Re: Kerry Scandal - Should Adultery Disqualify a Candidate for President?

February 17, 2004 | Comte de Maistre

[ComtedeMaistre]

While many people have been focused on whether or not John Kerry had an affair with an intern, they overlook the two most important questions. These are:

1. Should past adultery disqualify a candidate for President of the United States on ethical or moral grounds?

2. Given your knowledge of the American people, do you believe that an accusation of adultery, even if proven, can prevent a candidate from being elected President?

[ComtedeMaistre]

I ask this question because, during the Clinton scandals (he was guilty of violating perjury laws, not just adultery), his job approval ratings remained high (assuming that the pollsters in the media were not fiddling with the poll results).

[MJY1288]

It's a character issue, If his wife can't trust, why should we

[Baynative]

With Edwards beating him in the Wisconsin primary tonight things might start looking a little different for the long faced dullard.

Edwards just announced that he wants a one on one debate with kerry. If that happens Edwards will probably make him look pretty weak.

[Wissa]

I think a lot of people were happy with the performance on their 401k's, but they'd prefer to avoid having to go through another Monica episode. I think it could have some effect on the election. Maybe not a lot, but some.

[Voltage]

BUt will Americans vote for a lawyer who made his fortune driving doctors that deliver babies out of busines?

[Cicero]

Traditionally, adultery was always considered to be a much more serious sin than simple fornication because it involves the breaking of a solemn vow and brings discord into the family and the community. It often hurts childen as well as those immediately concerned.

It's a question whether the word of someone who breaks a solemn oath or vow can be trusted. Especially someone like Kerry who shows no hesitation in breaking his solemn vows repeatedly and deliberately.

[coloradan]

Not at all. Rape doesn't seem to matter (ask Juanita Brodderick) so why should adultery?

[gooleyman]

I believe that minus Ross Perot in '92, Clintoon's adultery would have been a major reason he would have lost the race. Perot muddied the waters enough that BJ could skate by.

I think also that if it were proven that Kerry committed adultery, he would lose in a 2 man race against Dubya, hands down.

Of course I think/hope he'll lose anyway. Proof of adultery would be nice icing on the cake.

[per loin]

Yup, and with the results from Wisconsin, the Botox Brigade has gone into full panic.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

do you believe that an accusation of adultery, even if proven, can prevent a candidate from being elected President?

Certainly. Unless of course he is a Democrat, in which case it is a resume enhancement.

While we're discussing is and not "should be", I strongly suspect that if that candidate were a woman, even being a Democrat wouldn't be enough.

[eeriegeno]

Clintoon all over again. At least Hart did the decent thing and withdrew. I suspect that Ms Heinz is looking for a dull paring knife right about now!!!!!!!

[gooleyman]

Not at all. Rape doesn't seem to matter (ask Juanita Brodderick) so why should adultery?

----
If I'm not mistaken, when we found out about Juanita, it was well into his second term. In fact his second term has started when we learned about Monica. Newsweek (I think) sat on the story through election season.

In spite of them both (and all the rest) the jerk probably could have won a third term if the Constitution hadn't prevented it.

[rovenstinez]

If his wife can't trust him,...... then should we?

[optimistically_conservative]

1. Should past adultery disqualify a candidate for President of the United States on ethical or moral grounds?

No. I can find nowhere in the constitution where a standard of morals or ethics, including a litmus test of marital fidelity or bachelor virginity, is a prerequisite for the office of President. I already know I'm guaranteed a sinner with low moral character by the fact the candidates are human AND politicians. I do want to know whether he is truthful about his shortcomings. Lies can be diqualifiers.

2. Given your knowledge of the American people, do you believe that an accusation of adultery, even if proven, can prevent a candidate from being elected President?

No, but dishonesty will.

[Intolerant in NJ]

2. Given your knowledge of the American people, do you believe that an accusation of adultery, even if proven, can prevent a candidate from being elected President?...don't know, but Suzy Estrich said tonight on Fox that she talked to a number of democrats this week and they were very nervous about the allegations against Kerry, proven or not - "we just went through four years with Clinton like that, and don't need any more"...thank you, Drudge......

