Originally Posted By Dabob2 I ask this because when the Edwards thing came up, there were some here who said it did not, when choosing someone for public office. There were others (mostly conservatives, IIRC) who said it did. This was said of Clinton too. The basic premise was "if a man can not be trusted to keep his promise to his wife, he can not be trusted to keep his promises to us" and similar sentiments. I bring this up because John McCain has admitted to cheating on his first wife more than once; in fact, it was his serial infidelity that led to their divorce. Yes, the cheating he's admitted to was a long time ago - I have no idea if he's cheated on his current wife. And I'm of the opinion that while hardly admirable, it doesn't necessarily "translate" to what kind of leader one would be. FDR is generally regarded as the greatest president of this century, and he had a long-running affair with Lucy Mercer. But there were those who felt differently when the Edwards thing came up, and I'd like them to respond if possible: does McCain's admitted cheating make him unfit, in your mind? If not, why not, when Edwards' and Clinton's did? Is it just the time lag? I'm not talking about things like "could get caught in a compromising position while president, so that's bad," I'm talking about the general sentiment expressed that a man who would cheat on his wife would cheat or be dishonorable in general. Anyone care to answer, particularly those who were rather harsh on Clinton and Edwards?
Originally Posted By Ursula It doesn't matter to me. I thought critics were too harsh on Clinton and I think they are too hard on Edwards. If I was the wife of either, they'd be still bleeding now, however. We don't know why anyone cheats on their spouse but to me, it doesn't create any impact on how they would run a country.
Originally Posted By Mr X Doesn't matter to me. However, if people want to go after Clinton and Edwards for it, I say what's good for the goose is good for the Republican too. Interesting that never gets brought up though.
Originally Posted By barboy ///Does infidelity matter?/// Both 'Yes' and 'No' If some candidate is all up in the business of others by condemning another adulterer while carrying on a romance outside her own marriage.... you bet it matters. Flagrant hypocrisy needs to be fully exploited and exposed. Now if we're talking about the Clinton model whereby we knew going in his propensities for chasing skirt and he wasn't a grandstander against infidelity then 'No', it doesn't matter in the slightest to me.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> FDR is generally regarded as the greatest president of this century, and he had a long-running affair with Lucy Mercer. << He had a good excuse - he was married to eleanor roosevelt.
Originally Posted By wonderingalice ^^That match has always stumped me. Great lady, but my goodness... *L* And I'm with the camp that doesn't hold it against their abilities/loyalties unless they're harping about others before they're busted themselves. I figure that unless we're inside the walls of those marriages, we really don't know...
Originally Posted By beamerdog I met her when I was 5 or so. She scared the dickens out of me. She probably scared him, too. She was, however, very gentle and kind - loved kids.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost In his/her personal life...yes! In public life...to me it isn't even an issue. It is private and not even closely connected to the general public. We need to get a grip on sexuality.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 I don't think that commiting an act of infidelity, per se, has any correlation with one's ability to be a great mayor/governor/senator/president. On the other hand, the public eye is the public eye. We live in a time in which every entertainer and every politician should realize that their every personal action will be "News at 11!" fodder. AND they should realize that not all Americans will think of infidelity as an "understandable" thing. So I DO lose respect for those politicians who do it and get caught. Sorry, Buster. The job description for the position you fought to obtain was really clearly written, and it included an admonition about keeping junior in your pants. So... maybe your human nature trumped your desire to conform to the public's expectations. Okay. I might still be able to respect you as a leader. But when you deny what you did and thereby cost your country millions of dollars in its attempt to get to the truth, you're not just an adulterer. You're scum. You're a liar. You're a self-preserving jerk who puts his own political well-being ahead of the country you say you want to serve. I honestly don't care who ****s around. But don't do it and then -- when caught red"hand"ed-- tell me you weren't doing it. And do NOT spend my tax money to defend your lie.
Originally Posted By ecdc Odd as it may seem, I do find John McCain's infidelity to be different than either Clinton or Edwards. With Clinton and Edwards, there seems to be a remarkable amount of arrogance, or stupidity, or both, to actually think they wouldn't get caught. How can a President or Presidential candidate, so constantly in the public eye, think no one will notice? This isn't the era of JFK or FDR, when the press protected their secrets, and they knew as much. McCain's infidelity took place before his public service, and I have to confess I was impressed with his acknowledgement of it at the Rick Warren forum. McCain could've said any number of things and I seriously doubt anyone would've called him on it. Whether having an affair makes you a bad leader or not, I doubt it (although I can't get away from the fact that it does say *something* pretty unflattering about you). My own personal hero, and IMO the greatest American to ever live, Martin Luther King, Jr., had multiple affairs. It doesn't diminish from his mind boggling accomplishments. Indeed, his very flawed humanity only serves to make him all the more remarkable in my eyes.
