Do You Care If Your Elected Officials Cheat on Their Wives?

[intothewoods]

I definitely evaluate the implications of the infidelity. In Clinton's case, I felt like the affair showed poor judgment and a lack of impulse control. I don't fault Clinton for being a "man whore," but for being an indiscrete idiot fooling around with an intern. Come on, go get the action on the side elsewhere.

And then there is the self-absorbed narcissism. That's essentially my feeling about Edwards (in addition to the fact that it's a conflict of interest to employ your mistress). It was ridiculously self-centered to run again knowing the impact that infidelity, if discovered, could have on the campaign.

Still, the way we feed off all of the salacious details of an affair turns my stomach. Can't we talk about anything else? I don't care about Mark Sanford's emails to his mistress, you know?

 

[JMohegan]

The thing that bothers me about a politician who cheats in his/her marriage/committed relationship is the likelihood that his/her ethics are, at the least, shaky in other areas, such as taking bribes (or "campaign contributions") from people who expect - and get - special consideration from him/her. I know that seems as if I'm effectively holding them to a higher standard, but the fact is, leaders should be held to a higher standard, at least IMNSHO. How else can they lead?

Shaky self-control, clearly. I don't see this as a higher standard; this is a standard applicable to all responsible adults.

Actions have consequences, and with regard to someone in public office, the consequences of an extramarital affair just aren't that hard to predict.

 

[ownedsubgal]

do i care? not at all. with regard to men in particular, i understand they have various needs (that often go beyond the purely physical) that if left unaddressed, will lead to instability, high stress, frustration and other issues that i really wouldn't want someone in charge of public policy dealing with. i'd much rather know they were visiting a massage parlor once a week or had a regular mistress in order to remain balanced and even-keeled.

 

[WriterDom]

What is it with you rightwingers and your unfounded persecution complex?

Eliot Spitzer
Tim Mahoney
Kwame Kilpatrick
Gary Condit
James McGreevey
Gary Hart

Each of those Democrats was either forced to resign, forced to withdraw from a race for public office, or defeated in the election following disclosure of their affairs.





As for the question at hand - yes, I care, because I know the political reality and impact of a candidate's indiscretion. Hell pissed is what I would have been, had I volunteered my time, my money, and my voice to the candidacy of John Edwards. Hell fucking pissed indeed.

I'll give you Spitzer and McGreevey. MxGreevey was married and getting fucked by someone he appointed. Highly dangerous activity not to mention the ethics of it. Spitzer make his career going after people. There was no way he could have survived.

The others ran and lost. Kwame Kilpatrick is a felon.

 

[jockdom]

Surprised nobody mentioned JFK he banged anything with a pulse in a skirt. I think one of his bedpost notches was also dating a mafia mobster.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Sorry, but I don't buy this argument. You're claiming that because a politician has one fault that it is predictive that he'll have another. All politicians have faults. Would you allow only perfect people to run for office? We'd not have very many office holders.

I'm not propounding "perfect people." What I *intended* to say is that someone who has the propensity to *cheat* on something as important as a marital/committed relationship is likely to have the same propensity to cheat in other areas, such as "selling" his vote. But maybe politicians should be held to a lower standard when it comes to marital fidelity? After all, everyone knows that most politicians are in it for the power, and power is an aphrodisiac...

He's a politician. It's safe to assume that his ethics are shaky from the get-go.

*snort*

 

[midwestyankee]

I'm not propounding "perfect people." What I *intended* to say is that someone who has the propensity to *cheat* on something as important as a marital/committed relationship is likely to have the same propensity to cheat in other areas, such as "selling" his vote. But maybe politicians should be held to a lower standard when it comes to marital fidelity? After all, everyone knows that most politicians are in it for the power, and power is an aphrodisiac...

*snort*

I disagree, as it seems to me that most infidelity has its roots not in a lack of ethical behavior but rather in some lack in the marriage. Unless you want to argue that politicians are unlike the rest of us.

 

[JMohegan]

I'll give you Spitzer and McGreevey. MxGreevey was married and getting fucked by someone he appointed. Highly dangerous activity not to mention the ethics of it. Spitzer make his career going after people. There was no way he could have survived.

The others ran and lost. Kwame Kilpatrick is a felon.

Hart dropped out of the Democratic primary race a week after his affair was discovered. Blasted the press for being so unfair, blamed them for his withdrawal, tried to reenter the race months later, got clobbered in NH.

 

[JMohegan]

I disagree, as it seems to me that most infidelity has its roots not in a lack of ethical behavior but rather in some lack in the marriage. Unless you want to argue that politicians are unlike the rest of us.

But all infidelity has consequences.

To the spouse, the kids, the staff, the electorate, etc. The difference between elected officials and private citizens is that the consequences are usually more widespread.

 

[gloriann]

Oh, well, yes, I should have mentioned that in my post! That's particularly annoying. The worst offenders, to me, are gay bashers who, oh, just like a little cock now and again (hey, who doesn't!)

That's it right there. I was a staunch Clinton supporter and it made it so hard for me to support when he first said he didn't and then he did. But what went on between his wife and him, their business, not mine.

