Ignore the politics. Would you not vote for someone based solely on the fact that they have received 2 DWIs?
IMHO Emmers position on most issues is pretty vile, but that is besides the point. Pretend your ideal candidate was perfect in every way but had received two DWIs, would that eliminate them from your consideration?
It would depend on how long ago the violations occurred and if it seemed that the person was still drinking to excess today.
Emmer’s last violation was twenty years ago. I guess all other things being equal, it would be a strike against him, but not a particularly major one, and if he was a perfect candidate in all other respects, I’d almost certainly vote for him.
Two DWIs is much more than twice as serious as one. If it were one, and it was a long time ago, I could maybe accept that he was young and stupid, but getting caught scared him straight. With two, though, that’s harder to buy, and at the very least shows that he’s a slow learner. Plus, of course, there are all the many other times when he drove drunk and wasn’t caught: It’s plausible that someone who only drove drunk once just happened to be caught that one time, but it’s much less plausible that someone who only drove drunk twice happened to get caught both times.
This is similar to my feeling on the subject. I can almost certainly forgive on DWI offense, particularly if it occurred long ago. Bu two is a little harder to understand. At the very lest it show poor judgment and a disturbing lack of responsibility. Those are two qualities I need to see in my candidates.
I think I would also consider how they treated the information (tried to keep it from the public vs open admission, etc.) and how they talked about it.
We all expect our public figures to issue pro-forma statements about regretting their actions, learning from their mistakes, growing as a person, blah blah blah. It is a bit ritualistic, but there it is. If they made the proper statements, prostrated themselves in front of the public and media (so to speak) then I would play my assigned part and absolve them of their sins. If not, then f*ck-em.
I’ve always maintained that anybody can fuck up and get a DUI. Two or more, though, means you’re an alcoholic. I’ve seen that demon and I would never vote it into a position of responsibility.
Twenty years ago? complete non issue.
I don’t believe that for a second. I have an uncle who drinks and drives every single day, and hasn’t had a DUI since the 80s. He just learned how not to get caught.
I also know of a politician who got 2 DUIs in the 70s, then a 3rd in 2008. AFAIK he pretty much didn’t deny accusations that he was DUI that whole time and just didn’t get caught.
If you don’t learn your lesson the first time, then alcohol’s grip on you is stronger than your reason and judgement, and - beyond NEVER being allowed behind the wheel of a car again - you aren’t fit to hold public office IMO.
What about those who do find recovery from alcoholism? There are plenty of people, some on this board, who have had DUIs and then found recovery. Me included.
Maybe he is still a drunk but it is quite possible that he got clean and sober. (for the record I have no idea about this guy)
What about people with a history of depression? They do some wacky stuff like try to kill themselves. Should someone who once had depression then found treatment for the problem never hold office?
Slee
That’s fine, but I’m not going to vote for you, and I still think it should be a major criminal offense for anyone with 2 DUIs to ever so much as sniff a steering wheel again.
Nah. Churchill won WWII without drawing a sober breath. And governors get chauffeurs anyway.
The bigger problem with Emmer is his extreme right wing politics. He’s a teabagger candidate, not just a Republican.
He also had a big flap a couple of weeks ago when he went to a local restaurant and said that servers make too much money from tips and we should cut their salaries. He said that servers in restaurants make a hundred grand a year. Not at any restaurant I ever worked at.
Sure, but actions have consequences, and one consequence here is that it’ll take a lot of work to prove yourself trustworthy again. How do I know you won’t backslide again? The burden of proof is on you.
I’m not sure that Emmer has said he doesn’t drink anymore. If he’s still an active alcoholic, that’s an issue (and yes, I know Churchill was too, but Tom Emmer ain’t no Winston Churchill).
Nitpick: He has been convicted of 1 DUI. He was accused of a second, and plead it down to careless driving.
In general, I wouldn’t much care. Ceteris paribus, I’d vote for the other guy, but it wouldn’t crack my top 100 list of issues otherwise.
In this specific instance, stuff like this might give me a bit more pause:
Doesn’t sound like he’s particularly repentant.
Does it include a Get Tough On Crime[tm] plank?
The third martini was late?
All else being equal, I’d vote for the guy without DUIs. But when is all else equal? If it were Emmers’ opponent who had two DUIs, I’d still vote for him just to keep Emmers out of office. I’d expect that people who agree with Emmers feel more or less the same about whoever it is he’s running against.
Sure that’s just tea in his cup?