What Background Does A "Family Values" Politician Have To Have To Not Be Attacked?

[Dayton3]

Inspired by all the Gov. Sarah Palin, Gov. Sanford stuff of course.

Assume a politician male or female, Democrat or Republican believes the following:

1) Against abortion rights
2) Against any kind of premarital or extramarital sex.
3) Against any kind of marriage aside from one man, one woman.
4) Goes to church and is generally seen to be in favor of religion.

What does the background of a politician have to be in order for you to consider their personal lives of them or their family to be off limits to attack or insult?

I'm betting I know the answer from many.

 

[mattskramer]

Inspired by all the Gov. Sarah Palin, Gov. Sanford stuff of course.

Assume a politician male or female, Democrat or Republican believes the following:

1) Against abortion rights
2) Against any kind of premarital or extramarital sex.
3) Against any kind of marriage aside from one man, one woman.
4) Goes to church and is generally seen to be in favor of religion.

What does the background of a politician have to be in order for you to consider their personal lives of them or their family to be off limits to attack or insult?

I'm betting I know the answer from many.

Politicians are investigated. When you want to be a representative (to represent people), then you practically invite people to evaluate you. The background of a politician must be consistent with his beliefs. Hypocrisy in a politician is frowned upon. Only if their behavior is shown to be consistent with their beliefs are their personal lives off limits to attack or insult. That is simply because you can’t attack someone for a hypocrisy that had not been committed. If a politician commits some type of hypocrisy or some error, then attack or correct insult is permitted.

The bottom line is that if you want to be a politician, and especially if you “preach” conservative values, then you had better live in accordance with those values as you try to represent your constituents. In so doing, you can't be criticized.

 

[elvis]

Inspired by all the Gov. Sarah Palin, Gov. Sanford stuff of course.

Assume a politician male or female, Democrat or Republican believes the following:

1) Against abortion rights
2) Against any kind of premarital or extramarital sex.
3) Against any kind of marriage aside from one man, one woman.
4) Goes to church and is generally seen to be in favor of religion.

What does the background of a politician have to be in order for you to consider their personal lives of them or their family to be off limits to attack or insult?

I'm betting I know the answer from many.

I would say walking on water would be sufficient background, but then I realized it's the Left we're talking about. They'd still scream crucify him/her.

 

[Dayton3]

So the argument is going to be by many

"if you can't live up PERFECTLY to the values you advocate you have no business advocating them?"

Isn't it very unreasonable to apply this idea ONLY to family values?

1) Can a politician who never served in the military be allowed to have credible beliefs on military and foreign policy?

2) Can a politician who never set foot on a farm be allowed to have credible beliefs on agriculture policy?

3) Can a politician who received a private school education be allowed to have credible beliefs on public schools.

4) Can a politician who never ran a business of any kind be allowed to have credible beliefs on government economic policies?

5) Can a politician with no legal or judicial background of any kind be allowed to have credible beliefs on the constitution or the role of judgements?

You can go on endlessly. Politicians in general have influence on EVERYTHING at some point but have actual experience in very little.

Finally, one could argue that only a person who has suffered through a terrible divorce or had serious problems with their kids as they grew up can really understand such matters and truly advocate "family values".

 

[mattskramer]

Inspired by all the Gov. Sarah Palin, Gov. Sanford stuff of course.

Assume a politician male or female, Democrat or Republican believes the following:

1) Against abortion rights
2) Against any kind of premarital or extramarital sex.
3) Against any kind of marriage aside from one man, one woman.
4) Goes to church and is generally seen to be in favor of religion.

What does the background of a politician have to be in order for you to consider their personal lives of them or their family to be off limits to attack or insult?

I'm betting I know the answer from many.

I would say walking on water would be sufficient background, but then I realized it's the Left we're talking about. They'd still scream crucify him/her.

The left is not that inclined to preach. Have you ever heard the phrase “The religious left”? It is the apparent self-righteous moral lecturing of the right, followed by their moral failures, that causes the downfall of the Republicans. I think that it would be good political strategy for the Republicans if they were to tone down their “family values” rhetoric. This article basically makes my point better than I could to a degree.

Bill Whitaker: GOP may have to redefine 'family values' for us

“The failure of so many prominent Republicans may not just be in breaking the Seventh Commandment but repeatedly committing the stinging sin of hypocrisy.”

