Comments on: Politicians and Personal Lives

By: tommyspoon

tommyspoon — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 02:19:42 +0000

David, your feelings on prostitution are, frankly, irrelevant. He’s admitted to using the services of a prostitute. Prostitution is illegal. He’s no better than someone who embezzles money or shoots somebody. He should be prosecuted; he should not be functioning as a United States Senator.

By: David Louis Edelman

David Louis Edelman — Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:45:57 +0000

Honestly, Tommy, I don’t even think prostitution should be illegal. I don’t think Madame Whatsherface should be facing jail time for running a prostitution ring at all. (Well, not strictly for that, anyway — not sure exactly what other illegal things she might have been doing with that money. And I’m also not saying that everyone in her employ was necessarily a happy, kinky, liberated sex worker doing this for college money and/or kicks.) I think Vitter should be able to hire him a lady to give him a massage or a “massage” anytime he feels like it.

Now, the fact that she could be facing serious jailtime and the dudes that paid for the services won’t — well, that kind of irks me. But I’d rather address the inequity by letting her off the hook too than by prosecuting him.

By: tommyspoon

tommyspoon — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 14:21:03 +0000

At the risk of piling on even further…

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/07/resign_senator.php

Senator Vitter should resign. He’s no better than a common criminal.

By: George Pedrosa

George Pedrosa — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:29:08 +0000

Jim, you said that David seems like a libertarian guy. However, judging from his comment on Five Things Democrats Should Shut Up About (”what the Republicans are guilty of vis-a-vis the economy is giving the spoils to the rich through tax cuts and a stagnant minimum wage, among other things”), he clearly seems like a liberal guy. Liberals ALSO believe that government shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all. In fact, that’s one of our main objectives.

By: dave

dave — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:36:59 +0000

I agree that the news is too often focused on the purient personal lives of our leaders. I couldn’t care less if a politician sleeps around. We all have human weaknesses. But I think I have to draw the line at saying hypocracy in our leadership shouldn’t matter.

If a politician demagoges about how a sitting president should be impeached for sexual misdeeds while _at the same time_ visiting prostitutes himself. Well, that is valuable information to know about said politician. It lets us know how far he will go and what things he will say for political gain. It lets us know what he thinks of fairness and justice.

It may be distasteful, but it is, in my opinion, news worthy.

By: Jim Stewart

Jim Stewart — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 05:58:25 +0000

Sorry, I commented before I read after the jump, and you did address the point I made. I still disagree, but it wasn’t fair to say you hadn’t mentioned it.

By: Jim Stewart

Jim Stewart — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 05:52:12 +0000

The thing I think you’re not taking into account is that the offense that matters here is his hypocrisy, which is a public issue, not his adultery, which is private. Bill Clinton cheated on his wife, but his main platform wasn’t “the sanctity of marriage.” For Vitter it was, which in practice entirely meant keeping gays from participating in the legal advantages of that legal status. You seem like a Libertarian type, which means you probably think the gov’t shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all, and I can go along with that. But the point is that Vitter thinks that it should.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a politician to live in a way that is at least somewhat consistent with his political views. This is exactly like people jumping on Al Gore for riding private jets while complaining about global warming. It questions whether a person is really qualified to talk about an issue.

By: Cindy Blank-Edelman

Cindy Blank-Edelman — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 03:15:35 +0000

I think what you said is interesting, Dave, but maybe overly simplistic….? I think the reality is that we elect people to be our country’s leaders, not just to make policies and laws. Yes, the way they use their leadership *is* to make policies and laws, but that is not the only thing that makes them leaders. I think an interesting question is: what qualities does someone need to have to make them qualified to be a leader of the country, a symbol of the country’s democracy? In general, people tend to agree that hypocrisy is not a quality we want in our leaders. This is why people who act hypocritically get in so much trouble in politics.

A lot of it comes down to the issue of trust. Can we trust our elected officials to act in the country’s best interest? How do we know? Do actions in one’s personal life indicate how one is likely to act at work (in politics or elsewhere)? How?

By: Matt Jarpe

Matt Jarpe — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:59:31 +0000

The problem with zeroing in on the addictive behavior itself rather than the consequences to job performance is that you can’t keep track of all the things that can impact job performance. If the guy is addicted to Space Invaders and skips committee meetings to rack up his high score on his laptop in the broom closet, that’s a problem. It isn’t the drugs or alcohol or prositutes that are the problem, it’s the putting other things ahead of job performance.

Of course I’m at work as I type this, so I’m setting a poor example.

By: David Louis Edelman

David Louis Edelman — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 18:15:38 +0000

Okay, I used sloppy wording calling addiction a moral failing. I think it’s more of a disease.

You’re trying to hold politicians to the same standards as enlisted military personnel. I just don’t see why that’s necessary. I agree that there are times when the personal should become public — say, if there’s some guy who moonlights as a KKK member, to use an extreme example — but I just draw the line much closer to civilian standards.