Is a candidate's private life relevant to you?

[AdamT]

What is pertinent is addressing why he was impeached. I am not a Clenis tool so I didn't feel it necessary to talk about the rest of his life.

What's equally pertinent is why he was ever in a position to half to discuss it, i.e., because there was a massive witch hunt over the Lewinsky affair spearheaded by Newt the Philanderer.

 

[1Perry]

Another day, another liberal lie. BJ Clenis was impeached for LYING UNDER OATH. If you can find Gingrich lying under oath AND supporting the CLenis impeachment, then he is a hypocrite.

This is true but Gingrich certainly wasn't one to be throwing the stones.

 

[StillBallin75]

It can be. Sometimes an individual's private life speaks volumes about their character, which is something i value. Unfortunately the one President whom I think had great character (Jimmy Carter) wasn't a particularly effective president, but it's still something that many voters value.

 

[nonpareil]

What is pertinent is addressing why he was impeached. I am not a Clenis tool so I didn't feel it necessary to talk about the rest of his life.

No, you're an anti-Clinton tool, so you only feel obligated to spread half-truth.

 

[Paschendale]

I would be less trustful of a celibate monk of a candidate than I would of a prolific philanderer. It's not unrealistic that an aggressive and dominant person would be a good leader, nor is it unrealistic to think that such a person expresses those qualities sexually. I think it's bizarre that we expect our leaders not to have mistresses. I think it's fairly ingrained in us biologically to act that way.

 

[1Perry]

And another incomplete statement from a conservative. He was acquitted of those charged. He was also acquitted of the other charge against him(obstruction of justice). Funny how you did not mention that he was acquitted, even though it is the most pertinent detail of the whole event.

No, he agreed to a plea agreement. It's why he was disbarred. You do not get disbarred if you are acquitted.

 

[AdamT]

Another day, another liberal lie. BJ Clenis was impeached for LYING UNDER OATH. If you can find Gingrich lying under oath AND supporting the CLenis impeachment, then he is a hypocrite.

Gingrich acknowledged in January 1997 that "In my name and over my signature, inaccurate, incomplete and unreliable statements were given to the committee". [67] The House Ethics Committee concluded that inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented "intentional or ... reckless" disregard of House rules.

SMACK!! :lol:

 

[American]

Let me quote you again:



That is a conspiracy theory along the same lines as "I am not saying Obama is a Kenyan, I an just asking questions".

I heard Jack is hanging out with Elvis these days. :lol:

 

[Redress]

What is pertinent is addressing why he was impeached. I am not a Clenis tool so I didn't feel it necessary to talk about the rest of his life.

This is an inaccurate statement. He was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice. Why he was impeached was politics.

 

[Redress]

No, he agreed to a plea agreement. It's why he was disbarred. You do not get disbarred if you are acquitted.

False. His impeachment ended in acquittal.

 

[1Perry]

False. His impeachment ended in acquittal.

That was the politics side. The law was still interested in his perjury. He copped a plea there.

 

[Redress]

That was the politics side. The law was still interested in his perjury. He copped a plea there.

That was not part of his impeachment.

Edit: it is also important to note that the deal was for Contempt of Court, not perjury. Further, Clinton was not disbarred but suspended for 5 years, and he then resigned from the Bar.

 

[AdamT]

That was the politics side. The law was still interested in his perjury. He copped a plea there.

No, he didn't. He was cited for contempt over the alleged perjury. Paula Jones' case was actually dismissed by the trial court, but Clinton entered into a settlement in exchange for her agreement not to appeal.

 

[nonpareil]

I would be less trustful of a celibate monk of a candidate than I would of a prolific philanderer. It's not unrealistic that an aggressive and dominant person would be a good leader, nor is it unrealistic to think that such a person expresses those qualities sexually. I think it's bizarre that we expect our leaders not to have mistresses. I think it's fairly ingrained in us biologically to act that way.

