare for every American or repairing the damage that's been done to our foreign policy by George Bush, then-- my marriage alone shouldn't qualify me for-- for being president.

KATIE COURIC:

Should infidelity qualify someone-- or should infidel--

SEN. BARACK OBAMA:

Disqualify.

KATIE COURIC:

--infidelity disqualify someone?

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: You know, I-- I'm very-- I'm very cautious about-- applying-- strict moral rules to-- or-- or-- or a blanket universal rule to-- to people. Because, you know-- I mean, there are some people who might say that the fact that-- you know, I indulged in-- drugs when I was young disqualifies me. I mean, there are a lot of ways that you can apply that kind of morality. What I'm always hopeful of is that-- people are-- judge our public servants based on their passion, their commitment, their public integrity, how they operate with that public trust. And, you know, if we start getting too-- sanctimonious about some of these issues then there aren't going to be that many people who are able or willing to serve.

Governor Bill Richardson

KATIE COURIC:

Harry Truman said, quote, "A man not honorable in his marital relations is not usually honorable in any other." Many people say they don't feel comfortable supporting someone who's not remained faithful to their spouse. Why should they?

GOV. BILL RICHARDSON:

Well, I think this is-- this is-- if you're-- if you're not faithful to your wife, you're not faithful to the country, to your ideals. You're not faithful to the spirit in which Americans trust their political leaders. And they expect them to-- to-- to have a sense of honor.

Nobody's perfect. I've been married to Barbara for 35 years. We've had our differences, our difficulties, but we've stayed together. But I think being faithful is-- is-- is a-- an essential component of any relationship. It's whether a voter can trust you to-- to be thinking about the common good as opposed to personal ambition or anything else.

KATIE COURIC:

Do you think infidelity is reason enough not to vote for someone?

GOV. BILL RICHARDSON: I don't think so. I think that, you know, infidelity is-- is a serious problem in any marriage. But, you know, everybody sins. And-- and it's whether you're forgiven, whether you forgive yourself, whether you have faith in God. You know, perfection is-- is something that politicians, they should not stand themselves for perfection. Nobody's perfect.

Former Governor Mitt Romney

KATIE COURIC: Harry Truman said, quote, "A man not honorable in his marital relations is not usually honorable in any other." Many people say they don't feel comfortable supporting someone who's not remained faithful to their spouse. Why should they?

GOV. MITT ROMNEY: Well, I'm certainly faithful to my spouse, my spouse. Ann and I fell in love in high school. We-- really our lives revolve around each other. I'd rather be with Ann than any other person in the world. And-- if I have any extra time, I wanna share it with Ann. That's just the nature of-- of our relationship. I know other people who've had other circumstances. If-- if a marriage doesn't work, if people really can't get along, if they end up really disliking each other, then I guess it's appropriate to go find a new relationship or move away from marriage. But I'd do that. I would recommend people doing that in an honorable way. And-- and there are ways of doing that that are appropriate and ways that are not.

KATIE COURIC: Well, what do you think of people who base their judgment at least partially on a candidate's ability to remain faithful to his or her spouse?

GOV. MITT ROMNEY:

You know, I let people look at me any way they want to. I'm not gonna give advice to the American people in which aspects of a person's life they look at. After all, the president of the United States is gonna be under a microscope. He will be. The first lady will be. The whole family will be. Every mistake will be open to the world. In some respects, you respect the nation.

In some respects you represent an example to the children of America. So we're gonna get looked at in all sorts of ways. And I'm not gonna try and counsel the American people as to what to look at. I know they look at my faith, for instance. And I'm happy to have them do so. Some are critical. Some are positive. It's just part of the package. And-- take me as the-- the whole character that I am.

KATIE COURIC:

Do you think that people shouldn't vote for candidates if they are-- commit adultery, for example? GOV. MITT ROMNEY:

I-- I think people should be able to do what they want to do. And-- and-- express their own views when they get into the-- the voting booth. I'm not gonna tell them how to-- to-- to do that. And I know that people will, again, take their own counsel.

Former Senator Fred Thompson

KATIE COURIC: Harry Truman said, "A man not honorable in his marital relations is not usually honorable in any other." Some people don't feel comfortable supporting a candidate who hasn't been faithful to his or her spouse. Can you understand their reservations?

SEN. FRED THOMPSON: Yes. I can understand where that's coming from.

KATIE COURIC: Do you think it's-- an appropriate way to evaluate a candidate?

SEN. FRED THOMPSON: Everybody's gotta make up their own mind about that. I think that you can evaluate a candidate any way you want to. It's a free country. There are a lot of things that go into it. When we elect a President, we're electing the leader of the free world. We're facing-- tremendous challenges ahead. I don't think we've come to terms with the nature of the threats against us, really in terms of-- of radical Islam and the things we've got to do and the threats to the economy with the growing retirement population, things that-- of that nature.

