|
Yes.
Why drag their kids and wives and siblings into their political choice?
The families are just innocent bystanders to their political careers, really. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
I think that's too sweeping a statement. It really depends on the context and what the issue is.
If you look at McCain's personal life, there are legitimate issues there. He deserted his first wife
after she became crippled in an accident and lost her looks. I'd say that's revealing of his
character.
While his wife's drug-taking, I don't think is a serious issue in itself, there are real issues
related to whether McCain abused his power to try and head off a prosecution. Why did his wife
receive no real punishent for a crime for which other people would have gone to jail?
Historically, we can also see that presidential spouses do have a significant influence on policy.
Nancy Reagan's astrologer, for example, was basically determining the president's schedule for
diplomatic and public appearances. Whenever they had something planned, they had to agree it in
advance with Nancy who would check with her astrologer. The astrologer would say things like "Oh no,
that's a bad time", "I see danger in the 2nd week of March".
Because of the influence they have on their spouses, I think the character of the candidate's
partner is a legitimate issue up to a point. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I disagree. If anything voting should be compulsory. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
22 Jul 2008 23:18
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