[plain talk]

I think it depends on wich people you are talking about and the situation of the candidate. Is it a single affair or multiple ones? An isolated case or a habitual problem? It is a recent affair or did it happen 20 years ago? Does the candidate lie about it or confess it? So I think most Republicans and Independents people react to this depending on the magnitude and degree. Dems don't even care if the candidate is a rapist.

[Phlap]

No, but dishonesty will.

Bingo! Never the sin always the cover-up.

[Common Tator]

Should past adultery disqualify a candidate for President of the United States on ethical or moral grounds

Well it did not disqualify Thomas Jefferson nor did bigamy disqualify Andrew Jackson.

One president in the 1800's kept a prostitute in his employ in the white house. The media joke was that he had extra Ass-sets in the white house.

If we learned nothing else we should learn that sexcapades will not take a popular president down. ON hte other hand jaywalking could take down an unpopular president.

The people who would be opposed to Kerry if he were proved to be a adulterer, would not vote for him if he were not. And the people who are going to vote for him will not be detered if he ran around on his wife.

There are just two issues the economy and security and as Kerry proved tonight a platform of trashing Bush will not get a candidate a clear majority.

I for one hope that Kerry Gets the nomination. Edwards is a slick speachmaker and he has likeability. He could very well win the election.

Those who trash Bush for not trying to take down Kerry are nuts. At this stage of the game if it is not Kerry, then it is Edwards. Edwards would be a lot harder to beat than Kerry.

Perhaps a few of you can see why Bush and Rove wanted Kerry to win. They still hope he will.

Kerry would be easy to tear down.. Edwards would be a lot harder.

[LiT]

1. I used to think so, but now you might have to define adultery. Today the dictionary defines adultery as follows:

: voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband;

But that definition could change, just like the definition of marriage did over the past 30 years. I guess when they (whoever they were) decided to change the definition of marriage in the dictionaries, they forgot to change this one, because with this definition what do you call it between 'same sex marriage partners'? Forgive me for that comment, but it's true.

and;

2. Given my knowledge of the American people, that vote, I don't really think it matters to them because they voted for Bill Clinton(twice), but I do think it matters to the majority. So, for those that don't vote, and don't like what is going on in our country, then realize your vote can make a difference and your voice needs to be heard. Vote for what is ethical and what is moral, before they try to change the definitions of those as well.

[Aunt Polgara]

Adultery will only disqualify Republicans. Dems don't care.

OTOH, if he is in the middle of a nasty divorce, even the Dems might not want to put up with him, especially if his wife gives him a Bobbit cut. ;-)

[Huck]

I can find nowhere in the constitution where a standard of morals or ethics, including a litmus test of marital fidelity or bachelor virginity, is a prerequisite for the office of President.

It's called a vote. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the people from imposing moral or ethical standards on our office holders. In fact, it was considered essential. Sort of quaint, now, when you think about it.

Having disposed of your strange version of strict construction, I must say I would not disqualify a candidate for having committed adultery. However, I would be very concerned with a candidate who has had affairs in the workplace, including public office, particularly with a subordinate. This is a disciplinary problem that every major company in America treats with severe disciplinary action, and with good reason.

I would also be very concerned with someone who shows a pattern of sexual misconduct, in the form of numerous trysts, unwanted advances, or other deviant sexual conduct. Why? Because it exposes the candidate to blackmail, which is a serious security risk for a president.

But just adultery, on its face? Doesn't disqualify a candidate for me.

[OneCitizen]

Politicians campaign with their wives so that the voters will think, "He's a good husband." The wives do TV and print interviews vouching for their husbands. If he's a bad husband, an adulterer, the media has an obligation to inform the voters, having helped present the politician with good character image via his wife.

[CyberAnt]

Better yet .. if the guy will commit adultery on his wife, he'll do the same thing to the country. Didn't we learn anything from 8 years of Clinton ..??

[LuigiBasco]

I'm with you on that one. Bush would make mashed potato's out of Kerry. Another North East liberal can't make it.