So, nobody's perfect. Everybody-- has-- weaknesses and has made mistakes one time or another in life. But everybody's gotta decide for themselves what they want to consider that go into making up. The leader is going to have to deal with these problems of the country.

Senator Joe Biden

KATIE COURIC:

Harry Truman said, "A man not honorable in his marital relations, is not usually honorable in any other." Some voters don't feel comfortable supporting a candidate who's not remained faithful to his or her spouse. Can you understand their position?

SEN. JOE BIDEN:

Look, this is really dicey territory. Let me say it this way. I think that one's character, one's honesty, one's integrity-- is a habit of the mind. I don't think people can be-- dishonest in one aspect of their life, and compartmentalize it and be viewed as being honest in other parts of life.

If the tendency is to cut a corner. If the tendency is not to tell the truth, the probability is, that in a moment of crisis, where that person's interests are at stake, they're likely revert to the bad tendencies. If the habit of the heart and the habit of the mind is, that whether you're dealing with promising the parking attendant you're gonna be back in 20 minutes. Or you're telling your wife something, or you are going to the nation and making a commitment.

There is-- habits are habits. And they all relate to, seems to me, how an individual values what they say as being important and relevant. Everybody makes mistakes. I-- I don't have a-- you know, I don't pass harsh judgments on people who make-- my-- dad used to say, very good people do very bad things sometimes. But it's more of whether it's a pattern or a mistake.

And I think that it's awfully hard to be-- have a pattern of dishonesty in relationships, married or otherwise, and-- be reliable-- in difficult-- circumstances where other people are depending on-- the veracity of what you say.

KATIE COURIC:

Should marital infidelity be part of the equation, in your view, when a voter is evaluating a candidate?

SEN. JOE BIDEN:

I-- I think that's for every voter to decide. Voters-- voters make-- as they should, make-- decisions relative to the leaders based on their needs. The need of the voter. And-- if you have someone who is-- you need someone to be a great general to win a battle and he is a no-good guy, you'd never wanna show up for dinner. You might very well say, I'd vote for that guy to be the General. I'd vote that person or that woman to be the-- you know, the Governor, or what ever.

I think people make very rational decisions based upon whether or not the character flaw in the individual they're looking at relates to something that affects their lives or the life of their country. And for some people-- the overwhelming-- requirement, Overwhelming-- characteristic they want is honesty. And that would be a difficult thing for-- for-- for the voter who has that as the highest priority, to vote for someone like that.

But it's an interesting thing. I remember asking-- one-- one of the people who's-- a-- a smart guy, is this guy Frank Luntz, who does these groups. And I remember hearing him speak and saying that the polling data shows that the characteristic-- he asked the question generically.

What characteristic do you think the American people most look for in their-- in-- in-- in their president? And I immediately said-- honesty, integrity. In my mind. And he said, no, no. Then he asked the audience. And they said-- the simple most important thing they're looking for is resilience. Someone who can take a 'hit' and get back up and move on. That's an interesting phen-- phenomena.

I've been in public life most of my adult life, and I wouldn't have said that. But ya think about it. It's probably one of those characteristics that-- gives people confidence that you can lead the country through what they know are gonna be ups and downs. But-- so, that's a long answer to your short question.

KATIE COURIC:

Yeah. That's interesting.

SEN. JOE BIDEN:

I-- I think that-- for some people-- if honesty, if the-- if absolute integrity of the character of a person you're looking for to be president is the criteria for you, then I think it probably matters a lot. If it is determining who can best drive this train right now at this moment, it may or may not be.

Developing...

[drone]

Of course, she doesn't ask the one candidate who has seen more 'tang than all of them combined, even if you throw Bill Clinton in there as well. Just more evidence of the media avoiding Ron Paul! ~D

[Kagemusha]

My honest opinion is that Yanks should take lessons from the Frenchies in these matters.:painting:

[woad&fangs]

My honest opinion is that Yanks should take lessons from the Frenchies in these matters.:painting:
Amen

[Odin]

:zzz:

Boy Katie Couric is really a hard hitter huh? :thumbsdown: What a waste of time. There politicians, and infidelity is supposed to be a revelation as to thier charecter? :rolleyes:

[ICantSpellDawg]

What would you suggest would as an in depth question of character? Also, how do you define "character"?

I think that the question is tough one. What are they going to ask them? They have, for the most part, clearly highlighted their policy plans and policy records. I think questions such as previous oaths sworn, and what those oaths mean are informative. Like it or not, Marriage is a government contract.

Infidelity does sway my support for a candidate.

“Physical infidelity is the signal, the notice given, that all fidelities are undermined.” - Katherine Ann Porter

[Odin]

What would you suggest would as an in depth question of character? Also, how do you define "character"?

