# Gotta Love Those Family Values Politicians!!! **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [December 29, 2005, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gotta-love-those-family-values-politicians/337591 "2005-12-29T17:16:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gotta-love-those-family-values-politicians/337591/21 "2005-12-30T22:09:01Z")
> [@Beadalin](#): > > A politician’s job, by its very nature, is to represent the views of constituents. This might take us into Great Debates territory, but I think it is to serve the \*interests \* of his constituents (of course, while staying within the bounds of what is ethical). This is part of why the Founders wanted a republic, and not a pure democracy–they thought that the representatives would raise themselves above the petty prejudices, etc., of their constituents. Not how it worked out, in fact, but that’s how it was intended, at least. Are we getting off-topic? I can never tell whether a tangent is a hijack or merely the natural progression of the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gotta-love-those-family-values-politicians/337591/22 "2005-12-30T22:19:57Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Well, I won’t defend this guy’s behavior. > > I’d like to note, though, that one of the most prominent “family values” politicians in this country appears to be faithful not only to his wife, but also to Catholic doctrine on reproductive issues, as evidenced by their numerous children. > > Yet probably no politician is as hated on this board as Rick Santorum is. > > I’m not saying he shouldn’t be. It’s just that the hatred he draws isn’t due to his family life, which by all accounts is pretty blameless. It is because of the positions he holds. > > Same with this guy, I guess. He’s catching flak from the Usual Suspects here because he is a “family values” politician. Otherwise, his personal life wouldn’t be anyone’s business - or at least that would be the explanation were he pro-choice and his last name, say, Clinton. > > Making the personal political, and vice-versa, is dangerous stuff. I supported the impeachment of Clinton, because the evidence showed that he had committed crimes by impeding an investigation. However, that caused damage to both parties, and our country isn’t better off for the whole sorry mess. I have a lot of respect for Sen. Santorum for upholding the sanctity of his own marriage. I just wish he’d be willing to, if not uphold the sanctity of, at least give a passing nod of recognition to, **jayjay** ’s. Likewise with other “family values” issues. His activities may be moral in the lower level of morality, but not in the higher one where the Golden Rule and the Parable of the Sheep and Goats apply. (By the way, and as an aside I hope won’t hijack this topic, I don’t recall what your reaction was to the immorality of his wanting to restrict American citizens from getting free weather warnings, so that one of his campaign contributors could make money off them. Do you happen to recall how you explained that?) And I’ve got to say that I for one appreciate greatly your last paragraph. It took guts for a conservative Republican to say, in effect, “We sowed the wind, and now we’re reaping the whirlwind.” Kudos! ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gotta-love-those-family-values-politicians/337591/23 "2005-12-30T22:34:18Z")
> [@saoirse](#): > > I don’t understand: How? I have no evidence that this individual thinks he is anything other than a fellow sinner. If he does, he is wrong, since that label applies to everyone. > > The fact that he is wrong about gay marriage does not mean he must be a venal hypocrite who is secretly visiting black prostitutes paid for by Halliburton and Big Pharma. Well, under the presumption that “family values” politicians are at least overtly Christian, there is an absolute value standard set down by Jesus Himself to which they are supposed to be aspiring. And, in so many words, he’s blatantly violating it. Unless he wants the state to take away any recognition of **his own** marriage, which is hardly “defending its sanctity.” (Although I suppose if he’s getting a divorce, he just might be playing it on an even field. But, as **Siege** noted, granting a divorce is, at best, a measure of mercy and forgiveness towards someone who is actually breaking a vow. If the laws permitted Smith to sell a house to Jones on a mortgage that was good as long as Smith didn’t feel like terminating it, there’d be screaming in the streets. And marriage is a much more serious proposition than homebuying.) Finally, I’d venture to guess that the percentage of politicians actually elected to office claiming opposition to gay marriage who are sincerely opposed to gay marriage on strictly moral grounds is in the single figures. Most of them are “playing to their base,” and if suddenly there was an upsurge in support, they’d change their views to that of their constituents. ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gotta-love-those-family-values-politicians/337591/24 "2005-12-30T23:44:43Z")
> [@saoirse](#): > > I don’t understand: How? I have no evidence that this individual thinks he is anything other than a fellow sinner. If he does, he is wrong, since that label applies to everyone. > > The fact that he is wrong about gay marriage does not mean he must be a venal hypocrite who is secretly visiting black prostitutes paid for by Halliburton and Big Pharma. **saoirse** , with all due respect, the only thing I know about this fellow is what I’ve read in the links in this thread, but I honestly don’t know where you’re getting this from. I haven’t seen any indication of a man who considers himself a sinner like the rest of us or a man who genuinely regrets his failed marriage. Instead, I see a man abusing his power by threatening to shut down a newspaper which publishes legitimate news about him and by apparently taking kickbacks. If you can show me more, please do. As I said earlier, commiting adultery, unlike homosexuality, is a choice and doing so, in my book, means one is willfully doing something immoral and damaging to one’s marriage vows. How someone can say allowing homosexuals to marry will damage marry while willfully doing something destructive to his own marriage is something which is incomprehensible at best and hypocritical at worst. I don’t buy the time honored excuse “I couldn’t help myself,” if that’s the one he’s using. That’s no more applicable to adultery than it is to theft or murder. I also suspect he’d be a bit less willing to buy that excuse if it were a homosexual gentleman who made a pass at him because he “couldn’t help himself.” CJ ---
