This Happened Before:
If a candidate(for mayor I think)had done some freaky stuff with his wife and some other person and he had to draop out because of the negative comments.
Also there is the Monica Lewenski.
A president gets impeached for an affair but the VP gets to hint innocent animals for his own sick enjoyment.
I dunno. Maybe you may think different.
2006-08-01 08:34:53 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
No. I don't care in the least what they do in the bedroom so long as it's consentual, really. All I care about is how they'd run whatever it is they're being elected to run.
2006-08-01 08:38:10 · answer #1 · answered by mike_w40 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
People tend to vote for candidates that most closely match their own values and morals. If a person's history included activities that most voters would consider immoral or just plain gross, they probably would not vote for them. Sometimes, the best thing to do is drop out. You don't waste any more campaign funds, and you hope the public will forget about so that you can try again later.
2006-08-01 08:40:04 · answer #2 · answered by Blunt Honesty 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why is it in america that sexual history is always presumed to work against the candidate?? in europe having some sort of history is a positive advantage....no i don't think its 'right' to use it against someone but in the context of american popularity contests it would seem that to be bland and puritanical is part of the deal, one that candidates know before they go in..so its only reasonable that the voters expect them to play by the rules however daft and hypocritical
2006-08-01 08:43:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just to comment, Clinton didn't get impeached for having the affair... he did for perjury and obstruction of justice... just wanted to make that clear.
People use all the dirt they can against each other in politics... is it right? Of course not. Is it successful? You frickin' bet it is.
To many, politicians are considered ones with "high moral fiber"... and although we are human and we mess up from time to time, the people will always be judgmental because politicians have that stigma of what they're SUPPOSED to be as opposed to who they are...
Another way to look at it... would you want YOUR hometown to be known as "the one that elected that sex freak"?
I already have to live with being in "the state that made Ah-nold their governor."
Just something to think about...
2006-08-01 08:46:01 · answer #4 · answered by ohsaxylady 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why should they care? I mean, is the candidate so behind in the polls and trying to find a way of getting to his opponent that he has to stoop to this level? That is just sad. only someone who has no way of even trying to win an election or their politics is something that is just not up to par would do something to get the people more interested with someones bedroom antics then what kind of health insurance some teacher should get!
2006-08-01 08:40:03 · answer #5 · answered by uchaboo 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Newsflash: character matters.
Hunting is neither illegal nor immoral. Predation plays a very important part in environmental balance. I would argue that it is more moral than cutting down vast swatches of rain forest in order to raise beef cattle.
It is pretty darned hard to argue that a married man banging his intern or engaging in other sexual deviant behavior does not point to some serious character flaws that are unbecoming a leader.
2006-08-01 08:47:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hunting is waaaay different from getting a bj from an intern AT WORK. If a president wants to cheat on his wife, I'd kindly ask him to do it on his own time, not mine. It's important to remember that when we elect officials, we elect people we feel will best represent us and our beliefs. Also, hunting isn't grounds for divorce. Cheating on a spouse IS. It'd be different if after hunting the carcass weren't used. I assume you're completely vegan and refuse to eat vegetables that haven't died from natural causes, right?
2006-08-01 08:42:49 · answer #7 · answered by elizabeth_ashley44 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it sucks. Everyone has done something that they are not proud of. In certain cases a persons sexual history is not a reflection on their integrity. In extreme cases it is, such as rapists, pedophiles, and sex offenders. In America we have tremendous freedom, but we choose to be predjudice. That sucks.
2006-08-01 08:44:05 · answer #8 · answered by Fiyah 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Personally I think SEX should be a private situation!!!--since it did not affect the decision making process!!!! Well NO and I am a little tired of it!!!!! Good thing I am not running for an office yet!!! HA HA
2006-08-01 08:42:47 · answer #9 · answered by wancarol 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think a candidate's sexual history is helpful in evaluating the candidate's character.
2006-08-01 08:38:41 · answer #10 · answered by Track Walker 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