People need to walk the talk.

 

[xotoxi]

What does the background of a politician have to be in order for you to consider their personal lives of them or their family to be off limits to attack or insult?

Generally, the lack of a mistress is important to be considered a family values politician.

 

[mattskramer]

So the argument is going to be by many

"if you can't live up PERFECTLY to the values you advocate you have no business advocating them?"

Isn't it very unreasonable to apply this idea ONLY to family values?

1) Can a politician who never served in the military be allowed to have credible beliefs on military and foreign policy?

2) Can a politician who never set foot on a farm be allowed to have credible beliefs on agriculture policy?

3) Can a politician who received a private school education be allowed to have credible beliefs on public schools.

4) Can a politician who never ran a business of any kind be allowed to have credible beliefs on government economic policies?

5) Can a politician with no legal or judicial background of any kind be allowed to have credible beliefs on the constitution or the role of judgements?

You can go on endlessly. Politicians in general have influence on EVERYTHING at some point but have actual experience in very little.

Finally, one could argue that only a person who has suffered through a terrible divorce or had serious problems with their kids as they grew up can really understand such matters and truly advocate "family values".

Not one of your five examples constitutes hypocrisy in the purest sense. Finally, experience is the best teacher and I would listen to someone give advice on marriage and divorce even if the speaker had been married and divorced. Yet, I would not want him to represent me if he had said that divorce is wrong yet had a divorce. There is a difference between giving someone solicited advice based on experience and being a hypocritical politician.

 

[Political Junky]

Inspired by all the Gov. Sarah Palin, Gov. Sanford stuff of course.

Assume a politician male or female, Democrat or Republican believes the following:

1) Against abortion rights
2) Against any kind of premarital or extramarital sex.
3) Against any kind of marriage aside from one man, one woman.
4) Goes to church and is generally seen to be in favor of religion.

What does the background of a politician have to be in order for you to consider their personal lives of them or their family to be off limits to attack or insult?

I'm betting I know the answer from many.

I would say walking on water would be sufficient background, but then I realized it's the Left we're talking about. They'd still scream crucify him/her.

The left is not that inclined to preach. Have you ever heard the phrase “The religious left”? It is the apparent self-righteous moral lecturing of the right, followed by their moral failures, that causes the downfall of the Republicans. I think that it would be good political strategy for the Republicans if they were to tone down their “family values” rhetoric. This article basically makes my point better than I could to a degree.

Bill Whitaker: GOP may have to redefine 'family values' for us

“The failure of so many prominent Republicans may not just be in breaking the Seventh Commandment but repeatedly committing the stinging sin of hypocrisy.”

People need to walk the talk.

You hit it out of the park. Thanks.

 

[midcan5]

A politician is supposed to have a clear platform and he servers the people who put her in office. #4 is up to the person and not relevant, the others have been settled mostly by courts and unless something changes are none of her business. Too much else going on.

 

[Lycurgus]

They would have to live their life, as I live mine!

 

[DiveCon]

Inspired by all the Gov. Sarah Palin, Gov. Sanford stuff of course.

Assume a politician male or female, Democrat or Republican believes the following:

1) Against abortion rights
2) Against any kind of premarital or extramarital sex.
3) Against any kind of marriage aside from one man, one woman.
4) Goes to church and is generally seen to be in favor of religion.

What does the background of a politician have to be in order for you to consider their personal lives of them or their family to be off limits to attack or insult?

I'm betting I know the answer from many.

I would say walking on water would be sufficient background, but then I realized it's the Left we're talking about. They'd still scream crucify him/her.

The left is not that inclined to preach. Have you ever heard the phrase “The religious left”? It is the apparent self-righteous moral lecturing of the right, followed by their moral failures, that causes the downfall of the Republicans. I think that it would be good political strategy for the Republicans if they were to tone down their “family values” rhetoric. This article basically makes my point better than I could to a degree.

Bill Whitaker: GOP may have to redefine 'family values' for us

“The failure of so many prominent Republicans may not just be in breaking the Seventh Commandment but repeatedly committing the stinging sin of hypocrisy.”

