subgenius wrote:
Though "somehow" your doubt has led you astray of the truth. For I was an intern during the Ken Starr saga and I recall how the head production architect had thrown an indictment reading party for he and his cronies at the time. He was a former colleague of my father and assumed a certain kinship with me because of it....and honestly, when I first arrived for the job interview, and first became aware that He was a "decision maker" at that firm, I knew the job was mine.
Nevertheless, I was a registered Democrat voter at that time, and had voted for Bill - having just emerged from a more youthful association with the B-List Comic Con commonly referred to as the Libertarian Party. I remember thinking what a waste and what a distraction, because what did it really matter for a President, or even an Architect, to have a private life or even a private concern that while seemingly embarassing to a client had no real impact of their professional duties....their execution of service.
I have long admired the response offered by the former mayor of San Diego when he was questioned by a reporter in the midst of all the public bans for smoking. The reporter queued up his "gotcha" by noting that the mayor had received significant campaign donations from tobacco companies and so his sincerity was in doubt...the mayor plainly stated - "if you can't take money from someone and then screw them over, then you have no business being in politics".
To which, it should be noted - an elected official should be capable of performing his duties distinct and detached from whatever his life may be - and we should be mindful of that reality. It's rather like how a good doctor, being a registered democrat, will still fight to save Lee Harvey Oswald's life.
So, yes I can easily resolve a politician wanting to have a balanced budget for this nation because of the wants and desire from his constituency, even though he may have a credit rating of 565.
OMG, I actually agree with you on something....to a point.
Generally speaking, if a president performs his job well, I don't care if he cheats on his wife. I would if I were his wife, obviously, and it might make me view him with personal distaste, but that doesn't mean he can't do the job. Most presidents have been unfaithful to their wives, after all.
But I think there is a line to be drawn with illegal and deeply depraved behavior. The illegal line is obvious, but the deeply depraved may be less so. I think there is a point, within the private workings of human beings, when they reach a certain point of depravity, most of their internal energy is focused on that point. Enabling it, hiding from it, feeling ashamed of it, etc... and being vulnerable to blackmail due to it. Bad traits for a president. Of course "deeply depraved" is subjective and changes over time and cultures. But there are certain bottom lines I think most people accept - and sexually preying upon minors is one.
I also think that sociopathic behavior is something that is disqualifying in a president. Or should be. Too much of a president's job requires the ability to empathize and imagine the lives of others.