Replies

If I lived in Arkansas (I don't; my friend does) I would not vote for Tim Hutchinson because he ran on family values and he betrayed those family values. If he was an hoorable man, he would have either resigned or not run for reelection. He chose to run, knowing that it would be a tight race because, like my friend, some conservatives, primarily social conservative women, would not vote for him because of his betrayal of his marriage vows. He thought he could brazen it out, and apparently, none of his political advisors counseled him that if he ran, he'd stand a good chance of losing those votes--and the possibility that the Republicans might lose that senate seat. It's Hutchinson's responsibility for this election, and if he loses, it's his own fault because of his own moral failures.

Frankly, calling me emotional is a good dodge, but it doesn't address the issue of Hutchinson's moral failings, except for posters who say that a vote for a man who ran on a family values platform, but yet did not honor his marriage vows is worthy of a vote. Other posters are waving around emotional issues and raising straw arguments. Face facts: If Hutchinson had not behaved as he did, he'd be a shoo-in. Because he did, he stands the chance of squeaking in or losing. That's no one's fault but his own.

You are a one note Charley obviously. Hutchinson ran on more than family values. Support of our military has always been one of his big interests. You are just repeating the same old mantra and not responding to anything else anyone is saying. The very important issue that we are all facing is the upcoming war in Iraq. Pryor has been very wishy-washy about his support of it and I expect that once he is (God forbid) elected he would jump on the Daschle "appease Saddam" band wagon. He is not to be trusted.

It is a very dangerous thing to judge people by their romantic involvements. Unless you have one under virtually total surveillance, you cannot have a clue as to the full picture either here or with anyone else in Congress.

Personally, I do not think that the present easy Divorce laws are right. A wise policy would make it very difficult to get a divorce; would telegraph loud and clear, that marriage was supposed to be a permanent institution. But that is not the present policy.

As for extra-marital affairs? Who can judge anyone without a full understanding of all factors. Why would anyone want to judge anyone else's private life?

You know about Senator Hutchinson divorcing his wife of many years. But you do not really know what personal outrages may be--or may have taken place--in the lives of many others in Washington. Surely a bit of circumspection would be in order. In judging Hutchinson as a Senator, one should look first at how trustworthy he has been as a Senator. How faithful to his oath of office. He has an extensive track record. How can you judge him on one failure without looking to that track record--the public record, rather than the private one?

If his opponent had an absolutely flawless public record, then you might indeed consider a private failing on the part of Hutchinson as critical--in earlier eras a divorced man was indeed finished in politics. But from what I am reading here, Hutchinson's opponent has a far more tarnished record than Hutchinson. So it comes down to this, would you allow a clearly immoral man to be elected, over a man with whom you apparently agree on the issues, who has conducted himself honorably in his duties to the public? The issue is not whether Hutchinson has failed his wife; but has he failed Arkansas?

I would suggest that you leave the obligations and equities between the Senator and his former wife to themselves and to God, and join with the rest of us in trying to restore public honor to the United States Senate.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site