People need to walk the talk.

yes, most of them worship either at the church of Obama, or the church of AlGore
some worship at both

 

[Barb]

Inspired by all the Gov. Sarah Palin, Gov. Sanford stuff of course.

Assume a politician male or female, Democrat or Republican believes the following:

1) Against abortion rights
2) Against any kind of premarital or extramarital sex.
3) Against any kind of marriage aside from one man, one woman.
4) Goes to church and is generally seen to be in favor of religion.

What does the background of a politician have to be in order for you to consider their personal lives of them or their family to be off limits to attack or insult?

I'm betting I know the answer from many.

All politicians, right and left, should come right out with it in the first interview:
"Well Brett, or whoever your name is, its like this: The first few years after high school were a bit of a blur, but I'm told I had a really good time."
If everyone stuck to that basic little script, the gotcha games as to past lives would necessarily become moot.
Now, if the politician in question, or the party they belong to wanted to run on a platform of, "we're better than those godless heathens in every imaginable way," then they would naturally be laughed off the stage once the tap dancing in airport bathrooms, frequenting of prostitutes (same or different gender) and outsourcing affairs to other countries became known. Extra credit for actively advocating legislation against the very behaviors you're engaged in.

It really won't do to say dems think its ok for dems. We pretty much ended Edwards (I thought that was a mistake, btw) for an affair, and he was and would have been an excellent advocate for poor people. It had to happen in todays puritanical climate though. Its the posing that bites politicians in the ass, not the acts that expose it for what it is.

 

[concept]

Inspired by all the Gov. Sarah Palin, Gov. Sanford stuff of course.

Assume a politician male or female, Democrat or Republican believes the following:

1) Against abortion rights
2) Against any kind of premarital or extramarital sex.
3) Against any kind of marriage aside from one man, one woman.
4) Goes to church and is generally seen to be in favor of religion.

What does the background of a politician have to be in order for you to consider their personal lives of them or their family to be off limits to attack or insult?

I'm betting I know the answer from many.

All of that is irrelevant to the knuckle-dragging left.

What is important is <insert politician's name> (D)

 

[editec]

If you're gonna talk the talk, you'd best walk the walk.

Not all that difficult to understand, is it?

 

[WillowTree]

Inspired by all the Gov. Sarah Palin, Gov. Sanford stuff of course.

Assume a politician male or female, Democrat or Republican believes the following:

1) Against abortion rights
2) Against any kind of premarital or extramarital sex.
3) Against any kind of marriage aside from one man, one woman.
4) Goes to church and is generally seen to be in favor of religion.

What does the background of a politician have to be in order for you to consider their personal lives of them or their family to be off limits to attack or insult?

I'm betting I know the answer from many.

I would say walking on water would be sufficient background, but then I realized it's the Left we're talking about. They'd still scream crucify him/her.

The left is not that inclined to preach. Have you ever heard the phrase “The religious left”? It is the apparent self-righteous moral lecturing of the right, followed by their moral failures, that causes the downfall of the Republicans. I think that it would be good political strategy for the Republicans if they were to tone down their “family values” rhetoric. This article basically makes my point better than I could to a degree.

Bill Whitaker: GOP may have to redefine 'family values' for us

“The failure of so many prominent Republicans may not just be in breaking the Seventh Commandment but repeatedly committing the stinging sin of hypocrisy.”

People need to walk the talk.

Looks like what the left is prone to do is hang out with terrorists, hang out in Marxist churches with marxists preachers shouting "God damn America, visit graveyards frequently and write checks to the dead and or register them to vote,, bash their country, apologize for their country, be embarassed by their country, practice the politics of personal destruction and run away from paying taxes to support the country they hate so much.. that's what leftists tend to do..

 

[Dayton3]

First

I think it is better to have values that you fall short of living up to rather than not having values at all.

And to me it is only hypocrisy if you

A) Make no effort to live up to those values or never intended to.
B) Never really believed in those values in the first place.

Second

A point many people miss is that "family values" and "economics" are connected in many respects. Premarital sex for example. If you avoid premarital sex, you avoid teenage pregnancy and pregnancy out of wedlock. Both of which it is pretty well established have economic costs for both the people involved and the nation as a whole.

Third

There are limits to the influence a person can have within their own family. Values cannot be transferred to family members any more than athletic ability.