Asking a politician about thier charecter is a trap. Using infidelity as the premise to measure charecter is flawed because its not a universal application, everyones situation is unique.

as to a charecter question I would ask something like this: "What has been your greatest personal sacrafice"

Personal sacrafice is a better measurement of ones charecter as it shows what your willing to give up to obtain something you find, or someone else finds of personal value.

[ICantSpellDawg]

as to a charecter question I would ask something like this: "What has been your greatest personal sacrafice"


I think that would be one of the many good questions. I also think the infidelity question was interesting and well used. The presidents that I have liked the least have been those who have been found to have cheated on their wives.

Also - there are many different kinds of cheating. There is the isolated kind, which more than anything shows a weakness of character. This happens while drunk or in extended spousal absence etc.

The more worrisome kind is the kind that Giuliani and Clinton are prone to: Orchestrated deceit and drawn-out betrayal. This is much more troublesome as it tends to show a twisted character, void of morals or respect for honor. Working late, long term girlfriends that soak up funds and usually end in divorce.

I'd bet that infidelity is just the tip of the ice berg as far as their character is concerned. A person like this is a traitor to morality and is unfit for the white house. This is just my personal opinion.

[Vladimir]

Why would you ask a whore if she's faithful to a partner?

[Odin]

The more worrisome kind is the kind that Giuliani and Clinton are prone to: Orchestrated deceit and drawn-out betrayal. This is much more troublesome as it tends to show a twisted character, void of morals or respect for honor. Working late, long term girlfriends that soak up funds and usually end in divorce.

I'd bet that infidelity is just the tip of the ice berg as far as their character is concerned. A person like this is a traitor to morality and is unfit for the white house. This is just my personal opinion.

I think traditionally politicians are not of the strongest moral fibre, at least thats the mythos that has been created. After consideration I do think the question of infidelity as an indication of moral charecter isnt to far off despite my initial apprehension.

The question becomes does infidelity prohibit an individual from achieving a positive outcome? FDR had a mistress, so didnt JFK, Jefferson had one as well. All 3 of which I would say had sucessful tenor's as president, however each had there less then stellar moments as well.

Who can get the job done is more important then thier personal life choices IMHO. This country needs a massive investment in infrastructure and institutional reforms. That might require us all to take a step off our morality pedestal for a term or two (not specific to you tuff).

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think traditionally politicians are not of the strongest moral fiber, at least thats the mythos that has been created. After consideration I do think the question of infidelity as an indication of moral character isn't to far off despite my initial apprehension.

The question becomes does infidelity prohibit an individual from achieving a positive outcome? FDR had a mistress, so didn't JFK, Jefferson had one as well. All 3 of which I would say had successful tenor's as president, however each had there less then stellar moments as well.

Who can get the job done is more important then thier personal life choices IMHO. This country needs a massive investment in infrastructure and institutional reforms. That might require us all to take a step off our morality pedestal for a term or two (not specific to you tuff).

I do agree with Obama when he said something like "some of the best Presidents have been lousy husbands and some of the best husbands lousy Presidents."

I also agree that when you are tasking someone with fighting a war, the best traits to look for are their ability to fight war. In this way, I would probably vote an "infidel" into the position. However, a Presidential election is different. We are tasking him with representing us as a country. We want him/her to be an idealist and any addictions, personal weaknesses or personal failures can take away from that both theoretically and in practice.

I would never support a candidate who I knew to take liberties with the truth, to lie in order to benefit themselves or who cheated on their husbands/wives and family. We need the BEST candidate. Iron out all kinks. For every great President who was unfaithful there has been another who was faithful (as far as we know). I would prefer to look harder for a morally upstanding AND politically able candidate than to just be satisfied with occasional personal corruption. People have looked negatively on Obama for smoking and, although I occasionally smoke myself, I would rather he didn't.

Call me an idealist, but we are looking for THE BEST that the nation has to offer. Hopefully that would mean fidelity to oaths sworn in all aspects of life unless it was right to break them.

[Odin]

However, a Presidential election is different. We are tasking him with representing us as a country. We want him/her to be an idealist and any addictions, personal weaknesses or personal failures can take away from that both theoretically and in practice.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Oath of office of the president of the united states, Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clause 8)

According to the constitution thats what he/she is tasked with. He is to protect and defend the constitution. Therefore by executing this task he represents the people. Sadly the presidents office has taken on a role of diplomat in recent times, so indirectly your correct but not technically.



I would never support a candidate who I knew to take liberties with the truth, to lie in order to benefit themselves or who cheated on their husbands/wives and family. We need the BEST candidate. Iron out all kinks. For every great President who was unfaithful there has been another who was faithful (as far as we know). I would prefer to look harder for a morally upstanding AND politically able candidate than to just be satisfied with occasional personal corruption. People have looked negatively on Obama for smoking and, although I occasionally smoke myself, I would rather he didn't.

