Why Mrs. Spitzer stands by her man......

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Tex, speak for yourself. I've never thought a politician was unfit for office because of adultery, necessarily, and I think the majority of the American people are with me.

I agree with this point of view. While I would prefer a politician who remains faithful to his spouse, I don't see infidelity as an automatic disqualifier. I may not care for their decision, but I'm largely concerned about their positions on issues. Either way, I really would prefer not to know. Maintaining a functional family/marriage is sufficiently difficult under normal circumstances, much less in the public spotlight.

That's not to say that adultery shouldn't raise concern. The affairs of a libidinous politician could become a huge media distraction or make them susceptible to blackmail. Until it gets to that point, I prefer not to make it a real factor.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by YOhio

I agree with this point of view. While I would prefer a politician who remains faithful to his spouse, I don't see infidelity as an automatic disqualifier. I may not care for their decision, but I'm largely concerned about their positions on issues. Either way, I really would prefer not to know. Maintaining a functional family/marriage is sufficiently difficult under normal circumstances, much less in the public spotlight.

That's not to say that adultery shouldn't raise concern. The affairs of a libidinous politician could become a huge media distraction or make them susceptible to blackmail. Until it gets to that point, I prefer not to make it a real factor.

I think we're missing the point of my question. Isn't it hypocritical for adulterers to demand their politicians to be faithful? Or are the calls for the heads of adulterous politicians coming from the 40% of men and 60% of women (accepting Barbara's stats at face value) who have been faithful?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Tex

Does that put you in the 60% or the 40%?

Since you brought up Clinton, let's make sure the record's clear. The House votes on 4 articles of impeachment were:

228-206 passed
221-212 passed
205-229 failed
148-285 failed

The failed votes in the Senate were 45-55 and 50-50. Not exactly an "extreme minority" no matter which figure you consider.

I forgot to mention the perjury. He was impeached for lying under oath, and ultimately disbarred for that, not adultery. But polls showed most Americans thought it was regrettable he was put under oath about such things in the first place. It was pure politics.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think we're missing the point of my question. Isn't it hypocritical for adulterers to demand their politicians to be faithful? Or are the calls for the heads of adulterous politicians coming from the 40% of men and 60% of women (accepting Barbara's stats at face value) who have been faithful?

The point, Tex, is most Americans don't demand that. The only adulturers I know of who have are Henry Hyde and Newt Gingrich. I'm sure I'm missing some but most of them are adultering politians and adultering political opportunists.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think we're missing the point of my question. Isn't it hypocritical for adulterers to demand their politicians to be faithful? Or are the calls for the heads of adulterous politicians coming from the 40% of men and 60% of women (accepting Barbara's stats at face value) who have been faithful?

Yes. It would be hypocritical for an adulterer to demand a monogamous politician.

It does remind me of a buddy with whom I talk politics. One of them lived off government aid during grad school and he did it in a pretty dishonest way. Yet he is constantly railing against entitlements and corruption. When I call him out on it he reminds me that he is paying more in taxes than he ever took.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Yes. It would be hypocritical for an adulterer to demand a monogamous politician.

It does remind me of a buddy with whom I talk politics. One of them lived off government aid during grad school and he did it in a pretty dishonest way. Yet he is constantly railing against entitlements and corruption. When I call him out on it he reminds me that he is paying more in taxes than he ever took.

The biggest reason to not want someone committing adultery to be your leader is that adultery can be a very distracting, stressful thing. You have to have icewater in your veins to do it and be in your right mind all the time. A lot of the same reason high school coaches don't want their players to have girlfriends.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I forgot to mention the perjury. He was impeached for lying under oath, and ultimately disbarred for that, not adultery. But polls showed most Americans thought it was regrettable he was put under oath about such things in the first place. It was pure politics.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The point, Tex, is most Americans don't demand that. The only adulturers I know of who have are Henry Hyde and Newt Gingrich. I'm sure I'm missing some but most of them are adultering politians and adultering political opportunists.

I dunno, there sure are a lot of adulterous politicians taking heat. Not all of them resign, but most of them suffer negative press.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The biggest reason to not want someone committing adultery to be your leader is that adultery can be a very distracting, stressful thing. You have to have icewater in your veins to do it and be in your right mind all the time. A lot of the same reason high school coaches don't want their players to have girlfriends.

Hitchens has an argument about politicians that's similar to your theory on founders of religious movements. They do it all to get laid.

Hitchens—a former contributor to the Voice—has written the obituaries of more than a few political careers, and he has a theory about the ones with poor coital judgment: They just don't see illicit sex as an obvious threat to their political survival. In fact, they see it as a primary reason to seek higher office in the first place.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/081...,381263,2.html

[creekster]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Hitchens has an argument about politicians that's similar to your theory on founders of religious movements. They do it all to get laid.



http://www.villagevoice.com/news/081...,381263,2.html

I also think this is the true motivation of most political protestors who are male. Really, that's what a lot of anti-war stuff is all about.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Hitchens has an argument about politicians that's similar to your theory on founders of religious movements. They do it all to get laid.



http://www.villagevoice.com/news/081...,381263,2.html

I venture that this is also why, in the deep recesses of the reptilian part of the male mind, many spectacular works of art get created, wonderous scientific discoveries occur, etc. I could go on and on.