* The Kennedy men...they have always been, and remain, despicable cads who have used and abused women habitually. Still, people support them for public office. Jack was a hound. Ted was expelled from Harvard for cheating ( Mary Jo has no comment on this ).
* Then there is the odious John Edwards, who got too close to the White House for comfort.
* Eliot Spitzer got his own television show after being outed as a regular patron of prostitutes.
* And then there is the noted exhibitionist Anthony Weiner, who still has a dedicated fan club. Its members are convinced that he was framed! How is that for critical thinking?
Who's next? Elizabeth Warren?
People, due to their sinful nature, prefer to be lied to and told that their unhappiness and dissatisfaction is not due to their own choices, but due to their environment,
and the politician who promises to fix that environment will receive the most votes.
And in this case, incompetent and dishonest. I place a lot of the blame on the media and its’ lack of investigation along with collaberation pushing their own agenda. We here do our own leg work, but the majority of the population are lazy.
Spoken like an innocent.
Democrats KNOW the difference between right and wrong - they CHOOSE wrong. They like men who are bullies, liars and cheats. Clinton doesn't 'fool' his party they wallow in his abuse of young interns. Obama lies? They smirk at each other - stuck it to those Republicans again...
Poster boys for Democrats: John Edwards, Larry Flynt, Teddy Kennedy, and Bill Clinton.
This union usually results in the election of individuals that have no principles and bad character.A/k/a as Democrats.
I intentionally omitted Republicans from the above because Republicans that fit the no principles and bad character gategory have a deep desire to be and are controlled and whipped by the Democrats. The Republican Party abounds with them.
Maybe not the total reason, but female love of bad boys is part of what gives immoral leftist pols such an edge.
Because most people lack character themselves.
How can Al Gore be ignored?
Our politicians are a DIRECT Reflection of our SICK “Culture” and US!
Obama isn’t “Obama”.
He really is a shallow minded composite - a blank slate molded into a modern day Manchurian Candidate.
No one knows his history or true identity - well, perhaps a few of his handlers and programmers do.
I think so much of his life is fabricated and fantasy that he himself no longer knows what is real and what is fiction.
But when he reads those words on the teleprompter or quotes from his ghost-written biographies it doen’t matter to him if his words are true or not. He believes what he is saying and in his mind it is truth - at least for that moment in time.
The next day, when he speaks the exact opposite, that will be the truth for him.
All the lies are told to shape “the package,” which is what is sold to the electorate. Obama’s a genius. Obama’s a change agent. Obama’s fresh and new and uncontaminated. Bill Clinton is a genius. The Kennedy’s are American royalty. And on and on.
Just as in selling any product to an uncritical consumer, the package is all that’s important. Slap a “New and Improved!” label on a box of laundry detergent and sales increase. The detergent is the same old stuff but the BOX is new and improved.
Barack Obama was elected because his handlers successfully created a package that resonated with the Bush-hating crowd. Obama was never competent, had nowhere near the experience the job called for, was extreme in many of his views, and was a relative unknown, do-nothing cipher before he ran for president. But he was packaged better than crusty, temperamental old insider John McCain, and he won handily, especially among people who tend to view the presidency as little more than a popularity contest.
Now they are finding what we’ve known all along: the package is pretty, but open it up and it’s empty inside.
Mondale and Dukakis would probably have been mediocre Presidents, at best not quite as bad as Jimmy Carter, but they appear to be decent human beings. After the 1988 loss the Democrats decided to retire that model for their nominees.
We don’t.
The reason why “we” (speakiing collectively) elect people of low character is that becasue it can be assumed they will give those who elect them what they want, whilst an honorable man will be bound by honor and not by cronyistic exchange of mammon....
Honorable men (and women) look to the rule of law and not to the rule of men, so they are less desireable to thsoe who elect them, unless “they” indeed are of equally strong character.
The voting public is offered a choice, vote for this guy, or that guy.
They are not asked, "name somebody you wish to have represent you in office."
Therefore, most of the time, we simply elect the (what we believe to be) lesser of the odorous.
I do not see the politicians' character faults being laid at the feet of the voter.
Because the American people’s character is reflected in who they elect. If all we care about is that we get ours, we will elect politicians that make false promises, and politicians of low character will take advantage of the low character of the American people.
One of the key problems is that we want the impossible and not everyone recognizes that the impossible is indeed impossible. Therefor, the only people who can get elected are people who promise the impossible.
There are only two types who promise the impossible, those who don't know and those that do. The first group is smaller and consists of the likes of the ignorant, Cynthia McKinney, and the naive, Dennis Kucinich. The latter group are the liars and they consist of all the rest of the politicians save the tiny minority who are mostly honest but terribly unpopular outside their districts.