Or even better - why don’t people say, “I don’t give a shit about a candidate’s personal life, all I want is the guy who will do the best job of running the country”?
They’re not all remarried. A couple or so of them have remained in one marriage and apparently been faithful to the spouse.
Because it’s tough to say that with a straight face when you’re planning on voting for George Bush.
Actually, one of the main reasons was that he was running against an inevitable Eisenhower presidency.
And given what we’re finding out from historians now, that Eisenhower was an engaged and effective president during an incredibly trying time in foreign relations, I don’t know that things would be much better, and they might be lots worse.
Plus, I’m having a really hard time following this discussion. Are you implying that Democrats don’t care about family values?
Are you saying we ought to give greater consideration to candidates who are faithful to their wives? That would have helped out Bush last time, and hurt Kerry, whose ex-wife was so hurt by their nasty divorce that she wrote a book about the experience.
I’m not saying that character questions like this don’t count. But I thought we crossed a line when a divorced and remarried man was elected in 1980, with the enthusiastic support of family values conservatives.
I understand the desire to point at people and declare them hypocrites, but I don’t think it does any good for our body politic to do so. Focus on the issues, not on the personal lives of the people behind them. I’d rather Democrats model how to do it right, not join the Republican party in the mud.
Daniel
I wonder what kind of mud the big two parties would be throwing at each other if the prez election were between Reid and Romney.
And planned and executed the invasions of North Africa, Sicily and Normandy while screwing around on his wife. If we’re going to limit our choices to people who were faithful to their wives, we’re going to end up with George W Bush or Richard Nixon.
Nixon, among his other foibles, cheated on his wife as well.
:eek:
What, really? Who’d have him? Yuck, ptooey.
Nixon was a hound dog. He had the FBI supply him with a confiscated copy of Deep Throat and watched it again and again until he got it down Pat.
The White House has had more than its share of inhabitants of both parties that couldn’t live up to their wedding vows, why should the Republican candidates be any different? Warren Harding was a legendary womanizer, we all know that FDR had a long term companion outside of marriage, Ike was not always faithful to Mamie, JFK and LBJ used their offices for more than their constitutional duties, Nixon had an affair, Reagan was a divorcee and head of a dysfunctional family, and Clinton very nearly had sex with Monica Lewinsky. Neither party can claim that their leaders exemplify family values. So none of the Republican candidates are great husbands. So what? There are plenty of other reasons not to vote for them.
You’d have a point, perhaps, but Mitt Romney seems by all outward appearances to be a decent husband.
I’m sure you’ll vote against him anyway.
My objection to the number of divorce rates among Republican candidates is based on two things: my own personal opposition to divorce, which is relevant solely to me and the Republican Party’s promoting itself as the party of “Family Values” which, among other things, it uses to argue against gay marriage and abortion. I will grant that Rudy Giulani has never been a huge promoter of family values. On the other hand, when I hear the likes of Newt Gingrich or Bob Barr (also married 3 times) say that the Republicans are better at supporting family values or that allowing homosexuals to marry will destroy marriage, I do wonder about how they’re supporting family values in their own lives other than, of course, having multiple families.
I’m sorry. If you’re (generic “you’re”, of course) going to say that an old friend of mine from marrying the man he’s spent the last 15 years of his life with will destroy marriage, I’d prefer that you haven’t destroyed any marriages yourself.
Well said.
Ditto. I can’t stand hypocritical politicians, and anyone who has been married three times and talks about family values gets a big :rolleyes: from me.
I will say that I found the OP to be a little misleading, though. It’s not exactly fair to throw the Republican party, or individual candidates, under the bus because a couple of them have bad track records. Why is Mitt Romney, with his one marriage, supposed to be responsible for Rudy’s peccadilos?
Let me add to all this by saying that I, personally, don’t think that having divorced – even having divorced twice – makes a person valueless or bad or immoral.
It just means that of all people they should realize that there are all kinds of families, that if they aren’t even doing well by their own lights they ought to have some understanding for other people who don’t have 1950s-ideal relationships. They have found it impossible – or at least untenable – to play by their own rules, but they have no problem insisting that everyone else still should.
Thing is, we can point to hypocrites at all levels and all parties of government, just as we can point to corruption, immorality, wickedness, and bad breath. Once upon a time, before I was born, we apparently believed that integrity and honor and honesty were at least possible in the best of our politicians. Now we just ask that they try not to be utter hypocrites about the issues they parade the loudest.
To steal from another thread:
They say people get the government they deserve. Blather, quit bringing the average down.
I rather doubt I’ll get the chance. His chance at getting nominated are only slightly better than mine. But no, I wouldn’t vote for him. Unless he ran against Cheney.