 

[midwestyankee]

But all infidelity has consequences.

To the spouse, the kids, the staff, the electorate, etc. The difference between elected officials and private citizens is that the consequences are usually more widespread.

I don't disagree with this at all. My only point was that infidelity is not generally due to being an unethical person. The two are not mutually exclusive, of course, but if one is unfaithful in a marriage it does not automatically follow that the same person will display unethical behavior elsewhere in his life.

Politicians generally suffer greater consequences for their discovered infidelities than we mere mortals so you'd think that they would have greater motivation to keep their private lives in order. It doesn't seem to work that way, of course.

 

[WriterDom]

I don't blame Clinton. What man could fuck that bitch?

 

[JMohegan]

I don't disagree with this at all. My only point was that infidelity is not generally due to being an unethical person. The two are not mutually exclusive, of course, but if one is unfaithful in a marriage it does not automatically follow that the same person will display unethical behavior elsewhere in his life.

Politicians generally suffer greater consequences for their discovered infidelities than we mere mortals so you'd think that they would have greater motivation to keep their private lives in order. It doesn't seem to work that way, of course.

I understand your earlier point, that the root of infidelity is often some lack in the marriage. However, there are more ethical options for dealing with that situation. Joint counseling, separation, or divorce - right?

Sure, all human beings display lapses in character from time to time. But voters judge the leadership potential of candidates for far less significant reasons. For example....

In '04, I heard some voters say they decided to support Kerry because his windsurfing hobby meant he's fit and ballsy, and others say they declined to support Kerry because his windsurfing hobby meant he's elitist and out of touch.

Some voters told me they'd never support Bush because he drank his way through college and got C's, indicating a lack of intellectual commitment and discipline, while others told me they supported Bush because he drank his way through college and got C's, indicating an ability to relate to the common man.

Some voters told me they'd never support HRC because she didn't have enough self-respect to kick Bill to the curb in the wake of his repeated infidelity and her repeated humiliation, while others told me they support HRC because of the strength of character she displayed in enduring her husband's repeated infidelity and her repeated humiliation.

One woman on this board declared BHO to be unfit for leadership because of that footage of him being pulled around by Bo on a leash, on the puppy's first day at the White House.

The point is - people make judgments about the character and leadership potential of politicians for all kinds of reasons. As far as those reasons for thinking poorly of a candidate go, willingness to betray and humiliate the wife and kids doesn't seem so far-fetched to me.

 

[satindesire]

In My Opinion:

Men don't slip and fall into a vagina.

Affairs happen because of honest to God choices. You don't fuck someone accidentally. "Oh I woke up and this strange woman was having sex with me! What ever shall I do?!"

It's not a fuck up in my eyes. Or a mistake. Or an accident.

It's a choice. You can, contrary to popular belief, choose not to fuck someone. We're human beings with free will and the ability to use our brains to make our own decisions.

And if they choose to fuck someone else other than their partners without their partner's permission, they SUCK.

 

[intothewoods]

I'm not advocating we never judge people for their bad choices. Just that I don't understand picking a politician based on whether they seem nice or whether they smoked pot in college. The whole personality contest aspect is bizarre to me.

As far as cheating goes, I don't think it should get you a gold star on your forehead, but I also don't think the level of vitriol a cheater (whether politician, celebrity, average Joe, etc.) typically receives is warranted. That person is always the easy target. Again, bad behavior is bad behavior, and everyone should own their fuck-ups. I just don't need to see anyone burned in effigy over an affair.

 

[satindesire]

I'm not advocating we never judge people for their bad choices. Just that I don't understand picking a politician based on whether they seem nice or whether they smoked pot in college. The whole personality contest aspect is bizarre to me.

As far as cheating goes, I don't think it should get you a gold star on your forehead, but I also don't think the level of vitriol a cheater (whether politician, celebrity, average Joe, etc.) typically receives is warranted. That person is always the easy target. Again, bad behavior is bad behavior, and everyone should own their fuck-ups. I just don't need to see anyone burned in effigy over an affair.

Yeah, the vitriol can get out of control.

Some people really don't like the idea of anyone cheating on their wives. I don't blame them personally, for being angry, but some reactions are just way overmuch.

As leaders, they're supposed to be 'better people' than your average joe, ideally, with more self control, more intelligence, better choice-making processes. When someone that we've placed on a pedestal shows their clay feet, some folks really throw stones.

In my eyes, it doesn't matter who it is, politician, billionaire, or a burger flipper at Micky D's...there aren't any good reasons to cheat.

 

[ownedsubgal]

In my eyes, it doesn't matter who it is, politician, billionaire, or a burger flipper at Micky D's...there aren't any good reasons to cheat.

i disagree with that. sometimes there are physical or emotional needs that are not being met in a relationship that is otherwise positive and beneficial. affairs or flings that are kept discreet are much less damaging than just throwing the relationship away imo.

 

[intothewoods]

Yeah, the vitriol can get out of control.