**Author:** ![An\_Arky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/87869e/32.png) [@An\_Arky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Arky)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2005, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gotta-love-those-family-values-politicians/337591/25 "2005-12-31T00:40:59Z")
Hmmm. Is there something more to this story than I read in the links? I don’t think dating someone while waiting for a divorce to come through is bad. The decision to divorce was made; the relationship is over except for the paperwork. Now if he started seeng this person and that caused the end of his marriage, then that’s bad. The fact that he panders to his East Tennessee hillbilly fundie constituency yet displays less-than-rock-solid moral fortitude is something to raise an eyebrow over, perhaps, but not something to tar and feather him over. The fact that he’s dirty and took bribes or whatever most certainly is something to run him right the hell out of office over. Now, having said that, the petty, chickenshit way he is handling the situation with the newspaper is utterly beyond the pale and somebody ought to take him behind the woodshed and knock his fucking teeth down the back of his goddamn throat. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2005, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gotta-love-those-family-values-politicians/337591/26 "2005-12-31T00:41:04Z")
Why black prostitutes? 😕 Does their race make it more immoral or something? This guy is abusing his power and position by trying to influence and shut down articles that are not flattering to him. He has shot himself in the foot, credibility-wise–but also ethically. He loses the moral high ground, not that I thought he had it in the first place. I still dont’ see the relevance of Clinton–and if this story gets as much press as Clinton’s–this guy will never know a day’s peace until he is out of office and divorced and remarried… ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2005, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gotta-love-those-family-values-politicians/337591/27 "2005-12-31T01:37:47Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > Why black prostitutes? > 😕 Does their race make it more immoral or something?. No, I was offering a burlesque of an attitude towards conservative politicians. I would love it if they were all fatuous hypocrites. They are not. Their constituents know this. When they hear people trying to make those politicians out to be like that, they feel sympathy for them. This helps keep people who want to make bad policy in office. > [@](#): > > I still dont’ see the relevance of Clinton–and if this story gets as much press as Clinton’s–this guy will never know a day’s peace until he is out of office and divorced and remarried… Um, yeah. That was kind of my point. I’m all for giving the guy what he deserves, but I don’t see where he has asserted that he is any more moral than anyone else. If you pay attention to politicians who make “family values,” read as an opposition to gay marriage, a centerpiece of their campaign, they will never assert that they are morally superior to "those gays up in [insert appropriate sartago flagitiosorum amorum]. They assert that their constituents are morally superior to them. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2005, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gotta-love-those-family-values-politicians/337591/28 "2005-12-31T03:09:57Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > By the way, and as an aside I hope won’t hijack this topic, I don’t recall what your reaction was to the immorality of his wanting to restrict American citizens from getting free weather warnings, so that one of his campaign contributors could make money off them. Do you happen to recall how you explained that? Sure. I believed at the time that wanting to do so was unwise in the extreme. However, I didn’t consider it evidence of any corruption on his part as the corporation he was seeking to aid was based in Pennsylvania, and thus a constituent. The campaign contributions in question were quite modest. Thus, Santorum was acting stupidly, not immorally in that instance. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2005, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gotta-love-those-family-values-politicians/337591/29 "2005-12-31T05:02:12Z")
Ah, the TN legislature is positively riddled with corruption of all sorts these days, it seems. Several legislators got busted taking bribes in an FBI sting called “Tennessee Waltz.” At least one of them, even though he was caught on video tape taking a bribe, denied any wrong doing, and has refused to resign. All of which harkens back to the days when someone figured out that the reason all the congresscritters were carrying cans of Donald Duck orange juice was because they’d spiked them with vodka. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2005, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gotta-love-those-family-values-politicians/337591/30 "2005-12-31T06:44:07Z")
Don’t know why you have to single out Jeff Miller. He hasn’t even been charged _yet_ and bunches of others have. And he couldn’t care too much about ethics. Every time a vote has come up lately in the Ethics Committee, he either has to make a phone call or take a phone call and he misses the vote. Dang! My understanding is that he believes that divorce is sacred and should be reserved for heterosexuals only. He ran for Senate Chairman of the Republican Caucus. They think he won, but there was no paper trail. When asked about the $1,000 that he had taken and if it was acting stupidly and unwise in the extreme, he responded, “Hell, no! I ain’t no Rick Santorum!” Okay, he really didn’t say that. I just made that up. He said that the $1000 was “a campaign contribution.” Hey, it was a modest amount… ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2005, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gotta-love-those-family-values-politicians/337591/31 "2005-12-31T09:16:43Z")
> [@](#): > > Sure. I believed at the time that wanting to do so was unwise in the extreme. However, I didn’t consider it evidence of any corruption on his part as the corporation he was seeking to aid was based in Pennsylvania, and thus a constituent. Santorum has 12,281,054 constituents in Pennsylvania. All but one of whom benefited from free weather service. But he was apparently willing to sell out all 12,281,053 of them when that one offered him money. > [@](#): > > The campaign contributions in question were quite modest. Being a bargain doesn’t make him honest. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2005, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gotta-love-those-family-values-politicians/337591/32 "2005-12-31T11:48:07Z")
So morality is now tied to the amount of a contribution? Sweet! :rolleyes: I would like a cite for the statement that “conservative politicians assert that their constituents are morally superior to them.” Politics attracts alot of narcissistic, egotistical people–and the power does inflate tendencies toward pomposity and righteousness. The phrase “the good, hardworking people of this district” is not a cite. ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2005, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gotta-love-those-family-values-politicians/337591/33 "2005-12-31T20:34:18Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > I would like a cite for the statement that “conservative politicians assert that their constituents are morally superior to them.” You’ll have to listen to their speeches and read their campaign materials. I have. If it’s not good enough for you, I’m sorry. Feel free to not believe me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gotta-love-those-family-values-politicians/337591.md?page=1)