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.
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!
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.
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.”
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Does their race make it more immoral or something?