The 2012 US Election

[Primula Baggins]

Well, Romney, at least is intelligent. As is, I would even say, Gingrich. But they are each scary for other reasons. Romney because of lack of solid convictions other than getting elected, and making money off of other people's misfortune. And Gingrich for an utter lack of a conscience.

At least that is how I see it.

It would be hard to argue that he has one.

As much as I would prefer to argue that a candidate's personal and family life should not be an issue in the campaign, there is such a thing as a pattern that can't be ignored. Especially given that he's on record deploring the Monica Lewinsky scandal, siding with those saying it made Clinton unfit to be president—while he was secretly behaving in the same way.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

This election process is, in my humble opinion, the greatest advert for political apathy I can envisage. Other than Ron Paul, the calibre of candidate is lamentable.

[anthriel]

As much as I would prefer to argue that a candidate's personal and family life should not be an issue in the campaign, there is such a thing as a pattern that can't be ignored. Especially given that he's on record deploring the Monica Lewinsky scandal, siding with those saying it made Clinton unfit to be president—while he was secretly behaving in the same way.

Well, and the people who defended Clinton at the time said that his personal life should be left to him alone, even though there was a "pattern" with his behavior every bit as distasteful as Gingrich's. They said it didn't matter. They said to focus on his political accomplishments, and anyone who was focused on that blue dress was a muckracker of the first degree.

I actually really like Newt as a politician. I'd have to hold my nose to vote for him, but if we REALLY shouldn't judge people on their private lives...

No. Yuck. I couldn't do it.

[Primula Baggins]

The circumstances of Gingrich's two divorces are way too much for me; it goes beyond "mere" infidelity to a level of self-centeredness and cold-hearted betrayal that should disqualify him from any office with power over other people's lives. As you put it so accurately: "Yuck."

[vison]

I don't see much difference between the personal ethics of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gingrich. One man is more attractive than the other, and probably a lot brighter - and probably was a better president than the other could be.

I'm not saying that a man's personal ethics don't matter - I guess they do. But maybe not as much as we like to think. To go into political life requires a big ego - some might think they are deserving of the job because they'll do it right and be a benefit to the country, others might just think they should have it because they want it.

Powerful men attract women - and some powerful men take advantage of that. Some don't. But we don't have to look very far to see that, do we? Mr. Kennedy's behavior was secret while he was in power - if you thought he was a good president, did you think otherwise when you learned about it?

A man who would lie about having affairs, about cheating on his wife - does that really mean we shouldn't trust him to run the country? I honestly don't know. Sometimes I think, "Yes, if he lies about that, he lies about everything." And other times I think, "Results count. He might be a lying dog, but look at the economy!"

It also seems that if a politician is faithful to his wife, he's probably lying about something else. Are they all liars? Is it necessary to lie, to succeed in politics?

[anthriel]

It is too bad. One thing I have admired about Obama is his respect for his family. He may be afraid of Michelle, which has been postulatd and may well be true, but if I were Clinton I would have been way afraid of Hillary, and apparently Clinton was so soft morally that he forgot he should be afraid.

His immediate needs were more important than anything else, and for most of his life, as well. I was a bit scared, really, that the man with his finger on so many important buttons was choosing instead to spend his crucial time with a cigar and a willing intern. It was suggested that he made certain policy decisions at that time to divert attention away from his story, and if that is true, I hope he rots in a hot place. It is overwhelming to think that his lack of moral fiber, at the time he was in high office, affected the country so profoundly.

No, I wouldn't vote for Newt. I wouldn't have married him, either. But I wish that Clinton had been a better man, too.


ETA: vison: I agree with every word of that post. Do all politicians lie? Did Obama really attend 20 years of services with Jeremiah Wright and never hear his imflammatory anti-white sermons? No. He heard them. I wish he had been more honest about that, and said something like "yes, I heard them, but I am perfectly capable of making my own decsions about people, and the Reverend and I disagree on this subject". If he had said that, I would be even more of a slavish fan girl.

But he probably couldn't, politically speaking, be honest there. It is a shame that the process of acquiring political acumen selects for smooth liars, but I believe it does.

Which is why Herman Cain will never be president. It's not that he has misogynist, good-old-boy feelings towards Nancy Pelosi; it's that he shows them. He'll never survive.

[vison]

I think of Mr. Clinton as a tragic figure. He had so much potential for true greatness - and he just squandered it. Is it tragic, or just squalid and sad?

Why it is that people constantly "fall" for these men is beyond me. That charisma, that emanation of power, seems to be something we humans can't resist. A friend of mine met Mr. Clinton a few years ago when he was in Vancouver. Kelly is a tall girl, she's over six feet, and so when Mr. Clinton shook her hand, and her eyes met his, she said she felt something much like an electric shock, and her knees went weak. A bit dramatic, and Kelly is just not a dramatic woman, she's about as down to earth as it is possible to be.

These men, and they are all over the world and all in power, seem incapable of separating themselves and their needs from the job they are supposed to be doing. But if they weren't like that, would they ever get elected?

[anthriel]

I think Clinton IS powerfully charismatic, and I think the man is well aware of that, and has milked that power to fuel many miles of travel in his life.

David Koresh was said to have been an amazingly charismatic man. That "electric shock" was described in his touch, as well.

I think if you ever feel that electric shock in a handshake, you should RUN. That much power is unhealthy for a person, and perhaps this is a cynical comment, but it strikes me that it would take someone superhuman not to manipulate it to their own selfish benefit.

