So there is no amount of time then? I understand it’s not swiping a pack of gum from the mini-mart, but he was only 12 at the time. The effects of what he did could last a very long time, he may still be a little piece of crap and might still be one 10 years, 20 years, or 50 years from now, but that would be something that could be evaluated based on how he has lived his life since then. He might already be a very different person now, but as an adult, the standard he is now held to, he should have the opportunity to lead a responsible life and not be judged simply on his childhood actions. Now as far as running for office, as I pointed out already, he may be a decent person now but clearly he’s not that bright or qualified for politics if he didn’t take into account realistic reactions to his circumstances.
Under Kansas law, there are only certain reasons permitted for a nominated candidate to withdraw from the ballot. One of those reasons is “severe medical hardship on the nominee or the nominee’s immediate family”; in his case, one of his parents (father, I think?) is in the hospital. (The only other valid reasons are his own death or not residing in Kansas.)
Absent a valid reason, his name would still be on the ballot in November. By sticking that line in there, he’s giving the Democratic Party a way to select another candidate.
I honestly don’t have a good answer to that one. But if someone put, nude pictures of me on the internet and 10 or 20 or 50 years later those pictures were still preventing me from finding a steady job or long lasting (romantic) relationships or costing me money to deal with the fallout…I wouldn’t feel bad if it had similar effects on their life either. The age they were when it happened, I can’t imagine would be relevant, at least not to me (the victim, in this case). It’s entirely possible all the ‘no dog in this fight’ people would view it differently.
In this case, since it’s an elected official, I guess it’s ultimately up to the voters in his jurisdiction, or would be if he remained in the race.
Having said that, I haven’t looked, but I’m curious as to if charges were ever filed against him for any of this. Even being a minor, even being 12, these are allegations that can’t just be ignored.
Update, I didn’t find anything about him being charged (not that I really expected too), but he was 14 when this happened, not 12. It just happened 5 years ago. Also, one of the people he bullied, allegedly attempted suicide.
He also told a former republican lawmaker (now radio host) from Kansas that he would “laugh and giggle when you get COVID and die.”. I believe this was right when Herman Cain died.
He doesn’t seem like a real great guy from the limited things I’ve read about him. Granted, google results are going to be skewed at the moment. Maybe he’s normal for an asshole teenager, but he’s clearly not ready to be a politician.
It’s hard to find good answers in cases like this. Sometimes the past defies resolution.
And for as often as it seems to happen, luckily, it’s not such a commonplace occurrence that we’ve had to come up with an official/legal way to deal these things. They mostly work themselves out during the election process. That’s probably the best way to deal with it, hopefully.
remember, the photos were presumably of a nude minor. That’s serious stuff under the law. (as it should be). Kids do stupid stuff. My kids did stupid stuff too. But dropping out of the race isn’t the end of the world. He can move on with other options for awhile and return to politics later if he wishes.
Let’s be clear here; middle school generally runs 6th, 7th and 8th grade, and is usually around 12-14.
Even considering the outright assholery of what this kid did in middle school, I think it’s a terrible precedent for anything they do so young to be held against them like this in later life. Even the criminal justice system resets in a manner of speaking when you reach the age of majority. Why shouldn’t future politicians get the same grace?
If you’re going to run for office at 19, yeah, people are going to look at your most recent noteworthy activity.
How entitled is any white boy, with this, so easily uncovered, vile behaviour in his recent past, who thinks he can run for office, no worries?
The young women who he did this to, has to live with the repercussions for a lifetime, I have no problem with this following him around just as long.
Actually, he’s demonstrated he’s a psychopath. Which makes him eminently qualified to be a modern politician.
That right there, if it is really how he prepared his press statement, should be enough to show he should not hold public office. For something as important as this event, he should at least put a modicum of effort into it. Say, at least as much effort as he did when he committed that crime way back five years ago.
Or invest in a PR person to write a speech that may give you a fighting chance at getting elected if you run again in a future election down the line. Also, have them give you some guidance on what you can do between now and then so it at least appears that you’re trying to make some changes in your life.
His actions at 14 are a data point. It’s fine to believe that people can change, but it’s also important to see some evidence that this particular person has changed. Otherwise, the only data we have is that this person was once a despicable asshole.
So do we have any evidence? In a recent interview when he was asked how people could have confidence he had changed, he first said his support of the Green New Deal was evidence that he wouldn’t engage in revenge porn or bullying anymore. 
He then shifted to saying there were no complaints against him for harassment since middle school - an outright lie, because his opponent’s campaign manager had complained about exactly that (he showed up at her house and exhibited erratic and inappropriate behavior to the extent that a friend suggested she get a restraining order).
There was the comment he made last month to an opponent that he’d "laugh and giggle when you get COVID and die.” He recently wrote to the aunt of the woman who attempted suicide, telling her “I’ve moved on. They call the past the past for a reason, because that’s where you are supposed to leave things. At this point you shouldn’t move on for me, you should move on for yourself.”
The guy is not qualified to hold office, and it’s not because he made mistakes 5 years ago. It’s because he is apparently still the same person who made those mistakes.
He’s back in:
Ugh. Doesn’t the Kansas Democratic Party have anything to say about this? It sounds from the article that all they can do is endorse Frownfelter as a write-in.
Apparently so. I’d be surprised if there is any law that provides for involuntary removal of an already duly voted-in candidate (as opposed to a mere primary contender, whose status is purely internal to the party, by winning the primary he is now before the general electorate) on grounds other than those explicitly set in the law and I’d bet dollars to doughnuts nothing in the law contemplates this. Generally speaking, “is the candidate too much of an ass for this office” is considered a political question, to be judged by the voters; and in this case also by the House.
At the very least someone’s gotta amend that law and let people freely resign a candidacy within a certain time-frame. I suppose it was passed in order to avoid “straw candidates” that are run just to be placeholders for whom party machines really want, but really, yuo need to get a medical certificate of hardship to quit a candidacy for a part time job that averages 21,900/year ?
So, you’re predicting that the House won’t seat him if he wins the general election? I’m with you on that.
They have the constitutional authority to do so. But we’ll see if it comes to that…
Regulations like this are needed to prevent all sorts of shenanigans. Or is it to prevent malarkey? Anyway, you can’t let politicians play fast and loose. The placeholder problem is one thing. This also helps prevent the party from kicking out their own candidate as may be happening here. He followed the process to get to this point, the party should have to live with the result. They can tell people not to vote for their own candidate but they should not be able to readily remove him from the ballot in favor of a chosen candidate.
Which is why I am limiting myself to asking for candidates to be able to drop out without putting forward a force majeure cause – certainly, would not support an internal forcible removal process since, as I stated, once he is duly selected for the general election his constituency is no longer internal to the party.