?? I'm just wondering what in the world this has to do with anything. Of course, the answer was NO - but if that wasn't the case, would they try to say he shouldn't be elected? Does that mean ALL candidates who have had premarital $ex shouldn't be President? That's the only possible reason I could think for someone to ask such a question. BTW - how would we ever find a president for our country?
2007-05-14 01:03:43 · 15 answers · asked by Roland'sMommy 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
No, unless of course said candidate actually runs on a "traditional values" platorm, is vehemently opposed to sex outside of marraige and advocates draconian policies restricting sex to monogamous heterosexual marraige (like Christian conservatives), then in that case, yes, it would have an effect on the candidate's campaign.
Most of us can claim that personal private matters should have nothing to do with campaign, but in the end, we tend to vote for our candidate of choice based mostly on "character" and not necessarily on their stance on issues.
2007-05-14 01:48:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends. In most situations, I would say no, it is an inappropriate question. However, if the candidate is in favor of abstinence only education and constantly uses morality, family values, and "wait until you are married" as talking points, it is an attempt to expose hypocrisy.
2007-05-14 01:31:53 · answer #2 · answered by Bryan H 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I understand your point and I agree with it.
That being said the reason it IS acceptable is because lots of people say "we care about values" and "we need a moral leader". They looks at all these thigns that do not matter and ignore the huge flaws in someone's character because "He married his high school sweetheart", like it is gonna make any difference.
The fault lies with the people who base their decisions not on a person's track record, stance on issues, and plans for future...but on what God they believe in, their attitude on sex and what they think about gays.
2007-05-14 01:11:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I guess the othe question would be why did the media not ask the same question to a Democratic candidate?
Could there be an agenda in the media?
2007-05-14 01:14:09 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The same like spending taxpayers' moneys in asking a President what he does with HIS pevis(or her bagina)in the company of a consenting adult intern on a break,beside Coffes?
2007-05-14 01:13:07 · answer #5 · answered by amleth 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Unacceptable, ignorant and rude. It simply shows the character of the interviewer and was a gross waste of media time and money.
Maybe it would be a good question for Hillary.
Mitt should have asked him the same question.
2007-05-14 02:29:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Asking a person about their sex life is as low as a person can go in trying to cast the opposition in a bad light. It did not work when Mike Wallace did it.
2007-05-14 01:08:07 · answer #7 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Look at Kennedy. He had a questionable relationship with Marilyn Monroe.
2007-05-14 06:24:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's still considered a tabor area of acceptability.
If asked and answered the next question would inquire about her any previous sex partners and their names.
2007-05-14 01:12:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
To my mind it is not acceptable in general social terms. Such interest is usually prurient, just for the sake of tittle-tattle and sexual amusement.
But it depends on your viewpoint. To my mind, what goes on with a couple whether or not they are married is a matter for those two people. But if the candidate proclaims "great Christian values" etc and then is caught with his metaphorical pants down (as in speech accidentally recorded about what he likes to do to women) then it is legitimate for the media to question his "Christian values", and indeed to question his wife about their sexual attitudes.
2017-02-24 06:20:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