Some people really don't like the idea of anyone cheating on their wives. I don't blame them personally, for being angry, but some reactions are just way overmuch.

As leaders, they're supposed to be 'better people' than your average joe, ideally, with more self control, more intelligence, better choice-making processes. When someone that we've placed on a pedestal shows their clay feet, some folks really throw stones.

In my eyes, it doesn't matter who it is, politician, billionaire, or a burger flipper at Micky D's...there aren't any good reasons to cheat.

I agree that leaders should be better than your average joe, that's why I've never understood the would I like to have a beer with him approach to voting. However, leaders are still human and human beings will sometimes make the wrong choice. To me, how someone learns from their mistake and makes restitution after a fuck-up is very telling.

i disagree with that. sometimes there are physical or emotional needs that are not being met in a relationship that is otherwise positive and beneficial. affairs or flings that are kept discreet are much less damaging than just throwing the relationship away imo.

I totally agree with this, though I know many people who claim they are just doing what they have to do to meet their needs, and yet are in reality they use their affairs as a way to get back at their spouses (none of whom are angels in their own right, btw). And by that I mean they are not discreet and they flaunt it in the other person's face.

 

[satindesire]

i disagree with that. sometimes there are physical or emotional needs that are not being met in a relationship that is otherwise positive and beneficial. affairs or flings that are kept discreet are much less damaging than just throwing the relationship away imo.

To me...If a relationship isn't meeting your needs 100%, then open and honest communication is necessary to make sure those needs are being met. There's no reason why a person who needs multiple partners should ever marry a monogamy-minded person unless the monogamy-minded person eventually okays the affair.

I would never marry anyone who can't give me everything I need. To me, the marriage is pointless if I'm going behind his back to sleep with someone else.

 

[midwestyankee]

To me...If a relationship isn't meeting your needs 100%, then open and honest communication is necessary to make sure those needs are being met. There's no reason why a person who needs multiple partners should ever marry a monogamy-minded person unless the monogamy-minded person eventually okays the affair.

I would never marry anyone who can't give me everything I need. To me, the marriage is pointless if I'm going behind his back to sleep with someone else.

Sorry, but I doubt if you're any better at predicting the future than anyone else. To say that you would "never marry anyone who can't give me everything I need" ignores the fact that people change over time. Often, two people in a relationship grow in different directions. Sometimes one grows and the other remains static. Sometimes - and I know this is hard to believe - women who were impressively enthusiastic about sex in the pre-marriage period develop an allergy to having sex with their husbands. Funny how a near-fiancé can be the hottest guy on the planet but put a gold ring on the same guy and he becomes the root cause of frigidity.

 

[FurryFury]

If they have been yammering on about family values and how important marriage is then yes,

Otherwise, a resounding no.

Great post!

Also if they belong to a super secretive "Christian" mafia that allows them to do whatever they want because "God" choose them, as long as they tell their "prayer" cell, that bothers.

 

[00Syd]

If they have been yammering on about family values and how important marriage is then yes,

Otherwise, a resounding no.

Ditto.

Although i always tend to feel bad for the wives, regardless. Especially since they all still have to stand with their husband and smile while he apologizes to the public.

 

[JMohegan]

Sorry, but I doubt if you're any better at predicting the future than anyone else. To say that you would "never marry anyone who can't give me everything I need" ignores the fact that people change over time. Often, two people in a relationship grow in different directions. Sometimes one grows and the other remains static. Sometimes - and I know this is hard to believe - women who were impressively enthusiastic about sex in the pre-marriage period develop an allergy to having sex with their husbands. Funny how a near-fiancé can be the hottest guy on the planet but put a gold ring on the same guy and he becomes the root cause of frigidity.

So it's the wife's fault that the guy's fuckin' around?

C'mon, MWY. If you want us to see the cheater as something other than an unreasonable monster, surely it's fair to see the one being cheated on as something other than an unreasonable monster too.

 

[satindesire]

Sorry, but I doubt if you're any better at predicting the future than anyone else. To say that you would "never marry anyone who can't give me everything I need" ignores the fact that people change over time. Often, two people in a relationship grow in different directions. Sometimes one grows and the other remains static. Sometimes - and I know this is hard to believe - women who were impressively enthusiastic about sex in the pre-marriage period develop an allergy to having sex with their husbands. Funny how a near-fiancé can be the hottest guy on the planet but put a gold ring on the same guy and he becomes the root cause of frigidity.

Sorry to say this, but why on earth would anyone stay with someone who isn't meeting their needs?

If my husband stops sleeping with me, starts beating me, cheats on me, I'll divorce him.

What a novel concept.

I hate to be the only naysayer in this thread, but I don't think affairs are necessary. Divorce the person who can't meet your needs, then sleep with whoever you want.

 

[midwestyankee]

So it's the wife's fault that the guy's fuckin' around?

C'mon, MWY. If you want us to see the cheater as something other than an unreasonable monster, surely it's fair to see the one being cheated on as something other than an unreasonable monster too.

Fair enough. Of course it works both ways.

Do you honestly believe that everyone who cheats is "an unreasonable monster?"