• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Politicians personal lives

Ziggurat said:
What events in their personal lives are you talking about, what do you think those events told us about their character, and how did those character traits affect their leadership abilities? Because neither of them is the equivalent of John Edwards in leadership, character, or personal lives.

Sure, if you make a shallow examination of an issue, you can reach an erroneous conclusion. That's not even unique to politics and character. If you want to say something more interesting than that, you've got to, you know, say something more interesting than that.
Click to expand...

So when does infidelity mark someone as a poor leader? Clearly Churchill was a man of weak moral character.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So when does infidelity mark someone as a poor leader?
Click to expand...

Infidelity itself doesn't necessarily indicate that, and I never said otherwise. Like I said, I don't think you understood what I actually said. But how one handles one's infidelity may indeed mark poor leadership potential. In Edwards' case, his handling of his infidelity marked a massive egocentrism, a disregard for risk, a penchant for scapegoating underlings, and possibly even a willingness to break the law. Can you not understand why that might be a bad sign for a potential leader?
 
ponderingturtle said:
When are criticisms of the personal lives of politicians with merit and when are should they not be made. I see talk about leaving politicians people agree with alone when they have personal indiscressions or personal problems. But few people seem to give that to the oposition politicians.

My take is that when a canidate makes a point about their personal lives or statements about the personal lives of others, then it is acceptable. Otherwise, I really don't care if say a politician visits prostitutes on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

Why would that make a difference to you?

I'd say if a president is having an affair with a mob boss' mistress or an east german agent... the personal life is crossing the line.
 
Upchurch said:
Generally speaking, I only really give a :rule10 if the behavior they are participating in is one the routinely denounce as a matter of policy. A prohibition advocate who is an alcoholic, for example, or an anti-gay/family values advocate who is cheating on his wife with a gay lover.
Click to expand...

Or someone who speaks passionately about the need for a death tax but has his mother's estate probated in a state (where she didn't live) in order to avoid the death tax. It will be interesting to see where this said person's estate will now be handled.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
And this goes beyond politicians too, right? I mean Rush Limbaugh's drug addiction was the epitome of this sort of hypocrisy.


I would add to the list that if the personal topic is related to public policy on which the politician (or candidate) has taken a stand. For example, the teen pregnancy of Palin's daughter when Palin had been in favor of abstinence only sex ed. For another, Palin made much of her choice to carry her Down Syndrome baby to term, even though it's a choice she would deny other women to have.
Click to expand...

And add Michael Moore to the list too. "I don't own a single share of stock." he has said publicly. But it turns out that he owned quite a bit, including halliburton and defense contractors like honeywwell.
 
Ziggurat said:
Infidelity itself doesn't necessarily indicate that, and I never said otherwise. Like I said, I don't think you understood what I actually said. But how one handles one's infidelity may indeed mark poor leadership potential. In Edwards' case, his handling of his infidelity marked a massive egocentrism, a disregard for risk, a penchant for scapegoating underlings, and possibly even a willingness to break the law. Can you not understand why that might be a bad sign for a potential leader?
Click to expand...

People don't focus on any breaking of the law. Why is putting a girlfriend on payroll so bad when putting the wife and kids on payroll is normal?

The aspects people focus on are the irrelevant ones.
 
ponderingturtle said:
People don't focus on any breaking of the law. Why is putting a girlfriend on payroll so bad when putting the wife and kids on payroll is normal?
Click to expand...

Putting them on the campaign payroll is not in itself the problem. But they have to do the actual work for which they are hired, or you're just embezzling money. Which may have happened in the case of Riel Hunter. And that's a problem whether it's the girlfriend or the spouse. Why do you not know this?

The aspects people focus on are the irrelevant ones.
Click to expand...

You haven't said what aspects you think people are focusing on in the Edwards case, nor why they are irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom