What's the worst thing you'd let a politician get away with?

The President may barf on the lap of the Japanese PM without punishment. A Vice President, however, may drunkenly shoot his best friend in the face with a shotgun without an obligation to make a police report. One of the little known perks of being VP.

But BJs by pleasantly chubby and eager interns are an impeachable offense.

Clinton was impeached, but not convicted. So he got away with it.

Are you going to continue hijacking this thread with your rants against Bush, et al, or are you going to debate the topic at hand-- what’s the worst thing you, yourself, would let a politician get away with. You. Y-o-u.

It would depend on the circumstances, I would think. Lying about some national security matter - gets a pass. Lying about something unrelated to the job - not so much. It’'s mostly the distinction between trying to do your job, vs. abusing your position.

Regards,
Shodan

Interesting, I have the exact opposite view. lying about a national security matter, has real implications for the state of the nation. Lying about something unrelated to the job, who cares, no effect on the state of the nation.

Let me throw a couple of things out there:

  • Lying about something unrelated to his job
  • Minor tax evasion
  • Paying for sex (if single)
  • Paying for sex (if married)
  • Smoking pot regularly
  • Addicted to pills
  • Bar fight (minor assault)

Authorizing assassinations.
Permitting torture.
Diminishing our constitutional rights.
Curtailing the press.
Politicians are horn dogs who have women thrown at them all the time. Most are excessively competitive and are some kind of conquerers. Few of the politicians in the Senate , House or state politics are clean in that regard. They are hypocrites when they bitch about morals of the others. Stop it.

Except the former lie doesn’t necessarily state much about the man’s character. The second points to a flaw in his character.

Why do you bother specifiying single or married on the paying for sex issue?

See my post number 17.

It is easier for me to believe that there might be a non-self serving reason to lie about national security, whereas lying about something unrelated is (as Kearsen mentions) more likely to be indicative of a moral flaw.

ISTM to be more likely that there would be circumstances that justify lying to Congress if some legitimate interest of the US was at stake.

Suppose Obama said to Congress that he was taking military action in Pakistani territory off the table in the hunt for bin Laden. All along he was actually keeping secret a source in bin Laden’s inner circle, and the next week a squad of Special Forces swooped down on a cave on the Pakistani border in an effort to capture him. Nobody would care. Whereas if he were lying on his tax return, that would be more serious.

As far as other malfeaseance, I have no trouble with targetted assassinations, even in peacetime. For others -

Paying for sex, single or married, would be out - not because it is so morally wrong, but if you can’t get laid when you’re the Leader of the Free World without paying for it, you are too dumb for the Oval Office.

Smoking post - meh. Addicted to pills is something else. I don’t want a druggie with access to the nuclear football. I have heard speculation that the October Missile Crisis with JFK might have been fueled partially by the amphetamines and/or cortisone he was taking (along with a buttload of other drugs.

A bar fight is much like paying prostitutes - a President dumb enough to wander off the reservation without his security and get into fights is not to be trusted. Unless you are talking about stuff in his past, which is different.

Regards,
Shodan

All of the above, except, addicted to pills. Pills would be deal breaker. Smoking grass no. In fact, if any politican announced he or she was a regular pot smoker and intended to work for national legalization that person (barring racism or sexism) would get not only my vote, but a significant amount of my time and money. I would also give a politician a pass on most activities related to pornography (unless it involved young children, rape films, bootlegging or copyright violations) and statuatory rape involving a consenting partner.

I think I could see my way to giving a pass for the occasional intern blowjob. It’s a pretty stressful and taxing job, after all, and I think I could forgive something along those lines without too much strain…

-XT

Because some might think that A is ok but not B.

I’d give a pass to a hummer in the oval office. Especially when everyone damn well knows the persons modus operandi. Now if it caused an issue with national security then that’s a different issue. But what would they say to Clinton? If you don’t gives us the secrets we’ll tell on you for those 2 chinese girls!

“BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! These people already know my rep. Go ahead! Tell 'em!.. bwahahahahahaha!!.. speaking of chinese girls, it’s been 20 minutes and I’m horny again!”

From what I’ve noted, a President can get away with a lot of stuff except making sarcastic or adult-oriented jokes. Some significant portion of the American public will get all mock-shocked and butthurt.

I think the answer revolves around what side of the aisle you are on and what you might potentially get out of it.

Now a rather absurd situation that is relevant to this has actually happened in Sweden. Our minister of labor has resigned after one of the biggest newspapers found out about something he did 4 years ago.

He resigned only hours after being confronted with a reporter asking him about it, refused to answer questions and have now gone into hiding. What did he do? We don’t know.

Seriously. We don’t know. The newspaper is refusing to release its information claiming that since the minister resigned he is no longer a public person. The only information that you can get out of the stories is:

  • The thing he did is illegal
  • If convicted of this crime you can go to jail
  • It happened at a specific place (central Stockholm) at a specific time
  • There is a computer with evidence proving he did it

It’s for lack of a better word, weird.

It sounds like your former minister thought this could come out at some point and was prepared to get out of the public eye in case it did. But it could be a bunch of different things, really. Maybe he stole clothes in a department store and someone caught him with their cell phone camera. But if so, why did it come out now? Was the former minister about to introduce a controversial piece of legislation?

I would allow a President to cheat on his wife but not have sex with his employees.

Hey I can attempt to derail a thread too.