Essentially you would thus negate representative government as we the people have a multitude of flaws. I dont want scum bags but at some level I want someone who has a modicum of human failings and can relate to the constituancy.


Call me an idealist, but we are looking for THE BEST that the nation has to offer. Hopefully that would mean fidelity to oaths sworn in all aspects of life unless it was right to break them.

Your an idealist. While thats a noble aim, its hardly practical in its application. Your search will envitably lead you back to yourself, as with every idealist I have met, the ideal is something created in thier own minds, not reality.

[ICantSpellDawg]

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Oath of office of the president of the united states, Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clause 8)

According to the constitution thats what he/she is tasked with. He is to protect and defend the constitution. Therefore by executing this task he represents the people. Sadly the presidents office has taken on a role of diplomat in recent times, so indirectly your correct but not technically.




Essentially you would thus negate representative government as we the people have a multitude of flaws. I dont want scum bags but at some level I want someone who has a modicum of human failings and can relate to the constituancy.



Your an idealist. While thats a noble aim, its hardly practical in its application. Your search will envitably lead you back to yourself, as with every idealist I have met, the ideal is something created in thier own minds, not reality.

Right. I'm just saying that if there is a candidate who has fewer personal failings and seems to be a great candidate, I will vote for them over someone has more personal failings but otherwise seems like a great candidate.

It's simple for me in that regard.

[Odin]

Right. I'm just saying that if there is a candidate who has fewer personal failings and seems to be a great candidate, I will vote for them over someone has more personal failings but otherwise seems like a great candidate.

It's simple for me in that regard.

Well you did say a touch more then that Tuff, but okay I wont drag it out further then it needs to go.

It really comes down to what you value. I want a president who is going to concentrate on strengthening the U.S. infrastructure as well as refining the entitlement programs as well as ending wars of exporting ideology.

I dont care if he/she is gay, straight, married, divorced, has multiple lovers or is cellibute. They have to be able to work with congress to further my personal adgenda, there personal shortcomings are of minimal importance to me.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Well you did say a touch more then that Tuff, but okay I wont drag it out further then it needs to go.

It really comes down to what you value. I want a president who is going to concentrate on strengthening the U.S. infrastructure as well as refining the entitlement programs as well as ending wars of exporting ideology.

I dont care if he/she is gay, straight, married, divorced, has multiple lovers or is cellibute. They have to be able to work with congress to further my personal adgenda, there personal shortcomings are of minimal importance to me.

Okay, but I don't want a "foreginer" in office. By foreigner, I mean that if I have less in common with him than I do our nations enemies, what is the point? If the President shares few of my values it seems rather pointless to be supporting them. Belief in marital vows is one of those strongly held values for me.

If it isn't a (voting) issue for you, then do what you will.

[Odin]

If it isn't for you, then do what you will.

Personal comments, insinuations or general crude inference without the smiley attached to denote intent is uncalled for, and hence terminates my participation in this thread.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Personal comments, insinuations or general crude inference without the smiley attached to denote intent is uncalled for, and hence terminates my participation in this thread.

Right - I apoligize. I meant it as "if it isnt a voting concern with you, then do what you'd like"

I didn't mean that marital vows are not important to you.

[Xiahou]

Right - I apoligize. I meant it as "if it isnt a voting concern with you, then do what you'd like"

I didn't mean that marital vows are not important to you.
And maybe they aren't. I don't think the idea that marriage vows are meaningless would be an unheard of or particularly insulting comment by many people's standards today.

Personally, I agree with the Truman quote. Sure, the majority of politicians end up being liars, but if I already know one to be a liar to the extent that he can't even keep a vow made before God to their own wife, then I certainly shouldn't expect them to keep any dime-a-dozen campaign promises.

It's not a determining factor- but for me it is still a factor nonetheless.

[ICantSpellDawg]

And maybe they aren't. I don't think the idea that marriage vows are meaningless would be an unheard of or particularly insulting comment by many people's standards today.



Correct, but Odin made his support for marital vows clear in a previous post. Not in so many words, but in his agreement that it "says something about character" and he doesn't want "scumbags in the office BUT". At least that is what I inferred.

[ICantSpellDawg]

And maybe they aren't. I don't think the idea that marriage vows are meaningless would be an unheard of or particularly insulting comment by many people's standards today.

Personally, I agree with the Truman quote. Sure, the majority of politicians end up being liars, but if I already know one to be a liar to the extent that he can't even keep a vow made before God to their own wife, then I certainly shouldn't expect them to keep any dime-a-dozen campaign promises.

It's not a determining factor- but for me it is still a factor nonetheless.

BTW - I agree.