I don't think it is. I think it's a cultural influence. Back in Kennedy's day, mistresses were hush-hush but condoned. We are now moving away from turning a blind eye to serial extra-marital affairs. After all, there's no obligation for him to stay married if he wants to sleep around.

 

[nota bene]

Does a presidential candidate's private sex/relationship life matter to you? Do you care if the candidate is married? Been divorced? Had an affair? Has a mistress? How much does the candidate's private life matter?

From Clinton to Edwards, Kenedy to Cain, this comes up time and again. It just eliminated the front running candidate. Some consider it an issue about Gingrich.

What say you?

My primary consideration when voting is character. I don't have to necessarily agree with all of a candidate's viewpoints. But I won't vote for a serial philanderer such as a Bill Clinton or an Al Gore, who knowingly made partisan phone calls from Blair House. He knew it was wrong, and so have others who have misused public ultilities or funds, so they aren't, IMO, fit to serve.

If a person can't keep a promise made to his/her life-partner, I won't expect any promises to be kept to me.

 

[Goshin]

Does a presidential candidate's private sex/relationship life matter to you? Do you care if the candidate is married? Been divorced? Had an affair? Has a mistress? How much does the candidate's private life matter?

From Clinton to Edwards, Kenedy to Cain, this comes up time and again. It just eliminated the front running candidate. Some consider it an issue about Gingrich.

What say you?

Mae West said, "A man who is nice to you, but rude to the waiter, is not a nice man."

A man who screws over those whom he is personally closest to is a man of low character. I prefer to minimize the number of "low characters" we have in office.

 

[1Perry]

That was not part of his impeachment.

So what? There was more to the charges than just impeachment.

Edit: it is also important to note that the deal was for Contempt of Court, not perjury. Further, Clinton was not disbarred but suspended for 5 years, and he then resigned from the Bar.

WASHINGTON –– The Supreme Court ordered former President Clinton disbarred from practicing law before the high court on Monday and gave him 40 days to contest the order.

Clinton Disbarred by Supreme Court

 

[1Perry]

No, he didn't. He was cited for contempt over the alleged perjury. Paula Jones' case was actually dismissed by the trial court, but Clinton entered into a settlement in exchange for her agreement not to appeal.

Nope.

The agreement came after all the rest of the stuff was over.

Clinton agreed to the Arkansas fine and suspension Jan. 19, the day before he left office, as part of an understanding with Independent Counsel Robert Ray to end the Monica Lewinsky investigation.

Clinton Disbarred by Supreme Court

 

[American]

False. His impeachment ended in acquittal.

Hold on now, it was two different things. The Senate acqutted him, but the courts disbarred him.

 

[RadicalModerate]

If it reveals hypocrisy, then yes. Like when a "family-values" politician gets caught cheating on his wife with an underage boy, then it matters to me. Other than that, no.

 

[conservativeguy]

What's equally pertinent is why he was ever in a position to half to discuss it, i.e., because there was a massive witch hunt over the Lewinsky affair spearheaded by Newt the Philanderer.

So what? Does that make it ok for the President to lie under oath?

 

[conservativeguy]

SMACK!! :lol:

You are smacking yourself, cupcake. What does your post have to do with BJ CLenis lying under oath and the Speaker voting to impeach him for that illegal act?

 

[conservativeguy]

This is an inaccurate statement. He was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice. Why he was impeached was politics.

He was impeached for perjury and obstruction. The senate liberals said they didn't care if he broke the law so they let him stay in office. He was found not guilty based on politics and not the facts.

 

[AdamT]

You are smacking yourself, cupcake. What does your post have to do with BJ CLenis lying under oath and the Speaker voting to impeach him for that illegal act?

Yeah, what does Gingrich purjuring himself in front of the Congressional Ethics Committee have to do with Clinton perjuring himself? I can see how you're confused. :lol:

 

[poweRob]

Private life becomes a part of their campaign, then they themselves put it in the arena.