On the other hand Edwards would help them in the south. How much is the question. I still believe Bush will get re-elected but it will be close as of now. If the economy stays the same and we get straightened out in Iraq He will be a shoe in. My 2¢

[OneCitizen]

Ross Perot definitely decided that election for Clinton. The proof is in the pudding with the huge Dem losses in Congress 2 years later: Perot voters realized they'd been manipulated for the benefit of the candidate they liked least.

[Allan]

The following US presidents were adulterers:

Roosevelt
Eisenhower
Kennedy
Johnston
Reagan (with his first wife)
Clinton.

[joonbug]

If Republican - YES

If Democrat - NO

[MJY1288]

Looks like some of the people of Wisconsin are starting to see the real Kerry. A BIG PHONY!

[LaurieB]

I've always seen the Perot a factor in Bush, Senior losing his second term as president. I still wonder why Perot got himself involved in the middle of an election - he certainly didn't seem to want the job. Perot actually got a pretty decent number of votes - do you think Bush would have received the Perot votes if Perot had just stayed out of it? Do you think perhaps Perot was trying to control that election? I've wondered about that.

[ComtedeMaistre]

Eisenhower was an adulterer? Really?

[paul51]

What he may have done with the bimbo is about sex. I don’t want to know about it. If the story is true, what he did with his family, friends, supporters and the people around him has to do with honesty, integrity, responsibility, loyalty and trust. If the guy who thinks he should be my President is a POS liar and cheat, I want to know about it.

[ComtedeMaistre]

I agree with you that Perot was an important factor in helping elect Slick in '92. Bush Sr. had to face attacks from two candidates at the same time. The Bush campaign could not sustain a laser-like focus on Clinton, as they did with Dukakis in '88.

Without Perot, the media could have focused more on Clinton's character (draft-dodging, Gennifer Flowers, etc., issues that were raised during the Democratic primary).

[soozla]

It doesn't matter if it's "adultery", stealing, breaking the law, whatevah...it's the D-I-S-H-O-N-E-S-T-Y that matters.....it makes no difference what the subject is, but the fact of the dishonesty involved, especially at that level. I'm talking about INTENTIONAL, CALCULATED DISHONESTY...it shows a calculated disregard for the truth. That is what went on with Clinton and THAT is what is happening with John Effin Kerry now..I do believe.

[Allan]

Eisenhower was an adulterer? Really?

Yes. I believe the story is he wanted to divorce and remarry.

Truman threatened to have him removed from his command if he did so.

[Allan]

Sorry for the mispelling of L.B. Johnson's name.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

The adulterer violates his trust. Why are we so special that he will maintain his trust with us. "Public office is a public trust." President Calvin Coolidge

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

No, but then we're talking about reality rather than morality.

The reality is that the Republicans won't vote for an oathbreaker because Republicans understand the reality of the trust they are reposing in a president.

The reality is that Democrats act like children voting for Santa Claus, and they are less concerned with the reliability of the promise than the size of the promise.

[ComtedeMaistre]

>>I'm talking about INTENTIONAL, CALCULATED DISHONESTY...it shows a calculated disregard for the truth.<<

Clinton gave America not just intentional, calculated dishonesty, he also violated the law while doing it. He wagged a finger at the TV cameras and lied outright. But his poll numbers remained high.

Kerry needs to do something truly ourageous to top that. He would have to choke someone to death, in fron of the TV cameras, for the American people to turn against him.

[ComtedeMaistre]

>>Adultery will only disqualify Republicans. Dems don't care.<<

Republicans essentially rig the game against themselves.

[Bommer]

1. Should past adultery disqualify a candidate for President of the United States on ethical or moral grounds?

No but murdering innocent women and children in cold blood in a no fire zone and get metals for it should!

[jocon307]

1. Yes

2. no

[ComtedeMaistre]

Good Point. Why isn't the media holding Kerry accountable for his personal misconduct in Vietnam? That is a far greater issue than banging an intern.

[ComtedeMaistre]

>>In spite of them both (and all the rest) the jerk probably could have won a third term if the Constitution hadn't prevented it.<<

Sad but true.

