John Edwards

Remove all ads!

I don't think perfection is expected, but some degree of morality is valuable. When politicians stand up and say "I believe in family values -- I believe in keeping my word", and they trot out their spouses and children to show us they are regular joes, and then they turn around and act like horny monkeys , we feel betrayed. A good man or woman making a mistake is one thing. A lying bastard deliberately pulling the wool over the eyes of the populace is another.

Bottom line: If you do not act with integrity, do not expect people to trust you.

 

@ TGS: who is this "we?" I consider moral virtue a definite plus in a politician, but it is not the alpha and omega of my criteria. Moral virtue is paramount in a religious leader, in a political one it is simply valuable. I am not paying taxes for him (or her) to be a beacon of virtue in their private life, but to get things done for me - and everyone else.

Yes, you can claim that a politician who misbehaved in one thing may be more likely to misbehave in others, but that is not necessarily true. Not every drunk is a rapist, and not every pot smoker would take a bribe. It doesn't matter all that much, really - I doubt John Edwards would seek a public office, and if he does it's up to the voters to decide if they think he'll do a good job.

 

Unfortunately, that only really serves to minimize the damage. All you have to do is look at the numerous cases of corruption (and numerous more accusations of it) to see the damage that can still happen. We can't have a Henry VIII or a Loui XVI, but we can still have plenty of greedy, self-interested, destructive leeches.

Y'know, that doesn't really seem to be much of a defense for your case. Rather, to me, it almost seems to do the opposite. Imagine if the affair hadn't come out and he had somehow (God only knows how) been elected President. That same tendency to panic in a crisis would now be sitting in the Oval Office. Now, I won't come out and say that having an affair and panicing like that are inherrantly linked, they may have just been two independant character flaws that happened to coalesce into a perfect storm in Edwards' life, but then again, maybe not. While Shaman points out that not all pot smokers will take a bribe, I'd be willing to bet that the probability of a random pot smoker doing so is higher than a random non-pot smoker.

Don't ask, that's a very, very dark place...

Oh, I won't claim it's the be-all-end-all of a politician's career by any means, but I do think it's a valuable criteria. I know plenty of very moral people that I wouldn't trust with my car (accident prone), much less the nation's future. That being said, however, if the choice is between two candidates who are roughly equal in other matters (not the same, but strengths and weaknesses balanced out), morality and character can easily be the deciding factors.

 

You do. So what? Every now and then a handful of those greedy, self-interested, destructive leeches goes to jail, another bunch immolates themselves, some get voted out of office and and the rest stays. That's every day politics in America. Don't tell me you don't know that.

Of course an unstable person is unsuitable for leadership positions. That's trivial. Just as thing to keep in mind: Edwards eventually was found by his party to not be leadership material. As Edwards didn't become president, a couple of times, the 'problem' of his character when using presidential powers is hypothetical.

The only reason Edward's character is currently news and a topic of discussion again is because one (probably rightfully) disgruntled aide of his has eventually published his tell-all book.

 

Yes, I do, but that doesn't mean we have to accept it. We should do what we can to avoid it, and that may mean considering general moral fiber when voting for our government.

Edwards was found to not be leadership material, in part, because of the affair. As for whether it coming out now serves any purpose, well, politicians do periodically come back into the picture, even after major failings. Reminders as to why they failed are always helpful, and to serve as possible warnings to others, not that I expect most people of that type would pay any attention to someone else's trouble.

Anyway, my overall point is that some good may come of this.

 

It is a reality. There is no harm in accepting reality, to the contrary. I'd wager it's healthy.

 

Ah, but we can change reality by our actions. That's the point I'm trying to make. One would think that, after seeing so many bad politicians go corrupt, we might become concerned with electing good politicians. I know at least some of us are.

 

I think NOG means something along the lines of "we don't have to take it up the tailpipe."

I also want to nit-pick this little quote:

emphasis mine.

Are you saying that in other liberal democracies the politicians are as pure as the driven snow? A less astute reader might think that's what you're saying, Ragusa, but I know you better.

I just like being a jerk!

 

It depends on the circumstances and political environment around them. Look at Rudy, he just got tired of his wife, moved her out of the mayor's mansion and moved his mistress in. While the guy is a first-class jerk and everyone knows it - it is what it is. Rudy's personal life may be what it is and you can vote him down or vote for him, but at least you know what you are getting.

Edward's panicked, and tried to deceive us into believing that he is something he is not: a warm, caring husband of good moral character, just so that he could save his political skin and he thought about tampering with evidence, and got others to lie for him.

Crucis is right, you wonder what kind of lawyer he was as well, if this is how he does business. I'm not diminishing your point at all, Drew, only that it is something to consider.

 

I thought that was the Democratic motto ... it seems the Republicans who make these kind of headlines ... well ... DO take it up the tailpipe.