[JewelSong]

vison, a friend of mine - in his 20s, male, British and not given to any kind of hyperbole - once met Clinton in Cambridge, England. He told me that Clinton was the "most charismatic man he had ever met." And all he did was shake his hand.

I have another friend my own age, who said she completely understood why Monica Lewinsky and other women would become involved with Clinton they way they did. It's a combination of charisma and power that is very, very attractive to some women.

My friend asked me, "Well, imagine you were at a party and this elegant, classy and powerful man comes on to you; tells you that you looks gorgeous and looks directly into your eyes and takes your hand and you feel like you're the only woman in the room...how would you feel?"

Well, I would laugh in his face...but many women wouldn't.

Powerful men (and women, I suppose) have huge appetites for control, for political power, for sex... A friend of mine who was studying Chinese medicine at the time said his elderly Chinese teacher was very surprised at the reaction to Mr. Clinton's "indiscretions." The teacher said, "Mr Clinton - he powerful man! Very powerful! He need frequent sexual release but he must not spend his energy. He do right thing! He have ORAL sex...just enough to provide release he need! He very wise man!"

It's all in your perspective, I think.

[vison]

I don't care so much about the women, it's the lying that bothers me. If Mrs. Clinton was cool with it (and I suspect she was), then it was no one else's business, until he lied and lied and lied.

If these men would just say "Sure, I like women and I like a lot of women a lot of the time," I could overlook that. It's not my idea of what a man should be, but a lot of men with a lot of other faults aren't my idea of what a man should be, either.

I don't vote for a man because he's a faithful husband, although I assume he is until I know otherwise. And I don't necessarily NOT vote for a man who isn't a faithful husband - if he's going to do the job he's elected for, that's all that matters, really. But some degree of honesty is required.

I guess we have to choose the faults we're willing to accept.

As for Mr. Obama being afraid of his wife? Can't we assume he's a faithful husband because he thinks it's the right thing to do?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think Barack Obama respects Michelle Obama, as well as loving her. That's good enough for me.

As for Clinton and Gingrich, the difference is that Gingrich abandoned his wife when she needed him. That makes him more analagous to John Edwards than to Clinton. In any event, when I said that I didn't think that Gingrich had a conscience, I was only partly talking about that. Mostly I was talking about the way he appears to see the world, which I find to be very heartless

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

I don't get the shock and horror from Cain calling Pelosi 'Princess'. I presume it's a term of disdain but come on, she's a political opponent. Far worse epithets are thrown around cheerfully in the UK and LM could outdo us with Australian practice. I say this as someone who is appalled at Cain's level of knowledge of public matters and as a fairly ill informed admirer of Pelosi. This seems a very shallow matter to be shocked by. I also suspect Pelosi couldn't care two hoots about it.

[Primula Baggins]

I suspect she couldn't care three hoots, Tosh, but really, there is not much if any open name-calling in U.S. politics. It's news when it happens; it isn't commonplace at all. It's disrespect that is unacceptable (in public) even when referring to one's political opponents. A cultural difference but a significant one.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It's not a question of name-calling of opponents. It is an indication of a condescending attitude about and towards women.

[anthriel]

It's not a question of name-calling of opponents. It is an indication of a condescending attitude about and towards women.

Agreed. There was a misogynistic component to that "name calling". Not good.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liv ... -29710711/

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

A new poll and it looks like even the Media is admitting that Ron Paul is top tier.

Cain is falling, Newt is failing to rise to the occasion.

If Ron Paul becomes the "flavor of the month" that's it, game over. He won't fall the way Trump, Bachmann, Perry, and Cain did."

The only candidate left who is neither Paul nor Romney is Huntsman. I can't see the GOP being able to push him up in time, especially since they did their best to ignore him at first. Then there's Johnson, who I like more than Paul but admit will never be picked by the GOP to be the anti-Romney anti-Paul since in ideology a win by Johnson is the same thing as a win by Paul.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I watched the debate tonight. Romney gave 10,000 reasons why he isn't going to be the nominee*. However, he does have an ace in the hole. Ron Paul has zero chance of actually winning the nomination, but he will continue to attract his consistent 10 percent, with more coming in caucus states, and most of that will come out of Gingrich's support rather than Romney's.


* He offered to bet Rick Perry $10,000 about his charge that he changed his book.

[Túrin Turambar]

Gingrich is still the flavour of the month, and he does fit the mould of recent Republican nominees, who have tended to be veterans with a long high-profile career in politics (George W. Bush is the exception). The GOP does seem to play the game more cautiously than the Democrats.

Romney fits the mould as well, obviously. I wouldn't bet on either of those to beat the other quite yet. But I'd be very surprised if anyone else pulled through, except maybe Perry, and even then his star seems to have waned.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Gingrich has an amazing ability to turn a liability into an asset. Perhaps his "best" moment in the debate last night involved his incredibly ridiculous statement in a recent interview that the Palestinians were an "invented people" that therefore had no right to a homeland of their own. That statement is so ridiculously incindiary that even the other GOP candidates recoiled from it, but he was able to turn it into a show of "Reaganesque" strength, garnering perhaps the most applause of the night. Even when the moderates asked the candidates to talk about whether marital infidelity was a relevant issue he managed to turn it around so that he appeared to be the sympathetic one, and his rivals petty. All in all, it was a remarkable performance.