And a lot to do with how well he can digest his supper.

And under "how he votes" I presume his constituents prefer that he not whack the appropriate button with his wang.

Again, as long as it is the right one... I could care less.
People who are afraid of sex should not leave the house.

I quite agree: can't even ask them to keep it to themselves to any effect.

I would ask, but the problem is that they are hounded by the press and those morons bring things that are irrelevant to their jobs/fame up and shout it to the world.
It should be ignored.

I agree, rk. But the repubicans are the self-professed "high moral values / integrity" party. Remember how they were horrified that Clinton had an affair?

I think you've struck on the core problem there Spexxvet.

During the early 90's the Conservative party in the UK was embroiled in a series of sex-scandals which damaged them heavily. The reason the damage was so great was not because people were so shocked about sex, but rather that the Conservative government had based its election campaign on a 'Back to basics', family values ticket. The politicians involved in the scandal were invariably family men who'd been photographed heavily in the media with said families.

Several of these politicians had made their reputation with right-wing, anti-gay stances and then were discovered to have had homosexual experiences.

People were shocked because of the hypocrisy involved. These were politicians who actively campaigned against the 'assault on family values', haranguing 'dole dosser single mums' and 'liberal ideas of modern family structures'. Yet in their private lives they did not practice what they preached.

Sex scandals didn't damage the Labour politicians so much...but the financial scandals have damaged it greatly...why? because Labour campaigned partially on financial probity after the conservative's 'cash for questions' scandal.

What you do in your private life doesn't matter as long as you represent your constituents. But...and its a big but...if you are engaged in the world of politics your words can affect the way society runs and the lives of your fellow citizens. The higher up in politics that you get the molre that is the case. If you are voicing opinions about how your fellow citizens should live their lives, you have no right not to apply those strictures to yourself.

DanaC - I think that that was a good synopsis of the issue.

A funny thing happened a few days ago. I'm still out here in Vegas and I used the mens room in one of the casinos. It was pretty busy, and out of the blue someone makes a "I don't want to hear any foot tapping" joke.

Someone else said "Don't worry about me, I'm a Democrat" which got a big laugh.

Guilty or innocent, when your life is reduced to jokes among strangers in men's rooms, your career is toast.

If the guy is gay, he should just jump out of the closet and become another disaffected gay Republican. He can have loads of fun sniping at them from the sidelines as they go into the 2008 elections.

If he really isn't gay and it's a misunderstanding or setup, than he's the dumbest guy on the planet for not asking for a lawyer. IMO, one of the big differences between law-and-order conservatives and generic liberals is that many of the law-and-order types have never had the experience of being arrested while innocent, or pulled over for not looking quite right.

Craig's experience mimics that of any working poor person who finds themselves in trouble, maybe with a prior drug arrest, and faced with the prospect of pleading to something they didn't do rather than take a chance with a public defender.

If Edwards is right and there are "Two Americas", then Craig stepped over into the wrong one. Maybe he'll learn something from the experience.

I think a lot of the "anti-Craig" stuff from the left has been of the "hey, look at this guy, 'values-voters'!" sort. I don't think that, regardless of whether he did it, what he was accused of should even be illegal. However, if there's anyone that overly restrictive laws should be applied to, it's the politicians that supported them. And if anyone deserves the tsking and clucking of the "values voters", it's the politicians that cater to them.

I don't see it that way, they are not paid not to be gay, they are paid to vote conservatively. There is NO disconnect.
You are not a hypocrite if you are an exterminator and have pet bugs at home. You are NOT YOUR JOB.
Why can't people get this through their heads?
It's like the immediate link between sports and kids... it is in your imagination.

No, they are paid to not have other jobs while in public service. They are elected for whatever reasons their voters choose. He chased after the votes of people who want government to oppose homosexuality, and deserves to be hoisted by his own petard politically.

But not criminally. Even taking the officer's word as absolute truth, the only thing he's "guilty" of is being annoyingly creepy. The harshest punishment for that should be being asked to leave.

If your 'job' is your conviction it is hypocritical not to hold it tightly.

[eta] A politician deals in convictions, ideas and beliefs. If a salesman sells a product he knows to be broken, he is a con-merchant.

Again, I don't care.
As long as the person does what I pay them to do better than everyone else (or, in some cases, as well as I ask them to) I'm happy, end of story.
Their being a hypocrite is not the point and none of my business.
Make touchdowns, vote conservative, mow the lawn, etc, etc, etc... it does not matter.

So you're ok with the drug-dealing or hit-man cop? How about the pedophile pediatrician?

rk - I have mixed feelings about this. I don't believe that a politician's job is to represent themselves, but rather to represent the citizens of their district and the interests of the nation.

However, it can't be denied that their professed beliefs do influence public thought, as most people rely on the statements and attitudes of others in determining their own opinions.

This is human nature. (Anyone who is immune from the effects of public opinion is truly remarkable.)

So the honest politician would say, "I'm voting to outlaw X because the people that I represent believe X is wrong, but I personally think X is great."

But real politicians represent themselves as anti-X . They say, "I'm voting to outlaw X, and I personally believe that anyone who commits X should be punished."

Very few politicians could actually survive and succeed at their job if they didn't know when to separate their personal beliefs/opinions from the job of representing their constituents. But constituents vote politicians in based at least in part on the campaigns they've run and the opinions they have espoused as their own and their partys'.

Politicians are not just your voice in government, they are your eyes and ears. If they are dishonest then they will paint a dishonest and misleading picture of government for you. They do a lot more than merely vote the right way when it comes time. Their effect on the country comes from their words and their campaigns as much, sometimes more so, than their voting record.

Those are illegal, well being a pedophile is not, just acting on it.
I don't know how I would feel about it.
Have you ever interviewed a cop about his personal life when you needed him or her?
Seems kinda' silly huh?
As long as they are doing their job well that will be all you are concerned with.
As long as your doctor is just a pedophile and not acting on it, you will never know will you?
Did you ask your plumber what his stance on abortion was before they fixed your sink?

I don't believe in "human nature"... that is ALWAYS a cop-out. Human nature is to eat, sleep, breed, shit and die. That is all.
You are putting those words in their mouth.
What they are really saying is "this is what my constituents, and/or party, wanted me to vote for, so I did". If you read more into it than that, that is your choice. But, if they don't ACTUALLY say it, it does not exist... it is JUST a vote.

Their job is to espouse and put forward ideas and convictions with a view to affecting how everybody, including themselves, lives and works. As long as they do that properly then they're doing their job. Part of doing that job properly is to then live within the system they have created, not remove and elevate themselves to some point above the crowd.

If their only role is to vote a particular way without regard to any knowledge or information they may have then why bother electing from amongst the educated, and professional elite? You might as well send a circus geek as long as you train him to read a list of voting positions and cast the vote on cue. Politicians vote, but they also shape the debate. The debate then shapes peoples' views (rightly so, given we are not al experts in all the things that government has to deal with) and the politicians cast their vote in line with their constituents' wishes. A good politician helps to crystallise their constituents' opinions and democratic insight; thereby helping them reach a position for him to represent in government.

My first statement is that those activities were illegal. They should not be allowed to do them.
Though it depends on your definition of "drug-dealer".

I'm with rkzenrage with this one. Ideally, a politician voting record reflects his or her personal views but it is unrealistic to expect them too since the system works against an honest politician.

Its just that a politician has to to realize that by being caught for lying will hurt their voting record.

Do I like it? No, I hate it but what can ya do?

I would agree if their only role was that of voting.