Can voters be sure what we see is what we'll get?
In light of the recent New York governor's sex scandal and the Detroit mayor's sex scandal, I wonder how people of such low moral value could be elected to such pivotal positions in our society.
Are we as voters not truly evaluating the quality of the candidates being set before us? Or are we being deceived by these politicians?
If they can lie under oath before judge and jury surely they can lie to us, the gullible constituents.
In this pivotal and historical election year I find myself wondering if I have the capabilities to judge a candidate's public and private integrity. Of course, we are all human, and it is not my place to judge; however, in casting my first presidential vote, I want to know that the candidate I support is true to himself or herself and is an upright citizen. If this is possible, I'm not sure, but I will use my best judgment to determine which candidate has my best interest in mind.
Aisha Shealey
Greensboro
Comments (16)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Remember Aisha, fellatio isn't sex, it's simply a vast right wing conspiracy. And be careful of sniper fire when you enter the voting booth.
Posted on April 2, 2008 5:18 AM
Aisha,
Follow the yellowbrick road.
Posted on April 2, 2008 6:36 AM
If Obama or Clinton win, you can be assured you will get exactly what you deserve.
Posted on April 2, 2008 7:01 AM
"Remember Aisha, fellatio isn't sex, it's simply a vast right wing conspiracy. And be careful of sniper fire when you enter the voting booth. "
Oh, and Aisha, remember that cheating on one's wife while still married is no sin to Dan. It's the GOP way. All D's bad. All GOP's good. Only moral and patriotic people are in the GOP, according to Dan. What a joke.
Posted on April 2, 2008 7:53 AM
I would say that you'd be safe with McCain if it weren't for the good folks at Viagra.
Posted on April 2, 2008 4:50 PM
"remember that cheating on one's wife while still married is no sin to Dan."
I expect at least a daily casting of aspersions on the part to Demon Deacon with the sole purpose to inflame. Nothing new here.
What I do on a daily basis is prove Demon Deacon wrong as it's so easy to do.
Case in point, my ex-wife left me for another guy. We divorced in May 1994. My wife and I went on our first date in December 1996. You mention I have a problem in semantics, methinks you have a problem in math.
Posted on April 2, 2008 8:16 PM
Dan, I think this is what TLC is referring to:
In 1979 at a military reception in Honolulu, McCain met Cindy Hensley, an attractive 25-year-old woman from a very wealthy politically-connected Arizona family. Cindy's father, Jim, founded the Hensley and Company, the nation's third-largest Anheuser-Busch distributor.
McCain described their first meeting, "She was lovely, intelligent and charming, 17 years my junior but poised and confident. I monopolized her attention the entire time, taking care to prevent anyone else from intruding on our conversation. When it came time to leave the party, I persuaded her to join me for drinks at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel. By the evening's end, I was in love."
While still married to Carol, McCain began an adulterous relationship with Cindy. He married Cindy in May 1980 -- just a month after dumping Carol and securing a divorce. The newlyweds honeymooned in Hawaii.
McCain followed his young, millionairess wife back to Arizona where her father helped catapult McCain into politics,
Today, Cindy Hensley McCain is chairwoman of Hensley's board of directors. Hensley and Company financial reports show assets worth a minimum of $28 million for the McCains
Posted on April 2, 2008 8:57 PM
Regarding the cheating on one's wife issue: Didn't Bill Clinton cheat on Hillary? TLC seems to have a VERY short memory. Or perhaps maybe a selective memory. Or maybe the definition of "cheating" depends which political party is involved.
Regarding "getting what we see": ALL of the candidates are politicians, and politicians say things the people want to hear in order to get votes. They say what they're going to do, but generally don't say HOW they are going to do it. IMO their promises and statements are empty, and their words are mere noise that comes out of their mouth to create applause and cheers from all those listening to what they want to hear.
Posted on April 2, 2008 9:26 PM
Perhaps you are correct Carol. However, Demon Deacon periodically accuses me of having committed adultery, he just did in another thread in the past week or so, that's why I read it that way. If he was referring to McCain, then my mistake.
I just happen to think adultery is a grave sin and a serious act of disrespect for another human being. I've been on the other end myself and would never, ever subject my wife to such betrayal and pain. So I get a bit touchy on the subject.
This is one of the more blatant posts. I would hope you would not agree with such language Carol.
Yvonne,
You are very intuitive. Dan's argument is that HE knows more about morals than others do--divorce is nothing to him. It was a non chalant decision whereby he and his wife "bailed out". He sees it as a victimless crime, and he moved on to sleep with another woman. How many times can one do this? Is there a limit? Can it be open ended? Is it just another way of bedding down whomever he can?
Posted by THE LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE
Posted on April 2, 2008 9:33 PM
While cheating is despicable...I don't see private vices as reflections of public integrity or ability (or anybody's business).
Look at it like this, Bill Clinton shouldn't have lied under oath about Monica...but I don't ever think he should have been asked such a question under oath.
Posted on April 2, 2008 11:02 PM
"While cheating is despicable...I don't see private vices as reflections of public integrity or ability (or anybody's business)."
Ask former Gov. Spitzer rahrah.
Anyone who violates their innermost personal commitment to a husband or wife may perhaps consider himself/herself above the rules of public integrity and in turn violate commitments to their electorate.
Perhaps. Just a thought.
Using your quote, do you see former Gov. Spitzer as an example you would emulate? Would you like such a governor to represent your interests?
Posted on April 2, 2008 11:24 PM
Dan,
Since I didn't know much about Spitzer outside of his Patronage to the Emperors VIP Club, I read the wikipedia article. From that information, I feel like he was an all-around cruddy governor. I doubt I would have supported him, regardless of any sex scandal. I do have to say he seems a lot like a standard politician--promising a lot in the campaign--reneging on most of it while in office.
Posted on April 3, 2008 12:01 AM
Have to agree somewhat with rahrah....If we start digging deep enough, we all might have things that would look bad if brought to light. I am more concerned with other issues: the war, the economy.
Agree with Bunny also....talk is cheap, actions definitely speak louder than words. As a voice of gloom and doom, I don't see our country's situation improving in a long time, no matter who the next President might be. I personally think all the problems we face today can be lain at the feet of our current leaders.
Posted on April 3, 2008 8:03 AM
rahrah: As to your opinion that Clinton should have never been asked under oath, the main issue is this activity was done not in his leisure time but while "on the job" and not in the privacy of his own home but in the Oval Office which is a publicly-owned facility. It's akin to a boss questioning his employees about sexual activity while at the office on company time.
Carol: While I will be first to admit that GWB has totally screwed up this country, I can't say that ALL of our problems now can be blamed on him. (e.g. NAFTA)
Posted on April 3, 2008 12:37 PM
When is the President not on the job? Is it a 9 to 5 job? Isn't the White House also his home? I'm not sure it's so clear-cut.
Posted on April 3, 2008 3:34 PM
About NAFTA....if this is really a bad thing, why have the Republicans not fixed it in the years they have been office? They had total control for years and years. They could have changed anything they wanted...immigration laws included.
Posted on April 3, 2008 6:26 PM