[LaurieB]

I am ashamed to say I voted Perot that term. I absolutely wasted my vote and look what we got stuck with for the next eight years. Bush Senior should have been voted in. Remember Clinton jumping on the band wagon (and laughed about it of course) when Perot mentioned that to get rid of the deficit, taxes would have to be raised. Well, not too long after Clinton was in office, he raised our payroll taxes. (Bush just lowered them.) It's real easy to pay on the deficit when you raise taxes to do so. Perot opened us up to that additional tax and Clinton laughed all the way to the bank. Hell, what president wouldn't? Most times (all the time actually) presidents are dissed for raising taxes and here Clinton gets by with it and wins another term after his first. I like Perot a lot - I saw him in person arrive (by himself, no security) at a ralley in Minnesota - but I can tell you right now - I will never vote for him again. I will continue to like the guy - but no votes from me again.

[LaurieB]

Clinton gave America not just intentional, calculated dishonesty, he also violated the law while doing it. He wagged a finger at the TV cameras and lied outright. But his poll numbers remained high.



See? Now that is something that really scares me. For Clinton to be as dishonest as he was - what is going wrong when people in our own society ignore that kind of behavior coming from our own president? I felt relief when Clinton left office. I wasn't sure what else Clinton was capable of. I don't think we even know everything yet about Clinton. It is our duty as American citizens to see to it that the Clintons never see the insides of the White House again. I especially want to do everything I can to keep Kerry from EVER seeing the insides of the White House.

[BnBlFlag]

In the Dim party, adultry is a plus.

[optimistically_conservative]

It's called a vote. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the people from imposing moral or ethical standards on our office holders. In fact, it was considered essential.

That's an interesting response to a question on selecting the President, since the temporal electoral college was determined to be the best means of protecting from the avarices of the majority while preventing aristocracy in permanant electors. Likewise, state legistlators were to choose Senate representatives. FWIW:

Virtue, Wisdom, Experience, Not Abstract Rights, Form the Basis of the American Republic

What kind of men does Publius envision governing such a society? While he recognizes that men are not angels and that those elected must be controlled by the checks and balances of a republican form of government (Federalist No. 51), his primary emphasis is on the wisdom, patriotism, virtue, ability, and experience of those who are to be elected. Such men, he says, will be able to "refine and enlarge the public views" (Federalist No. 10) and to deliberate concerning the best means to promote the public good. "The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be," Publius says in Federalist No. 57, "first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust." In republican governments, he says, the mode of obtaining rulers is election; and, while the methods of preventing degeneracy are numerous and varied, the most effectual way is "such a limitation of the term of appointments as will maintain a proper responsibility to the people."

Having disposed of your strange version of strict construction, I must say I would not disqualify a candidate for having committed adultery.

Well, I guess thanks are in order for my disposition, and by establishing the scope of your virtue in qualify acceptable and unacceptable adulterous acts in candidates - prove my point.

[danamco]

With dim's philosophy, everything goes!

[gooleyman]

...do you think Bush would have received the Perot votes if Perot had just stayed out of it?

I don't think that EVERY Perot vote would have gone to Bush, but when he entered the race he brought with him a dynamic of his own. With him in the race, there were then 2 people to attack George Bush and I don't think H.W. was up to the task of answering attacks from 2 sides. Perot didn't spend a lot of time attacking Clintoon. And the media was all too willing to give full coverage to the Bush attackers. Bush lost his Gulf War high real fast. My belief, and that's all it can be, is that minus Perot, more time would have been spent scrutinizing Clintoon's lies and daliances and H.W. would have run away with the election. I can't prove it, but I'll go to the great beyond believing it. All I know is that I was depressed for weeks afterwards, and I have vowed that my vote will NEVER go to a third party or stay at home if it will help a DemocRAT.

----
Do you think perhaps Perot was trying to control that election?

I think that could have had something to do with it. I heard at the time that Perot didn't like H.W. and that there was something in the past of both of them that drove a wedge between them. Maybe someone else out there knows what that was. So, revenge could have been a factor, yes. Some also said that there was an agreement between Perot and Clintoon. It sure smacked of underhandedness.

[ComtedeMaistre]

>>I wasn't sure what else Clinton was capable of<<

He was publicly accused of rape. I am not sure whether he is on record as having denied the allegation. The media must have "coveniently" forgotten to ask him to confirm or deny the charges.