Children sometimes rebel against their parents beliefs. Brothers and sisters choose a radically different path. Even parents of someone expousing family values sometimes do things that are monumentally embarrassing.

Why should that reflect poorly on the person promoting those values?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Inspired by all the Gov. Sarah Palin, Gov. Sanford stuff of course.

Assume a politician male or female, Democrat or Republican believes the following:

1) Against abortion rights
2) Against any kind of premarital or extramarital sex.
3) Against any kind of marriage aside from one man, one woman.
4) Goes to church and is generally seen to be in favor of religion.

What does the background of a politician have to be in order for you to consider their personal lives of them or their family to be off limits to attack or insult?

I'm betting I know the answer from many.

I would say walking on water would be sufficient background, but then I realized it's the Left we're talking about. They'd still scream crucify him/her.

The left is not that inclined to preach. Have you ever heard the phrase “The religious left”? It is the apparent self-righteous moral lecturing of the right, followed by their moral failures, that causes the downfall of the Republicans. I think that it would be good political strategy for the Republicans if they were to tone down their “family values” rhetoric. This article basically makes my point better than I could to a degree.

Bill Whitaker: GOP may have to redefine 'family values' for us

“The failure of so many prominent Republicans may not just be in breaking the Seventh Commandment but repeatedly committing the stinging sin of hypocrisy.”

People need to walk the talk.

Newsflash: They ALL steal, they are ALL hypocrites. ALL = Politicians

 

[Annie]

Inspired by all the Gov. Sarah Palin, Gov. Sanford stuff of course.

Assume a politician male or female, Democrat or Republican believes the following:

1) Against abortion rights
2) Against any kind of premarital or extramarital sex.
3) Against any kind of marriage aside from one man, one woman.
4) Goes to church and is generally seen to be in favor of religion.

What does the background of a politician have to be in order for you to consider their personal lives of them or their family to be off limits to attack or insult?

I'm betting I know the answer from many.

I would say walking on water would be sufficient background, but then I realized it's the Left we're talking about. They'd still scream crucify him/her.

The left is not that inclined to preach. Have you ever heard the phrase “The religious left”? ...

You mean like 'paying taxes is patriotic?' How many appointees have now been outed? 12? 18? You mean hypocrisy like that?

 

[RodISHI]

I would say walking on water would be sufficient background, but then I realized it's the Left we're talking about. They'd still scream crucify him/her.

The left is not that inclined to preach. Have you ever heard the phrase “The religious left”? ...

You mean like 'paying taxes is patriotic?' How many appointees have now been outed? 12? 18? You mean hypocrisy like that?

Not paying your tax obligations does not count...

 

[MaggieMae]

Inspired by all the Gov. Sarah Palin, Gov. Sanford stuff of course.

Assume a politician male or female, Democrat or Republican believes the following:

1) Against abortion rights
2) Against any kind of premarital or extramarital sex.
3) Against any kind of marriage aside from one man, one woman.
4) Goes to church and is generally seen to be in favor of religion.

What does the background of a politician have to be in order for you to consider their personal lives of them or their family to be off limits to attack or insult?

I'm betting I know the answer from many.

All politicians, right and left, should come right out with it in the first interview:
"Well Brett, or whoever your name is, its like this: The first few years after high school were a bit of a blur, but I'm told I had a really good time."
If everyone stuck to that basic little script, the gotcha games as to past lives would necessarily become moot.
Now, if the politician in question, or the party they belong to wanted to run on a platform of, "we're better than those godless heathens in every imaginable way," then they would naturally be laughed off the stage once the tap dancing in airport bathrooms, frequenting of prostitutes (same or different gender) and outsourcing affairs to other countries became known. Extra credit for actively advocating legislation against the very behaviors you're engaged in.

It really won't do to say dems think its ok for dems. We pretty much ended Edwards (I thought that was a mistake, btw) for an affair, and he was and would have been an excellent advocate for poor people. It had to happen in todays puritanical climate though. Its the posing that bites politicians in the ass, not the acts that expose it for what it is.

I agree with everything you say except Edwards who ALWAYS struck me as phony. Until the revelation about his affair, it was only a gut feeling (but one of my Mom's old adages was "Trust your gut; it's usually correct.")