Liberals are all crying FOUL over the Republican men running for office now and saying THEIR private life is immoral...WELL ...THEY didn't have a relationship with a subordinate while they were working and then LIE to a Grand Jury about it.
I HAVE a problem with the characer of Rudy and the others. I want t strong MORAL leader in the White House.
2007-03-10 08:15:21 · 37 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Let's ignore the liberal/conservative split for the moment. And it would be nice if the question wasn't quite so leading, meaning that you didn't automatically assume the answer in the premise.
How about asking "Do people think Clinton disgraced his office...:"
You're view is that he did, both by the affair, and by being deceptive about it. I'd have to agree that both of those are bad actions. Not so much the affair, which may or may not have been ethical depending on just how much improper influence there was, but definitely lying about it was bad.
The question is, are those actions serious enough to say he disgraced his office. Are any lapses/violations/malfeasance sufficient to count as disgrace? Or does it require something more severe before rising to that level? On that one, I'm not sure. I'd like elected officials to hold themselves to the highest standards, but give how few actually do -- are they all disgracing their offices? Maybe.
Finally, one comment about your choice of the word "moral" leader. Moral by what standards? Christian morality? Atheist morality? New England morality? California morality? Nebraska morality? The problem with demanding moral leadership is that we all don't agree with what is moral and what is sinful.
But we are all bound to follow the same laws. And we can objectively determine whether someone has violated whatever codes of ethics they have sworn to follow.
So, maybe we'd all be better off if we sought law-abiding and ethical leaders, and paid less attention to their personal and religious beliefs.
2007-03-10 08:26:07 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 9⤊ 5⤋
First you have to define "moral" as it applies to you...then you have to suppose that the leader will have the same definition as you do..
Each person has their own barometer about what is moral and what is not. One cannot expect every human being to have the same definition. Each of us comes into adulthood from a different experience.
What Bill Clinton did or didn't do in his personal life was nobodys business - the whole matter should have been left where it belongs - between him and his wife.
If the Republicans, FBI and others had been keeping track of the terrorists in and out of our country instead of giggling over Clintons sex life, 9/11 might not have happened.
2007-03-10 09:27:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree 100% the Great Telecom give away was a disgrace.
When Clinton gave billions of dollars to the biggest business crooks in history that did it.
I was upset over NAFTA when he let US business close down their plants and move to Mexico for cheap labor and no import tax.
And I was upset when he signed GATT and under mined every existing US patten.
But the relinquishing of the air to the cellphone industry was a disgrace.
Way back in the 1800 congress had passed a law giving the air above America to the people. The was long before flight. Clinton gave the cell phone industry free use of the airways instead of charging a commission on usage.
Like a few billion paid back would have hurt a trillion dollar industry.
Go big Red Go
2007-03-10 08:46:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ohhhhh, dearie....you have such a narrow definition of integrity and morality, and its mostly sexually based, I'm afraid.
I want someone in the White House that went to the Wizard for a BRAIN!
Give me a president that respects the Constitution, please; a man who is as concerned with civil liberties as he is with terrorism.
Dearie, I really don't care if the next president has orgies in the oval office, as long as he/she can accomplish some good for the general populice.
Let's re-focus our political attention from fluff issues like flag burning and concealed weapons, and get serious about things like health care, the cost of pharmaceutical drugs, and contraception for teens.
I think people get waaaaay too caught up in the "morals" fantasy and end up ignoring the real work that needs to be done.
I'm sure it's much more "entertaining" to waste our time on things like BJs and soiled dresses.
2007-03-10 09:35:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Liberals think their own wrong doing is the fault of the messenger . You can't give narcissists a conscience . Although the Clinton administration is on record as being the most corrupt in our history - Hillary Rodham Clinton -who called many of the shots in the Clinton White House - still thinks she has the right stuff to be president -after being the 1st First Lady in our history to be indicted (just for starters) ..and she continues to break any law that stands in her way -while at the same time she seeks to trample all over our rights of free speech in her bid to stop the free flow of info on the Internet .
It's not just about Bill Clinton's affairs & rape accusations-as libs want us to think- they are just trying to minimize crimes of the Clintons by saying it's just about his sex-life . That's no biggie to them-until a Republican cheats on his wife -then they get morals all of a sudden . A man's marriage is his & his wifes' concern...raping the country is another matter .
2007-03-10 08:28:57 · answer #5 · answered by missmayzie 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Neither of them disgraced the workplace. while Clinton's bjs kill as many human beings as W's wars did, then we will talk approximately shame. a minimum of with Obama in workplace, i'm no longer ashamed to assert who our President is, the way i grew to become into with GW Blockhead.
2016-10-18 01:32:52 · answer #6 · answered by archuletta 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
while I have a problem with Bill Clinton's actions in the white house I am much more troubled by the Bush administrations pattern of deceit and downright criminal actions in the white house. If you want to talk about moral behavior --which is more immoral? to have sex and lie or to profit off the blood of this countries citizens?
2007-03-10 08:22:19 · answer #7 · answered by jj raider 4 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Democrats don't even realize Clinton disgraced his party and all the people who supported him. Clinton disgraced the office of "President of the United States of America". That is why they have no respect or cooperation for President Bush. They have no respect for anyone, not even themselves or their country.
2007-03-10 08:40:23 · answer #8 · answered by Kenny Ray 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well said,,Rudy is a scum bucket morally.and silly Hilly is a flat-liner for sure...i want a strong moral leader in the white house for sure,but if the Lady's are a little grand about it,,,foul..freepress
2007-03-10 08:31:34 · answer #9 · answered by decider JR 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What I realize is that Bush has disgraced his office by doing what he has done in it.
Funny how that conservative "morality" only applies to faux conservatives like Rudy and Tom Delay, Bob Ney and Mark Foley...
if you want anti secular "morals" in the white house, stick with the GOP - if you want true morals, irregardless of religion, which is possible no matter what the bible bullies say, then I suggest opening your mind to another party..ANY party but the GOP...have you ever looked into the Constitution Party?
2007-03-10 08:22:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