If a candidate cheats on his wife, is he less qualified?
Eliot Spitzer is a different story since the guy arrested prostitutes and then fucked them, but in general, people like John Edwards and that dude who went to Argentina... are they less qualified to hold office just because they're cheaters?
Would you add that to the equation when voting for them to be senators or even the president? If so... why? Politicians in general are lying scum bags, the fact that one of them gets caught for cheating doesn't really make them any less of a "leader". Or maybe you view them as deceivers... but c'mon, once again, they're politicians. Plus, let's face it, in this day in age we are realizing more and more that monogamy is bullshit. It's natural for men to want to fuck other women (although, these guys create relationships as well, which is gay). Why deny a man of his nature?
Or woman, Pyg. Women can both be elected to office, and be cheaters.
Now as for the question... yes. Because a candidate's "job" is to portray him or herself as an honest person who will stick to their word and. You don't vote for a person. You vote for their image. You vote for their style, their cute children, the promises they make, the promises they say that they have already fulfilled, their accomplishments and things they hope to accomplish....
It is my opinion that a person who cheats on their spouse is someone who can rationalize anything into being acceptable. I would say that I would not trust that person to make the right decision, keeping in mind the mass' best interests, every time.
It of course depends on the candidate, and the circumstances:
For instance, the woman who John Edwards cheated with stalked him and waited outside his hotel for him, and frankly I feel like he was a victim...
But more often than not I would not vote for a candidate who has been unfaithful.
I know you deleted it, but originally you said that, "I'm sorry but under no "circumstances" is it ever okay to cheat on your wife."
And you're right. If he were my husband I would leave him, no matter what the circumstances. But I'm not his wife, I'm a voter.
I'm not going easy on him because he's a democrat... but it does bring up a good point.
Both Sptizer and Edwards are Dems...
I don't think you want me to bring up the Republicans who cheat... and how!
If a man can rationalize cheating on his wife, I'd actually be more likely to vote for him because for once, a human being is thinking rationally. He realizes the bullshit of Monogamy and decides to stick to his natural desires.
but either way, I don't vote for style at all. it's ONLY about politics and decisions. Nothing about the image. i actually hate the image because it allows for bullshit spin. for once I want to vote for an atheist, amoral, epicurean.
Side: More Qualified
Well.. define qualified.
I see two definitions: 1. Policy and politics etc. 2. Getting my vote.
Even if I agree with everything they are for politically, I'm not gunna like them cheating on their wife, because 1) that shows them breaking a promise. And that's basically what candidates do, make promises. And 2) it's just kind of trashy and low.
I not one to vote on character, hype, image, and "cute kids" etc. but that would cross the line for me.
So my answer is yes, they are less qualified.
I not one to vote on character, hype, image, and "cute kids" etc.
You're not looking at this from the point of view of someone who actually has to think about who they vote for.
We both don't. You're very conservative, I'm very liberal. Obama could have fucked the Queen of England and I still would have voted for him. And Palin could have rescued a family of five and their cat from a burning building on Nov. 3rd, and I still wouldn't have voted for her.
But the people in the middle take everything into consideration. And those things do add up.
Politicians even have stylists who specifically dress them to not seem "too" flashy. It's psychological... not something you actually think about.
So you don't vote on image, or cute kids or whatever, but those things matter in the overall.
I knew that "cute kids" quote would get to you. ((;
"So you don't vote on image, or cute kids or whatever, but those things matter in the overall."
I never said those things didn't matter overall. Just that they didn't matter to me.
However I don't think those things should matter. It's not right that those small petty things matter, more important things should matter. Rather than kids and "oh where getting a puppy".
"Hmm I just can't decide .. better go with whoever has cute kids."
But unfortunately people vote based on silly things.
No, as awful as it is to say that. Most other people do not lose their jobs or have less of an opportunity at securing a new job if they are unfaithful or promiscuous. Though politicians are granted many unfair liberties and privileges themselves, the privilege of having a closed and personal marriage life is generally up to themselves. Franklin Delano Roosevelt had mistresses out of marriage, yet he was one of the greatest leaders that America had, and he did not act like Bill Clinton did in that whole ordeal. In fact, he and Eleanor did not even life with one another and she had mistresses as well. Few people can say that F.D.R. and Eleanor Roosevelt were not qualified to run the country at such a horrible and terrifying time, and certain no one who does believe so blames it on extramarital affairs.
Firstly, I am glad Pineapple noticed the fact that you didn't even acknowledge women in office. I probably wouldn't have noticed, I'm a little embarrassed to say, but props to Pineapple for catching it.
Also, for the sake of simplicity, I'm going to use genderless pronouns. I'm not trying to be annoyingly PC, I just think the English language really needs these, if only for simplicity's sake.
Secondly, to answer the question, I would take it into account, but I wouldn't refuse to vote for someone based solely on that. It does reflect someone's character, but only a part of it. And it could mean various things about the person: 1. The person is dishonest and sleazy in general. 2. Ze lets hir emotions(or body) overwhelm hir sometimes in their personal lives. 3.Ze made a personal mistake that is not typical for hir.
Now, if the person is dishonest and sleazy in general, that is ideally not a person you'd want to give power to, but realistically, if they are going to put the right policies through, and if there are enough checks on power, it might be okay. And if ze simply has a few personal weaknesses, all you need to know is whether or not, or to what extent, those will effect hir leadership.
With all of the exposure this past year we've come to understand that cheating on your wife knows no boundaries...not Democrat or Republican and if, as Pyg says, they're all a bunch of scumbags why should it matter? It matters because it should. That's why most of the peopple who get caught doing it are now out of office.
We have a love affair with those who present themselves as honest, upstanding citizens running as candidates. We want them to be squeaky clean and if we find out anything about them that would alter that impression they're gone and they know it. That's why they try so hard to hide it.
Does it make them any less qualified to do their job? No, it doesn't but I wouldn't trust them again in any area of job or life.
Side: More Qualified
Adultery is wrong from just about any perspective. While his faculties are still there, he has lost a great deal of repect (if, indeed, he ever had any). Look at Tiger Woods, does he have any honour left? If it came out that some official had as many mistresses as him, they would be thought of as lowly as Woods, crazy.