Originally Posted By mawnck I've been trying to formulate a coherent answer to this one for awhile, and I guess the thing about Edwards is that the strength of his marriage was one of the main bases of his appeal. When it turned out that he'd been lying to the faces of *everybody* (even his closest supporters), and had been unfaithful to that sweet little terminally cancered wife of his, it just seemed like such a total betrayal to everybody who supported him. Of course, none of this has anything to do with leadership ability, but it's hard to get anyone to vote for somebody when they hate their guts. Clinton was already in office and doing (IMHO) a good job, so I kind of had to be pragmatic about it. Besides, to me those two always came across as kind of squicky in the marital department anyway, so it wasn't as big a surprise. McCain's stuff was before he entered politics, so everybody already knew about it. I guess the moral is, every case, and thus every reaction, is different.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox "If some candidate is all up in the business of others by condemning another adulterer while carrying on a romance outside her own marriage.... you bet it matters. Flagrant hypocrisy needs to be fully exploited and exposed." Precisely what Newt Gingrich was doing during the Clinton impeachment proceedings, cheating on his wife while bashing the President for infidelity on the floor of the House. Flagrant hypocrisy indeed.
Originally Posted By ecdc mawnck, I feel in the same boat. I wrote a lengthy response and then deleted it because I'm long-winded enough on these boards as it is. It does seem like a paradox; we have plenty of examples of infidelity by great leaders. It doesn't seem to have affected their ability to lead. But betraying the person whom you're supposed to be the most loyal to? Regardless of your views on sex, the lack of respect makes one wonder. If they can't even treat their spouse well, then how will they treat those they serve? And yet, it's a sad truth that many people treat the people they ought to treat the best, the worst. And I say this as one who's very open and liberal when it comes to sex. I actually have friends who have "open relationships" and I find no problem with it. If you both agree and you're both comfortable, more power to you. My problem isn't about the sex, it's about the dishonesty, and about the failure to care for the most important relationship in your life. It may not make them a bad leader, but they can't be surprised for it making some of us wonder.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Interesting comments. But we still haven't heard from any of the conservatives who insisted that "if a man can not be trusted to keep his promise to his wife, he can not be trusted to keep his promises to us" - and said so without regard to whether his cheating was before he was elected or not.
Originally Posted By jdub Infidelity is a character flaw, as is someone's glee in hearing of another person's infidelity. As is passing our judgement on how the cheater's spouse ought to react--gossipy as h-ll, and none of our business whatsoever. The problem we run into in deciding whether infidelity matters is that apparently a very large percentage of these men of power are philanderers. I was shocked that "America's Mayor" dipped in (mmph) to the Presidential race, seeing as what a horrible dog he's been in marriage. There's the aforementioned Gingrich thing (mmph, again). Clinton, Edwards, blahblahblah. Of COURSE I've wondered: if this is how they treat their own families, how could they POSSIBLY care about how they treat us? But apparently there seems to be some sort of pathological dam there. In the end (mmph x 3), I decided it's upon us to hold our nosed & vote for the stinker we think can do the job best.
Originally Posted By DlandJB But we still haven't heard from any of the conservatives who insisted that "if a man can not be trusted to keep his promise to his wife, he can not be trusted to keep his promises to us" >>> I'm not exactly a conservative, but I will say that when I know someone has been unfaithful to their spouse my estimation of them plumets. It means to me that they consider their marriage vows to be "guidelines." No one gets a pass for cheating. That being said, if we eliminated all the cheaters from the political rolls we'd probably have very few politicians. The kind of ego that lends itself to being able to be a politician (imo) lends itself to the "I want what I want when I want it" mentality. (I guess it isn't hard to see that I'm not overly fond of politicians of any political stripe.) Would it keep me from voting for someone? I never say never, but it would give me pause.
Originally Posted By jdub >>But when you deny what you did and thereby cost your country millions of dollars in its attempt to get to the truth, you're not just an adulterer. You're scum. You're a liar. You're a self-preserving jerk who puts his own political well-being ahead of the country you say you want to serve. I honestly don't care who ****s around. But don't do it and then -- when caught red"hand"ed-- tell me you weren't doing it. And do NOT spend my tax money to defend your lie.<< Any money spent on confirming whether someone is an adulterer--THAT's on the person burning the bucks. The spouse hiring an investigator, that I get. Anyone outside of the marriage doing so? Just salaciousness. And truth? Truth about SEX? That, too, is only owed within the marriage. The only correct answer to anyone else, really, is "I beg your pardon!" Which means "how shocking you should ask; it's clearly none of your business."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Still just a loud chorus of crickets from those who insisted it was a big deal on the earlier threads and said it essentially ought to disqualify somebody. Interesting...
